THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Hear, hear.
I usually dread reading sports bloggers who go off-topic, but this was right on the mark. Ironically, of course, this would only follow its own advice by not existing! But I assume that’s why you didn’t use his name or even any specific details or location or anything. (Subtle, but effective.)

Well done!

I know book burning has a nasty past and nasty symbolic connotations above and beyond the book they are burning, but as a form of protest, what’s so nasty about it? It’s no different than burning a picture in effigy or burning a flag—if the fire codes are followed and the picture/flag/book are gotten legally (which often financially benefits the subject of derision), I can’t see the issue. Yes, I know about knowledge lost to book burnings in the Middle Ages, and about some books being works of art (this is especially common with copies of the Quran), but in an era of mass produced books and PDFs of the same books, this isn’t a big deal at all.

I agree that it would be preferable to ignore the idiot altogether.
But shouting obscenities at Times Square is nowhere near as bold and offensive a gesture as burning a pile of Korans.
The book burner is taking it up a notch.  Even ordinary hard-core Islamophobes are backing away from this guy.

Nothing really to add other than… peeps in the middle east are already burning US flags over the threat.  One Cleric running for parliment in Afghanistan is calling for the deaths of American children if the burning goes through.  Obviously there are idiots on both sides of the ocean.  And lastly, why take it out on Americans when it is obviously not our government that is doing this.  Why not just go after the person or group involved in the possible burnings.  Haters gonna hate I suppose.  No reply needed, just venting a little.

"Why not just go after the person or group involved in the possible burnings.  Haters gonna hate I suppose.”
I think this applies to the Mosque/Community Center in Manhattan as well. Many Americans lump all Muslims with terrorists, when they aren’t responsible.

Hard to tell which is more offensive, the general notion of book-burning, or the reaction to it. I’m inclined to be more revolted by the book-burning on general principles. But perhaps it was inevitable that someone somewhere would adopt a strategy akin to fighting fire with fire (to stretch a metaphor). When it was discovered that some imams themselves created and circulated some of the most disparaging caricatures of Muhammad for the purpose of inciting violence against that Danish cartoonist and cowing the western press, reasonable men could then conclude that the so-called Arab Street needed and needs no good reason to go on a rampage. Ratcheting up this situation is that not only the media but more importantly the Secretary of State and the general in charge of the Afghanistani theater have gone on record in opposition to the Florida plans. USA will always have its share of nutters. Giving credence to them, even backhandedly, is not a good precedent imo.

Stick it in a beaker of urine and call it art, Rev.  That ought to provide you all the cover you need.

Terrifying to see the threats of violence coming from around the world in reaction to one random guy burning a book. I guess it’s not surprising considering the Mohammed cartoons, Theo van Gogh, etc.

What gets me is all these reactionaries flipping out over the community center in the Holy Burlington Coat Factory but then turning around and saying that Reverend Hick can’t go burn the Quran, but giving him publicity for doing this. The best solution would be to have treated Cordoba House as a local issue that the local government already decided, then sed “Meh” when the reverend announced his book burning. In that instance, nobody in Medina would have even noticed.

#6: “Ratcheting up this situation is that not only the media but more importantly the Secretary of State and the general in charge of the Afghanistani theater have gone on record in opposition to the Florida plans. USA will always have its share of nutters. Giving credence to them, even backhandedly, is not a good precedent imo.”

Vic Hansen put it best. “The United States ensures freedom of speech, even disturbing expressions of it, and has always paid the subsequent price for ill-manners.” Amen.

#7: Great point. Haven’t heard Andreas Serrano commenting on the situation.