November 27, 2013

Those that Scoff

Here in the Progressive bastion, where many like to claim superior knowledge and education, I have often informed people that discrimination against Muslims in America is small compared to discrimination against Jews. Many simply scoff. It is a matter of ignorance, falling for hype, being duped to believe that night is day.

In truth, few of these people are actually involved. They rely on what most say inside their bubble. They only see the matter intellectually. Indifference and insularity certainly play a part. Yet one may surmise that if another minority besides a Jew claimed offense or persecution they would clamor support. The intellectual approach, and the echo that resonates among themselves, prevents them from seeing that they practice a double standard, or recognizing that it has a discriminatory effect towards the Jewish minority and one and only Jewish state. Facts, presented objectively, expose the disconnect and the discrimination that results from ignorance, under the false assumption they hold that they are only being fair.

To illustrate, according to the FBI, in 2012, rather than rampant discrimination against Muslims, Jews remain the No. 1 target of anti-religious hate crimes in America. No other group comes even close. From the FBI web site, of the 1,340 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:
  • 62.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
  • 11.6 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
  • 7.5 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
  • 6.4 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
  • 2.6 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
  • 0.9 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
  • 8.6 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion). (Based on Table 1.)
Those that scoff, and especially those that are quick to call out "Islamophobia," probably don't even know where the concept of Islamophobia was developed. An eyewitness to the creation of the word, wrote:
"This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics."
The strategy was to emulate homosexual activists who used the term "homophobia" to silence critics and exploit the weaknesses of the Western psyche that recoils at the notion of being labeled racist (though Islam is not a race). 

BEWARE OF THOSE THAT SCOFF, especially those that, among themselves, echo and share information that ignores facts like shown above which expose the underlying bigotry and discriminatory effect of their positions. There's a lot more they do not know. Yet we who are not indifferent or removed must bear the brunt of the ignorance.

November 22, 2013

Sensibilities and the "Sons of Pigs and Apes"

Yesterday, in a brief discussion with a friend, I mentioned a book called, "The sons of pigs and apes": Muslim antisemitism and the conspiracy of silence, by Neil Kressel, that I recently came across.

My friend is a progressive. Not like the ones to be found online. She is more accepting. And this is not to criticize her. It is more concerned with the way things are. About how Jews experience a disconnect when it comes to their status as an oppressed minority, more accurately the deprivation of that status, as hatred and threats to them grow out of all proportion.

After I mentioned the book, of which I had read a Kindle sample, she asked what is that, referring to the phrase "sons of pigs and apes." My conversational response was that it's what Muslims call Jews. This link to Palestinian Media Watch provides context. The belief is ingrained in Islam, past and present. Here is an example, among many, from last July:

Some say PMW disseminates propaganda. However, in 2007 Senator Hillary Clinton praised PMW for exposing child abuse, imposed by the Palestinian Authority, as above, through indoctrination that teaches them to hate Jews and Israel. Such demonization is prevalent in Palestinian society, and simple to discover if one looks.

Back to the story. Rather than acknowledgement of the utter indecency of calling EVERY Jew a son of a pig or ape, my good hearted friend admonished me for suggesting that ALL Muslims call Jews sons of pigs and apes. Did I not see that this is what a listener would conclude from my remark?

Only later did I realize her orientation was more concerned with protecting sensibilities of Muslims, generally, rather than the sensibilities and human rights of Jews, ALL Jews, to be free from these hateful, eliminationist threats, insults and behaviors based on the underlying belief by too Muslims that Jews deserve to be exterminated.

The summary of Kressel's book says:
Though it is impossible to determine precisely how many of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims hold anti-Jewish beliefs, Kressel finds that much bigotry comes from the highest levels of religious and political leadership.
There are 14 million Jews on the planet. If only 5% of Muslims held these beliefs, that would be 60 million people. Is my perceived bigotry or bigotry of Jews the real problem here?

Of course, before going forward, I had to clearly concede that I did not intend to suggest that ALL Muslims hated Jews. That should have been a given in the scheme of things. But the main point was lost, that Muslims do call Jews the sons of pigs and apes. With rare exception, ONLY Muslims do this.

There is nothing bigoted about presenting this fact based truth, not to mention the virtually complete silence of the Muslim community to confront it. It is not just Muslims, however. The Kressel summary also says:
[M]any in the West refuse to recognize this issue. The growing epidemic of hate has been largely ignored, misunderstood, or downplayed, Kressel reveals, because of apathy, ignorance, confusion, bigotry, ideology, purported pragmatism, and misguided multiculturalism. Those who value human rights ignore antisemitism at their own risk, he cautions, noting that no antisemitic regime or movement has ever been otherwise reasonable or progressive. 
This is what matters, at least to me. To say that "the sons of pigs and apes" is what Muslims (and only Muslims) call Jews (which is accurate), does not imply that ALL Muslims are equally guilty. To raise the implication actually diverts from what matters, which is the express bigotry toward Jews simply for not being Muslim, and the ignorance and indifference of too many among us.

Though not the intention of my friend, the same cannot be said for others, including activists that proclaim the right to define social justice. Diversion becomes a tactic to shut down discussion. In this case it diverted from the very first question asked about the insidious phrase itself, and perhaps lost was an opportunity to become more enlightened about reality that will likely continue to be obscured so long as communication is between those that agree among themselves.

November 15, 2013

Comment on ObamaCare Critics and Supporters

NOTE: The following is a comment made in response to an essay about Obama's "fix" to change the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as ObamaCare. It seems the solution may make the health care game more chaotic and expensive. It illustrates yet again the ad hoc way the Administration appears to govern, too often for political reasons. We were promised that such a cynical approach would not be adopted, but it seems to be a norm.

Not a fan of Obama, though demonization of him is not productive, any more than when it is directed at others. Guess that is the price of the internet.

The health system was and is broken. If Obama's way, a cynical political sellout rather than an attempt to fix the matter, is wrongheaded, then how does the country address the matter in a way that addresses the problems of the uninsured and underinsured? Maybe the critics should present the parameters of an alternative plan that would replace the ACA, one where market excesses are taken into consideration, rather than neglected. Perhaps the time has come.

The incompetence crystallized by Obamacare is not new, but it is now apparent. It is a testament to the belief that theories are reality. Ironically, the proponents often have no experience besides living in their theoretical bubbles. Implementation is not important so long as the theory is applied. When the theories pursue "social justice" over knowledge, trouble invariably grows.

Perhaps the chaos often imposed by the theorists is intentional, a deceptive and manipulative means to bring about a "transformation" that many of them seek. That would be even more insidious because of the suffering caused, from which they are largely insulated and will not feel or experience.

November 14, 2013

FWIW: Obama Caught with Pants Down

More accurately, he seems to acknowledge that others increasingly are taking notice.

His press conference today providing administrative fixes to the Obamacare debacle was a breath of fresh air in terms of candor. Perhaps we have seen the last of the hubris? Considering the hit to his credibility he has taken, candor and transparency pave the road to political recovery for himself, Democrats, and the nation.

From the beginning he has acted as if he knows better than anyone when he did not. In the real word there is no such thing as 11th dimensional chess. This condescending and elitist type of attitude has tended to gravitate down to far too many supporters and political allies that turn dismissive and intolerant and even worse to dissenting points of view and those that dare speak. Often, they are oblivious to how little they actually know of the issues, other than what they among themselves agree is the righteous path.

Policies may be great in theory, but do they work in reality? Assuming they will work, is it wise to put faith in people, whose only experience is theoretical and gained in academia or the public sector, to be competent in applying the theories? In other words, aside from the matter of Obama's candor and ability to admit mistakes, is he even a competent administrator? Did those that questioned if he was ready to lead have a point?

Or perhaps Obama is primarily a politician that practices cynical politics while he decries the cynicism, someone more adept at campaigning than governing, at sowing diversion and division rather than unity, which keeps many people from realizing that his pants may be down?

There are other instances where application of theory has fallen short, domestically and internationally, or where the image created does not match the reality. But today, even if the administrative solution may only complicate the mess and leave an impression of a captain now on a rudderless ship, it was nice to see Obama having a reality check.

One can hope this will spread and gravitate to his supporters, not only when it comes to implementation of policies on other matters, but in political discourse itself.