Holy mother of something or other, you gotta read this story. Here's how it begins:
I am standing waist-deep in the Pacific Ocean, indulging in the polite chit-chat beloved by vacationing Americans. A sweet elderly lady from Los Angeles is sitting on the rocks nearby, telling me dreamily about her son. "Is he your only child?" I ask. "Yes," she answers. "Do you have a child back in England?" she asks me. No, I say. Her face darkens. "You'd better start," she says. "The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they'll have the whole of Europe."
I am getting used to such moments, when holiday geniality bleeds into -- well, I'm not sure exactly what. I am traveling on a bright-white cruise ship with two restaurants, five bars, and 500 readers of National Review. Here, the Iraq war has been "an amazing success." Global warming is not happening. Europe is becoming a new Caliphate. And I have nowhere to run.
From time to time, National Review -- the bible of American conservatism -- organizes a cruise for its readers. Last November, I paid $1,200 to join them. The rules I imposed on myself were simple: If any of the conservative cruisers asked who I was, I answered honestly, telling them I was a journalist. But, mostly, I just tried to blend in -- and find out what conservatives say when they think the rest of us aren't listening.
Ask Umbra on offsetting work trips
Ask Umbra on dream trips
Reps take expensive trip to learn about climate, but still block action
Comments
View as Flat
Jawfish Posted 10:21 am
26 Jun 2007
I'd like to say though, that for every over-dressed Adolph Coors-loving right-winger who fears the Muslim menace, you can find a hemp-shod semi-literate leftie who thinks every corporation is a conspiracy, and cars can run on water. Just compare the fear of stem-cell carrying embryos with the fear of gm crops. Knee-jerk union-sentimentalists are just as delusional as immigration fence nuts.
Quasimodo predicted all this, or was it Notre-Damus? Me, I am just waiting for the UFOs to come down and clean up this mess.
Jawfish
http://www.jawfish.net
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:52 am
26 Jun 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:24 pm
26 Jun 2007
Any evidence whatsoever for this? I see the former all over the damn place, in the pages of major magazines, all over TV, at family reunions, and oh yeah, at the uppermost levels of government. As for the latter, I'm not sure I've spotted a single specimen since I left college.
grist.org
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:07 pm
26 Jun 2007
Welcome to the City of Olympia.
omjp.org/PortMay06.html
mvp-seattle.com/1-rants.htm
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 6:16 pm
26 Jun 2007
What have the "hemp-shod semi-literate leftieS" cost us so far, Jawfish?
Meanwhile libertarians like to mock the freegans: http://blog.mises.org/archives/006771.asp#comments
Nucbuddy, rather than searching for alternate links, you might simply sign up at TNR - it's free.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:38 pm
26 Jun 2007
But how is it not perfectly consistent with social liberal values, to disapprove of a religion that forcefully, aggressively and often violently seeks to impose a rigid, intolerant monastic austerity on entire peoples? Is it "liberal" now, to support the free expression of dangerous religious bigots who stone to death adulterers and homosexuals, and who shame and punish people whose manner of dress does not meet Islamic standards? And who do not grant women their rights, even to bring accusation against the men who have raped them? And who indeed sometimes accuse raped women of adultery? And who continue to countenance two horrible anti-woman practices, of non-Islamic origin, honor-killing and female genital mutilation?
Why should it be uniquely characteristic of conservatives to bring such criticisms against Islam? Do liberals stand for nothing more than a meek moral relativism? Do compassion and justice have no more meaning for liberals?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:42 pm
26 Jun 2007
We've had enough. Once again corporate power is assailing our rights. It was the royal british east india tea Company in the first revolution.
Now it's exxon mob, GE, choicepoint, and the rest of the corporate "citizens". Disguised as the US government.
Rahm wants to defund cheney? I guess impeachment would be a step too far. Our constitution has been canceled.
Some strengthening of certain provisions is sorely needed in the areas of privacy and corporate "citizenship" especially.
Meanwhile the shaved ape court has declared corporate "citizens" have the right to endorse candidates with billion dollar ad campaigns. It's free speech, according to Roberts, Scalia, and Alito.
"Jawfish". Is that a corporate tilte? Hmmm.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:54 pm
26 Jun 2007
The church of bush is far worse than Islam. Sure fanatics kidnap, torture, and murder in the name of Islam, but those nuts are misrepresenting Islam.
The true faithfull of the chruch of bush, like Gen Miller gitmo priest sent to gitmoize abu ghraib), roam the earth proclaiming their religion and kidnapping, torturing, and mass murdering.
If you doubt that the torturers and muderers of the church of bush really represent that faith, ask pat robertson. A church leader who calls for political assasination.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:35 pm
26 Jun 2007
In my opinion, neither is acceptable. There is no need to choose one over the other. There are plenty of other options. Indeed, Fundamentalist Islam and the Cult of W appear to be feeding off of each other. Fundamentalist Islam would have not continued to grow if, following 9/11, a rational U.S. President had worked with other nations to understand and eliminate the motives that drive people to resort to terrorism. Bush would have lost the last election if he had not been able to exploit 9/11. (A paranoid person might conclude that the two cults are working together to strengthen their own power.) In the mean time, 100s of thousands of innocent people are dying. The natural world is dying. Both parties, though not necessarily by themselves, are contributing to further problems.
Tolerance is good.
Curiosity, respect, and learing about other people and their interests and values is even better. I sort of dislike the term "tolerance". It suggests holding your nose while you walk past your neighbors on the street. What our culture -- and Islam --really needs is a healthy dose of actual curiosity and respect for other people.
But I must draw the line when a group of people decides it is okay, or actually one of God's orders, to kill everyone who does not share their values. Tolerance ends when the killing begins. I might be curious about them. I definitely want to understand why they wish to kill everyone who disagrees with them. But I do not have to respect them.
Not long ago, I felt some sympathy for the oppressed Muslim world. Not long ago, I tried much harder to understand and respect right-wing politicians. But they have exhausted my patience. The world is not large enough to accomodate such extreme diversity.
NOW...
Why is this an environmental issue?
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:42 pm
26 Jun 2007
Though perhaps it is a Freudian slip of sorts... I think I had better stop typing now. One can be a bit TOO curious about other people.
Forward!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:42 am
27 Jun 2007
Sorry, but this is mislabeled. This should read "...Contrived Ignorance/Drink the Neo-Con Kool-Aid base...". I actually possess some conservative positions (conservative in the original sense), so attributing racism and frank ignorance behavior to 'conservatives' is insulting.
Having people who slavishly follow the Neo-Con lead is a triumph of the Straussians. Assuming every conservative thinks that way is our own mistake.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:10 am
27 Jun 2007
It is good to know there are still some rational conservatives out there. Hey... I might actually be one of them and just don't know it. I guess what really angers me are fundamentalists and idealogues who insist on adhering to comprehensive and very rigid world views independent of reality (far left, far right, and even moderates who see gray areas everywhere). There are times to liberal, times to be conservative, and times for something else. I wish the majority of people could independently evaluate each problem. Perhaps it is a failure of our education system... not enough history, critical thinking, and awareness of different cultures. Unfortunately, it appears that irrational people are taking over "education", by either gutting funding for it or "protecting" their children certain information. I have no idea how to break this cycle.
So perhaps David Robert's post is tied to environmentalism in that it exposes the decline of rational and critical thinking not only in the United States, but in Europe and elsewhere in the world. This is a very serious threat to the natural environment.
Forward!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:29 am
27 Jun 2007
This has nothing to do with one's general assessment of Islam. It has to do with a nationalist, revanchist, racist, paranoid movement that has consumed one political party in this country, and put what was once the terrified lunatic raving of John Birch types in the mouths of the men running the most powerful government on earth. It has to with a political party so distanced from reality they think Iraq is going great, all liberals are traitors, and Muslims are overrunning Europe to the point that white people are going to have to be evacuated en masse by 2015.
People seem to have a very difficult time forthrightly facing the insanity that has gone mainstream in this country.
grist.org
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:49 am
27 Jun 2007
Also, these fruitcakes on the boat are just that, freaking fruitcakes. But the problem with them is that they are infiltrated into the higher echelons of power and have the clear capability to drive us all into ruin and war. These fruit loops just want to bomb. Idiots.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:55 am
27 Jun 2007
I find it sad that just because the "right" is out of touch with reality we must assume everything they say is inaccurate and everything they support must be opposed. Perhaps, occassionally, the "right" does have a clue and progressivess should not immediately reject it. Such actions only further polarize discussion.
I'd swear that if GW suddenly embraced organic agriculture, the "left" would immediately oppose it! Or if Ralph Nader said GMOs were good, the "left" would embrace GMOs and the "right" would reject them!
How about judging ideas by whether or not there is evidence behind them, rather than by who presents them?
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:55 am
27 Jun 2007
And yet, if we were able to ask those valiant, patriotic, upstanding Americans who went around after 9/11 beating up dark-skinned Asian and North African immigrants -- or US citizens -- of all kinds, "Do you think of yourself as being 'liberal' or 'conservative'?," we may wonder if many at all would answer "liberal."
The piece by Johann Hari in the New Republic is jaw-droppingly amazing. I could almost say, it is funny, but that would look like Schadenfreude. And anyway, it is unclear who will have the last laugh.
Just to be clear, my own views on Islam, and Muslims, do not at all resemble those that according to Hari belong to those hyper-conservatives on the National Review cruise. It is undeniable that certain European countries -- especially Germany, France, the Netherlands and Britain, and to a lesser extent Denmark, Sweden and Spain -- have long had difficulties in justly and humanely accepting and assimilating immigrants from Muslim countries. But if so, the fault for it would seem to lie much more with the Europeans than with the immigrants.
That said, I am to some extent sympathetic with the views of the Dutch political leader, Pim Fortuyn, who was assassinated in 2002. Here is a bit from the Wikipedia article on him:
<<
Fortuyn proposed that all people who already resided in the Netherlands would be able to stay, but he emphasized the need of the immigrants to adopt the Dutch society's consensus on human rights as their own. He said "If it were legally possible, I'd say no more Muslims will get in here", claiming that the influx of Muslims would threaten freedoms in the liberal Dutch society. He thought Muslim culture had never undergone a process of modernisation and therefore still lacked acceptance of democracy and women's, gays', lesbians' and minorities' rights, and feared it would dismiss the Dutch legal system in favour of the shari'a law.
One of Fortuyn's fears was of pervasive intolerance in the Muslim community. In a televised debate in 2002, "Fortuyn baited the Muslim cleric by flaunting his homosexuality. [That sounds like a rather biased description of whatever happened.] Finally the imam exploded, denouncing Fortuyn in strongly anti-homosexual terms. Fortuyn calmly turned to the camera and, addressing viewers directly, told them that this is the kind of Trojan horse of intolerance the Dutch are inviting into their society in the name of multiculturalism[6]".
When asked by the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant whether he hated Islam, he replied: "I don't hate Islam. I consider it a backward culture. I have travelled much in the world. And wherever Islam rules, it's just terrible. All the hypocrisy. It's a bit like those old Reformed Protestants. The Reformed lie all the time. And why is that? Because they have norms and values that are so high that you can't humanly maintain them. You also see that in that Muslim culture. Then look at the Netherlands. In what country could an electoral leader of such a large movement as mine be openly homosexual? How wonderful that that's possible. That's something that one can be proud of. And I'd like to keep it that way, thank you very much." [7]
>>
"Backward culture" is certainly not an expression that I would use to describe Muslim culture. Anyway, there is not one single Muslim culture. Still, the religion from its origins involved a petrification, or crystallization, of certain biblical, Jewish and Christian attitudes, which could often be applied in an inhumane way. And at this stage in history, the coming to power of conservative regimes and prevailing attitudes to a large extent in response to Western political and cultural colonialism, especially in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and among Al-Qaida and the Taliban, reflects a new resort to inhumane petrification, founded in fear.
But Fortuyn was right to be afraid, too. Whether we agree or not with his ideas about how his countrymen should treat immigrants (and in fact the Dutch have become very restrictive since his assassination), he was certainly right to observe that the high regard for human rights which we have in the West is very plainly not shared by many in the current generation of conservative Muslims.
Consider the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie, back in 1988, and the current revival of that radical intolerance as Pakistan protests the decision to knight him in the UK. Consider the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, and the need for the celebrated Somali-Dutch immigrant and former politician, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to seek refuge in the US, and to live surrounded by bodyguards. (Unfortunately she has made the mistake of allowing herself to be courted too much by conservative and pro-Israel groups.) Consider the way justice is regularly dealt out in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and often in other places such as Pakistan and northern Nigeria.
WiscIdea is right that we should not be blinded by ideology. But I for one do not see how ideology enters in, when Fortuyn, Van Gogh, Hirsi Ali and others simply are pointing out injustice and inhumanity.
And so what, that "the other side" is also guilty of injustice and inhumanity. Amazing DrX is of course right to denounce the war of George W. Bush and the neo-cons, which has brought about the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Afghans and Iraqis -- and he is probably right about his higher figure too, amounting to hundreds of thousands. And do not get me started on Israel and the Zionist oppression of the Palestinians.
But this should not be a question of favoring "one side" or "the other side." In this little world of ours, there is plenty of blame to go round and round and round.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:01 am
27 Jun 2007
There is no straw man lurking in this thread.
Forward!
Permalink
Jawfish Posted 3:07 am
27 Jun 2007
some of the responses to this post
anti-nukers who wont open the repository
10,000 responses to a MoveOn query about what to stand for, and not one supported small business or mentioned a healthy economy
the hemp lobby
people who think we can just use solar and wind everywhere, right now
new agers
people who write too-long posts with lists
http://www.jawfish.net
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:29 am
27 Jun 2007
I honestly need to leave this thread before I lose it. The base of one of America's two major parties has been taken over by f*cking lunatics, and progressives can't, even at this late date, seem to find it in their mushy, equivocating hearts to just outright condemn it. There are always "sides." We're always looking for that soothing middle. There's always plenty of blame to go around. No sense taking a harsh tone. Zzzzz...
Christ. What will it take?
grist.org
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:02 am
27 Jun 2007
"Is it supposed to be a credit to the Republican base that they're no more close-minded and ideological than fundamentalist Muslims?"
You're post regarding Republicans is right on target. Perhaps you have not actually read all of the responses. I'm certainly not saying they are no worse than Fundamentalist Muslims. I'm trying to say that they are AS BAD AS Fundamentalists Muslims.
David Roberts also wrote...
"The base of one of America's two major parties has been taken over by f*cking lunatics, and progressives can't, even at this late date, seem to find it in their mushy, equivocating hearts to just outright condemn it. There are always "sides." We're always looking for that soothing middle. There's always plenty of blame to go around. No sense taking a harsh tone."
I hereby CONDEMN IT! It is awful. It is as bad as the rise of Fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East and Asia. I don't recall ever being particularly compassionate or understanding in my comments regarding Republicans, Neo-Cons, or Islam anywhere on the Grist website. Nor do I ever suggest violent irrational behavior is justified because there is "plenty of blame to go around". I strongly suggest breaking ALL cycles of violence. Someone must be strong enough and courageous enough to not retaliate... perhaps one of the major reasons I'm so disappointed in so-called Christians in this country following 9/11. They do not follow Jesus's teachings.
The point of my remarks here is that it is ridiculous to condemn Republicans for the perfectly reasonable position that, perhaps, Fundamentalist Islam could be a problem. Condemn them for other irrational behavior, but not when there is a reasonable explanation for their behavior.
Is this a sufficiently harsh response?
Forward!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 4:06 am
27 Jun 2007
Hey, Wiscidea: I think it was the juxtaposition of our messages, since I took no offense at all at what you wrote. In fact, I can't think of a thing I have had substantive disagreement with in what you write.
Hey, David Roberts: Thanks for clarifying the purpose of the thread, since the mechanism (irony, sarcasm,?) of the title eluded me. In a perverse way, the mainstream extremism (!?) of gladly drinking the authoritarian Neo-Con Kool-Aid is a very accurate description.
Okay, another tangent: what we witness among Islam today could be seen in the Christian historical mirror of 800 years ago. Maybe what we are experiencing is guilt for the crimes and fanaticism of our ancestors? Or is it jealousy? Or envy? There is a simple explanation: religions have life cycles. Islam is at a state of maturity (or immaturity) where Christianity was 800 years ago. As Canis implies, religions are distorted to satisfy and justify the ends of its practitioners. Furthermore, when two such superficial religions collide, more xenophobia and conflict--and controlling megalomaniacs--follow.
The world would be much better off if religions did not exist, since they are a means of instilling xenophobia and establishing control over people, while applying a cheap veneer over true morality and decency. Religions are also a means of diverting guilt for environmental destruction--"God says it is Okay." "...have dominion..."
How does this tie together with the Neo-Cons and their distortion of true conservatism and their distractions regarding environmental issues? Religion is just another means of control and manipulation. What we see in the reports in David's introduction are ample proof of the result--very effective.
As for the troll, you are about ~450 million years late for your kind, which arose in the Silurian or Devonian. Your hearse--or fossil bed--awaits. Go.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:41 pm
27 Jun 2007
In my earlier comments, I was not erecting a "straw man," I was only bringing some nuance to the question of how one criticizes Islam or Muslims. Such criticism should not be received as purely a right-wing thing, as Hari's report might suggest.
The supporters of Pim Fortuyn, as well as all those who published the Danish cartoons with unflattering images of the Prophet Muhammad, no doubt include people in Europe who dislike the presence of Muslims in their countries, and want to make them feel unwelcome. So to some extent they indeed resemble the right-wing, nationalist, racist anti-immigrationists in this country.
On the other hand, supporters of Pim Fortuyn, and of the publication of the Danish cartoons, also include left-wing defenders of human rights and liberties, already well affirmed in Europe but decried by some Muslims living there as "decadent" and needing to be eliminated in a truly "Muslim-welcoming" society, e.g., the right to show scantily clad models in public advertisements, and the right to serve alcoholic beverages at outdoor cafe's (cf. that interesting exchange in Hari's piece, "The Muslims say we are too decadent, the Europeans say we are not decadent enough!," to which, "And the Muslims are right!").
Whether such an expression as DR's "Holy mother of something or other" looks "decadent" in the eyes of those who venerate the Holy Mother of God, or even just Mariam the Mother of the Prophet Jesus, of course I cannot say. No doubt some Muslims, as well as Catholics of the ilk of Kate O'Beirne, would say, "Yes, it is most certainly decadent, and offensive to me as a true believer."
I just say, "Come on, Baby, let the good times roll." Which probably puts me in the class of the ultra-decadent.
Nevertheless, I am not sure I understand how DR wants to pontificate after-the-fact on what is supposedly the obvious point of his post, when he did so little by way of introducing it.
Also, and of course I may be all wrong on this, but I wonder if these right-wing well-financed professional writers really represent what we usually mean by "the conservative base." E.g., people who ride for miles and miles along Western highways with gun-racks in their pick-up trucks, listening to Rush Limbaugh, seem not to have been well represented on this cruise. Nor do Bible-waving people who condemn reproductive rights and gay rights. Nor do anti-immigrationist anti-Latino people in the Southwest, and elsewhere.
Thanks to WiscIdea for some very good observations.
To Sustainable David: I cannot simply agree with your assertion, "The world would be much better off if religions did not exist," since we human beings have a natural instinct to want to learn what we can about the ground of reality -- one of the tasks of philosophy -- , and to relate whatever we have learned very intimately to ourselves -- the task of religion. Nevertheless, I join you completely in deploring how the religions of the world, especially some in the biblical and the Mesoamerican traditions (the former including Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the latter fortunately now defunct, at least so far as its sacrificial cults go), have over and over again moved us weak-minded, fear-filled, superstitious and selfish mortals to commit acts of horrendous injustice and violence.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink