text:
Friday, November 18, 2011
When Bloggers Leave
Other bloggers, myself included, are posting with less frequency. In my case, schedule is one factor, discouragement the other. I do, however, slog on.
Even though I still enjoy the fellowship and the discussion here in the blogosphere, I no longer believe that I am "making a difference."
149 comments:
There are a lot of people out there who read and never make a comment.
Look at your daily comments/total hits.
We are mostly preaching to the choir, but I believe the Right Blogistanis were at least partially responsible for the tea parties. We never realized how many of us there were.
Had it not been for the internet and blogging, perhaps we never would have known.- AnonymousNovember 18, 2011 at 8:23:00 AM CST
We are in the fight of our life to save our Republic. I want it to be known in the future that however small the effort, I did all that I could to save it.Considering the price that has been paid by those before us, can we do less? I weary as well, take a few days off and then decide once again to soldier on. It is the same as voting. One vote? What does that count for, but it is the sum total that will bring critical mass.
ReplyDelete Fine let them quit there is always others out there and my big email group. We aren't giving in and giving up! It is sad when others do.
I am actually working on a one to one kind of thing. People are getting the message just too lazy but are voting!
I have a po dunk little place but I am not going! I don't post all the time either too busy reading. My blog is like a cat. You never know where I lurk. ;]
I think that is what people do "when they have the time". My job is getting bigger and with more stress so I really don't want to do much on the computer.
I must admit I have been watching all the NCIA programs.- AnonymousNovember 18, 2011 at 8:43:00 AM CST
I'm a late bloomer to figuring out what's going on out there. To be honest, I was one of those types that just absorbed without really stopping to question things. We're homeschoolers here because the public school system is wrecked, and we are now starting to wake up, prep, and educate ourselves and our friends. I can tell you that I stumbled onto your blog by accident. To be honest, it had some of the highest levels of common sense I could find, and I read it daily. It has helped me learn and pass the information on to my kids. This blog does matter. I think that there are a lot of people who are silent readers, taking in as much as they can. Please keep going for those of us who need help catching up. Like I said, I'm really late to the game, and truly this blog helps me know more of what's going on. It matters.
ReplyDelete - AnonymousNovember 18, 2011 at 9:52:00 AM CST
I'm with Bunkerville. If we bloggers don't expose the truth, who will. It may seem we are preaching to the choir but it is the visitors that stumble on our articles via the search engines who may not be part of the choir. Besides that, I learn a lot from fellow bloggers and have changed some of my long held positions as a result.
Hang in there, AOW. You are doing good and valuable work. Bunkerville is spot on.
AOW I think you're underestimating your position. You've changed many minds for the better.
I still love to blog, but I just don't have the time. I hope people understand that and don't give up on me.
It is sad when blog buddies drop out suddenly, I'll give you that.I left a comment earlier, but I'm not sure it got through (my pc was acting up).
Just want to tell you that I think you, and the rest of the bloggers, do make a difference. I think the comment by Anonymouse should give you all the incentive you need to keep going.
I don't always leave comments, but I do check on my blog roll, even before I look at the big guys, like Breitbart & Drudge. Most of the time I refrain from posting on subjects because you guys have already covered the subject.
There are lots of folks who depend on the blogs, even if we never hear directly from them. I hope you reconsider.Just go through a blogroll every few months, and you will see how many are dropping out. As to making a difference, I think we all get discouraged.
At times we feel like we are talking to ourselves. My reason for starting Right Truth was to share information, so I guess if just one person reads something they didn't not previously know, it serves some purpose.
I think we get tired, because in the big picture I don't feel like I'm making any difference.
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.comAOW, we ARE and have made a difference, I know, personally, how difficult it is to keep up with a blog and sometimes can be downright exhausting, but I think if we continue to speak the truth and share the truth it is so worth it.
Liberals hate the truth and love to twist it until it is unrecognizable. They have lost all concept of reality.
We are making a difference and it helps to put in fun stuff in between the serious posts, which is why I started posting funny videos on the weekends, we need to laugh.
Make no mistake conservative bloggers are making a difference and we must support each other as much as we can, count on it.D Charles,
You are wrong about Pastorius. I know him personally.
And the site IS different in that all of us there took a stand against white supremacism and ethnic nationalism, including a stand against the BNP. Our stand ostracized us from many other counter-jihad sites, some of them very prominent ones. You'll note that Breivik didn't use Infidel Bloggers Alliance in his screed of a manifesto.
In any case, Infidel Bloggers Alliance will continue on as a site as it is a team-blogging site.- AnonymousNovember 20, 2011 at 12:21:00 AM CST
You're outnumber and out of your league in the intelligence department. Progress can only occur when the dinosaurs die off.
ReplyDelete Progress can only occur when the dinosaurs die off.
Let's see, the dinosaurs dying leads to vast oil reserves. Lazare Carnot stipulated that progress can only occur with the discovery and use of energy sources of higher energy densities... so "technically" he'd have a valid point IF he was an advocate for using America's vast oil and coal reserves, but since he's not, I can only presume that he's an idiot w/o a valid point.
That, AND that the fact that he's a minority hating bigot.- AnonymousNovember 21, 2011 at 4:10:00 PM CST
I agree with the Conservative Lady 100%: that anonymous comment was says it all:
"I can tell you that I stumbled onto your blog by accident. To be honest, it had some of the highest levels of common sense I could find, and I read it daily. It has helped me learn and pass the information on to my kids. This blog does matter."
An Army of Davids, we are. A whole lotta George Baileys, 'cept we don't have the benefit of an angel showing us what things would be like without us.
I have another reason to keep blogging, besides actually influencing minds: fellowship. My real life peers mostly don't want to talk politics, or are too misled in political philosophy, or both. Being able to share info, brainstorm, commiserate, and engage in lively debate with such a lovely bunch of wise minds?
Well worth the effort.
Sad to see Karen left. I hadn't realized. I haven't been making my rounds much at all since I started homeschooling, but you are all still very important to me.
best to you
Linda No One Of Any Import,
The fellowship here in the blogosphere is wonderful! Mr. AOW is just beginning to learn about blogging. He's made one blogging buddy so far: Woodsterman (Odie).
As for myself, because I'm also shut in along with my husband, I find a community here on the web. What a wonderful outlet! Plus, I can get help with certain matters -- as you know from my post on Medicare.
Sure, the trolls are irritating. But they're also amusing!
All those good things said, I have finally realized that the chances of "making a difference" are minimal. I am grateful to know that occasionally somebody does learn something here at my blog.
Homeschooling, especially the first year, is all consuming! But the benefits and blessings are many. I can make these statements because I've been working with groups of homeschoolers since 1998.AOW,
the community atmosphere and shared values is very important and I fully understand how important it is. However I think the entire blogosphere in general and alliances like the one you are in has one single and immense flaw.
That flaw is the uncontrolled and non-verifiable presence that it currently exists in. Though you personally know many of the key bloggers and will vouch for them, etc, many you do not much of the postings are based on a faceless and non-confirming environment. There is no accountablility and thus we get comments based on that environment, not on the topic itself. Also the concepts of journalism, fairness in reporting and most of all context is simply ignorned. There are those, such as Pastorius, whom want to push the line that they are professional, fair and a quality source and simply put they are not, they fail at it and they ultimately are just pushing a view without much base.
Now having said that, it shows that there are issues, concerns, fears and some very important ideas out there, but they are lost in the flood of garbage and it will remain as such until there is a system of verification, authentication and most of all accountability. Until that happens, the blogosphere will remain simply pub-talk and should not be considered at a higher value than that.
A last comment from me is that the blogosphere, and the self-procaimed anti-jihad community in particular, is often if not constantly hijacked. They are a perfect example of how the real concerns and fears of the average person on the street in the West is taken over by those with agendas and blogmania.
Such agendas are political popularism, religious motives (certain Evangalist groups for example) or the sinister groups such as the Settler Movement whom fund certain higher profile bloggers. Then there are the bigots. Also there is blogomania, that is those whom because of anonimity mouth of something that they actually do not really believe but it sounds fun to be tough, that is a factor in the other agendas as well, of course. You suffer that with at least two of your regular posters.
We need blog registration - meaning that really offensive and bigoted commentary should be prosecutable with owners being held accountable. Details could be kept by domains (blogger etc) and those blogs that are not registered would be known as simply - questionable and not to be taken seriously.D Charles,
We need blog registration - meaning that really offensive and bigoted commentary should be prosecutable with owners being held accountable.
I couldn't disagree more!
The tradition of anonymous pamphleteers has a long tradition here in America and goes back to colonial days. And let us not forget The Federalist Papers, although we do now know the identity of those "radical" writers.
And there is this reality: law enforcement can trace IPs. I'm not sure to what extent, but I know that the ability to do that kind of tracing is available for domains based here in America.
As one sees when one signs up for blog via Blogger, a blog can be many different things: a diary, a commentary, whatever. I think that most bloggers have their own unique and personal vision as to what their blogging is and what blogging entails.
Many high-profile bloggers do blog with their real identities. And, yes, several have been sued, but not usually successfully. Look up Andrew Whitehead, CAIR, law suit. But the cost to Mr. Whitehead! The cost of litigation can silence truth-telling voices.
because of anonimity...it sounds fun to be tough
I suppose so. I certainly have do so from time to time, but my toughness is usually acerbic satire.
The web in general is loaded with all sorts of noise. Oh, well. It is up to the individual to sort out the cacophony from the euphony.AOW,
This is going to be an "agree to disagree point" between us. I think there is no way to distinguish between the good, great, cr^p and sinister until there is a way of registering sites. Even if it is done in a semi-official or self-managing method - thus those with a "registered with xxxxxxx" will be respected and open to formal debate (like a printed magazine or newspaper) and the rest will be treated with questionablity and not taken as serious. Right now there is no such capacity and it is abused to a point of losing most value.
It is interesting that you use the historic "pamphlet" example, because in fact in those days printing was difficult, limited and they were not really anonymous - most had their names put to it. Today the internet is available to everyone and anyone, ISPs do not really tell much and subject to numerous privacy and other legislations. Also sites like blogger and wordpress make it even more difficult.
What we end up are the two major elements lacking and I think it is the most important of all. 1) standards and 2) accountability.
There are no standards and as I mentioned before, you blogs are hijacked by agenda-driven groups and worse and, with all respect, even you are posting items/opinions from them. The second is, unlike print-media, most of you are almost totally unaccontable to it and thus sites like Gates of Vienna can produce not only vile hate but defimatory material that again, if in print would have been taken to court.
My question to you is why do you have to be responsible in any printed format but not on the net? The answer is because at present it is open and without some form of control, is a monster unable to be managed and you are taking advantage of that.AOW,
The West needs to win! Crack pots are trying to take freedom of speech and the left socialist loons are always looked at as nuts. Links are never enough for them and they do not know truth. Let the public figure it out! It is all about freedom at the end of the day!
Not some bozo dictating to folks..."you shut up! I am right and don't you dare state a darn thing" mentality!
You are doing a great job and left the personal to talk on another subject. I cought that little tid bit back there AOW. Nice!
I usually don't bother with them.D Charles,
a monster unable to be managed and you are taking advantage of that
"Taking advantage?" Nope.
Protecting the security of my students and, at the same time, exercising my freedom of speech because I use a pseudonym? Yes, indeed.
In fact, many people blog anonymously for similar reasons, including that of the fear of losing one's job, particularly during these uncertain economic times.
We will have to agree to disagree as to the validity of anonymity.
As for publishing under my own name, I have done so. No law suits have appeared.AOW,
Don't! Because that is what the little morons want!
We won't let them have more to babble about! In which by the way only sinks them deeper. All the education one may crow about doesn't prove anything and yes truth will expose! Every layer peice by peice! That is what I see happening, it is just moving too slow to notice.
Just like them useing the warm water first and turning it up slowly to boil us as we turn it back down when they aren't looking! This is why we need "Always on Watch"! People willing to keep the perps in line!
It is frustrating that there are so many clueless people out there not knowing which way is up!- AnonymousNovember 22, 2011 at 3:02:00 PM CST
Charles says "I think there is no way to distinguish between the good, great, cr^p and sinister until there is a way of registering sites."
It's called discernment. When based in one's own experiences and a sound comparison to other news sources, it works just fine most of the time.
Charles says, "you blogs are hijacked by agenda-driven groups and worse"
Which is another way of saying: "you are too dumb to realize that you are just spouting off what the radio talk show/other bloggers tell you."
Just an ad hominem insult, with no more weight than "neener neener neener." They pick a subject and work others mentally.
You will have your sympathizers jumping in hoping to fit in and be accepted finally by a perp. This is an operational way they work you and others. I am better at profiling in person but I do read between the lines all the time.
oh and "Cheers" lol...- AnonymousNovember 22, 2011 at 11:08:00 PM CST
I think it is a worrying trend that so many of us who for one reason or another who wish to type out our personal critical opinions, that was deemed as bigotry or unacceptable by many people, have to do so anonymously, due to fear or due to lack of freedom. The question here is would there be improvement to our life or harm to our life, if we speak out on something that was based on reality? The world is full of danger and risk and it is up to us individual to decide what is worth talking about and what is not worth talking about. It is important that anyone who wish to state their views, whether it was based on reality or not, be given the opportunity to do so, whenever possible. The problem with many printed media is that they oftentimes failed to give voice or voices to many of us who have different views. And that is why more and more people are turning to various(positive or negative) internet blogsites or websites to exchange or share views.
At the end of the day, it is up to discerning, analytical readers to find out what was based on lies and what was based on truth.
By the way, nooneofanyimport explaination for the word 'discernment' was quite spot on, in my opinion.
WLIL - AnonymousNovember 22, 2011 at 11:09:00 PM CST
I think it is a worrying trend that so many of us who for one reason or another who wish to type out our personal critical opinions, that was deemed as bigotry or unacceptable by many people, have to do so anonymously, due to fear or due to lack of freedom. The question here is would there be improvement to our life or harm to our life, if we speak out on something that was based on reality? The world is full of danger and risk and it is up to us individual to decide what is worth talking about and what is not worth talking about. It is important that anyone who wish to state their views, whether it was based on reality or not, be given the opportunity to do so, whenever possible. The problem with many printed media is that they oftentimes failed to give voice or voices to many of us who have different views. And that is why more and more people are turning to various(positive or negative) internet blogsites or websites to exchange or share views.
At the end of the day, it is up to discerning, analytical readers to find out what was based on lies and what was based on truth.
By the way, nooneofanyimport explaination for the word 'discernment' was quite spot on, in my opinion.
At the end of the day, it is up to discerning, analytical readers to find out what was based on lies and what was based on truth.
Well said!
And that applies to ANY source, be that source a blog or a mainstream media outlet -- or a professor in a classroom.
Control the media and control the education system, and you have tyranny.- AnonymousNovember 23, 2011 at 7:06:00 AM CST
Thank You for the reply. I too feel very discouraged on many occassions. Anyway, it had been interesting reading your comments and if I have the time, I would like to continue reading your postings and comment,if possible.
WLIL Interesting set of comments from everyone, some valid and some typical in a sense of missing the point or being narrow-minded (on purpose I think).
Freedom of speech is a simple human right and should never be taken away - on the other hand that freedom is to be both protected and thus earned. Abusing such freedoms is unfortunately far to frequent and the blogosphere in general and the self-proclaimed anti-jihad movement almost completely.
The internet and blogs are, for want of a better example, a new form of broadsheet, a way of publishing. In the past it was done by professionals and as a profession. With anyone and everyone doing it, that professionality is falling down and more importantly, is being abused by those with agendas and those whom want to pretend they are professional.
It also brings out the bigots and haters, the agenda-pushers.
nooneofanyimport attempts to argue that I am considering you the blog community as being naive and stupid and I would argue no, not completely. There is a general assumption that if you see something in print (or on the screen) and there is enough followers, then it must be real. That if you throw in a false piece of information amongst the real, it will be believed. Simply put, this is like talking in the local bar or school-ground, this is what is happening and this is the risk of an uncontrolled situation without responsibility. The value is obvious, the importance is very real, but the risks are at present equal and tainting it. That is my point.
dcat and WLILL's response is understandable. They naturally dislike being exposed/caught-out as examples of those that abuse the obvious anonymity and openess of blogs. Their use wide sweeping generalisations and claim it to be clear facts and go as far as to use obvious text-book bigotry. That protection gives them the false sense of being "tough and hard". Simply put they could not push such language on anything academic or professional and most certainly they would never dare put it in actual print with their real identities on it. Not because of fear of "reprisal" from Islamists or whomever they have defamed but because they would be clearly exposed as classic gossips, rumour-mongers, haters, hate-incitors and text-book bigots. In that sense, they are also cowards because they would most certainly not be that "tough", also if they were, they would not hide behind it.
Freedom of speech is a human-right, as I have said, thus I excercise my right to point out that "at present" the internet's invisibility and openess does not hide personal and moral responsibilies and that is the only reason I point fingers.Yes indeed I won't give up either and will not be bullied by an opinion of another.
It is an opinion of another after all.
I will continue to post mine! An opinion of labeling and name calling is what they do best! We know the side it chooses.
Not a very good one at all! I totally agree with you AOW!- AnonymousNovember 24, 2011 at 6:14:00 AM CST
I doubt there is freedom of speech for any people who opposed excessive islamisation. If there is freedom of speech, why are so many people who opposed excessive islamisation have to post annonymously? Why is there so much fear and double standard with regard this anti-islamisation topic in this world? After all I am not shouting with an abusive placard on the streets. I am only posting my critical opinions. That is all. Why only certain people are allowed to be critical, while people like myself are not allowed to be critical? Anyway, this is a blogsite belonging to AOW and it is a privileged to be allowed the opportunity to comment and it is up to AOW to refuse or grant anyone that privilege.
WLIL - AnonymousNovember 24, 2011 at 6:37:00 AM CST
And by the way, there were no abuse on my part. I was only stating my opinions in a civilised manner.
If some people wish to be disagreeable, or find fault with my civilised speech, so be it.
I just hope they will behave in a civilise manner in real life.
WLIL - AnonymousNovember 24, 2011 at 7:09:00 AM CST
Thank You AOW. I just wish there would also be more freedom to state one opinion in public in Asia. Hopefully there would be some public forum in Asia that would be brave enough to confront the issue related to either creeping islamisation or excessive islamisation.
WLIL This blog is certainly AOWs and I also appreciate the openess and freedoms within it, in fact I have said so to her a number of times.
My point, which of course is purposely being avoided and clearly unnerving some, is that it is the uncontrolled nature, openess and annonimity that allows for abuse and abusers. That it is a problem and ultimately is a danger. A danger because people push bigotry, unreality and hate for profit. That it both infiltrates the hard work that some put and it confuses, if not dillutes, the important messages.
For my part I have no issue with people saying what they want or wish, that is their unreserved right and freedom - I am equally free to point out when it is incorrect, generalized, misguided or bigoted.
A good example is the comments about Islamization, a fear that I think though exagerated certainly exists and should be battled (correctly and based on fact). Such comments here, of course, being wide-sweeping and attempting to prove a point falls flat considering the same problems of freedoms in non-Muslim countries that in fact are larger in quantity than those of the Muslim world - but somehow ignored (on purpose of course). The need for annonimity because of State terror or repurcussions is real and present. I wonder why such contextual abuse is pushed, that somehow all the world's troubles are supposively Muslim? Like the stupid comment pushed a few days ago - "that all Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims". That comment slaps in the face of all the victims and thier families by the many active non-Muslim terror victims in Africa, South Asia, South East Asia, Central and Southern America and the Balkans, etc, etc.
That is why I harp on the issue.
Base your comments on logic and you stand tall and I have nothing to say and if anything will support you. Shirk your moral responsibilty and slither like the snakes you are behind the benefit of blogging - then be declared as such.- AnonymousNovember 24, 2011 at 7:35:00 PM CST
People who are worried about creeping islamisation or creeping islamic agenda should be given the same rights to speak out as those who may have harboured islamic agenda.
WLIL "People who are worried about creeping islamisation or creeping islamic agenda should be given the same rights to speak out as those who may have harboured islamic agenda. "
Absolutely, this is also a hard-earned right that we cherish in the West. That is also why it should not be abused, dumbed-down or turned into basic agenda-based bigotry. That is why I point it out.
The question is, should you stoop down to the level of the haters and radicals that generalise, intolerance and bigotry?
"Freedom and rights are earned by a civilisation". Benjamin Disraeli- AnonymousNovember 28, 2011 at 3:50:00 PM CST
D Charles,
Protesting against unpleasant creeping Islamisation or excessive Islamisation that is dangerous to our freedom of choice, liberty, health/life and sanity is not bigotry or racist.
If those Islamist or Islamic people did not respect our decent Western values, our Western civilisation, our world freedom and our individual rights, why should we respect their oppressive islamic culture that originated from the East? Tolerating people who are intolerant just does not make sense. Tolerance should be a two way street and NOT a one way street that threatened our freedom and quality of life.
Then do it, I have no issue if that was the case. However, I believe your postings are in fact generalized, inaccurate, contextless and in some instances bigoted. Also, as I have mentioned, by doing so you end up doing three things.
1. You in fact target Islam itself instead of the radicals, thus mistargetting an effort, which is a waste, and
2. Only proves the radicals' excuse that Westerners are bigots and crusaders and out to destory Islam.
3. Also it makes your argument look stupid and thus any actual valuable comments you make are hidden by the cr*p.
My bief is about getting your arguments correct and not going down the ugly route.
In my community I was given huge stick from many Muslims and branded harsh because I condemned Muslims for keeping their mouths shut and questioning their loyalties. Now I get support letters as well as hate-mail because I know that my point is correct. Muslims that migrate but still support the Imams and politics "back home" deserve to be deported or not granted nationality. That argument is based on solid evidence, it targets those that deserve targetting, but I am neither bigoted nor stupid enough to throw wide-sweeping generalised hate with rubbish like "it is Islam itself", using the "they" or "them" word nor blaming their holy book the Koran.
CheersCalling names again did you see him slip that one in…but I am neither bigoted nor stupid enough to throw wide-sweeping generalized hate with rubbish like "it is Islam itself", using the "they" or "them" word nor blaming their holy book the Koran.
Ahhh but they sure are!
Doesn't that go under fool me once! "9-11" shame on you fool me twice shame on me for buying it!
There is a new book out for young people: "Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam"
This illustrated book covers all the essential topics needed for a young person to gain an understanding of radical Islam—without being too long or too weighty. They'll learn about everything from al Qaeda to Khomeini, from jihad to the Muslim Brotherhood, from sharia law to Wahhabism. The book even contains a timeline and an index.
Designed for middle school and early high school ages, this book will provide your teen or grandchild, or a friend of the family, the facts they aren't getting in school, movies or the media.
I am helping to get the book out in my community right now!
A great stocking stuffer!Hamas-linked nazi goup CAIR is now monitoring blog comments and demanding that websites critical of Islam be shut down.
Talk about your hate monger CAIR!
When they do stuff like this it is because we are pretty much spot on!
When they burn our flag we say well that is freedom for you even if you are a backass moron! We have the right to call you that! After all you are burning our flag!
I guess they have a right to burn our flag!
Badmouthing our country is ok too after all mooch said Americans are mean! She is far from the left for saying that! We are the most giving and the stupid dip is way off just like these and Them those freaks are!Dcat,
Hamas-linked nazi goup CAIR is now monitoring blog comments and demanding that websites critical of Islam be shut down.
Are you speaking of the recent attempt to censor Bare Naked Islam? CAIR's "charges" did make the WaPo this past weekend -- in a small item.
In my view, forcing blog owners to monitor the comments at their sites is an infringement of our First Amendment. Babysitting one's blog shouldn't be part of blogging, IMO.
Furthermore, I do note that comments at mainstream newspapers' web sites are heated. And sometimes, when the topic is Islam, I participate in the discussions. Is CAIR going to target those sites too? I think so -- if CAIR can get traction with their attempted interference with blog sites.
Can you imagine the outcry is right wingers were able to target Daily Kos and like leftwing sites? Have you ever seen the discussions at those leftwing sites? Sheesh. The commenters there call for killing conservatives. Yet, not a word about THAT!
As I note from the link you left, Obama has a situation with Pakistan on his hands! This time, the situation may not blow over. Why aren't the mainstream media playing the race card with regard to how the Pakis are carrying on against Obama right now?D Charles,
But the problem is that the Koran DOES contain the material that WLIL and Dcat have spoken of. And in the "later" verses in particular. Their "new testament" is militant -- as opposed to the New Testament of the Bible.
Furthermore, if WLIL's and Dcat's statements are so very incorrect, why do those statements enrage some Muslims so much?
Look, when someone starts a discussion with the Bible and starts citing verses to "prove" how awful Christianity is, I don't go off like a Roman candle, nor do I try to censor them. Instead, I do one of two things: (1) I point out the errors with a counter-argument based on other verses, or (2) I ignore their hatred of Christianity.
The minute I try to censor, I lose all credibility and fuel the dissension even more.
Some years ago shortly after 9/11, I asked a Muslim friend of my husband's about Mohammed and asked this man, "Was Mohammed the Prophet a pedophile?" The question had to do with Mohammed and Aisha, of course. The man glared at me, then turned and walked away -- and ended his friendship with my husband. You can figure out what my conclusion was. Believe me, my question was polite -- and at that point, I hadn't drawn any conclusions about MTP and Aisha.
As long as Muslims and non-Muslims cannot have similar discussions, we are at a standoff. Furthermore, attempting to censor us because we non-Muslims are asking questions or voicing criticism (accurate or not) doesn't lead to any good place. If criticism is forced underground, that criticism festers there and explodes later.
You see, I don't believe that criticism is hatred per se. But too many Muslims do: they can't handle criticism of Islam, MTP, the Koran, etc.AOW,
Your question/comment brings things back to the heart of the matter. Also, dcat's comments just prove my point to no end - rather than tackle the response I gave, instead just pushing out more and more generalised material as somehow being definitive.
To answer the point, and we can and have the right to believe what we like, your view about the Koran is in fact a minority and not supported except by the radicals themselvels and the anti-Islamism movement (and those selling books).
A good example of the difference is that you have judged the Koran as being an altevernative version to the New Testiment. For experts, clerics and academics, the subject of violence in the Koran is not an issue at all. They consider the Koran to be not a version at all but must be considered singularly. If we judge any similarities, then it is to the style and language more to the Old Testiment rather than the NT. Equally so, the militancy and violence that is within it would equate more similarly to that of the Old Testiment - and incidently has less violence than it.
Regardless to the fact if we believe the validity of the Koran or not, much of the arguments on it are simply political or worse and not very academic. The best argument contrary to those who espouse such arguments is simply why does a quarter of humanity not wage holy war on the world, would not at least one nation do so?
The subject of why Muslims are antagonised, that has a lot more to do with socio-political issues. Try comparing, for example, insulting Christianity in the Phillines, Central-South America or parts of Africa. You will find a similarity, now add the political dimensions that we know exist and that is the oeverwheling base behind their response. People seem to read too much into events and ignore the most simple points.
I never go into quoting versus which is a hobby of many of my friends. Intepreting is just that and for my part comparing apples with oranges makes neither.
Though I do not know the full story, I see your question about Mohammed and Aisha as being endemic of bigotry and hatred and not polite at all. It is also very much an example of organised targetting that has existed, in fact, for decades if not centuries. Why is the question asked in the first place, if not only to demonize another's faith?
The question is Mohammed a paedophile is for me moot and political. Theologically the Islamic world is presently unable to do maths and point out simple errors within the haddiths. Having said that, there is a huge debate that has been going on for years, since 1912. Spencer et al will avoid pointing that out because they simply wish puritanicals to dominate to assist their own arguments.
The argument about Aisha has been skewered, put out of context and abused by both the anti-Islam community and historically by those within the Muslim world who simply wish to dominate others.
It all comes down to one comment in a haddith by Boukhari who explained that Aishe herself said how old she was. Later, according to another account, she admitted that she did not know her actual age (common in those dayes). Accounts by Boukhari, Aisha and others also do not match yet historians know from dates of specific events that the age issue is incorrect. http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm is a good example of the discrepencies. She was certainly older.
"•According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Aisha is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an , was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th Surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl, not even only an infant at that time. So if this age is assumed to be 7 to 14 years then her age at the time of marriage would be 14 to 21."
If there is any issue here it is that the Islamic community is still unable to debate obvious errors and this gap is exploited for profit. Tribalism within much of the Muslim world wants to keep their dominance over women, clerics (Imams, etc) wish to keep control over thier flock that any dispute/debate would diminish. Also, of course, certain Christian communities wish to convert or prove their superiority, politicians want to score votes using fear and anger over 9/11 and then there are profiteers like Spencer and Gellar.
Lastly, I use hard and harsh words, that is criticism - but basing such harshness on exagerations, generalized sweeping remarks and for the purpose of demonizing or dehumanizing is still classic bigotry.D Charles,
right now, I have time to address only this part of your comment:
you have judged the Koran as being an altevernative version to the New Testiment
I think that you have misunderstood what I meant.
I was comparing the newer verses with the New Testament and making the point that the former are often militant and the latter mostly peaceful (in contrast with the Pentateuch, in particular).
The Koran has more similarities with the Pentateuch than with the New Testament.
BTW, even if some individuals are "profiteers," that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't telling the truth. Just sayin'.
Gotta go! Thanksgiving break is over, and I have to teach classes today through Thursday.- AnonymousNovember 29, 2011 at 8:02:00 AM CST
D Charles,
You are the one that was incorrect in your assessment of my criticism of the islamic world. I guess you did not noticed your own stupidity, while trying to find fault with my comment. The fact that islamic are imposing their halal only food in a multifaith hospital staff cafetaria is one of the most absurd thing that happened in socalled moderate Malaysia. That means people are forced to eat halal, whether they like it or not and that is totally wrong. That is only one of the numerous extreme intolerance coming from islamics or islamist. Pandering to easterners of whatever oppressive or intolerant religion or ideology just caused more intolerance and unhappiness to us who just want to lead a decent life that is free from any oppresive imposition. And the fact that those islamics burned the flag of America is also unacceptable and totally wrong, whatever their grievances was.
WLIL Yeah AOW,
They will even say they won when they have already lost!
My place is my place and I will not allow their crap at my place. They have their own blogs.
They want to take my right to speak then by golly I will attack them. We can't be nice to the thugs!
They hate me because I won't give them the time of day. I do my own research as far as reading others. My place is staying up just to piss them off and I will not give in! Or give up! I refuse!AOW,
any truths that do come out (not often from what I see, aka Spencer or Gellar) is lost in the smear and stench of the cr*p presented.
Your lost in gross generalisations, simplifcations and superficial aspects and that is truelly sad.
dcat, pretty sad life if your entire effort is attempting to cover up hate with stuborn (and failing) arrogance.
"Hark the noise of the exposed, kicking and screaming, not claiming innocence but only further justifications for their immorality".
- Rosalía de Castro- AnonymousNovember 29, 2011 at 4:38:00 PM CST
And preventing extremism is the keyword, especially if their ideology is totalitarian or no worse than us freethinking tolerant people that they tried to dominate. I would be less tolerant if it affected my freedom of choice or if their culture is NO better or worse than my personal values.
Any unpleasant or pleasant superficial aspects that lead to other more troubling aspects that may endanger our personal freedom or individuality or caused deterioration to our personal freedom is something one should analyse with an open mind.
WLIL - AnonymousNovember 29, 2011 at 4:44:00 PM CST
And it is really sad when people like D Charles appear to be unaware of other creeping aspect of islamic extremism.
ReplyDelete WLIL,
your above to comments are a contrast. The first one in fact I agree with and there is nothing wrong or disputable in that comment. Then there is the silly if not foolish last comment assuming what I know or do not.
Creeping Islamisation is a real threat, as is radicalism in general. If you read my posts you will have noticed that and therefore would not have had to make such a mindless comment. I regularly condemn the moderate majority for keeping their mouths shut about radicals and thus allowing other forms of radicals do it in thier place.
As a matter of point, i condemn CAIR as being itself hijacked and openly supporting organisations that are themselves against America. That is for my part worth disbanding. We in Britain are both lucky and unlucky. We have no CAIR equivalent and the main organisations are loyal - but we have large unofficial organisations that have proven records of funding terrorism.
Notwithstanding the above, my point has been that if our own arguments are flawed, biased, out of context, basic lies and bigoted - we have no right to make any comment. Additionally, any valued comment is lost within it.
That has been my point from the beginning and has not changed. A bigot is always a bigot regardless of which side of the fence they stand on.- AnonymousNovember 29, 2011 at 9:01:00 PM CST
DQ Charles said, "nooneofanyimport attempts to argue that I am considering you the blog community as being naive and stupid and I would argue no, not completely."
First, oh gee thanks. We are not completely naive and stupid. We are just naive and stupid to an extent that Smarty Charles Pants deems appropriate.
Second, I didn't "attempt to argue" that Smarty Charles Pants considers us naive and stupid. I pointed out the obvious fact that the following statement: "blogs are hijacked by agenda-driven groups and worse" is an ad hominem insult.
Which it is.
Then he attempts to avoid that insult with a further insult: "nooneofanyimport attempts to argue."
Attempts, but oh, silly her, doesn't succeed.
Because Smarty Charles Pants says so.
Neener neener neener.
AOW, you are too kind to this troll. DQ Charles,
Your little head must really be busy with all the stories you make up about all the bloggers.
Anyone that disagrees with you and you get to go on your intellectual rant even though you are full of yourself.
There is nothing intellectual about you. It's so obvious that you are full of hate for our American freedom. You can't stand the fact that Americans are going to stand tough and strong! Too bad isn't it!
You don't matter. People like you are transparent and we got your number. You are nothing but a pompous ass caught with your pants down.
BTW I just love what happened to iran today!
I do hope they just go and nuke themselves while lashing out at Israel and the USA. Karma is a good thing!
BTW I have a great life and plan to keep it that way!Charles do be a dear and relay the message...
Andy that addie is history my friends were building a house and they since moved three years ago. "I wonder if she got the FBI possition?"...LOLOLOLOLOL
I know not to trust no one!
bg is still at it I see.
I'm sure Allen isn't up to par either never mind the front line and all!D Charles,
Though I do not know the full story, I see your question about Mohammed and Aisha as being endemic of bigotry and hatred and not polite at all.
That wasn't the case at all!
Fahim (sp?)was in our house to deliver a meal after my husband's shoulder surgery. He saw Trifkovic's The Sword of the Prophet, a book I had only recently obtained a the public library, lying on my stairs in the living room and asked if that was the book that said that Mohammed was a pedophile. I replied in the affirmative and sincerely inquired if that statement were true. Now, had Fahim engaged in a discussion such as some of the material you presented above, I'd have taken note of his response and been off and running to do more research on the topic.
When Muslims get all offended when a non-Muslim asks a question such as I did, they are their own worst enemy.I am supposed to put value in comments by someone who uses "neener neener"?
"Argumentum ad hominem", is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
That is an excuse that is so grey it blocks any argument. I stand by my comment - "blogs are hijacked by agenda-driven groups and worse". Though a touch generalized, in the subject of the self-proclaimed anti-jihadist movement it is most certainly the case. Much of the quote, supposive arguments and stats come from answering-islam.org, jihad-watch and similar hate-for-profiteers. Quotes about Islamic doctrine are almost always the same ones contextually abused by the same groups and so on. I would estimate at least half of the comments on blogs are text-book bigotry, and so on. That is my opinion, and for those that like spurting words like ad hominen, taqqiya, etc, etc ad nauseum - my argument has always been add a bit of reality, basis or fact to a comment and I have no argument.
As for considering people on these blogs as being naive or stupid - I repeat my original comment "yes" and "no". Yes because you follow this tripe blindly using your own emotions and naivity that "it sounds right to me" as being concrete. Also, no because history has proven that people believe what is produced in typeface/print and support the easy way out that sounds hard, tough, etc. That is why nationalism, religion and popularism works so well in elections. It helps when the person is professional in their writing style.
Mind you, someone who says "Neener neener neener" is exactly what I am talking about. Thanks for considering me "smart" though.I find it rather funny that the comment "ad hominen" is used. In fact that is a good example of the type of blog use that occurs often within the self-proclaimed anti-jihad movement.
If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem you will notice the categories within it.
2.1 Abusive
2.2 Circumstantial
2.3 Tu quoque
2.4 Guilt by association
Targetting of individuals by discrediting them rather than debating the subject is common place.
That because of the situation people are in they are either ignorned or blamed.
Tu quoque generalises the situation allowing for broad-sweeping statements that are text-book bigotry.
Most of all, the over-use of guilt by association, they are all the same, that the 10 per cent is the 100 per cent, a Pakistani cleric says something so thus he rerepresents all Muslims globally etc, etc, to a point of stupidity.
Again I point out, be accurate and then there is no argument at all, if not I will support it.
CAIR has supported the rights of freedom of hate statements from foreign enemies of your and my countries, that is condemnable and factual. There is no voice of the majority moderates in our country to counter the abusive and unacceptable statements/actions of radicals - why is it they shut-up? Discuss it! Condemn it! Though, do not fill that void with another form of radical, bigoted and unacceptable abusiveness.
Now, counter that."In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Inflammatory - no only provocative.
Extraneous - that basically means adding material not relevant. Nope.
Off-topic - Nope, totally on the topic and in fact I challenge that considering the lack of context within much of the information given by some here, they are more O/T and thus trolls. Actually it is laughable, they also add constant inflammatory remarks and add such rubbish that extraneous would be an understatement!
My intent has always been to point out the reality of what people are saying. I have said to AOW that with all respect I am certainly taking the devil's advocate role here, that has been my style and my professional style, questioning points made to see the real intentions of items, posts and comments. It works well, it has exposed bigots and hypocrits many times.
I should stress that I do not consider AOW in that category, she has my respect though I do not agree with all her views.- AnonymousNovember 30, 2011 at 12:13:00 PM CST
D Charles,
You may be comfortable with socalled moderates of the islamics world but you are the one here that is abusive and full of yourself with your socalled self-righteousness. And you sound like a broken record here when you accused people who have had different opinions than yours as lies, bigotted, etc. Not only you are full of yourself, but you also don't respect other people points of views who are more aware and more valid than your meaningless rants. You are beginning to sound like an islamics who are intolerant of any criticism of islamic people, islamic culture, or islamic ideology. You have a distorted view that have nothing to do with the real harsh reality. You don't even respect this blogsite or my opinions or other people opinions that were based on unpleasant reality. I find that you had been extremely irrational with your attacked on people like myself who value freedom, truth and decency in this world that is rapidly deteriorating in certain part of the eastern world.
People like you and most parts of the islamic or eastern world get easily offended and therefore it is a pointless excercise to go into a discussion with you or with any islamics or anyone who were unacceptably abusive or extremely intolerant of any criticism.
WLIL - AnonymousNovember 30, 2011 at 12:36:00 PM CST
I agree with your observation that 'too many Muslims can't handle criticsm of Islam'.
The fact that it is indeed very risky to even criticse any part of Islam in any countries that is dominated by even socalled moderate Muslims.
this is the point at which you are clutching at straws in an attempt to avoid the points I have made. A smoke-screen in other words and a classic-but-failed ad hominem.
I have no problem with anyone expressing an opinion but since they are expressing it public, they must be able to wear their view and deffend it. I am challenging them and when they cross the line as being false or bigoted, I point it out.
In other words, defend your view with facts, give evidence that can stand up and stop just getting "sh*tty" because in the end, it still does not prove your point. "Because I said so" is not an excuse.
I have opinions and I am happy to defend them, you are obviously not willing to do the same. Crying about it does not work. I think I would be correct in saying that AOW did not create an "agreement club" but a place to discuss and "debate" issues. Well then, debate.
Thus, keeping on-topic, my view is that many comments here are not very accurate, heresay and sometimes bigoted and that only makes any legitimate point lost or discredited. Thus I suggest people dig a little bit further into their capacity to study, provide details and evidence to support comments and stay away from emotive, ugly and bigoted comments. Simple, really.WLIL,
you can start by backing up your statement:
"The fact that it is indeed very risky to even criticse any part of Islam in any countries that is dominated by even socalled moderate Muslims."
Are you absolutely sure that "any countries" is correct. Personally I can think of two that is not a problem, so I would have said "most" which would have been a good statement that nobody could debate. The inability to discuss, debate and cope with criticism within the Muslim world is one of the most important issues that they must deal with, non doubt about it at all.
Care to elaborate?- AnonymousNovember 30, 2011 at 2:43:00 PM CST
I did enjoyed reading some of your reasonable and logical comments and some of your blog post, but I did not enjoyed reading D Charles unwarranted, unreasonable and illogical accussation against me. In my opinion, he/she not only did not respect my opinions, but he/she was also very nasty in his/her speech against my opinions. If he or she really opposed radical islamist and what nots, he/she would most certainly would not stooped so low in his/her manner of speaking just for the purposes of oppossing my mild crticism against socalled moderate Islamics.
WLIL - AnonymousNovember 30, 2011 at 2:48:00 PM CST
D Charles,
There is too much hypocrisy and inconsistencies related to your comments. I find it most nauseating reading your disrespectful comments against me and against some other bloggers. I find it futile and useless talking to you. Obviously you want to prove me wrong. It would be a waste of time to eloborate to you and also not to mention the risk and danger to myself as I am not from the free world.
WLIL - AnonymousNovember 30, 2011 at 2:54:00 PM CST
D Charles,
Just do your own research, that is if you are able to with an ubiased mind! You are just trying to make fun of my valid opinions and you are not worth having any discussion with. Honestly why should I respect you when you obviously have no respect for me.
WLIL What I've learned about research in general: most of us present evidence that supports our thesis on whatever topic we're researching.
Surely, in my case, I know that evidence contrary to my thesis exists.
The critical part comes when we as individuals have to decide what we BELIEVE has the weight of most evidence we've found. In other words, deciding what the truth is requires evaluating facts and testimonies. Furthermore, our own personal experience enters into the decision -- although, in the case of a jury or a formal debate, personal experience isn't supposed to enter into making the decision as to what the truth is and isn't proper evidence.
I often tell my policy-debate students that I can make the case for either side of a debate resolution. Often, the evidence can come down on the side of that which is not the truth.
From the neurological perspective....
Now, the blogosphere is not a debate class or a courtroom (left brain). We have a lot more animosity and emotion (right brain) here in the blogosphere.
Furthermore, neither the blogosphere nor debate class is "life." But the blogosphere does come close to being "life" (both left brain and right brain).
Both sides of the brain are required for a human being to be human.
Some of the clashes in the conversation in this thread have to do with left brain and right brain usage. Hence, my introduction of this information.
As everyone in this thread should know, I DO believe that Islam itself is a threat to Western civilization.
Is Islam going to vanish off the planet? Nope.
Can Muslims adjust their interpretation and applications of Islam so that we can all "get along"? Not likely in entirety, although some Muslims have adjusted and will do so. What motivates these Muslims to adjust? The Koran? The Haditha? Something else?
Some 1400 years of various clashes with the followers of Islam (and various other ideologies, for that matter) indicate that the only way to deal with the clash is to draw certain lines in the sand. Those lines I'm talking about are not being drawn definitively enough by the West, IMO. But in Islamic countries, the lines ARE drawn. Apparently, voters i Egypt have just drawn such a line in the elections there:
The party formed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's mainstream Islamist group, appeared to have taken about 40 percent of the vote, as expected. But a big surprise was the strong showing of ultraconservative Islamists, called Salafis, many of whom see most popular entertainment as sinful and reject women's participation in voting or public life.
Analysts in the state-run news media said early returns indicated that Salafi groups could take as much as a quarter of the vote, giving the two groups of Islamists combined control of nearly 65 percent of the parliamentary seats.
Will the rest of the "Arab Spring" countries follow suit?D Charles,
I have no problem with anyone expressing an opinion but since they are expressing it public, they must be able to wear their view and deffend it. I am challenging them and when they cross the line as being false or bigoted, I point it out.
You are certainly free to state your evaluation here at this site.
However, please remember that a blog is not a courtroom. "Must be" in your comment above is antagonistic and demeaning to those with contrary views.I note this from WLIL:
not to mention the risk and danger to myself as I am not from the free world
That personal situation should give all of us pause!
Those who have lived without freedom can often give those of us fortunate enough to be free valuable insights that we'd otherwise not have.AOW,
Yes and the little tidbit I sent you is zip this morning.
It happened two blocks away. Just like the Florida cover up honor killing by CAIR. I just wonder? Even the pathologist is not saying anything. Glad a few folks pressed on with this honor killing!
The government is not going to help us either.
Yes we have lots of murders and they are not islamic I am just waiting for some bone head to point that out.THIS IS SOMETHING EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW! (You can do with this e-mail as you wish, but I feel it's worth reading & heeding! SB)
We now live about 30 miles from Fresno . We are up in the Sierras and Fresno is the first big town we encounter when we leave the mountains. We shop there often. I received this from my ex-homicide partner who is still active in law enforcement circles in the Fresno area.
Excuse the language, but don't excuse the facts. Don't give up your guns, and buy necessary ammunition if you can find it. Be cautious and alert. Be ready if, God forbid, we need to protect our families and loved ones.
If you weren't at Rotary meeting on Friday, you missed the only decent speaker we've had in more than a year. LTC John Cotter is the 144th Fighter Wing's anti terrorism officer. John had a two-part presentation. First part was describing his job as the units anti terrorism officer. Pretty standard stuff.
The second part was information that will curl your hair. A Part-time air guardsman works as a checker at local Von's. Two women in full burkas buy every pre-paid cell phone in the store. Clerk/airman gets to thinking about it. Goes to Cotter and reports incident. Cotter asks store for surveillance video. It's scary enough that he contacts Fresno FBI.
FBI investigates and determines these women have been doing this all over the Valley. Cell phones shipped through Canada to Iraq/Afghanistan where they become triggers for roadside bombs.
The Shell station at Peach and Shaw. Every time a local GI goes there in fatigues they are asked specific questions. What is your unit? When are you deploying? How many aircraft are you taking?
The F-16s out of Fresno fly CAP for west coast. As such they are the first line of defense so they have the US 's most sophisticated air-to-air missiles. Foreign governments would like to get their hands on those missiles or at least learn how to build them. Also how many we have, etc. Two spy groups are working on it, one based at Fashion Fair Mall (the F-16s take-off pattern) and one based at Sierra Vista Mall (the F-16s landing pattern).
Cotter said the ragheads (But we don't profile) are always probing the base. Two dorks in a pickup show up at the front gate wanting to deliver a package marked Air National Guard, Fresno .. No postage, no UPS, no FedEx, no DHL, no nothing. Just a probe.
I asked Cotter why we haven't seen anything about this in The Bee, on KMJ, on local TV news. He said they're not interested. Since Friday I've learned of two other things. My brother-in-law, Frank, (management at Avaya) had a Muslim tech who took a leave-of-absence for 6 weeks in Afghanistan . After the 6 weeks were up he called from New York requesting an extension. Frank (who does profile) said, you're fired, and called the Fresno FBI who were very interested. Don't know the outcome.
A Muslim who owns a liquor store in my former hometown of Kingsburg was constantly bugging customers to buy guns for him. Finally one of the guys I grew up with called the FBI.
We are a country at war and the enemy is among us. I don't care what Janet Napolitano says, it's a fight to the death and we should be prepared as possible. Brother-in-law Frank has a theory and I think it may be closer to the truth than Homeland Security wants to admit. There are a certain number (probably a large number) of Muslims among us who are awaiting the trigger date and will begin randomly killing as many of us as they can, sort of a Fort Hood on steroids. I know I'm getting prepared to shoot back.
Two items of interest: Sheriff Margaret Mims wants to grant concealed carry permits to all who are qualified. Columnist Jim Boren, among the most bleeding of the bleeding heart liberals, says it's time for Fresno residents to arm themselves. LOAD up, you can bet this is happening in places other than Fresno ...David Rayburn
I was asked to send this to everyone in my address book. Some of those I'm sending it to WILL NOT forward it! To those I say, Get your head out of the sand and look around with an open mind or before you know it we will no longer be living in the land of the free and the brave!"
We are under attack from a hidden enemy that is everywhere. They are a cancer that WILL attack us and KILL as many as they can to further the Islamic doctrine of Shiria law. They behead, cut off limbs, stone people to death and worse. Beware, there IS a holy war coming. The signs are everywhere if you care to look and listen.
What do we expect from Homeland Security not wanting to admit anything since they are being run by devout Muslims in charge of Homeland Security Posts.
Well, boys and girls, today the fox is guarding the hen house. The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama appointed two devout Muslims to homeland security posts.
Obama and Janet Napolitano appointed Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a 'devout Catholic," a "devout Jew" or a "devout Protestant"...?
Just wondering.
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this make you feel safer already?? That should make our home land much safer, huh!?
Wasn't it "devout Muslim men" who flew planes into U.S. buildings 10 years ago? Wasn't it a "devout Muslim man" who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?
Share this important information to any who give a rats ass about the future of our Country.Dcat,
Those anecdotes you shared at time marker 9:18 AM make my hair stand on end.
I have to wonder how many such incidents are going unnoticed and unreported.
I do see more and more Muslims all over the suburbs of D.C. In fact, at one school-bus stop that I pass on my way to work, nearly the entire batch of kids waiting to board the bus are Muslims. I also note their mothers -- in burqas. Apparently, that particular area of townhouses has a huge percentage of Muslims.- AnonymousDecember 2, 2011 at 5:38:00 PM CST
Charles said "I am supposed to put value in comments by someone who uses "neener neener"?"
Oh, heaven's no, I don't expect you to value my comments.
Judging by your statements about how dumm us bloggr reeders R (paraphrasing), I knew you'd likely dismiss anything I say in defense.
So rather than waste extremely precious time on a futile effort to (professionally, natch!) reason with you, I decided to make sport of it instead.
Oh dear. Perhaps that means I'm the troll in this string.
Oh well. Tag, you are it!
LOLz Federal security officials can track us via our IP's. Or so I've been told.
Thats right they can AOW
God I had a hell of a day today! A working lunch too... This is how it is all over I hear. Soon they will keep us so busy we won't have our own time and too tired to care to pay attention.
Some won't beable to handle the truth. Some of us plan to never give in or give up!
The bloggers that are throwing in the towle need to come back and come back bold! Being nice is not going to cut it. no matter how little you are you would be surprised how many do see your place. You don't need to be popular as the big guys because you will be part of the good guys.
Unfortunately some take things personal and don't let the morons talk you down. Trust and obey is my faith and he is with me always.
God Bless the folks to hang tough!Dcat,
People quit blogging for various reasons: discouragement, time factor, economics.
Obviously, I haven't given up, but surely caregiving has drastically cut into the fight I'm able to put up these days.
Soon they will keep us so busy we won't have our own time and too tired to care to pay attention.
Isn't that an established practice of tyrants?AOW,
I am glad that you are still here. I'm not going away any time soon either.
BTW they won't realese the name of the guy they have because he wasn't formally charged. My gut is talking and those that they mixed with ...well in the video I saw dark Arab faces. Not good and they have him held in another city on another charge. Not naming the city either!Kirkland video
Listen to what the father is saying "this day and age."
He knows something more!I have been away for a while in Kuala Lumpur at a bi-annual meeting I co-chair. Interesting comments on this thread, as usual.
AOW, I disagree with your comment that "devout Muslims" should not be a part of some departments or not have some jobs. That commnet, I find, is unwarrented and very discriminatory. What I might ask is what do you consider "devout" and how does that affect what a person is? I believe you said yourself that you have nothing against Muslims themselves and do not consider Islam itself evil, but yet by such a comment you basically have done so. By judging someone on their "devoutness" you thus equate a value of good/evil on the faith that they are being devoted to.
A moderate Muslim does not mean he or she is not devout. If you said that a hard-line, ultra-conservative or you said a Wahhabi or Salafi Muslim should not, then I would have agreed with you. I assume it is a problem of simple wording, which I find most here suffer to various degrees and levels.
Also I have a comment on the examples given on some of the last posts about Burqa-clad women and children on the streets near Fresno, etc. I find that appauling and I would also be disturbed and this most certainly is the issue that you are facing and needs to be tackled. These people represent themselves, not the Muslim world in general and though it is frustrating and should be tackled, the fact remains that you see a vocal, noisy, troublesome, irritating and even dangerous minority - not a majority. Do not forget that these people, they are probably salafis, are not very respected in the actual Muslim world except in Saudi Arabia and one or two other places. We should ask why they are being given tolerance in our countries. We must ask why people with loyalities outside your country are let in, who follow teachings of Imams that hate the West and yet are allowed to live in the west? Yes these are the issues. These salafis that preach such hate in many Muslim countries are in fact treated as the hate-mongers that they are and yet they abuse the freedoms that we give. These issues we can argue and I support tough action and exposure on this. Having said that, target this issue but as we can see with some on this thread, do not defend bigoted statements which I most certainly believe some comments are.
CheersIt makes me sick that Palestinians that sell land to a Jew their life will be taken! How backass it that!
A sectarian conversation indeed!
It's in Revelations. Christ is going to mow them down by the millions, the ones that won't convert and fight him in the last battle. That will be a heck of a show.
Frankly I am honest here by saying I don't trust them even if they claim "I'm a Christian now" ploy. I know what is in their hate book!
Only God will know their heart. We are mere humans nothing more and a whole less more! I hate to break it to you bub "QC D Charles" even you and no better than anyone else!D Charles,
A devout Muslim attends mosque regularly, right?
If there is a Wahhabist imam there -- and, from some investigations, it appears that such is the case -- then there is a serious danger that devout Muslims who are not themselves Wahhabists, hard liners, etc. will become hard liners too. I believe that there are substantiated cases of that happening in the West. And, if you recall my anecdote about my Muslim neighbor, I think that he became "radicalized" as a result of what he heard at the local mosque, later exposed as having had a Wahhabist imam.
BTW, "devout" is a relative term in some respects; this matter is being discussed recently with regard to Newt Gingrich. Few of the followers of any religion would call themselves "nominal followers."
Do not forget that these people, they are probably salafis, are not very respected in the actual Muslim world except in Saudi Arabia and one or two other places. We should ask why they are being given tolerance in our countries.
Why, indeed?
Why, indeed?AOW, i think most Muslims in the west have it, in a theocratic sense, difficult. Your example of a hard-liner Imam controlling a mosque is a good example. The main Mosque in Mallaga (Spain) is a good example. The radical element dominated the committee that chose the Imam.
It did not, however, result in radicalising the followers whom started not going and showed interest in making another more moderate mosque. Then what happened was the current mosque put a legal block on it, the local authorities not wanting to be "bigoted" supported the existing mosque and things remained as they were and the moderates dissolved into the general population.
In other places, you have the issue of negative talk, actions and perceptions against Muslims driving them to the radical Imams who will say "I told you so" (that Christians want to get rid of Muslims, crusaders etc).
In most cases, the older generation simply know how to "ignore" their imams if they are a bit hard-liner or political (for example every single Palestinian Imam goes on and on about Israel, etc) but it is the younger generation who are at risk, especially if they are marginalized by local communities, at school etc. They are the new "fodder".
For my part I do not "mistrust" Muslims anymore than how one should target a salesman knocking on the door, someone offering a "great deal" etc,. To do more I think is injust. To single out only gives huge discredit to the countless moderates that exist, victims of hard-liners, terrorists etc, and in your case those men and women in the armed services who put themselves in harms way or gave their lives for your country and happen to be Muslim. Add on to that the existing numbers of Muslims whom offered to actively support the security and intelligence services of your country for the expressed purpose of protecting it from such radical ideologies and terror organisations. They chose to do so BECAUSE they are Muslim and they know the difference or have the studies/background to do it.
Now having said that, and considering it is the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbour - I understand your natural fears and mistrust - are we not only seeing a similar mistrust to those Japanese-Americans during that period? The comparison is very good and even though that puts a justifiable example to in fact segregate/detain Muslims, today Japan is a friend of the US, right?D Charles,
It did not, however, result in radicalising the followers whom started not going and showed interest in making another more moderate mosque.
According to a former Muslim whom I personally know, locating a moderate mosque here in the greater DC area is impossible. This former Muslim (now an atheist?) is from Afghanistan and left a long while back to escape the Taliban and the hard line teachings in the mosques there, only to arrive here and find the same teachings going on in the two largest Sunni mosques in the region. I have no idea if he's accurate in his statement -- except that I visited one of the mosques during an open house and heard with my own ears Wahhabist teachings (in English); this was before 9/11, so I didn't know the infuriated imam was spouting Wahhabism. I did also hear much discussion among various visiting imams, SOME of whom disagreed vociferously with the Wahhabist imam.
In most cases, the older generation simply know how to "ignore" their imams if they are a bit hard-liner or political (for example every single Palestinian Imam goes on and on about Israel, etc) but it is the younger generation who are at risk, especially if they are marginalized by local communities, at school etc. They are the new "fodder".
We agree there. Except that I'm not sure that the marginalization is as significant a factor as you seem to believe.AOW, feeling "marginalized" was considered one of the main factors in western youth detained for supporting or partaking in radical groups in both the US and over here. I will try and find you a link to that statement from a combined OHS/EuroPol study that came across my desk. It was in a legal journal about a year ago - maybe Law Letter or The Lawyer.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.


text:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The annual federal budget deficit is sinking out of $1 trillion-plus nosebleed territory where it has hovered for the past four years. Government borrowing has dropped to roughly 25 cents for every dollar it spends, down from over 40 cents-per-dollar spent a few years ago. Tax receipts are rising and spending is moderating.
For once, the government's financial shape is actually improving and will get better still over the next few years as the U.S. economy continues to pull itself slowly out of the worst recession since the 1930s.
But unless a long-term legislative fix can be found, the economy will soon reverse course and start getting worse again — much worse.
The short-lived improvement in the government's ledger comes as Republicans and Democrats propose rival deficit-trimming budget plans on Capitol Hill and President Barack Obama reaches out to lawmakers of both parties in search of elusive common fiscal ground.
The federal budget deficit will drop to $845 billion this year after topping $1 trillion for four straight years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects. Even if Congress does nothing further to cut spending or raise tax revenues, deficits will continue to shrink — to $430 billion by fiscal 2015, the CBO said.
Absent a major budget deal between the president and Congress to permanently trim debt, the government's finances will start to worsen again as the three major entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — become more and more expensive and unmanageable under the increasing weight of retiring baby boomers.
Recent budget improvements were helped along by increasing tax revenues as corporate America and many better-off Americans snapped back from the economic downturn and paid more in taxes. Stocks are setting new multi-year levels and corporate profits are soaring.
Yet the recent improvements on corporate and government ledgers haven't been shared by millions of working-class Americans. It's almost as if there were separate side-by-side economies.
Unemployment is still a high 7.7 percent nearly four years after the worst recession since the Great Depression officially ended, still far above the pre-recession levels of around 5 percent. Companies feel little pressure to raise wages since the pool of job seekers is large. Those with jobs are pressed to work harder, increasing productivity for corporations.
Companies also have benefited from the Federal Reserve's easy-money policies over the past four-plus years.
In keeping interest rates near zero and flooding financial markets with newly printed dollars, the Fed has helped drive up stock prices — partly at the expense of many retired people and other savers who've seen interest earnings on their bank accounts dwindle.
"The private economy is doing very well and is steadily improving," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "Earnings are at record levels, profit margins have never been wider. That's particularly true for large companies whose stock is traded."
Looking ahead, Zandi said: "I'm hopeful things will simmer down in Washington, and that the deficit will stabilize by the end of the decade and into the next decade. After that, it will start rising again."
House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled a spending outline by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that seeks to balance the budget in ten years with deep domestic spending cuts, the repeal of Obama's landmark health-care overhaul, and without further tax hikes. Senate Democrats planned to offer a counterproposal on Wednesday that combines spending cuts with higher taxes on the wealthy.
Even before the $85 billion in automatic cuts started kicking in on March 1, government spending was shrinking because of the expiration of federal stimulus and other recession-fighting programs of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Steven Rattner, Obama's former "car czar," has criticized Obama for exaggerating in depicting the $85 billion sequester cuts as a disaster imperiling the nation. Obama has since toned down his rhetoric and reached out to congressional Republicans. That pleased Rattner.
"I said he should stop just saying the sky is falling, which he's done," Rattner tweeted.
Legislation passed by Congress over the past two years will reduce deficits by roughly $2.3 trillion over the next decade — two-thirds of it from spending cuts and one-third from more tax revenues.
The increased flow of cash to the government includes higher marginal income taxes on wealthy Americans from the New Year's "fiscal cliff" deal and the ending of the tax break for all workers on Social Security payroll taxes.
The $2.3 trillion less that Washington will be borrowing over the next decade takes the government much of the way toward the $4 trillion, 10-year goal set by Obama and the co-chairmen of his deficit commission, former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and former Democratic White House staff chief Erskine Bowles.
"I don't know why the president doesn't talk more about that," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. Thurber said he thinks the immediate outlook is "that we're going to lurch, unfortunately" from one self-imposed crisis to another.
The budget deficit is the difference between what the government spends in a given year and the revenues it collects. The government makes up the difference by borrowing, just as a family may put excess spending on a credit card.
In the government's case, it borrows money by selling Treasury bonds, here and around the world.
The national debt — $16.66 trillion today — is the sum of everything the government owes, the accumulation of past deficits. It's the federal equivalent of a family's total outstanding debt.
Without higher taxes, changes in the big benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, cuts in other government services or a combination of the three, deficits by the end of the decade will again be in the $800 billion range, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"The fiscal problems worsen after the next 10 years under all scenarios," economists William Gale and Alan J. Auerbach wrote in a new analysis for the Brookings Institution, a think tank.
"We are letting the legacy programs of the past — the mandatory spending programs — crowd out our ability to do discretionary spending, which is all about the next generation," said economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director and economic adviser to 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain. "So we are building a trap to really do a disservice to the next generation."
"Because the baby boom's now retiring, the debt is very high," Holtz-Eakin said. "We've given up our cushion and our lead time and we have to move more quickly."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
African Violet Ovo Floor Lamp
This Kimono Violet designer color glass floor lamp is topped with a contemporary white linen shade.
Additional Info:
Welcome exquisite color and design to your home decor with this Color + Plus™ glass floor lamp. The design is hand-crafted by experienced artisans in our California workshops with a Kimono Violet designer high-gloss finish. The look is topped with a stylish white linen shade, and punctuated with contemporary brushed nickel finish on the stand and neck.


text:
Then I started wondering: Just how many ways can you accidentally misspell "birthday?"
Thus began my journey. And so far, it's had some surprising destinations, lemme tell ya.
First, there's the expected stuff:
Aw, c'mon, you doubting Thomases. This'll be fun.
Do I hear a missed 'T'?
Now how about a missed 'H'?
Let's get a little crazy. You think anyone's ever missed the 'Y'?
Ok, but surely - SURELY - no one has ever forgotten to write the 'B' in 'birthday', right?
(Are you guys as excited about this as I am?)
Drum roll, please!
Now that's what I'm TALKIN' 'bout.
(Also, check out the white roses masquerading as clouds. Impostors!)
Poor Aaron.
And would you believe we're just getting started? That's right, it's allll downhill from here. You'll have to tune in tomorrow, though, because John starts getting this funny little eye twitch every time I post more than half a dozen Wrecks at a time, and right now they're kind of bulging out in a way that simply can NOT be healthy. (His eyes, that is - not the wrecks. [Although, truth be told, some of them are kind of bulgy.])
So tomorrow, then. Be there, or be without amazingly hilarious misspelling of "birthday." And then where will you be?
Lia F., Lea G., Megan M., Keisha S., Diane C., Lex, Sandy, Erika K., Lauren, & Brian D., if you're keeping score, we're currently up to an imperfect 10. And if not, well, we're still up to 10.
- Related Wreckage: The Cutest Misspellings of "Happy Birthday" I Have Ever Seen


text:
Update: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the AIG board has decided not to participate in the lawsuit.
Hank Greenberg didn't get to where he is today by being timid. The former chairman of AIG built the company up from humble beginnings in the 1960s to become the world's largest insurance company, before a 2005 accounting scandal forced Greenberg to step down. But he remained a major shareholder through the U.S. government's 2008 bailout of the company, when the feds took an 80% stake in the firm in exchange for an $85 billion loan, which saved the company from certain bankruptcy. (The bailout eventually ballooned to $182 billion loan in exchange for a 92% stake.)
But Greenberg isn't thankful for the rescue. In fact, he thinks we the taxpayers ripped him off in the deal, and he will meet with AIG's board today in an attempt to convince the company to join his company, Starr International, in a law suit against the federal government, according to a report yesterday in The New York Times.
The suit does not argue that the bailout was unnecessary, but rather that the government exploited AIG's near-bankrupt position to extract unfair concessions — concessions it did not require of other bailed-out financial institutions. Furthermore, the suit argues, the government used the company to issue "back-door" bailouts to financial institutions across the world. Greenberg is demanding $25 billion in damages to make him and his fellow AIG shareholders whole.
(MORE: Why the Government Wouldn't Let AIG Fail)
The news that AIG is considering joining the suit has sparked outrage across the financial media. The New York Times pointed out the irony of the decision to sue being made behind the scenes while AIG has been running a high-profile ad campaign thanking America for its investment, and touting the fact that it has recently paid back the bailout funds in full. Forbes called Greenberg and his allies "ungrateful souls" and argued that if AIG joined the suit, it would ultimately "kill" the firm. The Washington Post called Greenberg's view of the bailout "patently ridiculous."
On the other hand, in July the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the government's attempt to have the case thrown out, although a similar suit was dismissed from U.S. District Court in November. So do Greenberg and his allies have a point?
Well sort of, but it's probably not the point they would like to make. Greenberg argued in his initial 2011 complaint that the Federal Reserve gave out loans to many different financial services companies at lower interest rates, and without demanding that the government take a huge ownership stake in return. This is true. But those institutions were either banks that were already closely regulated by the Fed or became bank holding companies and submitted themselves to Federal Reserve regulation in return for access to the Fed's lending facilities.
AIG, on the other hand, was not a bank then and is not a bank now. It's an insurance company whose financial products division – which sold billions of dollars in unregulated insurance protection against toxic real estate securities – helped sow the seeds of the 2008 financial panic.
(MORE: Lots of Goodies Were Stuffed into the Fiscal Cliff Deal)
The government would have liked nothing better than to allow AIG to fail, but the fact that the company sold protection against the very subprime mortgage securities that were bringing Wall Street down all around them made its survival paramount to the survival of the global financial system in general. If financial institutions across the globe couldn't count on AIG to make good on the insurance it sold, there could have been a domino effect that brought down dozens of other banks across the globe. As Ben Bernanke described it in a 2009 interview with 60 minutes:
"Of all the events and all of the things we've done in the last 18 months the single one that makes me the angriest . . . is the intervention with AIG. Here was a company that made all kinds of unconscionable bets. Then, when those bets went wrong, we had a situation where the failure of that company would have brought down the financial system."
The other argument Greenberg makes in his suit is that AIG was seized in order to use the firm as a conduit for "back-door bailouts." It is on these grounds that his lawyers claim that the action violates the 5th amendment, which bars the government from taking private property "for public use, without just compensation." The complaint argues that the government purposefully played a game of brinksmanship with AIG, repeatedly telling the firm that it wouldn't bail it out so that the government could snap up the firm at a fire sale price and use it as an instrument to filter bailout money to banks across the world.
(MORE: Former TARP Official: Both Parties are Captive to the Big Banks)
This is a more interesting argument to consider, because the government has long been criticized for using AIG as a tool for bailing out other institutions. In November of 2008, then-President of the New York Fed Tim Geithner made the decision to terminate the more than $60 billion in insurance contracts between AIG and several large banks, which covered losses in complex financial instruments that were then swiftly declining in value. Instead of negotiating with the banks, however, and forcing those banks to take losses on contracts, Geithner decided to reimburse the banks 100 cents on the dollar. As Neil Barofsky, former Special Investigator General for TARP described it in his recent book Bailout:
"The deal was a gross distortion of the normal functions of the market. In a bailout free world, instead of being saved by the government, AIG would have been unable to make its cash collateral payments to the banks and gone into bankruptcy. As a result, the banks would have been left with the CDOs and stuck with their continued declines in value . . . In that respect, Geithner's opening of the spigot of taxpayer cash for AIG was more of a bailout of the banks than it was for AIG itself."
When looking at it from this angle, there is some truth to Greenberg's argument. AIG received a far worse deal than many other bailout institutions. In addition, the bailout of AIG was a means to bailout the rest of the financial system. But then again, the bailout of any single too-big-to-fail institution is a means to bail out the rest of the system. That's the point of "too big to fail" in the first place: The failure of one institution will cause the failure of the rest.
But you have all your work ahead of you if you then intend to argue that because some Wall Street institutions were treated too nicely during the financial crisis, that taxpayers owe AIG shareholders $25 billion dollars. That conclusion is laughable simply on the basis that if the AIG board wanted to reject the bailout terms and take the firm into bankruptcy, it could have made that decision in 2008. And nowhere in Greenberg's 50-page complaint can you find a rebuttal to that simple logic.
MORE: Break Up The Banks! Dallas Fed President Calls for The End of "Too Big To Fail"