Fischkoepfin

I don't think they meant that we should deny our social ties or influences, but that we make ourselves aware of them and how they influence our perceptions. It's easy to become fixed to a perception of something and callous about exploring a different perception. Same thing with egocentrism - everyone has their own perception of reality - a version of reality. The human tendency is to mistake that version of reality for being 'The Reality'.

in reference to becoming fixed to a perception and callous about exploring a different perception..you mean something like how you're so sure that the economy sucks, that even though almost all economic indicators are positive, even though the average poverty rate under pres bush is lower than the average poverty rate under pres clinton, still you're not able to entertain the thought that maybe the economy is not so bad after all, you are fixed to the perception that the economy sucks and callous about exploring a different perception.

Forming an opinion is not the problem....mmmmbop, it's when you adhere to that opinion rigidly. I'd love to debate the economy with you...in another thread.

"Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul." ~ Mark Twain

First, thanks for posting this article, Steve. Critical thinking rocks. Second, and this is in response to mmmbob, a good critical thinker will always consider both sides of a coin when forming his or her opinion and unless he or she discovers a logical flaw in an opposing argument, consider the claims of the other side valid. But oftentimes, particularly in political discussion the problem is an absence of any valid evidence, an assumption of ignorance in regard to the other side, or a general distrust of the supporting sources. It's complicated but first and foremost critical thinking has a lot to do with generosity and respect.

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

but in reality anyone of a different opinion from Infidel:

Because clearly - If you're not Infidel, you MUST be Fidel

Wow, never thought of that one. :lol:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Jayzeus, there's a URL I'd never hope to meet....

ssa.gov/HISTORY

Unless I was having an insomnia problem....

I agree that part of the problem with getting universal healthcare in the US is the bad rep is has among the people who either view it as a form of communism and thus contrary to US values or as leading to massive and expensive bureaucracy. However, neither is true. Private insurers are not only expensive (high overhead despite attempts to keep the unhealthy out), but they hurt the system by pushing the burden of insurance on individuals and private enterprises (heaving a sick, uninsured work force is not conducive to productivity).

Anyway, I just read this editorial and thought it might be of interest:

September 22, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist

Insurance Horror Stories

By PAUL KRUGMAN

“When Steve and Leslie Shaeffer’s daughter, Selah, was diagnosed at age 4 with a potentially fatal tumor in her jaw, they figured their health insurance would cover the bulk of her treatment costs.” But “shortly after Selah’s medical bills hit $20,000, Blue Cross stopped covering them and eventually canceled her coverage retroactively.”

So begins a recent report in The Los Angeles Times titled “Sick but Insured? Think Again,” which offers a series of similar horror stories, and suggests that these stories represent a growing trend: more and more health insurers are finding ways to yank your insurance when you get sick.

This trend helps explain something that has been puzzling me: why is the health insurance industry growing rapidly, even as it covers fewer Americans?

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of Americans with private health insurance coverage fell by 1 percent. But over the same period, employment at health insurance companies rose a remarkable 32 percent. What are all those extra employees doing?

Now we know at least part of the answer: they’re working harder than ever at identifying people who really need medical care, and ensuring that they don’t get it. In the past, they mainly concentrated on screening out applicants likely to get sick. Now, it seems, they’re also devoting a lot of effort to finding pretexts for revoking insurance after they’ve already granted it. They typically do this by claiming that they weren’t notified about some pre-existing condition, even if the insured wasn’t aware of that condition when he or she bought the policy.

Welcome to the ugly world of American health care economics.

Health care is poised to become America’s largest industry. Employment in manufacturing, which once dominated the economy, has fallen 18 percent since 2000, to 14.2 million. Meanwhile, employment in the private health services industry has risen 16 percent, to 12.6 million. Another 1.3 million people are employed at government hospitals. So we’re quickly approaching the point at which more Americans will be employed delivering health care than are employed producing manufactured goods.

Yet even as health care becomes the core of the American economy, our system of paying for health care remains sick, and is getting sicker.

Because everyone faces some risk of incurring huge medical costs, only the superrich can afford to be without health insurance. Yet private insurers try to refuse coverage to those most likely to need it, and deny payment whenever they can get away with it.

The point isn’t that they’re evil or greedy (although you do wonder how the people who cut off the Schaeffers can look themselves in the mirror). The fact is that cruelty and injustice are the inevitable result of the current rules of the game. Blue Shield of California is a nonprofit insurance provider, yet as a spokesman put it, if his organization doesn’t follow the for-profit practice of selectively covering only the healthiest people, “we will end up with all the high-risk people.”

Now, before you panic about the state of your own coverage, you should know that the horror stories in The Los Angeles Times article all involve individual insurance; if your coverage comes via your employer, you’re reasonably secure against sudden cancellation.

But employment-based insurance is in rapid decline, as employers balk at the cost and more and more companies adopt Wal-Mart-style minimal-benefit policies. That’s why many people are turning to individual insurance — only to find out, in some cases, that they didn’t get what they thought they paid for.

And here’s the thing: it’s all unnecessary.

Every other wealthy nation manages to provide almost all its citizens with guaranteed health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do. And there’s no mystery why: we’re paying the price for pointless, destructive reliance on private insurers. Medicare, which is a universal health insurance program for older Americans, spends less than 2 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, leaving 98 cents to pay for medical care. By contrast, private insurance companies spend only around 80 cents of each dollar in premiums on medical care; much of the remaining 20 cents is spent denying insurance to those who need it.

If we had a universal system — Medicare for everyone — there would be no more horror stories like those reported by The Los Angeles Times. And we’d almost certainly spend less on health care than we do now.

But getting back to this lawsuit - it's claim is that the auto industry has deliberately marketed larger, less fuel efficiency in violation of the acts passed which called for the industry to push forward the technology and provide more fuel efficient cars. Is that not a legitimate complaint?

That is quite a legitimate complaint and it is quite interesting that the car manufacturers answer it by questioning the legitimacy of states to enforce their own standards in lieu of the federal government to do so. By refocusing California's attempts to reduce emissions in the larger debate of federal vs. state rights, the car manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon of conservative judicial activists (see the verdict on medical marihuana which rejects states' rights to regulate drugs by pointing to the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce which is only peripherally important in either case) and draw attention away from the real issue.

What all this in effect shows is that despite all professions of states' rights in so-called "moral" issues (abortion, etc), when it comes to issues concerning big business (like fuel economy and emission standards or drug laws), a strong federal government comes in quite handy and is preferred not only by so-called "states' rights" politicians but also the judiciary. Funny, isn't it?

The facts speak for themselves...

What facts?

Noone knows what the hell you're talking about. Bleating away at your beliefs being offended denies the fact that you have done exactly that, and on a regular basis.

Summary:

Post Title: "Whats with the Avatar Steve n Jinky?"

OP: "Are you deliberately trying to insult Christians or what??"

.

.

In between posts, Jokes and direct insults are thrown out even though I am yet to give my opinion

.

.

.

35th post: Steve actually asks "Why is it offensive?"

.

.

More joke and direct insults

.

.

92 Posts later I post my second post and actually give my opinion

.

.

Insults and Jokes intensify

.

.

.

.

133 posts later I respond. My 3rd Post.

Well, ya look like a nutter. Just saying.

The fact is all I asked was 1 simple question.. only after 92 posts did I actually apply my opinion.

And the point is?? You could have 'applied' your opinion at anytime.....like we applied ours

The point is: Liberals have no respect for other people and they are hypocrites. Hence, it is perfectly irrelevant that a) the original post was a personal attack on Steve which displayed an assumption of personal attack without giving any details, B) the second post conflated Steve with a group of people called liberals but in reality anyone of a different opinion from Infidel:

Then again why am I not surprised. Like a true liberal you get offended when you don't have your way, i.e separation of church and state #######, yet have a good laugh at the expense of someone else's beliefs and don't really see a problem with doing it either..

c) that it might be construed as hypocritical if someone who condemns political correctness and other people's beliefs and identities, whether Muslims, bisexuals, or liberals, requests people to respect his personal beliefs.

I'm offended. Period. They should ban all avatars. I'm also offended at the enforced political correctness emanating from this website. I thought this was America, the land of free expression...

Btw, Welshcookie, your current avatar is so funny that it should be the only one not banned.

The avatar is an icon of the Russian Orthodox church (could be Greek, though). It's considered art. The only reason it could be offensive is if you consider it a violation of the second commandment, but that would only be the case if you're a Calvinist with iconoclastic leanings. To be short, I like your avatar, Steven. It has class.

I can't see the avatar either but if fisch likes it, I'm sure I'll despise it.

Hmm, I actually think you'd like it ,unless you disagree with me out of principle rather than conviction. It's a picture of Jesus.

The avatar is an icon of the Russian Orthodox church (could be Greek, though). It's considered art. The only reason it could be offensive is if you consider it a violation of the second commandment, but that would only be the case if you're a Calvinist with iconoclastic leanings. To be short, I like your avatar, Steven. It has class.

Contrary to what Reinhard said about Japan, they do set standards for fuel efficiency...

Odd: I didn't mention Japan once.

I'd like to point a flaw in your argument that it the gas that causes the pollution and not the vehicles - the gas doesn't become a pollutant until it is burned and that doesn't happen by itself - the catalyst is the car.

Suing the car manufacturers for any pollution their vehicles may cause is as ridiculous as suing McDonald's for the nutritional deficiencies in their menu. Nobody is having a gun put to their head to either eat the ####### McDonald's sells or to drive the ####### GM produces. It's the individuals that are responsible for the pollution and nobody else. The state of California itself is negligent since it keeps issuing registrations for these pollutants and licenses to their operators.

You're oversimplfying the issue. The lawsuit isn't simply over the fact that cars create pollution, but rather that auto makers have deliberately circumvented such efforts to reduce pollution, such as the Clean Air Act in order to avoid making their fleets more fuel efficient.

Today, with proven technology, the U.S. can do much better. Europe and Japan, facing similar challenges, have shown that it is possible to achieve much higher average fuel economy. The European Union has set a goal of 44 mpg by 2008 for new vehicles, including light trucks, up from 37 mpg in 2002; and Japan has set a goal of 48 mpg by 2010, up from 46 mpg in 2002. Surely the U.S. can achieve 40 mpg or more by 2016.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_i...amp;issue_id=24

Hey, I brought up Japan. Didn't know about their new legislation, sorry (as to EU-fuel economy standards, I just checked and they just have an new emission standard for 2008 targeting CO2, NOX, and soot). But I still think fuel economy standards (especially if they are fleet averages) are a bunch of bs. Emission standards per vehicle are a much better way to go, which is why I consider California's proposal a very good idea and the lawsuit useful. You can't blame a carmaker for making gas guzzlers, but you can blame them for the fact that engines don't burn fuels cleanly and efficiently.

As to the fuel economy in other countries vs. the US, in most cases it is a result of consumer pressure combined with emission standards. US-automakers meet these standards without any problems in Europe and Asia, while pretending that it is impossible here, which shows that something is horribly wrong with their arguments.

Edit: I just found this paper addressing the benefits and drawbacks of EURO-5 (the next step in reducing emissions). It gives good information on emission standards and why they are necessary. http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/P...05-09_euro5.pdf

I would get one of those new Macbooks unless you need more performance than the average user under which circumstances, I'd go with the Macbook Pro. The pricetag is higher but you get more bang for your buck as there's tons of software installed and several gadgets are included (like the build in webcam) that you'd have to pay extra for on a PC. Apple's service is decent and, another nice aspect, they offer world-wide warranty.

As someone pointed out, you can also run Windows on the new Macs which means even if you're into gaming, you don't have to worry about owning a Mac (not that a Mac doesn't make a good gaming computer in itself). Btw, you can get relatively good deals on refurbs on Apple's website.

Not only does it make sense that we regulate how much pollution cars create but we need to hold auto maker's responsible for the impact on our environment.

That dog don't hunt.

If anything, it's the gas that you and I burn in those engines that ends up as this sick stuff that exits the car's tailpipe. The car in and by itself doesn't pollute a first thing. No gas, no driver, no pollution. It's that simple. If you want to put a price on the impact on the environment, then the gas needs to be taxed more. Of course, no politician has the guts to do that.

That's ignoring that the auto makers design combustible engines that vary greatly in terms of fuel consumption. America's auto industry is aware that combustible engines produce air pollution and they are an integral part of a solution to reduce that effect. Whether this lawsuit will stick or not is irrelevent. Auto makers should be held responsible to push new design and technology towards higher fuel effeciency standards. Leaving car design in terms of fuel effeciency entirely up to the market is shortsighted. If consumer demand were such that only vehicles that would get less than a mile to the gallon were being sold, we should just accept that? Ridiculous.

Again, if gas was priced to include the cost of the impact on the environment it has, would there be any demand for vehicles that get less than a mile to the gallon? I don't think so. Look at Europe. The main reason, if not the one and only reason, that cars over there are more fuel efficient is because gas is very expensive and the consumer demands fuel efficient vehicles.

I totally agree. Fuel standards are somewhat pointless and too much government regulation of an industry that is perfectly able to regulate itself. Why else would the big 3 automakers in the US have no problems whatsoever producing cars that way exceed US standards for other markets. Gas prices in Europe and Japan are outraegously high, putting the burden of conservation on the consumer and rather than issuing fuel standard guidelines allowing automakers to average fuel consumption between their cars, those government, like California just did, issue emission standard which every new vehicle needs to fall under.

At the other end, used cars, cars that fail to meet the new emissions standard are taxed higher (with a delay of about 10-15 years), thus encouraging owners to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

I'm always surprised how much people oppose government regulation of all sorts of useful things, like helmets, seat belts, and the like, but when it comes to pointless regulation that in effect caters to an industry rather than the needs to the environment, people suddenly trust that regulation works (fuel standards being just one item in a long list of failed industry-oriented "regulation". Food safety is another)

You tried to understand what exactly? Why Islam has been declared the new enemy without knowing what Islam is?

What is it exactly that you don't know about islam? Maybe I can help you. It's always odd to me that seemingly intelligent people can't seem to grasp that islam is an evil religion full of hatred. Read the koran and see if that helps.

The question was in response to another poster, and in a way rhetorical. As much as I would like to take you up on your offer to teach me about Islam, I don't think there's much I can learn from you because you operate under the wrong presumptions to offer an unbiased assessment (see the second part of your statement).

I'm still convinced that Islam per se is not more evil than Christianity or any other religion reserving the right to make absolute truth claims. But that is probably just another statement marking me as a hopeless case of moral relativism.

The irony is that all these people popping in and making pedestrian statements about Islam and terrorism are only proving the author's point.

The author is right. That's the scary part. But, I'll still fight when necessary.

The way I understand it, the author does not oppose fighting back; he just states that as long as we understand opposing Islamic fundamentalism in terms of conventional and nation-centered warfare (and this includes the use of any weapons associated with military warfare), we're missing a point. Once we stop using oversimplifications and begin to not only contextualize but more importantly treat Islamic fundamentalism seriously, we've taken an important step in the right direction. But to pretend that we're too superior because of our education/cultural values is not the way to change things but to pi$$ more people off.

I found this interesting...

Al Qaeda primarily hate the rulers of the Arab world, especially the Gulf states, whom they regard as having betrayed Islam. Hatred of the West is a secondary phenomenon and composed of two main factors. First, hostility has been aroused by the support the West gives to these people. For example, the Saudi royal family has been heavily backed by first Britain and then America over the course of the last 50 years. However, the issue goes back across hundreds of years of history. The Al Qaeda vision of the last 1,000 years is a vision in which the West has consistently opposed Islam. The term 'crusader' is commonly used, and this relates to events 800 years or more ago. There has been some suggestion that the timing of September 11 was significant because the 11-12 September was the point at which the siege of Vienna was raised by the Christian forces in 1683. That was the beginning of the end for Islamic power in Europe.

I should also say that the history here is very suspect. During the Crusades, for example, the Crusaders actually had alliances with some Islamic powers. It isn't the case, as Al Qaeda believe, that the West overthrew the Caliphate in the Ottoman Empire. This was done by the reforming Turks under Ataturk. Some of the other charges against the West and Zionism are patently false, but they are part of a pattern.

There are two levels of hostility to the West. One is that the West stands between Al Qaeda and its goal of ruling the Gulf, but the other is the belief that the West has been frustrating Islam for 1,000 years. ~ Chris Brown

Fundamentalism and irony

Even a sketchy knowledge of the history of the last two centuries reveals that the various elements of the package that makes up this version of modernity can, in fact, be taken apart and either allowed to stand alone or be re-combined in different ways to create alternative, but equally 'modern', accounts of society. The authoritarian modernisers of the second half of the nineteenth century, and the fascist movements of the first half of the twentieth, wanted, in different ways, to create industrial societies devoid of irony, without representative institutions and without extended human rights, and in this they are followed by contemporary 'fundamentalist' movements. Such fundamentalists want a world with modern technology, but with scientific rationality confined to the technical; a world with IT, mass media and 'infotainment', but with its content strictly regulated; a world where the community of believers exercise political power, but non-believers are disenfranchised; and, a consistent theme of fundamentalisms of all varieties, a world where women remain subjected to men, and transgressive sexual identities are de-legitimised. In short, they want a world devoid of irony--a world in which individuals do not distance themselves from their own beliefs--and they see no reason why such a world cannot encompass the creature comforts of modernity. This is why it is not uncommon for fundamentalists to do rather well for themselves--we are familiar with this from the life-styles of Christian TV evangelists in the US, but it seems from news reports that Mullah Omar's compound in Kandahar was also, as an estate agent might say, well-appointed.

So, are Al Qaeda and their ilk 'Islamo-fascists', as writers as diverse as Francis Fukuyama and Christopher Hitchens have suggested? This designation is reasonable enough, so long as it is understood that there are also 'Christo-fascist', 'Judaeo-fascist' and 'Hindu-fascist' movements at loose in the world. Islamo-fascists are the most prominent of these groups--and, perhaps, the most ruthless and unpleasant--not because of any features specific to Islam as a religion, but because of the particular conditions to be found within the so-called 'world of Islam', in particular the failure of any state or society with a majority Islamic population to offer a convincing, non-fundamentalist model of modernity.

What keeps Christian and Jewish fundamentalism at bay is the fact that Western society provides satisfactory outlets for its youth, either in the mainstream or in anti-establishment but non-fundamentalist counter-cultures. The Mohammed Attas of the post-Christian West generally end up in merchant banks or working for Greenpeace. Hindu fundamentalists have become the government of India, and have found themselves obliged to compromise and temporise in order to stay in power in a state where the commitment to the rule of law and constitutionalism runs deep--Islamic movements have never found themselves in such a position.

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701759/session3.html

This is indeed quite interesting, but it considers the issue of fundamentalism as part of a nation-based framework and puts too much trust in national institutions. It furthermore discounts global and transnational interconnections which play a major role in shaping the world, such as the very fact that Cold War policies actually have a lot to do with the rise of Fundamentalism.

You tried to understand what exactly? Why Islam has been declared the new enemy without knowing what Islam is?

What is it exactly that you don't know about islam? Maybe I can help you. It's always odd to me that seemingly intelligent people can't seem to grasp that islam is an evil religion full of hatred. Read the koran and see if that helps.

The question was in response to another poster, and in a way rhetorical. As much as I would like to take you up on your offer to teach me about Islam, I don't think there's much I can learn from you because you operate under the wrong presumptions to offer an unbiased assessment (see the second part of your statement).

I'm still convinced that Islam per se is not more evil than Christianity or any other religion reserving the right to make absolute truth claims. But that is probably just another statement marking me as a hopeless case of moral relativism.

The guy isn't talking strictly about the terrorists though...

But that is the part so difficult to comprehend because he does not offer your typical perspective but tries to historicize instead. If you read through this thread (and through countless others), any assessment of the so-called war on terror, which is in effect portrayed as a war against Islam, pointing to the complexity of the situation is shot down either as "liberal," "defeatist" or with a simple dismissal that whatever happened in the past has no bearing on the future. Of course, we're conditioned to think that way because otherwise we would make a much less willing populace for a war.

Sorry, I'd like to say more but I have a meeting now.

Oh we can't defeat them, let's just give up and die then.

now you're sounding like a liberal

Oh please, I vote Democrat and I say CRUSH the fundamentalist bastards and those who support them.

And that -while not a partisan position per se- seems to be exactly the attitude critized in the article. If we don't understand the stakes of what is being propagated as a war against Islamic fundamentalism, we're stuck in the exact same bind we've been in for the last 5 years. Islamic fundamentalism is the outgrowth of an Islamic pan-nationalist movement reacting to Western interference in the Middle East. This movement has been afoot for over 50 years, which we of course like to overlook because of the way in which the West is implicated in it.

Also, crushing fundamentalism (which as an ideology cannot be defeated with huge weapons alone as history has sufficiently proven) needs to start at home. We can't claim to oppose fundamentalism somewhere else but tolerate fundamentalism here.

Hey, I've tried to understand it. I'm sick of it. I've been living in the UK for the past five years where the Muslim community gets their knickers in a twist over ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. I am sick to goddamn death of it, and I'm tired of trying to understand it. I'm ready to turn my back on it. I give up.

You tried to understand what exactly? Why Islam has been declared the new enemy without knowing what Islam is? Or why the "Muslim community gets their knickers in a twist?" I'm sick of the whole thing too, particularly of the whining on both sides because everyone feels like they have to make too many concessions. Funny thing is, I remember a time when Muslims were actually integrated successfully into Western societies by large numbers, but that was before the whining started and before we rallied behind inefficient leaders who have themselves no clue whatsoever about the "war" they are undertaking because all they care about is their own little whiny interests (and no, I'm not just talking about Bush and his republican minions, but also politicians heading other countries in this world).

Oh we can't defeat them, let's just give up and die then.

now you're sounding like a liberal

Oh please, I vote Democrat and I say CRUSH the fundamentalist bastards and those who support them.

And that -while not a partisan position per se- seems to be exactly the attitude critized in the article. If we don't understand the stakes of what is being propagated as a war against Islamic fundamentalism, we're stuck in the exact same bind we've been in for the last 5 years. Islamic fundamentalism is the outgrowth of an Islamic pan-nationalist movement reacting to Western interference in the Middle East. This movement has been afoot for over 50 years, which we of course like to overlook because of the way in which the West is implicated in it.

Also, crushing fundamentalism (which as an ideology cannot be defeated with huge weapons alone as history has sufficiently proven) needs to start at home. We can't claim to oppose fundamentalism somewhere else but tolerate fundamentalism here.

This will probably cause an uproar, but there's some interesting points in this article.

BTW - This is what a genuine Liberal voice sounds like

Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not

David Selbourne

LET US SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument, that the war declared by al-Qaeda and other Islamists is under way. Let us further suppose that thousands of “terrorist” attacks carried out in Islam’s name during the past decades form part of this war; and that conflicts that have spread to 50 countries and more, taking the lives of millions — including in inter-Muslim blood-shedding — are the outcome of what Osama bin Laden has called “conducting jihad for the sake of Allah”.

If such war is under way, there are ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated in it.

1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue” to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy” to “taking out Islamic sites”, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist” and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.

2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.

Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.

3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States. During the half-century of the Islamic revival, it has shown itself at sixes and sevens both diplomatically and militarily. It has been without a sense of strategic direction, and been unable to settle upon coherent war plans. It has even lacked the gifts of language to make its purposes plain. Or, as Burke put it in March, 1775, “a great empire and little minds go ill together”. In this war with Islam, if it is a war, the combination bodes defeat.

4) Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam. They include hyperventilating Islamophobes as well as academic apologists for the worst that is being done in Islam’s name. On this battleground, with its personalised blogsites to assist self-promotion, many seem to think that their opinions are more important than the issues upon which they are passing judgment; and amid the babel of advisory voices, policy has become increasingly inconsistent.

5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the **-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand. To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.

Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.

6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Those who feel such satisfaction could be regarded as Trojan horses, a cavalry whose number is legion and which is growing. For some, their principle — or anti-principle — is that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Others believe their refusal of support for the war with Islam, if there is such a war, is a righteous one. But the consequences are the same: Islam’s advance is being borne along by Muslims and non-Muslims together.

7) The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not. Yet in the “battle for hearts and minds” the US First Cavalry Division saw fit to set up “Operation Adam Smith” in Iraq to teach marketing skills, among other things, to local entrepreneurs. There can be no victory here. Or, as Sheikh Mohammed al-Tabatabi told thousands of worshippers in Baghdad in May 2003: “The West calls for freedom and liberty. Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to Allah.”

The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen. It is also a political enterprise in which Muslims and non-Muslims can now be found acting together in furthering the reach of Islam’s world view; the help being given by Western producers and broadcasters to al-Jazeera is the most notable instance of it.

9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries. In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, recommending to the US Congress an American declaration of war against Germany, could say that “we have no selfish ends to serve”. American levels of consumption make no such statement possible now. The US is, so to speak, over a barrel. It will remain so.

10) Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion. In 1899, Winston Churchill asserted that there was “no stronger retrograde force in the world” than Islam. More than a century later, it is fondly believed that sophisticated hardware and Star Wars defences will ensure Western mastery in this war, if it is a war.

But as the Saudi “scholar” Suleiman al-Omar declared in June 2004: “Islam is advancing according to a steady plan. America will be destroyed.” As things stand, given the ten factors set out here, he is more likely to be proved right than wrong.

David Selbourne is the author of The Losing Battle with Islam, which was published in the United States in November last year

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2349195,00.html

Thanks for posting this. It contains some ugly truths, but I do like the fact that it is pointing out that the problem is much more complex than we're willing to admit.

Congrats! Wishing all the best to Naomi and her family.

Second, while you might think that being Australian makes you somehow better than most other people on this board, I'm pretty certain that there are people from countries with higher living standards than Australia. Do you think they have the right to look down on you???

Obviously you have not been to Australia. It has the best of every world. Melbourne and Sydney are one of the highest ranked cities in the world.. Plus we are one of the US's closest allies..

It doesn't matter if I've been to Australia. I do happen to know that there is also a lot of poverty in Australia as well as crime; my cousin, for example, was robbed at gun point in Sydney in the middle of the day, something highly unlikely to occur in Western Europe. Sydney and Melbourne might be highly ranked cities in the world, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any problems. How does Australlia compare to such countries as Luxemburg, the Netherlands, or Sweden?

Also, what exactly is the relationship between being a close ally of the US and the standard of living?

The very fundamental principal of individual rights and freedom which our American Revolution was about and our Constitution is structured upon are 'liberal'. Infidel in another post actually stated the communism is liberalism (he used the aka term). Where these yahoo's get such notions about political ideologies is beyond me, but I can guess that they limit their exposure to information that has a very narrow and skewed view of the world.

First of all the suggestion of liberalism was more a figure of speech rather than literally attacking a liberal. My statement was linking left wing (socialist) ideology to communism. Hey, I am not american so I am immune to the BS the left throws out in this country.

PS It's really funny how you suggest I am narrow minded coming from a country that has a living standard 100 times better than any part of CA.

Just because you're not American doesn't mean you're somehow immune to propaganda. Maybe you're able to resist the left, but from what you've been saying you're not immune from American right-wing propaganda at all.

Second, while you might think that being Australian makes you somehow better than most other people on this board, I'm pretty certain that there are people from countries with higher living standards than Australia. Do you think they have the right to look down on you???

If investigators don't find any link, then to the Bushies it must mean that a link exists. Remember, the UN weapon inspectors didn't find any WMD. Therefore, so the Bush administration, we need to go in to rid Saddam of the WMD. The inspectors didn't find any even though we knew where they were. Rummy said so.

Gawd that lying bunch at 1600 Penn Ave...

This is all very logical. Anything anyone says contradicting the government in any way is liberal propaganda helping the terrorists. So, the most recent reports the non-existence of Al-Qaida links must be wrong.

Sometimes I wonder why the present government is elevated to the status of Gods which are also known to never err.

What is your point Puff? That the Bush administration lied? That we the American people were deceived? I got news for you Mr. Dragon puppet. In general, the american people don't give a shiza about whether or not Bush lied. Americans are much more concerned with what is affecting them directly in their daily lives...such as when the price of oil goes up and they have to spend over $100 to fill up their hummers.

You want to save the world Puff? Sign this petition to stop the slave camps in the Philippines instead of wasting your time copying and pasting silly articles about how evil Bush is...

http://www.petitiononline.com/44441212/petition.html

You know, I find it very disturbing that when a democrat president is caught lying about a personal (albeit immoral) personal "encounter" we spend millions of dollars to try remove him from office.

Yet a republican (and the people he put in their positions) lies to the American to start a unfounded (not based on true and actual facts) war (which incedentially is when the price of gas FIRST went up!) everyone seems to look the other way, scream LIBERAL or STFU...

#######?!

These people don't even know what liberal means. Stop wasting your time with them

The very fundamental principal of individual rights and freedom which our American Revolution was about and our Constitution is structured upon are 'liberal'. Infidel in another post actually stated the communism is liberalism (he used the aka term). Where these yahoo's get such notions about political ideologies is beyond me, but I can guess that they limit their exposure to information that has a very narrow and skewed view of the world.

I guess what I'll need to do is find them articles which are critical of Bush's policies that were published in say, The American Conservative - then they might be hard pressed to dismiss it as something 'liberal'.

The sources of these notions about political ideologies come from the mouthpieces of the right, such as Rush Limbaugh and particularly Ann Coulter, who wrote an entire book establishing the links between liberals and communists.

For some reason, however, the people who most vocally condemn liberals for their alleged ties to communism, terrorism, and what have you are very unlikely to disclose their sources, thus pretending it was somehow part of common-domain knowledge. Or if they offer reasons, they will point at Michael Moore, who for the right seems to be a mythological person rather than someone real. How many on the right have actually read Moore or watched any of his movies?

The assumption seems to be that there are similarly polarizing figures on the "liberal" side as there are for the right, which is only true to a certain extent because most "liberals" do not consider Michael Moore God or take his arguments at face value nor do most liberals view Al Franken as much more than an entertaining figure. But for the followers of right-wing pundits the lack of similarly polarizing mouth-pieces for liberals seems obscure and impossible. Because if liberals are not brainwashed as suggested by the right press than how can hold on to their beliefs?

What is your point Puff? That the Bush administration lied? That we the American people were deceived? I got news for you Mr. Dragon puppet. In general, the american people don't give a shiza about whether or not Bush lied. Americans are much more concerned with what is affecting them directly in their daily lives...such as when the price of oil goes up and they have to spend over $100 to fill up their hummers.

You want to save the world Puff? Sign this petition to stop the slave camps in the Philippines instead of wasting your time copying and pasting silly articles about how evil Bush is...

http://www.petitiononline.com/44441212/petition.html

You know, I find it very disturbing that when a democrat president is caught lying about a personal (albeit immoral) personal "encounter" we spend millions of dollars to try remove him from office.

Yet a republican (and the people he put in their positions) lies to the American to start a unfounded (not based on true and actual facts) war (which incedentially is when the price of gas FIRST went up!) everyone seems to look the other way, scream LIBERAL or STFU...

#######?!

The difference is that Clinton lied under oath which is of course the reason that the president made a deal with the 9/11; he only talked to them after they allowed him to testify without taking an oath.

####### indeed.