Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

to make them accountable to the people?

Conservative activists are trying to oust three judges on the state Supreme Court whose unanimous ruling last year legalized same-sex unions. Their decision stunned opponents nationwide and delighted advocates who were eager for a victory in the heartland.

Why are supporters of Gay Marriage worried about this? It’s explained after the jump:

Gay rights groups have been less successful in the voting booth; in every state where the issue has been put on the ballot, voters have agreed to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. emphasis mine

One can legitimately disagree on having elected vs appointed judges, both systems have advantages and disadvantages, but to get all in a huff because an elected official is being held accountable for actions in an elected office is just nonsense and highlights the disrespect and disdain the elites have with the voters in general and apparently our republican system in particular

Memeorandum thread here

…concerning the White House making their own mess on the Ground Zero Mosque issue (that I really am sick of writing about). The inability to see that the White House turned this into a national story by the president’s statement and then his attempted retreat and the attempt to play the “demagogue” card on the issue.

More amazing is the continued attempts to push the White House to try to use the Bushes to bail them out here. Why either of the Bushes would be compelled to do so is totally beyond me.

It is interesting to note I don’t hear them calling on the silent Bill Clinton to speak up on the issue. Why? Because Bill Clinton is much too smart to do so, particularity if there is the slightest chance his wife will be running in a 2012 primary against this president.

The team did have Irshad Manji on in the first hour and her interesting WSJ piece:

Consider Bob, who feels so offended by antimosque activists in his state of Tennessee that these feelings alone drive him to support more mosques—without prior thought to what, exactly, he’s supporting. “I found local citizens to be intolerant and un-American,” Bob tells me over email. “So as a gesture of tolerance and Americanism, I donated to the mosque building fund.”

Before pledging a penny, Bob should have asked the imam: “Where will the men’s side of this mosque be?” It’s a discreet way of discerning whether the project will replicate segregation, and thus whether the mosque will wind up bolstering the intolerant behavior that Bob can’t abide.

She however sees possibility for the Mosque provided some questions are answered:

Namely, accountability. If Park51 gets built, thanks to its provocative location the nation will scrutinize what takes place inside. Americans have the opportunity right now to be clear about the civic values expected from any Islam practiced at the site.

That means setting aside bombast and asking the imam questions born of the highest American ideals: individual dignity and pluralism of ideas.

• Will the swimming pool at Park51 be segregated between men and women at any time of the day or night?

• May women lead congregational prayers any day of the week?

• Will Jews and Christians, fellow People of the Book, be able to use the prayer sanctuary for their services just as Muslims share prayer space with Christians and Jews in the Pentagon? (Spare me the technocratic argument that the Pentagon is a governmental, not private, building. Park51 may be private in the legal sense but is a public symbol par excellence.)

• What will be taught about homosexuals? About agnostics? About atheists? About apostasy?

• Where does one sign up for advance tickets to Salman Rushdie’s lecture at Park51?

These questions aren’t gratuitous. I, for one, remain haunted by the 300 Muslims chanting “Death to Rushdie” on Sept. 10, 2001.

Note the date. The fact is radical Islam didn’t first arrive in the US on Sept 11, 2001, it was just the first day Americans realized it.

Will the MSM ask such questions? Will they dare? Will any show other than Morning Joe in the 6 a.m hour dare bring it up?

Even when playing advocate they still do a better job than the rest of the MSM.

Jonah Goldberg writes a column in the LA times the once and for all proves that there are lies, damn lies and statistics:

According to the FBI, hate crimes against Muslims increased by a staggering 1,600% in 2001. That sounds serious! But wait, the increase is a math mirage. There were 28 anti-Islamic incidents in 2000. That number climbed to 481 the year a bunch of Muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on Sept. 11.

Now, that was a hate crime.

Roll that number around your head. There are 300+ Million people in the US and 50 states in the country and in 2001 “hate crimes” a population out for revenge doesn’t even hit one a month per state?

Regardless, 2001 was the zenith or, looked at through the prism of our national shame, the nadir of the much-discussed anti-Muslim backlash in the United States. The following year, the number of anti-Islamic hate-crime incidents (overwhelmingly, nonviolent vandalism and nasty words) dropped to 155. In 2003, there were 149 such incidents. And the number has hovered around the mid-100s or lower ever since.

Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like a anti-Muslim backlash to you?

So we are talking vandalism and nasty words? Lets look at the post 2002 numbers for a sec, The fabulously intolerant Americans that Andrea Mitchell is lecturing concerning sensitivity managed less than one “incident” per season per state since 9/11? And these “incidents” are apparently vandalism and nasty words? This again in a population of 300+ million?

Read the whole thing including that the number of anti Jewish incidents are 6 times higher and anti-islamic ones in the US over the same period.

Maybe if the MSM wants to find bigotry it should look in the mirror and ask themselves why they think the American people are a bunch of hate mongers. Then perhaps their ratings wouldn’t be in the toilet

And finally lets drop this whole “hate” crimes nonsense anyway. It criminalizes thought. Prosecute a rock through a window because it’s a rock through somebody’s window. Justice and law should be color blind.

memeorandum thread here

Update: I would have given a parody example of the MSM’s way of thinking but I couldn’t do better than Alex Pareene’s actual column for salon today. It is almost impossible to parody the left wing media.

Apparently the UK Guardian has been attacking Pam Geller and have been featuring a Bikini shot of her in the stories. Pam answers them in this post:

Knowledgeable conservative readers will get a charge out of the Guardian’s story, which is a mixture of pure fiction and dangerous lies, all devoted to the marginalization of those who dare to expose the liberal media propaganda machine.

The anti-Semitism was open: “Geller,” claimed Chris McGreal, the author of the piece, “writes for an Israeli media network based in the occupied territories that is the voice of the Jewish settler movement.”

I do? They just make stuff up. I don’t even know what they are talking about, but if Chris McGreal is in touch with this “Israeli media network,” he should let them know that I would love to write for them — please point the way!

Pam being Pam hits them head on answering them at her site and Big Journalism:

What’s the point of this stupid hit piece? And yes, it is worse than that. At the moment when I am identified more than anyone else with the fight against the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero, they’re trying to make me radioactive, so that no one will dare to stand with me.

Anyone who has met Pam would be proud to stand with her, she is a woman of ethics, courage who has acted when others have shown fear. Anyone who thinks she had a bigoted bone in her body is drinking and smoking something stronger then I do.

As for the constant use of Bikini photos, well other than trying to be included in Rule 5 Sunday their use of them at the Guardian confirms one thing.

While they strategic, historical and sociological visions are faulty, their basic eyesight is apparently excellent.