The Left and Islam; peas in a pod

I wonder if Andrew C. McCarthy has sent a thank you card to the organizers of the Gaza Flotilla. You see he's written a book about how the Left and Islam (not radical Islam or Islamist, just Islam) are two peas in the freedom denying pod. Diana West interviewed him in her latest article.

For all their disagreements on matters like women's rights, gay rights and abortion, Islam and the Left are in harmony on big-picture matters: They are authoritarian, totalitarian in the sense of wanting to control all aspects of human existence, virulently anti-capitalist, and regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective.

Part of me thinks there's little point in pointing out the nonsense on display here. But it is sort of my job.

1. Practitioners of Islam exist peacefully and are contributing citizens in all western societies including our own. Condemning the religion as some sort of fifth column, as McCarthy does, is extraordinarily dishonest.

2. Leftists do not actually want to control all aspects of human existence; they simply want to use the power of the Government to prevent actions that they consider destructive to society as a whole. Kind of like how many Conservatives would like to use the power of the Government to push their anti-homosexual agenda.

3. It is just as valid to suggest that conservatives wish to keep the individuals weak to support another collective - i.e. the corporation. Conservatives constantly take steps to keep individuals weak and divided so that they are necessarily in thrall to Corporations.

Still, McCarthys thesis certainly would justify actions like boarding a flotilla in international waters and shooting the people on board. It would probably justify far worse actions; forced conversion for example.

Sharia Investments

I don't have a lot to say about this story; Diana West, in her latest article, is glad that people are starting to wake up to President Obama's socialist agenda, at least in regards to the outrage over the AIG bonuses. After all he's continued the Bush administrations policy of giving AIG bailout money.

But, in Wests opinion, what people should really be upset about are some of AIG's funds witch conform to Sharia law.

The nationalization of AIG is forcing the American taxpayer to support a very different kind of toxic asset. I refer to AIG's promotion of Sharia (Islamic law) in its Takaful division, the Sharia-compliant insurance sector of AIG. Since we the people own 80 percent of AIG, we the people now promote Sharia, too.

Don't believe me? Takaful insurance, our very own AIG Takaful Web site explains, "avoids prohibited elements in accordance with the Sharia law," adding: "We do not invest in anything that is haram (prohibited under Sharia). We do not borrow, lend or enter into any financial transaction that is unIslamic."

Apparently this particular issue has caused West to discover the value of separating Church and State. But I think West would like to see Islam separated from everything possible. At any rate this isn't too hard to understand. There are people who want to invest money in investments that confirm to Islamic principles; AIG has created funds to cater to those people. It is no different than funds created to conform to a wide variety of ideas and belief systems; there is a niche and AIG filled it.

I wonder what West thinks a real American government would do - require those funds be shut and the money returned to the clients, I guess. Because the existence of and any accommodation of Islam, in the slightest, is a threat to all of us.

Just Checking

If I wrote an article about the danger posed by Jews and used as one of my key example of the creeping Jewish Menace the existence of Kosher Butchers, Kosher Delis and Kosher Salt, you'd think I was not only a bigot but also kind of insane right?

Cause that is a point in Diana West's latest article, which argues that since 9/11 we've become a more Islamic society.

Meanwhile, the undermining reach of Islamic law stretches across American society, from the hilltop farm in rural Vermont, where goats are now raised to be slaughtered according to Islamic law, to Wall Street, where once-mighty financial institutions, some of them having become trinkets of Islamic potentates, now adapt themselves to Sharia banking practices, to Washington, D.C., where stately government buildings have been ringed in quasi-medieval, high tech anti-jihad defenses.

So out of her three points, one is that goats are killed according to Islamic Law and one is that Washington has set up security systems? Since when are heightened security systems a symbol of Islam? And aren't those systems put in place by the Bush administration?

If security systems are a symbol of accommodating Islam, I shudder to think what Diana West would like to see as far as fighting back.

5 Years of War

Diana Wests latest article, over at Townhall, is on this subject, and she gives a surprisingly downbeat assessment of where we are.

"Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it," the president said. Me, I'm still waiting for a straightforward discussion of what it is we can reasonably expect to win.

Of course the downside, from her perspective, is that her candidate for the presidency is married to the Iraq war. He can't walk away from it.

Irony

Diana West's latest article begins with a story of a retelling of Goldilocks and the Three Bears from the Bears point of view. Apparently presenting the Bears point of view is wrongheaded because it was confusing to children. Children need to learn that there is right and wrong, good and evil. Goldilocks is good; the bears are bad. That's what you need to know.

Of course the connection to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent visit to New York couldn't be more clear. He's evil; therefore we should pay him no attention. Good and evil - the world couldn't be simpler.

This point of view could be described charitably as a bit child like. The fact is America has had to deal with evil rulers from time to time, and I don't see that changing. It's child-like to assume we can simply eliminate evil from the world. Perhaps God can and will, but such is beyond the power of politicians.

But to Diana West this is the view point of grownups

Ahmadinejad was admitted into the country, hosted by Columbia, and respectfully received by the media on the say-so of supposedly seasoned adults. Which should make us all cry out: Where have all the grown-ups gone?

If you are looking for the kind of grown-ups that fling us willy-nilly into wars that we don't need and don't want, I suppose you could look in the Bush Administration.

Why Conservatives Can't Be Trusted to Defend America

Diane West's latest article provides one clue as to why Conservatives can't be trusted, exhibiting a willful blindness to what America is trying to accomplish in the Middle East. She begins by noting that the Allies tactics in World War II were not considered moral by the standards of the day (without noting that the Nazis had already gone much further away from the old ways of fighting wars).

But if this argument continues to carry the day, it's because we still view that historic period from its own perspective: namely, as one in which Allied lives -- our fathers, husbands, brothers and sons -- counted for more than Axis lives, even those of women and children.

How quaint. That is, this is not at all how we think any more. If we still valued our own men more than the enemy's and the "civilians" he hides among -- and now I'm talking about the war in Iraq -- our tactics would be totally different, and, not incidentally, infinitely more successful. We would drop bombs on city blocks, for example, not waste men in dangerous house-to-house searches. We would destroy enemy sanctuaries in Syria and Iran, not disarm "insurgents" at perilous checkpoints in hostile Iraqi strongholds.

Conservatives believe that if we kill enough Iraqis we will win this war. And Diane West makes it clear that our refusal to kill civilians is hurting our ability to win over the Iraqi people. Because if we replicated Haditha on a national level, the Iraqi people would love us. Apparently.

But that seems crazy doesn't it? How exactly is killing Iraqi civilians going to win them over to our side? Unless, perhaps, you believe that the Iraqi people are sub-human somehow - that they have no pride and no love for their fellow citizens; but can only be reached by the fear of destruction and death.

But, once again that's crazy. And that's not the sort of philosophy one wants guiding this nation.

France Should Watch It's Back

Or at least that's how I take the concluding paragraph in Diana West's latest article. The article is mostly about whether we should allow the Palestinian people to go hungry and get sick, or whether we should just let them go hungry. But she concludes with this interesting paragraph.

Maybe waging a nebulous "war on terror" has hopelessly confused us. Maybe finding ourselves in the costly business of making the world safe for sharia has muddled our objectives. But if we cannot retrieve the simple, precious principle that took us into war -- you're either with us or you're against us -- not only will we never achieve victory, we won't even know what it looks like.

So here's a few questions. Is France with "us" or against "us?

How about anti-war protestors?

How about snarky political bloggers?

Even More Conservative Commentary on the Port Deal

Diana West isn't so keen on the port deal.

Well, one overwhelming reason is that it was spawn of the Middle East, not Great Britain, that hijacked four American passenger planes on Sept. 11, 2001. And it was United Arab Emirates, not Great Britain, that served as a financial and operational base for the Sept. 11 hijackers (two of whom came from UAE), and a hub for Pakistan's rogue nuclear export business. As Great Britain is Islamized, the distinction narrows; for now, it's reason enough to hold a UAE company to that "different standard." But such evidence -- and there's more -- is obvious; hardly the stuff of great debates. The fact that the president even begs the question is what requires deeper consideration.

Bush threatens to veto any legislation drafted against the port sale. Why? The only explanation I can think of -- and it spells disaster -- is that George W. Bush has decided that international feelings trump national concerns; that upsetting the UAE is worse than upsetting Americans: "I am trying to conduct a foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly,'" he said. Fairly? That's how you treat people after the war, not while the outcome remains undecided.

Of course one chilling thing about the current War on Terror is that it's not really expected to end. So I gather we won't be dealing with the Muslim World for quite a while.

Robert Novak, on the other hand, is in favor of the Port Deal. And of pointing out the political opportunism of the Democrats in congress.

. . . deeper problems are reflected by overwhelming public opposition to a company owned by the government of a close Arab ally operating U.S. ports. Polls suggest the darker side of the American mind: isolationist, protectionist, nativist and xenophobic. Bush's ceaseless efforts to rouse his countrymen to support the war against terrorism may have unleashed the dogs of anti-Arab prejudice.

The firestorm over whether Dubai Ports World should be permitted to replace a British company in control of U.S. ports is unexpected largesse for Democrats, desperate to regain control of Congress this year. Left-wing Democrats led by Schumer and Sen. Hillary Clinton seek the opportunity to trump Bush and the Republicans on their strong suit of national security.

Armstrong Williams goes a step further, to comment on the growth of American racism against Arab Americans.

This new strain of anti-Arab racism is exemplified by the hubbub that greeted the United Arab Emirates plan to take over shipping operations at six U.S. ports. The operations had previously been rented out to a British navigation company. No one had a problem with that. Nor does anyone have a problem with ports being rented to other countries, which they are. Legislators are only exhorting the President to block Arabs from taking over operations at the ports. To his credit, the president has said those who oppose putting the United Arab Emirates in charge of operations need to "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard."

Williams does not see fit to comment on how his fellow Conservative Commentators (people like Ann Coulter or Cal Thomas) have fed this racism to the best of their abilities. Larry Kudlow takes a similar tack in his article, laying the problem completely at the feet of Democrats and calling the hullabaloo a symptom of Islamophobia.

Kathleen Parker responds to this line of defense in her article opposing the sale of the ports.

That distant thunder you hear is the sound of thousands of harrumphing pundits and politicians clearing their throats.

"Ah, what we really meant to say was that we love all G-d's people, but we'd really rather not have Middle Easterners managing our ports. If it's not too much trouble."

But trouble it is to admit what's really got Americans in high dudgeon over the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It's not just the sale itself, but the Bush administration's apparent lack of respect toward American citizens concerning a business deal that at least seems untimely and counterintuitive.

David Limbaugh straddles the fence on this one, which is odd since his brother has been so supportive of the deal.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of this deal and to urge that we err on the side of caution in these dangerous times. It is not just xenophobes and bigots who recognize that all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Muslims, two of which came from the UAE, that Palestinian Muslims danced in the street upon the news of the murders, that terrorist activities in Iraq and elsewhere around the world are overwhelmingly committed by Muslims, and that we see so little condemnation from "moderate" Muslims of suicide bombings and other atrocities repeatedly perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.

. . . I'm not yet completely convinced we should oppose this transfer for security reasons, but I'm confident it raises sufficient red flags that we ought to take more time to scrutinize before finally deciding.

So let's tally them up (so far)

In favor of the Port Deal - Stuart Rothenberg, Tony Snow, Oliver North, Robert Novak, Armstrong Williams, Larry Kudlow,
Opposed to the Port Deal - Ann Coulter, Kathleen Parker, Cal Thomas, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Spencer, Diana West,
On the Fence - David Limbaugh
Disinterested - Tim Chapman

So that's 6 in favor and 6 opposed with 2 abstaining. Looks like they haven't got this one figured out quite yet. It is interesting that the braniacs who stress about economic issues seem to be in favor of this deal while those rubes who are more concerned with social issues are opposed.

The Muslim Menace

Here's the story, as near as I can tell. Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot, both Australian Ministers, held some meetings on what the Koran teaches. Members of the Islamic Council in Victoria reported on what was said and brought legal action under the religious and Racial Toleration Act. The Judge found in favor of the Islamic Council.

The problem with this story is that it is a Conservative Cause Celebre. Not on the level of Terry Schaivo (yet), but still pretty far up there. And the Conservatives tell the story the same way. These two ministers were just quoting the Koran and repeating what Muslims believe; how can that be construed as an attack? And even if it is an attack, why not let free speech have it's day?

As for the first part of that, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that the seminar may not be as innocent as conservatives are claiming.

Judge Higgins said that during the seminar Mr Scot had claimed the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons.

Mr Scot also had said Muslims had a plan to overrun Western democracy by violence and terrorism and wanted to turn Australia into an Islamic nation.

Part of the problem is that there is a core question that can't be discussed but which people have different opinions on. We are trained by society to place religions on a graduated scale. At the top is our religion (whatever it might be) and then there are religions that are like ours. And somewhere down near the bottom of the scale are what we consider Cults and Illegitimate Religions. Muslims (and many others) see Islam as a legitimate religion; Pastors Nalliah and Scot as well as many Conservatives do not seem to. They can't actually state that openly, but if their actions make it clear, what are we to assume?

Actually I think the second argument, about free speech is the better one. Rather than taking these Pastoral Punks to court, expose their nonsense for what it is.

Anyway something to keep in mind. For those interested in a conservative take on this issue, check out this article by Diana West (the article that started me down this path).

France and Germany and Sheryl Crow

Boy, conservatives sure love it when actors, comedians or rock stars take political positions. They must salivate every time Sheryl Crow or any other activist opens his or her big mouth. Of course they prefer dippy rock stars to eloquent and well researched speakers (such as Janeane Garofalo, who remains, in all honesty, a national treasure). So Sheryl Crow saying "I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow," is like mana from heaven.

You see it's so much easier to argue with Sheryl Crow who, in these quotes at least, sounds like she's maybe been in the sun to long. And commentators (especially me) are lazy.

Diana West, writing today at Townhall utilizes this tactic in discussing France and Germany. "Remember the "huge karmic retributions" Ms. Crow spoke of? Both France and Germany cite a potentially heightened risk of Islamic terrorism as a reason not to go to war in Iraq, a notion that should perplex the average citizen of the Free World now living with an already heightened risk (and reality) of Islamic terrorism -- without going to war in Iraq."

Of course many people have made sound reasoned arguments suggesting that the war on Iraq could increase the danger we face from Middle Eastern Terrorism. But those arguments are complicated and in some cases difficult to argue against. So instead Ms. West would rather pretend that there is no link between American Foreign Policy in the Middle East and Terrorism. The only link one could imagine, in her analysis, is "kharmic" (shorthand for non-existent.)

She also bizarrely fails to realize that things could get worse, both for us and Israel. Is she really that naive?

The war against Iraq may turn much of the Middle East further against the US, particularly if there are numerous Iraqi casualties (One of the architects of the current pentagon invasion plan, Harlan Ullman, stated that the goal of this war is; "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight. . . . you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted." To this end the current plan put forward by the pentagon calls for us to launch 800 cruise missiles in the first day. Ullman also discussed the possibility of using Tactical Nuclear weapons, which the Pentagon has also suggested as a possibility. For more info see Ira Chernus's article today at Commondreams.).

What effect will this have on the middle east? It means policemen seeking out terrorists who target Israel and the west will be a little slower (except, presumably, in Israel. It means young men will see the United States and the West as having declared war on the middle east and will turn to the only weapons they believe they have. Is this definitely going to happen? No, but it doesn't take any sort of mystical kharma to believe it might.