Tests for unconscious racism will only benefit bureaucrats, says Theodore Dalrymple
Psychologists at the London Metropolitan University want to do during the reign of Elizabeth II what Elizabeth I did not desire to do during hers: make windows into men's souls.
They are devising subtle tests to sniff out the hidden racism of job applicants. Like the esteemed blog owner (sucking noises) writes, it's subliminal racism, you need to be professional to detect it.
They are not looking for the kind of racists who wear their prejudices on their sleeve or, worse, behave in an openly and violently racist way.
They are seeking out those who claim not to be racist yet who hold racial stereotypes in their mind, not even consciously. We are back to the days, it seems, of the witch-hunt and the Inquisition.
There are three assumptions behind the research: first, that the holding of any stereotypes is necessarily based upon prejudice and not upon empirical evidence about real differences between groups; second, that the existence of any kind of stereotype in a person's mind leads directly to bad behaviour; and third, that the prejudice that such stereotyping implies is the worst thing that can befall any group of people.
To stereotype can be destructive, but not to stereotype can be stupid. If you were walking down a dark alley, would you be more worried by an old lady with a Zimmer frame or a couple of young men in hoodies? To walk out into the world without stereotypes is impossible.
Not all stereotypes are bad, nor do all lead to action. The idea that they must do so is to undermine a belief in the capacity of people to exercise self-control.
Finally, it might even be that the existence of mild prejudice against groups, far from inhibiting their efforts, actually spurs them to achievement.
The beneficiaries of the research will not be minorities, of course, but the people who administer the tests. How pleasant and profitable to be the moral arbiters of employment!
#2
The unintentionally hilarious irony of it is, that if such a test was honest, and it won't be, they would quickly discover that liberals who fawn over and elevate minorities are *far* more racist than those who are indifferent to them.
People who make a point of racial differences for any reason are inherently racists, even if they think they are opposing racism. The issue is not *real* differences, based on empirical evidence.
That is very dependent on circumstances. Black men wearing suits and ties are generally seen as far less threatening than those dressed as a street gang, by everyone, even other black people.
In the case of liberals it is often based in an inferiority complex that seeks out those who the liberal can look down on. But they abhor dealing with their inferiors as individuals, as that would inevitably lead to the conclusion that some of those "inferiors" aren't so inferior.
American liberals really fall in love with the most stereotypical examples of a minority group. For example, Tracy Chapman was a magnificent example of a poor, downtrodden, needy, humble black woman. They loved her.
But at the same time they hate Condoleeza Rice, because there is no, zero doubt that she as superior to them as she is to lobsters. There is no way in hell they can be better than her at anything, so they bitterly deride her, and in the most racist of terms.
Europe is in the middle of a three-way culture war, between the defenders of traditional Judeo-Christian morality, the proponents of secular hedonism and the forces of Islamic Jihadism. In Western Europe, the fight between Christians and secularists is all but over. The secularists have won. Now, the religious vacuum left by the demise of Christianity is being filled by the Muslims. Since one cannot fight something with nothing, the European secularists are no match for Islam.
Meanwhile, the dark forces of secularism, such as the European Union (EU), are waging war in Central and Eastern Europe, where they target countries such as Poland, Slovakia and the Baltic states.
On April 25, the European Parliament (EP), the EU's legislature, adopted a resolution condemning "homophobia." With 325 votes against 124 and 150 abstentions, the EP warned Poland that it will face sanctions if it adopts a law barring the promotion of homosexuality in schools. Churches, too, were reprimanded for "fermenting hatred and violence [against homosexuals]." Poland's prime minister, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, commented on the resolution: "Nobody is limiting gay rights in Poland. However, if we're talking about not having homosexual propaganda in Polish schools... such propaganda should not be in schools." Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice retorted: "There is no homophobia in the Catholic Church and it is time that all this [recrimination of Christians in the European Parliament] ended."
It is not likely to end. The fight against "intolerance" -- i.e. adherence to traditional Christian morality -- is intensifying. On May 3, the European Court of Human Rights found Polish President Lech Kaczynski guilty of violating human rights because he banned a "gay pride" parade in Warsaw in 2005. Last March, the same court ordered Poland to compensate a woman who was denied an abortion. Last year, Poland was denounced by the Council of Europe because it prohibited the distribution in schools of a leaflet about homosexuality.
When Poland joined the EU in May 2004, it did so on condition that "no EU treaties or annexes to those treaties would hamper the Polish government in regulating moral issues or those concerning the protection of human life." However, in January 2006 the European Parliament called for "tough action" against Poland and the Baltic states, while Franco Frattini, the EU justice commissioner, warned that the EU has powers under Article 13 of the EU Treaty to combat homophobia. The move came after Latvia included an amendment in its constitution that restricts marriage to a man and a woman, and Estonia proposed similar legislation. Some members of the European Parliament have called for punishing Poland and the Baltic states by suspending their voting rights in EU councils.
In February 2006, the EU brought down the government of Slovakia, another Christian country in Central Europe, after EU legal experts rejected a Slovak proposal which guaranteed that doctors and nurses in Slovakia would not be obliged to "perform artificial abortions, artificial or assisted fertilizations, experiments with or handling of human organs, human embryos or human sex cells, euthanasia, cloning, sterilizations, [and] acts connected with contraception."
The EU experts ruled that doctors should sometimes be forced to perform abortions, even if they have conscientious objections, because the right to abort a child is an "international human right," while the right to conscientious objection is not "unlimited." The experts stated that assisted suicide and same-sex marriage are also among the basic human rights.
Indeed, in Western Europe Christians no longer enjoy the right of conscientious objection. In 2001, Nynke Eringa, a civil servant in the Dutch town of Leeuwarden, was fired because she refused to perform same-sex marriages, recently legalized in the Netherlands. In 2004, her dismissal was annulled because the town had made procedural errors when she was sacked.
The authorities have since decided that conscientious objection can only be claimed by civil servants who were already in office before 2001, while those employed after the legalization of same-sex marriages cannot refuse to marry homosexuals. This means that access to jobs in the civil service, which involve performing registry office marriages, is effectively denied to Christians. Similarly, in some Western European countries today Christians are effectively excluded from medical professions by a requirement that they participate in abortions during their studies.
Even freedom of speech has been restricted. Last year, a French court convicted Christian Vanneste, a member of the French Parliament for the governing UMP party, because he had said that "heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality." Btw, he wasn't sued for the speech he made at the assembly itself, which was a moral and philosophical point of view (Vanneste is not a mouth-breathing bigot, but a philosophy teacher and a writer), but for a quote he made of it while answering a trick question by a journalist-with-an-agenda afterward. Amusingly enough, he was the 1st victim of an anti-discrimination law passed to "protect homosexuals", motivated by an hate-crime (a young homosexual burned to death) which eventually turned out to be a messy suicide covered up as an hate-crime by his companion.
Mr. Vanneste was sentenced to a fine of $4,000, plus $4,000 in "damages" to the homosexual activists who had taken him to court, on the basis of the 2004 French law criminalizing "homophobia."
In 1954, Karl Popper warned that the "moral framework" is the most important safeguard of a society because it "serves as a basis which makes it possible to reach a fair or equitable compromise between conflicting interests where this is necessary. It is, of course, itself not unchangeable, but it changes comparatively slowly. Nothing is more dangerous than the destruction of this traditional framework, as it was consciously aimed at by Nazism. In the end its destruction will lead to cynicism and nihilism, i.e. to the disregard and the dissolution of all human values."
Paul Belien is editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.
#2
The secular hedonists are winning in an insidious way. Their God is "political correctness." Fighting the tyranny of PC is nearly as difficult as rooting out stateless terrorists. Political correctness is rotting Western civilization from the inside out. If islam wins out, there will, indeed, be no historians and civilization will return to somewhere around the 7th century. You will either be islamic or subservient to islam. Culture and its symbols will be erased just as happened when the Taliban blew up the Bhuddists statues in Afghanistan.
#3
JohnQC, this time around the various emirs, sheiks, and ordinary bandit chiefs will have WMD. Maybe a few million years down the road there will be chimp (call me a male chauvinist pig, but I don't think bonobos have a chance) historians.
Posted by: George Orwell ||
05/23/2007 22:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
JohnQC, this time around the various emirs, sheiks, and ordinary bandit chiefs will have WMD. Maybe a few million years down the road there will be chimp (call me a male chauvinist pig, but I don't think bonobos have a chance) historians.
Posted by: George Orwell ||
05/23/2007 22:21 Comments ||
Top||
This is the American left's version of what strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Pervez Musharraf call "managed democracy." The "marketplace of ideas" can be trusted to work--so long as everyone agrees with them. But if the public obstinately persists in disagreeing with the left, then the marketplace of ideas must have been "broken" by meddling troublemakers like Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove--and we know how to "fix" those guys, don't we?
More broadly, this is what the left has traditionally meant by "reason." For decades, the left has dominated the intelligentsia: the media, the universities, and the other institutions that provide credentials for "experts"--another term Al Gore has been harping on. This leads the left to act as if the latest consensus among its favored experts--whether it be the superiority of socialized medicine or the imminent threat of global warming--must be what every "rational" and well-informed person thinks, because it is the consensus of the elite.
Thus "reason," as Al Gore uses the term, refers to the ability of the leftist elite to impose its conventional dogmas on the national debate, without the need to persuade or convince others.
In reality, a genuine respect for reason starts with an absolute respect for the mind and judgment of the individual. A respect for reason requires the subordination of coercion to persuasion through the strict limitation of government power. A respect for reason requires a commitment to liberty above all else.
Al Gore stands for the exact opposite. His environmentalist crusade is dedicated to the suppression of the material products of the human mind--our advanced industry and technology. And now, in his new book, he is promoting a rationalization for the suppression of free political debate.
To do this while billing himself as a defender of reason is an act of supreme insolence.
Fears stoked by the post-9/11 "war on terror" are increasingly dividing the world, Amnesty International said Wednesday, while rapping rights abuses from China to Darfur and Russia to the Middle East.
The gap between Muslims and non-Muslims notably deepened, fueled by discriminatory counter-terrorism strategies in Western countries, warned the rights group in its annual report.
Human rights are also routinely flouted in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the front line of the US-led crackdown on international extremism since the September 11, 2001 attacks which triggered a profound geopolitical shift.
"The politics of fear is fueling a downward spiral of human rights abuse in which no right is sacrosanct and no person safe," said Amnesty International chief Irene Kahn.
"The 'war on terror' and the war in Iraq, with their catalogue of human rights abuses, have created deep divisions that cast a shadow on international relations," making it harder to resolve conflicts and protect civilians.
The 320-page report, covering rights abuses worldwide in 2006, focused particular attention on violence against women, as well as torture, terror and the death penalty, which Amnesty fiercely opposes.
While noting that 144 states have ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, it documented abuse and ill-treatment by security forces in 102 states worldwide.
The US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay came in for particular criticism: Amnesty said 400 detainees from more than 30 countries are still held in what it called "the public symbol of the injustices in the 'war on terror.'"
As for violence against women, it said one in three women is subjected to intimate abuse by a partner during their lifetime, while 70 percent of casualties in recent conflicts are civilians -- mostly women and children.
Regional conflicts around the globe provide the context for much of the abuse documented in the report.
Sudan's Darfur region is near the top of areas for particular concern.
"Darfur is a bleeding wound on world conscience," said its authors, adding that the UN Security Council "is hampered by distrust and double-dealing of its most powerful members."
Last year's war between Israel and Lebanon brought shame on the international community, with the United Nations taking "weeks ... to muster the will to call for a ceasefire" in a conflict which saw 1,200 civilians killed.
In Iraq "the worst practices of Saddam (Hussein)'s regime -- torture, unfair trials, capital punishment and rape with impunity -- remained very much alive" last year, it said.
Russia has seen "widespread" hate crimes against foreigners, while Roma suffer "rampant" exclusion around Europe "illustrating the blatant failure of leadership to combat racism and xenophobia."
Elsewhere the report condemned clampdowns on human rights defenders in China, Zimbabwe and Iran, "repression" in Egypt, and a "potential threat" to free speech in the form of new counter-terrorism laws in Britain.
Specifically, the report identified "an arc of instability" extending from the borders of Pakistan to the Horn of Africa, where armed groups were flexing their muscles.
"Unless governments address the grievances on which these groups feed, unless they provide effective leadership to bring these groups to account ... the prognosis for human rights is dire," said Khan.
But the US-led "war on terror" provided an over-arching theme of the report's criticism.
"Five years after 9/11, new evidence came to light in 2006 of the way in which the US administration treated the world as one giant battlefield for its 'war on terror,'" said Khan, singling out "extraordinary renditions" which also implicated countries including Italy, Pakistan, Germany and Kenya.
"Ill-conceived counter-terrorism strategies have done little to reduce the threat of violence or ensure justice for victims of terrorism but much to damage human rights and the rule of law globally," she added.
#6
The US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay came in for particular criticism: Amnesty said 400 detainees from more than 30 countries are still held in what it called "the public symbol of the injustices in the 'war on terror.'"
But the jihadi rape and torture rooms, the fates of infidels that have fallen into their hands, and the plans the jihadis have for the world?
Eh. That won't bring in money for AI.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
05/23/2007 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
If we believe the spin of Associated Press headline writers, theres little cause for concern about a new Pew poll of American Muslims. Most U.S. Muslims reject suicide bombings, the AP headline writer blithely reports.
But the details of the poll show that the always-downplayed tiny minority of jihadi sympathizers in America is cause for big concern. The poll found that while 80 percent of U.S. Muslims believe suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam cannot be justified, fully 13 percent said they can be justified, at least rarely. One in four younger American Muslims find suicide bombings in defense of Islam acceptable at least in some circumstances.
About 29 percent of those surveyed had either favorable views about al Qaeda or did not express an opinion. Yes, they either gave al Qaeda thumbs-up or had no opinion about the terrorist group responsible for slaughtering nearly 3,000 of their fellow Americans on 9/11 and responsible for a global bloodbath from Bali to Britain, the Middle East, and beyond.
Continued on Page 49
When Democratic leaders dropped their demand for a withdrawal timeline this week, it was more than being outmaneuvered in negotiations. They left the president in firm possession of the moral high ground.
Only a short time ago, Democrats were cockily promising they would send the president a pullout bill as many times as it would take, until finally he would have to relent. Just last Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were insisting on a timeline in negotiations with the White House on a war funding bull.
But the tables have now been turned on congressional Democrats. All of a sudden, it is they who face a deadline: If Congress does not manage to pass a war spending bill that the president is willing to sign before the Memorial Day recess, Democrats become vulnerable to the charge of refusing to fund our combat troops.
And so, faced with the president's famous "stubbornness" (so often portrayed as a character flaw by liberal Democrats and the media establishment), Democratic leaders have been forced to blink, dropping their insistence that war funding be linked to a troop withdrawal timeline even a nonbinding one.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and others who pander to the party's liberal base are blasting the Pelosi-Reid cave- in. "Congress should send the same bill back to him again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home," Edwards said in a statement.
Democrats now have plans for a bill amenable to the president that would fund our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan up to the end of the fiscal year, a little more than four months from now. A minimum wage increase is likely to be included in the legislation.
This loss of nerve on the part of Reid and Pelosi amounts to a significant blow to Democrats for at least two reasons:
Disunity in the Democrats' ranks. After portraying the congressional elections that brought them into power last year as a referendum on the Iraq War, those in charge of the new Democratic Congress cannot deliver a withdrawal, and have no stomach for repeated presidential vetoes of their funding cut-off bills.
Consequently, many of the 73 Democratic House members who make up California Rep. Maxine Waters' Out of Iraq Caucus have already begun to revolt against the Democratic leadership, announcing they will not vote for a bill not containing a deadline.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, also from California and a caucus co-founder, warned that "This is a Republican bill, so it better be Republican votes that pass it."
Hard-core war opponents in Congress may soon be heard attacking Democratic leaders as much as they do the White House.
Defeat is not a winning issue. Confronted with a president who will not back down in his support for victory in Iraq, it is now obvious the Democrats who run Congress are afraid to take him on toe-to-toe.
For all their rhetoric during last year's campaign about it being the will of the American people to cut and run, Pelosi and Reid were unwilling to make an explicit attempt to use Congress' power of the purse to follow through on their promises.
With Congress' poll ratings falling below 30% and registering lower than President Bush's, Pelosi and Reid may doubt the American public would be with them in trying to force a pullout.
It leaves the president looking committed and determined in his beliefs, while congressional leaders appear afraid to stand behind their own policies. Meanwhile, the liberal rank and file grow increasingly restless.
If nothing else, Pelosi's and Reid's concession gives Bush some political breathing space as America races against time to win in Iraq.
#1
. . . many of the 73 Democratic House members who make up California Rep. Maxine Waters' I [heart] Osama! Out of Iraq Caucus have already begun to revolt against the Democratic leadership, announcing they will not vote for a bill not containing a deadline. . . . Hard-core war opponents in Congress may soon be heard attacking Democratic leaders as much as they do the White House.
The Dems have shown remarkable ability to hold their noses and do what they need to hold power tactical discipline, but there's a simmering tension between the moonbats (Kos/DU) and the governing elite (Harry/Nancy) that could explode into fratricide. I hope it does, anyway. Red-on-red is always such fun to watch.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/23/2007 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Investors Business Daily has a wonderful editorial department, in its own way as good as that of the Wall Street Journal, I believe. And a readership desirable beyond mere advertising eyeballs...
#3
Democracy is such a fragile thing and these idiots are taking for granted that they can toy with our nation in an all or nothing manner. The fabric of democracy is like rice paper, not dragon skin, and trampling on it will damage it forever. Reid, Pelosie, and Murtha have the potential to tear this nation apart if they trigger the right events. All three need to take a hard look into their souls to see where they are taking this country.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/23/2007 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You're assuming they have souls, Pan.
That's mighty optimistic of you....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/23/2007 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Ya Barb, I know it's a stretch.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/23/2007 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
Of course the MSM is silent now. This bit of positive news can't be spun to fit their defeatist agenda. Stories about vets coming home with increased psychological problems, recovering from massive injuries or tearful stories about how a soldier's family is coping with their loss will always be center stage for the vermin we refer to as the 'media'.
Notice too, that when a soldier is killed, the media never include anything positive about the soldier's mission, successes or purpose in the field of battle. This is not a coincidence. The media's agenda is to convince the public that all Iraq losses are pointless, serving no use, garnering no benefit. At which point they invite us to wonder what in the hell are we doing in Iraq.
Kunduz, northern Afghanistan: A series of suicide attacks against civilians and NATO forces break the calm the city has enjoyed since 2002.
Tripoli, northern Lebanon: A little-known terrorist group called Fatah al-Islam (Victory of Islam) attacks the Lebanese army from a Palestinian refugee camp, breaking the peace that the city has enjoyed since 1990.
Mandali, eastern Iraq: Terrorists dressed in military uniforms go on a rampage, killing dozens of civilians, blowing up a few buildings and ending the peace that the city had enjoyed since May 2003.
Jask Peninsula, the Gulf of Oman: Small, unidentified boats harass a unit of Task Force 150, the 21-nation flotilla charged with a U.N. mission of stopping arms-smuggling into the Gulf region.
Gaza: Unknown gunmen break a cease-fire accord worked out by Saudi Arabia between Hamas and Fatah, triggering what looks like a burgeoning Palestinian civil war. At the same time, Islamic Jihad, which was not a party to the Mecca accord, resumes rocket attacks against Israel.
What's interesting about all these incidents is that none involved the usual suspects. Start with Kunduz, the only Pushtun-majority city in northern Afghanistan. The attacks it has seen in recent days did not come from the Taliban, which has never had a real base of support there. The culprit was Hizb Islami, a Pushtun radical group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. And where does Hekmatyar operate from? He has been protected, armed and financed by Tehran since 1992.
What about Mandali? This Shiite-majority city has enjoyed the reputation of being the calmest place in Iraq since liberation. It's virtually impossible for al Qaeda or any other Sunni terror outfit to enter it without being spotted immediately. So how did a terror unit manage to come, kill and flee? Well, Mandali is close to the border with Iran, and it was in that direction that the terrorists escaped after their murderous operation.
As for Tripoli, the stronghold of Lebanon's Sunni Muslim community, it's unlikely that the terror group could find a genuine base within the local population. Fatah al-Islam, a recent actor on the Leb- anese scene, consists almost exclusively of non-Lebanese Arab fighters.
So how did these men get into Lebanon? Well, Lebanon has two neighbors: Israel and Syria. It's not hard to imagine how these guys got to Tripoli. And is it possible that someone in Damascus would want to push Lebanon toward a new civil war without coordinating with Syria's principal ally, the Islamic Republic in Tehran?
What about the game of cat-and-mouse played by small, armed boats against the patrol boats of the U.S.-led multinational force in the Gulf of Oman?
Well, only two navies operate in that in that part of the waterway close to the Strait of Hormuz - those of of the United States and of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that the intimidating boats operate from the Iranian coast and seek shelter there after each provocative maneuver?
The fighting in Gaza is also shrouded by mystery. It's clear that the Hamas government led by Ismail Haniyah didn't want it. But it's equally clear that Hamas' "Supreme Guide" Khalid Mishaal, who lives in Damascus and listens to Tehran, believes that a big showdown is coming between the U.S.-led "Infidel" forces and the Iranian-led "forces of Islamic revolution," and that his movement must put itself on the right side. As for Islamic Jihad, everyone knows that it was created with Iranian money in the mid-1980s and has always been Tehran's principal Palestinian client.
All this, of course, may sound like circumstantial evidence. But a careful reading of recent statements made by the Khomeinist leadership in Tehran would show that the Islamic Republic and its regional allies, including Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Hizb Islami and a dozen lesser-known radical outfits, have decided to pass on a message. The message has three themes:
* Radical Islam in the region is not controlled solely by al Qaeda and its allied groups and that the Khomeinist movement and its clients remain as potent as ever.
* The U.S.-led efforts to build a regional alliance against Tehran will provoke Khomeinist counter-attacks across the Middle East.
* Tehran regards the forthcoming negotiations with Washington as the diplomatic side of its broader campaign to destroy the Bush Doctrine and drive the United States out of the Middle East.
Strategists in Tehran appear convinced that an American retreat will take place within the next two years at most. They are also determined not to allow the United States to shape a regional alliance capable of protecting a new balance of power.
This will create a vacuum in much of the region - notably Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Tehran cannot allow rival radical groups, especially al Qaeda and the Taliban, to fill that vacuum. It is, therefore, trying to place its allies and clients in strategic positions from which to claim power in Kabul, Baghdad and Beirut, among other places.
Early signs show that a long, hot summer of conflict, perhaps even full-scale war, is ahead of us in the Middle East. The perception that the United States is divided and weak has encouraged the most radical elements throughout the region, including Tehran and Damascus.
With what was left of the so-called realists and pragmatists on the defensive everywhere, the radical agenda is unchallenged. As Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Guide" of the Khomeinist movement, said last week, Tehran can deploy suicide-martyrdom groups, a weapon "many times stronger than the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima."
The last thing Lebanon needed was an internal war between its armed forces and clandestine cells with links to al-Qaeda. The last thing Syria needed was to be blamed for the violence. The Lebanese are already worried - too worried - about what the future holds for them. The standoff between the March 14 Coalition and the Hezbollah-backed opposition continues, headed by US-backed Saad al-Hariri on one front and Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah and his Christian ally Michel Aoun on the other.
Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora refuses to step down, and Parliament is still in recess as presidential elections approach, with no consensus on who the new president will be. The Lebanese public has barely recovered from the Israeli war on Hezbollah last summer to be confronted with internal political bickering and, now, radical military-political Islam.
The fighting in the refugee camp is some of the bloodiest internal feuding since the 1975-90 civil war and threatens Lebanon's delicate political fabric with disintegration. Clearly a radical group like Fatah al-Islam makes the situation more complicated in the overall political situation in Lebanon, which is already on the verge of explosion. It will strain security for the Siniora cabinet and give it an additional thing to blame on the Syrians.
Yet it makes no sense for Syria to support a radical political and military Islamic group in Lebanon. Abssi's record in Syrian jails is enough proof of how illogical it would be to accuse him of being on the payroll of the Syrians. Radical political Islam has been a threat to Syria ever since the republic was created in 1932. It always has been a secular regime in Damascus - at times without the Syrians even knowing it. The Syrians will not and cannot ally themselves with political Islam. Simply put, such an alliance would backfire and result in violence within Syria, something that President Bashar al-Assad will not tolerate. That explains why the Syrians have closed their border with Lebanon over the fighting, fearing the worst.
Some want to use Fatah al-Islam's outburst as further ammunition against Damascus. Some equally want to use the incident to justify a clampdown on Islamic groups in Lebanon, either Sunni or Shi'ite. It is always easy for the Lebanese to blame Syria. But the Lebanese government and, particularly, its army and security forces are too weak to crack down on a bunch of terrorists on their own territory.
If anybody is to blame for Fatah al-Islam, it is the Siniora government, which has tolerated it for six months, knowing perfectly well that it has existed since last November.
Sami Moubayed is a bought-and-paid-for Iranian stooge Syrian political analyst.
#1
The last thing Lebanon needed was an internal war between its armed forces and clandestine cells with links to al-Qaeda. The last thing Syria needed was to be blamed for the violence.
They need to remember that old saying:
Before things get worse, they have to get a whole lot more worse.
Yet it makes no sense for Syria to support a radical political and military Islamic group in Lebanon.
And then his lips fell off head exploded.
Radical political Islam has been a threat to Syria ever since the republic was created in 1932.
Which is why Syria exports it in such great quantities.
Simply put, such an alliance would backfire and result in violence within Syria, something that President Bashar al-Assad will not tolerate.
Tell that to the citizens of Hama in 1982.
It is always easy for the Lebanese to blame Syria.
Especially when Syria is always found holding the shit-stirring stick.
I can't be the only one who caught it: A Citgo commercial that was 'funding' a segment of 'Fox & Friends' with a propaganda piece about all the 'good' Citgo is doing for America's poor.
I would hope all other offended parties do like I did and go to foxnews.com and visit a number of the email addresses on their 'contact us' page expressing shared outrage.
It is my opinion that Fox News should not be accepting advertising dollars from a dictatorship that plays 2nd-fiddle to regimes hostile to the US.
Posted by: Ike ||
05/23/2007 10:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
There's a scene in the movie, A Few Good Men, where Navy JAG officer Sam Weinberg (played by Kevin Pollak) asks fellow Navy JAG officer Joanne Galloway (Demi Moore) why she likes Marines so much. She responds, "Because they stand on a wall, and say, 'No one's gonna hurt you tonight, not on my watch.'"
The line stirring in 1992 (particularly to a former Marine like myself) has become somewhat cliché. Though it speaks to the heart of what we Americans so-often take for granted.
I'll have to admit however I think about it everyday: Even more so when I see in my travels over the years the young faces of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in some of the world's most dangerous places. They're sometimes alone. Sometimes in pairs. Sometimes in groups from about platoon-size up to battalion. Always in good spirits, highly motivated (another cliché), and willing to do the seemingly impossible when asked or ordered.
They gripe for sure, like everyone else, but only among themselves. Outsiders just see cheerfulness, enthusiasm, an amazing sense of humor, and a personal professionalism usually only demonstrated by people much older and more experienced than they are. They get filthy dirty when they work, but are squeaky clean when they don't. They are trained to kill, but they all seem to have the soul of a Boy (Girl) Scout.
It can truly be an emotional experience to spend time with these Americans the smartest, hardest-working, most responsible people, in fact, America produces. I experienced it while observing soldiers during basic training, last week and today, at Fort Jackson, S.C. . . . . Go read it all. You'll experience the same "almost uncontrollable welling-up of emotion" the author did.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/23/2007 09:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Often these soldiers give all. Nearby where I live, one of the 10th Mountain gave his life last week. He was a family man. His family gave all too. A good friend of mine has a son in Iraq in the 82nd. This young man has grown up fast. He has had a number of friends lose their lives defending what they believe in. He worries and prays for him everyday as we all do. I want to hear no more from any of our Congressmen and women that we have lost this war when we have young men and women giving their all.
#2
One of the most memorable aspects of the ten years I lived in San Diego was watching the never ending parade of young marines graduating from San Diego MCRD, the pride of the nation and younger every year.
Liberalism is here taken in its european (and original) sense, not as a synonym for "progressism". Good read, a bit on the long side.
Presentation at Neo conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 11 May 2007
First of all, let me define my terms and say what I mean by Islamism and liberalism. Islamism is the politicised version of Islam which mandates jihad, or holy war against the infidel and conquest of the non-Islamic world for Islam. Im well aware of the argument that theres no difference between Islamism and Islam: thats a theological argument for others to have.
By liberalism I mean the commitment to a free society, founded above all on the separation of secular government from religious worship from which follow the concepts of equal respect for all people, freedom of conscience, tolerance and the rule of law.
These two concepts, Islamism and liberalism, are currently engaged in a fight to the death. My argument is that liberalism is in danger of losing this fight because it has so badly undermined itself and departed from its own core concepts that it is now paralysed by moral and intellectual muddle.
#1
Thanks a5089, this is a terrific treatise. This has to be digested by the liberal elite. These fools fail to recognize that they will be the first to be eliminated under Sharia control. There is no "dealing" with Islamos. Everything is a sharp, distinct black & white with them. In Britain, as in US, only 1/3 admit to openly despising the society they exist in. Another 60 % quietly stays in the backround, openly supporting the overthrow by going along with the radical imams and fully funding the Islamo principals. That may leave 5% of Muslims who are content to survive in the secualr society. Even that may be an optimistic number.
#2
This is a absolutely awesome article. Hopefully other countries like the U.S.,Australia and other European countries can learn from Britain's mishandling of multiculturalism and tolerance.
Woozle Elmeter2970, you hit the nail on the head. The people who are proposing this tolerance nonsense, will likely become the first victims is Sharia is ever evoked on a national scale in Britain.
I remember that President Bush was criticized by the left for viewing things black and white when it came to the WOT. However, when it comes to radical Islam, it is tolerated as just another voice to be listened to eg. Multiculturalism.
Something to be heard.
This goes back to the argument that 911 occurred because of our economic and security policies and interests in Muslim countries. Plus supporting countries that are opposed to Radical Islam, terrorism and fighting for their own survival. The liberals argued that we need to understand why the terrorist don't like the West, then we can live in peace. Hogwash.
Bad is bad and good is good. There is no grey.
In the piece I recently wrote about the threat posed by immigration, both illegal and legal, I mentioned that today's immigrants are not assimilating into our culture. And, as I pointed out, since Ted Kennedy's Immigration Reform Act of 1965 has created a situation in which 85 percent of our immigrants hail from the Third World and Asia, this portends the destruction of the western civilization that has given us everything we hold dear, from our freedom to our prosperity.
With Moslems and Mexicans on the march from Maine to Monterey, this should be obvious. Yet, the gravity of this situation still eludes many, sedated as they are with bread and circuses. So let's discuss assimilation.
Continued on Page 49
#1
1. At least where I live most of the hispanics are Salvadorans, guatamalans, etc, etc, NOT Mexicans, so they have no territorial claim.
2. All the data Ive seen says 2nd generation hispanics (including Mexicans) are just as likely to speak English as 2nd gen immigrants at earlier points in history
3. Of course we should be demanding more assimilation. We should also be more fully fund english language courses for adults. We should make assimilation a national priority
#2
Note this is from a rather rightwing website, but like the Buchanan piece yesterday, I thought there was a point about the USA, and the West more generally.
#3
There are more Chinese studying English every night on the mainland than 'immigrants' within the borders of the US. The Chinese aren't held back by the lack of 'funded' programs as an excuse.
#4
Liberalhawk-You fail to recognize the linguistic chauvinism of Spanish speakers in America. Ask some Spanish speakers how they generally view the requirement to assimilate linguistically. Of course they learn English-every semester I had more Spanish speakers in my ESL classes than any other linguistic group and they were wonderful students. What the data doesn't show you is that while they are ABLE to speak English, they push for Spanish to be spoken by Americans as no other linguistic groups do.
While there may be 32 languages on the California drivers' exam, there are not push buttons for other languages on phone calls, i.e., have you ever seen push one for Chinese, two for Japanese, three for Hindi, four for Arabic, five for Portuguese, six for French...This says something about Spanish speakers' view of English as the language of the US.
Regarding English classes for adults, we had better make a change in the way students are registered. When I ran a program, we were legally prohibited to press ESL students for social security cards or other IDs.
#6
...have you ever seen push one for Chinese, two for Japanese, three for Hindi, four for Arabic, five for Portuguese, six for French...This says something about Spanish speakers' view of English as the language of the US.
Well, I think it says something about the prevalence of Spanish-speakers, as opposed to those others, and their buying power. That is, if they didn't have the dollars to demand Spanish-speaking ATMs, say, there wouldn't be very many.
Of course, Spanish-speaking ATMs could just be the work of the Perpetually Indignant, who are mostly affluent Anglos.
My local ATM offers English, Spanish, and Russian. No idea where that last one came from. Dasvedanya, y'all.
#7
Spanish Speaking ATMs, why can't your card cary a language note on the strip so that the ATM knows what language to use without being asked? The technolgy was there long ago. That would also make it intersting for those dealing with stolen cards who don't have a great grasp of English.
#8
Angie-That is giving preferential treatment to one ethnic/linguistic group over others, simply because of their numbers. Ours is a land of equal, not preferential, rights. The common language of the US-the language of the Constitution-should be the national and official language.
From Wikipedia:
"The languages of the European Union...include the twenty-three official languages of the European Union along with a range of others...The Official Journal of the European Union shall be published in the twenty-three official languages."
#9
That is giving preferential treatment to one ethnic/linguistic group over others, simply because of their numbers.
Actually, this afternoon I caught a TV commercial for some loan company whose ad claimed that they spoke Spanish. This is pretty common here, with lawyers, loan companies, pawn shops, auto dealerships... And it occurred to me that I had been thinking of the wrong kind of "demand". It's more likely that some of these businesses thought they'd get the jump on their competition by catering to the Spanish-speaking crowd, and so it proved. Eventually the competition tries to catch up, and soon everybody's doing it.
That's not got anything to do with "equal rights", anymore than strip clubs and hardware stores catering more to men, and shoe stores and hairdressers to women, do. (Unless Edwards is elected.)
#10
It is indeed capitalism. If I recall correctly from my long ago wage slave days, Hispanic-Americans form intense brand loyalties to those brands and companies that address them directly: on Spanish language television and radio stations, using hispanic images and situations, responding to their aspirations. And they'll stick with those brands and companies even after they've learnt English, moved to a nice suburb, and sent the children off to college. It's apparently quite expensive to seduce a new customer, first to try, then to buy... and even more expensive to loose her to the competition, because she tells all her friends.
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.
Tests for unconscious racism will only benefit bureaucrats, says Theodore Dalrymple 
W. Thomas Smith, Jr., "The Tank," National Review
