« Obama Catches a Break | Main | God Moves In Mysterious Ways »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Of course, the ACLU would be motivated to create a state of fear around terrorist watch lists, wouldn't they. Looks like you might be an easy mark.

The data they base their estimate on was provided by the Department of Homeland Security. The core competency of modern conservatism is the ability to dismiss facts without engaging with them. Nicely done.

Tom, it seems you don't get out much. Liberalism is all about fantasies that are divorced from reality, and any time someone--usually a conservative--is thoughtless enough to bring up actual facts that disagree with the fantasy, they are immediately approbated with one of the epithets that dismisses the person and the truth they bear.

Case in point: the myth of blacks as permanent victims. Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse "rape" scandal confirmed, in liberals' minds, that whites are constantly victimizing blacks. However, as we all know, these allegations were without any merit whatsoever. If we looked at Department of Justice statistics (you have to download the "Victims and Offenders" for 2005 pdf), we would realize that white-on-black rape is so rare as to show up as statistically nonexistent. In contrast, in 2005, 37,460 white women were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by black men--over 100 per day.

Here's another one. The systematic, brutal murders of whites by blacks in South Africa--over 2,000 victims so far--is, for all intents and purposes, genocide. However, since whites are the victims, it doesn't register in the liberal-dominated news media.

These inconvenient facts don't square with the liberal fantasy, so they are ignored. Of course, I'm a racist™ for mentioning them, aren't I? That means that I and the facts I bear can safely be ignored, and liberals can continue to live in their fantasy world where only the noble blacks are ever the victims of krool and eeevil whitey, never the other way around.

I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I and others like me do not ignore the facts of the vastly disproportional amount of violent crimes committed by blacks, especially young black men. I find it abhorrent but not particularly surprising that people with nothing (yes, I know many poor people have TV) and no prospects of changing their lives turn to drugs and crime. Some do not. Some simply live out the lives they were born to. Some through hard work or good fortune or a combination of the two, succeed in the economic and social world most of us live in. We readers and commenters, of course, would all have overcome those obstacles. Currently we address this problem in one way, the penal system. The fact that as a social liberal I would like to see attempts to address these problems at the causal level, trying to break the cycle of poverty and crime, does not mean that I and other liberals hate the white race or even accept the blame for the situation as it now stands. It ssimply means that the solution we've been applying for the last 30 years isn't working and we should be trying some other approaches as well. We already imprison a lot of offenders, we can't "ship 'em back to Africa" especially if they were born in Rockford, Illinois or Cleveland, Ohio, so even if you will not drop the conceit that "we" hate our race at least tell us what we can do to change the way kids grow up in the ghetto.

Whee...race talk. Squidley at least gots some links for his'n, so, Tom, chop-chop with some links to promote your view of utopia.

As for the ACLU, I'd be more inclined to believe their margarita of statistics if they didn't keep conveniently forgetting about the CL that is RKBA. But they do, incessantly, as a matter of policy. So, no truck given to the 9/10ths Gang.

PS When did "their estimate" become "facts" for "engagement"? The fact that their estimates exist? Well, I estimate that there are 300,000,000 on the list, using data from this post. Yall discuss that dang fact.

I no longer bother with Wally, as I am sick of being insulted by him. However, I will note that he maintains the typical liberal notion that the dysfunctionality of blacks is somehow our responsibility, not theirs. I have to go with Bill Cosby here and say that if blacks want to build better lives for themselves, it is their responsibility.

The poverty argument doesn't cut it either. Until the mass prosperity of the post-war era, most blacks were poor, especially by our current standards. Somehow, they managed to be more law-abiding than modern blacks. Adherence to traditional values (and I'm not talking about racism) kept more people honest, hard-working, and God-fearing.

Is it any wonder that conservatives are all about morals?

"The data they base their estimate on was provided by the Department of Homeland Security. The core competency of modern conservatism is the ability to dismiss facts without engaging with them. Nicely done."

Um, no.

I hate to have to point this out to you Tom, but in your Sullivanist like pimping of the ACLU's fear mongering, you did not present any facts, but rather a simple statistic. What's more, you presented it context free save for the tales of a hand full of unfortunates that had their names erroneously included on the list. Big deal to them I suppose, but far from convincing evidence that a "State of Fear" has over taken the United States in which we're losing our precious rights. The facts are that while the government has typically compiled a list that is probably larger than necessary, or even practical, it has also prevented any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the past 6.5 years. We also know of specific acts that have been stopped as a result of the government's vigilance (not clear to what extent the list was involved).

This, of course, is a core competence of the Sullivanist movement. Present discreet data points representative of some sort of broader narrative, and try to create a climate of fear rather than engaging your opponents in a debate that encompasses the full fact set.

As you said, nicely done.

Pursuit, I'd like to amend what you said about no terrorist acts on US soil for the past 6.5 years.

Yes, there have been no large-scale attacks. However, individual Moslems have engaged in numerous attacks, many of them fatal. Of course, people ignorant of Islam and the Koranic dictates of small attacks to erode the "infidel" enemy do not recognize things like the July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting as a terrorist act. Always seeking to frame such incidents within their own mental framework and not that of the Islamic mental framework, most Americans dismiss these attacks as "isolated" and "random," as if they are no more intelligible than so much static. Demonstrating my point, this one in particular has been categorized as a "hate crime" (one of the most risible ideas in jurisprudence--but that's another topic).

We fail to see the Islamic nature of attacks like this because we are ignorant--willfully ignorant--of Islam.

I'm not saying that all violent acts committed by Moslems are terrorism. However, most of the ones in America--like the Moslems who used their cars as weapons on the UNC-CH campus and in the SF Bay area--are individual acts of terrorism, prompted by Islamic belief.

Please re-read my post. No insults. Also no claim that "the dysfunctionality of blacks is somehow our responsibility." It is however "our" problem. All of us pay for violent crime and an increasingly expensive prison system. Think conservatively for a minute here, rather than anti-liberally, and try to come up with some creative ways of reducing those costs. To paraphrase Spike Lee- Get a plan Squidley, cuz the one you got, it ain't workin'. We could go the Israeli route and try to put a wall around every problem area in the US but I don't think that is going to happen. I am seriously asking you what ideas you've got. Your main gripe has been with liberals when you really should be applying your intellect and all that spare time you seem to have to the problem- black violence and a prison system that spits out worse criminals than we put in. C'mon give it a try. Propose some solutions instead of griping about us traitors to our race.

And, as if on cue...

In England, Asian youths in 'faith hate' attack on priest.

In the British context, "Asian" means "South Asian" which generally means "Bangladeshi/Pakistani Moslems." The article doesn't mention what faith could have prompted a faith-based attack on a Christian cleric, but there is a line quoting earlier anti-Christian hostility: "This should not be a church, this should be a mosque, you should not be here."

A full analysis, showing how the Brits are willfully closing their eyes to the problem of ever-increasing Islamic attacks, can be found here.

As for the successful prevention of further airline-based terrorist attacks, I must ask: at what cost to us? We have our Fourth Amendment rights violated every time we want to board an airplane. Billions of dollars are spent on increase security, and billions of man-hours are wasted as a result of increased time spent at airports. We can't even take liquids from home onto a plane!

Why? Because of Islamic terrorism. This is the way it will be, forever--at least as long as we allow Moslems among us.

40 years ago, Islam was virtually unknown in the West, with a very small number of Westerners converting. Now we have Moslems from Islamic countries among us, only because we let them in. Most Moslems are still immigrants; we could easily tell them to pack up and go home, and implement other policies that make the West unattractive to Moslems. Even the naturalized citizens might get the hint and go home. There, they could practice their socio-political movement disguised as a religion as they wish, without any "hindrance" from us. We would be safe from Islamic terrorism, because we would not allow significant numbers of Moslems into the West any more.

Racist™!, you cry. Um, they're not a race. "Discrimination!" you cry. Why, in fact, yes. Discrimination in favor of ourselves, our needs, and our survival. Is that really so awful?

Thanks for so insightfully addressing my questions, Squid. Also shouldn't your links actually support your view? The closing paragraph concludes
"The Met recorded an upsurge in attacks against Muslims after the July 2005 bombings in London. There are also numerous attacks against Jews but, according to police statistics, relatively few Christians are attacked because of their faith."

This is part of why I generally ignore you, Wally. What do an increase in attacks against Moslems in 2005, attacks made in response to the July 2005 bombing, have to do with the beating of an Anglican priest in 2008? Nothing, perhaps?

Anyone with high-school level critical reading skills can see that the reporter who wrote this article is being PC by covering "both" sides of the story. "Oh, those poor Moslems, they're being picked on by eeevil whitey, it's not their fault that they respond in kind." Horse hockey!

This is why I keep on saying that we must educate ourselves about Islam: attacks like this are part of the Moslem playbook, repeated since the 7th century. Every hear the line about "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"? The Islamic history of violent expansion is repeating itself right now, not only in Europe and America, but also in Asia.

Maybe you should read the discussion at the second link, too. Incidentally, the first link absolutely supports my view that Moslems should be restricted to their countries: if they weren't in the West, there could be no violent interaction between us and them, regardless of who instigates it. Duh!

I do feel bad for the poor Christians stuck in Moslem countries, though. For example, the Archbishop of Mosul, Paulos Faraj Rahho, is just the latest Christian victim of Islamic violence. Treatment like this is part of the reason why the Christians of the West launched the Crusades (which have been grossly mischaracterized in recent decades).

I will grant that somehow, you managed not to insult me--this time. However, you've called me a Nazi three times, so why should I bother with you? I've forgiven you, but I haven't forgotten how you've treated me. Besides, you've concluded I'm a racist™, and I've concluded that you're immune to reason (the bulk of this post is for others' sake, not yours). I'm not responding to your second post because you're not worth it.

If we all used your reasoning that if the questioner is a jerk one can ignore the question, there would be no comments whatsoever on any of your posts. On the contrary we critically read what you have to offer, think about it, agree when you've made an insightful point and cry "bullshit" when you've wandered into your paranoid fantasy land where whites are the oppressed. Billions for Bear Stearns, bupkiss for ghetto schools, poor whitey is gettin' shafted by the man, again. And again, this time it is you and I footing the bill. Wouldn't you rather pay to try to prevent your daughter from getting carjacked in 8 years (true, no guarantees) than to save the beach houses of Bear Stearns investment bankers (also no guarantees).

Thanks Mr Rove, I can see the usefulness of this whole "fear thing."

Wally, when's the last time I called someone a Nazi? When's the last time I insulted anyone on this blog? It's stupid of me to respond to you at all, but you and I are not in the same league when it comes to being jerks. You think I'm a jerk because I espouse illiberal ideas and refuse to engage in reasoned discussion with someone who has demonstrated, on multiple occasions, that he is incapable of it; I think you're a jerk because you act like one.

The comments to this entry are closed.