Archive for the ‘Bullshit Politics’ Category
“In the Netherlands, for beating to death a fellow human, you might receive eight years, I figured. It wasn’t much. With a little good behavior, a little raking around the prison grounds, you could be out the gates within five.” - Herman Koch, from The Dinner
On November 21, 2011, in Rotterdam, Jason Halman killed his brother Greg. The tragedy of Greg Halman, a Seattle Mariner and one of a few Dutch nationals to play in the Major Leagues, parallels Dutch novelist Herman Koch’s The Dinner. Both show how psychopathy and mental illness can flourish.
Eddy Halman, Patriarch and Perpetrator of Domestic Violence: The Halman family trials, told by ESPN, detail violence, envy, and restrictive family ties. Papa Halman played professional baseball. He became derailed by alcoholism, a virulent temper, and a penchant for violence, especially towards his wife. One son, Greg Halman, had special talent. He eventually was signed by the Mariners and made his MLB debut in September of 2010. The other son, Jason, took after his father.
Trouble in Holland: Greg Halman showed promise, and in 2011 had 91 At Bats and hit .230 with two homers. His power, speed, and defensive prowess looked to help the Mariners in 2012. After the 2011 season ended he returned to Holland. There, his brother stabbed him to death in an argument over loud music. Jason Halman was released less than a year later because he suffered from a “psychoses” that was “exacerbated by marijuana use.” There’s more, as the ESPN link shows, but what a gruesome legal and medical system that gives criminally inclined psychopaths treatment with the aim of freeing them.
The Dinner: Herman Koch’s The Dinner examines two brothers, Paul and Serge, and their wives, Claire and Babette. Serge is a prominent politician and Paul is an educator on leave. Paul and Claire have a son; Serge and Babette have a son, an adopted African son, and a daughter. The four adults dine at a very expensive restaurant in Amsterdam, where they will discuss the fact their three sons are complicit in the murder of a homeless person, fuzzy and ambiguous footage of their crime is caught on security camera. The African son did not commit the murder, but has evidence on his brother and cousin, and thus is blackmailing them.
Psychopath Patriarch Number Two: Paul has a past. He assaulted his brother, his superior at school, and received a “punishment” of paid administrative leave, counseling, and psychotropic drugs. Paul believes the elimination of “scum” improves society, and knows the Dutch penal system favors the criminal at expense of society and the victim. He almost obliquely coaches his son not to feel remorse or compassion. By dessert Claire also proves herself nuts. The finale’s disturbing message: Most sociopaths, despite their craziness, are sane enough to take advantage of the system.
US vs. Holland: This is tangential, but some people may ask, what about the US? In a previous post, A Mexican Foreign Worker vs. Lila Abu-Lughod, a Mexican criticized Algerian culture. In the comments section a friend, rather than engaging, noted that Mexico had similar problems. This is counter productive. When pointing out violence, sexism, racism, and other societal problems, groups tend to look at others rather than themselves. This is especially egregious when a member of one country or religion feels attacked. They misread an attack on misogyny or other injustice as an attack on them. A pan-humanitarian philosophy can avoid this. No matter how different cultures are, humans are humans. What’s wrong in Holland is also wrong in the USA. Example: Former Angel Lyman Bostock’s Tragic Death, Ethan Couch, ‘Affluenza’ Teen Who Killed 4 In Crash, Given No Jail Time. and Judge lets Spoiled Teen Killer Off. And so?
Freeing sociopaths is bad, period: Sending the rich and/or insane messages that you can kill with minimum impunity damages everyone in society.
“We want to make it clear to the Kalash tribe that they will be eliminated along with their protectors,the Western agents, if they don’t embrace Islam,” – Taliban Spokesman
The Kalash Tribe lives in the Chitral Valley in Pakistan. They number less than 5,000 and, as far as my limited research can discern, they have no nuclear or conventional weapons, bellicose intentions, or other major defects. They dance, welcome strangers, wear colorful clothes, and put flowers in their hair. Abominable. Enter the Taliban: “Western NGOs are promoting Kalash wine and we warn all those individuals and hotels selling it, they should stop production and selling of wine otherwise they will be sent to hell by the will of God.”
Voltaire: “Ceux qui vous font croire des absurdités, peuvent vous faire commettre des atrocities.”
Or: “Those who can make you believe absurdity, can make you commit atrocity.”
Voltaire nails the Taliban: The Taliban combine evil, idiocy, and fanaticism. No matter the wrongs of the U.S., U.N., or Pakistani government, their sins do not absolve the Taliban. It’s clear the Taliban will commit perpetual atrocity until they are destroyed. But let the Taliban speak for themselves:
Decapitation: Tehreek-e-Taliban Severed Heads Video
Women’s Rights: TTP Has 500 Female Suicide Bombers
Free Speech: Media Now in TTP Crosshairs (Taliban threatens Pakistan media)
Science and Technology: Local Paramedic Shot Dead (Taliban kills doctors)
Pakistan media: The cites originate from Pakistan media, Arab media, and Western - BBC Pakistan: Kalash valley culture at risk from Taliban. Why not unite to use propaganda and self-defense to destroy these goblins? Though “moderate” Taliban may disapprove the following video, it depicts accurately these vile idiots:
Taliban Giggle as They Kick Decapitated Heads: Video courtesy of Tarek Fatah – Taliban Play Soccer with Heads of Decapitated Prisoner
UPDATE: TTP Threats Panic Kalash “My seven-year-old daughter is so terrified that she’s sleepless nights. I found her awake at night on return from another valley the other day as she wanted to see me around in the wake of the Taliban threat.”
A little more than a week after Christopher Hitchens died, this: “Burn in Hell, Christopher Hitchens” (6,300+ words). The site’s (Mr. Destructo) author, no Voltaire, evidently hatefucked Hitchens for years but conveniently waited until death. Had the article addressed a live Hitchens, with a title like “Dear Cancer, Take Hitchens Now!” well, THAT would have shown risk. But cowards do as cowards do. Thus I commented:
“Anonymity makes sense if you’re a Chinese dissident or a Syrian activist, but not if you’re an armchair blogger. If you guys want to be wiseguys, well, fair enough. But why not change your IDs, add your real names, keep your nicknames, and show your balls.” – Caleb “Henry Kissing-and-Fucking-her” Powell
Bring it on: And so I received an Internet roast: Amazing Gaze: The Western Eyes of Soulful Scribbler Caleb Powell. Funny stuff from the Mr. Destructos, though they ramble long after point (6,000+ word essays containing 1,000 salient words the norm). Of the two (if they’re indeed two), “Mobutu Sese Seko” has shed anonymity (he’s lovable but a quasi-zero, not sure why he hid in the first place), but “General Rehavam ‘Gandhi’ Ze’evi” keeps his pseudonym, wielding pabulum such as “There is a Powellful discovery.” Here’s Ze’evi’s diatribe:
Ze’evi - “The holidays are long over. Liquor sales have stabilized; few of the year-end suicides remain undiscovered, and, if you are like me, you have a major haul of gifted books. Stacked on my bedside table, towering over my bloated, holly-jolly frame, the books are a leering accusation: “You’re like all the others,” sniffs The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. “Just direct me to the bookshelf best situated to intimidate your landlord.”
As I limply cast aside the hose of my opium huqqa, ash sprinkling the datemaki sash of my authentic silken Nipponese kimono, I despair: literature is dead. Then suddenly, there is a change. There is a Powellful discovery. Who is Caleb Powell? A question I pondered not two weeks ago — now I have some sense of the answer, of an author who asserted himself in my mind’s eye. Thus far, his vision has been inscribed only within a few brave avant garde presses, like Prick of the Spindle, Yankee Pot Roast, and ZYZZYVA. I aim to change this…” (read all 2,400 words here)
Well played, Ze’evi, despite or because of the corny elements. I look forward to worthier challenges going forward.
WORD COUNT: 398
UPDATE: I forwarded to Mr. Destructo via Facebook. Here’s his response.
Mr. Destructo: This guy Bro_Pair wrote about in 2012 (with one or two lines of mine thrown in) is still real mad and apparently finally found that great zinger. I’d leave them up, but apparently he keeps posting these and deleting them over and over.
You be the judge: “Bro_Pair” or Mobutu/Ze’evi/Mr. Destructo = same dorkbag. Check out Dorkstructo’s FB page for teenagesque LMAO-usage w/o restraint. The guy seems baffled (as “baffled” as I am “mad”) that a guy could cache a draft for two years and post, or GADZOOKS, write a comment and take it down. His self-indulgent glorified blog vs mine replicates “vast chunk of time” vs. “hobby.” Destructo used to write 100+ posts a year, now hasn’t written in almost two months. His latest on Rob Ford, “Let Them Eat Pussy,” ironically, has five comments, all anonymous. Mr. Destructo wasn’t exactly destined to go straight to the top and stay there.
“I know that I spent an entire show speaking about a pattern that I am seeing and that statistically we are seeing more shootings under Obama’s presidency than any other administration.” – Clyde Lewis
Ground Zero Radio with Clyde Lewis: Driving home late at night I was listening to this Clyde guy rant about how Obama and the anti-gun lobby was behind recent shootings such in Chicago and Washington D.C.: The U.S. government orchestrates mass killings so they can eventually ban all guns and disarm the populace. Wow! It’s mighty tough to come up with a stupider conspiracy theory. So I went online to check out Clyde. Hear it is, straight from the Clyde’s mouth:
“After the Sandy Hook shootings and the literal gagging of all information about the case, I realized just who the soulless individuals capable of committing such atrocities are. They are the evil people that rule us and use these horrible and traumatic events to further their extremist political agendas.” – Clyde Lewis
The Redskins Are Going? Poll after poll weigh in on whether the Washington NFL team nickname “Redskins” is offensive to Native Americans. Redskin denotes dye on the face, or war paint, and whether it honors Native Americans or insults them seems a matter of opinion; not as clear as other racial slurs. Should they change the name? In North Dakota the state college’s Fighting Sioux changed their name, despite the Sioux nation approving the name in 2010. Namely, the Sioux voted to keep the name and the P.C. bick-ditches had to champion a moral placebo. This is a case of a democratic not racial minority trumping the majority. As to the Redskins, racism is a serious problem, and though the controversy seems to diminish actual victims and troubling history, the headlines and controversy disappear with a name change. I’d change the name, but the government and the law should not intervene. Media and free speech, though, can go full attack on the issue.
“Dronophobia: The irrational, abnormal and persistent fear of drone strikes.” – Kunwar Khuldune Shahid
Why I Hate Malala: “The sight of white men in suits applauding and gushing at Malala Yusufzai’s speech at the United Nations, the gushing media frenzy and vociferous support on social media was nauseating for me,” Sofia Ahmed.
Drones? The use of drones in warfare has brought vociferous protests . From the assassination of Anwar Al Awlaki in Yemen to their use in Afghanistan and Pakistan. All killing demands moral questioning. Why do drones cause more outrage than terrorists, suicide bombings, and conventional weapons? The Malala crowd seems to think the West is exploiting Malala’s story to justify drone attacks, oversimplifying by far. And, in another game of Tag, You’re Racist, they focus on an absurd racial element.
Racism: Malala’s supporters, white or not, are human, enough said.
“Anti-Malala vitriol is a direct expression of misogyny,” Lejla Kurić
Exploitation of Malala: Now let’s get this erect pencil straight, the West already has many reasons to intervene against extremists. But Malala is a net force for positive. Malala in no ways approves of killing civilians. To criticize drone strikes, in many ways, defends extremely violent terrorists. Sebastian Junger has written about how the Taliban discovered a site was to be bombed, and how the Taliban made sure children would be at the site to make “martyr propaganda.” But how to process or trust the data? The civilians are stuck between one big damned rock and an incredibly hard place. What to do against evil? What to do about the response to evil? Tough call.
“No Ordinary Violence” – Sam Harris
“I refuse to sign petitions for that book of his…”- Germaine Greer referring to Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses
“One person said he wanted to chop me up and feed me to his dogs. I reported it to the police but they didn’t charge him because the threats weren’t threatening enough.” – Firoozeh Bazrafkan
According to The Copenhagen Post, artist Firoozeh Bazrafkan was fined 5,000 Kroner for “violating anti-racism legislation” after her blog entry was published in the Jyllands-Posten newpaper: “I am very convinced that Muslim men around the world rape, abuse and kill their daughters. This is, according to my understanding as a Danish-Iranian, due to a defective and inhumane culture – if you can even call it a culture at all. But you can say, I think, that it is a defective and inhumane religion whose textbook, the Koran, is more immoral, deplorable and crazy than manuals of the two other global religions combined.”
Bazrafkan’s statement is problematic because of its lack of quantifiers; she types all Muslim men as one entity. Watch the Academy Award winning film A Separation, not the over rated caricature laden Argo, to get a more accurate picture of Iranian society. Most Iranian men are decent folk, and it’s poor art to focus on extremes as if they are the rule. But poor art is not racism.
The fact the Aarhus Police have found that she has committed racism worthy of a fine is by far more problematic. Islam is not a race. Racism is the belief in the inferiority and superiority of specific ethnic groups. Bazrafkan is criticizing culture and that’s different. Furthermore, criticizing culture, religion or nationalism is arguably legitimate free speech. Calls for violence are the exception and not “free” speech.
Michel Focault, in his admiration of Khomeini’s Revolution, set the stage for liberals like Germaine Greer to misread the dangers of fundamentalism. This conflict exploded after Salman Rushdie’s fatwa, and signaled the start of a new battle over what ideas can be tolerated. From 1989 to the present the polemics have intensified, and the cowering thought police has created a new form of European chauvinism, patronizing Moroccans, Persians, Afghans, Pakistanis and other minorities by not considering them worthy of secular government, women’s rights and Western liberty.
What must secular and/or ex-Muslims think when they see that criticism of religion, a crime under their own governments, faces similar restrictions in the governments of liberal dominated Europe? The Danish government’s message to oppressed Muslims reads that they are not worthy of the same freedoms. Denmark has joined Bazrafkan’s home country of Iran in censoring free speech, and this is a shame.
Naguib Mahfouz: “No blasphemy harms Islam and Muslims so much as the call for murdering a writer.”
UPDATE: Denmark did it again, charging another Muslim – Danish Muslim Apostate Faces Hate Speech Charges
From U.S. Decision on Syria: “Earlier this week, the White House announced it confirmed that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons in the fight against its own people, and the Obama administration will provide more ‘direct support’ to the Syrian opposition since the president’s ‘red line’ has been crossed.”
Sarah Palin recently criticized Barack Obama for sending weapons to arm the Syrian rebels. No matter how you feel about Palin, on this she’s right.
Media can mislead, but substantive messages within can be disseminated effectively. An existential summary of history, politics, journalism, and attempts to learn from experience (Afghanistan) lead to this conclusion:
Sending weapons to the rebels in Syria might be the most egregious decision of Obama’s tenure.
Who are the rebels? They may be civilians fighting against evil, defectors from the Assad regime, or fanatics inspired by religious ecstasy as they commit horrors only replicated in history by entities such as the Khmer Rouge:
Yes, civilians are stuck in the middle, but the response must be practical. No force has shown capability of responsibility and restraint. At present all actions lead to hell.
Despite benevolent intent, as the most humane soldiers learn the art of war and the consolation of destruction, their love of humanity dissipates.
Obama’s recent UN appointee Samantha Power’s basic premise is that armed intervention can be the only effective means to counter war and genocide in certain areas. The Congo is one such place, and recently the UN dispatched arms and soldiers to keep peace and protect citizens (See Art of Darkness from The Economist). This seems like sane policy.
The case has not been made for Syria. If the Obama administration feels intervention in Syria worthwhile, then the administration needs to make a cogent argument to the public. Otherwise, stay the fuck out.
“Moral equivalency is liberal BS.” – Bill Maher.
The Boston Marathon tragedy set in motion tension between liberals and conservatives. Religion and race begot polemics and accusations:
“However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.” – David “White Guy” Sirota, from Salon.com – Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber Is a White American
Most people don’t want to play this constant game of “Tag, you’re racist!” Smugness, in the form of accidental not quite reverse race baiting, stinks. Whether from seasoned journalists like Sirota or cliché-riddled dorks like Oelbaum. As the right wing should be excoriated for tolerating Ron Paul’s lame defense of his newsletter, liberals should have an equally sensitive hypocrisy meter. Instead, we get pabulum like this:
“Can you imagine the ‘fits’ black people would throw if white people had a history month other than January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December?” – Roxane Gay, from Seriously Though, When Is White History Month?
Racist Accusations: I don’t think Sirota, Oelbaum, or Gay are racist. They are disgusted by racism, but simplify and magnify comments such as by Ron Paul. To generalize or specify racism takes awareness of demographics. Yes, racism exists, some whites have privilege, there are inequalities, but how many racists are there? Two percent? Five percent? Ten percent? Even so, 98%, 95%, or 90% are not racist. (In context of the Boston Marathon atrocity, substitute fundamentalist for racist and the same stats apply, most Muslims are peaceful). The KKK and white supremacists are fringe assholes, the left and right need to focus. As for racism that should be condemned, we don’t have to go back to the days of slavery or segregation:
“Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.” – David Duke
“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.” – Ron Paul, from Newsletter period, The Atlantic
Distractions: Media needs a course in Prejudice 101 – Ignorance creates fear, fear creates superiority complexes and insecurity, racism ensues. David Sirota, your article is vile and contributes to ignorance. Don’t diminish the serious nature of racism.
Folks, all’s not lost, it’s possible to reflect on the Boston Marathon cogently. Here’s a pertinent argument: do Muslims look at terrorists the same way as most Christians look at the Westboro Baptist Church? And who better to start the fire than far leftie Bill Maher and Muslim author Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, as well as Ali A. Rizvi?
“There’s only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So, you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.” – Bill Maher, discussing Islam with Brian Levin, April 19, 2013 – Current TV
“There is a deep soulful battle of identity raging within the Muslim consciousness domestically and abroad between Westernism and liberalism. In essence the Islamists confront every situation in a selfish ‘we are the victims’ mentality and the rest of us non-Islamist Muslims need to instead respond with a louder and more real leadership and say: ‘We will not be victims.’” – Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, Islamic Leader Issues Tough Response
“…anything but jihad” brigade is out in full force again. If the perpetrators of such attacks say they were influenced by politics, nationalism, money, video games or hip-hop, we take their answers at face value. But when they repeatedly and consistently cite their religious beliefs as their central motivation, we back off, stroke our chins and suspect that there has to be something deeper at play, a ‘root cause.’” Ali A. Rizvi: An Atheist Muslim/Huffington Post
“As a Muslim I know what she did and what its (sic) punishment is and she should know better than to do what she is done. we keep these values and you dont (sic) we are proud of who we are and what we believe in, at least we have something to believe in. she has been condemned and punish by stoning. she deserves what she gets.” – Shazida Khatun, commenter and verb-slayer on Amina Tyler: Tunisian Girl Outrages Islamic Authority
What she did: Amina Tyler, a Tunisian woman, published now iconic topless photos of herself on Facebook with Arabic and English written on her naked torso. Her message challenges the male dominated ideology of her society. Femen, a Ukranian activist group that has targeted European Nationalists and the Pope, launched a Topless Jihad in Amina’s support. There’s more on this at The Atlantic, The New Yorker and The Huffington Post. Tunisian clerics have called for her death.
Femen, in some ways, represents a common sentiment within the West, the rejection of fundamentalist misogyny that hurls stones literally and figuratively at women in religiously oppressed societies. Here’s what Amina wrote (translation):
“I own my body; it’s not the source of anyone’s honor.” – Amina Tyler
Missing the point: On the other side we have the Muslimah at Al Jazeera, self-described “moderate” Shazid Khatun, and cultural and religious apologists such as Glenn Greenwald (more horrified by Sam Harris than by the Taliban), who seem to think misogyny is wrong only in the West, but when certain cultures oppress women, that is moral relativism and a right. Observe the Muslimah:
“FEMEN can’t tell me what I can and can’t wear!” Muslimah Pride
“Nudity does not liberate me and I DO NOT need saving!” Muslimah Pride
Muslimah Pride, c’mon, no one is telling you how to dress. Amina’s message implies, “Don’t tell me what to wear, don’t condemn women for their choices.” You choose to dress as society compels you to, fine, but do you really have a choice to dress otherwise? Amina questions this compulsion, that’s all.
Muslimah – Amina has now been threatened by death. I ask the Muslimah, Al Jazeera, and the educated Muslims of the world, where do you stand? Are you with the clerics and the Shazidas who call for her death? Or do you support her right to free speech? Her act may be offensive, and FEMEN’s use of nudity may be offensive, but those are different arguments. What about peaceful expression? You protest her message, but remain silent as clerics demand that she be killed. Is that how you want to be perceived?
You see the girls on the left? In Afghanistan and Pakistan women risk their lives for education. The attempted assasination of Malala Yousafzai evidence. Muslimah, if you have education, use it. The rights Amina Tyler and Femen demand apply to you. If you wish to don hijabis or nikaabis, go for it. But instead of protesting Amina, why not protest forcing rape victims to marry their rapists (Amina Filali), honor killings, and education for women? I think you do incredible harm to your religion when, by your silence and the battles you choose, you prioritize the trivial over the serious. Islam is about peace, ladies, so why not speak for peace by supporting it?
“And you can put as many scarves as you want if you are free tomorrow to take it off and to put it back the next day but don’t deny millions of your sisters who have fear behind their scarves, don’t deny that there are million of your sisters who have been raped and killed because they are not following the wish of Allah! We are here to scream about that.” – Inna Shevchenko, Leader of women’s movement FEMEN
Taliban UPDATE: “We lost Afghanistan in 2001 because of 9/11 at a time when we almost controlled 100 percent of Afghanistan,” a Taliban intelligence officer says. “We don’t want these incidents to upset our plans again.” – Comment made after Boston Marathon bombing, confirming how terrorism reflects on Islam.
Update: “How can you wear your scarf with so much proudness . . . like it’s the hat of Che Guevara? It symbolizes blood and all the crimes that are based on your religion, even if you don’t support them . . . . If you’re a feminist, if you’re for liberation, then be brave [enough] to say that we are against that and take off your scarf until the moment that your scarf will not be a symbol of crime.” Inna Shevchenko from Topless Jihad: Why Femen Is Right – The Atlantic May, 1 2013
Amina Quits Femen – Huff Post
“Margaret Thatcher: Good Riddance” – John M. Becker
Today Margaret Thatcher died. It inspired various memories of her political career and life, including blogger John M. Betcher who laid on the hate. He then went on to write:
“I’m sorry, but I can’t join in the gushing praise being heaped upon Margaret Thatcher today. While I feel sympathy for her grieving family and I don’t rejoice in anyone’s death, I’m rather sickened by all the revisionist history I’m seeing.” – John M. Becker
Becker’s shouting out ”Good Riddance” and then writing “I don’t rejoice in anyone’s death” is the epitome of disingenuous. And there’s more.
“I agree she did more damage to the peoples (sic) community spirit than Hitler,” dee “ignorant cow” sweetland (first comment posted on Becker’s site)
No matter how horrid a person you may think Thatcher, attacks by John and “dee” reveal the class of the writer/attacker. As a reflexively critical left-leaning independent, I question verbal stones thrown at the right. Such pabulum convinces no one and damages the image of the left. To hold negative opinions about Thatcher is one thing, to rejoice and remind the world what a scumwhore she was on the day she dies is another. What Becker and “dee” did make the left look as sick, twisted, and belligerent as the right.
Why not convince and engage the opposition instead of belittling them? As to the Hitler analogy, the author caters to his crowd. Rush Limbaugh’s loyal followers reflect his ideas. Intellectual demagoguery reflects the demagogue.
“Everything I have ever said about Islam refers to the content and consequences of its doctrine. And, again, I have always emphasized that its primary victims are innocent Muslims–especially women and girls.” – Sam Harris
Recently The Guardian (Glenn Greenwald), Al Jazeera (Murtaza Hussain), and Salon (Nathan Lean) attacked Sam Harris and other “New Atheists,” Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, accusing them of racism and Islamophobia. These accusations are significant, and led to a back and forth between Harris and Greenwald. Compare above and below, and notice Greenwald’s Kobe-Bryantesque misuse of “honest”:
“Sam – To be honest, I really don’t see how that full quote changes anything. You are indeed saying – for whatever reasons – that the fascists are the ones speaknig (sic) most sensibly about Islam, which is all that column claimed.” – Glenn Greenwald
Indeed? Indeed. I question the skewered semantics that make Harris a supporter of ”fascists.”
Meanwhile, Nathan Lean at Salon chastises Dawkins for Tweeting: “…(a Muslim woman’s) testimony worth half a man’s and needing 4 male witnesses to prove rape.” But Dawkins draws directly from the Koran.
“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.” – Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Arguments? Greenwald, Hussain, Lean and ilk imply equivalency between Islam and Christianity because both encourage atrocities such as slavery and honor killing. Sure. Still, according to UN Women over 91% of world wide honor crimes are within Muslim societies (the rest are attributed to Hindus, Coptics, etc.). That’s a huge discrepancy.
These three should spend more time reading, say, Rana Husseini, Irshad Manji, Mukhtar Mai, Zana Muhsen, Nawal El Saadawi, and other Muslim women as they document accounts of forced child marriage or honor crimes. Though these women point out the value of Islam, they basically align themselves with Harris regarding the horrible treatment of women justified by fundamentalists. Go ahead, accuse them of Islamophobia.