Crying Wolf "Racist!"

I know. It's my fault. I stepped in the cesspool that is the Huffington Post. But RCP linked it. Yeah. That's my excuse.

I saw a link that said "McCain Ad Racist", and I had to go see what in the heck was considered racist. And here's the meat of it:

Of all the famous celebrities they could have compared Obama to, why not Tom Cruise? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey? Why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Why two white blond bimbos?

Only one reason. It's a somewhat tamer version of the white bimbo ad used so successfully against Harold Ford in Tennessee. In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman. Not directly, but subliminally and disgracefully.

WTF?!!!

There's a reason right there I don't want a progressive in the White House (or that big domed building, either). Decisions made using "logic" like that.

Comparing Barack Obama to two white women is racist. Eh? It suggested he was hitting on her. Huh? I mean -- gaahhhhh!!!! I guess you have to be really edumacated to make these connections.

And they call Bush an idiot. (heh. Dig this irony. The author's last name is "Press".)

Apparently, there's a racist behind every tree. Wait... if I tried hard enough, I could come up with an "explanation" that shows that statement is racist, too.

The Race Card Card

I can't take the credit for that term, but it's a good one.

And I find it incredible that the big "O" is still doing this ... I saw on the news this morning that yesterday, in Union, Mo (not terribly far from where yours truly grew up), Big-Brother-Bama said:

"... they’re going to try to say, 'Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they’re going to send out nasty emails."

Now Obama's spin-folk apparently say that he wasn't talking about the McCain campaign or the Republicans, rather -- his oppenents in general. Talk-show hosts and such. Even though he started out the thought like this:

"John McCain and the Republicans, they don’t have any new ideas, that’s why they’re ..."

I listen to a couple of talk show hosts who oppose him ... Beck & Miller, to be clear ... and I've never heard either one of them come near that. I don't listen to Rush, but I really, really doubt he has, either. I don't believe any of them think his skin color is an issue -- or I'd probably stop listening to them. So how 'bout someone pointing out -- naming an actual person of relevance -- that has said such a thing? I mean other than the Obama campaign?

To slightly paraphrase a comment (on the same tactic on a different topic) from Morgan, it's a straw man the left-wingers have constructed so they can be seen attacking it. We who don't agree with them, have it in common that we look funny, stupid and pathetic -- when one pretends we said things none of us has seriously said anywhere.

Yes there are racists out there -- but the only people that will take them seriously are other racists -- so that sum is constant. None of them are going to win any converts. And while that may well be why those people vote for McCain, it doesn't follow that everyone else that votes for McCain are in the same camp.

I saw an Obama ad last night attacking McCain for attacking him. Here's the substance of Obama's commercial:

McCain attacked me. Same old politics.

That's it. "Mommmmm!!!! He's looking at me! Tell him to stop looking at me!!!!!!"

An attack ad attacking a candidate for the act of attacking. Does it get any more hypocritical than that? He attacked McCain soley for attacking him. Nothing about the validity of the attack. He wasn't responding to the substance of the attack so we could better judge whether the attack had any merit or not.

Just like the rest of his campaign. Long on frame and short on substance.

Yeah, I'm afraid of Obama. But not because of his middle name or the color of his skin, or if and when he attended a madrass.

It's because he's a "progressive" politician, and we've had far too much of that in recent years. Of the two Americas he wants the new, shiny, statist one.

The Left and Dismissal

So I'm listening to the Dennis Miller Show this afternoon. I like Dennis. I don't always agree with Dennis. I don't always agree with anyone. But I agree with Dennis in principle on most things. I think he's a smart guy, fair minded, and never forgets his sense of humor.

And he has this guy on, Vincent Bugliosi who prosecuted Charles Manson et. al. for the Tate Murders, wrote "Helter Skelter", and a scathing condemnation of the O.J. Trial and verdict. Dennis said he knew him and considered him a sharp mind and brought him on to talk about his new book which argues that Bush should be tried for the murders of all soldiers killed in Iraq plus all Iraqi military and civilians who have been killed in the war -- a position Dennis clearly doesn't agree with. But Dennis isn't opposed to letting people with other points of view present and defend their points of view on his show.

And this guy comes on practically sputtering with rage at Bush, deserves the death penalty, he's got the case sewn up tight and all Bush can do is "hide under a table" if he asks these questions in court as a prosecuting attourney. He insisted that Saddam was no threat and that the intelligence was made up.

Upon being challenged with facts (Dennis played a few of these quotes), Bugliosi's counter-arguments quickly boiled down to calling the respondent a "Bush Lover" or "Right-Wing" or something of the sort rather than actually addressing the argument. We'll get to that in a bit. The man was apparently so angry, so enraged, so seethingly obsessed that he couldn't see straight. Let me repeat that. He couldn't see straight.

When he complained that he hadn't been able to present any of his arguments (other than "Bush Lied", "Murder", "Bush Lied", "People Died", and "Right-Wing"), Dennis told him to take a minute and spell out something coherent about his case.

He told Dennis to play defense attourney, and he would play prosecuting attourney. He would ask a question and there's no way Dennis would be able to answer it. Bush is GUILTY! You'll see!

Then he sputtered on about the Downing Street Memo and embellished quite a bit beyond the core of the Downing Street Memo (likely expanding the controversial use of the word "Fixed" in the paragraph I'll publish at the end) and apparently filling in what he thought it obviously meant. It was almost coherent, though you'd have to take a bunch of what this one man said on faith, plus believe that a typewritten copy of a photocopy (which was subsequently destroyed) of a secret document the head of MI6 wrote about a meeting between Bush and Blair before they ever went to the UN in the first place said that they discussed trying to provoke Saddam into a war with ... an air strike or something of that sort. Which was most decidedly not what the supposedly official text of the controversial portion of said document says even when reproduced by rabid left-wing writers. I'm sorry, if that's the smoking gun of the"Bush Lied" argument, then Bush's case for war (the one he actually made, if not also the narrow version the anti-war crowd says it was) was air tight by those same standards.

Apparently in the book he does a Q & A session where Bugliosi asks the questions ... and then answers them as if he were Bush. Clever. Dennis asked him about this, and the author basically dismissed it as the only answer Bush could have given if he were telling the truth. The Truth according to Bugliosi and the TTWDP (Tantrum-Throwing Wing of the Democratic Party).

The word "fixed" in the memo is interpreted by Bush critics as if it were meant in the horse race or gambling sense. Of course, "fixed" can also mean "attached to". Critics say that "fixed" only makes sense in the paragraph in you interpret it in the first sense. Of course, that's only if you believe that the policy, the idea that Saddam needed to be removed as a matter of national and international security, not to mention the domestic pain he inflicted on his own people, was an idea the "neo-cons" came up with rather than something that Democrats and members of the Clinton administration had talked about in the past, re-iterated, and supported in 2002. But if it means "attaching" it could easily mean that they were simply laying out the case for war in terms the general public could easily see and grasp. There is no crime in that -- indeed, it would be their duty. And they did it.

But as we've discussed before, the left isn't in the business of making arguments -- they want to itterate their talking points, then dismiss ad hominiem their opponents so that (in their book) there's no point in listening to the other side. "Bush Lover". "Watches Fox News". "Corporate Interest". "Neocon." "He reads right-wing magazines."

Don't listen to him, he's one of those people!

Rather than going ahead and listening to him and making a case, a logical case backed with facts, showing why he's wrong. They're long on stating things as if they were fact. But when you start poking for references or contradictory facts especially with references, they run right back to hiding behind the trees of "Bush-Lover". "Neocon". "Rethuglican." "Haaaaaaaaaaaaalliburton!!!!!!!!"

What Dennis likes to do with these people is to give them enough rope, let 'em run with it ... to hang themselves. And it rarely fails.

In their world, the only reason one might agree with Bush is that they like him, or worship him. It never seems to occur to them that maybe we agree with Bush because we weighed the facts, thought it out, and came to the same conclusion Bush came to. If that happens, then yeah, I'm gonna agree with Bush. It's not the other way around. I like Bush because I agree with him. I don't agree with him because I like him. Who thinks like that?

Oh, that's right... the Left. They apparently suffer from the worst case of projection you can imagine.

But in their world, merely agreeing with Bush is grounds for dismissing any argument you might make, whether you've had a chance to make that argument or not.

I still think this Bush Derangement Syndrome has more to do with bitterness over the 2000 election than anything else.

---

The controversial portion of the memo:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

And yet they went the U.N. route, made their case (which went far, far beyond WMD). The argument convinced me, most Republicans, and most Democrats. When the intelligence turned out to be flawed ... which, beleive it or not intelligence often is ... the Democrats saw a political opportunity and most tried to re-write history, claiming they'd never been for the war, claiming that the administration fabricated any threat from Saddam -- and "lied" about it. It became "Bush's War".

Elitists

So I'm reading this article at the Washington Post. Yeah, I've been keeping up with what's going on... just haven't had much to say and I've been preoccupied with other things... not much posting here.

The article itself was pretty straightforward. I didn't have a problem with it.

Then I started reading the comments. Wow. I have to wonder what most of these comments have to do with the content of the article. I saw a lot of name calling and straw men and empty leftist ranting...

• How often does Mchypocrite go to church? Elitist? Who married into the hundreds of millions Henley estate?
• oh, good grief. must propel the lies... as if john mccain, with his six homes, private airplane, top tier medical coverage -- has a friggin clue.
• I seem to remember in history class learning that a lot of people threw themselves from windows when the Great depression hit. I guess since he married a beer heiress he doesn't have to think about that.
• So the guy with how many houses and a second wife that is how rich tells us Obama is "elitist."
• Wow, now Republicans who have trouble getting people of color and white women to vote for them are not elitist?

So "Wealthy" = "Elitist", aparently.

Fortunately there were several commenters who obviously get it: "Elitist" means "We Know Better Than You Do", not "Wealthy". But "Wealthy" = "Elitist" is pretty much the attitude the rest of what was in the comments represented by the quotes above exuded. And I'm sparing you the sputtering diatribes of leftist rage. (oddly, "Halliburton" didn't even show up once, though. I guess that's so "last year"). They also seem to conveniently ignore that Obama and Hillary are also wealthy. But McCain is Republican, so he's evil. Plus he's white. And male.

This commenter summed it up pretty well:

Obama's comments are offensive because he's saying that small town voters are gun toting, xenophobic racists and that they can't help it because they're poor.

I don't think the "bitter" thing matters nearly so much...

"Swiftboating" Hillary

One of the most enjoyable things about this donk campaign season is watching the Dem's "chickens comin' ho-o-o-o-o-o-ome..... to roost!"

All that rot we keep hearing about Bush "stealing" the election. Gore winning the popular vote but losing the election. This vote should or shouldn't count. Wanting to change the rules in the middle of the game because following them didn't get you the result you desired. Kerry got "Swiftboated". Every vote should count. Identity politics -- the suckling toddler of the Progressive movement.

Well here we are ... one Democratic candidate will likely win the popular vote, and the other may very well get the nomination. People who served with Kerry questioned his version of events, and that was "unfair" -- but now people who were in Bosnia are questioning Hillary's version of events, and that's ok. It's ok for blacks to be racist -- we won't run them out of town on a rail, but we will if a white person even accidentally appears to touch the "race" line. Hillary wants to count votes that were invalidated by the Democratic party -- and in said invalidation the Democratic party "disenfranchised" voters from two states. Some votes count more than others... like 10,000 times more than others (superdelegates)....

Everything they accused the Republicans of in 2000 and somewhat again in 2004 ... they're doing and they expect everybody to turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy.

Pass the popcorn.

Bullcrit

Wow. I clicked on through from Mark Steyn to read this guy's tirade, and I've got to say -- clearly this guy's never read or listened to any Mark Steyn unless it was little clips and soundbytes taken out of context on purpose.

I, for one, have read the book this guy claims (at first) to be critiquing cover to cover. At the end after adjusting slightly for some of Mark's criticisms of his Bullcrit (that's when you critique someone's work based on other reviews of the work rather than bothering to read it for yourself) goes on to say that since he read someone else's review and things that other people had to say about Steyn in other publications ... and "oh yeah, America Alone" (probably excerpts from it in the "sources" he hand-wavingly cites) that it's really no big deal that he didn't actually read the book -- because he's just expressing his opinion...

... about a book he clearly didn't read. Which makes his opinion worth less than the electrons used to transmit it over the net.

If he had, many of his snarky questions would easily have been answered, particularly the ones concerning demographics. It's math, man. If cultural Europeans are not breeding at a replacement rate and Muslim immigrants are breeding at baby boomer rates, a couple of generations is all it will take. And to be fair, he wasn't "claiming" (in the article, not the book -- I think the book puts it farther into the next century) that it was definitely 40% by 2025. The quote is:

By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025.

Not excactly a ringing endorsement that the claim will be borne out. It's obviously a "high ball" estimate - and not one he made himself. I wonder if this guy buys Al Gore's 20 foot sea-level rise projections?

I've never read anything by Mark Steyn that would lead me to believe he's any sort of bigot -- quite the contrary. And I've read quite a bit of Steyn. He sounds like a perfectly reasonable, open-minded, well-read person who isn't averse to saying things that hyper-sensitive politically correct-ologists might find out of line with their doctrine.

And doctrine it is. Progressivism has become a religion in and of itself with dogma that is not to be questioned and comes with all of the self-righteous indignation that the worst religious zealot ever dreamed of.

Read the book, dude. Steyn's no bigot no matter what you've read. But he won't sugar-coat facts, either.

And if you think people like Steyn are the only people a new Caliphate would send packing, Islam has even less tolerance for athiests than it has for Christians.

Spying on Ordinary Americans

In a response to a headline once again asserting the claim that "Ordinary Americans" are being spied upon by the government via our telecommunications companies... Morgan boils it down in this paragraph:

I think it’s high time we had a serious debating or reckoning about what exactly an Ordinary American” is. If I’m born in Pakistan to a Jordanian father and a Palestinian mother, grow up in Saudi Arabia, get recruited by Al Qaeda, work my way up in the structure to the point where Osama bin Laden trusts me to do some plotting with other terrorist officers over a cell phone which, while I’m using it in Syria, sends some signals over a network where American telecommunications interests could reveal a record of my calls to the CIA — maybe not getting sued for it — um…does that make me an “Ordinary American” even though I’ve never personally been to America?

Republicans "Like This War" - Pelosi

So I get this thing from Bob Parks where he tips me off to Nancy Pelosi's latest assault on reason, truth, and history:

"They like this war. They want this war to continue." ... "We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq." ... "But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress."

And it doesn't take long googling for news outlets that that indeed is what she said. That Republicans like the war and want it to continue.

I do not for one minute believe that George W. Bush or any other Republican "likes" this war or wants it to continue. They do want to finish it. But finishing it and ending it are not the same thing.

But then in today's continuing pattern of getting your PR soundbytes out (Clinton Campaign: The Republicans are going to rake our poor friend Obama over the coals for his former drug use. Ooops, did we say that? Well we aren't saying it, but they will. - snicker- ) she later "takes it back":

Well, when I said like, I used a poor choice of words. The fact is: They support this war. They support the president's execution of it, even though any objective observer of it would say that a war that we've been in much longer -- more than a year longer -- than we were in World War II, going in on a false pretense without a strategy for success, without a reason to stay, against the wishes of the American people does not deserve the support of the Congress of the United States.

It's a war America is in, Nancy, and one you voted for. Adults, once they start something even if they find out later some of their premises were wrong -- finish what they start. You got your PR soundbyte in, then you try to have it both ways by "apologizing" -- just like Shaheen & Huckabee.

What was the strategy for success in WWII, anyway? Whatever it was, if there was one, it sure wasn't to minimize every success we had and amplify any setback or any wrongdoing by a handful of our troops. Which has been the political strategy of the Democrats ever since we crossed the Kuwaiti border. Which I believe has a lot to do with why this war has gone on for longer than WWII.

Pelosi, et al have given aid and comfort to the enemy practically since the war began. You know what we used to call that? You know what the peanalty used to be?

And what's all this stuff about no change in strategy? Remember the Surge that the Democrats were so against and were so sure it wouldn't work that they declared it failed before it even started? (Probably because they were afraid it might succeed?) After the big "change in direction" (which, incidentally is not synonymous with "withdrawal", Nancy) was allegedly asked for, America got one in just a few months. And a few months after the change took place, things in Iraq started getting much much better. Which is why you're playing a misdirection by screeching the same tired charges over and over and over and over and over trying to nurture the anti-war "Availability Cascade".

Without a reason to stay? Without a reason to stay? We stormed somebody's house to take out an abusive parent and left it pretty messed up. In the mean time, some of our worst enemies came in to make it as bad as they possibly could for us. If we leave before we should, we do a great disservice to the Iraqi people. If we leave before we should, we hand a PR victory to Al Queda. Don't give me this "no reason to stay" schtick.

I see through you. You're trying to convince us what you say is true by repeating it and having the press repeat it for you.

We did not go to war against the wishes of the American people, and while naturally the American people wish we could leave and have our troops home ASAP, we know that it isn't a good idea.

Apparently you think it is. Or maybe you're just afraid of Code Pink.

Racist

According to the University of Delaware's Office of Residental Life

A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'
(emphasis, mine)

I suppose bustin' a cap in my face doesn't count?

I don't know. I always thought that racist meant someone who discriminated against or for people based upon their race. I'm pretty sure a history of the word will back me up on this.

Which makes that re-definition of the word "racist" .... well, racist.

Hegemony

To paraphrase Bill Whittle, which way are the boats headin', man?

I keep hearing about the terrible spread of American Hegemony. I was reading a relatively thoughtful article on mistakes America has made in the past few years... some parts I agree with, some parts I cut America some slack. But I ran across this in it:

... the fundamental problem remains the lopsided distribution of power in the international system. Any country in the same position as the US, even a democracy, would be tempted to exercise its hegemonic power with less and less restraint.

(emphasis, mine) And assertion has always bugged me. I don't buy it. The old "so might makes right?" argument against using might, and the idea that if you have might you will nessesarily use it to unjustly impose your will on others. There are all kinds of very strong people, bulky, muscular people, and people who own a lot of firepower who choose, not out of fear but because they are basically good people -- only to use their strength to help others and themselves -- as a positive force.

Might does not make right. But for the kinder, gentler world we all would like to have to survive, right had better have might, or might will make "right" and everyone will suffer for it save the few at the top of the heap.

I think where people get confused comes from the tendency in recent decades to get everyone to believe that nobody is wrong, that there basically is no right or wrong -- and you're wrong to believe otherwise. See the irony?

If nobody's right and everybody's wrong, then what difference does it make what any of us do, and who are you to criticize? Perhaps it's the mentality of the critic. If I can point out what's wrong with you, then the focus is on your wrongness, not mine. And so for the moment, I feel a sense of self-"right"eousness.

But that argument just doesn't scale over time.

Jena Six - A local newspaper editor speaks out

It should be easy enough to check out his story. And he knows that.

Media myths about the Jena 6

Let's see if anyone challenges what he has to say. The man sounds like his head is screwed on straight. It also sounds like the Liberal Hate-Stoking Machine manufactured a lot more even than we've heard.

Be sure to listen to the interview with the guy on the same page.

Consider, Journalists, when you became a journalist "to make a difference"

"The town itself, however ... um ... there was some division that occurred as a result of all this. There is some uneasiness and I wrote about that in an essay a few weeks ago ... or in an editorial, and there is a little bit of uneasiness among our black and white residents at this point because there has been so much controversy surrounding this case. It's an uneasiness that wasn't here prior to all of the media coverage." - Craig Franklin, asst. editor Jena Times

So yeah, you made a difference all right. Many of you assumed the worst, and the rest were led by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to believe a story that went along with the liberal narrative. And you made a difference, all right. Is this what you had in mind?

It's on Newsbusters, too.

Morgan's New Word

It's a word we need. Morgan called for its creation a week or so ago, then he came up with one himself. (Hey, if you want a job done right...)

bullcuse /b@l ku:z'/ (v) 1. To accuse a second party, usually in a grandiose and theatrical way, of deeds or thoughts that are actually quite out of harmony with the truth or the speaker’s perception of it. The purpose is ostensibly to uncover one or several hidden agendas and lay them bare, but in reality the purpose is to gain a tactical advantage in front of third parties. 2. More broadly, any act of accusing someone, which is blessed by a substantially greater quantity of bluster than genuine confidence. 3. To accuse someone of something based on feeling rather than thinking. (n) bullcusation, (adj) bullcusitory, bullcusive

Recognizing that members of both parties have been known to bullcuse, we should call bullcusation wherever we see it. It is pretty clear to those of us around here that liberals have a much greater tendency to bullcuse than do conservatives. We should still demand that our conservative politicians refrain from bullcusation, and call out their counterparts when they bullcuse.

The Republican party should make anti-bullcusation a part of the party platform. Something like "We, the members of the Republican Party, vow to avoid engaging in bullcusation, to call others out when they do, and correct ourselves should we ever err and bullcuse."

I'd invite the Democrats to do the same.

Stark Apologizes

After a rant on the house floor where he basically said that the President was amused by our troops getting their heads blown off overseas instead of giving them medical care while they are groiwng up, after first refusing to apologize for it, and after a bill was introduced by the Republicans to censure him for it -- Stark said:

"I want to apologize first of all to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president. his family, to the troops that may have found (offense) in my remarks as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on, and I do apologize. ... With this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be and we can return to the issues that do divide us but that we can resolve..."

Well, that was a pretty well worded apology including an aparent display of humility that is rare these days, and it would be ungracious not to accept it if he doesn't procede to take it back through further words and actions in the future.

Stark Raving Mad

Don't know if you've seen the video clip from the House floor late last week where Representative Stark (guess which party) found yet another opportunity and yet another way, to recite the Liberal Creed:

"The Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people? If he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Get the feeling the Dems are getting a little frustrated lately? Things just haven't been going the way they thought they would in Bush's "Lame Duck" period.

Anyway, you've got to love Mark Steyn's response:

I'm not sure I follow the argument here: President Bush wants to breed a generation of sickly uninsured children in order to send them to Iraq to stagger round the Sunni Triangle, weak and spindly and emaciated and rickets-stricken, to get their heads blown off? Is that the gist of it? No matter, Congressman Stark hit all the buzz words – "children," "illegal war," "$200 billion," "lies," etc. – and these days they're pretty much like modular furniture: You can say 'em in any order, and you'll still get a cheer from the crowd.

Brilliant.

But then again, he ususally is.

"pwned!"

Senator Reid et. al. have been pwned!

And Reid's doing (attempting) damage control. It doesn't get any better than this.

Incidentally, that's $2.1 (plus Rush is matching it $ to $ making it $4.2 million) to a foundation for the childrien of Marines & Law Enforcement agents... well, read more here.

Rush Limbaugh smeared the troops my red American behind!!!

I may just have to start listening to him occasionally.

Update: Rush's take on it on his website.

Jackson

I had a little exchange which I did not persue with a very liberal acquaintance of mine. I said something about "Jackson" on the $20 bill I was paying him with.

He said something about how he was an Indian killer and used to eat the hearts of Indians he killed. (Ok, "native Americans" .... what. ever.)

Now I admit, I don't know much about Jackson and I won't argue from a position of ignorance. As a matter of fact when it comes to these things, I don't tend to argue even when I know better just out of politeness. He went on to say that it was hard to believe that a man as prejudiced and hateful as that could be president. I said "well, those were different times" and tried to leave it at that. (I don't think we should necessarily judge people in history by today's standards... we need to take into account the standards of the day -- and take wild-sounding assertations with a grain of salt.)

The next thing he said took me a little aback for a minute and I had to remind myself that he is infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome. He can't help himself.

He said that our current president was just as prejudiced but he relied on others to do his dirty work for him.

Wherever I have disagreed with the man, I have no doubt that George Bush is anything but prejudiced. (It could be argued he has had the most diverse cabinet in the history of the Presidency). I think he is a decent man with a difficult job in difficult times. We have differing opinions at times on what should be done and how, but as a human being I have no problems with George Bush. But these people really believe these things about him.

So I looked up Andrew Jackson and at first glance I can't find anything about him eating the hearts of indians -- although I have no doubts he fought against them and killed many.

But I did find out one interesting bit of trivia. Andrew Jackson was one of the founding members of the modern Democratic party.

Rush to Judgement

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

He's got his place in the world and he fights for things I fight for -- but I've never had much use for talk radio... just as I don't have much use for your Hannity & Colmes, Chris Matthews, etc...

But here I am reading in the news that Rush owes our troops an apology for slandering them by calling them phony soldiers. And I don't live in a cave, I know who he is and a bit about him.

Woah, there, Nellie.

Show of hands from people who actually believe that is even remotely in line with what Rush is about -- that it would even cross the man's mind to do such a thing.

21%? That's what I thought.

In their latest performance of the Holy Rite of Moral Equivalence, it seems like the progressives are trying to equate a "slander" that wasn't even a slander to the MoveOn.Org "Betray Us" ad.

Of course, Rush was talking about Jesse MacBeth et al. There have been a few people who have claimed horrible things about our troops claiming to have the authority of being a soldier and deployed there themselves, eyewitnesses -- who turned out to be lying about whether they were there or, in the case of MacBeth, theat they were even soldiers.

It's a bit of a stretch -- it's a monumental stretch well past the breaking point, to say that Rush was calling our soldiers "phony". He was calling phony soldiers phony. The ones who lie about where they've been, what they've done, and what they've seen to score political points for the anti-war crowd.

Progressives are instructing us to believe that he meant things he didn't mean. Rush told us what he meant, and it's completely in line with what he said... no pretzel logic required.

But Christians kill their kids, too!

This is from another thread on Blonde Sagacity where I was a contributor. The original post discussed how an Italian Islamic family killed one of their own for refusing to marry her cousin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post makes about as much sense as linking Andrea Yates' actions to her fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Don't you hate how those Christian fundamentalits are always drowning their kids in bathtubs? Jeez it really bugs the hell out of me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:

Uh, no. Not the same thing at all. When "fundamentalist Christians" drown their kids in bathtubs, they can find nothing in the teachings or traditions of Christianity to back up their actions. They may think they can. But in fact they act directly against Christian teachings and traditions.

On the other hand, when Muslims kill their women for refusing to bow to certain religious/cultural expectations, there is plenty in the Quran and Islamic tradition that can easily be used to justify it. They can also find other things in the Quran that could condemn it. It's a very confusing book.

But you won't find anything in Christian teachings or tradition that can justify what they did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you serious? Try Leviticus 21:9. Hint: it has to do with the importance of burning your daughter to death if she "whores around."

Judges 19 also features a model daddy. He brings his daughter out for the guests and offers her as a gift to be raped all night by them.

Have you ever actually READ your Bible?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cj, Christians follow the New Testiment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Then why are they always trying to get the 10 Commandments in all the public buildings? Why not the Beatitudes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think cj has succeeded in pointing out the Christian version of what happens in Islam or any religion anywhere for that matter: you get a couple of whacked out yahoos deciding what certain scriptures mean, and the culture they're in goes to shit. If the church of America were worshipping peanut butter, it would still happen.

Fortunately many individuals manage to be decent, no matter what the more fucked up element of their creed tries to make them do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:

Nope. Not kidding. Yes, I actually have read my Bible, and my Quran. Believe it or not, I'm pretty much a secular guy. I was raised a Catholic, and I know that Bible pretty darned well, as well as what constitutes Christian belief and tradition. I'll reiterate -- there's nothing in there about killing your kids.

Tater is right. In the old testament, God promises a new covenant with Israel. That new covenant is the new contract Christ made. It replaced the old law. Christians follow the new law.

But, you say, does that then mean that the 10 Commandments, which are in the old testament, are abolished?

Nope.

Look at Matthew 19:16-19 ... and we have Jesus reiterating the commandments as what you need to follow to attain salvation.

Nothing about killing your kids in there.

Try again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me again:

CJ has succeeded in pointing out that some people who claim to be Christian can and have grossly misinterpreted or misunderstood, or outright hallucinated up -- something they thought God wanted them to do.

I am pointing out that it doesn't take a twisted reading of the Quran and Haddiths to come up with the kind of honor killings we see in the Muslim world. It does take an unGodly twisted reading of Christian teaching (based upon the New Testament) and Christian tradition to come up with it -- as a matter of fact, try to find something. Go ahead.

Make no mistake about it, there are lots of Muslims who behave decently. I'll posit that a lot of them have never actually read the Quran as many Christians have never actually read the Bible...

I think a lot of Muslims would be shocked what the Quran actually says if they read it. If not, then look out. Whether you're Christian or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist -- you're an infidel, and your life is worth 1/3 of a Muslim's if you're a Christian or Jew. If you're not a Muslim, Christian, or Jew -- then it's worthless to them.

And I've noted that even the non-violent Muslims are far too slow and half-hearted to condemn Islamist aggression and far too quick to defend it -- if they do the former at all, there's almost always a pregnant "BUT" between the two.

More me yammering:

Just as an aside, to defend the Jews somewhat, nothing is being commanded in Judges 19. God is not commanding anyone to do anything. It is a story being related, like the Parables Jesus told later on.

Claiming this is a teaching like saying a movie that depicts rape condones rape when it may actually do the opposite.

Check out the last line in Judges 19

19:30 And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.

Emphasis, mine.

The only instruction is for you to consider the story (including the pointed remark that nobody ever did anything like it afterward) and think about it, and say what you think.

So, nope, nothing in there, either.

The Leviticus passage seems to be more allong the lines of instruction (although only for daughters of priests -- still, that sucks) -- but again, the new covenant replaced the old one according to Christian belief.

Note: a collegue tells me that there are such superceedings of law for Jews in the old testament as well.

------------

Phil-Don't waiste your time explaining the Bible and christianity to a liberal. They love to leave things and and cherry pick like you pointed out.
(from NateG)
------------

Me:

Nateg. You are correct, I'm likely not going to convince him/her.

I'm just not willing to leave such tripe sit out here unchallenged.

These kids go to college (or sometimes not) and find people who talk about things they've never thought about. They sound like they know what they're talking about to the kids, so they listen. They're fed these little soundbites, then they parrot it back out to others. Unfortunately (and the people who fed it to them know this) a huge number of people who profess to be Christians really haven't read their bibles, and many of those who have never thought about what all is in there and why -- and they themselves are used to hearing stuff from the bible out of context. They freak when they hear stuff like this -- they have no response.

And the kid gets a rush, feeling like he knows more than they do about their faith. It generally shows in the smugness of the language, the misguided self-confidence.

"Are you serious?" "Try this." "Have you even read your Bible?" "Hint..." -- this is all about condecention and the temporary feeling of superiority it brings.

It usually works, because most people either can't, or are too polite to respond. They think, therefore, that what they have said is correct and get a self-righteous rush (similar to the one they dispise in self-righteous Christians).

It's pathetic. And frankly, I don't really care if I convince the kid (and I mean that in the sense of "immature") or not.

What is important is that we don't leave things that aren't the truth unchallenged.

And notice I'm making no claims as to whether Christian belief is truth or not -- that is a matter of faith. I am making claims about what is true about what constitutes Christian teachings, though -- those are verifiable facts, as are most of the claims made here about what constitutes Islamic teachings.

----------

Nateg and/or Phil: if we are to accept the idea that without a doubt, the Quran instructs Muslims to kill all persistent infidels, what is the remedy? It seems like you've got everything figured out; please tell us the solution.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:

Got it all figured out? What did I say that would make you think that?

Certainly the answer isn't to attack Christianity with false accusations.

I addressed some arguments I knew to be false. You're never going to get to a good solution using them -- actually you're probably going to get to a bad one.

My particular opinion on the subject is that we at least be allowed to engage in open, honest dialog about Islam, because without that prerequisite, we can have no open, honest dialogue with it. Unfortunately, Muslims really aren't interested in an open, honest dialogue on Islam. Islam also has a rather violent way of squelching honest criticism and debate from both inside and outside of Islam.

When people dare do it, they are threatened with death, and those threats are backed up with knives, bombs, and guns -- and action. Theo Van Gough, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Jyllands Posten & the famous cartoons, Salman Rushdie, bunches of others and probably thousands nobody's ever heard of.

We can sit back and pretend that Islam is "just as bad" or "just as good" as all other religions and and feel good about our progressive attitudes -- but in the end that will just get us all killed, dihimified, or converted to Islam. Never mind the perception that "most" Muslims are peaceful. The Islamists themselves are quite serious, and when the Muslim inquisition comes knocking on your door, your peaceful Muslim neighbor is more than likely going to shrug and say "sorry dude, I'm with them -- thanks for dinner" than to do anything to defend your right to your religion -- or lack of one (which is even worse than not being Christian or Jewish in their eyes).

Failing an internal reform of Islam, the best we can do is fight them off when they encroach on our founding ideals, or threaten us with terrorist or conventional war tactics.

The very least we can do is point out that it is not a tolerant religion, the intolerance is actually built in to the religion, and as a religious force on the planet, it is far less desirable (if tolerance -- peaceful coexistence -- is what we're after -- I'm fer it!) to keep it from promoting itself as such.

There is an Islamic concept known as Al-Taqiyya -- I wonder how many here have heard of it? Once you understand what it is, it helps explain why there are so many peaceful Muslims -- at least one reason, anyway -- for now.

It ain't just Christians & Jews, either.

----------

CJ should go to a Rabbi to learn what certain texts mean. Lev. 21:9 talks about a capital offense punishment for adultery (true) be CJ does not discuss how a capital offence was rarely adjudicated; once in seven years, some say 70 years (Talmud). Judges 19 speaks of a crime (regarding the abused daughter) that led to the slaughter of most of the tribe of Dan, in retribution; the Bible itself condemns the father's wicked behavior. Christian's are not obligated to the 10 commandments, but to the 7 Laws of Noah.

(From JR)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:

Thanks, JR. I'd actually like to do that myself. I'm much less well read in Judaism than I am in Christianity and Islam.

Probably because I wasn't raised Jewish, and I don't see myself living under a threat of Jews blowing me up along with them when I go out to dinner anytime soon.

Upon further reflection, when I think about the whole "what is your solution" question (that I figure was asked more as rhetorical dismissal or possible baiting -- but I take good questions seriously).... it occurrs to me that in my "plan" it's too early in the game to talk about what to do as a counteraction at this time. This is because we're still at phase one. Recognizing what the problem is, and getting everyone to see it.

Unfortunately, multiculturalism is the well-established, politically correct defacto law of the land right now, and according to it, everybody's religion and culture are theoretically equal and should be treated as such. And this is largely true because most religions do not teach that it should be spread by the sword, but by word of mouth and example. People living under these premises can get along fairly well and even profit from the sharing of each others' ideals.

Unfortunately, Islam does teach that it should be spread by the sword, and it teaches that the lives of non-Muslims are worth less than the lives of Muslims -- that others are pigs and dogs and filth. Oddly, this makes it the perfect virus to infect a multiculturalized system. It's uniquely positioned to bring it down, and it wants to bring it down. Modern progressivism is an even worse anathema to it than are Christianity or Judaism.

Right now, groups like CAIR are working hard to make it against the law to criticize Islam (it is against sharia law). Similar groups have already had a lot of success in Europe, especially in England. Here they've just managed to make it politically taboo if not against the law... yet.

But we here in multi-culti land don't want to hear that. Because if we absorb what it really means, then multiculturalism means including a culture that demands monoculturalism, and that's a paradox. It also means that fundamentalist multiculturalist philosophy isn't 100% right. Zealots can't stand that idea. Multiculturalism itself is kind of a religion, and people don't give up their religious beliefs very easily, so we get a sort of ...

"La-la-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you!!!!

effect. In an attempt to cling harder to the multi-culti ideal, we get diversions, such as "hey, but THIS religion's just as bad" (even when it is demonstrably not -- it just happens to be popular and safe to criticize that religion) and accusations of "hate speech" for merely pointing out easily verifiable facts about Islam.

So here we are, with our heads in the sand fighting a "war on terror", because we can't bring ourselves to at least call it a "war on Jihad". (As has been pointed out before, terror is a tactic. A war on terror makes about as much sense as a war on aerial bombing.) We say "war on terror" instead to avoid the incitement of those "peaceful" Muslims who are not currently fighting. Those would be the same ones that won't be coming to your aid when Jihad comes to your door.

This speaks volumes. So where we are is getting people to come to grips with what we face and focus on defining the problem at hand. Only then can we come up with a solution.