Disrespect for another’s beliefs is impolite. A high level apology for the impolite behavior of a soldier is not justifed, expecially when it is prompted by the insane religious neuroses of a bunch of fanatics. Granting high level attention to these screaming mimis is beneith the dignity of our government and military officials. It would have been well enough for the soldier in question to say publicly, “Hey guys, I shouldn’t have done that. Or at least I should have burned the damn book afterward. Sorry.” FIN.
A court has ruled that blind people are entitled to an estimated $100 million re-work of the U.S. paper currency. The same-size currency we now use now causes them some confusion.
A California court has ruled that same-sex people can marry one-another. Are they confused about the meaning of marriage and its role in protecting women and children?
Would it be confusing for the marriage ruling to be interpreted so as to permit plural marriage? Why not? Why just one woman, one man, two men, two women? Why not one man many women? Why not one woman, many men? Why not one old man and one young male child? If not a young male child, why not a young female child? Confusion.
But the Texas courts are examining 400 or so children who may or may not be minors, who may or may not be married to older men. Some of those men may be married to multiple women/children? The authorities are confused. What gives them the authority in the first place? Confusion.
In Arizona the legislature is trying to figure out the permitted age differential between teens that constitutes statutary rape. More confusion.
Is the confusion about culture or about language, or about destruction of culture and the perversion of language? Confusion. Confusion. Confusion.
Is everyone who is confused entitled to a court decision?