Letters to the Editor
-
@Bill in Chicago
So if all we're really talking about is a couple thousand dead Americans (maybe you or I for all either of us knows), I think we ought to draw a careful distinction between mocking these folks for their hyperbole, and mocking them for their sense of urgency.
In 2005, there were 43,443 fatalities from auto accidents. Every year is comparable. Terrorism kills less than 1% Americans than auto accidents.
These neocon schizophrenics have created a media bubble they don't have to leave if they don't want to, one in which the threat of terrorism so far outweighs all other potential risks so as to require the re-orientation of both society and our personal worldviews to deal with it.
By the numbers, it is not worth spending one penny on terrorism if that money could be put to better use on any fatal problem with a higher rate of occurrence than terrorist attacks.
The neocons have to try evangelize the rest of us into their bubble to get anyone to think their plans are sensical.
-
Aruru
Can you answer the question as to why the cartoons that offended Islamic sensibilities were reprinted almost nowhere in the States? So far, the answers have been 1) editorial cowardice and 2) an unwillingness to offend. I think those are very instructive answers. Those who question the danger from Islam should seriously think those anwers over; they make the case in and of themselves.
Golden Boy
P.S. It's nice to hear from you again, Aruru. Just sign up and get your login name assigned to you. It will take about 12 second
-
Thanks for the confirmation Iokannan
1. I was not comparing Islamic extremism and NSA intercepts. I was comparing the reaction to each. The notion that sharia law will become the law under which we are governed is paranoid, and irrational. I compare that paranoid assumption with those who claim our constitution is being shredded, such as yourself.
2. I didn’t claim anyone here supports Islamic extremism. I claim there is little to no condemnation of it (your recent response excluded). I suspect that the lack of criticism is due to bush hatred. . . . None of the salon columnists want to say anything that may play into bush’s hands. The truth, and principles, don’t matter to them. It’s just about getting bush.
3. Rather than call Hitchens a drunk, I suggest you read his columns. Salon columnists will not provide you with an alternate point of view. This is a way to get past your blinder problem.
4. Whether or not Islamic fundamentalism is monolithic is beside the point. Its intolerant views are the point.
5. You confirm your narrow view with: its nowhere near the threat to American society the current Administration poses . . . Tell it to Salman Rushdie.
-
Very droll, Golden Boy
The good news is that many of us on the left have taken the blinder off and sought to understand Islam for what it really is. Glenn's letter threads tend to be gatherings of like-minded folks who meet for reassurance and mutual stroking. If you want to see a more representative sampling of letters on Salon, take a look at the article on Islamic science. You will see plenty of realistic, progressive criticism of Islam there.
The many valid criticisms Dr. Edis has of Islam in general can be transposed with the same for numerous (I would argue all) denominations of Christianity and Judaism. He points out Islamic culture is no less prone to rigid authoritarian figures (religious scholars vs. a central church authority as Catholicism has it). And yes, Islam is a fairly fixed set of cultural and social dictates. So too are such relics as the Ten Commandments or even the Book of Psalms.
Ulitmately, any religious doctrine that gets entwined with any social institutions is likely to gum up the works, if only because religious fundamentalism depends on absolute faith and violently rejects any adaptation to external circumstances.
So it was with Christianity in ages past. Need we discuss the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre or the genocide of the Cathars, never mind the ongoing terrorism of the Army of God and its offshoots? Do these and other examples of religion-inspired violence automatically negate the essential message of Jesu Ben Joseph?
-
The Avalanche Threat....
I read a great article in The Beast recently that really put the whole Terrorism Scare and Mark Steyn's "Islamofascist Invasion" bullshit into perspective. Go read it. I think you'll all like it.
The intro paragraph:
9/11 really changed everything. Before, the news covered some events of genuine importance. Now, Americans are subjected to a constant deluge of "holy crap"-style terrorism coverage. Our heightened anxiety over 9/11 has been cultivated and stretched out over the past six years, to the point now that any event which even superficially resembles a terrorist attack, no matter how briefly, gets week-long national coverage. A steam pipe blows in New York? It's “especially frightening, considering what happened on 9/11.” Some rich douchebag crashes his helicopter into an apartment building? “A chilling reminder of the events that took place on 9/11.” We're so pathetically traumatized that an entire city can now be brought to its knees by an ad for Aqua Teen Hunger Force. It hardly speaks of America as the proud, tough nation it imagines itself to be.
http://buffalobeast.com/118/avalanches.htm
-
OK Golden Boy, I'll give it a shot.
The Danish cartoons that were offensive to Muslims do not, as far as I know, have any intrinsic news value beyond the fact that they were offensive to Muslims in some other countries. I recall reading news stories about the matter, and the content of some of the cartoons was described therein, sufficiently to give me the gist of why some folks were offended. To publish them here would be gratuitously offensive, for no purpose other than to offend, as kind of a fuck-you just to show that we can. Given that we Americans are occupying a Muslim country and killing Muslims on a daily basis, the argument that the U.S. trembles with fear at the prospect of offending Muslims seems like a bit of a stretch.
At your behest, I read Simon's whole article, and he makes it clear that he genuinely fears the imposition of Muslim law in the U.S. There's no other interpretation.
Just for giggles, I looked up the San Francisco State incident you referenced. A group of College Republicans stomped on replicas of Hamas and Hezbollah flags as part of a public "anti-terror" demonstration. They were charged by the university, not with "desecrating Allah" (good news; there is still no such charge), but with incitement to violence and creation of a hostile environment. (The flags had "Allah" written on them in Arabic.) You also might have mentioned that the students were cleared of the charges after a university hearing, and that none was punished in any way. In other words, the university disciplinary procees worked, and free speech prevailed. Is this degree of accuracy typical of your anecdotes generally?