Terror Attacks in Brussels

Twin blasts hit Zaventem airport at 07:00 GMT, killing 11 and injuring 81, Belgium's health minister said.

Another explosion struck Maelbeek metro station an hour later. Twenty people were killed, Brussels mayor Yvan Mayeur said.

Belgium has now raised its terrorism threat to its highest level.

The attacks come four days after Salah Abdeslam, the main fugitive in the Paris attacks, was seized in Brussels.

Comments from the author

Thoughts go out to families and friends of the victims of this mornings attacks on Brussels. In the days to come we will no doubt seek answers as to why and how these events have come to pass.

International Response coming through

Belgium’s Interior Minister Jan Jambon has announced three days of national mourning, writes Oliver Milne.

Jambon is expected to join Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel at Zaventem airport in the next few hours, where they will tour the scene of this morning’s atrocities.

Obama was briefed on the Brussels explosions Tuesday morning at at the U.S. Embassy in Havana, where he was staying on the third day of his Cuban visit, White House officials said.

He spoke to Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel before the speech and offered the condolences of the American people, the White House said. Obama offered U.S. assistance in investigating the attacks.

David Cameron has condemned terror attacks in Brussels as "appalling and savage" as the UK steps up security

Britain faces "a very real terror threat", the PM said, announcing extra patrols at ports, airports, Tube stations and major railway stations.

What is your response to these events that struck right in the heart of our European community?

Marco Rubio, Donald Trump Argue About Whether "Islam Hates Us

During Thursday night's unusually civil debate, Sen. Marco Rubio got into a relatively civil exchange with Donald Trump about his latest horrifically offensive comments about Muslims. "Last night you told CNN, 'Islam hates us,' " moderator Jake Tapper said to Trump.* “Did you mean all 1.6 billion Muslims?"


"I mean a lot of them," Trump said, to a fair amount of cheers. "I mean a lot of them."
After Trump further clarified his point  Sen. Marco Rubio was asked to respond. He did so eloquently.

And so let me give you one. Two days ago, I met this extraordinary couple who are on furlough because they are missionaries in Bangladesh. It's a very tough place to be a missionary. It's Muslim. Their safety and security relies upon friendly Muslims that live alongside them that may not convert but protect them and look out for them... They tell me today they have a hostile environment because the news is coming out that in America leading political figures are saying that America doesn't like Muslims. This is a real impact.

See the rest of this debate by Jim Newell on

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/10/rubio_trump_debate_islam.html


Comments from the author

Like most people in England I watch the presidential race with amazement as the underdog Trump ascends and surprises. I think people are going fior nthe big chasracters now as people can no longer distinguish one mans underlying politics from the other. Protest vote, fed up vote, change vote? i am not sure. Whjat I do know is that the two most popular names in the race are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  As time goes on i will look to learmnn more about the other candidates still left in the race.

What are your views on the Presedential race in the USA?

Attacks in Paris in multiple locations

Comments from the author 

Thoughts go out to families and friends of the victims of this Friday 13th attacks on Paris. In the days to come we will no doubt seek answers as to why and how these events have come to pass.

International Response coming in

Now: Germans take to the streets chanting "Germany Stands With You France"
#Paris  #PrayForParis  #fusilladepic.twitter.com/I1FT9RbOd5

This is breaking news.

Confimed 129 dead over 300 injured..  , 8 hostage takers dead.

• At least six locations in Paris
• Paris under state of emergency!
• Borders of France now closed.

 

Live Feed

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/13/live-updates-fatalities-reported-shootout-explosions-paris-restaurant/

18/11/2015

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/17/watch-heavy-gunfire-breaks-out-in-paris-as-police-hunt-for-terrorist/

This post is being updated

Free Speech or Not

Free speech does not include the right to (falsely) yell “fire!” in a crowded theater

 

 

 

There seems to be increasing polarization between those who view freedom of speech as an absolute, unfettered necessity for free society, and those who argue that since speech can cause harm, and the job of government is to protect its citizens from harm, the government should be allowed to limit speech in some (perhaps restricted) way.

 

Philosophically, where do you fall on this issue?

Do you think speech is fundamentally different from other potentially harm-causing actions? Should the government ever be able to limit speech in pursuit of the greater good?

 

New Communication Technology

 

Services like Twitter and Facebook are severely blurring the line between privately-owned spaces (where they have complete control over what speech is permitted) and public forums (where they do not).

 

Do you think the law needs to “catch up” in how it handles these quasi-public forums?

 

Rules around free speech

In terms off free speech everyone works under whatever rules regarding free speech their countries have. By and large, particularly in Western countries, this means quite a lot of leeway in what one is legally able to express, but there are limits (generally) which are more strenuous than those in the United States, and obviously there are other countries where these limits are even more strenuous than that.

 

 

 

 

A quote from Readers Request week

 

Personally speaking, I tend to be, both philosophically and as a political actor, a believer in the value of a robust definition of “free speech” as it applies to governments and public institutions, not just in the United States but worldwide. This belief in a robust definition of free speech means that I acknowledge that hateful, hurtful, triggering and generally awful speech must be given a place by the government in the public sphere. Racists, sexists, homophobes and other assorted bigots cannot have their soapboxes in the square removed — not just for the defensive measure of “and then the government will come for me” but because, simply, I believe in the end you acknowledge a human right to express yourself, even if that other human is wrong, or you don’t. The limits I would place on speech are pretty high and of the “imminent harm” level — exhorting a mob to violence against someone and giving them directions to their house is an example I would give as speech that crosses that line. Short of that: It’s got to be allowed by the government.

 

Rights are what one can do; but it’s what one should do that is equally important.

 

Reader Request Week 2015 #1: Free Speech Or Not

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/05/11/reader-request-week-2015-1-free-speech-or-not/

 

 

The Authors View

 

 

We have heard in the news , new Bills proposed by the Conservative Party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11604262/New-terror-laws-must-safeguard-free-speech.html 

 

We know about the tragic incidents in both Paris and recently in Texas.

http://news.sky.com/story/1477156/two-shot-dead-at-anti-muslim-cartoon-contest

 

 

Should the Government intervene and police free speech?

If so, and under what Right?

 

 

 I would like to hear the views of my fellow bloggers and blog readers.

 

 

 

 

 

The Charlie Hebdo debate

 

       Here is a clip from an article I have read on the Charlie Hebdo story

CANADALAND sided with bigotry, not freedom.

http://canadalandshow.com/article/i-am-not-charlie-hebdo

 

On yesterday’s SHORT CUTS Jesse Brown and Jen Gerson argue that, in the wake of Wednesday’s attack on the magazine’s office in Paris, news outlets ought to share Charlie Hebdo’s racist caricatures of Mohammed.

 

Alongside many publications at home and abroad, CANADALAND has reproduced a selection of Charlie Hebdo’s most racist cartoons.

 

Love and respect to Jesse, Jen and CANADALAND, but they’re full of shit.

Jesse’s justification for running the racist cartoons aligns with two common arguments we’ve heard over and over this week.

 

First, there’s the belief that reproducing the cartoons is vital to news consumers’ understanding of the Paris attack. Second, there’s the belief that running the racist cartoons shouldn’t be a question because it is a simple matter of freedom of speech.

 

Neither of these beliefs holds up.

Seeing Charlie Hebdo’s racist cartoons is not vital to understanding Wednesday’s attack.

 

 Author

#CharlieHebdo #Paris

 

Of course one will never support violence being used as a form of protest and everyone mourns the death of the twelve people who were killed on Wednesday.

 

 

  

Comments

I would like to get readers views on recent events happening in Paris?

What are your views on the Charlie Hebdo cartoons?

Delaying Sex Makes Better Relationships

 

Delaying sex makes for a more satisfying and stable relationship later on, new research finds.

 

Couples who had sex the earliest — such as after the first date or within the first month of dating — had the worst relationship outcomes.

 

"What seems to happen is that if couples become sexual too early, this very rewarding area of the relationship overwhelms good decision-making and keeps couples in a relationship that might not be the best for them in the long-run," study researcher Dean Busby, of Brigham Young University's School of Family Life, told LiveScience.

  

The intricate nature of sex

 

Past research on sex and its link to relationship quality has revealed two different paradigms. In one, sex is considered essential to a developing relationship since it allows partners to assess their sexual compatibility. Following this line of thinking, couples who marry before testing out their sexual chemistry are at risk of marital distress and failure later on.

 

The opposing view posits couples who delay or abstain from sexual intimacy during the early part of their relationships allow communication and other social processes to become the foundation of their attraction to each other. Essentially, early sex could be detrimental to a relationship, skewing it away from communication, commitment and the ability to handle adversity, this thinking suggests.

 

And past studies have shown the sex-relationship link is a complex one. For instance, a 2004 study of nearly 300 college students in dating relationships showed that when couples were highly committed, sex was more likely to be seen as a positive turning point in the relationship, increasing understanding, commitment, trust and a sense of security. However, when commitment and emotional expressions were low, the initiation of sex was significantly more likely seen as a negative event, evoking regret, uncertainty, discomfort, and prompting apologies.

 

Article

http://www.livescience.com/10935-delaying-sex-relationships-study-finds.html

 

 

Can I get your Comments : do you agree or disagree?

#sex #delay #okay2disagree.blogspot.co.uk

Let there be a Black Annie!

Author

#controversy #okay2disagree.blogspot.co.uk

 

In the first episode of Boston Legal I watched last week on boxset (it came out in 2004) there was a civil-rights issue hinges on the casting choice for a version of “Annie”;

 

 

 

"Give us a black Spiderman, a black Superman, a black Jesus, not tomorrow but today

not tomorrow , tomorrow, you the problem with equality I that , tomorrow is always a day away"

 

 

 

That piece of  fiction did not result then with a victory so outrageous the thought.

 

 

 

 

 Fast forward to present day

 

 

Annie remake: casting of black lead provokes negative Twitter posts

 

Some tweets

 

There's "Not to be racist, but since when is Annie black?!". And "I'm not racist but first the karate kid then Johnny Storm and now Annie!" And, obviously "I'm not racist or anything ... But this new Annie movie is all mixed up!!! Annie is WHITE!!!!!!"

 

 

Some details

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrxc8rS2W2E

 

Annie is an American musical comedy-drama film directed by Will Gluck and produced by Jay-Z and Will Smith. It stars Quvenzhané Wallis in the title role and Jamie Foxx in the role of Will Stacks, an update of Daddy Warbucks. It is a contemporary adaptation of the musical of the same name, which was in turn based upon the 1924 comic strip Little Orphan Annie by Harold Gray.

 

 

Has anyone seen this film?

Has anyone any objections to the leading role's ethnicity?

Tell me a little more about your  reviews.