The interesting part about non-religious people, such as Bill Maher, and you Frank, is the obvious ignorance about the religion they rail against. What do you really know about Islam that you haven't gleaned out of headlines and/ or misinformed/ ignorant sources?
You people love to equate religion with ignorance, and to deem all religious claims as absurd? What Islamic claim do you think is absurd? Is it the one which says that all life evolved out of water? The one describing how mountains are anchored in the earth, how clouds and rain form, how the fetus is formed?
Or are you talking about the ones which say that women and men are equal, or it is urged for men to be private, discreet, generous and respectful when divorcing their women? You must be referring to the ones strictly prohibiting killing or maiming anyone unless out of self defense,erecting humanity as protector and steward of the environment?
Which claims?
Amateurs!? I was one of those dissuaded from voting for Nader because "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush". Well, guess what? bush "won" anyway and it was not because more people voted for him.
The lesson? Anything you do out of fear is cheating the process it is supposed to address, especially voting.
I voted for Obama in 2008, because it was the obvious thing to do, comparing him to McCain. This time around, it isn't as obvious for me, based simply on the fact that I cannot vote for a man who sees nothing wrong with ordering the killing of an American citizen without due process, when I was one of those who was horrified when Bush started the march towards this. Voting for Romney is certainly not an option.
The best favor we can do ourselves and our children is to refuse to participate in this kidnapping of our democracy by these 2 parties, whose intent each, is less to govern successfully, but more to stop the other from governing.
Change only happens when people are galvanized in reaction to some pressure. It is for Bill Maher as it is for Obama, we like them, we support them, to some extent they do speak for us, therefore we give them a pass about things we would be raging about coming from anyone across the aisle. Mitt Romney as president may thus be better for the US than Obama, not because Romney would be a better president, far from it, but because the dissenting forces to his presidency might then be galvanized enough to push back and pressure for changes, and not relent until those happen for good.
Great article.
Thanks for voicing the same issues I have been ranting about for years. I am a Muslim who watches Bill Maher's show "religously", and am sensitively aware of his inherent pro-Israel/ Anti-Muslim bias, reflected in his choice of guests, his misinformation/disinformation about the statements he makes about Islam and Arabs, and his lack of any criticism of Israel, no matter what his liberal/ environmental buff label would seem to warrant. He is anti religion only as a vague, grouped entity of ills, but hates Islam specifically, as if the evils of Islam, singularly, weigh equally or more than the evils of all the other religion combined.
He loves to have guests who demonize Islam as a retarded and violent religion, especially Hirsi Ali and Irshad manji. One of such guests was Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who was allowed to frame the Israeli/Palestinian issues and the then ongoing annexing of more Palestinian land, the way the republicans may frame annexing and drilling in the Alaskan wildlife reserve, in terms of, yes, there are concerns, but we need it, have right to it and would do it responsibly. In front of such guests, he loses his ability to question anything, fawning.
The dangerous part about this is that the people on the left see him as a de facto good guy, one of the prominent/preeminent representant of our movement, and therefore take his stuff at face value, including his biases.
Finally, I, a previous democrat, am not voting for Obama this year, principally (and principly) over the hijacking of our constitution to give himself the right and leisure to kill American citizens at will.
Because that is part of the plan, getting a full veto from the US before the Security council, effectively forcing the opponents to show their card, as they can still, and will bring it before the General Assembly, which in my book is genius. As long as the US could get away with publicly claiming support for Palestinian autonomy while hindering support for it through being too lax towards the Israeli, it would not have done much to precipitate any effective resolution to the conflict. Once the US publicly vetoes the Palestinian application however, explaining that to the world will be a whole other ballgame.
The point that Chris makes is the one that has been driving me crazy for a while: the fact that Israel manages to frame the Palestinians as the bad guys no matter what she does to them. During the recent Lebanon war, it infuriated me to no end that the news played along, hosting the Israeli PR machine as it equates the destruction of Beirut by tank shells and fighter jet missiles to the terror of "a 6 year old girl who hides in bomb shelters in Haifa instead of being away at camp", and the world rapt at attention feels her pain. Meanwhile the Lebanese died in droves unassisted and ignored; and in this area of the world where children look to don explosive vests and blow them up in domestic and foreign streets, cafes and buses in order to make the point of their elders, injustice is that which makes of a sane, apolitical person, the carrier of such potent bundle of frustration and resentment that will spread at the velocity of the shrapnel and taint hearts same as the hot metal carves flesh.
Furthermore if Israel practices the same methods that her foe is condemned for, while oblitering that foe with the military and financial support of the US, what logic dictates that she is the good guy?
The last point you make is the most important point. Ultimately, this Palestinian move for UN recognition will in the short run, only impact the US as it will force us to take an official stand against Palestine, in support of Israeli interests, and hence against all Arab and therefore Muslim interests. The US will no longer be able to dance around claiming one thing while doing another and actually getting away with it. This will translate into increased conflicts, social, religious and diplomatic with the Arab and Muslim world (including Islamic Africa). the US will then, in order to defend her position in the Middle East, have to act tougher toward Israel, primarily by pushing to a real freeze, if not a strong cooling of the settlements. My feeling is that president Obama is planning to move to a tougher stance toward Israel after his (shaky) reelection knowing that to do it now will doom his chances for a second term.
The interesting part about non-religious people, such as Bill Maher, and you Frank, is the obvious ignorance about the religion they rail against. What do you really know about Islam that you haven't gleaned out of headlines and/ or misinformed/ ignorant sources?
You people love to equate religion with ignorance, and to deem all religious claims as absurd? What Islamic claim do you think is absurd? Is it the one which says that all life evolved out of water? The one describing how mountains are anchored in the earth, how clouds and rain form, how the fetus is formed?
Or are you talking about the ones which say that women and men are equal, or it is urged for men to be private, discreet, generous and respectful when divorcing their women? You must be referring to the ones strictly prohibiting killing or maiming anyone unless out of self defense,erecting humanity as protector and steward of the environment?
Which claims?
Thanks for that link, Devlin. What a great article. Beat up Bill maher quite a bit but the US took some shrapnel too, deservingly.
Amateurs!? I was one of those dissuaded from voting for Nader because "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush". Well, guess what? bush "won" anyway and it was not because more people voted for him.
The lesson? Anything you do out of fear is cheating the process it is supposed to address, especially voting.
I voted for Obama in 2008, because it was the obvious thing to do, comparing him to McCain. This time around, it isn't as obvious for me, based simply on the fact that I cannot vote for a man who sees nothing wrong with ordering the killing of an American citizen without due process, when I was one of those who was horrified when Bush started the march towards this. Voting for Romney is certainly not an option.
The best favor we can do ourselves and our children is to refuse to participate in this kidnapping of our democracy by these 2 parties, whose intent each, is less to govern successfully, but more to stop the other from governing.
Change only happens when people are galvanized in reaction to some pressure. It is for Bill Maher as it is for Obama, we like them, we support them, to some extent they do speak for us, therefore we give them a pass about things we would be raging about coming from anyone across the aisle. Mitt Romney as president may thus be better for the US than Obama, not because Romney would be a better president, far from it, but because the dissenting forces to his presidency might then be galvanized enough to push back and pressure for changes, and not relent until those happen for good.
Great article.
Thanks for voicing the same issues I have been ranting about for years. I am a Muslim who watches Bill Maher's show "religously", and am sensitively aware of his inherent pro-Israel/ Anti-Muslim bias, reflected in his choice of guests, his misinformation/disinformation about the statements he makes about Islam and Arabs, and his lack of any criticism of Israel, no matter what his liberal/ environmental buff label would seem to warrant. He is anti religion only as a vague, grouped entity of ills, but hates Islam specifically, as if the evils of Islam, singularly, weigh equally or more than the evils of all the other religion combined.
He loves to have guests who demonize Islam as a retarded and violent religion, especially Hirsi Ali and Irshad manji. One of such guests was Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who was allowed to frame the Israeli/Palestinian issues and the then ongoing annexing of more Palestinian land, the way the republicans may frame annexing and drilling in the Alaskan wildlife reserve, in terms of, yes, there are concerns, but we need it, have right to it and would do it responsibly. In front of such guests, he loses his ability to question anything, fawning.
The dangerous part about this is that the people on the left see him as a de facto good guy, one of the prominent/preeminent representant of our movement, and therefore take his stuff at face value, including his biases.
Finally, I, a previous democrat, am not voting for Obama this year, principally (and principly) over the hijacking of our constitution to give himself the right and leisure to kill American citizens at will.
Because that is part of the plan, getting a full veto from the US before the Security council, effectively forcing the opponents to show their card, as they can still, and will bring it before the General Assembly, which in my book is genius. As long as the US could get away with publicly claiming support for Palestinian autonomy while hindering support for it through being too lax towards the Israeli, it would not have done much to precipitate any effective resolution to the conflict. Once the US publicly vetoes the Palestinian application however, explaining that to the world will be a whole other ballgame.
The point that Chris makes is the one that has been driving me crazy for a while: the fact that Israel manages to frame the Palestinians as the bad guys no matter what she does to them. During the recent Lebanon war, it infuriated me to no end that the news played along, hosting the Israeli PR machine as it equates the destruction of Beirut by tank shells and fighter jet missiles to the terror of "a 6 year old girl who hides in bomb shelters in Haifa instead of being away at camp", and the world rapt at attention feels her pain. Meanwhile the Lebanese died in droves unassisted and ignored; and in this area of the world where children look to don explosive vests and blow them up in domestic and foreign streets, cafes and buses in order to make the point of their elders, injustice is that which makes of a sane, apolitical person, the carrier of such potent bundle of frustration and resentment that will spread at the velocity of the shrapnel and taint hearts same as the hot metal carves flesh.
Furthermore if Israel practices the same methods that her foe is condemned for, while oblitering that foe with the military and financial support of the US, what logic dictates that she is the good guy?
The last point you make is the most important point. Ultimately, this Palestinian move for UN recognition will in the short run, only impact the US as it will force us to take an official stand against Palestine, in support of Israeli interests, and hence against all Arab and therefore Muslim interests. The US will no longer be able to dance around claiming one thing while doing another and actually getting away with it. This will translate into increased conflicts, social, religious and diplomatic with the Arab and Muslim world (including Islamic Africa). the US will then, in order to defend her position in the Middle East, have to act tougher toward Israel, primarily by pushing to a real freeze, if not a strong cooling of the settlements. My feeling is that president Obama is planning to move to a tougher stance toward Israel after his (shaky) reelection knowing that to do it now will doom his chances for a second term.