Obama Will Speak at Coast Guard Academy’s Commencement

March 28, 2011, 12:49 pm

President Obama will speak next month at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy’s commencement, the second such speech announced this month. The president usually delivers remarks each spring at about four colleges, including one of the military-service academies. The White House earlier said Mr. Obama would speak at Miami Dade College on April 29. His speech at the Coast Guard Academy, in New London, Conn., will take place on May 18, according to a news release issued by the academy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

jffoster

Semper Paratus,
We’re glad he ain’t forgot us.
jesor

I grew up a few miles from the Pacific and learned early on how vital our Coasties are. They’ve saved more lives than they could count and I always knew we were bit safer every time I saw one of those orange and white helicopters go overhead or the bow of an MLB crest over the rough surf. It gladdens my heart to see them getting some recognition.
jbarman

“It is the responsibility of academia, apart from producing research, to also produce public discourse on matters that concern society,” – Avinoam Rosenak

I agree with Mr. Rosenak, and I think that the time during the seminar is well-spent discussing why so many religious documents deal with killing “non-believers”.
shushufindi

The authors of the book represent the ultra right-wing faction of Israeli politics. They support the deportation of Israel’s Palestinian citizens and expulsion of all Palestinians from the occupied territories. In my view their ideas are inflammatory, dangerous, and ultimately detrimental to Israel’s long-term interests. But academics should not shun discussion of such ideas. They should be analyzed and debated in the full light of day.
darccity

It’s ironic that the right-wing government of Israel is rapidly losing control over its ultra-orthodox base. The settler riots and hawkish theology are merely the latest manifestations. The even larger irony is that as the Arab spring uprisings have shifted attention away from Zionism as the great Satan preoccupation, the extremist Israeli crazies seem to be reacting with, “Hey, remember us? We need your hate and threats to maintain our power over sane Israeli voters.” Strange that I’m the only person on the planet who’s noticed this obvious phenomenon.
http://whytheology.wordpress.com/ Trey Medley

This isn’t a “religious document” in the sense I am fairly certain you are referring. It is a document written by religious leaders who interpret a religious document in an incredibly bizarre manner, but the book itself does not qualify as a “religious document.” Also the implication is unnecessary and out of place.
dank48

Indeed. After all, this merely means that “Jewish” fits the sentence “______ law permits the killing of non-________ people under certain circumstances.”

Just as “Christian” does, and “Islamic” does, and “Buddhist” does, and so on and on and on.

As the Eagles’ song “Paradise” puts it, “in the name of destiny, and in the name of God.”
dank48

No, it’s not strange. You just haven’t noticed that you’re not the only person who’s noticed it.
nybound

Yes, but you need not insert any religion at all. Secular law permits the killing of people under certain circumstances as well. What would be enlightening is to get more info on those ‘circumstances’. Are we talking in self-defense, or relatively indiscriminantly on a whim?
dank48

It seems to me that the circumstances are determined by the powers that be, whether these are secular or religious or a combination of the two, on an ad hoc basis, and that the intended albeit often implicit result will be to defend the position of those very powers that be. This may or may not have anything to do with self-defense; probably very little so far as those actually doing the killing and getting killed are concerned.
katisumas

I don’t think that that was the purpose of the seminar.
katisumas

The King’s Torah justifies killing non Jews because they are non Jews. It’s the other side of the coin of the Nazi killing Jews for being Jews.

I think that document is readily available if you want to check it out yourself. MOre details are in Haaretz on line in English.
katisumas

So true Dank!
wrbilledwards

The idea that under some circumstances, risking or taking the lives of innocent people may be justified, is certainly not strange or new. It is a standard question everywhere from philosophy classes in ethics to international law. Most people, other than pacifists, would probably agree that such circumstances exist. What is outrageous and unacceptable is the notion that this somehow depends on whether the innocent people are of one’s own religion, culture or race. (Many ancient thinkers would probably not have found this offensive, but I hope most of us do.)

As to the question of public discourse, useful discourse depends on value judgements that some propositions deserve debate among thinking, decent people and some do not. This is not a matter of censorship – advocates of outrageous notions should be free to speak, but they need not be allowed a “seat at the table” in a responsible discussion if their thoughts do not deserve it.
kweber

This is an exceptionally well reasoned post.

Along the same lines as your second paragraph: A great man once taught me that the purpose of free speech is to facilitate the search for truth. If we know that this train of thought will not bring us any closer to anything resembling truth, we have no obligation to provide it with a platform.