I think the whole thing is a deliberate attempt at provocation -- to incite just the kind of reaction you describe.

To my mind, according group grievances any credence whatsoever is what brings this about. They ALL ought to be subject to sensitivity training, as they ALL offend my individuality.

Screw 'em.

M

Posted by Mark Alger at August 20, 2007 02:28 PM

I'm sorry. You cannot send any of the protected classes to this sort of training. It is reserved for mostly white Christian males. No one else can be forced to go.

Posted by Ogre at August 20, 2007 04:00 PM

Ooh, let's hope Ogre's wrong. I think this demanding that they go to sensitivity training might fly. It's exactly the sort of thing that can get pounded repeatedly on the Sunday talk shows "Do you think it's appropriate to ask them to go to something like a sensitivity training, George?"

Look, conservatives have tried reasoning with people, pointing out the hatred and inconsistency, but that hasn't worked. Let's try this. I have to go to trainings about dealing with sexual harassment or being respectful of other cultures, why shouldn't they? I know it's going to be hard for us to even make the words "I think sensitivity training would help" come out of our mouths, but try. Practice in the mirror. Have a drink or two first. People are facing more hardship in Iraq, it's the least we can do.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at August 20, 2007 08:53 PM

I think the mantra goes something like this:

We have to be understanding and sensitive to their belief that their culture dictates that they don't have to be understanding and sensitive to our beliefs.

Is that about right?

Posted by Oyster at August 21, 2007 06:02 AM

GM you have nothing to fear about your grandchildren using those words. Remember your son in law is on the left of middle. As for the main issue. Let them rally on 9/11. Yes it is insensitive, but let them exersise there rights as guaranteed by the Bill Of Rights. It is like the KKK rallying on MLK Day. The idiocy of their cause is made plainly manifest every time. So support your rights by supporting theirs.

Posted by psyberwolfe at August 21, 2007 07:29 AM

Psyberwolfe, read the note from Oyster, that is precisely my feeling. I'll begin to recognize their rights when they in turn give more than lip service to mine and yours (and my future grandkids). By the way, and I know that deep inside you really know this, the left of center is not innocent of using those words either. Till then, as Mark says: "Screw 'em!"

Posted by GM Roper at August 21, 2007 07:52 AM

It is that exact attitude that conberns me. The protections afforded by the BoR are the base of all our laws. Is your faith in this country and her people that weak? If so I heartily recomemd spending some time reading the writings of the founding fathers.

Posted by psyberwolfe at August 21, 2007 08:25 AM

Psyberwolfe:

"It is that exact attitude that conberns [sp] me.The protections afforded by the BoR are the base of all our laws. Is your faith in this country and her people that weak?"

Wow, I've received a lot of strawman comments here in the past, but this one takes the cake. Not once did I say that they did not have a constitutional right to march, I said it was stupid and insensitive. Not once did I imply harm to them (Gads, I hope you are bright enough to discern that "whoop their butts, wash their mouths out with soap, disband them and make them illegal..." is hyperbole but, maybe not). As to making them illegal, all that is currently required is that they be seditious and or planning violent revolution (and you can damn sure bet that some of them are), and that could be argued either way.

You should know also that you will have to read a hell of a lot more writings of the founding fathers to catch up with me unless you've been doing it full time for several years which I doubt. You will find nowhere in those writings nor in the constitution where it says the Bill of Rights is a suicide pact.

I said these people were idiots, insensitive and that they demand a lot more "respect" than either that they've earned or than that they are willing to give to others. If you have doubts about that my young friend, you need to do some reading from some of the counterjihad sites and sites/books/articles that discuss the jihadist movement IN THIS COUNTRY.

My high school, for example, (or, I guess I should say that the building my school was in) was sold to a Saudi group and re-opened as a Islamic Academy. Where we voted most popular, they voted in "Most likely to become a Martyr." Please, learn more about what jihad and wahabbism is all about before telling me that I don't believe in the constitution.

Posted by GM Roper at August 21, 2007 11:03 AM

You're absolutely right, George. Some people like to conflate criticism of one's speech with the wish to revoke their rights.

I think we're all pretty agreed on the fact that the more ridiculous one's actions and sentiments are, the more likely they'll be rejected. But while they are free to march, protest or say whatever they want (providing they pay for their permits and do so peacefully) they are not free from criticism of their blatant hypocrisies and their creation of the false premise that they are being discriminated against.

When there are numerous so-called Muslim "charities" around the country that have been linked to terror organizations, when there are trials pending still for individual Muslims charged with supporting terror groups or planning their own terror attacks and when one of those organizations is none other than the largest and most influential, CAIR, then I think George's opinions and criticisms, which reflect mine as well, are grounded in reality.

When a significant number of Muslims - not just an individual here and there - actually and without equivocation denounce these people in word AND deed, that sentiment may change.

While the KKK has been marginalized, and rightly so, these groups too must be relegated to the dust bin of history.

"Is your faith in this country and her people that weak?"

That's just the point. There is a disconcerting number of people in this country who will not address the very issue itself by simply stating the free speech laws. It goes much deeper than that. As Victor Davis Hanson said (and I'll paraphrase): these are people who will gleefully and defiantly fly the flag of the country they would never return to.

One can't just write it off as a free speech issue by simply admitting their actions are insensitive and then voicing such concern for George's speech. This is a two way street. Much like those who constantly interate that "dissent is patriotic!" never say that patriotism is also pride in everything that is good and right in this country. That kind of patriotism is instead sneered at.

This kind of behavior and speech by people like CAIR and the Muslim Foundation was once only behind heavily guarded Mosque doors for a time but now is becoming a festering sore that can only be innoculated with more free speech to the contrary. No one is saying to arrest them or charge them with any crimes.

Posted by Oyster at August 21, 2007 02:04 PM

I'd love to see this handled the same way a judge in Texas once handled a flag burning.

In the case, some moron was burning an American flag in front of a veteran (many years ago, before Iraq). The veteran was rightly incensed and punched the fellow in the face. Of course, the moron sued and demanded that charges be brought against the veteran. The judge, in his decision, said that indeed, the moron had the right to burn the flag, but his actions were dumb. Therefore he punished the veteran with a $25 fine.

If you're dumb enough to participate in this "march" in NY, you should expect to be attacked by those who your brothers attacked.

Posted by Ogre at August 21, 2007 02:50 PM

psyberwolfe,

while muslims march and demand special allowances, (footbaths in schools so they canwash up before prostrating themselves towards mecca in a room set aside for that purpose) christians are denied the right to prayer in schools unless they call it a moment of silence.

Anyone that points out the hypocrisy of muslims demanding things like a town in MICHIGAN playing the call to prayers 5 times a day while church bell ringing clergy are fined for ringing the chapel bell too loudly is called (wrongfully) a racist, bigot and worse.

And I see a large segment of my countrymen that shy away from these names because they are scared of being labeled as a racist or bigot, even when the label is wrongly applied.

People such as yourself that are apparently scared of pointing out how insensitive the actions of these marchers are are a big part of teh problem.

Grow a pair, lad, and learn to speak the truth and not be scared to call a spade a spade.........G-d knows if you're gonna sire any children you're gonna need a set hanging, otherwise you'll sire a bunch of whiny liberal kids that demand to be taken care of their entire life because "life isn't fair"....but I suspect Grandpa will be able to counter that mess.

Posted by kender at August 21, 2007 03:14 PM

As many have stated, we in America who are not of some protected class are expected to acquiesce to the demands of others. I will agree that many of the people who will assemble have a right to do so (unless they are here illegally) but that does not mean they have the right to do so without comment or opposition. We have every right to oppose what they are doing and to be vocal about it. Want to bet those rights will be the first infringed?

I would also like to know if our esteemed liberal feels as strongly about each person's individual right to carry a gun. It would be interesting to hear how he feels since most liberals whine about the first amendment while completely obliterating the second. Without the second there would be no first and yet that right is trampled by the liberals amongst us.

I would just like to know how that plays out...

Posted by Big Dog at August 21, 2007 04:04 PM

Oh great question BD.....well psyberwolfe?

What about that pesky second amendment?

Posted by kender at August 21, 2007 04:56 PM

You are unfortunately right. You did not say those exact words. On the other hand I feel that you encouraged the thought of trying to put a stop to their march in the last sentence of the original post. Why would I feel that? The answer is found in this second question: What other possible motivation would a non New Yorker have in contacting the mayor of said city?

Next: I did not think you were inferring violence to the Muslim community. I get hyperbole. What concerns me is the conservative “Screw ‘em” philosophy. Unfortunately this philosophy seems to have gained credence when in fact it is completely foreign to American political thought. That is until recently. This philosophy seems to have give birth to the “Bogeyman Conservatism” that so plagues many conservatives. (Bogeyman Conservatism is the politics of fear. It is the politics that those darn terrorists/ gays/ commies/ lefties hate you, your freedom, and are going to get you.) This philosophy is laughable at best. The lefts version of this is Chicken Little Liberalism.

I love that every time you are questioned about Muslims you bring out the Wahabi sect. I would liken that unto a Muslim using the writings of the Branch Davidians as common Christian thought and belief. Furthermore I don’t buy into this line of Fear Inc. Wahabis or terrorist cells in the US fail to impress me. Why? Because they are bullies and cowards who crumple at the smallest show of courage and power.

The answer lies in staging your own counter march, not in contacting the mayor. It is what Austinites do when the KKK comes to town. I personally enjoy taking my lawn chair and popcorn down to the event to watch the fireworks ensue. Also to watch people make complete fools of them selves is priceless.

Kender: Inappropriate. I did not attack anyone and stayed on topic. Maybe you should learn to do it also.

BD: Second Ammendment is not germaine to this conversation.

PS My wife the wonderful daughter of GM says we are being a bunch of obstinate mules (she used a more colorful phrase.)

Posted by psyberwolfe at August 21, 2007 05:48 PM

"Furthermore I don’t buy into this line"

Fine. You feel no threat from terrorists. That's no problem -- until you start interfering with those who would protect people from terrorists (I'm not saying you are).

Total strawman, using the Branch Davidians. That's just not true. The mainstream Christian religion does not suggest killing people. Instead, the head of the Christian religion suggests loving your enemy. The head of the Muslims religion suggests beheading and killing anyone who disagrees with you. I am truly sorry that you cannot see any difference.

Posted by Ogre at August 21, 2007 05:53 PM

"Wahabis or terrorist cells in the US fail to impress me. Why? Because they are bullies and cowards who crumple at the smallest show of courage and power."

Unless, of course, they are able to remain anonymous, are never confronted and can bring a planned attack to fruition. They must first be confronted with a show of courage. So far, I haven't seen much "crumpling" by these people anyway.

No one here is implying that all Muslims are evil. They most certainly aren't. It's the crickets we hear from the Muslim community at large in the face of those who are not so innocuous and the loud-mouth complaints of wide-spread Muslim persecution and discrimination that simply does not exist. One may be able to point to a case here or there, but they are the exception and not the norm. Oddly enough, those who complain about discrimination the most are the ones demanding discrimination in their favor.

The fact of the matter is, while you may have some valid complaints about what you label as "Bogeyman Conservatism", it has not been my experience to see that kind of politics or ideology here on this blog, or many others I frequent for that matter. Nor do I see the "conservative “Screw ‘em” philosophy" voiced here in any seriousness.

You seem to be projecting what you find distasteful in others on George or those who comment here. If the proper response for him would be to stage a counter-march, then perhaps, too, the proper response for you would be to take these complaints to those who blatantly practice such a philosophy.

Posted by Oyster at August 21, 2007 06:20 PM

Psyberwolfe:

What concerns me is the conservative “Screw ‘em” philosophy. Unfortunately this philosophy seems to have gained credence when in fact it is completely foreign to American political thought.

Then you aren't as well read as you think you are. I deliberately put that in there. It was made "famous" by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga who said "Screw Em" in reference to 4 US Citizens burned to death by jihadists and their blackened corpses hung from a bridge in Iraq. Kos is NOT a conservative.

Posted by GM Roper at August 21, 2007 07:26 PM

GM:
Huh? Wow talking about a turn to the strange. Once again not germaine to the topic at hand. I don't care where the saying came from. I was speaking of an observation. How the heck did Kos enter the discussion?

Posted by psyberwolfe at August 21, 2007 09:01 PM

Entirely germaine, you said, and I quote "...the conservative “Screw ‘em” philosophy..." implying that this was our problem and (to quote you again) "...when in fact it is completely foreign to American political thought."

You are flat out wrong, not mistaken, not oops I miss-typed FLAT OUT WRONG. The phrase is not "completely foreign" it is part and parcel of the left political thought of which Kos is a shining example. Daily Kos is full of the most hateful and disgusting remarks about their political opponents (and even though you will find like minded conservative sites) it is not "foreign."

As to why "non-New Yorkers" would contact the Mayor, that shows your ignorance about civics and the law. It is our constitutional right to protest (just as MFA has a constitutional right to ask to march). To maintian public order, the MFA must obtain a permit to march (law) and public safety can be one of the deciding factors in granting that permit.

The utter stupidity of the MFA choosing to March on that particular day (or any day near 9/11) may cause a major breech of the peace. They want to march? Fine, pick a different day... say October 31st.

I am always amazed that liberals like yourself cannot connect the dots. You are concerned because I don't recognize their "constitutional rights" and my "screw 'em" comment is foreign to political thought, but you are unable to recognize that I am exercising my constitutional rights to protest and that "screw 'em" is most recently a lefty "political thought."

You have lived in Austin too long, the miasma that is Moscow on the Guadalupe has affected your ability to think clearly.

Posted by GM Roper at August 22, 2007 04:06 AM

Oh, and I bring out the Wahhabi sect because they are one of the more virulent examples of islamofascism. I would have thought you knew that. If you don't know that, please do a little research on the sect, on what the Saudi's are spreading through "Wahhabification" of American mosques before commenting.

Posted by GM Roper at August 22, 2007 04:09 AM

psyberwolfe,

Actually, after having given some thought to "Bogeyman Conservatism" I have to wonder why you find that phrase applicable. I'm really trying very hard to find where conservatives have created bogeymen. I thought, Islamic militants can't be the bogeymen. For they do indeed exist. They are interspersed throughout the world always looking for a target, preferably a soft-target that will garner a lot of civilian deaths. And they've found such targets all over the world. They've carried out their plans time and again. It occurs to me that liberals are not concerned about these people unless they can somehow find fault with the government for not protecting us from them.

So no. That can't be it.

Then I started thinking about what a bogeyman is. It's an imaginary evil character. Bingo! I think what you may have really meant is "Bogeyman Liberalism".

There is a rather large contingent of liberals out there who believe that our government either perpetrated 9/11 or were fully aware of it ahead of time and let it happen or even went so far as to deliberately facilitate it.

There's your bogeyman.

There are plenty of self-serving reps in our government. Some are ill suited for their jobs or downright incompetent. But I do not, for one minute, think that any of them, let alone the President's immediate cabinet, perpetrated or deliberately "allowed" 9/11 to happen. Nor did they allow or perpetrate the many and varied assaults and attacks on US interests elsewhere in the world. Why the same Bogeyman Liberalism has even taken root in the UK. There are even Brits accusing Tony Blair and anyone connected to him for the 7/7 bombings.

I think you're way off the mark, my friend.

Posted by Oyster at August 22, 2007 05:26 AM

Wahhabism is gaining in strength, throughout the Muslim world and the West. For some background as to how Wahhabism has proliferated, see this (video and my commentary).

Recently, the D.C. Islamic Center has been suffering a bit of a controversy. I recently posted on that matter.

What many Westerners fail to take into account is just how much ALL Muslims place upon the will of Allah. Many are waiting to see if "the will of Allah" indicates that Saudi's Wahhabism is the correct way for Islam, the way which Allah desires.

Christianity as a whole condemned the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, and the like. Where is a similar condemnation from so-called moderate Muslims for Wahhabism? I'm not referring to some vague condemnation of terrorism, the definition of which is changed in Islam to exclude attacks upon infidels and Jews. I'm talking about specific condemnation which names names.

The silence from the ummah is defeaning, and the few who have come forth have received fatwas and have to live in Secure Undisclosed Locationville. At the recent Secular Islam Summit in St. Petersburg, Florida, those secular Muslims were roundly condemned as not practicing "the real Islam," the Islam which includes the militant Medinan verses (See Surah 9 as an example of those verses). Now, some Muslims choose to live by the earlier and peaceful Meccan verses; unfortunately, the later verses of the Koran abrogate those peaceful verses--or so says Allah. From that abrogation the Wahhabists gain ideological weight.

Posted by Always On Watch at August 22, 2007 05:53 AM

Differing Definitions

Keep the word games in mind.

Posted by Always On Watch at August 22, 2007 05:56 AM

I see, so when you criticize people for your belief that they are trampling the First Amendment it is not germane to ask how you feel about the Second. A thinking person would conclude that the question was designed to see if your indignation was feigned or if you truly believe in ALL the rights. If I knew how you stood on the Second I can judge your sincerity with regard to the first. In other words, are you truly concerned about the Constitution or just the rights of people you believe we offended?

I hate to burst your bubble but the left invented the politics of fear. Have you ever heard any of them campaign? Republicans will take your social security, Republicans will take your medicare, Republicans will have you eating cat food, Republicans are only for special interests and will make you have to pay more for gas and health care. Republicans make your drug costs higher, Republicans don't care about black people, Republicans will send all the ILLEGALS back and make you pay more for things, Republicans will reinstitute the draft and make you go to war.

Does any of this NOT sound like fear mongering to you? So don't give me that load of bunk about fear and who started it. Politicians from both sides play the game and your ignorance of that leads me to believe you have a Kool-Aid IV in your arm.

You also do not have to be impressed with the terror threat. Just do us a favor, if you are ever affected by one of the attacks (and I pray you are not) don't cry and whine that Bush did not protect you.

After all, they were only cowards...

Posted by Big Dog at August 22, 2007 07:55 AM

Big Dog, I have never read anything more profound about the Democrats and the "policy of fear" in my life. I thank you for that comment.
I was raised in a blue collar, southern Democrat household and in recient years have changed my viewpoint considerably. And I do remember hearing all you mention about "what the Republicans do". I know now that Democrats create much of the "pork spending" on worthless and bogus social programs that send my taxes paid through the roof!!! I am tired of supporting drug addicted mothers and illegals and the policy of having to respect people of other cultures when the same people spit on American culture and values.
I have truely enjoyed reading this blog and thank you all for keeping true American thought and values out here in the electronic medium.

Posted by Hoosier Army Mom at August 22, 2007 10:04 AM

BD: I think you took a terrible fall from the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. What you are describe is what I called chicken little liberalism. My opinions about any other point other than thd one being discused are not applicable. Nor am I dumb enoug h to open myself to the no win situation. When a discusion on the 2nd is brought up again I will reiterate my position then.

Posted by psyberwolfe at August 22, 2007 12:04 PM

OK psyberwolfe, we should treat you nicely, being related to our wonderful GMann and all, but saying BD hit the branches in the stupid tree pretty much calls off the niceties, as I see it.

I am willing to bet your wife said we're all being a bunch of jaca**es huh?

Well I think that only applies to you, as you are the lefty here, and that is their national political symbol, and for good reason it seems.

If you cannot see the danger of islam (and specifically the branch that is funding all the mosques and islamic schools here in the states) then you are plainly blind, obtuse or just plain stupid yourself.

I think you are just staying purposefully ignorant to protect your "feel good liberal mind", but that is my opinion.

Listen to AOW...she is basically our resident expert in this field.

And if you cannot see how KOS plays into this thread (it was HIS statement that was used by GM to make a point) then maybe you are obtuse. I went to the KOS konvention in vegas. That site is peopled with writers that state the most horrid vile threats against people online but in person they are cowards.

If I call you name here, I will say it to your face. Not them. They are brave behind a keyboard, and cowards in real life....and thy wont protect us from the islamic threat, unless you consider dhimmitude and surrender as protection, in which case they can.

Posted by kender at August 22, 2007 03:51 PM

Kos has nothing to with this thread. Why? Because I don't read nor care to read him. This only comes from my fervent belief that the BoR are under attack by thugs and morons. So on to the topic at hand.

GM is absolutely right that he is exercising his rights to oppose their insensitivity, but I don't buy the keeping the peace line. Because whether it is Sep 9th or Jan 9th their is no difference. The MFA has made no threats to cause trouble nor have I heard anything from New Yorkers. So survey says... ERRR! Nice try I can't wait for the next lame excuse as to why a non New Yorker would contact Bloomberg.

My next clue that someone is dead wrong comes from GM using the phrase "implying that this was our problem." It is one of the tell tale signs that some one is arguing from a weak position.

The "Screw 'em" philosophy is your problem I didn't imply it I said it. Why? Because you said it. The fact that those words left your fingers and transmited to the blog and you pressed post means you knew you said it. That is what concerns me. The utter disregard for others worries me.

So as I posted much earlier protect your rights by protecting theirs. Rail against them all you want, use racial slurs, and broad generalizations all day long. I really don't care. But don't try and use legal loop holes and false claims of "public interest" to fight them. Trust me there is plenty of rope available for them to hang themselves with.

Posted by psyberwolfe at August 22, 2007 06:02 PM

Kender:
I'm really not a liberal, but I play one on TV. Kos is not relevant cause I don't read nor care to read him. Also I'll be happy to call anyone a name to their face. Why? Because no one wants to go to jail for hitting the cripple. That's right. I said it.

GM:
I knew where you were going and you didn't need to connect the dots. You felt the intellectual "I'll teach this young 'un a lesson" and volunteered the info thus wasting your breath.

Denying permits on the grounds of keeping the peace and public safety are valid, but I have yet to see a municipalty do it. Furthermore when the group applying for said permit does not present a clear and present danger to the public then the grounds for denying the permit become thinner. Also I'm pretty sure that the resources of NYC make it wise and more cost effective to just let the march happen, and I'm willing to bet my retirement that the MFA knows and has planned for that.

Once again protect your rights by protecting theirs.

Posted by psyberwolfe at August 22, 2007 07:12 PM

Okay, I get it now. psyberwolfe has a name for what BigDog describes - "chicken little liberalism". Psyberwolf gleefully recounts all the aspects he attributes to "Bogeyman Conservatism", but not the slightest description of what he labels as "chicken little liberalism". This is the basis on which psyberwolfe declares that BigDog has fallen from a "stupid tree".

For your information, psyberwolf, "chicken little liberalism" refers to the never-ending litany of dire predictions by liberals in relation to global warming, global cooling, wide-spread famine from food shortages, the inevitable collapse of the economy (even when it flies in the face of established facts), that rarely, if ever, come to pass to any degree previously declared.

So the base sum of your argument in regards to BigDog's intellect is, He says tomato, I say tomahto - I WIN!

Since I haven't been thusly labeled as "stupid", or even acknowledged, for my own description of "Bogeyman Liberalism" I'll assume I've won that argument.

"My opinions about any other point other than thd one being discused are not applicable." If they're not applicable, then don't bring them up. If you do, they'll be addressed whether or not you care to respond. You can't just pop into a discussion making all manner of points that YOU think are somehow related and may not even apply to the people involved then expect others to just let them stand because they're "off-topic".

Posted by Oyster at August 23, 2007 12:14 PM