"It's ironic that Roger Simon is talking about a religious state where liberals are killed for being gay. and how supporting a President stripping the rights of decent americans and killing innocent muslims in Iraw is the only way to prevent it.

"Maybe he should say that to the folks in Laramie, WY. Or say it to the family of Matthew Shepard. Or he can say it to the thousands of gay men and women every year who are victims of harassment or assault because they're homosexual."

Last-time I checked, we had hate-crime legislation that punished this behavior. Or we had laws outlawing harrassment and assault. Laws enacted b the government, not persecution of gay mean and women sanctioned by the government, as in Islamic countries.

Has the religious right had a horrendous effect in America? Yes. But only a damn fool would think it equivalent to what gay men and women of every orientation suffer under Islamic rule. Bush being the most dangerous president ever doesn't make that any less true.

Salonista = A follower of Salon who agrees with the editorial slant and bias of Salon. Logic does not come easy to salonistas. Examples of their behavior can be found in their letters. A typical salonista will respond to criticism of their position with foul language, name calling, and irrational arguments. In other words, an emotional response.

Salon columnists play into the hands of salonistas by triggering these emotional responses. Unfortunately, base emotions are the ones that are targeted.

This makes life relatively easy for the columnists. All they need to do is criticize Bush, Cheney, or any Republican leader, and do so in a pejorative manner. Further inflammation of these emotions is accomplished by suggesting that the salonistas themselves are threatened. A suggestion that the columnist is more enlightened, or intellectually superior, is commonly employed. This last point is done with no precept of modesty. It gives the salonista the belief that he or she is also intelligent.

Rather than relying on arguments based on a series of facts, and explaining why those facts lead to a conclusion, salonistas will frequently claim to know the motive of their opponent. The most villainous motives are assumed (not proven) and put forward as reasons for the actions of their opponents. In other words, the opposite view is demonic, and any suggestion otherwise is evil . . . sounds like Pat Robertson, doesn’t it?

Salonista idiocyncracies:

1. salonistas think that posting as anonymous is cowardly, but posting as “cocktail fruit” is not. . . . hence the name NotOrbitBoy (I stole orbitboy’s cool name, thanks orbit). This also serves as an example of a salonista’s difficulty with logic.

2. salonistas think that foul language proves something other than what it truly does.

3. salonista’s fear of our government has never been explained in the form of an actual action against them. I believe their fear is due to a long standing abuse of marijuana, . . . but I must admit that I have no evidence of that.

[some wanker]: ... it may well be worth talking about how effective Muslims will be at imposing their absurd demands for superiority upon civilized people ...

"Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is [hallucinations].
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor."

Cheers,

Hahaha! Fabulous. Glenn at his acerbic and no-nonsense best.

Is there a logical fallacy that the right wing loves more than the false dilemma? I'm pretty sure about 90% of all their political opinions are based on one sort of false dichotomy or another. If you don't support having 40million people unable to afford for-profit care you must want long waiting lists and government bureaucrats overruling your health care decisions, if you don't like 5 mega-corporations running all the media you must oppose freedom of the press and want to nationalize everything, if you don't like the death penalty you must want your children to be raped, if you don't like the government listening to your phone calls and reading your emails you must want more planes to fly into buildings.

The litany could easily go on. Republicans: Are they stupid, or just evil? It's one or the other with no other possibilities!

Western intellectuals and friends can help the Muslim world in its spiritual and cultural maturity by supporting the constructive elements in Islam.

Well, looky here, we got us an authentic Muslim Orientalist. It's a type you don't see too often, I hope.

Anyway, I'm glad you think the West has the "spiritual and cultural maturity" to help you out. That's so nice.

But seriously, if I were you, I'd look elsewhere.

3. salonista’s fear of our government has never been explained in the form of an actual action against them. I believe their fear is due to a long standing abuse of marijuana, . . . but I must admit that I have no evidence of that.

-- NotOrbitBoy

It was a commie plot and the Islamists have always been in cahoots with the Nazis and the commies.

These fears and worldviews although ostensibly directed at outside the U.S. are really directed at their fellow Americans who don’t share their views – who need to “wake up” and embrace the fear and adopt their delusional conspiracy theories

This is why I find it valuable to remind people that our loyalty, as Americans, is to the Constitution of the United States. While Malkinites and others like to talk about loyalty and go on and on about our enemies, insofar as such people are willing to ignore or downplay the protections provided in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the separation of powers built into the document, then they are the ones who can be called treasonous.

Dear Glen,

Still searching for the "violent gangs targeting Muslims" you warned us about in an earlier post. Haven't found any, must not be looking hard enough, will advise when at least one is located.

I can't begin to number the fallacies in your last post, much less the classic propaganda techniques you are using (while complaining about others allegedly using these same techniques).

Look, you dislike Bush, you dislike the concept of the imperial presidency, you dislike the results in political policy? Fine. A lot of us do. But at least be honest, rigorous, and clear in your writing. The failures and possible crimes of Bush et. al. don't change the fact that Islam as Mohammed "recited" it demands the death of homosexuals, the degradation and subjugation of women, and the wholesale murder of critics and apostates. Moreover, it requires that these rules be put in place over all people. These theological demands are put into practice by enthusiastic Muslims every day, as anyone who can read or turn on a television can attest.

("But It Can't Happen Here" update: blind people with guide dogs seeking a taxi in Minneapolis might have an interesting take on Sharia law in the U.S. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a critic of Islam, has police protection in the U.S. now due to threats of Islamic murder from U.S. resident Muslims. One could go on.)

But I digress. These two issues -- Bush's crimes and offenses against our Constitution, and the intrinsically violent and oppressive nature of Islamic ideology -- are independent of each other, and can be independently discussed and criticized. Whatever Mr. Reynolds' positions are on anything else, he said nothing incorrect about mainstream Muslim law on gays, women's rights, or freedom to think or write. (Mohammed himself feared and despised music, representational art, and dogs, but mainstream Muslim jurisprudence remains split on whether you can enbrace any of the three without fear of murder from your pious Muslim neighbors.)

WWDPW?

(What would Daniel Pearl write?)