Sunday, May 22, 2005

Is this the Hill you wish to Die on

I understand the frustration with the idiocy of the left . We are supposed to have every respect for Islam , althougth some show zero respect for anyone else's religion. My problem is not with Muslims but with this liberal PC police. Thus any discussion of Islamic history or Culture becomes racist. The fact that Muslims do not
constitute a race is obvious to all except the bigot with an IQ of 167.

I do not like the idea of book burning in general. Books are meant to be read and burning religious texts serve no purpose other to inflame. I know the idiocy of the Conyers resolution especialy when one considers his statements on flag burning. Conyers is part of the Progressive Caucus and has ties to Far left groups. He also voted against bills on Flag Desecration and Burning the Flag. Now he wants us to suddenly respect symbols.

Burning books was a Nazi tactic there were mass burnings of Jewish books. Communists
also had banned books and people written out of history. I am vehemently against cencoring books like Huck Finn for use of the N word. I also do not want the Canterbury Tales and Shakespeare banned for anti-semitism. The burning of libraries and books always portend something ominious.

Yet I understand the necessity to stop sanitizing history. Islam was spread by violent conquest . Minorities were brutalized and subjected to Jim Crow dhimmi laws.
Slavery was practiced on a wider then the American slave trade. Nor were the only slaves black in the Eastern Slave trade.There were plenty of slaves from Christian areas but blacks were the most common. Thus when the NOI talks about Christianity as
a slave religion this becomes comedic. Then again according to Stephen Schwartz the NOI is not an Islamic group but a cult.

We must talk openly about terrorism . Terrorist do not opperate in a vacum as my posts on Mugniyah and Nidal show. They opperate with the intelligence agencies and as proxies for rouge states. Initialy the USSR trained men like Nidal to do their dirty work. The media incorrectly portrayed terrorists as disaffected revolutionaries. Men like Nidal and Mougniyah serve a paymaster and are mercenaries.
Terrorism is asymetrical warfare attacking a military convoy is different from shooting School kids in the back in Beslan .

We must take a look at the lack of rights in the Islamic world . We must take a look
at the dreadful treatment of minorities in the Muslim world. We must not accept excuses or rationalization . The cult of low expectations endangers each and every one of us.

I will say this to the leftist Utopians and Muslims. I am an American you can not and will not intimidate me into silence. Americans cherish their rights and freedom.
Our culture extends you the right of freedom . If you can not live in a culture of free speech then leave. I will not cater to you or anyone else.

28 comments:

Jason_Pappas said...

This is one of your best posts. I'll try to comment more, later, but let me just say that our problem is not first and foremost foreign. Of problem is internal to our own culture: the obstructionist deception of the hate-America left. Thus, your emphasis and priorities are correct, in my opinion. See you later.

beakerkin said...

Jason I disagree with the post lets burn the Koran. Book burning
is always a bad idea . I do not care what kind of book it is.Mr Beamish's idea of a warning label
does sound intruiging. We do put warning labels on cigarettes. That
might be a way to get around the stigma of book burning.

The best recourse is to put Bin Laddens head on a gorillas body.
Let Muslims complain that we are being disrespectful. If they want to defend Bin Ladden it speaks vollumes.

Always On Watch said...

beakerkin,
I agree with Jason that this is one of your best posts.

Catering to a megalomaniacal group only serves to promote their megalomania. The ideology of islamism should not qualify for a pass (i.e., censorship) on criticim of its egregious practices. In fact, islamism is among the most bigoted of all doctrines.
The only "respect" the islamists will accept is surrender on their terms.

Always On Watch said...

Beakerkin,
I just saw this article:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18155

A quote from the last paragraph:
"...[T]he single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built."

You might enjoy reading the entire article.

Elijah said...

I believe slavery is still taking place, in some places. In Indian due to the caste systems families are held in virtual slavery through debt.

beakerkin said...

Elijah

Debt is a problem in many societies.Yet India has a version of afirmitive action in its universities . I would hope that all would compette on a level playing feild . Equality of opportunity does not mean equality
of outcome. I would like to play Center for the Knicks but I have no aptitude . I had the chance to play College ball but my vertical leap was three inches.

Jews and Christians lived in peace
with Hindus and never had a problem. How does Hinduism turn violent when Islam is added ?

beakerkin said...

Always on the Watch

I regularly read Front Page Magazine. This effort seems to be well recieved. My problem is the PC code on the left. The PC code
of low expectations is more bigoted then a critical look at the history of Islam. What are the PC police impling that Muslims are incapable of Democracy and basic Human rights.

Always On Watch said...

Beakerkin,
Your last sentence in your comment to me: Yes, the PC police imply that Muslims are incapable... But try calling them on that one, and they cry "Respect other cultures," etc.
The question arises: Is Islam inherently opposed to democracy and basic human rights? If the answer is negative, then reform is needed, and such reform must come from within Islam. If the answer is yes, then the problem is of huge dimensions.

PS: This is not at hit-and-run comment. I've got another doctor's appointment this morning. I hope to get back online later today or tonight.

B said...

I agree that we need an honest discussion on cultures and on terrorism, but this ALSO includes our conduct. You are 100% right when you say we do not live in a vacuum. When Bush says we were attacked on 9/11 because of our freedoms, that is completely disingenuous. It is not only what we stand for, but our foreign policy as well. That does NOT make their actions correct, but there is a cause and effect there. Let's be honest about everything. Again, I want to be clear, I think what the terrorists did on 9/11 was one of the most dispicable things I have lived through, but we need to understand why they did it, not to couch it in simple phrases as "they hate freedom."

Let's be honest about the GOP using issues of hate such as banning gay marriage to get votes, not because they believe it will harm their own marriage.

Let's just be honest.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Let's be honest about the GOP using issues of hate such as banning gay marriage to get votes, not because they believe it will harm their own marriage.

Let's just be honest.


Okay, let's:

Votes upon the issue of gay marriage were were on the ballot in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri*, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah during the last Presidential election.

* Missouri held this vote on their state Democratic primary ballot earlier, in August 2004, we being the Show Me State and all. It passed here by 71% with DEMOCRATS ONLY voting.

Now look at the list. How many states did Bush win of those? 10 of the twelve? Now, how many of these states were close races between Bush and Kerry? One, Ohio, right?

You're seriously going to tell me that if not for gay marriage, Kerry would have won Ohio, when the vote to ban gay marriage there wasn't even close?

Next you'll tell us Kerry's illegally campaigning from church pulpits is evidence that America is dominated by right-wing Christian zealots, right?

Hello? Is this thing on?

beakerkin said...

B

Two distict points both sides are guilty on the Gay Marriage bit . Of
course gay marriage doesn't threaten anyones marriage. However , marriage is a religious
construct that is near universal
cross cultural impact. The majority of americans favor 54%
Civil Unions.

I do not want the government defining religious terms. I do support Civil Unions. These unions
carry the exact same legal status.

The question is why did the Gay activists push for a fight when a viable alternative is readily available ? It was a silly fight
and unnecessary.

I strongly disagree with you on Al Queda. Bin Ladden was a fringe playerin the Afghan Soviet war. He mostly raised money while Shah Massoud was outsmarting the Soviets. Heckmatyar and Rabani were more political figures then fighters.

The problem was that after the Soviets left the world lost intrest.The Jihadis went to new trouble spots Kashmir, Kosovo.

Bin Ladden was out of a job and read the wrong message in the Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan.
He interpreted this a a sign from Allah except that the key weapon was the stinger missile.

He formed a death cult and was involved in the Somali mess and WTC 93. Ramzi Youssefs Uncle is Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He thought that the US would lob a few missiles .

The correct way to view Bin Ladden
may not be as a coherent ideology.
This may be the present day incarnation of the cult of the Assassin. Suicide 72 virgins are the same but we do not know about drug use.

Al Queda's goals are Islamic dominance . I doubt that Osama envisioned an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Rouge states
are not exactly rushing to help Al
Queda.

beakerkin said...

Mr Beamish

Seriously I do not think about Gay marriage that often ? Why are some hung up on civil unions ? I do not understand why Gay activist pushed
this issue rather then take Civil Unions ?

B said...

In regards to civil unions, if such a strong majority of people support them, then why is it a part of the republican platform against them. Why do only a handful of states have them or something similar? Because the republicans are afraid of the religious right components of their party.

Jason_Pappas said...

“Jason I disagree with the post lets burn the Koran.” – Beak

LOL. Don’t worry, Beak. I didn’t go around demonstrating and burning things when I was twenty, I’m sure not about to start at fifty. I just thought we are too PC-respectful of Islam and, in a half-serious tongue-in-cheek manner, I was thinking out loud. Remember my humorous touches about the cost of burkas and the anarchists of Union Square (I knew you’d like that one!)

Of course, one of the great things about blogs is that you can think out loud and get feedback. If you go too far, people will tell you. That’s what friends are for. In any case, my latest post argues for well-articulated explanations – and patience. It’s going to be awhile before people understand.

beakerkin said...

Jason

Your post illustrated something disturbing about Conyers. As you read on your blog I used a Mountain Dew to stop a flag burning. The flag is every bit as
sacred to me as a book.

Yet Conyers voted twice against
Flag desecration and burning . All of the sudden he is for respecting
symbols.

The point is nobody will silence me
or you. We are Americans and Freedom of speech is our birthright. In fact those that wish to silence voices are unamerican.

B The sad part about the GOP position is math . When the question is framed as Marriage the issue is a winner for the GOP as there are more religious people then hard core secularist. However
if the argument is changed to Civil unions it would have been a winner for the Dems. The question is why fight this fight . I would ask the Gay activists is this the hill you wish to die on.

B said...

I think you are right, the republicans have been 100% better than the democrats at framing the issue. Your side as a way of painting us into a corner to fight the fight your side wants. I attribute that to not only the "right wing machine" which is a well oiled, cohesive machine, but also to my side being a bunch of pussies (excuse my language). My side needs to take a page from your side about talking points, cohesive message, and not backing down from our beliefs. We do a piss poor job of it.

beakerkin said...

B

You are right about those point but here is the kick in the groin.
The saying is this the hill you want to die on sums it up. This fight was not necessary and a waste.

I do not know why the gay activist
took a chance. Civil unions was acheivable and moderate Republicans
are supportive.

The other part is that human rights are too important for polls.
They should not be argued in that context.

Warren said...

I argued with a bunch of leftist about "gay marriage", about one year ago. I gave my reasons and invited argument.

I was barraged with some of the most hateful rhetoric I have ever encountered. I was called a homophobe, bigot, religious fundamentalist. I was told that I needed "to get my head right", That all of my reasons came "from some old book", (I never mentioned the bible except to correct a misquote), I was told I didn't know what I was talking about.

I was exasperated!

I finally asked why they were so vehement about"gay marriage" and that it would most likely backfire and why they didn't support civil unions.

Stony silence followed except for one person. They said 'that is the most hateful cynical statement they had ever read'.

Very well, I don't post where I am not wanted. I left and never made another post.

B, if your side goes around screaming all or nothing, then don't be surprised at the nothing.

While your side was cheering on the extralegal maneuvers of gay rights advocates and attempting the changing of law through judicial fiat instead of legislative means, you were pissing off people that believe in the legislative process.

Don't expect those actions to be rewarded by people that feel that leftists have overstepped their bounds. A lot of those people used to be considered liberals in their own right.

beakerkin said...

Warren

I have yet to hear what the problem with Civil Unions. The Gay
community has dug in their heels
and I do not understand. I keep asking why not Civil Unions it is the same thing except a different
name.

Why not tacticaly take a option with broader support.

I am glad you are feeling better.
I posted with Nora and she said her private mail account at Bad eagle is frozen. She seems less grumpy but she is a friend.

B said...

I truly believe that when most democrats speak of gay marriage, the mean the kind recognized by the state, NOT the religious kind. I agree 100% that religious marriage should be completely up to the specific religion to decide what types of marriages to sanction. As far as the marriages that have been done (Mass, CA, NY, wherever) both authorized and not authorized, they have ALL been the civil kind. Hell gay marriages sanctioned by specific churches have been going on for years and nobody cared about that. The problem is not whether you call it marriage or civil unions because the last thing we need to do is get into an argument over symantics. What matters is treating people with respect. I still stand by my statement that the republican leaders, as a whole, cannot accept civil unions as a platform because of the religious right.

If I wanted to I could find many right wing zeolots who don't think people of the same sex should even hold hands (semi sarcastic) so I beg of all you reasonable right wingers to not confer your thoughts about the fringe of my party to what most of my party stands for. I could do the exact thing to your side and come out with some pretty disgusting examples. But I know most republicans are good hearted people. Try to do the same for my party.

Warren said...

B, said:
"I still stand by my statement that the republican leaders, as a whole, cannot accept civil unions as a platform because of the religious right."

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I'm not sure how to answer that or even if its relevant to the issue.

It is quite clear that the majority of Republicans do not want "gay marriage". If you wish to characterize this as something that is the sole proprietorship of the religious right, you are free to do so. But you are wrong.

It was handled badly by the left and many blacks were insulted by attempting to link this to the black civil rights struggle.

Why should the Republican leadership alienate a significant part of its base to appease a group, that in all likelihood, would never vote for them?

It was the lefts idea and the onus was on them to frame this in a way that was acceptable to the majority of the American public. They failed, miserably.

beakerkin said...

B

I would feel somewhat more comfortable if a waranty were written into the law stating that the policy of who gets married is controlled by the church. You are forgetting about incrementalism as well. When cigarettes were taxed I told people to look out fast food will be next. In some locales this in now occurring.

I do not understand why the left side of this argument does not take the Civil Unions route. Even
Conservatives support that route .
Tacticaly it makes more sense to take what is available . Diging in your heels and fighting a loosing battle over a word makes zero sense.

The core of the problem is that some of the Gay Rights backers underestimate the importance of marriage in religion. The dismissal of the entire argument as homophobic ignores the reality
of the country. Warren and I are not Homophobic we are for Civil Unions. 9/10 of a loaf is better then none.

B said...

Beaks, I understand you support civil unions, but I don't see your party supporting them. You say they do, but show nothing to prove it. In fact it was part of your party platform against them. I think we are talking past each other between religious marriage and civil marriages or civil unions. The latter are exactly the same thing. The term marriage means two things, 1) to be recognized by god and your religion and 2) to be recognized by the state. All gays are asking for is the latter.

And Warren, no sour grapes here, that is just a fact. The likes of Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson would NEVER stand for civil unions and they hold your party by their short hairs. That is a fact.

beakerkin said...

B

Here is the situation as I see both parties. Both parties are held captive somewhat by extreemists.

A move by the democrats towards Civil Unions would force some GOP
people like myself and Warren to break ranks. The problem is as the game stands now the Dems can not win in an all or nothing situation.
There are more religious people then Pro Gay partisans. Thus it is incumbent on the Democrats to move the Yardstick to civil unions.

The democrats will not do this because they have an agitated minority anger that is anti Bush.
The problem is that rather then break the deadlock they want the pot to boil.

Wise leadership in the gay community would have taken the compromise waited a year or two and tried again. The problem is the Gay community is poorly led by far left types for the most part.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Here is the reason gay marriage was pushed. Homosexuality was supposed to be a "wedge issue" to divide the Republican Party into an argument between allegedly strong Christian right-wing zealots and social libertarians. The reason it failed is the GOP is ostensibly ideologically moderate. Cut taxes, reform education, keep Social Security solvent while reforms are made, maintain national security, strengthen international organizations to deal with terrorism and weapons proliferation - these are all things that moderates want, and not necessarily all of them are issues championed by "far right conservatives." This is the middle ground that Democrats surrendered in the last election.

The DNC raced to the far, far, far left (Kerry, Edwards, Sharpton, Kucinich, Gephardt, Clark, Dean, Mosely-Braun, and Leiberman all competed for who could be the most consistently ridiculous) then turned around and called Republicans the "far right." This only made the DNC ideological inconsistencies and incoherence more obvious.

The only people in the 2004 Presidential campaign that had a problem with gays and lesbians was John Kerry and John Edwards.

We saw this in 2002, with the Max Baucus Senate campaign to paint his Republican opponent Mike Taylor as a flaming homosexual. We saw it after the 2004 elections with all the "look who's gay" outing (whether true, false or malicious) of everyone from Jeff Gannon to Karl Rove.

If I were gay, I'd be disgusted by the DNC's lowest common denominator politics. But then, again, I'm not gay, so my politics aren't governed by who wants to lick fecal matter off my penis.

beakerkin said...

Mr Beamish

If the attempt was to draw a wedge
by the democrats it was stupid. The war in Iraq, the economy and
about 50 other issues rank higher
on my list of priorities.

To be honest I generaly do not think about this issue. If I am on
a liberal blog this subject is always in the top five.

If the option were civil unions would you object. Not all Gays are
idiots like 167 . There are plenty of people who go about their lives
and are fairly well adjusted.

I know several couples who are great people who happen to be gay.
A few have been together for ten years. They should have Civil Unions.

The Democrats did distastefully bring up the subject of gays . Who cares if the VP daughter is a lesbian ?

If the effort was to mobilize the Gay voter base it was absurd. Civil
unions make sense are reasonable .
There is zero reason for this fight.

Warren said...

Beak, Mr Beamish was right.

It was supposed to be a wedge issue and election year politics among the non-incumbent are always driven by who makes the most outrageous charges. Each primary candidate tries to outdo the other then runs back toward the middle.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, they went so far that they couldn't run convincingly to the middle. Nobody knew what John Kerry's position was, including him. But too many people felt he would cut and run in Iraq, just like what happened to Vietnam.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I'm opposed to "civil unions." Why? What is the difference between a gay marriage and a gay "civil union?" How it's spelled, and what?

Homosexuality is a behavioral disorder, not a culture or ideology. Push the bar in any direction - if people are "born gay" then we need prenatal care to cure this affliction. If people are choosing to "be gay" then their deviance from and against their societal norms - in EVERY society on Earth - deserves every drop of disdain it recieves. Name the civilization that can be hailed for its legitimization of homosexuality and its attendant philosophies of pedophilia and bestiality. I can name several that failed because of it.

I hope someone brings up Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his stomach-turning junk science. I'd like to ask them point blank how he discovered that 5 year old boys can have sexual orgasms from anal intercourse.