It’s Islamo-Fascism Week!

I think Mr. Lehrer would approve. (No higher praise is possible.)

“On Our Backs” was the name of a feminist journal from the 1970s, I think.

There had been another one called “Off Our Backs” but “On” was published in opposition to it, for reasons it is too early in the morning for me to remember.

Great song, works perfectly with the tune.

Well at least the cognitive dissonance is real and we can hope that a few more reasonable ideas will finally be internalized.

Shrug. I’m not a republican nor creationist nor an opponent of gay marriage or legal abortion. But I’m just not seeing the hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance. After all, one can oppose gay marriage and still be sincerely horrified by the execution of gay teens in Iran. One can oppose abortion (and left-wing academic feminists) and still be sincerely horrified by honor killings and the restrictions on women’s lives under the Taliban (or in Saudi Arabia). And one can be a creationist and still sincerely oppose theocracy. And it’s not just a vague theoretical possibility — it’s true of the conservative Christians I know.

It’s a far, far bigger mystery to me when I see some on the left make common cause with conservative Muslims while overlooking their explicit advocacy of theocracy, sharia law, and execution for gays, adulterers, and apostates.

8: It’s a far, far bigger mystery to me when I see some on the left make common cause with conservative Muslims while overlooking their explicit advocacy of old mayonnaise, athlete’s foot, and the Welsh.

Actually, slocum, National Strawman Week isn’t till January.

Some woman put it this way (on Jim Henley’s site? Quote from memory, so be warned):

As a woman, I really hate the way that the government of Iran treats women in Iran. That does not mean that I want to bomb the women of Iran.

This is very funny.

Good, if not quite up to the original. Tom Scudder’s verse is terrific; if the rest of it is as good as the quote I’d love to see it.

And where is Tom Lehrer when we need him? His pathetic rationalization for leaving the world bereft is that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger rendered political satire obselete.

Oh, jolly dee. There is a strong element of truth in this ditty, although a very weak one of humour. Saying that, most conservatives with a working cerebrum would probably make a distinction between strong women and feminists, gays and gay polemicists, and agnostics and Christianity-hating atheists. The former are simply fellow Americans, while the latter are declared political opponents. I presume we are still allowed to have those…

I had never seen Tom Lehrer before! He’s not quite what I expected, but I see a bit more how some of the funny vocal features relate to facial expressions now.

hey, the week started off with a bang! Decent deadender Oliver Kamm urged the bombing of Iran. Neill Ferguson wrote his last column for the L.A. times, urging the bombing of Iran. Tony Blair made a speech in which he said, gee, not that he’d taken any any any satisfaction in it, but wouldn’t it be good for peace in the Middle East if we bombed Iran? And Chris Hitchens came out, tentatively, for Giuliani, thus putting him, Daniel Pipes and Norman Pohdhoretz all together as a coalition of the whackos.

So festive, it makes me feel like buying some balloons.

What we need to really make it a splendiferous anti-islamic week – or, I mean, anti-islamicfascism week – is a Washington Post op ed by one of Cheney’s daughters urging us to… bomb Iran! Somehow, I can just feel that comin’.

Michael ‘Comrade’ Berube:

“The other distinctions are pretty clear to me—I can tell, for example, when an acceptable strong woman crosses the line and starts speaking to the interests of other women, whereupon she becomes an unacceptable feminist.”

She’s OK as long as she’s speaking on the interests of other rich women (we are talking about a rich woman speaking, right?).

is a Washington Post op ed by one of Cheney’s daughters urging us to… bomb Iran!

She’s probably ghost-writing it for Fred Thompson, being on his campaign team now.

#26- Assuming you mean the vocal poor. Poor women are seriously annoying when they’re whining about it. But when they’re full-on desperately engaged with dealing with their respective poverties they can be quite useful, and are often very entertaining.

It’s a far, far bigger mystery to me when I see some on the left make common cause with conservative Muslims while overlooking their explicit advocacy of theocracy, sharia law, and execution for gays, adulterers, and apostates.

That would indeed be a mystery, so why don’t you supply some examples and we can examine them.

We can talk about that openly now?

Yes, Colin, but only deep in blog comment sections. Otherwise we are advised to use the code name “Operation Locksley Hall.” And under no circumstances are we to leak Hillary’s decision to name Spanish as the One World Language.

Sino-Arabo-Spanish

Sino-Spanish?

Shurely shome mishtake!

Islamo-Spanish!!

Lehrer sounds tinny.

Mark Russell’s version of the same is much better!

(The other distinctions are pretty clear to me—I can tell, for example, when an acceptable strong woman crosses the line and starts speaking to the interests of other women, whereupon she becomes an unacceptable feminist.)

It depends on how you define feminism. Anti-abortionists ‘speak to the interests of other women’ but that does not make them feminists. I think of feminism as the recognition that women have equal rights and should have equal legal opportunities as men and that they should not be judged based on their sexuality in ways that men are not so judged (e.g., “she’s smart but she’s over-weight so I don’t want to hire her; he’s smart and over-weight but that’s ok for a guy, so let’s hire him,” leaving aside for now the illegitimacy of weight-based evaluation).

But read some of the comments recorded here by purported feminists.

* “Shared anatomy is not shared values. . . . I’m sorry but Condoleeza Rice is a man in a woman’s suit.”

* “I’d love to see a woman in office in the United States of America. However, the term woman comes first. Not one of the boys. I think Hillary has to remove herself from being one of the boys.”

* “Unfortunately… we have now come to identify women and power not as the radicalization of the mechanism and definition of power, but instead women climbing to the top of the current patriarchy and bureaucratic hierarchy at any cost.”

* “Now, again-there are some women who view power the way men do. But generally speaking, women do it differently.”

They clearly mean something more than equal rights and non-sexual judgments. In the view represented by these quotes, “strong woman” is not equal to “feminist” because a feminist must view power differently than Condi Rice or HRC.

On gay polemicists, one could have supported more funding and treatment for HIV/AIDS while opposing ACT UP-style militancy. One can oppose public expressions of sexuality of whatever stripe, as many conservative gays and straights do (and I do not), without opposing private sexuality of whatever stripe. None of this means that people like Coulter make such fine-grained arguments.

That said, I’m at a loss for leftists who make “common cause” with Islamic fundamentalist. Leftists opposed to US foreign policy have not embraced the Iranian or Saudi regimes’ domestic repression. If you have in mind the Marglin’s v. Sen/Nussbaum/Hobsbawm debate, that’s another matter entirely.

Many on the right seem to think that Islamic Terrorism is a greater threat than what this country faced in the past.

Lets see, Mao and Stalin, who commanded huge armies and massacred tens of millions of people are..less dangerous than a country who may be, at the most, responsible for several hundred deaths in Iraq? Right..

The Soviets had enough nuclear firepower to destroy every major city in the US in less than an hour. Iran is at least five years away from getting one nuclear bomb and Pakistan has some nukes but, no long range misses. This is not to belittle the possibility of Nuclear or Biological terror. But, horrible as these possibilities are, our civilization can survive them.

We have better technology, better politics and a stronger economy than they do.

The Islamic world in the present day, is very divided. There is no unified leadership there such as existed during the time of the Crusades.

The bitter irony that many of those on the right seem to have to faith in the strength and resiliency of the American people or in the West as a whole.

The bitter irony that many of those on the right seem to have to faith in the strength and resiliency of the American people or in the West as a whole.

Well, this essay – The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt was written more than 50 years ago:

He sees his own country as being so weak that it is constantly about to fall victim to subversion; and yet he feels that it is so all-powerful that any failure it may experience in getting its way in the world — for instance, in the Orient — cannot possibly be due to its limitations but must be attributed to its having been betrayed.