I'm not usually part of the "love it or Leave it" crowd

But there is a huge difference between arguments on welfare and wanting a complete overthrow of every aspect of our lives.

If it were up to me I'd sink every boat leaving the region, shoot down every plane leaving the region and randomly drop crates of porn and guns. Keep them locked into their corner of the globe(is that an oxymoron?) until they create a society civilized enough to interact with the rest of us

The first step is to stop buying their oil. Without income, their fortunes would be quickly wasted and they might have some incentive to join the modern world.

For the cost of the Iraq war the USA could have built 1000 nuclear plants, a few breeder reactors plus the necessary fuel reprocessing plants. Energy independence, and the middle east could drink its oil.

Liberals will always oppose nuclear energy because it works.

The goals of the modern American leftist establishment and the Islamists are not terribly far apart. They both seek the destruction of freedom, but by different means and for different goals.

Very nice post. Yelling "Murder!" on a crowded continent is an excellent metaphor for Europe's troubles with Islam.

Uh, very, very little oil is used to produce electricity. Oil is used for automobiles, home heating, and chemical manufacturing.

You won't gain "energy independence" by building nuclear power plants, but you will stop coal mining in the US (we have a tremendous amount of coal). Only about 12% of the oil used in the US comes from the middle east. Canada and south of the border supply most of our oil.

You would have to convert cars to electric to achieve what you want. The cost of conversion, along with infrastructure changes, would be enormous.

I cringe every time I hear the mantra of "energy independence by building more nuclear power plants". Just ain't so, although I am much more for nuclear power than a 1000 square miles of fragile windmills that only work 30% of the time while killing a lot of birds.

Please note that the "our oil" referenced above is imported oil. We still produce a good amount of oil ourselves. Feel free to look up the production stats at Wikipedia's "Petroleum" entry.

The Middle East has the rest of the world to sell its oil. Think China for one (they'll match our import figures by 2030 or sooner).

Aren't there hydrogen fuel cell cars available in California now? Does anyone know how that's going?

In Buenos Aires, many of the cars run on both regular gasoline and natural gas. (I only noticed because you have to get out of the car when you fuel up.)

Brian - "Liberals will always oppose nuclear energy because it works."

Something wrong with your brain?

Ariel -

Electrical generation from nuclear frees up all that delicious coal for liquid fuel (gasoline or LNG) conversion. Which is far cleaner than burning the stuff as is for electricity.

And we aren't getting away without power grid upgrades in any event.

Norman - Nope. Yours? Liberals oppose actually implementing any plan that will increase the availability of inexpensive energy. Their goal (as put forth by their patron saint Ehrlich) is to return humanity to the pre industrial days of yore.

Note how the liberals wet themselves over Obama's desire to force X% of all energy to be generated by "renewable" means by some random year. Note also how those same liberals are engaged in lawsuits to prevent the building of just about every renewable energy project so far proposed.

Their behavior does not square with their stated desires. Do they want clean energy, or not? Do they want affordable energy, or not?

If we take their actions as meaningful, then I would say "not" to both questions.

brian,

I'm familiar with coal conversion to liquid or gas forms. I'm actually all for that too, but 1) to build the needed conversion/refinery plants would likely take an act of Congress as environmentalists would cause delay after delay and 2) the cost per gallon would likely far exceed that current for gasoline or LNG. It isn't a viable technology until the cost of oil soars again. At which time the technology should be implemented.
The infrastructure I was thinking of was the dismantling of the current liquid system to switch to electric, sorry that I didn't make it clear. The cost of LUST implementation in the 80s and 90s would pale in comparison.

As for liberals and NIMBY, what's new? Conservatives and NIMBY? But I do recognize the hypocrisy of the renewable energy advocates.

Long term, nuclear is likely the best "renewable" we have. We are getting very close to fusion, using lasers, according to the latest article I've read.

Fusion is the technology of the future, and it always will be. I am skeptical of the ability to have a self-sustaining fusion reactor with net-positive energy on a scale smaller than that of a star. Getting atoms to do things they don't really want to do takes force.

France has the world's most advanced nuclear energy industry (they generate over 80% of their electricity with nukes, compared to 20% in the US), and, as you can see, it hasn't stemmed the dangers from Islam. Nuclear energy has countless virtues, but it won't stop Jihad in it's tracks by itself.

There's no getting around the unfortunate geologic fact that the world's biggest reserves of cheap, high-grade oil lie beneath the sands of Arabia. In the long run, the best way to put Islam back in it's cage may be to suck it's oil dry. By 300 years ago or so, the entire Muslim world had degenerated into a hopeless pit of illiteracy, ignorance, backwardness, & poverty, and it was no longer a threat to anyone. Things only started changing for them when Western geologists discovered those huge oil reserves. No one ever heard of jihad or Islamic terrorism before OPEC came along. Dubai was the wealthiest, most sophisticated bit of the Middle East, but it's oil fields have pretty well run dry. Now look at it.

Bin Laden & pals are in a race against time. They can only hope to make the whole world surrender to Islam while the oil money keeps rolling in. When the Saudi wells run dry, it's all over - back to the pit, for the entire Muslim world. We can only hope they don't drag the rest of us down with them.

"There are "moderate Muslims," sure -- Muslims in name only, or Muslims who don't really know what the Quran says" So if they don't want to kill us they can't be muslims. The same argument could be said for Jews who do not capture Palestinian cities and kill all the men women and children. Every religion has texts that are ignored but still accepted as religious texts. The fact that YOU do not consider them Muslim doesn't change what they are.

Brian - I guess this must be the US usage for the term "liberal" which seems to serve the same purpose as "fascist" - it closes down any chance of further communication. But who wants to communicate with people whose aim is to wind the clock back 300 years, enslave everyone, and lie.

What exactly does "liberal" mean, in US terms?

Martin said: No one ever heard of jihad or Islamic terrorism before OPEC came along.

Hah, tell that to the Spanish and North Africans, who were conquered during the first rampage of Islam. Or those who suffered under the Ottomans. Or the Indians.

But, point taken; jihad rears its ugly head when the Ummah has economic power. I am definitely of the opinion that instead of giving foreign aid to "win hearts and minds" we should do what we can to starve them (Islamic countries) out and repress them as cleverly as possible. Like we basically did with the Soviets. Boycotts and embargos DO work if you do them right.

I also think that we should develop the technology that weans us off of oil and then GIVE it to the Chinese. Then they can possibly save their country's ecology from total pollution meltdown, and get green brownie points at the same time.

Norman - Certainly not the same thing it means in the UK. Nor does Conservative for that matter.

US usages:

Conservative is (typically) used by those who wish to minimize government power and influence in accordance with the Constitution.

Liberal is (typically) used for those (who will deny that they are liberal, choosing for the present moment to call themselves progressive) who believe in transnational socialism. The closest European equivalent is "Social Democrat".

The liberals in this country include among their number the food nazis, the greens, the militant atheists. Those who would enforce their beliefs by government fiat.

Which makes them fascists when it comes to matters economic - as they are not afraid to tell you they seek to nationalize business and distribute their profits "responsibly".

And it makes them dictators in social issues, where they seek imprisonment, fines, or general social ostracism for not accepting their wisdom. This is most readily seen in their present purge of anyone who does not toe the line on AGW.

American Liberals (progressives) have conducted themselves in a manner that makes it impossible to conclude that they seek to do nothing less than unravel the technological revolution that cheap energy has allowed humanity to experience. As I said, same goal, different reason.

Liz - The Chinese are racing ahead with advanced reactor designs that the NIMBYs won't let us build here. China's gonna be off oil before we are.

"US usages:

Conservative is (typically) used by those who wish to minimize government power and influence in accordance with the Constitution.

Liberal is (typically) used for those (who will deny that they are liberal, choosing for the present moment to call themselves progressive) who believe in transnational socialism. The closest European equivalent is "Social Democrat"."
That depends on what aspect. Political conservatives yes. But then you have social conservatives who don't' want small government but big government under god to keep the rabble in line. The words are both fuzzy and the meaning is heavily impacted by context.

Social conservatives are liberals who believe in God. The only reason they attached themselves to the Republican party is they felt they weren't welcome in the Democratic party on account of their love of God and their hostility to sex.

Fascism is fascism. Doesn't matter who the proles worship.

Oh, and if you use Firefox, get this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4763

It's a text-formatting bar that allows you to easily put HTML formatting in your comments so you can blockquote in a readable fashion.

[quote]It's a text-formatting bar that allows you to easily put HTML formatting in your comments so you can blockquote in a readable fashion.[/quote]

Thanks.

[quote]
Social conservatives are liberals who believe in God. [/quote]

That's why the wording gets confused.

Crap sorry forgot to change the settings to HTML from BB codes

[quote] Social conservatives are liberals who believe in God. [/quote] . That's why the wording gets confused.

Don't blame me for that. They're the ones who hijacked my movement.

Don't look at the name they choose for themselves, look at what their policies will do.

If their policies will increase the power and/or scope of government, they are statists.

Perhaps for the benefit of our friends across the pond we ought to use that term, rather than the terms these various statists assign themselves. Because words like "liberal", "progressive", "social conservative" and "compassionate conservative" really don't work for me.

"By the way, it's important to note that citizenship was denied to the women, not merely based on how she dressed, but more based on the fact that she failed to assimilate into French culture -- a requirement to gain citizenship in France"

Amy, do you approve of this immigration policy? Personally, I'm grateful that this kind of prior restraint would never fly here in the States.

"Social conservatives are liberals who believe in God."

Case in point - Mike Huckabee, no matter how TV-friendly he is.

"Amy, do you approve of this immigration policy? Personally, I'm grateful that this kind of prior restraint would never fly here in the States."

Assimilating to US culture is the standard, albeit not enforced recently. It should be. If you want to come to the US, it makes sense that it's because of what the US is. If you want to make more of the world like your country, then that's invasion, not immigration. Assimilation is what our founders envisioned and expected.

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=2855

Personally, it makes me mad as hell that I have to press 1 for english in the US, and that to live on my side of town IN THE US you have to speak spanish. If I wanted to live in mexico, I'd emmigrate down there.

I also don't think that being born here to parents who are not citizens should automatically qualify you for citizenship.

Amen, Hamsa! Do we make children of bank robbers millionaires? Rewarding crime is just idiotic, unless you really want lots more of it....

"I'm with momof3 that there should be requirements for citizenship: " Yes for all citizens. I'm not sure why being native born makes you special.

Wow, momof3 and I agree about something. Stop the proverbial presses.

I don't know a lot about citizenship laws in other countries (why would I, having never tried to get citizenship elsewhere) but I do know that our law about native-born citizenship is quite the exception. And in some countries, even after you obtain citizenship, you still are not allowed to have certain perks that natives get-like in Mexico (foreigners with Mexican citizenship are prohibited from a number of rights).

Now we have an overloaded school, health, and infrastructure system trying to deal with the families of "anchor children" who enter our country illegally and then pop out a kid with the sole intent of using them to remain here. Somehow, this translates into our hopelessly rotten government extending services to family members other than the child.

As it is set up now, our immigration system basically encourages the growth of an underclass of consumers that is increasingly sucking the resources of contributors dry. Illegal immigration is incredibly easy and yet, foreigners who attempt to enter legally, especially those who are applying for political amnesty, are faced with a torturous and expensive process that often fails. So we are not taking advantage of the people who WANT to be here as contributors, who represent the best that their countries have to offer (such as the educated Iraqis, many of whom worked with coalition troops, who were denied citizenship for reasons no one could adequately justify) and instead, we are presented with a growing demographic of people who have no investment in the success of our country as a whole, an increasing burden on our public services, a swelling underclass, and an increase in criminal activity.

Why did anyone think this was a good idea?

Poor, uneducated people are easier to control

Amazing how you can be so right about the hate mail issue, and have such a mistaken view of Muslims. You make the Militant Atheist view of Christians look nuanced and subtle.

I guess if you're funny and vociferous when you're right, you're going to do the same when you're wrong, and this kind of post is the result.

It's not a matter of education, you seem to know your stuff, you're just making blanket generalisations that may describe the hypothetical perfect Muslim in sterile lab conditions but doesn't describe the majority of Muslims in reality.

"the Quran, which is supposed to be taken literally"

According to who?

""moderate Muslims," sure -- Muslims in name only"

Sure. They don't live up to what you want Islam to be. But being Muslims, unlike you, they actually get a say in how they practise their religion.

You're taking an religion, that has large sects that are not Sola Scriptura, and insisting that they must obey your interpretation of the English translation of their holy script, or not qualify as 'really' Muslim. Even though the hadith on interpreting the Quran are more nuanced than that.
And it's of no benefit to your argument that some extremist xenophobic anti-Western Muslims agree with you.

It's easy enough to condemn an entire religion full of people, if you
1) find rules that are on the face of it unpleasant,
2) then insist that all followers of that religion must obey your interpretation of that rule exactly, regardless of the existing followers who say otherwise,
3) then you've logically shown that anyone who 'really' follows that religion is unpleasant.

"the Quran, which is supposed to be taken literally"

According to who?

According to muslims, like the one who wanted to kill a teacher for allowing her studebts to name a stuffed bear muhomed

Or the muslims who rioted and murdered over mother fucking cartoons

""moderate Muslims," sure -- Muslims in name only"

Sure. They don't live up to what you want Islam to be. But being Muslims, unlike you, they actually get a say in how they practise their religion.

Acctually they arent living up to what Islam wants them to be - And those who are brave enough to call for change are are threatened with death and murdered

You're taking an religion, that has large sects that are not Sola Scriptura, and insisting that they must obey your interpretation of the English translation of their holy script, or not qualify as 'really' Muslim. Even though the hadith on interpreting the Quran are more nuanced than that.

Now you're just being a complete fucking moron - Amy point out that terrorist are following the dictates of their mythology and you try and turn it around to make it seem like she is the one insisting people behabe a certin way? Stop huffing paint fumes and think before you spout off dougebag.

Also cut the "the english translation is wrong" crap.

Also when the rules of a religon call for death to the disbelivers, the disbelivers have every fucking right to condem the camel sucking, dog fucking peices of shit like you who defend or practice it.

Also fuck wad the majority of moderate muslims seem to have no objcetions to imposing shira law on the rest of us so your claim of 'followers who say otherwise' is a steaming pile of shit.

And yes, you fucking ignornat moron, people who kill in the name of their religon are unpleasent, imagine that - someone who wants me dead for no better reason then I dont like their magical assfucking fairy, and I find their hatred and plans for murder unpleasent.

Tell me shit head, suppose your neibor across the street wanted to kill you because you wore white after labor day, whould you find the man planning your death a breath of fresh fucking air in your life?

I hardly think so, go to hell and be thankful most americans are to fucking lazy and complacent to think for themselves - its the only thing keeping muslims alive

So lujlp, your defense of rash generalisations about Islam is "Some Muslims believe it"?

"fucking ignornat moron"

:D :D

"Amy point out that terrorist are following the dictates of their mythology"

No, if she'd said that she'd have been right. She said that the Quran was 'meant' to be taken literally according to her understanding of the passages, and anyone who doesn't believe in death-to-the-apostate is a Muslim in name only.

"Also when the rules of a religon call for death to the disbelivers, the disbelivers have every fucking right to condem the camel sucking, dog fucking peices of shit like you who defend or practice it."

Death to apostates and sometimes unbelievers. Sure condemn that and anyone who supports it.
The fact you think I'm defending it suggests you read my comment wrong.

Suggesting that 'Muslims' believe that, and that all the plenty of Muslims who don't believe that 'just don't count' because they're "Muslims in name only" is not the same thing as condemning those who preach murder.

"Also fuck wad the majority of moderate muslims seem to have no objcetions to imposing shira law on the rest of us "

Pics or it didn't happen. (And that's 'imposing sharia law' not 'saying we'd be better off under sharia law')

The Quran is MEANT to be taken literally because it's believed to be the literal word of God.

Cite?

It is believed to the be the literal word of God - however that can either mean "actually God's words" "God's words, he's being literal"

It's the difference between me claiming that God said 'All the world's a stage' - those were the literal words of God - and me saying God said 'All the world's a stage' and actually meant it literally - which are the literal words of God taken literally.

"Shias and Sufis as well as some Muslim philosophers believe the meaning of the Qur’an is not restricted to the literal aspect"

They are the ones who can be either moderate or radical, and still be Shia and Sufi Muslims, in good standing.

"Qur'anic literalism,.. ..is followed by Salafis and Zahiris"

These ones appear to follow the branch of Islam you describe.

"You're seriously standing up for Islam?"

Nope.

"What I'm looking for is all the terrified (or perhaps apathetic) "moderate" Muslims to take a stand against the barbarianism."

Yes. That'd be nice.

"You'd better believe, if atheists were standing up and calling for murder in the name of godlessness, I'd be squawking like a manic canary and be taking action to stop them."

Good for you.

A letter in the Faith Central section of the Times (apologies for long post):

----
The demand for Muslim schools comes from parents who want their children a safe environment with an Islamic ethos.Parents see Muslim schools where children can develop their Islamic Identity where they won't feel stigmatised for being Muslims and they can feel confident about their faith. Muslim schools are working to try to create a bridge between communities.

There is a belief among ethnic minority parens that the British schooling does not adequatly address their cultural needs. Failing to meet this need could result in feeling resentment among a group who already feel excluded. Setting up Muslim school is a defensive response.

State schools with monolingual teachers are not capable to teach English to bilingual Muslim children. Bilingual teachers are needed to teach English to such children along with their mother tongue. According to a number of studies, a child will not learn a second language if his first language is ignored.

Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Muslims have the right to educate their children in an environment that suits their culture. This notion of "integration", actually means "assimilation", by which people generally really mean "be more like me". That is not multiculturalism. In Sydney, Muslims were refused to build a Muslim school, because of a protest by the residents. Yet a year later, permission was given for the building of a Catholic school and no protests from the residents. This clrearly shows the blatant hypocrisy, double standards and racism. Christians oppose Muslim schools in western countries yet build
their own religious schools.

British schooling and the British society is the home of institutional racism. The result is that Muslim children are unable to develop self-confidence and self-esteem, therefore, majority of them leave schools with low grades. Racism is deeply rooted in British society. Every native child is born with a gene or virus of racism, therefore, no law could change the attitudes of racism towards those who are different. It is not only the common man, even member of the royal family is involved in racism. The father of a Pakistani office cadet who was called a "***" by Prince Harry has profoundly condemned his actions. He had felt proud when he met the Queen and the Prince of Wales at his son's passing out parade at Sandhurst in 2006 but now felt upset after learning about the Prince's comments. Queen Victoria invited an Imam from India to teach her Urdu language. He was highly respected by the Queen but other members of the royal family had no respect for him. He was forced to go back to India. His protrait is still in one of the royal places.

There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools with bilingual Muslim teachers. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
Iftikhar Ahmad
London School of Islamics Trust
63 Margery Park Road London E7 9LD Tele 0208 555 2733/07817 112 667
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

POSTED BY: IFTIKHAR AHMAD | 21 APR 2009 19:36:56
----

I find this outstanding in the number of things I disagree with. The one which pissed me off most was that the poor muslims who feel excluded need to have their own schools where there is not a single non-muslim pupil or teacher to act as a bridge between communities. It's an astounding letter, especially the last paragraph, which is simply a recipe for invasion. I have not checked out the website to see if it is as bad.

I don't have a problem with a person being a muslim, or any other religion, but I don't want to pay for it, and they must not get dispensation from the laws of the land.

I should explain - in the UK we have "faith schools." These are schools which can select a certain proportion of their pupils by their faith. The schools are at least part-funded by the state.

There is a great amount of disagreement about these schools, as you can imagine. The problem is that they get good academic results, which of course drives up the number of parents trying to get their children in, and better-off parents are generally more able to succeed at this, and better-off parents tend to be more intelligent, so their children are more intelligent too, so the faith schools' academic results improve ...

I think we need to eliminate this special treatment for religion now, because otherwise Islam or some other religion is going to play the system until it has enough power to shut down any organised opposition.

I liked the part about racism being deeply rooted in british society, as I recall the brits were the first to outlaw slavery

In fact the british deposed african leaders who were still participating in the slave trade, a practice not offical condemed by muslims until the 1960's

So which society has racism at its core again?

Woman has to cover her head and wear loose clothes in order not to induce the male person’s sexual attention. It need not be a big black gown like the middle east women wear. It can be of any color and any model. Only condition is it should explicitly show the beauty of the woman. Likewise we have veil for men also. In fact it is more difficult one. He has to cover his body (Waist to Ankle bottom) and also lower his gaze when he meets a woman. Both these veils are to protect man and woman from the evil effects like rape, molestation etc.