Ann Coulter quote # 40:
Here the country had finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism and they don’t want to fight it. They would have, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.
Islam is a target-rich cesspool of things that liberals claim to despise. Batshit religious fervor, 'divine' commands to murder, incessant warfare, misogamy, female genital mutilation, public executions, homicidal homophobia, no access to pornography, etc.
To a lib, Islam should be like Fred Phelps on crack .
In the days following 9-11, I believed that the terrorist attacks would finally put an end to liberal delusions about Islam. We could unite to fight this scourge.
But while some libs (and to their credit, some New Atheists) came over to reason and stood up to Islamic totalitarianism, many if not most liberals soon slid back into their accommodationist crouch. Political correctness and denunciation of 'Islamaphobia' for any salient criticism of Islamism soon became the norm in lefty circles.
Coulter is right about the paradox. Liberals who castigate our society for providing insufficient opportunities for women in highest levels of the corporate world are reticent to excoriate a culture that beats women who drive. Liberals who denounce Christians for opposition to gay marriage go mute when Islamic totalitarians hang gay teenagers.
I disagree with Coulter on one point. She asserts that liberals' motive for accommodation of Islamism is lack of patriotism. Although liberals suffer no surfeit of patriotism, I believe that liberals' motive for Islamist coddling is raw hatred of Christianity.
Many on the left will side with anyone and anything that is an enemy of Christianity. It is, I believe, the Left's deepest hatred, and it's primal motivation.
@anon:
ReplyDeleteYou make my point.
How so?
ReplyDeleteEgnor: Many on the left will side with anyone and anything that is an enemy of Christianity. It is, I believe, the Left's deepest hatred, and it's primal motivation.
ReplyDeleteYour tin hat seems to be malfunctioning, Mike. Time to send it for maintenance.
Yeah, right, that's the reason why America is fighting one of the greatest fundamentalist Islamic countries in the Middle East, one that executes pharmacists for witchcraft, bans women from driving cars or appearing in public unless accompanied by a male relative, allowed religious police to cause 14 school girls to burn to death in a school fire by blocking their escape and blocking firefighters from entering because the school girls weren't appropriately dressed, and sent 19 of the 20 terrorists to America to fly hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and if they hadn't failed the Capitol:
ReplyDeleteSaudi Arabia!
No, wait, Saudi Arabia is the recipient of the transfer of a lot of advanced military technology. Profits from America and other countries protecting oil shipping by their naval forces in the area.
I'd be a cynic if I suggested that America's war on Islamic fundamentalism is more dependent on their reserves of oil and willingness to sell it; if they have a lot of oil and are willing to sell it freely for American dollars, then they are supported.
But of course, I'm not a cynic...
"In the days following 9-11, I believed that the terrorist attacks would finally put an end to liberal delusions about Islam. We could unite to fight this scourge."
ReplyDeleteExactly. Because if the 1.2+ billion muslims in the world all share one characteristic, it's that they're all the same. And if there's one way to ensure victory against Islamic totalitarians, it's to lump all the muslims who aren't Islamic totalitarians in with them.
"Liberals who denounce Christians for opposition to gay marriage go mute when Islamic totalitarians hang gay teenagers."
Obviously. It's not like even a cursory googling for "iran gay hanging" comes up with hits from atheism.about.com, the Huffington Post and the New Civil Rights Movement on the first page alone. And let's not forget your dear liberal friend Ed Brayton, too. Except for all the liberal voices, they're totally silent.
"Many on the left will side with anyone and anything that is an enemy of Christianity. It is, I believe, the Left's deepest hatred, and it's primal motivation."
The liberals in your head must be terrifying.
Couldn’t of said it better myself Bach.
ReplyDelete@Mike,
ReplyDelete"I disagree with Coulter on one point.....I believe that liberals' motive for Islamist coddling is raw hatred of Christianity."
I hate using the word 'liberal' to describe the people you're talking about, Mike. That said, I disagree with both of you on motivator. I see such avoidance as the result of 1)fear 2)a nurtured self loathing of the host culture.
Fear is the prime motivator. Islam scares the socks off them. Most of these people will argue there is no objective evil and thus no evil people. Ignorance is the root of evil to these folks. Here are educated, wealthy, functional societies that reject their education on IDEOLOGICAL grounds. That terrifies them to silence.
The self loathing is an aspect of the internationalist bent of these folks. Divide and rule. Christianity, being the core of modern western culture, is a PRIME target of that self loathing, as are non religious traditions, and the very language.
@Bach,
In order to make any attempt at redirecting the externalized threat of the Muslim world (usually in the form of Jihad), a nation must be willing to pit side against side, dynasty against dynasty. A nation must be willing to exploit the political divisions and religious schisms of those lands.
The Kingdom of Saud makes me sick, too. So does Persia. But, we must back one side against another or fight BOTH together.
Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.
Watching these nutters debate anything is hilarious. Great reality show, guys! Keep it up.
ReplyDeleteOleg,
ReplyDeleteThanks. Now go and change your diaper.
Ah, the great Canadian warrior! How are you? Won any wars lately?
ReplyDelete@oleg:
ReplyDelete[Ah, the great Canadian warrior! How are you? Won any wars lately?]
Nasty, oleg.
Crus and folks like him have been putting their own lives on the line so that folks like you can live in security and peace.
The only proper reference to crus' service is "thanks".
Oleg,
ReplyDelete"Ah, the great Canadian warrior! How are you? Won any wars lately?"
Yes. No Normandy landings in a while, no caves in the Kush for me this time.... but a victory of sorts.
Gen Bouchard and NATO just put the bead on Libya's dictator. It's all over the papers. A victory of sorts. I did do a LOT of analysis work for the RCN during this conflict - mostly garbage- but some of it had to do with a little town called Sirte...
I may FINALLY get some time to myself for a while.
I have an assignment in the 'circle' this coming summer and while fascinating, it is pretty remote... so time for some fun, family, etc.
I should be celebrating with my colleagues tonight, but I have a memorial service for a another colleague who took his own life on Saturday... So, I am not in the celebrating mood really.
Will be smiling soon, though. Our second son is due to arrive in November :)
You, Oleg? How are you doing?
Safe? Comfy? Good. How is your Klingon translation of 'Origin of Species' going? I hope well.
@Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou very are welcome, Sir.
Thank you for your important work.
Not as much a threat as atheism, which is markedly more deadly and totalitarian
ReplyDeleteProtip: "I am an atheist" means "I don't believe Allah, Zeus, Yahweh, Osiris, etc. exist." Nothing more. This is not dangerous.
Egnor: Nasty, oleg.
ReplyDeleteCrus and folks like him have been putting their own lives on the line so that folks like you can live in security and peace.
Oh, lighten up, Mike. Crus is a warrior, I'm practically 100% sure he can defend himself. After all, he is the only thing that stands between us and the North Pole!
crusadeREX "The Kingdom of Saud makes me sick, too. So does Persia. But, we must back one side against another or fight BOTH together."
ReplyDeleteYou do know that Shia and Sunni pretty much don't get along, right?
Mike Egnor "Not as much a threat as atheism, which is markedly more deadly and totalitarian, but a threat none the less."
To be fair, I have yet to stand on your neck.
"Just as the left excused Communism in many ways in the 20th century…"
Yes. A bunch of fools stuck with them long after the true ugliness of Stalin and Mao were exposed. Others learned.
"...the left is now excusing Islam in many ways."
And more don't (see my previous post). Don't lump the rest of us in with the loons.
"Conservatives who speak up about the threat that Islam poses are called 'Islamophobic' (what a stupid term) or some such."
It depends on what they say. Not all criticism is valid, reality-based, etc. A bunch of it is simply "othering" (see: Geller and the like. Heaven forbid Muslims be allowed to build a mosque and worship on their own property!).
crusadeREX,
ReplyDeleteVery sorry to hear about the loss of your colleague. Seriously. And congratulations on the imminent arrival of your second child.
Mr. Egnor, you grossly underestimate the Communist roots of the American Left. There are two kinds of anti-war folks. Type A doesn't want to see people killed in their name without sufficient cause. Type B just wants to see American society collapse so that they can jump into the power vacuum and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. Type B considers type A useful idiots.
ReplyDelete@Oleg,
ReplyDelete"Very sorry to hear about the loss of your colleague. Seriously. And congratulations on the imminent arrival of your second child."
Appreciated and thanks.
"Crus is a warrior, I'm practically 100% sure he can defend himself. After all, he is the only thing that stands between us and the North Pole!"
On the first point, you're correct. I am a soldier, and do not take offence easily. I do, however, appreciate Mike's reaction. Just because I am NUMB to such remarks does not make them okay.
On the second, which I think is intended to be humorous, you are also correct. We are the only real presence to protect western interests in the High Arctic. It is a BIG job, and we do it very well - as can be noted by the lack enemy presence near our resources. We are currently commissioning a whole fleet for that region. The Halifax Docks just got a contract for some of the work.
Also, since NORAD command ditched the DEW stations, we have converted many of them into a new array and we now guard the passage, the oil/gas fields/reserves, the diamond mines, and strategic assets (silos, airfields, grid stations, and scientific outposts). It is one of Canada's 'jobs' to guard the back door. It is also a PRIME location for R&D.
That is what makes such posts FASCINATING. The 'weird and wonderful circle' is full of very interesting and intelligent minds. I have some REALLY cool convos with colleagues and 'staff' (civilian researchers, engineers etc)
That said, most of my actual service has been in Asia, Africa, and the near/middle east. Foreign combat duties.
The North seems to be my pasture. It's a nice big OPEN one, so no complaints here.
@MO
ReplyDelete"You do know that Shia and Sunni pretty much don't get along, right?"
Yes, of course. That is my point exactly. Such divisions need to be exploited.
@Sleeping Beastly,
ReplyDeleteMake no mistake: the Reds hate Islam as much as they hate Christianity.....and leave the Communists to rule over the ashes."
You make a very strong point, SB. I tend to agree, at least on the surface of the matter.
Divide and rule.
Here's where I differ in my approach; I would add that the pragmatic and cynical approach of the Reds is matched by an equally savvied and much OLDER opportunism on the part of the Islamic powers.
I have had the misfortune of confronting both of the ideologies head on, and so may be biased... but here's my take: I would suggest the age and assimilated culture(s) of Islam makes it a more potent and longer term functional replacement ideology. It is simultaneously both more desirable and more of a threat to our own culture than communism.
Here's why: 1)Objective moral core allows for effective regime change and military shifts. The ideology is independent of the regime and seen as ABOVE reproach and blame.
The Muslim is taught the way and follows it gladly and happily. Islam may find herself at war with Christendom, Communism, Polytheism, or herself - or even at general, prosperous peace- but the Muslims REMAIN Muslim.
The communist is shown the way and FORCED along it. Defection from that way is the most common factor in communism. (me so punny!)
Communist regimes often collapse under their own weight during prosperous times, and the ideology seems to thrive best DURING conflicts and downturns (IE NK).
Islam has been a growing force of global influence for 1400 years.
Communism for just over a century, with it's roots in the Enlightenment.
This is the difference we must reconcile with.
What I am suggesting is simple: Communist uprisings,revolutions, coups, and the resulting states often FACILITATE a cultural vacuum. That vacuum provides fertile ground for instant replacement ideologies like fascism and the various tailored 'Socialisms' of the 20th century (Soviets, Nazis, Maoists, internationalists, etc etc)...but even more so, they provide fertile ground for Ancient and highly efficient replacement ideologies, such as what is often referred to as Islam-ism, or Islamist.
If we see this clearly enough, much of the policy with regards to these powers makes more sense.
What does not make sense are the INTERNAL policies with regards to such ideas.
We must take into consideration that intellectual and political experimentation with the obviously flawed ideas of Marx and his ilk WEAKEN our parent culture(s). They are in fact DESIGNED to weaken the current system in order to facilitate change.
The danger is that we concentrate to much on this "Red Menace' concept. It is an irrational plea to paranoia, a trap. Most of the Reds out there are of the chic, chattering class variety. They do it to piss off Daddy, Mummy, or whoever.
Adult children. Grey boys. They only threat they pose is at the ballot box. But what to do? Go Commie hunting? Nope. These are normal folks who conform to silly ideas because of a herd / pack instinct. They want to belong. To look smart. To have an opinion.
It is the IDEAS that need to be made to look un-cool. Unfashionable. Gross. Crass. CHILDISH.
That last one really hits home with these big kids. Nothing makes a big baby cry like being called a BABY. So... that is my suggestion. Intelligent, real, experienced people need to expose the trendy lefty agenda for what it is: CHILDISH, naive, and slow motion civilizational suicide. That leftism in the face of a real cultural enemy is weak, and decidedly UNcool.
In the long run, the little red book is no match for what is perceived by their rivals as 'THE BOOK'.
crus:
ReplyDeleteMy condolences on your colleague. May the Lord bless him.
And congratulations on the pending arrival of your second son! He'll be a lucky kid, to have such a brave and good dad.
Mike
@Sleeping Beastly:
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of your assessment of the left and communism.
I've always wondered what it is that drives the left. It's such an idiotic and nasty ideology, even when it falls short of outright communism. I've felt that there must be a single motive-- on string that runs throught leftism-- that explains it.
I've come to think that that motive is hatred of Christianity generically, and hatred of Christ specifically.
Very interesting issue, and the dynamics between the left and Islam are fascinating and bizarre. I'm not so sure that the far left hates Islam as much as you suggest.
Food for thought.
I've come to think that that motive is hatred of Christianity generically, and hatred of Christ specifically.
ReplyDeleteYes, we hate you because you possess the truth. Watch for black helicopters and buy more tin foil.
Egnor: I've always wondered what it is that drives the left. It's such an idiotic and nasty ideology, even when it falls short of outright communism. I've felt that there must be a single motive-- on string that runs throught leftism-- that explains it.
ReplyDeleteI can help wondering, Mike. You've spent your academic life among university professors, who are, for the most part, liberals. One would think that this experience would teach one that liberals can be, and are, decent people by and large. Did your colleagues bully you or something? Do you hide from them under your desk whenever they come by to invite you to lunch?
Poor thing.
@oleg:
ReplyDelete[I can help wondering, Mike. You've spent your academic life among university professors, who are, for the most part, liberals. One would think that this experience would teach one that liberals can be, and are, decent people by and large. Did your colleagues bully you or something? Do you hide from them under your desk whenever they come by to invite you to lunch? ]
You may have noticed that I don't hide a lot. I've never really been bullied, and in fact a lot of my friends are liberals and atheists (and gays). Neurosurgery is a relatively conservative profession, and doctors tend to be more religious than scientists, but I've always had a spectrum of friends.
My objections are ideological, not personal. There are lots of nice decent people on all sides of these issues.
This ain't personal.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteSo you admit that you haven't been bullied in academia?
I thought that you were claiming that the religious are being constantly persecuted in academia.
I am reminded of Luc 21:17:
ReplyDeleteAll men will hate you because of me.
So true!
@bach:
ReplyDelete[I thought that you were claiming that the religious are being constantly persecuted in academia.]
When did I say that?
Pepe, yes, it could mean all men hate one because of one's faith. Alternately, and I hope more rationally, it could simply be because one is a jerk.
ReplyDelete@Modus...
ReplyDelete...more rationally, it could simply be because one is a jerk...
Quod erat demonstrandum!
Thanks for the confirmation...
@Modus:
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing the anger He engenders in some people.
Michael,
ReplyDelete(I thought you were claiming that the religious are being constantly persecuted in academia). 'When did I say that?,
Many times, too many to list.
I suspect that you have a form of graphological Tourette's syndrome. You write ridiculous statements without them actually passing through your cerebral cortex and without memories being laid down in the hippocampus.
And you conflate normal banter on the Internet (as in my jokingly querying your erroneous definition of 'imaginary' as being inconsistent with your training and intelligence as a neurosurgeon) as being typical of the difficulty the religious have to get tenure in academia. The Internet net with its blogs is one thing. Academia with tenure is something completely different.
@bach:
ReplyDeletePeople have contacted my department demanding that I be fired, etc. That was mostly a while ago, when I was blogging for ENV. Actually the worst calls we got (including a couple of borderline psycho emails) was when I wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times about Terri Schiavo.
I've never been attacked professionally or personally except by cranks. I'm grateful to my colleagues and bosses at my job for their open-mindedness and support.
There are many scientists and others who have not been as fortunate as I have.
bachfiend: I thought that you were claiming that the religious are being constantly persecuted in academia.
ReplyDeleteEgnor: When did I say that?
Here, for example:
The truth is that in America, and in much of the West, atheism is a career lubricant, moving atheists to the higher echelons of media and arts and academia and entertainment and science. A sneer here, a wry wink there, and you're in the club. Mention your faith, and they want your scalp.
Or here:
I think the main reason, probably, is that I hate bullies. Atheists have tried so hard to destroy the careers of good scientists, like Sternberg, Behe, Dembski, Luskin, Gonzalez, Marks, Crocker, Gaskell. Each of these folks has been put through a gauntlet of hateful personal spite and professional destruction.
And in a bazillion other posts. You have a short memory, Mike.
@oleg:
ReplyDelete[You have a short memory, Mike.]
Keeps every day fresh.
You should get it looked at.
ReplyDelete@oleg:
ReplyDeleteGet what looked at?
OK, that one has lasted less than an hour.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDelete'Get what looked at?'
LOL. I must admit that sometimes you have a good sense of humor...
Your department getting emails demanding your sacking isn't unusual. Richard Alley, climatologist at Pennsylvania University had what seemed like a cordial dialogue with a graduate of PU over AGW, discussed the factors driving climate over a pleasant lunch, and then received a copy of an email the graduate sent to Alley's department insisting that Alley be fired, because his ice core research showed that CO2 levels follow warming at the start of previous interglacial periods, 'demonstrating' that AGW is a 'fraud'. It isn't, for reasons you're not ideologically capable of accepting.
Pépé "Quod erat demonstrandum! Thanks for the confirmation..."
ReplyDeleteYou're conflating disagreement with hatred. That's ridiculous.
Pépé: you have a persecution complex.
ReplyDeletePepe also isn't particularly intelligent. He persistently links to a AGW denialist website, 'Fossil Plants of West Virginia' to prove that his fond hope that AGW isn't happening.
ReplyDeleteIt turns out that the website is actually written by Monte Hieb, an engineer working for the West Virginia Mining Safety Board, so he has strong links to the coal mining industry. Many of his articles fare favoring coal as an energy source.
He also attempts to 'prove' that humans don't contribute significantly to CO2 levels by only considering the processes that put CO2 into the atmosphere without considering the processes taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, an error that you'd have to be idiotic to make and to also accept.
You can find a lot of doubtful material on the Internet, and have to be suspicious of hidden agendas, particularly on sites that don't allow even minimal review by allowing comments.
Pepe rejects peer reviewed articles but accepts unquestioned virtually anonymous politically motivated nonsense.
@bach:
ReplyDeleteHow about that Medieval Warm period? Ya know, the one that Mann et al have tried to make disappear.
What caused it?
Why did mankind flourish in it, if global warming (from whatever cause) is such a catastrophe?
And any update on eugenics, which was every bit as much established science as AGW is now?
Egnor: How about that Medieval Warm period? Ya know, the one that Mann et al have tried to make disappear.
ReplyDeleteThe MWP was warm in a few locations, in particular Europe. Globally, not so much.
@oleg:
ReplyDeleteThe global records are sparse, to say the least. It certainly affected Greenland as well as Europe, and ice cores from Antarctica show evidence for it.
What caused it? Was it automobiles or was it industrial pollution? Maybe we used too many incandescent lights?
mregnor:
ReplyDeleteThe medieval warm period was caused by sin, just like today's global warming.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThe medieval warm period happened I agree. But only an idiot would claim that variations in CO2 levels is the only factor affecting climate, and only an idiot would think that if he could point to one time in which humans weren't driving SUVs and it was warm, that that disproved AGW.
Mann was using tree ring thickness as a proxy for temperature. It's a crude method, tree rings being also affected by other factors such as rainfall.
There have been many studies trying to assess temperatures over the past 2,000 years, using different methods, yielding temperature curves of similar shape, but not coinciding exactly, because all are using different proxies.
The MWP appears to be less than the current warming in all the studies. It might have been due to fewer volcanos in that period, or slightly more solar radiation or more reforestation following the fall of the Roman Empire, which was also marked by a plague stopping the Byzantine emperor Justin from reuniting the empire.
AGW is still true just because of the physics. We understand how greenhouses retain heat and we know that increasing the level of greenhouse gases will increase retention of heat and cause increased global warming. We know that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas because it's long lasting in the atmosphere. Water vapor follows warming induced by CO2. Methane is short lived, oxidizing to CO2, and anyway humans are responsible for some of the methane from grazing and wet agriculture.
To disprove AGW all you have to do is to prove that humans aren't responsible for atmospheric CO2 going from 270 to 390 ppmv and that increasing CO2 levels won't increase global warming.
Egnor: The global records are sparse, to say the least. It certainly affected Greenland as well as Europe, and ice cores from Antarctica show evidence for it.
ReplyDeleteYou're making it up, Mike, aren't you? Antartica was cooler during the MWP, not warmer.
@oleg:
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
@Mike,
ReplyDeleteThank you. The service was a very small, very tasteful gathering of those friends who worked with this young man in service and in training. He was involved in some of the nastiest stuff in SWA and like many of the lads who serve in that capacity, he had a very hard time re-adjusting.
His sacrifice will not be forgotten.
He was a good man, a solid person, and a real professional soldier. It was my privilege to work with him.
May God grant him the peace that eluded him here.