Rants and Raves

Opinion, commentary, reviews of books, movies, cultural trends, and raising kids in this day and age.

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Free Speech and Other American Eccentricities

Before I get back to that Ron Paul thing (I promise, there's a point to this) I'd like to clear up some points on policy and housekeeping. The previously announced policy, posted here: http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2007/02/policy-and-housekeeping.html has been modified. (Satire alert.)

Henceforward, any comment posted here or on your sites that I don't like will be answered with a lawsuit. If I'm really insulted, I'll hunt you down and kill you. I can say anything I like about you concerning what I think about your manners, morals, habits, religious beliefs and those of your slut wife and worthless children.

Any attempt to block me from posting on your web sites, or failure to invite me into your homes to pontificate on what unworthy scumbags you are will be considered racism ("Steveophobia") and I'll have you prosecuted for it.

Now I'd like you all to have a look at these:

Mark Steyn: Dead man writing http://www.blogger.com/=

List of lawsuits for "Islamophobia": http://www.blogger.com/

Stanley Kurtz on Steyn http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTFmYmI4ZDM1Zjg3YmJhMGNhZTVmMzgyODExZTJjNDE

Steyn update:A Free Dominion http://www.blogger.com/


From the first cited:

Dead man writing [Mark Steyn]

"One of the critical differences between America and the rest of the west is that America has a First Amendment and the rest don't. And a lot of them are far too comfortable with the notion that in free societies it is right and proper for the state to regulate speech. The response of the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security to the Danish cartoons was to propose a press charter that would oblige newspapers to exercise "prudence" on, ah, certain controversial subjects. The response of Tony Blair's ministry to the problems of "Londonistan" was to propose a sweeping law dramatically constraining free discussion of religion. At the end of her life, Oriana Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and sundry other jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely disagreeable but criminal. In France, Michel Houellebecq was sued by Muslim and other "anti-racist" groups who believed opinions held by a fictional character in one of his novels were not merely disagreeable but criminal.

"Up north, the Canadian Islamic Congress announced the other day that at least two of Canada’s “Human Rights Commissions” – one federal, one provincial – had agreed to hear their
complaints that their “human rights” had been breached by this “flagrantly Islamophobic” excerpt from my book, as published in the country’s bestselling news magazine, Maclean’s. Several readers and various Canadian media outlets have enquired what my defense to the charges is. Here’s my answer:

"I can defend myself if I have to. But I shouldn’t have to."

I've reviewed the book that the article in Maclean's was taken from here: http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2006/12/review-america-alone.html

Now look at that italicized section above again. Satire, right?

Really? To be satire the behavior you are mocking has to be exaggerated. Where in any of those statements is any exaggeration of the words and behavior of Muslim jihadists living in North America and Europe?

"But this isn't typical of Muslim immigrants!" I hear you say indignantly.

If by by "typical", you mean "a majority of" - so what? How many people behaving like that do you need? If such behavior is tolerated and not come down on hard by the host society, how long do you think it'll be before it is indeed typical? People do what they can get away with.

Now back to that Ron Paul thing.

The arguments in the posts cited below:
http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-debate-have-look.html and

http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2007/11/reflections-on-presidential-election.html

revolve around the now-cliche observation that "there are 9-10 people and 9-12 people."

Now go here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

This is a great one-stop-shopping website for information on all major candidates: voting records, public pronouncements, flip-flops etc.

Paul is fantastic by any libertarians' and most conservatives' standards. If we had more like him in congress we'd be in a whole lot better shape as a nation.

But on the subject of the war against civilization HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT.

Bidinotto gets it. Mercer gets it (she just wants us to fight it Marquis of Queensbury rules with our foot in a bucket.) Paul doesn't get it.

D'abord il faut durer - "Firstly, it is necessary to survive."

Let Paul have a long and productive career in the House of Representatives where he can do real good (along with Senators such as Oklahoma's own Tom Coburn.) I believe that he will learn better, because he'll have to (see http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2007/02/in-long-run-it-doesnt-matter.html) - but until then we've got to have someone who understands that we're in a long weird war and have to plan a Grand Strategy around that fact.

Trouble is, I don't know as there is anybody running with a snowballs chance in hell who does...

4 Comments:

  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger James said…

    I suspect Ron Paul will NOT learn better in time on this issue of the war for civilization. Though he has a carefully worked out sense of banking and has been in Congress for about 30 years, he has had SIX years to understand how the world works today and he has not come up with sensible answers.

    I was not in favor of the Iraq invasion and still think Ahmed Chalabi and Saudis convinced GWB to do it. BUT we are there and must win this or they will not draw the line in the sand, but down Main Street, USA.

    I would have voted for Ron Paul as a third party candidate, except for his recalcitrance on this issue.

     
  • At 12:55 PM, Blogger Jim Sullivan said…

    Ron Paul's stance on the state of Islamofascism is my own primary reason for disgarding him as a candidate.

    D'abord Il faut durer. That's damn right and it's lost on too many people. And I am at a loss as to which candidate has the cajones to face the facts and act on them.

    I've been enjoying your Ron Paul posts. Thanks.

     
  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger Galt-In-Da-Box said…

    First off, the First Amendment only guarantees the Government won't come after you for what you say; it does not guarantee consequences will not arise from other sources. In America today, we have a gimmee-group and "rights"-cause for every occasion, since generations dumbed down by pubic-school socialist brain-filthying seem to lack the ability to distinguish opinion from reality. Before "minorities" discovered they could scare politicians and bureaucrats into giving them anything by rioting and looting, individuals simply changed the channel, expressed an alternate opinion, filed a civil suit &c. Now that minority favoritism is how one gets/stays elected, the Constitution and common sense are on indefinate hold; after all "9-11!!! 9-11, ****it!" Freedom is what Prez.Johnny-Reb tells you it is...Pending revision...B****!
    And since you brought it up, let's discuss T.W.O.T: If we meant business (like we did in the oft-compared WW2), it would already be over. Special forces would have found out what French socialized-medicine hospital is keeping Osama alive and bagged him.
    We would have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq and shut down their hate-preaching Madrassas, and their terrorist-training camps. The biggest argument against TWOT has been made by "Treasonous Acts I & II", Bush-evik neo-conmen, and their intentional failure to execute an actual war, not Ron Paul, Cindy Sheehan, or the radical left.
    Deal, already.

    If you get to the Super Bowl, it doesn't matter if you're the Patriots if you've been bought off by the "other team" to throw the game!

     
  • At 6:59 PM, Blogger Steve Browne said…

    BTW, all of you might like this terrifying little story by SF writer Dan Simmons here:

    http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm

    If for nothing else than he points out the absurdity of the term "war on terror." The analogy he uses is that it's as if on December 8, 1941 FDR had gone before congress asking for a declaration of war - against "aviation."

    Galt, your point on Saudi Arabia is also made in the interview with Ali Alyami.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home