quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Please continue to go nuts with racial overtones over the mosque at ground zero.
Where do you possibly see race involved in that? All people are asking is for a little sensitivity. Putting up a mosque there, when 9/11 happened out of Islamic fervor, is beyond insensitive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: A couple of things. First, Huemer doesn't display familiarity with Rand's work; only with this one essay.
So you are making a very strange assertion indeed to claim spuriously that somehow a critique of her essay can't rely upon familiarity of the essay; that somehow an implied unfamiliarity with other works mean that you can't simply counter the essay based on the points it makes.
It's pretty simply a garbage invalidation.
quote:Second, it is a definition rather than a premise.
you've already made that claim. Saying 'yeah huh' does not reinforce it nor contradict my counterclaim. It just reminds us that you have your opinion and won't deviate from it (as well as indicating an unwillingness to argue it in good faith).
quote:All anyone disagreeing with her statement needs to do is produce one single thing which has intrinsic value.
That is ONE thing that someone can do. I applaud your crude rhetorical device, though: attempting to straightjacket any critique by setting the goalposts for what YOU think must be done to disagree with Rand 'effectively.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The reason Palin can give a speech from just a few words is because the conservative schtick is so deceptively correct-sounding and internally consistent, in this country. In the former Soviet bloc, I imagine it was the leftists who could give speeches with only a few words of notes. Why?
Extremism is easier to express simply.
It sounds great, until you actually see it in practice.
That's true for both sides of the issues, the extreme left and right.
Extremism doesn't require as much THOUGHT. It leaves a much bigger mess, but, hey, the people with the foresight to avoid extremism are the thinkers. It's the Palins of our country (and many under-informed, poorly-read, and uneducated people, everywhere) who desire a philosophy/worldview that is solid, dependable, and easy to grasp. Such a worldview never works in practice, sadly.
"Extremism" is a dumb word. It implies that "extremely good" and "extremely bad" are equally problematic.
Opposing the status quo is not "extreme".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Please continue to go nuts with racial overtones over the mosque at ground zero.
Where do you possibly see race involved in that? All people are asking is for a little sensitivity. Putting up a mosque there, when 9/11 happened out of Islamic fervor, is beyond insensitive.
quote:What's happening: the community board in lower Manhattan has endorsed, by a 29-to-one vote, a plan to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center about two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center. Predictably, outrage has erupted. If you type "mosque" into Google, the first suggestion is "mosque at ground zero," which gives a sense of how quickly this has moved into the popular consciousness.
The imam in charge, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is consciously moderate, and has described combating radicalism as his personal mission. Nor is he jumping on the chance to get in the neighborhood to make some point: the mosque is already just a few blocks away, in Tribeca, but has overgrown its current space. Rauf says that he hopes that having a moderate mosque so near Ground Zero can send a message of tolerance and peace.
But this is something the right wing just can't pass up. These people, and this neighborhood, can't just be people in a neighborhood. They've been conscripted for a larger war.
Mark Williams, a Tea Party leader and Fox News commentator, wrote on his blog, "The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god." He added, "In the meantime I have a wonderful idea along the same lines as that mosque at Ground Zero thing… a nice, shiny new U.S. Military Base on the smoldering ruins of Mecca. Works for me!"
At WorldNetDaily, the Birther web publication popular on the conservative fringe, an article, written in classic WND style begins by acting like a straight report -- albeit laced with purple prose about "that fateful day when time stood still." Then author Chelsea Schilling moves on to ominously noting that building inspectors had trouble investigating construction complaints -- almost as if somebody was hiding something. She finishes up by quoting a random selection of racist blog commenters: "Muslims are doing this only to see if they get away with it. It's the way Islam spreads in every country these days, like a cancer -- through incremental totalitarianism," writes one. Another writes, "This is not different than allowing the Nazis to establish their headquarters and propaganda office in NYC in 1938. How come people could tell right from wrong then and not now?"
Lest you think it’s just anonymous trolls producing this stuff, though, check out Pamela Geller, the head of the group "Stop Islamization of America," talking to Joy Behar on CNN. According to Geller, instead of a mosque, the site should be host to a monument to the "victims of hundreds of millions of years of jihadi wars, land enslavements, cultural annihilations and mass slaughter."
You’d think someone who runs a group with "Islam" right in its name might know that the religion is about 1,400 years old -- not "hundreds of millions." I know that all that desert stuff seems super-ancient -- "sands of time" and and all that -- but honestly. "Hundreds of millions"? That’s way, way older than homo sapiens as a species. (Maybe that explains Williams' "monkey god" reference?)
Then there's Andy McCarthy, National Review writer and recent author of a book arguing that liberals are consciously conspiring to betray America to the ravenous Muslim horde. McCarthy recently pointed out on Fox News that there are 2,300 mosques in America, but no churches or synagogues in Muslim holy cities Mecca and Medina.
First of all, I think this fairly puts to rest any notion that the more militant strain of anti-Islamist hawkishness is anything other than full-scale, civilizational hatred. After this eruption, it's going to be a stretch to take seriously claims that the interest of the right-wing base in armed conflict in the Middle East is about anything but an active desire for full-on race war. (I've taken some heat in the past for using this term, but I stand by it. The occurrence of the phrase "monkey god," I think, makes my point rather neatly.) Moreover, it's penetrated quite far into the mainstream of the right, with the flowering of a sub-literature that treats migration patterns and labor markets in Europe like they’re the secret plan for the conquest of Christendom.
In recent years, liberals have become fond of pointing out that this kind of belligerent overreaction to the terrorist threat is exactly what makes terrorism effective. It plays into the hands of Osama bin Laden to treat Islam like our foe in a global, apocalyptic struggle. That's exactly how he sees it, and joining him in this fantasy endorses al-Qaida's ideology.
This is a true and important point, pragmatically. But there's something even worse going on here. It's not just that Gellar, McCarthy, Williams and the rest in the War-with-Islam group are inadvertently playing into the hands of Islamic extremists. They are, exactly, their analogue within our own society. The same things that benefit Islamic radicals benefit anti-Islamic militants. Both groups feed off conflict, and prosper when violence erupts. Their only break from accusing Islam of guilt in wars and mass violence seems to come when they call for wars and mass violence against Muslims.
It's notable how McCarthy seems to think that, in pointing out that the United States has many mosques, but the holy cities of Saudi Arabia have no churches, he's making an appropriate comparison. It's almost as if he demands that we behave just like a theocratically-tinged authoritarian monarchy. The hatred these people have for the Muslim world conceals a noticeable yearning -- an envy for its ability to carry out the undemocratic, anti-pluralist, and puritanical measures that the United States has long since abandoned.
"Insensitive," indeed. I am not surprised that your individual visceral hatred for the muslim world (and your frankly racist diatribes that you indulge in from time to time, though you are easing) is fitting in well with this phenomenon.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: [QUOTE]I actually know a number of career political operatives. Not one of them would even consider the idea that one side is somehow more sincere. These people are trying to get elected, not achieve sainthood, 99.9% of the time.
Thank you. The problem we face are the people you know...."CAREER POLITICIANS". Rand isn't a career politician. I agree with you,...when it comes to career politicians, no one is sincere. Our current president has never been anything but a politician.
I prefer politicians that are honest about their ideology. I would rather elect someone who isn't a "career politician".
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I prefer politicians that are honest about their ideology
I'm sure Rand is hiding from Meet The Press and obfuscating his position now entirely in pursuit of that honesty.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I prefer politicians that are honest about their ideology
I'm sure Rand is hiding from Meet The Press and obfuscating his position now entirely in pursuit of that honesty.
Don't judge him until he passes the 300 day threshold set by the President of the United States. Just because he doesn't want to show up on your favorite show, doesn't mean he is avoiding the "press". "Meet The Press" isn't a mandatory cable show. Meet The Press is free to play his clips from other shows.
quote:Don't judge him until he passes the 300 day threshold set by the President of the United States.
Oh I forgot his apparently abstract 300 day immunity to criticism. If I had known about it, I certainly would not have made this thread. My bad.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea which is going to be the more epic event of the year for me on hatrack: this thread, or getting fought to a fair-shake standstill like three times in a row by fugu.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Please continue to go nuts with racial overtones over the mosque at ground zero.
Where do you possibly see race involved in that? All people are asking is for a little sensitivity. Putting up a mosque there, when 9/11 happened out of Islamic fervor, is beyond insensitive.
Suppose we accept the symbolic importance of erecting such a mosque. Isn't there some judo-esque value in turning the other cheek?
Especially considering it's sure to be an extremely liberal mosque. Manhattan Muslims have less to do with the 9/11 attackers than Manhattan Christians have in common with Fred Phelps.
I don't have the sort of gut fear of radical Islam that a lot of right-wingers do. But even if I did, I'd be way into embracing peaceful, non-radical Islam. If nothing else, it's good strategic thinking.
Hell, we should actually have a Muslim president!
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people disparage Christianity, do we say that they're racist against white people?
Perhaps if they were to disparage it in the terms of the 'great Satan's christian monkey-god' we would start seeing those subtle permutations arise. In most situations, no.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people disparage Christianity, do we say that they're racist against white people?
Well no, it's not that Islam is a mono-ethnic religion, because it isn't, just that it is majority non-white. So when you're talking about Islam, as a white person, this is sometimes seen as code for talking about "those people," be they Africans or middle-easterners, Indians, or Malaysians. I know people in this country specifically who use Islam as code for Africans, even though most Africans here are hardly religious. It's easier to disagree with an ideology than a race- that's why we have to be aware of when we are actually speaking in code, and when we are talking about an ethnic group in general.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people disparage Christianity, do we say that they're racist against white people?
Generally people are a bit more specific in which Christians they don't like. It is the Catholics or the Evangelicals or Baptists or the Lutherans or the Mormons or the crazy radical Christians or sheep Christians or whatever. Most times I have heard really disparaging remarks to Christians, there is some qualifier, even if just "those Christians" or scare quote Christians. That makes it less offensive because it excludes a bunch of Christians. I think Americans generally lack this distinction when discussing Muslims (ex without looking it up, how many people know the difference between sunni and shiite and which one hezbollah is and which one al-queda is).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Isn't there some judo-esque value in turning the other cheek?
Christian value. Nothing to do with Judaism. Or judo.
I meant judo-esque in the sense of using your opponent's momentum against him.
How awesome would it have looked to the world if, three years after being attacked by Islamic radicals, we elected a moderate Muslim president?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Please continue to go nuts with racial overtones over the mosque at ground zero.
Where do you possibly see race involved in that? All people are asking is for a little sensitivity. Putting up a mosque there, when 9/11 happened out of Islamic fervor, is beyond insensitive.
I suppose, but in another sense a correct expression of Islam rising out of the ashes created by a false one seems to have a certain apropos.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How awesome would it have looked to the world if, three years after being attacked by Islamic radicals, we elected a moderate Muslim president?
Honestly? I think it depends on who you mean by "the world." There is, for example, a faction among Arab extremists who would (wrongly) interpret this behavior to mean "Americans are weak and can be threatened into conversion." Frankly, I don't think the ethics of our actions should be measured by how they look to anyone.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I suppose, but in another sense a correct expression of Islam rising out of the ashes created by a false one seems to have a certain apropos.
Well, a humane expression, a liberal expression, a cosmopolitan expression, or a peaceable expression of Islam I could agree with.
From my POV, they're all incorrect expressions anyways, just some are easier to get along with than others
(But this of course is an ongoing, (17 page?) debate)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: How awesome would it have looked to the world if, three years after being attacked by Islamic radicals, we elected a moderate Muslim president?
For that matter, I think we should all pretend to convert to Islam, and then build a Pizza Hut on the ka'aba, all the time saying "Dudes, we're Muslims too! What's all the fuss?"
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How awesome would it have looked to the world if, three years after being attacked by Islamic radicals, we elected a moderate Muslim president?
Honestly? I think it depends on who you mean by "the world." There is, for example, a faction among Arab extremists who would (wrongly) interpret this behavior to mean "Americans are weak and can be threatened into conversion." Frankly, I don't think the ethics of our actions should be measured by how they look to anyone.
If making ourselves look bad leads to mass loss of human life, I think it's worth it ethically to consider our image.
I also think a leader who intimately understands the culture we're most in tension with during this historical period would be a good choice to lead, image aside. BHO was a relatively good choice in that regard, but a Westernized Muslim would be even better.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
In short: Paul claims he was originally board certified. When the board took measures that meant new doctors would need to recertify every 10 years, but old doctors would be certified for life (consistent with former ABO constitution) Paul claims he left the ABO (American Board of Ophthamologists) to found the NBO (National Board of Ophthamologists) with about 200 other young doctors. The new organization has a recertification requirement for all members, regardless of age, but is not accredited by the ABMS (American Board of Medical Specialties).
<edit>I wonder if this indicates that should Paul be elected, when the US Senate votes to pass laws he doesn't like he'll simply choose to form a new Senate (call it the National Senate), made up of his like-minded collegues.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the highlight may be Paul's initial response:
The Courier-Journal began seeking comment from Paul Tuesday. When the newspaper tried to interview him at two Louisville events Saturday, he wouldn't comment.
"I'm not going to go through all that right now," Paul said while at the Great Eastern National Gun Day Show and JAG Military Show, in Louisville.
Asked when he would talk, Paul said: "Uh, you know, never. ... What does this have to do with our election?"
posted
Looking at recent news posts, I guess you're talking about the new PPP poll out showing Paul and Conway tied with 43 points each. The problem is that PPP also showed Paul and Conway as tied (statistically) in May, and showed Conway with an advantage back in December. So the idea that Paul is slumping isn't really borne out looking at PPP surveys.
Rasmussen has been polling more consistently. They show Paul's rise flattening out around 50 percent since April, and Conway's vote share steadily increasing to close the gap. I guess you could call this a "slump" but it seems more like a Conway "surge" (which I think probably coincides more with his increased name recognition than Paul's gaffes). And, FWIW, as of 6/28 Rasmussen still had Paul up by 7 points*.
* Nate Silver has expressed a lot of doubt about Rasmussen's likely voter model this cycle. To a similar point, though, according to their cross tabs the PPP poll's is not necessarily a good sampling; it shows Dems relative to Reps and Inds at 52/37/11, which would be a pretty considerable Democratic turnout come November. More realistic, based on the 2008 election, would be 47/38/15. <edit>And even that would represent a rather stark contrast to the current narrative of energized Republicans and less energized Dems, which would tend to favor an improved GOP turnout over 2008.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conway surge, huh. I guess he's going from unknown to favorable interpretation. But I think there's still a slumping effect in that the more people know about Rand, the less they like him. His unfavorable rating is growing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
His favorable/unfavorable differential in the new poll (34/42 -> -8) is essentially identical to what it was in early May (28/35 -> -7), prior to the widely reported gaffes. The differential from December (26/23 -> +3) was when he was largely an unknown outside of an immediate, high-information circle.
So I don't think the favorability numbers support the idea of a slump either. In fact, they indicate that he is slightly better off today than he was in May (judged by favorability percentage among those who have formed an opinion).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article you posted about Fesal Abdul Rauf is laughable. He is conservative, yet he promotes one of the most intolerant sociopolitical systems on the planet: Shari'a law.
I have nothing against followers of Islam, but what is the reasoning behind building this mosque near ground zero? If he has come out and said he plans on building it on ground zero to serve as a reminder of what hate in the Islamic faith can cause, or to teach tolerance of other religions and belief systems, then I'm all for it.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a sufi mystic, his vision of the interpretation of sharia law is going to be remarkably different from the 'most intolerant sociopolitical system' that conservative media is sure to implicate him as having.
quote: If he has come out and said he plans on building it on ground zero to serve as a reminder of what hate in the Islamic faith can cause, or to teach tolerance of other religions and belief systems,
pretty close to that yes.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hahaha then people are forwarding me some really bogus verbiage.
OH
it's huffpo
FireDogLake, Swing State Project and a host of liberal blogs have a similar take. I think the poor analysis was spurred by a PPP blog post that attributed what the author perceived as Paul's lackluster performance to negative media coverage (citing as evidence a poll question about whether negative media coverage made people more or less likely to vote for Paul). The assertion was statistically and methodologically vacuous (and PPP should have known it), but it seems to have been picked up as the narrative by much of the liberal blogosphere. To its credit, TPM avoided the mistake (at least in the write-up I saw).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When people disparage Christianity, do we say that they're racist against white people?
I actually find this question a bit racists, since it implies that Christianity is a religion of White folks, when I imagine that the majority of Christians are of various non-white races. Just adding the strong Catholic populations of Central and South America, the African American Christian community, and the strong Evangelical work that has been done in the past 200 years from China to India, and I think the limited faithful in the white west are a minority.
But you do have a point. Talking about this as a race issue leads to confusing and heated misunderstandings. The Islamic terrorists don't want to kill us because we are white, and the White Fanatic doesn't want to kill them because they are not-white. Its a cultural conflict. They have a different culture from us. We assume our culture is right, and are willing--no, anxious to destroy those that are not. There are several ways to prove who's culture is correct. The simplest and most common is to kill those of the other culture.
That is what we need to face and overcome.
My view of an enlightened culture, and an enlightened religion, is one that does not fear competition to the point of murder.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why but I keep thinking Dan Frank and Darth_Mauve are the same person. I think there's another poster with a similar name that I've fused with these two.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
