SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bentway who wrote (600441)2/11/2011 11:25:15 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 1575775
 


Confronting bigots who aren't white

By Ezra Levant on February 8, 2011 12:52 AM | Permalink | Comments

My new Sun column:

One hundred-and- fifty-four Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, not just for the big things such as fighting international terrorists, but for the small things, too.

Like the right of Afghan girls to go to school. Simple things, like the right to listen to music. These things were actually banned under the Taliban, which enforced sharia law.

So what would our soldiers think of Winnipeg's Louis Riel School Division, where a dozen Muslim immigrant families have demanded changes to the curriculum to accommodate their fundamentalist view of Islam? The families don't want boys and girls in the same classes, such as physical education.

And they don't want their children to hear to any instruments or singing in music class, either.

Instead of sending their kids to a private or religious school, they want the public schools to change.

Superintendent Terry Borys says the families are "adamant' about this, despite both phys-ed and music being compulsory. So the suggestion now is the children be allowed do their musical requirements through a 'writing project."

Brilliant. A music class with no music.

No word yet on how they'll accommodate the request for gender apartheid in gym. How long before parents can "adamantly" demand no mere woman teaches their son — or if she does, that she has to wear a veil?

Don’t laugh. Last fall the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled Muslim women can ask for a court order to clear men out of a courtroom — court staff, lawyers, even the judge — before taking off their veils to testify.

If you want a look at the future, look at the United Kingdom.

In 2007, some schools stopped teaching the Holocaust because it contradicted the anti-Semitic views held by "adamant" families there.

The history of the Crusades was dropped too, because the "balanced" approach taken by schools contradicted what the local mosques were teaching.

And in 2008, schools in Bristol yanked gay-friendly books out of libraries when Muslim parents complained.

Liberal litmus test

This is an uncomfortable subject for liberals. Equality of men and women is an essential western principle. Acceptance of gay rights is the new liberal litmus test. Teaching historical facts in the face of religious faith is the foundation of secular enlightenment.

But many liberals don't confront bigotry when it arrives in the form of an immigrant, non-Christian visible minority.

Here's a tip for politically correct liberals wondering how to respond to sexist, anti-gay, anti-Semitic demands from new Canadians: Pretend they're old white Christian men.

If the Pope demanded public schools shut down music classes or boys and girls be segregated, you can imagine the outrage. We're well trained in the phrase "separation of church and state."

Well, how about separation of mosque and state? How about promoting Canadian values?

Last week, British PM David Cameron said he'd had enough. "We've even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values. So, when a white person holds objectionable views ... we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious frankly — frankly, even fearful — to stand up to them."

Cameron vows to cut off funding to any group that opposes the equality of women, or integration of immigrants.

Who is the better liberal: Cameron or the Winnipeg school board?



To: bentway who wrote (600441)2/11/2011 11:29:55 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 1575775
 
White House statement on Egypt: Blah blah blah blah
from Hot Air » Top Picks by Allahpundit

"Does anyone care anymore what they have to say? Even in Egypt? I'm going to quote it for you because it is, in a very technical sense, news, but there's no mystery why The One is now opting for written statements in lieu of camera time. Each new public utterance by him and his cabinet reminds the world that not only do we have no meaningful leverage here, we really have no reliable sense of what's going on. Remember, Egypt is supposedly one of our closest Arab allies. We bankroll their military, the seat of power in the country, to the tune of more than a billion bucks per year. We've dealt with Suleiman, their intelligence kingpin, for decades. And yet day after day for the past two weeks, our diplomatic apparatus has been de-pantsed onstage by its inability to get in front of events.

I asked this on Twitter an hour ago but let me ask it here too: Has there been a single smart, effective moment or soundbite from anyone on our side since this crisis began in late January? I know it's a horribly difficult situation — I didn't call it a "shinola sandwich" the other day for nothing — but I can't recall even one news story since January 25 claiming that the U.S. accomplished something useful with back-channel diplomacy or cleverly applied some financial leverage towards a productive end. It's been one dumb talking point after another, from Hillary's dopey assertion about Mubarak's "stability" to Frank Wisner's mystifying Mubarak-must-stay rhetoric to the endless Gibbs tapdance about soon/gradual "transitions" to today's utter fiasco of our CIA director suggesting there was a "strong likelihood" Mubarak would be gone in hours while our DNI insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood was a "largely secular" group. The best that anyone seems able to say in our favor is (a) sure, we've embarrassed ourselves, but we haven't really made the situation appreciably worse, and (b) we might have helped convince the Egyptian military to hold its fire against the protesters, thereby sparing innocents from a horrible massacre. The second point would be a bona fide achievement if it's true, but I'm not so sure that it is. I haven't seen any analysis asserting that U.S. influence was the deciding factor in the army's calculations; I have, however, seen analyses claiming that the army values its prestige among the people too much to squander it by shooting at them, i.e. that Egyptian politics is the restraint here, not U.S. greenbacks. And given where we're at right now, we might well see the army start shooting within the next 24 hours, which would prove decisively how little influence we have.

So tell me, and I mean this seriously, not rhetorically: Can anyone point me to hard evidence that we've accomplished anything meaningful over the past few weeks? Anything?

And with that as your narrative frame, here's tonight's pointless statement.

The Egyptian people have been told that there was a transition of authority, but it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient. Too many Egyptians remain unconvinced that the government is serious about a genuine transition to democracy, and it is the responsibility of the government to speak clearly to the Egyptian people and the world. The Egyptian government must put forward a credible, concrete and unequivocal path toward genuine democracy, and they have not yet seized that opportunity.

As we have said from the beginning of this unrest, the future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people. But the United States has also been clear that we stand for a set of core principles. We believe that the universal rights of the Egyptian people must be respected, and their aspirations must be met. We believe that this transition must immediately demonstrate irreversible political change, and a negotiated path to democracy. To that end, we believe that the emergency law should be lifted. We believe that meaningful negotiations with the broad opposition and Egyptian civil society should address the key questions confronting Egypt's future: protecting the fundamental rights of all citizens; revising the Constitution and other laws to demonstrate irreversible change; and jointly developing a clear roadmap to elections that are free and fair.

We therefore urge the Egyptian government to move swiftly to explain the changes that have been made, and to spell out in clear and unambiguous language the step by step process that will lead to democracy and the representative government that the Egyptian people seek. Going forward, it will be essential that the universal rights of the Egyptian people be respected. There must be restraint by all parties. Violence must be forsaken. It is imperative that the government not respond to the aspirations of their people with repression or brutality. The voices of the Egyptian people must be heard.

The Egyptian people have made it clear that there is no going back to the way things were: Egypt has changed, and its future is in the hands of the people. Those who have exercised their right to peaceful assembly represent the greatness of the Egyptian people, and are broadly representative of Egyptian society. We have seen young and old, rich and poor, Muslim and Christian join together, and earn the respect of the world through their non-violent calls for change. In that effort, young people have been at the forefront, and a new generation has emerged. They have made it clear that Egypt must reflect their hopes, fulfill their highest aspirations, and tap their boundless potential. In these difficult times, I know that the Egyptian people will persevere, and they must know that they will continue to have a friend in the United States of America.

So there you go. They're on the side of the protesters, but not so much that they're willing to say Mubarak or Suleiman must leave immediately, which is … what the protesters want. We're back in "orderly transition" territory, with a timetable not quite as urgent as "'now' means 'yesterday'" but clearly a bit more urgent than Mubarak coasting all the way to September. So I say again: Who cares? Is there anyone in Egypt still paying attention to this lame windage except maybe the increasingly forgotten Mohamed ElBaradei, who might be waiting for some bold stroke from the United States to make him relevant again? As the Iranians like to say, America cannot do a damn thing. As best I can figure, this rhetorical garbage is simply the White House's way of still pretending that we can.

Here's Chuck Todd describing to Brian Williams how the West Wing is "scrambling" to appear slightly less than totally ineffectual."

hotair.com



To: bentway who wrote (600441)2/11/2011 11:34:05 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1575775
 
"There's Willful Blindness, and Then There's Willful Stupidity
February 10, 2011 2:32 P.M.
By Andrew C. McCarthy

James Clapper, the head of intelligence for the United States of America, has explained to Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular." It further has "eschewed violence," decries al-Qaeda as a "perversion of Islam," and really just wants "social ends" and "a betterment of the political order in Egypt."

I kid you not.

This is the Muslim Brotherhood whose motto brays that the Koran is its law and jihad is its way. The MB whose Palestinian branch, the terrorist organization Hamas, was created for the specific purpose of destroying Israel — the goal its charter says is a religious obligation. It is the organization dedicated to the establishment of Islamicized societies and, ultimately, a global caliphate. It is an organization whose leadership says al-Qaeda's emir, Osama bin Laden, is an honorable jihad warrior who was "close to Allah on high" in "resisting the occupation." The same leader who insists that "the history of freedom is written not in ink [i.e., constitutions] but in blood [i.e., jihad]."

If this is what $40 billion–plus buys you, maybe Representative Ryan can make up the rest of that $100 billion by eliminating the intelligence community."

nationalreview.com



To: bentway who wrote (600441)2/11/2011 1:38:50 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575775
 
TX will cut spending to balance the states budget .... actually the constitution requires that.

The budget period is two years and the state leg only meets for a few months every other year, unless the governor calls a special session.