"Doudou Diene of Senegal walked into a downtown Los Angeles job center this week in search of racism. He found it everywhere he looked."
Surprise, surprise!
Friday 30 May 2008
Thursday 29 May 2008
Round-up
1. Oh for pete's sake...The Australian government have offered to run anti-racism projects in Sydney after a council there rejected an Islamic school.
Never mind that the council did so based on planning issues and not racial or religious bias. And what race is Islam again???????
2. Amnesty International has said it is extremely alarmed by "a climate of discrimination" in Italy. The Italian section of the rights body said recent tough new immigration measures were a worrying trend.
Here are those "tough new immigration measures" AI are so "alarmed" about: "Illegal immigration will become punishable by up to four years in prison, it will be easier to expel illegal immigrants and there will be a three-year prison sentence for using minors to beg for money." Can somebody please explain to me why dealing justly with criminals is discriminatory?
3. Amen: A letter at the Augusta Chronicle says what we're all thinking about Obama and racism.
4. "Duck Race To End Racism" scheduled for June 7th
How is a "duck race" going to end racism?
Never mind that the council did so based on planning issues and not racial or religious bias. And what race is Islam again???????
2. Amnesty International has said it is extremely alarmed by "a climate of discrimination" in Italy. The Italian section of the rights body said recent tough new immigration measures were a worrying trend.
Here are those "tough new immigration measures" AI are so "alarmed" about: "Illegal immigration will become punishable by up to four years in prison, it will be easier to expel illegal immigrants and there will be a three-year prison sentence for using minors to beg for money." Can somebody please explain to me why dealing justly with criminals is discriminatory?
3. Amen: A letter at the Augusta Chronicle says what we're all thinking about Obama and racism.
4. "Duck Race To End Racism" scheduled for June 7th
How is a "duck race" going to end racism?
Wednesday 28 May 2008
Round-up
1. British South Asians suffering from depression and other mental health problems are missing out on treatment because of ''institutional racism'' in the state health service, a senior health executive has charged.
We've seen similar allegations before, only back then the "racism" was supposedly being directed towards Africans rather than Asians. But in both cases, one thing is missing in these stories: evidence.
2. A Sydney council's rejection of plans for a proposed Islamic school is a "victory for racism", according to the Australian Muslim advocacy group FAIR (Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations - sounds eerily like CAIR...). Meanwhile, the council defended its decision by claiming that the school was rejected because of traffic control issues, and not based on racism or religious bigotry.
A "victory for racism..." Muslim spokesmen have never quite explained what race Islam is, have they? And in fact, FAIR executive director Kuranda Seyit undoes this whole argument of racism by saying, "The fact is that Muslims are diverse and come from more than 65 different ethnic groups..." So which race are the council supposed to be biased against again?
3. A nice response by a (presumably) conservative blogger refuting the claim of a liberal blogger that conservatives "feel no guilt" about racism...because, of course, all conservatives are inherently racist themselves. Such a silly, bigoted claim is barely worth replying to, but Conor Friedersdorf does so admirably.
Incidentally, these guys may wanna check out the new claims that Democrats have themselves been supporters of racist groups and policies for many years.
We've seen similar allegations before, only back then the "racism" was supposedly being directed towards Africans rather than Asians. But in both cases, one thing is missing in these stories: evidence.
2. A Sydney council's rejection of plans for a proposed Islamic school is a "victory for racism", according to the Australian Muslim advocacy group FAIR (Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations - sounds eerily like CAIR...). Meanwhile, the council defended its decision by claiming that the school was rejected because of traffic control issues, and not based on racism or religious bigotry.
A "victory for racism..." Muslim spokesmen have never quite explained what race Islam is, have they? And in fact, FAIR executive director Kuranda Seyit undoes this whole argument of racism by saying, "The fact is that Muslims are diverse and come from more than 65 different ethnic groups..." So which race are the council supposed to be biased against again?
3. A nice response by a (presumably) conservative blogger refuting the claim of a liberal blogger that conservatives "feel no guilt" about racism...because, of course, all conservatives are inherently racist themselves. Such a silly, bigoted claim is barely worth replying to, but Conor Friedersdorf does so admirably.
Incidentally, these guys may wanna check out the new claims that Democrats have themselves been supporters of racist groups and policies for many years.
Tuesday 27 May 2008
Islam On Doctors
I had a lazy day today, which meant I found myself watching daytime television. This included the soap "Doctors".
The reason I'm mentioning it is because it contained a trendy subplot about terrorism that I think demonstrates all that is wrong with Western media attitudes and understandings of Islam and its role in terrorism.
The set-up is this: a bunch of characters are on a bus. Among them is a young Muslim chap who is acting suspiciously. He is trembling, muttering to himself in Arabic, and has wires coming out of his jacket. Some of the passengers fear a suicide bomber.
At this point, one man begins to chirp up about his suspicion, and starts talking about the infamous harem virgins which suicide bombers believe will be their reward, etc (incidentally, see Qur'an 37:48, 44:54, 55:56, 55:58, 56:36, and 78:31, among others, lest anyone think the guy made all this up). For this, he is castigated by a female passenger who says: "Don't politicise Islam; most Muslims are spiritual, not political!" Perhaps she never heard of those 40% of British Muslims who want the Islamic political system, the sharia, to be instituted in full in this country...
Anyway, she goes on to make a number of other PC assertions:
"It's people like you [the man who was suspicious] who create terrorists in the first place!" Here once again is the assumption on the part of the scriptwriters (for she was undoubtedly parroting their beliefs) that if we talk about the fact that Muslims are committing terrorist acts, this will make Muslims who abhor terrorism suddenly join the terrorists. Absurd.
"Hitler was a Christian; does that mean Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust?" A false claim, but even if true it does not prove anything and simply sidesteps the important issues.
After retailing these PC soundbites; the writers change tack - the suspicious man is depicted as hating Muslims and wanting them all to be deported. Here we have a blatant insinuation that if you criticise Islam, or even draw attention to the fact that a potential terrorist is a Muslim, you are de facto a racist and a bigot.
At the end of it all, the youth turns out to simply be an autistic schoolboy, and the wires coming out of his coat...well, they were just iPod headphones, weren't they? Islamophobe! Ultimately, the suspicious man is "reported to the relevant authorities" for his "comments". To which he brilliantly replies (in a moment of unintentional foresight from the Lefty scriptwriters), "Go on then, you might as well put a fatwa on me while you're at it!"
All of this is essentially designed to appease Islam. The message of this episode was that we should not report suspicious behaviour in public places by Muslims. If we do, we're hysterical and Islamophobic. The real kicker was the deliberate emotional manipulation of having the "terrorist" turn out to be autistic. Why, that's just the worst thing ever, isn't it? Not only was the man suspicious of an innocent person, but he was suspicious of a boy with a mental disorder! The lowest of the low! And of course, the one character who dares to sound any sour notes is "exposed" as a "racist".
This may have been only a fictional TV show, but the message it was intended to convey is all too typical of media (and general public) attitudes towards Islam and terrorism. They are dhimmis, through and through. And to think that WE'RE paying for this craven appeasement with our license fees!
The reason I'm mentioning it is because it contained a trendy subplot about terrorism that I think demonstrates all that is wrong with Western media attitudes and understandings of Islam and its role in terrorism.
The set-up is this: a bunch of characters are on a bus. Among them is a young Muslim chap who is acting suspiciously. He is trembling, muttering to himself in Arabic, and has wires coming out of his jacket. Some of the passengers fear a suicide bomber.
At this point, one man begins to chirp up about his suspicion, and starts talking about the infamous harem virgins which suicide bombers believe will be their reward, etc (incidentally, see Qur'an 37:48, 44:54, 55:56, 55:58, 56:36, and 78:31, among others, lest anyone think the guy made all this up). For this, he is castigated by a female passenger who says: "Don't politicise Islam; most Muslims are spiritual, not political!" Perhaps she never heard of those 40% of British Muslims who want the Islamic political system, the sharia, to be instituted in full in this country...
Anyway, she goes on to make a number of other PC assertions:
"It's people like you [the man who was suspicious] who create terrorists in the first place!" Here once again is the assumption on the part of the scriptwriters (for she was undoubtedly parroting their beliefs) that if we talk about the fact that Muslims are committing terrorist acts, this will make Muslims who abhor terrorism suddenly join the terrorists. Absurd.
"Hitler was a Christian; does that mean Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust?" A false claim, but even if true it does not prove anything and simply sidesteps the important issues.
After retailing these PC soundbites; the writers change tack - the suspicious man is depicted as hating Muslims and wanting them all to be deported. Here we have a blatant insinuation that if you criticise Islam, or even draw attention to the fact that a potential terrorist is a Muslim, you are de facto a racist and a bigot.
At the end of it all, the youth turns out to simply be an autistic schoolboy, and the wires coming out of his coat...well, they were just iPod headphones, weren't they? Islamophobe! Ultimately, the suspicious man is "reported to the relevant authorities" for his "comments". To which he brilliantly replies (in a moment of unintentional foresight from the Lefty scriptwriters), "Go on then, you might as well put a fatwa on me while you're at it!"
All of this is essentially designed to appease Islam. The message of this episode was that we should not report suspicious behaviour in public places by Muslims. If we do, we're hysterical and Islamophobic. The real kicker was the deliberate emotional manipulation of having the "terrorist" turn out to be autistic. Why, that's just the worst thing ever, isn't it? Not only was the man suspicious of an innocent person, but he was suspicious of a boy with a mental disorder! The lowest of the low! And of course, the one character who dares to sound any sour notes is "exposed" as a "racist".
This may have been only a fictional TV show, but the message it was intended to convey is all too typical of media (and general public) attitudes towards Islam and terrorism. They are dhimmis, through and through. And to think that WE'RE paying for this craven appeasement with our license fees!
Thursday 22 May 2008
In The Air Tonight
Last week I posted a clip of the Northern Kings covering Tina Turner's "We Don't Need Another Hero". Well, this week I'm posting another song by them: this time it's "In The Air Tonight" by Phil Collins - sung entirely by Marco Hietala of Nightwish fame. The vocals in the last minute or so are utterly ridiculous...I love them. :)
Oh, by the way, I'm not going to be around for the next few days, till Wednesday next week probably. Just sayin'...
Oh, by the way, I'm not going to be around for the next few days, till Wednesday next week probably. Just sayin'...
Round-up
1. Xenophobic racism in South Africa as immigrants were beaten, shot at, stabbed, raped and burnt by groups rampaging through squatter camps and townships looking for victims.
I wonder: where has Nelson Mandela been during all this and similar events? Have you heard any words of condemnation from him?
2. A 24-year-old Chinese man was arrested in Singapore on May 20 and charged with posting racist comments on his blog, according to the Singapore Police Force.
How Orwellian does this sound? As per usual, the so-called "racist" comments are mysteriously left undisclosed. It looks as if the blogger is being forced to apologise - of course, the article makes it sound like he's doing it of his own volition, but I doubt it.
I wonder: where has Nelson Mandela been during all this and similar events? Have you heard any words of condemnation from him?
2. A 24-year-old Chinese man was arrested in Singapore on May 20 and charged with posting racist comments on his blog, according to the Singapore Police Force.
How Orwellian does this sound? As per usual, the so-called "racist" comments are mysteriously left undisclosed. It looks as if the blogger is being forced to apologise - of course, the article makes it sound like he's doing it of his own volition, but I doubt it.
Wednesday 21 May 2008
Spiked
I see that trendy black leftist hatemonger Spike Lee launched a bitter attack on Clint Eastwood yesterday, condemning his failure to include a single African-American soldier in his films about the Battle of Iwo Jima.
As far as I can determine, the percentage of blacks who fought at Iwo Jima was approximately 0.8% of the fighters. Movies have to be realistic, Spike; you should know that most of all!
As far as I can determine, the percentage of blacks who fought at Iwo Jima was approximately 0.8% of the fighters. Movies have to be realistic, Spike; you should know that most of all!
The Indian Cheerleading Controversy...
There's a new racism scandal in town...During a match of an unidentified sport in India (I think it was cricket), two cheerleaders were apparently told that they couldn't perform because they were black.
This definitely sounds like racism from here; and it is an uncomfortable fact that a lot of caste racism exists in India. But on the other hand, Wizkraft, the event management company hired by the Mohali team franchisee, completely deny the claims and are saying the story was fabricated.
One to watch out for, as they say.
This definitely sounds like racism from here; and it is an uncomfortable fact that a lot of caste racism exists in India. But on the other hand, Wizkraft, the event management company hired by the Mohali team franchisee, completely deny the claims and are saying the story was fabricated.
One to watch out for, as they say.
Tuesday 20 May 2008
Oh Dear...
Take a look at this letter over at the Concord Monitor:
In a May 17 Monitor opinion piece the conservative Charles Krauthammer said, "Look at Gaza today. No Israeli occupation, no settlements, not a single Jew left. The Palestinian response? Unremitting rocket fire killing and maiming Israeli civilians."
In a May 17 Monitor opinion piece the conservative Charles Krauthammer said, "Look at Gaza today. No Israeli occupation, no settlements, not a single Jew left. The Palestinian response? Unremitting rocket fire killing and maiming Israeli civilians."
Krauthammer's comments are disingenuous and misleading. Israel has long followed a policy of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. In doubt? Go to Youtube.com, type in "Gaza," and see what turns up. Or take a look at occupation101.com. Krauthammer is part of a massive disinformation campaign that supports current U.S. policy in the Middle East.
No computer? Take a look at Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilization. Conflicts in the Middle East date back before the First World War, when the Middle East was divided up by the European powers. Palestine - and Israel - were and continue to be the victims of colonial policy.
Israel's policy of dispossessing Palestinians and occupying land legally deeded to Palestinians, and Israel's continued policy of cleansing settlement land by firing on civilians, has sown the seeds of its own destruction. This is a people made mad by its own sad history. Now it is visiting sorrow on another people.
This has nothing to do with Jew and non-Jew. There are thousands of Jews opposed to Israel's policy. It has to do with those tired but still appropriate clichés: colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, militarism, racism.
Unfortunately for David Levine of Hopkinton, pretty much everything he says here is utterly wrong. In fact, the "conservative" writer he quotes at the beginning is most correct. See here for the truth about that "illegal occupation". It is also interesting that he refers to a book by Robert Fisk - the man whose bias and fact-free arguments actually led to the invention of the term "fisking an argument" - i.e. tearing it to shreds and exposing the falsity of it.
And what about that "policy of cleansing settlement land by firing on civilians"? Utter rubbish. Civilians have been killed by the Israelis, but only because the Palestinians deliberately withdraw into civilian areas during shootouts in the knowledge that any collateral damage on the part of the Israelis can be used for propaganda purposes.
Monday 19 May 2008
Round-up
1. The Zutons are now playing at Rock Against Racism. The Zutons! That'll stop racism at last!
2. An interesting piece about left-wing and Democratic racism. It sounds sensationalist: "Did you know…Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican? Every civil rights law, beginning in the 1860s through the 1950s and 1960s, was fought against by Democrats? Or the KKK had links to the Democratic Party?" But it's interesting nonetheless. Give it a read.
2. An interesting piece about left-wing and Democratic racism. It sounds sensationalist: "Did you know…Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican? Every civil rights law, beginning in the 1860s through the 1950s and 1960s, was fought against by Democrats? Or the KKK had links to the Democratic Party?" But it's interesting nonetheless. Give it a read.
Friday 16 May 2008
Friday Share
I haven't done a share for a while, but it's a spectacular one this week. This is the Northern Kings singing a cover of Tina Turner's "We Don't Need Another Hero". As for the background: the Northern Kings consist of four well-known singers from Finnish metal bands. They've gathered together to create an album of covers of cheesy 80s pop songs, converting them to metal songs. It's hilarious. This is the only song on their album where all four singers perform together, unfortunately, but I will be posting another track from this group next week.
In case you are curious, the singers in this group, in order of appearance in this track, are: JP Leppaluoto of Charon, Marco Hietala of Tarot and Nightwish, Tony Kakko of Sonata Arctica, and Jarkko Ahola of Terasbetoni (who happen to be this year's Finnish entrants for Eurovision, as seen in the link!):
In case you are curious, the singers in this group, in order of appearance in this track, are: JP Leppaluoto of Charon, Marco Hietala of Tarot and Nightwish, Tony Kakko of Sonata Arctica, and Jarkko Ahola of Terasbetoni (who happen to be this year's Finnish entrants for Eurovision, as seen in the link!):
RAW Watch...With A Difference
You'll probably be aware now of my semi-regular RAW Watch feature, in which I post links to stories which make the remarkable and revolutionary journalistic observation that "racism is alive and well" in the world today.
Well, here's another one, but it's a bit better than usual as it's more in keeping with reality. This excellent article exposes racism AGAINST whites in America today. It also very briefly points out the racist attitudes that exist in the Orient, which is something that the mainstream media never cover. Few people know or care about the racial theories of biological and spiritual purity that are prevalent in China and Japan, or the inter-caste hatred and violence that is common in India and Pakistan. For white self-loathing liberals, racism can ONLY be a white thing, and most racism in the world comes from whites. Well, it ain't so, and this article is just a small example of why.
Well, here's another one, but it's a bit better than usual as it's more in keeping with reality. This excellent article exposes racism AGAINST whites in America today. It also very briefly points out the racist attitudes that exist in the Orient, which is something that the mainstream media never cover. Few people know or care about the racial theories of biological and spiritual purity that are prevalent in China and Japan, or the inter-caste hatred and violence that is common in India and Pakistan. For white self-loathing liberals, racism can ONLY be a white thing, and most racism in the world comes from whites. Well, it ain't so, and this article is just a small example of why.
Thursday 15 May 2008
Victory For Dispatches
I see that West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have apologised for accusing the makers of the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary "Undercover Mosque" of distortion. If you'll remember, the police accused the producers of using selective editing to twist the words of Islamic preachers "out of context" (that old chestnut). But the new statement, released to the media after the High Court hearing by West Midlands Police, said they accepted there had been no evidence that Channel 4 or the documentary makers had "misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity".
A small victory, then, for Dispatches...and also a victory in the fight against craven dhimmitude. But I have a question: the police are apparently now satisfied that the programme wasn't intended to "encourage or incite criminal activity". So what are they doing about the preachers in the programme, who actually DID incite criminal activity?
A small victory, then, for Dispatches...and also a victory in the fight against craven dhimmitude. But I have a question: the police are apparently now satisfied that the programme wasn't intended to "encourage or incite criminal activity". So what are they doing about the preachers in the programme, who actually DID incite criminal activity?
Tuesday 13 May 2008
First Steps Are Not Enough
The key to combating racism is a focus on pluralism, says an author on the subject, Mansoor Ladha, a Shia Ismaili Muslim who moved to Canada from Tanzania in 1972.
So far, so good, but then it goes downhill: "Muslims have been stereotyped," says the author. "After 9-11, everyone who wears a beard was regarded as a terrorist. It was difficult for Muslims to go to the United States." I wonder whether Ladha can point to any evidence for this assertion. I rather doubt it. I hate to keep bringing this up, but it is something of an inconvenient truth: Muslims are the least hated minority group in America.
"Even now, there are people with names like Abdul or Amin who are being singled out by the immigration department in the United States."
Gasp! Islamophobia!
My main question for Mr. Ladha here is this: There are many Muslims in the West today who have no loyalty to the states they live in, and no intention of integrating into Western society. Many openly abhor the West. Many more openly despise Jews and Christians and others. How are you going to combat that, Mr. Ladha? Why is it that all Muslim "plans" for a pluralistic and peaceful society are so one-sided? The emphasis is always placed on how non-Muslims can be less "racist" or "Islamophobic", but never on what Muslims can do to contribute to this paradisaical society. Why is that?
The article ends with Ladha pointing to the current Aga Khan - the Imam of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims - as an example of the model he is following. Claims the article: "Known as a philanthropist, the Aga Khan has built universities, hospitals and schools, all in the name of pluralism." What is never adequately answered is the definition of what "pluralism" is. Because even looking up this quite reverent Wikipedia page about him, I can't tell. Could it be that that the Aga Khan is tolerant towards all races and creeds...along as they are all Muslim? The Wikipedia entry also lists one of the Aga Khan's achievements as "the expulsion of Asians from Uganda". That doesn't sound very pluralistic!
In summary, then, this is the sort of thing that apparently comforts some liberal Westerners, but leaves more questions unresolved than it answers. Why does Mansoor Ladha seem to believe that only non-Muslims are responsible for creating a pluralistic society? We've heard this kind of one-sided veiled threat-making from Muslims before. What does Mansoor Ladha - or the Aga Khan, for that matter - mean by pluralism? Until we get clearer answers, first steps like this are never going to be enough.
So far, so good, but then it goes downhill: "Muslims have been stereotyped," says the author. "After 9-11, everyone who wears a beard was regarded as a terrorist. It was difficult for Muslims to go to the United States." I wonder whether Ladha can point to any evidence for this assertion. I rather doubt it. I hate to keep bringing this up, but it is something of an inconvenient truth: Muslims are the least hated minority group in America.
"Even now, there are people with names like Abdul or Amin who are being singled out by the immigration department in the United States."
Gasp! Islamophobia!
My main question for Mr. Ladha here is this: There are many Muslims in the West today who have no loyalty to the states they live in, and no intention of integrating into Western society. Many openly abhor the West. Many more openly despise Jews and Christians and others. How are you going to combat that, Mr. Ladha? Why is it that all Muslim "plans" for a pluralistic and peaceful society are so one-sided? The emphasis is always placed on how non-Muslims can be less "racist" or "Islamophobic", but never on what Muslims can do to contribute to this paradisaical society. Why is that?
The article ends with Ladha pointing to the current Aga Khan - the Imam of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims - as an example of the model he is following. Claims the article: "Known as a philanthropist, the Aga Khan has built universities, hospitals and schools, all in the name of pluralism." What is never adequately answered is the definition of what "pluralism" is. Because even looking up this quite reverent Wikipedia page about him, I can't tell. Could it be that that the Aga Khan is tolerant towards all races and creeds...along as they are all Muslim? The Wikipedia entry also lists one of the Aga Khan's achievements as "the expulsion of Asians from Uganda". That doesn't sound very pluralistic!
In summary, then, this is the sort of thing that apparently comforts some liberal Westerners, but leaves more questions unresolved than it answers. Why does Mansoor Ladha seem to believe that only non-Muslims are responsible for creating a pluralistic society? We've heard this kind of one-sided veiled threat-making from Muslims before. What does Mansoor Ladha - or the Aga Khan, for that matter - mean by pluralism? Until we get clearer answers, first steps like this are never going to be enough.
Monday 12 May 2008
Russian Racism?
What do you make of Dutch football manager Dick Advocaat's revelation that he won't sign black players for the Russian team he manages, Zenit St. Petersburg, because the fans would object? That's some pretty large-scale racism. It's notable already that while this has received some coverage - some of it in-depth - it hasn't received the kind of wide-scale coverage you might expect. That's probably cos it's Russian. As we well-educated, balanced souls over here know, it's only Britain and America that are the true racist nations.
Friday 9 May 2008
Round-up
1. RAW Watch: Redneck Racism Still Rampant
2. In this amazingly dishonest article, Mustafa Qadri accuses terrorism and Islam expert Daniel Pipes of "racism" (without ever explaining how Islam is a race, of course) for essentially speaking the truth. I should point out now that I don't agree with everything Pipes says. He's on the right side, but occasionally makes some quite stupid and confused statements. Nevertheless, he is not a racist, and Mustafa Qadri's tendency to simply quote anything Pipes says as self-evident racism rather than refuting it speaks for itself. It is a pretty good indicator that someone's viewpoint on this matter is to be ignored if they use the word "racism" - it's one of the dumbest things anyone could say in such a debate.
Robert Spencer has often asked this question, and I repeat it here: Why can't Muslims debate?
2. In this amazingly dishonest article, Mustafa Qadri accuses terrorism and Islam expert Daniel Pipes of "racism" (without ever explaining how Islam is a race, of course) for essentially speaking the truth. I should point out now that I don't agree with everything Pipes says. He's on the right side, but occasionally makes some quite stupid and confused statements. Nevertheless, he is not a racist, and Mustafa Qadri's tendency to simply quote anything Pipes says as self-evident racism rather than refuting it speaks for itself. It is a pretty good indicator that someone's viewpoint on this matter is to be ignored if they use the word "racism" - it's one of the dumbest things anyone could say in such a debate.
Robert Spencer has often asked this question, and I repeat it here: Why can't Muslims debate?
Thursday 8 May 2008
Round-up
1. An excellent letter to a Virginia publication about the hypocrisy of Jeremiah Wright.
2. An awful piece at the Harvard International Review: "The Evolution of Racism".
There is lots of stuff about Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, none of which constitutes racism - and in fact, the Iraq venture, as misguided as it was, was designed to help Muslims, not hinder or endanger them. The author chest-thumps over Rudi Guiliani's admonition that "we are not afraid to call Nazis by their true names - so why are we afraid about speaking of 'Islamic terrorism?' In another speech, he made Nazi/terrorist references six times." The author goes on: "Violent acts of terrorism are despicable and our security is a number one priority, but equating Nazism with Islam is unacceptable and ludicrous, painting a horrific picture of Islam to the general public." Zehra Hirji apparently has trouble reading English. To talk about Islamic terrorism and compare this ideology with the Nazis does NOT paint Islam itself in a negative light any more than talking about Italian fascism puts all of Italy in a bad light, or talking about ghastly wallpaper puts all wallpaper in a bad light. Hirji is reading what he/she wants to read and nothing more. Hirji opines that "I have been told at university that, 'Arabs are less than human' and they deserve their fate." For one thing, I rather suspect that this is a totally inaccurate paraphrasing of whatever Hirji was really told, but if someone did say this as it was described, then I of course utterly condemn such language.
And finally Hirji makes some general remarks about how the US now hates Muslims more than any other group in America. So perhaps he/she can explain why Muslims suffered the least number of hate crimes last year than any other group in America, including whites and Jews. I won't be holding my breath.
2. An awful piece at the Harvard International Review: "The Evolution of Racism".
There is lots of stuff about Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, none of which constitutes racism - and in fact, the Iraq venture, as misguided as it was, was designed to help Muslims, not hinder or endanger them. The author chest-thumps over Rudi Guiliani's admonition that "we are not afraid to call Nazis by their true names - so why are we afraid about speaking of 'Islamic terrorism?' In another speech, he made Nazi/terrorist references six times." The author goes on: "Violent acts of terrorism are despicable and our security is a number one priority, but equating Nazism with Islam is unacceptable and ludicrous, painting a horrific picture of Islam to the general public." Zehra Hirji apparently has trouble reading English. To talk about Islamic terrorism and compare this ideology with the Nazis does NOT paint Islam itself in a negative light any more than talking about Italian fascism puts all of Italy in a bad light, or talking about ghastly wallpaper puts all wallpaper in a bad light. Hirji is reading what he/she wants to read and nothing more. Hirji opines that "I have been told at university that, 'Arabs are less than human' and they deserve their fate." For one thing, I rather suspect that this is a totally inaccurate paraphrasing of whatever Hirji was really told, but if someone did say this as it was described, then I of course utterly condemn such language.
And finally Hirji makes some general remarks about how the US now hates Muslims more than any other group in America. So perhaps he/she can explain why Muslims suffered the least number of hate crimes last year than any other group in America, including whites and Jews. I won't be holding my breath.
Tuesday 6 May 2008
Wake Up America
At the blog Wake Up America, the blogger there has responded intelligently and fairly to a comment from one of his readers. The commenter said:
Jews are the market dominant minority of the middle east. That is why they are hated so much. Instead of admitting that Jews are probably genetically smarter than other races, Muslims come up with strange conspiracies to rationalize their inability to build successful, modern societies.
This is how Roger W. Gardener responded (in part):
I think that Jews are hated by Arabs because they are Jews; it's an integral part of their "religion" and their culture. To look for any other explanations is, to me, beside the point, and perhaps in an odd way lends a certain credence to their murderous lunacies.
Spot on. I would not be surprised if there is some resentment from Arab Muslims about Israeli Jews' academic and material success as opposed to the Muslim world, but make no mistake - that is because of religion. The Judeo-Christian tradition is fairly open to scientific enquiry; Islamic culture is not. And religion, too, is the main motivator for Arab hatred of Jews. It's all in the Qur'an. People tend to forget that.
Jews are the market dominant minority of the middle east. That is why they are hated so much. Instead of admitting that Jews are probably genetically smarter than other races, Muslims come up with strange conspiracies to rationalize their inability to build successful, modern societies.
This is how Roger W. Gardener responded (in part):
I think that Jews are hated by Arabs because they are Jews; it's an integral part of their "religion" and their culture. To look for any other explanations is, to me, beside the point, and perhaps in an odd way lends a certain credence to their murderous lunacies.
Spot on. I would not be surprised if there is some resentment from Arab Muslims about Israeli Jews' academic and material success as opposed to the Muslim world, but make no mistake - that is because of religion. The Judeo-Christian tradition is fairly open to scientific enquiry; Islamic culture is not. And religion, too, is the main motivator for Arab hatred of Jews. It's all in the Qur'an. People tend to forget that.
Friday 2 May 2008
A Lover of Porn
This is totally off-topic but it's so good that I just couldn't not post it.
A local council employee in Japan has been punished after it was discovered he had accessed porn websites at work more than 780,000 times in nine months. That works out at almost 10,000 pages a day, or more than 20 each minute he was at his desk!
How is that even possible? How could he possibly digest or enjoy this porn going through it at such a rapid rate? Now THAT'S a dirty bastard.
A local council employee in Japan has been punished after it was discovered he had accessed porn websites at work more than 780,000 times in nine months. That works out at almost 10,000 pages a day, or more than 20 each minute he was at his desk!
How is that even possible? How could he possibly digest or enjoy this porn going through it at such a rapid rate? Now THAT'S a dirty bastard.
You Just Never Know
Apologies for hardly posting at all this week. I've just had so much other stuff to do that I haven't had time for it. Hopefully that'll change next week.
In the mean time, here's a racism story for you: A police sergeant has been demoted for bringing "disgrace" on his force after making allegedly racist and sexist comments while on duty. Colleagues from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) reported the 36-year-old officer, who has not been named, after being outraged by the comments he made during a conversation with them in June last year. Naseem Malik, IPCC Commissioner for the North West, said: "The comments made by this officer were of a racist and sexist nature and were totally unacceptable. His actions have brought disgrace upon himself and GMP and it is entirely appropriate that he has been removed from a supervisory role."
As always, I'm suspicious. The comments the officer made are never mentioned. Now, they MAY have been disgraceful and worthy of this punishment (and in my view, they have to be pretty damn disgraceful to be worthy of the public humiliation of a man like this). But then again, knowing the politically correct liberal sensitives of the authorities these days, they may have been totally harmless and this man may have suffered damage to his reputation for no good reason. This is one to keep an eye on.
In the mean time, here's a racism story for you: A police sergeant has been demoted for bringing "disgrace" on his force after making allegedly racist and sexist comments while on duty. Colleagues from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) reported the 36-year-old officer, who has not been named, after being outraged by the comments he made during a conversation with them in June last year. Naseem Malik, IPCC Commissioner for the North West, said: "The comments made by this officer were of a racist and sexist nature and were totally unacceptable. His actions have brought disgrace upon himself and GMP and it is entirely appropriate that he has been removed from a supervisory role."
As always, I'm suspicious. The comments the officer made are never mentioned. Now, they MAY have been disgraceful and worthy of this punishment (and in my view, they have to be pretty damn disgraceful to be worthy of the public humiliation of a man like this). But then again, knowing the politically correct liberal sensitives of the authorities these days, they may have been totally harmless and this man may have suffered damage to his reputation for no good reason. This is one to keep an eye on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)