Good thing James Frey isn’t writing about Muhammad

Disgraced author James Frey, in a new tome chronicling the Second Coming of Christ, depicts the Messiah as “an active bisexual who supports his prostitute girlfriend when she aborts her first child.”

Replace Jesus with Muhammad and I think you can guess the consequences in places such as Kandahar. While forcing Frey into hiding might count as a good thing, innocent lives would likely be lost.

I bring this up not to to indulge in theological superiority but to consider the impact of such religious fervor on American foreign policy. Wishing it weren’t so and trying to rationalize the inexcusable gets us nowhere.

It’s also instructive to note the violent reaction to the idiot Florida pastor’s Koran burning was pretty much contained to Afghanistan. If, as Bachmann Palin Overdrive claim, Islamic extremists have taken over in Egypt (they heard it on Rush), why did they pass on an opportunity to stir up a frenzy? That’s what they do.

Note how our politicians tend to a.) minimize the threat posed by Muslim fanatics or b.) exaggerate their influence.

Bachmann’s pro-dictator policy

“He wasn’t perfect, but [former Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak was one of the best friends that we had in the Middle East region,” Bachmann said. “When Mubarak was in trouble, where was the president? He was sitting on his hands and let Mubarak fall.”

So Bachmann would have sent U.S. troops to Egypt to defend a corrupt dictator? Bachmann and Donald Trump seem to think the American ideal is taking what you want and telling the rest of the world to fuck off.

Of thee I sing …

George Costanza and the Muslim Brotherhood

Remember that “Seinfeld” episode when George’s luck turned after he decided to act contrary to his normal instincts?

Seems an increasing number of Americans have adopted the “opposite” theory when it comes to ideology. Ex: Sarah Palin, loved by many on the right simply because she’s reviled by the left. Nothing else explains her popularity.

We’re seeing this phenomenon play out with the Muslim Brotherhood, ranked somewhere between Satan and Nazi Germany on Beck’s Evil-O-Meter. Reflexively, the left chides us not to worry. Sure, they’re religious fundamentalists, but they’re the good kind.

While it’s true they have renounced violence, which has them at odds with Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood still wants to rule under Sharia law — a system that is inherently violent towards women and gays. Doesn’t sound  very secular to me.

(from 2/10/11):

TONY JONES: Is it still the primary aim of the Islamic Brotherhood to create an Islamic state in Egypt based on Sharia law?

KAMAL EL-HELBAWY: They will promote that aim and objective, but if the people agree for it, there is no enforcement. If the people like it to be ruled by Islam, why not? This is not our immediate aim at present, but we will not forsake that aim and we will work for it in future peacefully, not through enforcement.

I don’t trust Muslim Brotherhood, but I’m not fearful. Egyptians, acting independently of the Brotherhood, have just overthrown a dictator — why would they want to install a different kind of fascism? The Islamists may have a role in a new government, but they won’t dominate it.

The Middle East is changing, for the better. My advice to those who fear it:

Try the opposite.

Can conservatives bring themselves to cheer Mubarak’s resignation?

A dictator has been deposed. This is good news.

It wasn’t a conspiracy that brought down Mubarak. It was greed and ruthlessness. And it was Egyptians that defeated him — not Muslim extremists or Bolsheviks. I feel stupid just typing that, yet a disturbing amount of people have bought into the hysterical fearmongering.

This wasn’t about us. Or Israel. The revolutionaries in Egypt weren’t burning the Star of David or chanting “Death to America!” Just “Down with Mubarak!” And their courage has been rewarded.

If you believe dictators should be supported, just because they allegedly serve U.S. interests, you subscribe to a vision of this country that betrays its founding. And it’s counterproductive to our national security (see Hussein, Saddam).

Does the phrase “shining city upon a hill” mean something, or is it just a talking point to be regurgitated by Sarah Palin whenever she has a moment to fill?

Mubarak baits the protesters

Mubarak might as well have pulled a Glenn Beck and claimed Bill Ayers and his merry band of Bolsheviks were responsible for the protests demanding his ouster. Clearly chaos is Mubarak’s strategy to retain authority.

 

Related Articles

• Foreign Policy: Mubarak Plays The Blame Game (npr.org)

The Oakland of political figures

Any idea what Sarah Palin is criticizing, or suggesting, regarding the civil unrest in Egypt?

No there there

And nobody yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know, who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak. I’m not real enthused about what it is that is being done on a national level from DC in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt and in these areas that are so volatile right now, because obviously it’s not just Egypt but the other countries too where we are seeing uprisings. We know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House.  We need to know what it is that America stands for, so we know who it is that America will stand with.  And we do not have all that information yet.”

Related Articles

• Palin Blasts Obama on Egypt (politicalwire.com)