Ground Zero liberalism

The so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" seems to be the topic du jour in the culture wars. As G. K. Chesterton advises, it is good to put forth the points on which there is agreement before taking the contrary position. I agree that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, both as I read it personally and as a matter of law, permits Muslims to erect mosques on the private property of their choosing, subject to zoning and other "reasonable" restrictions (that apply to everyone.) If you consider yourself a liberal (small L) and your "support" of the Ground Zero Mosque is on First Amendment Grounds alone, I think we find ourselves in agreement and there is nothing further to discuss. The mosque must be permitted.

But, what I observe amongst liberals -- and it's not just with this particular issue, but has been repeated many times post 9-11 -- is some sort of support of Islam on what I think could only be broadly labeled as "tolerance." It's the typical liberal viewpoint that "I'm OK, you're OK (unless you're a white, Christian, male Republican.)" Except that I never get the impression genuine tolerance is being expressed. Rather, leftist support for Islam seems like a "stickin' it to the Man" attitude. It's a case of, "Let's see, Christians don't like Islam and I don't like Christians so I'll say Islam is OK." I know there are people that so hate what they believe to be Christianity that they support anything that could not be possibly mistaken as Christian.

I'll put it plainly. If you are a Liberal, in the post-modern western sense, and you do anything but vehemently oppose Islam, you are a fool and a hypocrite. Those things you say that you dislike about Christian fundamentalism are the foundations for Islamic morality, but are heaped on by the gallon. Islamic morality is also enforced by violence and terror. Islam's followers don't believe religion is a "private matter." You might want to read up on Sharia law or just take a gander at how things run in Iran to see this is the case.

You think conservative Christians are "hateful" for opposing gay marriage? How does it sit with you that (supposedly) 4,000 people have been executed in Iran since the revolution for being homosexual? You don't like that fundamentalist Christians believe that the man should be the "head of the house" -- you probably don't understand what this even requires of the man? How do you feel about women being stoned in Muslim countries for allegedly being adulteresses?

Do you like the idea that fathers and brothers (in diverse places across the Muslim Middle East) will murder girls in their own family if a husband reports back that the young lady was not a virgin (meaning he could not tell that she was)? There should be nothing more abhorrent to you than "honor killings."

Islam is not progressive. Islam is not "inclusive." Islam is not "tolerant." Muslims are not "pro-gay." Islam's followers are not anything that you think that the rest of us should be. So why aren't you speaking out against them? Other than the old worn out line that "Islam is a religion of peace," Muslim don't even pretend to share post-modern western liberal values. So why do you support them streaming into our country, building their places of worship wherever they like?

You will rue the day, and it may be in our lifetime, when they are of sufficient numbers to, within a democratic system, influence government policy. You'll wish the mean-spirited Euro-American conservatives were in power, suggesting you home-school your kids and honor your husbands.

The politics of "outrage"

I can’t remember the last time I went to yahoo, msn or some news site and did not see some story in which a person or group was expressing “outrage” over the thoughts, comments, actions or deeds of another person or group. “______ outraged by _____ who _____.” “Group expresses outrage over _____ comments.” Just troll the online news sites and you’ll see this is true.

It’s not really my place to challenge someone else’s emotions or feelings on an issue. Sometimes how you feel about something can’t be helped. I do notice, though, that this “outrage” is very often over general comments made by one person or group, usually something perceived as offensive. Maybe I’m not very sensitive but I’m amazed at how often the “outrageous” comment or thought seems rather benign or trivial. Think of the “outrage” by “immigrants’ rights groups” over the “illegal alien” Halloween costume last fall. Consider the “outrage” expressed by strangers over Tiger Woods’ numerous infidelities.

Whether right or wrong, it seems that people in this day and age – and this seems global – enjoy being angry. It’s as if they relish declaring “outrage” in public. I’m not sure what people would do if they couldn’t be angry. I’d like to think their lives would be better if they let things roll off their backs more easily.

Am I outraged by their outrage? No. But I’m definitely a little amused and slightly confused by it most of the time.

How can it be that...

you take the White House after the most unpopular US President of the last 100 years

your presidency is historic

you win the election by a huge margin, destroying your opponent

your party handily controls both houses of Congress

the other party, the GOP, is declared "dead," "irrelevant," "out of step with the American people," and virtually any other negative you can imagine

you were (supposedly) given a mandate by the American people, or were at least told by the mainstream media that you had that mandate

you win the Nobel Peace Prize (for talking nicely to/about Muslims, while sending more troops into enemy territory)

you have the keys to the country in your pocket...

but you and your party can't even pass health care reform or hold a Senate seat occupied by a Kennedy, in Mass., for decades.

I cannot imagine how the Democrats can be given anything other than an F for their party's overall incompetence.

I recognize that I'm oversimplifying a number of issues. I also recognize that other parties have done more with less. Look at the agenda that Newt Gengrich and the Republicans in 1994-96 were able to push while the White House was occupied by a Democrat. Love them or hate them, that crew knew how to get stuff done.

Mean Janeane

I had the displeasure of reading "What puts the ROFL into Janeane Garofalo and Her Liberal Lefto-Pink Comedy" interview in the August edition of The Word (an otherwise superb
Brit music and entertainment rag.) A few things jumped out at me. The interview was example no. 478 of why I couldn't care less what celebrities have to say about the world. It was also one of thousands examples out there of how supposedly "compassionate, open-minded" lefties often show themselves to be nothing more than hateful, angry, spiteful, bitter people who would silence anyone opposing their world view.

I used to like Ms. Garofalo back in her The Ben Stiller Show days. Today, though, I really have no use for her. She's just another pissed off Hollywood type. She's supposedly smart, but she misses the irony of the bread and butter of her stand-up routine: trashing conservatives. Her reaction to the so-called "tea party protests" staged across the US a few months back was to call its participants a bunch of "teabagging rednecks." In the article she calls conservatives that oppose gay marriage "those closet queens" who are "so full of self-lating vitriol and hatefulness." Maybe the most blatant example of her bitterness is: "Look at it this way -- you have to be damaged goods to respond to the message of a right-wing movement an dyou have to be even more damaged to want to share that message with your tribe."

Where is the open-mindedness in that? Where is the "I'm OK, you're OK" spirit of this liberal age? Wouldn't a true liberal -- if he or she were sticking to the rhetoric of "inclusiveness" -- say, "Hey, we disagree with you on the right on the facts," and leave it at that? Name calling is what people do when either they've lost the argument or fear the other side.

My budding young feminist

I don't know what I said exactly, but my eight year old's response, as she washed her hair and soaked in the tub was, "Why is it 'man-made'? Why isn't it sometimes 'woman-made?'"

She went on: "Why is it 'mankind?'"

I offered an olive branch immediately: "Well, we can always say 'humankind.'"

As if sucked through a vortex back to my college days, where a small number of women actually cared about such language matters, I asked defensively, "Where have you been hearing this stuff? Why does it matter?"

"Because saying something is 'man' takes away from the dignity [yes, I'm pretty sure she used that word] of women."

Wow!

I've always hated identity politics. I especially hate this kind of ticky-tack feminism. Let's talk about equal rights and equal treatment. Let's not get ourselves twisted in a knot over whether a female member of Congress should be addressed "Congresswoman" or "Madame Congressman."

Sometimes something unusual can occur when someone I love deeply states a view I find offensive (obnoxious or annoying are better terms): I listen and consider it instead of shooting it down. I'm not likely to change my mind on an issue like this, but I am still amazed my eight year old is in tune enough to consider the matter and give it voice. Good for her!

But please, please, dear Lord in heaven, don't let me raise a little leftie.