The Federal Government is committed to ensuring all of our programs perform well and that the general public is informed about our progress. As a result, ExpectMore.gov, a comprehensive website, has been launched to provide the public, the Federal community and Capitol Hill with easy-to-understand information on how Federal programs work. This site provides candid information and assessments on almost 800 Federal programs, their successes and shortcomings. It contains valuable information on what is being done to improve the performance of these programs. ExpectMore.gov is a timely tool that provides information to the public in a clear and accessible manner; drawing attention to performance and improvement efforts.
a little more truth in packaging than they intended, I suspect. Expecting more, wishing for less.
#1
Before the NEA installed "social justice" as the underlying basis of secondary education, they use to actually teach how government works [or doesn't] IAW the Constitution way back in the old days. Another sterling example why the education system needs radical revamping.
#1
"La ver est dans le fruit." pretty much spells it out. "Autroche" and "Loupturc" should be included in the Rantburg graphic posting options for future use, IMAO.
#4
Those are good quality illustrations, well done France.
Our gutless TV stations network/cable "news fonts" haven't shown much in the way of these cartoons that I'm aware of anyway.
huuum..
Just a few years ago right after 9/11 [NYT, networks etc.] remember how the "media experts" said we couldn't use our military during Ramadan and the the "media gurus" dire warnings about the Arab street?
skip 2006: So we have the happy prospect of the 5th column here at home scolding us about "Islam's tender feelings" and the big "green takiya machine" exploiting it.
Egyptian Sandmonkey has scanned images of Egyptian newspaper Al Faqrwho published the infamous cartoons of blasphemy last October, at the height of Ramadan, with not a single squeak of outrage...
A nice op-ed teasing out the key difference between our nuts and Islam's nuts, with a couple of back-handed comliments tossed in, from a British Bush-despiser.
LAST WEEK I devoted this space to a diatribe against George W. Bush, conjoined with a paean of praise for the American system and Alan Greenspan, the retiring Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The purpose of the article was to discuss the genius of a nation whose economy, culture and spirit of public service could operate so successfully, despite or perhaps because of such doltishly incompetent leadership from its top politicians. To my astonishment, this article generated a huge response, largely because it was read out on the radio by Rush Limbaugh, the countrys most famous right-wing talk show host.
Within hours of publication I received nearly 500 e-mails from American readers. We're quick, we are. About a quarter of these emails were split between praise and rational disagreement. However, the vast majority some 300 were abusive to the point of obscenity (homo Arab ass-f*****, Commie Jew-boy, Nigger-lover and so on). An interesting choice of insults, revealing considerably more about the insulters than the insultee. What opened the sluices on this flood of electronic sewerage was neither the offensiveness nor the originality of my article. As several of my correspondents disparagingly noted, President Bush has lived quite comfortably with this kind of ridicule in the US media every day. And as for originality, most of my favourable observations about the American system were expressed much more eloquently 200 years ago by Alexis de Tocqueville. It seems, however, that an article in a foreign newspaper full of condescending derision for the US President touched a raw nerve in Americas conservative heartland and that is why, with the Muslim world apparently in turmoil over some mediocre cartoons in a little-known Danish paper, I return to this subject.
My reaction to the outpouring of abuse was to reaffirm a longstanding prejudice: that white trash American ultra-conservatives were the only people on earth who could possibly rival Islamic fundamentalists in their paranoia, touchiness and lack of humour. snip. Rude and unnecessary, with insufficient data for that conclusion, but an important point as he expands upon it below.
But as the cartoon saga has turned to tragedy, with people dying and embassies burning, satire and irony would now be out of place. What is more appropriate is a serious comparison between the Muslim and American fundamentalists intolerance of other peoples ideas. This comparison may seem far-fetched but it brings out three distinctions that are critical in managing relations between Islamic fundamentalism and the modern world. Here we go!
The first, very obvious, distinction is between civility and legality, between comment or behaviour that is discourteous, inconsiderate or unpleasant and behaviour which is, or should be, unlawful. Despite the hypersensitivity of the Americans who showered me with linguistic ordure, nobody would dream of suggesting that insulting America and its President should be banned. These 300 right-wing nuts wanted me sacked for my ignorance; they wanted The Times used as toilet paper, but none of them would suggest that I should be legally prevented from saying that President Bush was a fool.
How different from the paranoid religiosity of the Muslim fundamentalists who insist that insulting religion should not be a question of taste or of judgment, but a subject for criminal law. Yet this obvious distinction between what is offensive and what should be illegal is deliberately ignored by the Blair Government, which wants to make insulting religion a criminal offence.
The second, and related, distinction is between verbal abuse and physical violence. Returning to my self-selected sample of nutty Americans, none of them threatened me with physical harm, or suggested that such harm might be my just desert. How different from the violence of the Muslim rent-a-crowds whose banners portray their enemies beheaded. Yet this obvious distinction between verbal abuse and physical violence is deliberately overlooked by British police, who have refused to prosecute Muslim demonstrators threatening their enemies with hideous violence. Meanwhile, British judges have sentenced Abu Hamza, convicted for inciting multiple murders, to just seven years. Presumably this means that religiously motivated murder is less serious in the eyes of our learned judges than such offences as drug-dealing or fraud.
This brings me to the third and most important distinction that Americans seem to understand much better than we in Europe. Is this cognitive dissonance, or does he just lack the proper concepts to say nice and perceptive things about our side of the pond without being condescending and insulting? This is the distinction between religion and other beliefs. Why should religions be entitled to legal protection from insults and attacks? Would anyone suggest that communists and fascists or, for that matter, Tories and social democrats, should be protected from insults? Yet the first two of these movements were all-embracing secular religions and their believers, who numbered in the hundreds of millions, believed in them every bit as passionately as Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in their religions.
Far from commanding any special respect or protection from the State, religions must be exposed to relentless criticism, like all non-rational traditions and beliefs. Some religions will survive this contest between tradition and modernity, between reason and revelation, as Christianity, Judaism and Islam have done for centuries. Islam is actually on the cusp right now. we'll see if they make it, or if they force us to wipe them out. Others, such as Marxism and Scientology, will fall by the wayside. In America, the Constitution, with its prohibition against the establishment of any state religion and its absolute defence of free speech, demands a robust competition between faith and reason and among the religions themselves. And in the end, as Americas surprising piety clearly shows, it is not just society but also religion that emerges stronger from the refiners fire of competition, criticism and even insult. The piety is only surprising to those who don't understand how destructive it is to a religion to be intertwined with the State.
The previous piece that the author refers to I read as an open expression of amazement that a country as truly wonderful and successful as the U.S. (and he gives lots of examples) would choose a boob like George W. Bush as its executive.
Interesting; Shiraq's dream is supposedly to have France regain its status by taking the lead in a "non-aligned countries" movement, with the USA as an opposed unifying force; hence the flirting with China, with Morales, with Chavez, with Zappy,... and the leaning toward the antiglobo forces; he is the first actual leftist french president, while he's supposedly a "conservative" (Shiraq = Eurabia + neogaullism + antiglobalization, cute). Anyway, french/EU tranzi elites truly see the USA/anglosaxons as the ultimate adversary and threat to their "model".
Some months ago, when Julien Dray, spokesman for the French Socialist Party, was asked what he thought of a certain speech by Jacques Chirac. "Frankly," Dray replied, "I don't even listen any more." In France, this has become a common response; the indifference to Chirac's views in fact spans the political spectrum. The massive rejection by the French of an EU "Constitution" that Chirac had strenuously promoted offering grim prophecies of disaster in the event of its failure made this indifference blatantly obvious. Chirac's disappearing act during the riots in the French banlieues last fall he did not even address the events publicly until the violence had already been under way for 10 days did nothing to restore his stature in the eyes of the French public. Nonetheless, when last month in what French journalist Luc Rosenzweig described as "a frantic effort to make us believe that he still exists" Chirac gave a much-trumpeted speech on French nuclear deterrence, the world's media took considerable notice.
This is all the more astonishing inasmuch as, barring success in a highly unlikely bid for a third term of office, Chirac is at this point, in effect, a lame-duck president. (In this connection, the media attention devoted to Chirac's improbable ramblings on nuclear deterrence provides a curious contrast to the virtual blackout reserved not only, needless to say, in the European media, but also most of the "old" American media for George Bush's recent series of speeches on the conduct of the war on Islamic terrorism.) In his speech, Chirac made frequent and characteristically pompous allusion to his executive powers in matters of defense: seemingly brandishing the threat of personally putting finger to button should he esteem that the circumstances require. If this is truly his wish, however, he has barely more than a year to do so. After that, his ideas on French nuclear deterrence will, for all practical purposes, be about as relevant as those of the present author. Thus, contrary to a headline in the International Herald Tribune, "France" did not by virtue of Chirac's speech "broaden its nuclear doctrine." Jacques Chirac is, after all, merely the President of the French Republic, not Louis XIV.
Virtually all the English-language coverage of Chirac's speech seized upon just two aspects: a grammatically jumbled set of three sentences seeming to suggest the possibility of a "non-conventional" response to a terrorist attack on French interests and, although Chirac did not mention any potential adversaries by name, what was taken to be an implicit threat to Iran. Chirac was thus cast incongruously, as will be seen momentarily in the role of an ally of the US, both in its war on Islamic terrorism as in its discordant relations with Iran's theocratic regime. Never mind that Chirac's apparent threat, as several commentators have pointed out, will only provide the Iranians with a high-profile pretext for continuing their presumptive push for nuclear weapons.
In fact, Chirac only introduced the theme of terrorism into his reflections in order to downplay its importance, thus leading one to wonder whether the otherwise mind-bending suggestion of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack might not have been merely the latest in a series of, as Rosenzweig put it, "presidential slips of the tongue." "The struggle against terrorism is one of our priorities," Chirac said, before adding: "But just because a new threat appears, it does not make all the other ones disappear." And while Chirac, under the heading of an emerging "regional power," seems indeed to have threatened to pulverize Iran, he also in the very same breath highlighted France's capacity to strike what he called a "major power." Indeed, the continuing potential for conflict with such "major powers" was at least as prominent a theme of Chirac's reflections as terrorism or merely "regional" powers. Chirac allowed that France "it is true" is not "at the moment" the object of a "direct" threat from any major power. But he made perfectly clear that, on his assessment, this situation could easily prove ephemeral and was thus no reason to let down one's nuclear guard.
This theme was, however, ignored seemingly even avoided in the English-language reports. Thus Chirac said:
We are in a position to inflict damage of all kinds on a major power that would want to attack interests we would regard as vital. Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction or annihilation. The flexibility and reactivity of our strategic forces would allow us to respond directly against its centers of power, its capacity to act.
And the Washington Post reported:
"Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction," Chirac said , "The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power."
Moreover, Chirac provided all the hints required for his audience to understand the identity of at least one of the "major powers" he had in mind: namely, the United States. Even Chirac's allusion to the threat to peace represented by countries "spreading radical ideas" about a "confrontation of civilizations" will after years of ideological conditioning associating Samuel Huntington's famous volume of roughly that name with US foreign policy be more readily understood by Chirac's French public as a reference to George Bush's America than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran. More to the point, consider the following passage:
Of course, it is not a foregone conclusion that the relations between the different "poles of power" will sink into hostility in the near future. It is, moreover, in order to meet this danger that we should work toward an international order founded on the rule of law and collective security, toward a more just and more representative order. And that we should encourage all our important partners to make the choice of cooperation rather than that of confrontation. But we are never completely safe: neither from a revolution in the international system, nor from a strategic surprise. All of history teaches us this.
No one conversant with Chirac's neo-Gaullist style of discourse could fail to hear the multiple allusions to the United States in the above. Just who, after all, is this ambiguously "important partner" that France has to encourage or even "obligate" [engager] to make the "choice of cooperation rather than confrontation"? The reference to the "poles of power" likewise leaves little room for doubt. "Poles of power" is a programmatic term of neo-Gaullist discourse. According to the latter, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and hence of the "bipolarity" characterizing the Cold War, the United States remained the single "pole of power" in a "unipolar" [sic] world. It is in order to correct this, in the neo-Gaullist vision of things, perilous situation that an independent European military capability has to be developed, thus rendering the EU itself an alternative "pole of power" to the United States. Not coincidentally, Chirac's speech ends with a plea for the development of just such a unified European military capability, at whose service he pledges to put France's nuclear forces. It is not only Chirac's rhetoric which, while emphasizing the increasing "imbrication" of the interests of the EU countries, carefully avoids mention of the transatlantic relation that makes clear the practical implications of this project for NATO. France's recent actions in blocking a planned NATO-EU meeting on anti-terrorism efforts does so as well.
Whereas the "old" American media remained resolutely obtuse to the point of Chirac's speech, evidently the French authorities themselves wanted it to be at least partially understood even by the American public. Thus, France's state-controlled AFP news service (for details of the AFP's relation to the French state, see here and here) issued its own English-language report on the speech. The AFP's helpful title: "Chirac's nuclear warning a signal to the US".
(Note: a complete English translation of Chirac's speech is provided on the official website of the French Presidency here. All citations in the above article have been translated by the author from the original French. Visitors to the latter page might notice the AFP logo/link in the lower left corner that graces it, as well as all the other French-language pages of the Presidential website.)
John Rosenthal's writings on international politics have appeared in Policy Review, the Opinion Journal, Les Temps Modernes and Merkur. He is the editor of the Transatlantic Intelligencer (www.trans-int.com). His email is jrgencer@yahoo.com.
#1
wow, he's sounding somewhat crazy if he really is threatening the US. Didnt we save his butt and his fathers butt, just last century. The EU, however is evolving.
Posted by: bk ||
02/08/2006 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I agree. Old Jacques seems to be getting a little soft in the head.
#3
Old Jacques seems to be getting a little soft in the head.
According to various sources, confidential letters, independent radios, citing revealing incidents (senile fixation on veal from the Corrèze area, misidentifying people, acting "strange",...), he really hasn't well recovered from his stroke... that's why an early presidential election may be likely in 2006 instead of 2007.
Yacoub Ben Shiraq's health and lucidity may not in top shape...
#6
If he's blowing about the US it is just a way to get the anti-American forces in Europe to join him in creating/leading the EU military and dump Nato.
Expanding the military is a good way to create jobs and increase national pride. Picking on the US is a sure way to get lefties to listen without having to risk much actual fallout.
In case you're short a hot topic tonight, Bill O'Reilly, take a look at the Moonbats San Francisco Board of Supervisors -- which is working up a resolution calling for the "full investigation, impeachment or resignation'' of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Overstepping their bounds a little
The Pennsylvania Avenue Pair's alleged crimes:
-- Waging an righteous unnecessary war in Iraq.
-- Authorizing hurt feelings torture of terrorist prisoners.
-- Failing to respond adequately to Hurricane Katrina. even though it was refused by chocoman Nagin and Blanko
-- And not to be forgotten -- ordering the secret wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant. like FDR, JFK, Slick Willie
San Francisco's ever-far left-leaning Supervisor Chris Daly placed the resolution on the board's consent calendar Tuesday -- but the matter was sent to committee at the request of Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who opposes the resolution. That ensures a roll-call vote when it eventually comes back to full board.
"I have more important things to do than to vote for President Bush's impeachment,'' Elsbernd said. indicating a nod to common sense
But from the looks of things, Elsbernd is in the minority. There appear to be more than enough supervisors lining up to pass the resolution.
"Absolutely -- I support it, '' said board President Aaron Peskin, who gave the resolution a quick first read when we phoned him.
"One of the fundamental tenets of a democratic society is the freedom of elected officials to express sentiments on behalf of their constituents,'' said North Beach's Peskin. "And I believe the sentiments expressed in this resolution are widely held by the voters of San Francisco." sometimes living here, amid the crap weasels, just makes my ass drag
Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, whose battles with Daly have been widely reported over the years, is also on board.
"I never thought in my lifetime I would see a form of fascism where the corporate powers have taken total control of the government,'' McGoldrick told us. you haven't unless you went to Cuba
Daly says he sponsored the resolution at the request of the San Francisco Democratic Central Committee, which passed an identical version a couple of weeks ago.
"I'm just being a typical good Democrat,'' he said, before hopping on his bike and riding off from City Hall.
For the record, San Francisco wouldn't be the first city to call for a Bush impeachment investigation. Back in September, on a 6-1 vote, the Santa Cruz City Council made a similar call.
#1
Personally, I'm a little annoyed that Bush has not built a pyramid of skulls on the White House lawn with the heads of dead jihadis, but I'm not sure that is an impeachable offense. Need to check the Constitution to be sure, though. It's been a while since 9th grade civics class.
#5
Funny how little the actual Constitution matters to the left, isn't it? I mean, they're fanatical about things that aren't there, but when it comes to the bits that are...
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/08/2006 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Thar bin lots-o-quakes recently. SanFran is still overdue for a biggy. If I was the SanFran BoS I wouldn't be making enemies esp. after watching Katrina recovery.
Why did the successful war in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein with a democracy lose the majority support of the American public? Despite steady U.S. military progress against jihadists, and the bold endorsement of peaceful self-rule by 11 million Iraqis, public approval was slowly eroded by an accumulation of hits: The initial looting in Baghdad, over-the-top reporting on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the incessant suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices, the two sieges of Fallujah, more than 2,000 American fatalities, and a re-energized and media-savvy anti-war movement.
#1
VDH seems to have gotten a a pessimism rant recently. It sounds like he's exhausted and defeated.
Certainly the troops don't feel that way and neither do the Iraqis (who are among the most optimistic people on the planet).
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
02/08/2006 19:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wow. Word. He sees the dangers - both without and within. I think he gets it - in spades.
Short attention spans plus individual ego plus endless and massively well-funded covert and overt attempts to subvert Freedom against itself can be fatal. That is what we face.
What VDH has always brought to the table, of course, is his incredible grasp of history - and the attendant lessons we can draw from it to bring today's situation(s) into focus. A debt is owed to this clear-eyed and even clearer-thinking man. We should also be grateful he isn't hamstrung by the usual array of personal itches that must be scratched. It sets his analysis apart from most.
The reference today to the frog placed in cold water is spot-on... but I can't help but disagree with the rest, cuz it just ain't so.
All of the evidence points in the other direction: Active & Passive Muzzies are, in practice, the same thing - the catalyst for the transformation (a witches' brew of peer pressure / threats / Muzzy First appeals / etc.) is mobile and, more or less, directed by those with the money from Saudi, Iran, and the faux Muzzy charities who seek the End Days and realization of Muzzy dominion. It can wear off after a time, but is easily reapplied when that resource is needed. Not one of the Mythical Moderate Muzzies will stand against a jihadi either in their face - or threatening from afar. This is what the evidence indicates, not the wishful thinking that is always raised by someone - and I won't speculate on their motives except to say that ego seems to be primary.
Arriving at a different conclusion, an ugly and unhappy conclusion, does not mean it was, or is, easy. I can't prove my motivations are above rebuke. I can only present my reasoning - intermediate proofs - and hope what I see as truthful and relevant data are accepted as consistent with the conclusion drawn. I do, however, demand (lol) that actual evidence is the only data that should be included or allowed. Adding other components, those touchy-feely bits that are demanded by PCism, taints the result, rendering it useless. I think doing so is ego-driven as we all have a world-view and, obviously, consider it the correct one, or we'd change it assuming we could swallow the implications - real or imagined. I suggest that some cannot do this and, thus, continue to parade nicey-nice palatable views which do not reflect reality - to the danger of us all. Hey, go figure, eh? If this little dustup with Islam wasn't for all the marbles, not just some brownie points or a bet payoff, I'd say more power to 'em. But this is for all the marbles, so I can't let it go that easily.
Once I would've said Fry 'Em Up and, in fact I did, but it was sorta memed and, as is the case with anything reduced to a sound byte, twisted and perverted here 'n there. S'okay, such is everyone's right in a free society - as is the right to call bullshit, when discovered. Now, well, I don't much care, anymore what anyone thinks of me or my views. People see what they want to see - as Paul Simon said so well in The Boxer - based upon their personal demons, angels, ego, insecurities, etc. Then, erroneously and to the danger of us all, that active Western mind gets to work applying carefully crafted, totally and utterly irrelevant, logic that has nothing to do with Muzzies... and the inevitable projection that follows becomes a little movie - and presented with (almost desperate) hope for good reviews. Lol, don't we all? Yeah, we do. Everybody loves an attaboy. But accepting one based upon false dilemmas, strawman silliness, omissions of truth, logic processes which are of no account, etc, should give us pause... those of us who still possess the ability to feel shame know what I mean. Those who have lost this sense, who are partisan hacks who've abandoned all pretense of honor, are easily spotted and, I hope, lampooned until banned for trolling.
Hokay... fig leaf: It's not that I don't appreciate sterling examples of fine logic, I do, but they just have no bearing upon the situation cuz the Muzzies don't think that way. [Most of the proof for this is written down in their own Holy Book, saving me the need to prove it and demanding that those who disagree get off their asses and do some research and self-reeducation.] Go figure, lol... So, while on one hand I applaud these little gems of How Things Should Go From Here for their Western Logic beauty, I almost giggle at the narcissistic Pollyanna arrogance - and suspension of disbelief required - to post them, much less to expect others to extol them. Tis PC-addled CogDis and would be a laughable self-indulgence - were it not so damned dangerous.
Hey, sorry, no - really I am sorry - but reality trumps -- always. The fact is we've been over this ground hundreds of times. I'm about done, in fact. I'll say that the convergence of the enemies of freedom, an odd alliance but certainly one of convenience, at this point in time has made the task of survival much more difficult... they've been smart enough to focus on the one guy, Dubya, who has the will and the authority to protect us within the reality of the constitution. Yeah, he's playing the game and doing some things far too slowly to suit some of us. Just keep reality firmly in mind when dissing him for his failures.
Some of the opponents of freedom are natives and know hundreds of ways, well-intentioned loopholes and vulnerabilities of an open and free society, to hamstring our efforts to stave off implosion. These are actually far more dangerous to us. I do not doubt that we can defeat the external threats - as long as we have the will... and, of course, that's where the real danger lies.
Much posturing has occurred. Much finger-wagging. Much snarking. Within this bubble, Rantburg, we're doing okay, I guess, fending off the idiocies, both external and internal. But... I've sorta given up on revisiting the same old ground endlessly, making the same arguments endlessly, paying the honor of a civil reply to old arguments which, IMO, have been eviscerated numerous times, paying the honor of a reply to the willfully disingenuous and the trolls. Anyone who honestly wonders at my take, can hit the archives.
Fuck that noise. I've gone all the way to the wall. And I'm carvin' my name in that fucker for all time, lol.
#3
.com: "It's not that I don't appreciate sterling examples of fine logic, I do, but they just have no bearing upon the situation cuz the Muzzies don't think that way."
It's not just the Muzzies. It's the Gores, Kerrys, Clintons, Kennedys... It's the Sheehans, Tolls, Wilsons/Plames, the NYTs, the WaPos... It's the Galloways, Annans, Chiracs... Every last one of them deserves a sentence of life under Sharia law. But, ultimately, leaders of freedom and intelligence and conviction like Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld and Bolton will take the hard road necessary to make civilization prevail in spite of all the rest. It's a hard road not too far ahead, no thanks those who deserve Sharia.
#4
Lol - point taken, Darrell - nice catch! And they are the first, and foremost, real threat - and must be dealt with before they succeed in destroying us from within. :-)
#5
You lose wars when you don't understand how to win them. First you settle the issue with a full blown civil war to clear out any ambiguity, then you kill the foreign SOBs.
If its important enough to fight overthere, its important enough to really fight here. Like when you pass a declaration of war, you enforce the treason and sedition laws. The cowardly behavior of the MSM demonstrated by the cartoons shows that a real threat backed up with real negative consequences causes them to pause and reflect on whether to aid and abet during time of war.
#2
I clicked through out of curiosity but found the International Solidarity Movement Instead of International Slaughter Movement. If I'd known the joke was a joke it might have worked, as is I found it annoying. Just a little bit of text in the body would have been nice.
Now onto the site. Nice graphics. Amazes me that it took this long for such a site to be made.
The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise; Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.
More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy an immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones; are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?
Germanys Die Welt newspaper hinted at this issue in an editorial: The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet. Nor, by the way, have imams protested the stomping on the Christian cross embedded in the Danish flag.
The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published the cartoons, explains that if Muslims insist that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, they're asking for my submission.
Precisely. Robert Spencer rightly calls on the free world to stand resolutely with Denmark. The informative Brussels Journal asserts, We are all Danes now.
Some governments get it:
· Norway: we will not apologize because in a country like Norway, which guarantees freedom of expression, we cannot apologize for what the newspapers print, commented Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.
· Germany: Why should the German government apologize [for German papers publishing the cartoons]? This is an expression of press freedom, said Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble.
· France: Political cartoons are by nature excessive. And I prefer an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship, commented Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.
Other governments wrongly apologized:
· Poland: the bounds of properly conceived freedom of expression have been overstepped, stated Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz.
· United Kingdom: the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong, said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
· New Zealand: gratuitously offensive, Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton called the cartoons.
· United States: "Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable, said State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus.
Strangely, as Old Europe finds its backbone, the Anglosphere quivers. So awful was the U.S. government reaction, it actually won the endorsement of the countrys leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This should come as no great surprise, however, for Washington has a history of treating Islam preferentially; and on two earlier occasions it also faltered in cases of insults concerning Muhammad.
In 1989, Salman Rushdie came under a death edict from Ayatollah Khomeini for satirizing Muhammad in his magical-realism novel, The Satanic Verses. Rather than stand up for the novelists life, President George H.W. Bush equated The Satanic Verses and the death edict, calling both offensive. Secretary of State James A. Baker III termed the edict merely regrettable.
Even worse, in 1997 when an Israeli woman distributed a poster of Muhammad as a pig, the U.S. government shamefully abandoned its protection of free speech. On behalf of President Bill Clinton, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns called the woman in question either sick or evil and stated that She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam. The State Department endorses a criminal trial for protected speech? Stranger yet was the context of this outburst; as I noted at the time, having combed through weeks of State Department briefings, I found nothing approaching this vituperative language in reference to the horrors that took place in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands lost their lives. To the contrary, Mr. Burns was throughout cautious and diplomatic.
Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically-abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples. They might start by reading the forthcoming book by Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale).
Peoples who would stay free must stand unreservedly with Denmark.
#1
Violence Escalates over Cartoons
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
02/08/2006 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Phooey, BrerRabbit beat me to it.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
02/08/2006 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If you cant say something nice dont say anything at all... didnt we learn that in Kindergarten?
No, Thumpers mom said it.
Posted by: bk ||
02/08/2006 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published the cartoons, explains that if Muslims insist that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, they're asking for my submission.
Well, that is the central issue, isn't it?
To put all this in an easy-access context: what if the Roman Catholic Church were insisting on censorship and submission, and Italians, Poles, Americans, and Latin Americans were rioting all over the world, burning embassies and the like? Would people/governments/newspapers/media be so quick to support them? Would anyone even stand for it? Put a frog in cold water and heat it up. Lessons from history . . .
#6
"Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published the cartoons, explains that if Muslims insist that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, they're asking for my submission.
Of course they are; Islam means submission.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/08/2006 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Strangely, as Old Europe finds its backbone, the Anglosphere quivers. So awful was the U.S. government reaction, it actually won the endorsement of the countrys leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
If CAIR is approves of our government's actions, you know that we've gone well off of the rails. This is why I posted about Bush's faith based sandbag coming home to roost. Denigrating our constitutional right to free expression for the sake of appeasing a bunch of violent thugs is worse than stupid, it is dangerous. Our government needs to reverse its stance immediately.
It certainly doe. And the only choice islam is giving us is:
1) Do as I say or I will kill you
or
2) Do as I say or take you to Sharia court. Who will sentence you to death.
They don't see the hypocracy in their demands for "blasphemy" abject punishement. it's only islamic blasphemy that's objected to.
How much longer until the gen pop sees this ( the LLL never will)?
#9
DARE WORLD CARTOON MAKERS NEED MOTHER CINDY AND HER COMMIE AIRBORNE = OWG UNO PEACEKEEPING FORCES? ANN COULTER's new article belabels those Islamists whom desire unilateral appeasement andor concession vv TOON/HAIR-GATE as "Liberals" -well, so like the Lefties the Radics want and prefer asymmetric war and OWG = Global Caliphate? as fought for in the streets, elex and espec the Chambers of Congress. An important Israeli ambassador argues that IRAN must be stopped by the end of Y2006, whereas REGIMECHANGE. IRAN believes that Iran will proceed wid testing for both its missle and nuke devprogs. Others on the Net argue that Iran already has fission-type nuke bombs/devices. REMEMBER, THE BEST OF AMERICA'S ENEMIES ARE ALREADY CENTRALIZED, MILITARIZED, NUCLEARIZED, AND MARTIALIZED, whilest even the US DemoLeft in reality wants America to maintain its all-Volunteer Army at the same time its PC criticizing Bush and the Fed to expand and spend more, i.e. AMERICA LOSES WHETHER IT WAGES WAR OR NOT, AND LOSES WHETHER ACTING UNILATERALLY OR IN COALITION, .......FOR DOING TOO MUCH = DOING TOO LITTLE, etc. Dubya will be criticized regardless iff the USA has a draft or doesn't have a draft as per WW1, WW2, Korea 1, and Vietnam. Iran = North Korea > are wilfully and deliberately pushing the USA and world towards anti-USA "nuclear brinkmanship" ala my own adage "Iff America does NOT attack and wage war, America will be attacked and warred against, by any means necessary". The USDOD must be ready for SYRIA, IRAN, NORTH KOREA, and TAIWAN, and lest we fergit CUBA. THE DEMS-LEFTIRES HAVE NO PROBS WITH FASCIST AMERICA WAGING WAR(S) AS LONG AS A COMMUNIST, ANTI-SOVEREIGN, WEAK SSR AMERIKA IS THE FINAL OUTCOME.
#1
This guy looks real bright, you really see a spark in his eyes... must be a great asset to the Us and more globally western intelligence community. I feel much safer already.
National Review's Jim Greaghty, who lives in Turkey, had this to say about the cartoon riots yesterday:
Im gonna say this again, in one more attempt to break through to those who have e-mailed in to inform me that Ive gone native and am embracing dhimmitude.
The initial cartoons were insensitive, provocative, disrespectful, rude, and perfectly legal. Everyone whos offended by a cartoon has a right to demonstrate, boycott, and express their disapproval in a legal manner. Threats cross the line. Riots cross the line. Burning down embassies not only crosses a line, but constitutes an act of war.
This issue is marked by the phenomenon of drawing conclusions about large groups of people based on the actions of a smaller sample. Extremist Muslims are concluding that because one cartoonist did something they find offensive, they can retaliate against any Dane, European, Westerner or Christian. Certain Westerners, including some of my readers, are looking at the violent actions of Muslims on television and concluding, This is Islam. Theres no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Theres only the rabid, maniacal, homicidal psychotics, and the more polite, patient or lazy ones.
I dont know what to do next. There seems to be an awful lot of enthusiasm for an all-out Huntingtonian Clash of Civilizations its Apocalypse Now, Armagideon time, lets Ragnarok and Roll. Maybe non-Muslims patience with the Muslim world, four years and change after 9/11, has run out. Id hate to see this; I dont want to believe that the worlds one billion Muslims are my enemy, irredeemable, incapable of coexisting with the values of the West. A signifigant number of Moslems are friendlies--in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Lebanon, not to mention the young Iranians who want the mullahs gone. It's east to forget that sometimes.
A significant chunk of the public is tired of half-measures. I hope our leaders are picking up on this, and can come up with some wise course of action.
In a followup post today, he cites some pretty ferocious reactions by Fred Barnes, Michael Medved, and the RedState community:
These are not the reactions of bigots or haters. These are the reactions of men and women whose patience is exhausted. . . .
Maybe when you see a thug in training carrying a sign saying Islam will dominate at Ground Zero in Manhattan, its the straw that breaks the camels back. As a Red State contibutor said, Not there. Not ever.
I know, from my experiences, that there are significant numbers of Muslims who have no beef with the West, who want to live the American dream, who can practice their faith and coexist with other religions. Ive documented their efforts to take back their faith from the bin Ladens of the world. But apparently they are too quiet.
I wonder how many Muslims understand how the actions of the embassy-torching maniacs define their faith to so many. I wonder how many dont know, how many dont care, and how many do know and care but are too scared of the consequences to stand against the violence committed in their name. Im trying to articulate my positive experiences with Muslims over here to my readers, but its not as powerful and penetrating an image as screaming lunatics burning down embassies and threatening to behead anyone who they believe has insulted them. And frankly, Im not all that wowed with the reaction of moderate Muslims. Im not sure how much further I want to stick my neck out defending a faith community that wont loudly and firmly police or rebuke its own members.
Its depressing, but maybe we've got to go through this... delaying a clash might be just postponing the inevitable...
Posted by: Mike ||
02/08/2006 12:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yah, they weren't targeting 5 million Danes; it is OUR throats that the Muslimutt swine are after. Write them off.
#2
And frankly, Im not all that wowed with the reaction of moderate Muslims. Im not sure how much further I want to stick my neck out defending a faith community that wont loudly and firmly police or rebuke its own members.
Amen.
The "Fox Turns Chicken" thread at Blair's site is a watershed, IMHO. A self-proclaimed moderate Muslim, raised in a Western country, explaining that she simply will not condemn terrorist groups. Terrorism; yes. If she knows 100% for certain that someone commited a terrorist act, sure -- but then she's already denied believing bin Laden's admission to his role in 9/11 is real.
As a Muslim, she feels it is beyond her to judge another Muslim. She would not even harshly judge a Muslim who joins a group involved in terrorism.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/08/2006 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"You go with what you know." All I know of islam is it's violence, bigotry and a egotistical superiority complex. I haven't seen anything else. If it's a religion of moderation and peace where is the moderation and peace?
#5
The "cartoon Jihad" is one of the best opportunities for us to unmask the large number of terrorist supporters who up until now have hidden behind a mask of reasonableness, while still hypocritically backing the fanatics.
Our intelligence people must be working overtime cataloging the thousands of new hostile faces that have suddenly been illuminated--and done so in a way that accomplishes absolutely nothing!
That's right, the Islamists have handed us another major victory by exposing much of their infrastructure. An infrastructure that can now be undermined, surveilled, observed and interfered with.
A TIPPING POINT ON ISLAMS REPUTATION [02/08 06:39 AM]
I stand by my reaction of the past couple days. But Ive also come to a depressing conclusion.
A significant chunk of the American public, including a number of prominent thinkers on the right, have concluded that the problem with Islam is Islam.
#7
and how many do know and care but are too scared of the consequences to stand against the violence committed in their name.
And that's the problem. they won't speak out. They're fightened and have given in to what they feel is "inevitable." such brave moderates would prefer that infidels pull them out of this mess - leaving them blameless. If the west doesn't win, then they will submit as they have done before.
Inshallah. Dead has paradise. It's Win Win for doing nothing but wait for the winner and submit.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
