Karl@HotAir throws some more smoke bombs…

…claiming that charges of “bigotry” in the “anti-mosque” movement is an “hysterical” fantasy of “the left,” an effort merely to defame “all” opponents of Park51/Cordoba House/Ground Zero 911 Victory pro-Osama pro-Obama All-Desecrating Mega-Super-Duper-Auschwitz Pearl Harbor Totalitarian Mosque Mosque Mosque Mosque Mosque…

Hilarity ensues.


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

33 comments on “Karl@HotAir throws some more smoke bombs…

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. @ Rex Caruthers:
    Not a conservative. The closest we’ve seen, that I’m aware of, to any major conservatives disavowing the anti-mosquers has been Chris Christie playing “the middle against both sides,” Michael Gerson (moving into the lower tiers) validating Obama’s statement, and a handful of more minor figures, mainly ones already mistrusted in TrueConservative-land.

    I haven’t been following Glenn Beck – and I’m assuming that if he’d made a pro-Rauf statement I’d have heard and heard and heard about it – but I think it might be a brilliant move for him to come out in favor. I’m not expecting it in the least, but most of his audience would stay with him and even thank him, and it would poleaxe and cross-eye his usual attackers. Ditto for Dick Cheney. A lot of people have been musing about W making a statement similar to the ones he used to deliver regularly when Prez.

  2. No, Colin after surveying all the players, Beck came out against. It’s
    remarkable really you chose not to consider any evidence of at best, Imam Rauf’s insensitivity, at worst active complicity with Wahhabi/
    Deobandi elements which have an annoying habit of reoccurring. Newt and hyperbolic,

  3. miguel cervantes wrote:

    any evidence of at best, Imam Rauf’s insensitivity,

    I’ve considered, and considered, and considered it. I’ve also considered the evidence of, at best, mistaken attacks on Rauf. I’ve yet to see a single apology from his character assassins – including you – for false and misleading statements. I’ve yet to see one of them offer an appreciation for his numerous positive, Islam-reforming or terrorist-denying statements and gestures.

    I don’t care if he’s flirted with Wahhabis and the others on your enemies list. I think it would be great to have someone who has done so and emerged better-informed and unshaken in the (trans-)national dialogue, and capable of transmitting messages and influence back the other way, too. Too bad if we’re not ready for it. Frightening to think we might not ever be. I approve of his statement about 9/11, and have explained why at length. I approve of his refusal to say the words you want him to say about Hamas. I think it’s terrific that people have been exposed to both of those statements over and over again. By next year at this time, it may even be possible to have an adult discussion about them, about Sharia, about Sufism, about a lot of other things. I’m not counting on it, but apparently this all had to be gone through sooner or later.

  4. CK MacLeod wrote:

    I haven’t been following Glenn Beck – and I’m assuming that if he’d made a pro-Rauf statement I’d have heard and heard and heard about it – but I think it might be a brilliant move for him to come out in favor

    interesting thought. is there a list of Beck’s five most brilliant moves to date?

  5. Uncovering Van Jones and his green jobs scam, Mark Loyd and his attempted Chavezization of the media, :Fairness Doctrine plus, the
    propaganda effort out of NEA, Justice, et al, the other players in the Climate Change scam, the really noxious parts of the stimulus and
    how they are being deployed to create a crisis

  6. I can’t say that i really followed Beck on Jones, but I did notice that Beck was peddling a bunch of stuff that wasn’t true.
    what is “his green jobs scam”?

  7. It’s part of his ‘give them the wealth’ initiative, which means foreclosing
    oil, gas, coal, on federal property in favor of the same wind and solar
    scams that have sunk the Spanish economy under Zapatero

  8. @ miguel cervantes:
    Or anyway that’s one completely objective way to discuss the idea as well as what Spain has attempted and why Spain is facing economic/fiscal problems.

    @ fuster:
    Are you really in the dark about “green collar” proposals, why the far left got into them, and why they’re hard to justify economically?

  9. I’m entirely darkened about the vast conspiracy headed by Van Jones. I wasn’t aware that he ever held any power over anything.

  10. Don’t think he did actually have any power. But he had a position of potential influence potentially advising the White House on the potential implementation of potential communist green jobbing, all cooked up at the Apollo Theater, apparently a communist front all along.

  11. As a special assistant or coordinator (in the parlance, a commisar) wielded a great deal of influence, in conjunction with the likes of Holdren, the character from Fringe, Sunstein, and Mark Lloyd the
    Chavista cheerleader

  12. Ironically, this administration has embraced those regimes more
    forcefully, at Al Azhar a stone’s throw from the Citadel, where
    they do torture with ‘relish and mustard’ and mustard over there, as well as the acquiescence to the Alawite clique in Damascus and the Pasdaran kingmakers in Tehran

  13. @ miguel cervantes:

    Huntington’s article and Ali’s op ed you link here are 2 different things.

    The last sentences of the Huntington article:

    It will also, however, require the West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations and the ways in which people in those civilizations see their interests. It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others.

  14. @ bob:
    A progressive-seeming position, but I disagree with him: There is a universal civilization busy being born amidst the parallel internal crises of (theoretically, decreasingly) separate civilizations. “The outlines of the next civilization are everywhere visible in the ruins of the old” – as some New Agey guy I read a long time ago liked to say, channeling Hegel. To the extent there are “elements of commonality” to be identified and a path of coexistence, that is the universal civilization already on the rise.

  15. Well where is the line drawn in Kenya, Holland, or America, the issue is something I’m somewhat familiar with, enclave formation, just as with
    ban lieus that are no go zones in Paris we have similar patterns in London, Munich, et al

  16. @ miguel cervantes:
    The “line” is one likely drawn more often in the imagination than in the external world. The existence of no-go zones, sacrifice zones, zones of backwardness, embattled or disputed zones, imaginary zones, etc., would not contradict the major point. For a number of reasons the universal civilization would very likely be marked by an even higher degree of outward non-uniformity and decentralization than previous civilizations or world-historical phases. If we think of “the West” as a civilization, that would be despite the presence within its presumable territory of very widely divergent social organizations, cultural terrains, and conditions of life.

  17. Well no CK, take Hassan, the 7/7 bombers, Shahzad, Aulaqi himself where do they belong on the axis, they are Western Educated middle
    class, yet totally alienated from the socio-political structure

  18. @ miguel cervantes:
    And that has very little to do with the subject as far as I can tell, unless you’re trying to provide evidence of the convergence of civilizations marked by unstable identities – like accelerated particles fusing in collision – at the extremes.

  19. @ CK MacLeod:

    Theories of history tend to leave me cold in any event. What I was trying to highlight is that the right is using “Clash of Civilizations” as a justification. The man who cmae up with the theory, whatever its merits, seems to be arguing against those who use his title.

    This dishonest use by the right of the Huntington thesis should be seen clearly.

    In his defense of his article, Hunington says:

    The presumption of Westerners that other peoples who modernize must become “like us” is a bit of Western arrogance that in itself illustrates the clash of civilizations.

  20. Actually that was Ali who has seen both sides of the ‘bloody borders’
    in Huntington’s terms, it’s been a long time since the right has really indulged in his terminology, even the situation is somewhat accurate

  21. @ bob:
    Theories of world history are big fun for me, but “to each a zone,” is what I like to say. As for the defense comment, I guess it would come down to how one actually chose to define “like us.” I agree with you, however, that Mr. CoCs appears to have a more global or one might say progressive or advanced view of the CoCs than many of the front-line, or imaginary front-line, C’ers. I have little doubt that if you produced some version of Huntington’s statements on a discussion thread at HotAir, you would be denounced as a useful idiot, leftwing traitor, and facilitator of the totalitarian Shariah takeover.

  22. I was using the term from Huntington’s essay, I’m from Miami remember, you’ve seen “Burn Notice” the Casablanca of the America’s’

  23. @ CK MacLeod:

    In Buddhist terms, History is just another term for the beginningless cycle of suffering (samsara) we are all emeshed in. So any theory of history that is at all hopeful will seem to me to be deluded.

    Notice I said beginingless and not endless. The point of Buddhism is that there is a way to break the cycle. But it involves one being at a time attaining enlightenment.

    Part of one’s karma is to share karma with others. One could usefully think of History as ths collective karma.

  24. @ bob:
    Uh-oh… I sense another very involved dialogue coming on… might be a good thing that I’ve got some business to attend to… ;)

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins