Burning the Koran

[Bronko]

Since Spence is doling out book advice I thought I would too. I posted this last year. It is an unbelievable read. After you click the link, scroll down for a brief description.

Amazon.com: America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (9780895260789): Mark Steyn: Books

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It would have been exciting, and the "news" loves excitement.

I'd say the audience loves excitement, the news is just a business after all.

I agree with those who think the Muslim response, if as threatened or predicted, would have been more idiotic, lawless, and to be pleaded against than the tiny group of book burners. And the Muslim response should not have been merely predicted by Muslim leaders, but they should have been the ones to demand that such responses not occur.

It looks like the Muslim response to the issue was comparable to the actual Muslims responding. Western Muslims were quite rational on the issue, while poor, uneducated Muslims in war torn areas were more likely to react with violence. I think 10 have died in Afghanistan today just trying to hold an election.

Islamic violence is regularly condemned by Muslim leadership around the world, although I'm not sure many are listening. With the current climate of Islamophobia, speaking out can get you whacked from either side.

If perhaps the most noteworthy Imam in the US and trusted adviser to our Presidents can't get a fair shake, why would they?

No, it implies that the Islamic position re America is not necessarily unified, but more unified than our opinions of who we are. That's, admittedly, just a guess based on the bulk of the "reports" that we get, and the supposition that Islamic societies are not as diverse as ours is. I should have excluded American Muslims from my statement since I view them as part of the disunified perceptions we have of ourselves--which is the real point of my response to your saying "it's about staying true to who we are."--and which you didn't answer.

This is a good question, but not one that I think can be easily answered in a few paragraphs.

I would say that in the US there is a common bond (The American Dream) which isn't exclusive to any one group. Are there Muslims in the US who would take the Koran over the Constitution? Sure, but I'll bet I can find a lot more who would do the same with the Bible.

As for unification of Islamic positions, you'd have to break this out into issues to perhaps understand it. Palestine is certainly an issue with general Islamic consensus, but you'll also get a similar level of support from many Western nations and even liberals in the US.

Perhaps the biggest issue in Islam today is the role of the woman. I'm not sure even this is very unified throughout Islam, and is very heavily influenced by local conditions, especially in the Third World.

My real implication is we are divided in this country, maybe more so than ever, and staying true to who we say we are will result in a different true for a different we--even to the point of being diametrically opposed. Vive la diversity.

I'd agree the level of division is quite alarming. A very real threat to the American Dream is when people question if it really applies to everyone.

And the we that oppose the GZ Mosque or wish to burn Korans may disagree fundamentally with the we who oppose them. But they don't disagree on a constitutional basis.

Sure...

There might be some political game from American Muslims, various immigrants, and those who think it's mean spirited and un-American to oppose the mosque. And there is, as you say, the big possibility of backlash pain. But there would be more political gain to oppose the Koran burners as typical right wing nuts.

I didn't see many looking to gain from support of the Mosque issue, and considering the public sentiment it would be hard to see the benefits. I did see many on the Right quick to pretend there was parity between the two events though, sort of a "well if one's wrong the others wrong" logic that doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me. It did seem to make some feel better about opposing the Mosque though.

I don't think the book burners were thinking of the poor Afghan kid who wouldn't participate in a protest, but they might have been thinking about the thousands, maybe tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of whackos who would protest.

Give the kid a few more years.

I don't think it's been all that clear. What you may consider politicization may be an honest opinion of a different minded we.

To some degree this is certainly true, although with the Mosque issue it seems to be a situation of political exploitation.

This project was announced last December, reported in the NYTimes and didn't cause a ruckus. The Laura Ingraham interview with the Imam's wife (in the John Stewart video) wasn't so noteworthy because it was an attack on Fox News as you seemed to suggest, it was that in December even a bomb throwing pundit remarked that "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it" and "I like what you're trying to do."

When the project was approved what followed was an all out onslaught of anti-Islam propaganda characterizing the center as a temple to the 9/11 hijackers. Then the story rapidly became a big national issue.

What changed? Well, the facts around the purpose of the planned center didn't seem to change. It was the controversy being pushed from the fringe that was different, and this was the first glimpse of the issue that most Americans got. Hence my remarks that this story isn't really about the Mosque, but rather the controversy surrounding it.

I wouldn't call this a simple difference of opinion when the opinion seems to have been manufactured. That's political...

What laws have been broken? Which lives have been taken?

For our critics it's as simple as those outside the US believing we don't follow the same rules we expect of others over the years. Be it protecting Israel at the UN for decades, claiming we respect life but killing tens and tens of thousands of civilians when it's in our interest, ignoring human rights when countries have things we need, saying we don't torture and treat prisoners with respect...then abu Graib, renditions etc...

That these things may be technically legal or suit our interests at the time isn't really the point. What should be considered is the impact they may have whether we like it or not...instead we get "you're perfect, just keep shopping".

So WE have different perspectives on Dem stones. Over the past several years, it has appeared to this we that the Dems have exercised more balls, in every way, than the Republicans, who have so often acted like eunuchs. I think the latter's fear of "main stream" press has contributed to their castration.

I don't think Republicans fear the press as much as they do their own party. As they say...Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd say the audience loves excitement, the news is just a business after all.

If you're correcting my quip that the "news" loves excitement by saying that the audience not the "news" is what loves excitement, I'd say that the "news" is nothing without an audience, and the business function of the "news" is to get and enlarge an audience much as do the "whores" and "porn peddlers" like Limbaugh and Stewart, and that the "news" is sold to the audience in packages of exitement, and so the "news" loves the excitement as a commodity as much as the audience, and how could it be otherwise since "news" and audience are parts of the same trick.

It looks like the Muslim response to the issue was comparable to the actual Muslims responding. Western Muslims were quite rational on the issue, while poor, uneducated Muslims in war torn areas were more likely to react with violence. I think 10 have died in Afghanistan today just trying to hold an election.

As I said "I agree with those who think the Muslim response . . . would have been more idiotic, lawless, and to be pleaded against than the tiny group of book burners."

Islamic violence is regularly condemned by Muslim leadership around the world, although I'm not sure many are listening. With the current climate of Islamophobia, speaking out can get you whacked from either side.

I agree that speaking out against Islamic violence can get you whacked by Islamic extremists, but are you saying that it can also get you whacked by those who oppose the violence? Has this happened?

If perhaps the most noteworthy Imam in the US and trusted adviser to our Presidents can't get a fair shake, why would they?

How is he not getting a "fair shake"? Did he speak out against the Islamic violence and get whacked?

By the way, if Islam has been high-jacked by "extremists," doesn't that mean that the "extremists" are in charge? If the "moderates" want to own Islam, don't they have to get rid of the high-jackers? How can the "moderates" claim to represent "true" Islam if the high-jackers own the religion? Does "regularly" condemning the violence get rid of the high-jackers? When planes were high-jacked, were the pirates removed by condemning them? What are the radical Islamists condemned to? Death? Imprisonment? Fines?

This is a good question, but not one that I think can be easily answered in a few paragraphs.

I would say that in the US there is a common bond (The American Dream) which isn't exclusive to any one group.

Are you saying that Americans are unified in our opinions of who we are because of the so-called "American Dream? We all have the same dream?

Are there Muslims in the US who would take the Koran over the Constitution? Sure, but I'll bet I can find a lot more who would do the same with the Bible.

Certainly a disuniter.

As for unification of Islamic positions, you'd have to break this out into issues to perhaps understand it. Palestine is certainly an issue with general Islamic consensus, but you'll also get a similar level of support from many Western nations and even liberals in the US.

Perhaps the biggest issue in Islam today is the role of the woman. I'm not sure even this is very unified throughout Islam, and is very heavily influenced by local conditions, especially in the Third World.

All well and good, but this has nothing to do with what I spoke of--Islamic opinion of who Americans are.

I'd agree the level of division is quite alarming. A very real threat to the American Dream is when people question if it really applies to everyone.

So the so-called "American Dream" is not a uniter but a divider.

I didn't see many looking to gain from support of the Mosque issue, and considering the public sentiment it would be hard to see the benefits.

But to gain support by trying to make "conservatives" look foolish for opposing the mosque--a la Jon Stewart.

I did see many on the Right quick to pretend there was parity between the two events though, sort of a "well if one's wrong the others wrong" logic that doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me. It did seem to make some feel better about opposing the Mosque though.

The pretence is in your eyes not in the minds of those "on the right." It seems that you're quick to "politicize." And there was not a pretence to "parity" in so-called sensitivity. The reaction to building the mosque is "can you build it elsewhere?" The predicted response to the burning of Korans is large scale mayhem.

Give the kid a few more years.

Is the kid instructed, trained by Imam Rauf, or by his govt., or society, to abstain from mayhem in a few more years, or is that behavior solely dependent on what Americans do?

To some degree this is certainly true, although with the Mosque issue it seems to be a situation of political exploitation.

No political exploitation yet.

This project was announced last December, reported in the NYTimes and didn't cause a ruckus. The Laura Ingraham interview with the Imam's wife (in the John Stewart video) wasn't so noteworthy because it was an attack on Fox News as you seemed to suggest, it was that in December even a bomb throwing pundit remarked that "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it" and "I like what you're trying to do."

No political exploitation yet.

When the project was approved what followed was an all out onslaught of anti-Islam propaganda characterizing the center as a temple to the 9/11 hijackers. Then the story rapidly became a big national issue.

No political exploitation yet.

What changed? Well, the facts around the purpose of the planned center didn't seem to change. It was the controversy being pushed from the fringe that was different, and this was the first glimpse of the issue that most Americans got. Hence my remarks that this story isn't really about the Mosque, but rather the controversy surrounding it.


No political exploitation yet.

I wouldn't call this a simple difference of opinion when the opinion seems to have been manufactured. That's political...

No political exploitation yet. I don't recall Republicans blaming the Dems for the Mosque. The change in opinion was created by a few (as is usually the case) who saw a historical connection between this mosque (the Cordoba Project) and its patronimically antecedent mosque built in Cordoba Spain to commemorate that conquest. It didn't seem to get political until Obama made his statement as to the constitutional right to build it. Most of the Public wasn't aware of the mosque plans until some "fringe" pointed out what they saw as symbolism of conquest on "hallowed" ground. If the opinion was "manufactured", is that equal to "being made aware"? Manufacturing is good, no? Don't we bitch about losing our manufacturing base?

But no political implications were made (except for implying that "right wingers' were bigots, etc., for opposing the mosque.)

For our critics it's as simple as those outside the US believing we don't follow the same rules we expect of others over the years. Be it protecting Israel at the UN for decades, claiming we respect life but killing tens and tens of thousands of civilians when it's in our interest, ignoring human rights when countries have things we need, saying we don't torture and treat prisoners with respect...then abu Graib, renditions etc...

That these things may be technically legal or suit our interests at the time isn't really the point. What should be considered is the impact they may have whether we like it or not...instead we get "you're perfect, just keep shopping".

So, by this as a response to my asking, re the Koran burners, "what laws have been broken? What lives have been taken?" your answer is a twisting, arguable, non-responsive and irrelevant way of admitting that no laws have been broken, no lives have been taken.

I don't think Republicans fear the press as much as they do their own party.

You mean they fear the Tea Party? So do the Dems.

As they say...Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line

-spence

Never heard that. Probably because it's cutesy BS. Anyway, politics today has Republicans not knowing which line to fall in and Dems in lockstep

[spence]

Originally Posted by Bronko

Since Spence is doling out book advice I thought I would too. I posted this last year. It is an unbelievable read. After you click the link, scroll down for a brief description.

Amazon.com: America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (9780895260789): Mark Steyn: Books

That looks interesting, I was hoping they'd just happen to have it at the airport (as I was in between books) but no luck.

There was a book about liberals and Islam and how they were both going to destroy us, but I just couldn't get over the Malkin review on the back.

Instead I picked up a copy of Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society." It's certainly not light reading (nor is the book light, I had to have the First Class flight attendant hold my copy to keep my hands free for the drinks) but is quite good so far.

Thanks for the response Butch, this will give me something to read on the BBery waiting for the next flight.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

That looks interesting, I was hoping they'd just happen to have it at the airport (as I was in between books) but no luck.


-spence

thats not the kind of book they sell at airports, you dont want to get "you know who" upset before boarding a plane

[RIJIMMY]

bronko - I got the book from the library, great read so far. Things are much worse than I had imagined. I get to work today and get a warnign that our India locations may be disrupted due to violence. A court decision is expected to be announced today. So....I wonder, who could it be that would cause violence from a court case? I had my suspicions but want to be open minded. I googled and you'll never believe who is invlolved! I'll let you guess.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

bronko - I got the book from the library, great read so far. Things are much worse than I had imagined. I get to work today and get a warnign that our India locations may be disrupted due to violence. A court decision is expected to be announced today. So....I wonder, who could it be that would cause violence from a court case? I had my suspicions but want to be open minded. I googled and you'll never believe who is invlolved! I'll let you guess.

Eskimos?

Significant Developments in Terror Threats Since 9/11,
Officials Say
Napolitano, Mueller, Leiter Discuss Increased Tempo of Attacks Against U.S.

Sept. 22, 2010
The nation's top counterterrorism officials were blunt. The threat from within---of Americans willing to commit terrorist acts--- is growing. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a congressional hearing today that a spike in recent terrorism cases is direct evidence of the evolving threat.

"Groups affiliated with al Qaeda are now actively targeting the United States and looking to use Americans or Westerners who are able to remain undetected by heightened security measures," Mueller said. "It appears domestic extremism and radicalization appears to have become more pronounced based on the number of disruptions and incidents."

" Napolitano said, "To be clear, by homegrown, I mean terrorist operatives who are U.S. persons, and who were radicalized in the United States."

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by scottw

Eskimos?

Significant Developments in Terror Threats Since 9/11,
Officials Say
Napolitano, Mueller, Leiter Discuss Increased Tempo of Attacks Against U.S.

Sept. 22, 2010
The nation's top counterterrorism officials were blunt. The threat from within---of Americans willing to commit terrorist acts--- is growing. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a congressional hearing today that a spike in recent terrorism cases is direct evidence of the evolving threat.

"Groups affiliated with al Qaeda are now actively targeting the United States and looking to use Americans or Westerners who are able to remain undetected by heightened security measures," Mueller said. "It appears domestic extremism and radicalization appears to have become more pronounced based on the number of disruptions and incidents."

" Napolitano said, "To be clear, by homegrown, I mean terrorist operatives who are U.S. persons, and who were radicalized in the United States."

There will be a number of libs that will chime in that we deserve it, its our own fault. I guess they werent impressed the POTUS nobel pace prize.

[Bronko]

I am glad you are reading it Jimmy, its very interesting book. A real wake-up call.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

There will be a number of libs that will chime in that we deserve it, its our own fault. I guess they werent impressed the POTUS nobel pace prize.

it's most likely the fault of the Tea Party who, for the most part, are racist, bigoted, intolerant, white male Islamophobes and who are now spawning the creation of terrorists domestically with their rallies and support of witches just as Bush created terrorists abroad with his unjust wars and God talk...

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's most likely the fault of the Tea Party who, for the most part, are racist, bigoted, intolerant, white male Islamophobes and who are now spawning the creation of terrorists domestically with their rallies and support of witches just as Bush created terrorists abroad with his unjust wars and God talk...

I think thats the exact reason they're worried about riots in India today.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I think thats the exact reason they're worried about riots in India today.

they should rule that the Hindu's and Muslims both screw and put a golf course on the site...might save a couple thousand lives this time...let the Maoist insurgents run the golf course and practice a little capitalism to placate them for a while and maybe they'll learn something...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I get to work today and get a warnign that our India locations may be disrupted due to violence. A court decision is expected to be announced today.

Maybe your company should move their offices back over here and create jobs for Americans...

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Maybe your company should move their offices back over here and create jobs for Americans...

I agree, but it all comes down to $. IT heads in the US are too expensive.
Imagine this -
Right now, the Stimulus (per recovery.gov) pumped somethin like 250 BILLION into tax relief. I dont know anyone thats seen that $ but lets just suppose its accurate.
Imagine if you spent say 5 billion and built 5 IT colleges in the most depressed part of this country. Places like Detroit, mid-west, deep south. You then fund another 5 Billion to support the colleges over 5 years. The schools will ONLY be open to people that are below a certain income - poor people. I think that would be feasible. Then, you go to the top 25 companies in the US that out source IT resources. You offer them amazing incentives to build IT infrastructure in the same regions as these IT colleges. tax breaks, free internships (from the schools), cheap real estate, etc. You put incentinves for the graduates - 2yr program then a work for $/employer funded program for after work additinal 2yr program for them to stay put and work at the regional centers.
These companies get cheap IT resources, the regions get a huge influx of construction jobs and service jobs, the regions grow with $ from the IT jobs. You educate the poor, you build our technology infrastructure and companies get cheap labor. All for less that a 25 billion investment. Imagine the HUGE dividends this would pay!
No ideas at all come from either the dems or repubs, its just throw money at old ideas ( hey, lets build roads!). These are the hip ideas we need and this is CHANGE! I'll take some of this socialism if it makes people work!

[The Dad Fisherman]

Would be nice....but would never happen......you forgot to add in the politician's cut.......back up to $250B

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Would be nice....but would never happen......you forgot to add in the politician's cut.......back up to $250B

why not? We're Americans, we can make it happen! It would work!

[The Dad Fisherman]

then take the ball and run w/ it.....

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I dont know anyone thats seen that $ but lets just suppose its accurate.

I'm pretty sure this year we got a pretty large credit on cash we paid into my step-son's college tuition that was directly from the Stimulus bill.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm pretty sure this year we got a pretty large credit on cash we paid into my step-son's college tuition that was directly from the Stimulus bill.

-spence

you're welcome.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

you're welcome.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I agree, but it all comes down to $. IT heads in the US are too expensive.

They're not if you do it right, but hey, keep supporting India.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

you're welcome.

It was reinvested into the economy to stimulate growth.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It was reinvested into the economy to stimulate growth.

-spence

you bought penis enlargement pills?