Riots all over the world

Jackson Free Press

Saturday, November 5, 2005

What in the hell is going on here? And here?

There is rioting in the streets in Argentina where Bush is for the Summit of the America's talks. There is actually rioting going on just because he's IN the country. He acknowledges it in a statement.

Such demonstrations have become common at gatherings of world leaders, especially those with Bush in attendance -- a fact the U.S. president acknowledged when meeting with Argentine President Nestor Kirchner.

"It's not easy to host all these countries, particularly not easy to host, perhaps, me," Bush said. "But thank you for doing it."

He's not even in Uruguay and they are rioting there because he's at the Summitt.

The violent protests were not limited to Argentina. Associated Press photographers took images showing police battling demonstrators in Uruguay

How bad is it that when our president goes into another country people begin to burn things in the street, like our flag...?

Then Chavez gets into it...

Early Friday, thousands of protesters welcomed a train bringing a group of fellow demonstrators from Buenos Aires -- including Bolivian presidential hopeful Evo Morales.

Chanting "Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!" the protesters massed along the sides of the train, trying to shake hands with those inside, according to the AP. (Full story)

After marching through the streets, thousands of protesters headed to Mundialista Stadium, where Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez led a rally against Bush's policies.

"Peoples of the Americas are rising once again, saying no to imperialism, saying no to fascism, saying no to intervention -- and saying no to death," Chavez yelled to the cheering crowd.

The French riots are more about their repressed Muslim populations protesting their marginalization in the French economy. Their suburbs are actually filled with working class people who were moved out of the city center's to be closer to the Industrial zones where they worked. Essentially, in France, their suburbs are their inner cities.

But, you can also understand that the marginalization of their Muslim populations is a symptom of a disease. The same disease that seems to be facing a lot of nations right now.

Bush's Myopia seems to be affecting lots and lots of people, eh?

Previous Comments

ID: 103530
Comment: AP today: Most attacks have been in towns with low-income housing projects, areas marked by high unemployment, crime and despair. But in a new development, gangs have left their heavily policed neighborhoods to attack others with fewer police, spreading the violence. [...] Anger against police was fanned days ago when a tear gas bomb exploded in a mosque in Clichy-sous-Bois, north of Paris - the same surburb where the youths were electrocuted. Youths suspected a police operation, but Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin met Saturday with the head of the Paris mosque and denied that police were to blame. It's all very similar to our riots of the 60s. Poor people are shut into ghettos (in France's case, suburbs, because they "value" their cities too much, unlike the U.S.). They are ignored by the media, used and abused, and mistreated by authorities. They then turn violent to get attention and take our frustration -- usually set off by a precipitating incident. This is an ugly cycle, and understanding it does mean that the violence is justified. However, it is inevitable when such neighborhoods are underserved and ignored for too long. *Everyone* should study the Kerner Commission report on how our riots happened in the '60s. It's not as if the media have heeded its warnings, much less everyone else, but it is telling. In other words, this is what you get when you wait to deal with violence -- which is inevitably a symptom of bigger problems, not the "No. 1 issue" itself as The Clarion-Ledger so stupidly states on a regular basis. You want to stop violence and crime, you deal with the bigger issues. You prevent. You don't ignore. And you sure the hell don't lock up certain people in neighborhoods so they can be out of site, out of mind.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-05T12:06:52-06:00

ID: 103531
Comment: Yeah, I was reading where France's issues were actually being exacerbated by the French president's STRONG statements regarding "thugs and crime". His labeling of the poor populations in these suburbs has angered them greatly. I'll have to find the article, it was last night. It began sounding vaguely familiar. They are in the midst of talks right now with Muslim leaders on how to quell the discontent. But, like I said, this is a real problem that isn't just "in France". It relates to any country that has people in political office that have no understanding of those in lower socioeconomic class...and those people finally getting pissed enough to do something about it. Not that far from home, huh?
Author: Lori G
Date: 2005-11-05T13:29:14-06:00

ID: 103532
Comment: Sorry, I *meant* the French Prime Minister. There I go being American again...
Author: Lori G
Date: 2005-11-05T13:32:14-06:00

ID: 103533
Comment: You had it right; Chirac is president (though France also has a prime minister--de Villepin--whose power is comparable, I think, to our Speaker of the House). France has a presidential system rather than a parliamentary system; very similar to ours in most respects. As we look at these riots, we need to bear in mind that France is 5 to 10 percent Muslim and maybe 2 percent Protestant. For comparative purposes, imagine what the United States would be like if we had 20 to 30 million Muslims instead of 4 to 6 million. For the sake of perspective: We have 18 million Southern Baptists and 8 million Methodists, so imagine what life would be like if every Baptist or Methodist you knew was a Muslim, and you have the right idea. The French government has responded strangely to this diversity, mandating forced assimilation of Muslims in a way that the United States has not. I have heard some people--Gilles Kepel, for one--argue that this will be a good thing, that forced assimilation will allow Muslims to fully participate in the economy, that not being able to tell a Muslim girl from a non-Muslim girl will help her get a foothold. But what French lawmakers don't seem to get is that religion matters to people. I hate it when we pass laws that prevent women from wearing headscarves on their driver's license photos. And while I'm very pro-French in some ways (they lost 100,000 soldiers defending Paris in WWII, then built a Free French insurgency; nobody should EVER call them appeasers), French policy is not perfect. They have NO GAY MARRIAGE in Paris. Ponder that a minute. It's friggin' PARIS, and they have no gay marriage. The government withdrew from most NATO activities in the sixties. Why? So they could stockpile nukes. And then there's the headscarves ban, which is quite popular. And the marginalized Muslim population. And a growing antisemitism problem (France is becoming the new home of the international neo-Nazi movement). And a pretty significant racism/elitism problem in general, actually--there was a French billboard not long ago, government-sponsored, that had a white French baby, encouraging French people to produce offspring so the country wouldn't be full of foreigners. Outspoken right-wing xenophobe Jean-Marie Le Pen--imagine Pat Buchanan, but worse--made it to the runoffs against Chirac last time around, and came entirely too close to winning. Crazy stuff. Majority religion is a non-factor (so there's no danger of theocracy), but racism, populism, and hostility towards minority religions are very real problems. Liberals would have as much work to do in France as they do here. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-06T03:08:39-06:00

ID: 103534
Comment: You had it right; Chirac is president (though France also has a prime minister--de Villepin--whose power is comparable, I think, to our Speaker of the House). I'm glad you told me that because I read five different articles on the subject and it was confusing the hell out of me. I will admit to not being up to par on France's government system. ;) I think I'm more astounded by the general unrest in the world right now.
Author: Lori G
Date: 2005-11-06T12:23:58-06:00

ID: 103535
Comment: Ali, I think Jimmy Carter's assessment in his new book shines even more light on the times we're in....Was reading parts of it this weekend (a relative has it). He tackles a number of issues in the book and almost prophetically predicts Cheney's recent actions of lobbying Republican members of Congress to sanction CIA torture of prisoners of war ("enemy combatants"). Spooky, spooky stuff, in effect, seeking a Congressional backing -- officially -- for the torture prisons already in existence. Completely nullifies the Geneva Convention and, in a sense, sets of precedent for any other country to adopt torture as a tool of the State. HUGE imbalances of power. Cheney's torture proposal Luckily, the likes of Republican Chuck Hagel and John McCain are attacking it, but I think it shows how far Cheney, Bush, and Klan are willing to go, and why...just maybe...so many people are protesting Bush being in, or even near, their country, much less a presence at a major summit to discuss how America might intersect with their economies. I wouldn't want "the evil Empire" meddling with my economy either, if I were in South America.
Author: whateveryouwant
Date: 2005-11-06T23:25:45-06:00

ID: 103536
Comment: Very good piece about what's going on in France in The Washington Post yesterday. It starts: Rage of French Youth Is a Fight for Recognition Spreading Rampage in Country's Slums Is Rooted in Alienation and Abiding Government Neglect By Molly Moore Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, November 6, 2005; Page A01 LE BLANC-MESNIL, France, Nov. 5 -- Mohammed Rezzoug, caretaker of the municipal gymnasium and soccer field, knows far more about the youths hurling firebombs and torching cars on the streets of this Paris suburb than do the police officers and French intelligence agents struggling to nail the culprits. He can identify most of the perpetrators. So can almost everyone else in the neighborhoods that have been attacked. A man walks past the charred remains of cars in Suresnes, west of Paris. Youths have torched 900 vehicles and a dozen schools, police stations and youth centers across France. (By Jacques Brinon -- Associated Press) "They're my kids," said Rezzoug, a garrulous 45-year-old with thinning black hair and skin the color of a walnut. While French politicians say the violence now circling and even entering the capital of France and spreading to towns across the country is the work of organized criminal gangs, the residents of Le Blanc-Mesnil know better. Many of the rioters grew up playing soccer on Rezzoug's field. They are the children of baggage handlers at nearby Charles de Gaulle International Airport and cleaners at the local schools. "It's not a political revolution or a Muslim revolution," said Rezzoug. "There's a lot of rage. Through this burning, they're saying, 'I exist, I'm here.' " Such a dramatic demand for recognition underscores the chasm between the fastest growing segment of France's population and the staid political hierarchy that has been inept at responding to societal shifts. The youths rampaging through France's poorest neighborhoods are the French-born children of African and Arab immigrants, the most neglected of the country's citizens. A large percentage are members of the Muslim community that accounts for about 10 percent of France's 60 million people.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-07T11:50:34-06:00

ID: 103537
Comment: Meantime, CNN reports on the mayor of Las Vegas saying that the thumbs of graffiti artists should be cut off: The mayor of Las Vegas has suggested that people who deface freeways with graffiti should have their thumbs cut off on television. "In the old days in France, they had beheadings of people who commit heinous crimes," Mayor Oscar Goodman said Wednesday on the TV show "Nevada Newsmakers." Goodman said the city has a beautiful highway landscaping project and "these punks come along and deface it." "I'm saying maybe you put them on TV and cut off a thumb," the mayor said. "That may be the right thing to do." ____ We're never far from fascism, are we? I saw the amazing film, "Monsieur Batignole," Saturday night during the Jewish Film Fest, about the French people's compliance with the German round-up and ghettoization (and ultimately extermination) of Jews during the German occupation of Paris. It is heartbreaking to realize what people will do to people who threaten them in some way, and how many people will turn their heads and go along with it -- until they can't anymore. NPR was saying yesterday that Chirac campaigned on doing something about the horrible conditions in these communities -- where Africans and Muslims were purposefully relocated to -- but has not. It is a major source of embarrassment for him. Sounds like it's his New Orleans. Or his Watts in the 1960s. One wonders how many of these incidents it will take for countries to learn to be proactive in dealing with the roots of problems rather than having to clean up violent messes later. And, no, the answer is not to just be tough on the rioters; it's kind of like the war on terrorism. In a case like this, you simply can't go kill all the terrorists, or disenchanted youth. If you react in such a way without dealing with the conditions at the same time, you simply ensure that others will take their places. You HAVE TO fix the conditions that breed terrorism and disenchantment. You don't at your own peril. It proves out over and over again. People simply will not continue to live in such conditions and be ignored. They will eventually act out in violent ways. That doesn't mean you don't punish those who are violent, but if you want to avoid the violence int he future, you'd better get to work fixing the problems.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-07T12:02:13-06:00

ID: 103538
Comment: And a growing antisemitism problem (France is becoming the new home of the international neo-Nazi movement). The anti-semitism displayed by the muslim hordes burning cars in France this very instant make the anti-semitism of the above-mentioned "french" neo-nazis, well, pale in comparison (bad pun intended).
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-07T22:53:21-06:00

ID: 103539
Comment: And a growing antisemitism problem (France is becoming the new home of the international neo-Nazi movement). The anti-semitism displayed by the muslim hordes burning cars in France this very instant makes the anti-semitism of the above-mentioned "french" neo-nazis, well, pale in comparison (bad pun intended).
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-07T22:53:36-06:00

ID: 103540
Comment: Buck, you will never hear me use the phrase "Muslim hordes." Being a Muslim does not make you violent, just as being black does not make you violent. Social stratification contributes to an atmosphere that will make people--any people--violent. Some of the most contagiously gentle, peaceful men I have ever met have been Muslims, so I'm biased. But I think the problem impacting Paris suburbs shows more of a problem with France than a problem with Islam. Truth is that a millennium ago, Christianity was the most violent religion on Earth, and Islam the peaceful religion of civilization. Now the shoe is on the other foot, but we should not be too arrogant. The worm can turn at any time. Someone showed me something from another local blog the other day, where a poster suggested that the response to suburban Muslims should be to "shoot them all." You are so far evolved beyond that, but let's not talk about "hordes," please. They're just young men--like us, but with fewer prospects, watching that racist Jean-Marie Le Pen almost win the presidency, riding past those billboards with those white babies, having their sisters and daughters forced to either strip or go without an education. For comparative purposes, imagine if the United States passed a law requiring that all girls must be topless at school. That's how many French Muslims feel right now. The law IS an assault on traditional Muslims. France is, in some ways, a more hateful, oppressive, and xenophobic society than ours. There is a love of the aristocracy there that we laugh at over here, which is why French op-eds tend to sound ludicrously foo-foo in translation. This should not lead us to gloat; we have plenty of problems of our own that they don't have, such as the love affair we have with theocracy, with military violence, with executing young black men at the drop of a hat. But this should lead us to learn from their mistakes so that we don't repeat them, and one of their mistakes was to attack the "Muslim hordes." Muslims are people. Individuals. Human beings. To treat Muslims otherwise doesn't profane them; it profanes us. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-07T23:16:42-06:00

ID: 103541
Comment: And the Las Vegas mayor quote freaked me out too, Donna; I found myself thinking maybe Melton's rhetoric ain't all that bad. Not that the moron would actually cut off the thumbs of graffiti artists if he had the chance; I'm sure he wouldn't. But shame on him for exploiting hate and fear. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-07T23:19:30-06:00

ID: 103542
Comment: BTW- I'm going to say something that many people will find offensive here: France should capitulate on the headscarves question. Legalize them again, WITH AN APOLOGY. And never ban them again. That is a basic display of good faith that the French government must make right now. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-07T23:21:08-06:00

ID: 103543
Comment: If, as, and until they refrain from acting like a horde, I will refer to them as such. I didn't say that they are a horde as a result of their religion, color, or ethnicity. To clarify, I refer to them as a horde because they have burned 1,400 vehicles and counting in 12 nights of rioting (and, also, counting) in riots that have spread to "most regions of [France]," per the (British) Telegraph article linked below. Obviously, the rioting extends far beyond Paris or any ghetto or series of ghettoes therein. See: Link Driver's license photos with a headscarf? Why not just allow muslim women to be omitted from the driver's license photo requirement altogether? Driver's license photos serve an important governmental interest, in providing for the identification of people in various situations, including criminal ones. Allowing an entire group of people to flout that rule on any religious basis will simply never happen, as well it should not. Since when are Muslim women allowed by their male family members to drive, anyway? The "oppressed" muslim women in France have to take off their headscarves for a driver's license photo, yet the muslim women in the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia don't even have the right to drive at all! And who denies them that right? Their fellow Muslim Saudi men. Damn those racist French Nazis!! And let's not forget the "honor killings" carried out by male members of "peace loving" muslim families in Germany against their own immediate family members. That is, the brothers in a family murdered their sister in cold blood in one recent and memorable case. Why did they do that? Per their confession, she was acting "too german." Peaceful, indeed.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-07T23:39:52-06:00

ID: 103544
Comment: "If a culture is truly empowered from within itself, and offers a model, a way of being, aligned with earth and spirit and creativity, that can be passed on to future generations, then the presence of a police force is not needed."--Malidoma Some', Dagara shaman, West Africa
Author: whateveryouwant
Date: 2005-11-07T23:40:08-06:00

ID: 103545
Comment: link
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-07T23:41:49-06:00

ID: 103546
Comment: Buck writes: If, as, and until they refrain from acting like a horde, I will refer to them as such. Buck, 5 to 10 percent of the French population is Muslim. If they all rioted at once, there would be no France to horde against. Driver's license photos with a headscarf? Why not? We don't make women take off their wigs, do we? Why are headscarves any different than wigs? We aren't talking burqas here. Regardless, the issue I refer to is not headscarves on driver's licenses; the issue is headscarves in schools. Namely, girls are specifically prohibited from wearing them. Not hats. Not giant fluffy wigs. Just headscarves. Specifically headscarves. They are seen as an overbearing religious display. Driver's license photos are not such a big deal because women don't have to show their driver's license to everybody. Hide it in your wallet and use a more general photo ID for other purposes, and only law enforcement and other government agencies will have to violate your personal standards of modesty. Making young Muslim women walk around without their headscarves, under threat of expulsion, is a little more aggressive. Since when are Muslim women allowed by their male family members to drive, anyway? I wasn't talking about driver's licenses, but since you brought it up... the muslim women in the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia don't even have the right to drive at all! Only about 20 percent of the world's Muslims are even Arabs, Buck, much less Saudis. And as you should know, the Saudi government is influenced by a theocratic Wahhabi regime. Remarkably similar in many respects to the Puritan regime that ran Massachusetts some 380 years ago, where women held roughly the same status that they hold in Saudi Arabia. Most Muslims in France are from north Africa--Egypt, Morocco, and the surrounding environs--and bear little resemblance, culturally, to Saudis. Most women in that part of the world do drive, if they can afford cars. But Muslim women still do tend to wear headscarves. Some are indeed forced to do so; most, I suspect, choose to do so under influence of culture, roughly the same reason that you and I don't wear skirts and high heels. And let's not forget the "honor killings" carried out by male members of "peace loving" muslim families in Germany against their own immediate family members. That is, the brothers in a family murdered their sister in cold blood in one recent and memorable case. Why did they do that? Per their confession, she was acting "too german." Peaceful, indeed. Do you want me to drag out every crime that has ever been committed in the name of Christianity? Like the girl who was starved and beaten to death in England recently because her parents thought that she was possessed by a demon? You are using the tired logic of prejudice: Finding the one example in ten thousand that backs up your case against a religion of 1.2 billion. It's roughly the same argument you have used in the past again urban blacks. And it's beneath you, really; it's a very basic fallacy, and I find it very difficult to believe that you don't see it. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-07T23:53:01-06:00

ID: 103547
Comment: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9938405/site/newsweek/
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-08T00:11:08-06:00

ID: 103548
Comment: Quote o' the Week: But I think the problem impacting Paris suburbs shows more of a problem with France than a problem with Islam. Thank you, Tom. Excellent analysis all around. Now, Buck, Tom is right. You are using extremely fallacious arguments here to espouse ethnic prejudices in your flatly unfactual remarks in this context. Whether or not you are doing this purposefully, or due to ignorance or just picking up half-truths from other places, you are not going to use the JFP as a forum for racist and ethnic stereotypes. And you know from past experience that I mean it. So, I suggest that you pull up, so to speak, on this one, should you care to continue posting here. These fallacies about the "Muslim hordes" just aren't to fly on this site. People around here read and study more than hate screeds.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-08T00:17:13-06:00

ID: 103549
Comment: The last graf from the Newsweek column you posted, Tom: This is not to downplay the deeper issue facing France's second generation of Muslim immigrants. Those who have gained a measure of success have moved out of the suburban ghettoes, leaving the "losers" behind. That only compounds the anger of those who stay. That rage will continue to flare into riots, from time to time, for as long as we fail to find broader social and political solutions. Sound familiar?
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-08T00:19:18-06:00

ID: 103550
Comment: Tom, as for the "shoot em all" comment, I prefer not to dignify that further by discussing it. Only an ignorant, backward moron would say such a thing, or a regular visitor over at the Council of Conservative Citizens, which predictably is seizing the opportunity to spew their hate and racism. Thank the Lord this type of person is becoming more a relic of our not-distant-enough past, although clearly they're still out there trying to make us all live in the past. 'Nuff said on such ignorance. I sure hope it wasn't someone on a Mississippi site who said itójust what this state needsóbut don't tell me. I really don't want to know any more.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-08T00:28:29-06:00

ID: 103551
Comment: Buck, 5 to 10 percent of the French population is Muslim. If they all rioted at once, there would be no France to horde against. Who said they are all rioting at once? However, as pointed out above, the riots extend to "most regions of [France]" now. Driver's license photos are not such a big deal because women don't have to show their driver's license to everybody. Hide it in your wallet and use a more general photo ID for other purposes, and only law enforcement and other government agencies will have to violate your personal standards of modesty. Making young Muslim women walk around without their headscarves, under threat of expulsion, is a little more aggressive. I find your logic re: driverís license photos unconvincing at best. I donít care whether we are talking about a driverís license or any other form of government ID. These official forms of state-issued ID serve a very legitimate governmental purpose, and the French authorities apparently feel the same way officials in US states feel; that is, that no personís religious belief will entitle them to conceal any part of their features in photos for the purposes of these types of ID cards.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-08T00:32:15-06:00

ID: 103552
Comment: On the 'headscarves' issue: from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3328277.stm Q: Apart from the French Muslim community, are other religious groups also angry about this law? Yes, Christian and Jewish groups reacted angrily to the ban on "overt" religious symbols in schools. As well as having the biggest Muslim community in Europe, France also has the biggest Jewish one. While one Jewish group had no problem with the ban, the Grand Rabbi of France, Joseph Sitruk, opposed it. So the muslims are not the only group upset about these laws in France. So, assuming one opposes these laws, which is the logical reaction to this situation: 1. Run for office or otherwise participate in the democratic process in order to change there policies, or 2. Riot for 12 days and burn as many cars as you can. Needless to say, any individual or family of any religious or ethnic origin, including direct heirs of Charlemagne, are free to leave France if they find the laws and customs of that country offensive.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-08T00:32:32-06:00

ID: 103553
Comment: Most Muslims in France are from north Africa--Egypt, Morocco, and the surrounding environs--and bear little resemblance, culturally, to Saudis. Most women in that part of the world do drive, if they can afford cars Ahh, these sophisticated varieties of muslims, they allow their women to drive. However, that would likely be a rather uncomfortable activity for them to do after having their clitorides cut off in a religious ceremony, sans anesthesia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision Female genital cutting is today mainly practiced in African countries. It is common in a band that stretches from Senegal in West Africa to Somalia on the East coast, as well as from Egypt in the north to Tanzania in the south. In these regions, it is estimated that more than 95% of all women have undergone this procedure. It is also practiced by some groups in the Arabian peninsula, especially among a minority (20%) in Yemen. The practice is known to exist throughout the Middle East, though it is veiled in secrecy, unlike in parts of Africa, where it is practiced relatively openly. The practice occurs particularly in northern Saudi Arabia, southern Jordan, and Iraq, and there is also circumstantial evidence to suggest it is present in Syria, western Iran, and among the Bedouin population of Israel. In Oman a few communities still practice FGC; however, experts believed that the number of such cases was small and declining annually. In the United Arab Emirates and also Saudi Arabia, it's practiced among some foreign workers from East Africa and the Nile Valley. The practice can also be found among a few ethnic groups in South America, India and Malaysia. In Indonesia the practice is almost universal among the country's Muslim women; however, in contrast to Africa, almost all are Type I or Type IV (involving a symbolic prick to release blood) procedures. The practice is particularly common in Somalia, followed by Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Mali. Among ethnic Somali women, infibulation is traditionally almost universal. In the Arab peninsula, sunna circumcision is usually performed, especially among Arabs (ethnic groups of African descent are more likely to prefer infibulation). Amnesty International estimates that over 130 million women worldwide have been affected by these procedures, with over 2 million being performed every year. In modern times, the practice has spread to Europe and the U.S. due to immigration. Some tradition-minded families have the procedure performed while on vacation in their home countries. How very cosmopolitan! I would imagine the muslim victims of female circumcision would gladly exchange their driving rights in favor of intact genitalia, but thatís just me.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-08T00:32:56-06:00

ID: 103554
Comment: Do you want me to drag out every crime that has ever been committed in the name of Christianity? Like the girl who was starved and beaten to death in England recently because her parents thought that she was possessed by a demon? You are using the tired logic of prejudice: Finding the one example in ten thousand that backs up your case against a religion of 1.2 billion. It's roughly the same argument you have used in the past again urban blacks. And it's beneath you, really; it's a very basic fallacy, and I find it very difficult to believe that you don't see it. Who is advocating Christendom here? Not I! And are you assuming that the parents who beat their erstwhile-demonically-possessed child in your (prejudicially-cited, per your logic) example did so as a result of their religion? Is there some tenet of Christianity that involves beating oneís children to death? Or could it be that they are simply batshit-crazy. At any rate, and conceding the many bloody acts done in the name of Christianity and most/all other religions in human history, I am more interested in discussing modern issues and practices, such as those mentioned here.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-08T00:33:15-06:00

ID: 103555
Comment: Bucky, I never brought up ID cards of any kind. That's a U.S. issue. The French issue is that they actually passed a law saying that if you're a Muslim girl, and wear a headscarf in school, you can be expelled for it. I'm surprised, given that you feel qualified to pass judgments about Islam, that you don't know about this. Here's a URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/10/france.headscarves/ And here's more on Le Pen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1943193.stm The bottom line is that MUSLIMS HAVE SOMETHING TO RIOT ABOUT. If I were a French Muslim, I would probably be breaking a few windows right now myself. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-08T00:36:17-06:00

ID: 103556
Comment: Yes, Buck, genital mutilation is a serious problem. In northern Nigeria. Not widely practiced in Egypt, Morocco, or suburban France. At risk of sounding blunt, you obviously have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. Driver's license photos in France? Genital mutilation in Egypt? Suburban French Muslim women being prohibited from driving? Next you'll say that Bart Simpson is sleeping with their wives. Do some research, dude. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-08T00:40:04-06:00

ID: 103557
Comment: Tommy: Several of the issues you mentioned re: "research" are contained in this article, dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision As a review, or for you, a view, the content of that article contradicts several of your above statements. And, sorry to burst your bubble, but Wikipedia carries far greater weight as an information source than unattributed Head-isms. But, all is not lost: as you live in the Bible Belt, there's always a (theoretical) chance for redemption.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-08T00:52:07-06:00

ID: 103558
Comment: (Before somebody points it out--though Buck probably doesn't know this--female genital mutilation actually is a problem in some sections of rural Egypt and Morocco. But it happens to be illegal, and not very widely practiced.)
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-08T00:54:23-06:00

ID: 103559
Comment: Actually, I've written some of Wikipedia's material--and I urge everyone to read the above article. But I fail to see how it conflicts with anything I've said here; there is no implication that genital mutilation is common in Egypt, Morocco, or suburban France. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-08T00:57:35-06:00

ID: 103560
Comment: Okay, Buck, you scored this point. A little more research suggests that female genital mutilation is, in fact, extremely common in Egypt--even if it does happen to be illegal. Very interesting. And sad. But not terribly relevant to the riots in suburban Paris, unless it plays into your circumstantial case for a Muslim "horde." Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-08T01:03:41-06:00

ID: 103561
Comment: Sigh . . . Yes, Buck, genital mutilation is a serious problem. In northern Nigeria. Not widely practiced in Egypt, Morocco, or suburban France. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision "Female genital cutting is today mainly practiced in African countries. It is common in a band that stretches from Senegal in West Africa to Somalia on the East coast, as well as from Egypt in the north to Tanzania in the south. In these regions, it is estimated that more than 95% of all women have undergone this procedure. In modern times, the practice has spread to Europe and the U.S. due to immigration. Some tradition-minded families have the procedure performed while on vacation in their home countries."
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-08T01:04:03-06:00

ID: 103562
Comment: Since Egypt is only 94% Muslim, I question the "over 95%" estimate. The fact that the practice is illegal is particularly telling. But since most of Egypt is in fact rural, we could still be talking 80 to 90 percent. Nobody really has any way of knowing, since FGM seldom occurs in a hospital setting. It's more of a tribal practice. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-08T01:09:30-06:00

ID: 103563
Comment: You made a series of fallacious and ignorant statements about Islam, most of which were easily debunked. You have yet to step away from any of that, or indeed to even acknowledge my criticisms, or Donna's criticisms, of your data. I made an error regarding the prevalence of FGM in Egypt as opposed to other African nations. You jumped on it, and as soon as I recognized I'd made a mistake, I conceded the point. The truth is that I'm grateful to be corrected on the prevalence of FGM in Egypt, and I will be doing more research--and maybe, if I have the opportunity, some activism--on this point. I am particularly interested in the severity of FGM in Egypt--and what types of FGM are commonly practiced. (Clitorodectomies are considered extremely rare outside of central Africa; pinpricking/bloodletting, a more symbolic practice, is also classified as FGM. A painful practice to be sure, but more comparable to male circumcision than to clitorodectomy.) These are all things I need to read up on. All of us, for that matter. None of it speaks to Muslim "hordes" in suburban France. I did slip up and give you a "gotcha" on the statistical prevalence of FGM in Egypt, truth is that this is not about me, and it isn't really about FGM in Egypt, either. This is about Muslim youths in suburban France. Your argument remains a ridiculous mess of ignorant prejudices, and until you get past that way of thinking--when it comes to Muslims, and when it comes to urban blacks--then you will never understand those communities well enough to make general statements about them with any authority. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-08T01:26:00-06:00

ID: 103564
Comment: The prevalence of FGM should freak us all out. Its very real and very practiced in many countries. The World Health Organization has a report and list of countries and prevalence among unmarried women. But, back to France....I actually agree with both of you. I think the government has the right to not allow head scarves in driver's license photos (if that was really an issue). That is their right. I also think that its a little stupid to remove them from the school. That seems like a knee jerk reaction to "Muslims" in general. Headscarves are important to their culture, for that reason they should be respected. Not that I support the way extremist Muslims treat their women, because its reprehensible....this brings to mind the Taliban member in US that told a woman he was "sorry her husband probably had a hard time with her". But, once again....its not like other religious groups run by men haven't marginalized women forever as well. Its not a "Muslim" issue as far as I am concerned. Its an issue of women's rights. As per the Muslims in France, they are angry. Just as many poor populations are angry.
Author: Lori G
Date: 2005-11-08T07:33:16-06:00

ID: 103565
Comment: all I have to say is, wow. We went from riots in France to female genital mutilation. Not sure at all of the connection, guys. Buck, if you're thinking that muslims have cornered the market on crappy treatment of women, go check out the Hooter's thread, and get into a discussion with Veritas and Towanda about what some good Christian women are experiencing today, in this city. It amazes me that when Timothy McVeigh blows up the Murrah building in Okalhoma City, no one denounces white men and christianity. There are plenty of nutjob, violent, women hating christians, but we don't presume that they represent mainstream christianity. Why do the actions of a few muslims represent the entire community of muslims? And, why when Emily writes about Hooter's does she have to represent FEMINISM in its entirety. Bugs the crap out of me.
Author: kate
Date: 2005-11-08T08:20:43-06:00

ID: 103566
Comment: And, to get a tad extreme, if we're discussing female genital mutilation, can we take a look at the numbers of boob jobs that are happening in this state? It happens under anesthesia, so, er "yay for our team", but I really don't think that it is that far removed from what's going on in Africa.
Author: kate
Date: 2005-11-08T08:22:38-06:00

ID: 103567
Comment: THANK YOU KATE! for the "boob job" thing. Now, I won't say that women that want plastic surgery shouldn't "go for it". As long as they understand their motivation. But, I was APPALLED at the show "extreme makeover" for that very reason, in what country is it okay to support a woman CUTTING HER FACE OFF and getting a new one? This one, apparently. It absolutely mortifies me that this is OKAY. It is NOT okay to exploit women who feel badly about themselves because of America's crazy beauty standards and to show them on television, in front of LITTLE GIRLS, cutting their faces off and getting a new one. THis is NOT OKAY. I have major issues with this. Its one of the reasons I stopped watching television. It ties into the "treatment of women" issues that this discussion has "sort of" turned into. But, I will start a thread talking about women CUTTING their faces off if anyone would like to talk about it.
Author: Lori G
Date: 2005-11-08T09:05:59-06:00

ID: 103568
Comment: I absolutely hate The Swan and Extreme Makeover. There are times and places for plastic surgery--I was born with Crouzon Syndrome, a craniofacial condition, and had to have my left browline built from scratch, among other things--but the current epidemic of normal-looking women going under the knife to look like the advertising industry's ideal of feminine beauty is frightening. And I don't understand why any woman who has not undergone a masectomy would want a boob job. Or rather I can, but I think it speaks to the cruelty of American society. Breasts are breasts, folks. I wouldn't go under the knife to get a 12-inch ding-a-ling; I don't see why women are put in a position where they feel it necessary to get double-D's. That said, though: HUGE difference between breast implants and clitorodectomies. I mean, I don't need to say this to women reading this because it's a given, but to men: Imagine having the last inch or so of your moneymaker, the part with the glans pubis, chopped off. Yeah. That's what a clitorodectomy is, because a clitoris is a woman's glans pubis. They function the same way. It's basically like a permanent chastity belt. Ensures that you will never enjoy sex all that much (or at least that's the idea; many women, I've been told, have found other ways--but it's difficult, and nobody should ever have to). As far as treatment of women goes, Buck turned the discussion into that as a means of bashing Islam. He is apparently not interested in educating himself on the context of the riots, in gaining a more nuanced understanding of the situation. He doesn't care why young Muslim men are rioting, any more than he's concerned about why young black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. He seems to feel that it's a natural thing--something you should expect "those people" to do, and not indicative of broader societal problems. I'm arguing with him for the benefit of other folks reading this, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that Buck will ever take seriously any data that might conflict with his prejudices. He has already made up his mind. FGM, for what it's worth, is not a strictly Islamic problem--though even I sometimes slip up and think of it as one, simply because it's more common in the Muslim world. From Amnesty International's article on FGM: FGM predates Islam and is not practised by the majority of Muslims, but has acquired a religious dimension. Where it is practised by Muslims, religion is frequently cited as a reason. Many of those who oppose mutilation deny that there is any link between the practise and religion, but Islamic leaders are not unanimous on the subject. The Qur'an does not contain any call for FGM, but a few hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) refer to it. In one case, in answer to a question put to him by 'Um 'Attiyah (a practitioner of FGM), the Prophet is quoted as saying "reduce but do not destroy". Mutilation has persisted among some converts to Christianity. Christian missionaries have tried to discourage the practice, but found it to be too deep rooted. In some cases, in order to keep converts, they have ignored and even condoned the practice. FGM was practised by the minority Ethiopian Jewish community (Beta Israel), formerly known as Falasha, a derogatory term, most of whom now live in Israel, but it is not known if the practise has persisted following their emigration to Israel. The remainder of the FGM-practising community follow traditional Animist religions. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-08T13:42:35-06:00

ID: 103569
Comment: I am not sure how canonical Hadith Um-Attiyah even is, by the way. As any Muslim will tell you, Allah did not write the hadiths; they are generally understood within Islam, even by those who accept them as authoritative (and no Muslim accepts all hadiths as authoritative), to be the work of human beings. Only the Qur'an is regarded as inerrant.
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-08T13:43:37-06:00

ID: 103570
Comment: Buck, again I am backing Tom up: No more racist and ethnic stereotypes and fallacies here. This is NOT a place to spew generalized hatred of Muslims. There are other places that welcome it, I'm sure, so go find them. I've allowed you to start posting here again, but with your history on the site, you really ought to shy away from discussions of race here. For some reasons, you disengage logic and start throwing out the logical fallacies about every single time. I am not going to engage in those discussions with you at all any more after past experiences, and I will allow you to continue posting here if you do not repeat your past mistakes. Otherwise, move on.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-08T15:41:15-06:00

ID: 103571
Comment: I should add "... or religious stereotypes" ó being that the comments here seem to be mingling stereotypes about ethnic background and religious beliefs.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-08T15:45:03-06:00

ID: 103572
Comment: Interesting piece in the European Tribune (thanks for the refer to Tom Lowe over at Jackson Progressive. Y'all spend some time over there with Tom). What's real is that social budgets for these citÈs (those that allow the associations to run sport activities, literacy classes and the like) have been cut in the past 3 years, because, as always, this is the easiest thing to do politically. What is real is that local police forces have been reduced (in Clichy, where it all started, the police has 15 officers vs 35 in the past) and replaced by national police who do not know the neighborood and are pretty aggressive in their behavior - and especially in their overuse of id controls which target only people of color. What is real is that France made a choice 30 years ago to preserve the jobs of those already integrated, and made it difficult to join that core. Thus unemployment, or unstable employment (temping, short term contracts, internships) touches only those that are not yet in the system - the young and the immigrants, or those that are kicked out - the older and less educated blue collar workers in dying industries. So in neighboroods where you have a lot of young immigrants, the problems are excerbated. And finally, what is real is that everybody is aware that nothing serious will be done before the 2007 presidential election. With a lame duck, aging, corrupt President fighting it out with his ambitious interior Ministry (Sarkozy), policy is forgotten to spin, politicking and the like and nothing happens - but people are crying for solutions, and not everybody is willing to wait another 18 months for someone to have a clear mandate and do something. The feeling of fin de rËgne is pervasise and highly corrosive today. Sarkozy would likely be an improvement over today, in that he would have a clear mandate if elected, and full powers, but he would be likely to run a Bushist policy of tough posturing, tax reform for the rich - and, this is France, getting the TVs not to talk about the banlieues anymore. He is an opportunist and a power hungry reactionary, I don't even see him "liberalising" the economy. But the banlieues do not need more growth, what they need is for the State to come back in full force - bring back the local police presence, give real support to the schools and all the associations that do integration work (it's criminal to cut subsidies to literacy classes, for instance), and actually get things done on improving the housing stock, instead of shuffling money between departments as emergencies arise, and, where necessary, improving transportation links to the big city where the jobs are. What is not happening is any "intifada"; France is not burning; I still doubt that its integration model is failing ; what is clearly not tolerable anymore is how an underclass (not necessarily only the immigrants, but where they are clearly over represented, and definitely young and undereducated) has been sacrificed and abandoned in the country's (real and mostly successful) efforts to adapt to increasing international competition. They must be brought back into the fold, and toughness is not the way. Calling these riots an Islamic "jihad" is really starting to sound dumber by the moment. Of course, doing that serves some people's prejudices -- but that doesn't mean it makes a tadpole's bit of sense.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-08T17:14:21-06:00

ID: 103573
Comment: Good article, Donna. Thanks. I need to do a blog entry on how this whole rioting thing makes it okay for the True Believers to love France again. And truth is that France is in some ways a more overly racist, more overtly elitist, more overtly aristocrasy-friendly country than ours. It has its appeal--the whole concept of laicite (basically the equivalent to a very strong establishment clause), the intellectual openness of the culture, its rich intellectual history, the appreciation all sectors of society try to have for art, for classical music, for poetry and other forms of literature. And they have had some of the greatest philosophers and novelists of the twentieth century--there is nobody better than Albert Camus. But French culture has its share of problems, and we probably need to recognize that there are no utopias on this earth. There are some truly wonderful people in the country, and I love "the French," but on the whole, France is probably not substantially more enlightened than Mississippi. If we're going to aspire to another culture's model, then Canada, Japan, or Costa Rica would probably be a better choice. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-09T01:47:47-06:00

ID: 103574
Comment: Well, I take a day off, and my fan club wonít met me hear the end of it! Letís start here: This is about Muslim youths in suburban France. Your argument remains a ridiculous mess of ignorant prejudices, and until you get past that way of thinking--when it comes to Muslims, and when it comes to urban blacks--then you will never understand those communities well enough to make general statements about them with any authority. Ignorant prejudices? As a review, or for you . . well, you know, I previously referred to the rioters in France as ìmuslim hordes.î horde (hÙrd, h rd) n. 1. A large group or crowd; a swarm: a horde of mosquitoes. See Synonyms at crowd. Hence, the accuracy of my description of the rioters. Unless one would want to argue the rioters are not muslim, of course . . . And I note no comment on the problems currently resulting from the extreme anti-semitism displayed by these muslim immigrant youth in European countries. Some of the most contagiously gentle, peaceful men I have ever met have been Muslims, so I'm biased. Thatís nice, but it is the equivalent of the often-criticized example of the racist white guy who ìhas a lot of black friends.î It is, in other words, interesting but hardly relevant to the issues being discussed here. And for the record, I have had similar experiences. As I stated earlier, the headscarves issue is an attempt by muslims in France to flout a law which operates even-handedly to prohibit ìovertî symbols of religion in schools. Muslims are not the only religious group that is upset about this law. However, the democratically-elected government in France has made this law in furtherance of their general policy of secularism. Even if one accuses France of enacting this law as a result of anti-Islam bias, there is no disputing that this law on its face is directed towards all overt religious symbols, and not just headscarves. And, to state the obvious once again, any individual of any religious group who objects to this law, or to Franceís policy of secularism, for that matter, is free to leave France.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-10T01:06:00-06:00

ID: 103575
Comment: Regarding muslim ìhonor killings,î as stated in the article ìThe Whore Lived Like A German,î linked above: The Turkish women's organization Papatya has documented 40 instances of honor killings in Germany since 1996. Examples include a Darmstadt girl whose two brothers pummelled her to death with a hockey stick in April 2004 after they learned she had slept with her boyfriend. In Augsburg in April, a man stabbed his wife and 7-year-old daughter because the wife was having an affair. In December 2003, a Tuebingen father strangled his 16-year-old daughter and threw her body into a lake because she had a boyfriend. Bullets, knives, even axes and gasoline are the weapons of choice. The crime list compiled by Papatya is an exercise in horror. And the sad part, said Boehmecke, is that it is far from complete. "We'll never really know how many victims there are. Too often these crimes go unreported." Letís see: honor killings by and against muslim families in Europe, the aforementioned still-ongoing riots in France, we already discussed female circumcision, thereís that whole 9-11 thing, a fatwah issued against Salmon Rushdie for writing a book, and then, just to mention a few of the most recent incidents (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism): 7/7/05- Multiple bombings in London Underground, 53 dead (alleged link to Islamic extremists) 2/4/05- Muslim militants attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property and displacing an additional 3000 people. 11/3/04- Multiple bombings on trains near Madrid, Spain. 191 killed, 1460 injured. (alleged link to Al-Qaeda) 16/5/04- Casablanca Attacks - 4 simultaneous attacks in Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried by Slafaia Jihadia. 10/12/02- Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300 injured. 24/9/02- Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured 7/5/02- Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured 3/9/02- CafÈ suicide bombing in Jerusalem; 11 killed, 54 injured 27/3/02- Suicide bomber in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured 26/2/02- Train of Hindu pilgrims bombed in Gujarat, India; 59 dead 9/11/01- 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and Pentagon. Nearly 3000 dead. 8/7/98- Embassy bombing in Tanzania and Kenya. 225 dead. 4000+ injured 25/6/96- Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded. 26/2/93- World Trade Center bombing. 6 killed. 18/4/83- Embassy in Lebanon bombed. 63 killed.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-10T01:08:11-06:00

ID: 103576
Comment: And, hot off the presses, this today in Jordan: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=13454 Islam, the religion of peace. Tom, Iím afraid you are going to have a hard time selling that notion to many Parisians right about now, which is not surprising since you would have a similar lack of success selling it to many Jacksonians (the other 4 posters on this site notwithstanding, of course). Ach so, and lest I forget, the citizens of Amsterdam, that canal-ridden, old-bicycle haven, den of high quality beer, marijuana, and life, and one of the safest and most pleasant cities one could ever hope to visit would also have quite a bit to say on this subject after the brutal murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in broad daylight on a street in Amsterdam: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm As far as treatment of women goes, Buck turned the discussion into that as a means of bashing Islam. He is apparently not interested in educating himself on the context of the riots, in gaining a more nuanced understanding of the situation. He doesn't care why young Muslim men are rioting, any more than he's concerned about why young black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. He seems to feel that it's a natural thing--something you should expect "those people" to do, and not indicative of broader societal problems. I'm arguing with him for the benefit of other folks reading this, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that Buck will ever take seriously any data that might conflict with his prejudices. He has already made up his mind. I think the discussion here has revealed that many tenets of Islamic culture and society result in the poor treatment of women, and I donít think anyone has disagreed with that statement. And, please note, I have made no statements nor advanced any theories as to why the rioters in France are acting up as they are. You have apparently assumed that my logic flows as your notions, no matter how ill-conceived they are, would have it flow. But, you know what happens when you assume, Tom: it makes an ass out of ìuî and ìme,î but mostly you. Now, Buck, Tom is right. You are using extremely fallacious arguments here to espouse ethnic prejudices in your flatly unfactual remarks in this context. . .These fallacies about the "Muslim hordes" just aren't to fly on this site. People around here read and study more than hate screeds. Buck, again I am backing Tom up: No more racist and ethnic stereotypes and fallacies here. This is NOT a place to spew generalized hatred of Muslims. . .For some reasons, you disengage logic and start throwing out the logical fallacies about every single time. I have made no statements that are ìunfactualî nor any that involve racist, ethnic, or religious stereotypes. If you find any that are arguably so, please let me know.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-10T01:10:42-06:00

ID: 103577
Comment: Buck, even advocates of the headscarf law do not pretend that it is even-handed and neutral; France does not have a free exercise clause as such. The stated purpose is to assimilate Muslim girls into mainstream French society. Nobody is pretending, as they might in the United States, that the purpose of the law is not religion-specific. The issue is whether forced assimilation of Muslim girls is a good thing or a bad thing. The standard argument for headscarves is that the abject poverty of many immigrant Muslim communities could be partly relieved by greater assimilation. As far as "horde" goes: The word has multiple levels of meaning. As far as "some of my best friends...": Apples and moon rocks, really; we all speak from our experiences. That's called integrity. Your list of terrorist acts committed by Islamic extremists would be more remarkable if there were not 1.2 billion Muslims, many of them from the poorest and most war-torn nations on Earth. You are making the classic mistake of adopting an ethnically or culturally essentialist take behavior that can be better explained by more specific socioeconomic factors. I willingly concede that Islam is not "the religion of peace," because there is no religion of peace--unless you count Jainism, I guess. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism have all had violent strands, and if that's enough to disqualify an entire religion, you should really adopt secularism. Except for the fact that many of the most prolific butchers of the 20th century happened to be secularists. No, if you're going for guilt by association, we're inevitably screwed. How fortunate for all of us that this way of thinking is so obviously fallacious. As far as "tenets of Islamic culture and society" goes: There is no single "Islamic culture and society," sweetheart. Islam is a missionary religion with countless incarnations and no small number of denominations. Most of the bad behavior you love to cite can be traced to the Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam, which is a fairly recent innovation. And there was a time, less than 1,000 years ago, when "Islamic culture and society" was far more enlightened and less violent than "Christian culture and society." So no, Islam is not intrinsically anti-woman. If you look in the Qur'an, you will find some statements that could have just as easily been made by the neo-Pauline writer who produced the Epistle to the Colossians. And you will find a very strict just war standard--much stricter than that of the Book of Joshua. You may feel that I'm an ass, but you've advanced some pretty clear implicit theories about why French Muslims are rioting. If you don't mean to make these arguments, then you should word your posts more carefully. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-10T01:27:50-06:00

ID: 103578
Comment: A few final (for me, anyway) points: Buck, even advocates of the headscarf law do not pretend that it is even-handed and neutral; France does not have a free exercise clause as such. The stated purpose is to assimilate Muslim girls into mainstream French society. Nobody is pretending, as they might in the United States, that the purpose of the law is not religion-specific. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3328277.stm Q: Apart from the French Muslim community, are other religious groups also angry about this law? Yes, Christian and Jewish groups reacted angrily to the ban on "overt" religious symbols in schools. As well as having the biggest Muslim community in Europe, France also has the biggest Jewish one. While one Jewish group had no problem with the ban, the Grand Rabbi of France, Joseph Sitruk, opposed it. Tom, it seems that your statement is at odds with the BBC article cited above. Now I donít read French, except for a few dirty words, but if evidence exists that this law is directed specifically at muslims per the text of the relevant law(s), Iíd be interested to see it. It seems that you are questioning (at least) my integrity here; while my constitution is not so frail as to wilt at that possibility, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation of such. As far as "tenets of Islamic culture and society" goes: There is no single "Islamic culture and society," sweetheart. Islam is a missionary religion with countless incarnations and no small number of denominations. My statement was with reference to the tenets of Islamic culture and society generally, rather than any one subcategory of that culture. Which was clear in my post. However, as those who forget history are damned to repeat it, no argument with Tom would be complete without a quick trip to dictionary.com: Isïlam n. 1. A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God. 2. a. The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world. b. The civilization developed by the Muslim world. Isïlam ic adj. adj : of or relating to or supporting Islamism; "Islamic art" [syn: Muslim, Moslem, Islamic] Now, spirited debate is generally an enjoyable thing, IMO, but this nitpicking on dictionary definitions is a bit much, donít you think? And, ìsweetheart?î I am beginning to think you have a crush on me. If you don't mean to make these arguments, then you should word your posts more carefully. If I donít mean to make a given argument. . . well . . . I donít make it! As for the other issues you raise (sort of) in your post, I submit a relevant article from the LA Times I came across which expresses the concerns that I (along with many other Americans . . and Israelis . . and countless others) have regarding Islam. As a caveat, I know nothing about the author other than the contents of his bio on his site. Link
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-14T00:48:22-06:00

ID: 103579
Comment: Buck, The goal of the bill is to integrate Muslim girls into French society. This is understood by both its prominent advocates (Jacques Chirac, Gilles Kepel, et. al.) and its prominent critics. The issue is not whether it targets Muslim girls; the issue is whether compulsory social integration of this nature is justified. You can read another BBC article, which goes into more depth on the motivations behind the bill, here. I don't recall questioning your integrity. Your knowledge of Islam, yes. Your ability to think critically on matters of race and culture, yes. Your integrity, not so much. If you think that a dictionary will give you a comprehensive understanding of the Islamic tradition, then I think you put a teensy bit too much faith in Merriam-Webster. You were wise to maintain plausible deniability on Dennis Prager's biases, as his web site recommends (among other things) The Weekly Standard and books titled Female Chauvinist Pigs, The ACLU vs. America, It Takes a Family (by Rick Santorum), A Deficit of Decency (by Zell Miller), Why Men Earn More, God and George W. Bush, Unfit for Command (the Swift Boat Republicans' hatchet job on Kerry), Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, The French Betrayal of America, By Design (a creationism apologetic)...need I go on? So it's a good thing that, rather than spending the 25 seconds it would have taken to find out he was a right-wing crank, you spent 10 saying that you know nothing about the author. His points about Islam are similar to yours: You're confusing specific cases with general statements. And his comment about free vs. unfree Islamic states is simply dead wrong; I know he left out Turkey (99.8% Muslim), and I have no idea which other states he might have left off. I don't have time to fact-check his lazy, bigoted right-wing punditry. Or yours, for that matter. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-14T01:16:08-06:00

ID: 103580
Comment: Here's an article you need to read. I think the author has a good handle on the whole Islamic fundamentalism issue. Excerpt: The question seems to be how a fundamentally (no pun intended) peaceful religion can be perverted into a violent political agenda that encourages terrorism. One of several factors, to be sure, is politics, in the broadest sense of that term. Obviously, the extremists that represent the radical fringe of Islamic peoples, such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist groups, have a specific agenda of violence and terrorism in the name of Allah and their jihad. Unfortunately, however, we are not immune from the scourge of violence in the name of religion ... During her speech at the Mississippi College School of Law graduation ceremony last May, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice mentioned the bombing of a Birmingham church by the Ku Klux Klan, which resulted in the death of four young girls, one of which was apparently a friend of Dr. Rice. The various groups that have carried the ìKlanî moniker have called themselves, among other names, the ìChristian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.î More remote in time but no less significant were the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Third Reich ... There is also the wingnut who set bombs off at abortion clinics and the Olympics, Eric Rudolph, who has been linked with the radical Christian Identity movement. And let us not forget Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber who carried out an attack outlined in the extremely racist, militaristic, pro-Christian and most definitely poorly-written handbook of the ultra-right militia movement, the Turner Diaries ... In nearly every case, it is impossible to determine where religion ends and politics begins. I find this depressing to read, despite its cogency. Why? Because the author's name is Buck Allred. And now look at what he's posting. Buck, I apologize if my tone seems a little personal at times. But it's depressing to read dimbulb bigotry, arguments that are literally identical to those you will find on Klan and CCC web sites, coming from someone who is capable of so much more. I do not understand what has happened to your mind on race and culture issues, but I don't like it. You are reacting viscerally, not thinking about these issues rationally, and appealing to the worst in human nature. In the process, you are playing into the hands of hatemongers in our own country, who are all too happy to be defined, in a zero sum game, as the only alternative to hatemongers abroad. You are better than this. Wake up! Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-14T02:20:40-06:00

ID: 103581
Comment: The issue is not whether it targets Muslim girls; the issue is whether compulsory social integration of this nature is justified. Tom Head: "The stated purpose is to assimilate Muslim girls into mainstream French society." The purpose of the law is to ban overt symbols of religion (any religion) in french schools. As to whether compulsory social integration of this nature is justified: Justified by whom? It is justified by the democratically-elected government of France. Do you consider the refusal of muslim immigrants in France to assimilate into French society to be a good or desireable thing? And even if you do, it's clear that the French government does not. What's the more rational response in the face of this sort of societal or cultural disagreement: to participate in the democratic process, or to riot? His points about Islam are similar to yours: You're confusing specific cases with general statements. And his comment about free vs. unfree Islamic states is simply dead wrong; I know he left out Turkey (99.8% Muslim), and I have no idea which other states he might have left off. I don't have time to fact-check his lazy, bigoted right-wing punditry. Or yours, for that matter. He may or may not be a "right-wing hack," but I am more interested in the questions he poses to the Muslim world than I am in where you think this author stands on the political spectrum. I am disappointed, although not entirely surprised, to see you resort to partisan name-calling in lieu of addressing the issues the author raises in his article in any meaningful fashion. And, if you want to explore the angle of alleged bias of that article, would you say that the author is more biased because of his political orientation, or because of his own religion, or both? Of any ethnic/religious group to which you would have a hard time selling your position regarding Islam, Jews are at the top of that list. Why do you suppose that is? I find this depressing to read, despite its cogency. Why? Because the author's name is Buck Allred. And now look at what he's posting. Througout this discussion you have inaccurately attributed to me the arguments of defending Jesus, Christendom, Baseball, Momma, Apple Pie, The Flag, Pickup Trucks, etc. despite ZERO statements from me to support these attributions from you. Many horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity and other religions throughout human history, both modern and otherwise. Human history is full of examples of wingnuts that have been set off by organized religion of various flavors. And in that regard, as stated in my posts above, the flavor of the day in that regard is Islam. And, to further demonstrate no pro-Christianity bias on my part, I observe that the violence currently being carried out on our behalf in Iraq is serving to greatly exacerbate this problem. Anyone who considers Christianity to be a religion of peace ought to be mightily disturbed by the antics of our current president, which are supported by a significant and rather disturbing (IMO) neo-con and evangelical Christian faction in our country. Nowhere did I state or imply otherwise. No matter how much of a wanker the author of that LA Times article is, and I'm sure he probably is, the questions he poses are legitimate. And in violation of my own anti-wanker-quoting policy, the below comment is even more relevant in light of your accusation that my arguments are identical to those found on Klan websites: "Hundreds of millions of non-Muslims want honest answers to these questions, even if the only answer you offer is, 'Yes, we have real problems in Islam.' Such an acknowledgment is infinitely better ó for you and for the world ó than dismissing us as anti-Muslim." Of course, you went a bit beyond dismissing me as anti-Muslim, but that sort of thing has come to be expected from you.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-14T11:53:42-06:00

ID: 103582
Comment: Buck, I sent you a link on the context of the headscarf law, but you've unsurprisingly dismissed it because it doesn't agree with your conclusion. That's classic Bushian logic: Start with the conclusion you're going to reach, then invent an argument around it. Prager's questions are ignorant and based on faulty premises. I already showed one example where he was provably incorrect. I do not feel compelled to treat this hatemonger's idiocy as if he were asking serious questions about Islam. If he were really the scholar of Islam he claims to be, then he would already know all the answers and would have no reason to ask the questions to begin with. His claims to moderation are a classic "Some of my best friends are black" appeal, intended to distract us from the fact that all he's doing is spouting hate. Yes, there's a problem with Muslim theocracy in the world right now, just as there was a problem with Christian theocracy in the world during the 16th century. This does not invalidate the concerns of Muslim youths, just as it would not have invalidated the concerns of Christian youths 500 years ago. Throughout this thread, I have tried to convey some of the specific contextual issues of French politics that might lead people to riot. Rather than looking at these issues, you have ignored them, then celebrated your ignorance--all while recycling, like a trained parrot, the same old arguments you have used since the beginning of this thread. You write: Througout this discussion you have inaccurately attributed to me the arguments of defending Jesus, Christendom, Baseball, Momma, Apple Pie, The Flag, Pickup Trucks, etc. despite ZERO statements from me to support these attributions from you. As long as you ignore the policy issues at hand and make the spurious argument that the biggest problem with Muslim youths is that they're Muslims, then what you are doing is forwarding the willfully ignorant Charlie Daniels "That's No Rag, It's a Flag" agenda. I only wish your argument was limited to defending Jesus, Christendom, Baseball, et. al., but it's not a defense at all. It's an attack. And it's a willfully ignorant attack at that. There is nothing special about Muslim fundamentalists that inoculate individuals from being hateful, violent, misguided people, but neither is there any class of people--including Muslim fundamentalists--who go around rioting just for the hell of it. Besides, if the Muslim youths rioting in France are really have the same agenda as the Palestinian suicide bombers (which would be a neat trick, since most of them aren't Wahhabis), how do you explain the astonishingly low human casualty to property damage ratio? If they're who you claim they are, why aren't there two or three (or ten or twenty) dead white French citizens for every burned-out car? Most terrorists like high casualty figures. Why are most of the French Muslim youths being so careful not to kill people? To answer that question, you'd have to look at the specific circumstances involved. Which you'll never do, because you are so ignorantly committed to your own little jihad. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-14T13:28:11-06:00

ID: 103583
Comment: (I reworded the last paragraph without removing a couple of linking verbs, leading to an "All Your Bases Are Belong to Us" effect. But I suspect it's probably still coherent enough to work with.)
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-14T13:30:34-06:00

ID: 103584
Comment: I sent you a link on the context of the headscarf law, but you've unsurprisingly dismissed it because it doesn't agree with your conclusion. That's classic Bushian logic: Start with the conclusion you're going to reach, then invent an argument around it. I read it; and I have seen zero evidence that this law is directed specifically toward muslims. However, as is contained in the link I sent to you, there is plenty of evidence supporting the idea that these laws are directed against all overt symbols of religion, including muslim headscarves and jewish yarmulkes, just for one other example. Thus there is no ìintelligence and facts . . . being fixed around the policyî here, with apologies to Mr. Blairís aide. Prager's questions are ignorant and based on faulty premises. I already showed one example where he was provably incorrect. I do not feel compelled to treat this hatemonger's idiocy as if he were asking serious questions about Islam. If he were really the scholar of Islam he claims to be, then he would already know all the answers and would have no reason to ask the questions to begin with. Rather convenient to avoid addressing the questions Prager asks due to his alleged bias than to just address the questions, donít you think? Do you doubt that many millions of people around the world would like to know the answers to those same questions? I note that you attribute bias to Prager due to his ìhatemonger[ing]î and/or ìidiocy,î but you didnít mention a much more likely source for any bias: his religion. Does that sort of thing enter into your analysis of an individualís (or a journalistís) credibility? And, just to be completely clear, I consider the points Prager expressed in his article to be entirely valid, regardless of where he stands on the political (or religious) spectrum. Letís assume, for the sake of argument, that Prager, as you say, utterly and completely lacks credibility. What if another individual or entity with much greater credibility expressed concerns similar to those expressed by Prager? http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam_may_june_intro_2005_07.htm Interesting commentary regarding the anti-semitic attacks that were occurring in France 15 months ago, glad that issue has really improved since: http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Anti_Semitism_Arab/20040813_Op-ed.htm Not just arab muslims: http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/farrakhan_own_words.asp Iran calls for Israelís destruction: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4814_13.htm
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-14T21:59:08-06:00

ID: 103585
Comment: Throughout this thread, I have tried to convey some of the specific contextual issues of French politics that might lead people to riot. Rather than looking at these issues, you have ignored them, then celebrated your ignorance--all while recycling, like a trained parrot, the same old arguments you have used since the beginning of this thread. If I am ìlike a trained parrot,î well then . . you are a. . . a . . . parakeet!! Or maybe an ostrich!! Take that! Tom, Tom, Tom. Sigh, the name-calling ought to be beneath you. It is most definitely beneath me, at any rate. I never said that the muslim, err, groups in France lack legitimate complaints. However, I did say several times that the appropriate response to those gripes is to participate in the democratic process rather than to riot and burn cars. Or, in the alternative, to find somewhere else to live where the laws regarding overt religious symbols are more lax. As long as you ignore the policy issues at hand and make the spurious argument that the biggest problem with Muslim youths is that they're Muslims, then what you are doing is forwarding the willfully ignorant Charlie Daniels "That's No Rag, It's a Flag" agenda.. Whatís old is new again: we are once again going in circles. I never made that argument, nor did I ìignore the policy issues at hand.î It is clear that these muslim immigrants in France are not taking too kindly to the efforts of the French government to assimilate them into French society, irrespective of whether the ban on overt religious symbols is directed only at muslims. Where we apparently disagree, and I am going to be careful not to attribute arguments to you that you have not made (a novel idea, I know), is the appropriate response to those efforts. My own little jihad? Hardly. I am waging no holy war, internally or otherwise, nor any other struggle, other than the occasional dust-up with ill-mannered denizens of internet forums. Finally, to clarify: Charlie Danielsí best work ended with ìThe Devil Went Down to Georgia,î and itís ìAll Your Base [singular] Are Belong To Us.î
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-14T22:00:11-06:00

ID: 103586
Comment: Buck, I'm not particularly interested in the discussion y'all have going here; it does seem to be going in circles at this point. You do seem to have a blind spot about your own argumentation tendencies -- when you start out a discussion based on stereotypes and generalizations (in this case, about Muslims), it's really not going to recover if you don't acknowledge and correct what you're doing. And you seldom seem interested in examining your own blind spots in these types of discussions. Inevitably, when this happens, it ends up with frustration and insults. I will say again: If I see you posting a generalization or stereotype about a race or ethnicity or a country or a city or people who like a certain type of music, Buck, I will suspend you again. I'm just not interested in that trash on this Web site. And it is not the basis of intelligent discussion and just p!sses other people off. This is truly the last call I will ever give you on the JFP site.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-14T22:33:04-06:00

ID: 103587
Comment: Buck, I find this thread incredibly frustrating because I like most of your posts when we're not discussing a group you're making general statements about. I am trying to figure out whether you are actually as bigoted as you sound to me (which does not seem consistent with your earlier writings on this subject), or if this is honestly a semantic problem and you do not understand the difference between general and individual statements. If you honestly don't see how your posts sound like they're biased against Muslims, or how your posts in older threads sound like they're biased against young black men, then maybe I've misjudged you. What you might really need is to sit down and have a nice long conversation with somebody who can walk through what it is about your writing style that sounds prejudiced, because it does sound prejudiced. There's no getting around that. Any Muslim who read your posts in this thread would think "Jeez, he hates us." If you don't see that, then maybe you're as much a victim of your writing on this subject as anybody else is. It's easy to get caught in semantic traps, and if you find yourself talking to a lot of bigots, you might find yourself picking up some of their ways of speaking even when you find their ideas abhorrent. I don't know. I can't say. I can only say how you sound, not what's actually going on in your head. I find this thread exhausting, in any case, because I feel like most of my points are getting lost. Donna's right; this thread is extremely circular. I am repeating myself. Which is fine for me up to a point, because I'm in love with the sound of my own voice (real or imagined), but even I'm getting bored now. So I will make specific fact-based points, and then I will probably hush and let you have the last word. I recommend that the general thrust of your post be centered on why you are not anti-Muslim, and what you think of Muslims in general terms if your impression is not negative. I have a lot of preacher blood in me, and I'm a big believer in redemption. So I'd much rather see you escape from this semantic moebius strip. First, the law is directed towards Muslim girls. I urge you to look at the link I sent you above, which cites a BBC article that quotes supporters of the bill and refers to the "universal" acknowledgment that this is the law's purpose. I am not being histrionic or dishonest when I say this; it is the truth. I compiled an anthology for Greenhaven Press where I included Gilles Kepel's argument in favor of headscarves as a viewpoint piece. I am familiar with the French thinking on this subject. It was not to attack Islam. The effect, however, was to restrict Islamic free speech and free exercise rights, and to forcibly violate Muslim girls' personal standards of modesty. As far as the ADL goes, I will say that while it has done some wonderful work to fight antisemitism, I do not take it very seriously as a more general antidiscrimination group. The ADL leadership disappointed me terribly in the wake of 9/11, when the group did very little to deal with attacks on, and prejudice against, Arab Americans and Muslims. It has also not done as much as I would like to deal with racism against African Americans, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups. In short, I stand behind the ADL 100% in its defense of Jews and Israelis, but do not believe that it lives up to its own standards in dealing with Muslims. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-15T00:41:48-06:00

ID: 103588
Comment: One clarification: Gilles Kepel's statement was in favor of the headscarf ban. And his argument was that Muslim immigrants in France had essentially been ghettoized, and that the best way to integrate them into the community was to end the practice of wearing headscarves, which clearly separates Muslim and non-Muslim girls. This was a restatement of the argument Chirac relied upon in his support for the bill. Some supporters were anti-Muslim and saw it as an opportunity to stick it to that community, but I really believe that most saw this as an opportunity to liberate Muslim girls and allow them to participate fully in French society. I actually agree with Kepel's assessment of the problem, by the way, but I think the proposed solution was draconian and wrong. This is a clear case where the road to hell was paved with good intentions. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-15T00:54:36-06:00

ID: 103589
Comment: Tom: Kind of you to allow me the last word. Unfortunately, however, as Ms. Ladd has brandished her Staff of Banning +8 at me (again), I am constrained from responding in any meaningful manner. As such, before I break into a negro spiritual hymn, I respectfully decline your invitation. I will say again: If I see you posting a generalization or stereotype about a race or ethnicity or a country or a city or people who like a certain type of music, Buck, I will suspend you again. Ms. Ladd: First and foremost, let me say that I was equally outraged by the negative reference to people who enjoy Charlie Daniels' music. Secondly, it would not be possible to discuss the issues presented here in a manner that is completely free of "generalizations" or "stereotypes," especially with the meanings of those terms being interpreted on a subjective basis. The result would be an entirely hollow, white-washed, and otherwise inadequate discussion that would result in the posters here patting each other on their respective backs, as has occurred quite a bit on this site. Difficult issues necessitate difficult discussions, to be sure. Whether that sort of thing is approriate for this site is, of course, up to you. And, I was banned here before, not suspended. Or if I was ever un-suspended, I never got the email.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-15T15:16:41-06:00

ID: 103590
Comment: I never made a negative reference to people who like Charlie Daniels' music as a whole, Buck; I made a reference to an anti-Arab song he recorded shortly after 9/11, literally titled "That's No Rag, That's a Flag." And it's a slightly catchier way of saying what your posts sound like they're saying here, whether that's what you mean to say or not. If I were a Muslim reading this thread, I would have serious doubts about whether I would be welcome on this site, and indeed what kind of reaction I might encounter in general from certain people in Mississippi. That is my primary concern. This is not a strictly abstract argument for me, because I have seen the effects of this kind of harmful language. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-15T16:28:51-06:00

ID: 103591
Comment: Buck, if you can't respond in a meaningful way without casting aspersions at entire groups of people, you're right, you shouldn't even try. No one cares. I like Charlie Daniels band, or did before they became wingnuts and started leaving out the word "bitch" when they play live. I vastly disagree with you, Buck: You can discuss these issues without stereotypes, and many people do, and intelligently. You, however, have not shown an ability to do that, so don't try if you want to continue posting. As for your last statement, I (and mine) own the site, and I suspended you after way too many warnings about your racial stereotypes. You have now registered under a different e-mail address, and I have allowed you to stay until you display similar behavior. You have started doing that on this thread, more directed toward religions, and as I've said, there will be no more warnings to you. The site's success does not depend on your presence. My suggestion to you is that you learn to talk about these difficult topics without resorting to stereotypes and unfactual generalizations. Or not. I don't care, but I do care about what's done here.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-15T16:30:09-06:00

ID: 103592
Comment: Also, Buck, your lack of comprehension about the Charles Daniels Band comment and what you're trying to turn it into shows that you just don't get it when it comes to stereotypes. Of course, you've shown that in the past, so there are no surprises here. Again, change the subject, avoid the stereotypes, or leave. You have choices.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-15T16:32:20-06:00

ID: 103593
Comment: Now, the idea of anyone being "outraged" as a result of reading disparaging comments about Charlie Daniels fans was comical enough in the first place, as those individuals are usually, err, not real sensitive types. Wait!! Was that a cultural stereotype!! Dangit!! But that you guys both took my statement seriously lends an unintended and very funny (to me, anyway) crescendo to this discussion. Sigh, the law of unintended consequences . . . "What This World Needs Is A Few More Rednecks," -B.
Author: allred
Date: 2005-11-15T17:14:53-06:00

ID: 103594
Comment: Buck, you've established a certain persona for yourself with your stereotypes about other groups and uneven disparagements. That's the roadmap you give us for determining what you are saying. Your problem. Honestly, I don't even know what you're trying to say about the Charlie Daniels Band; it seems that you're doing a nervous little dance to change the subject or something. Truly, it just doesn't make sense to me, so I don't care and won't try to understand it. As for Tom's comment about the band's "That's No Rag, That's a Flag" ó wow. That's shocking and should be called out. It seems a long way, somehow, from their playful old "Dew Drop Inn" days, if anyone remembers the "song" I mean, which most gay folks I know (who have heard it) think it's just as funny as I do. And you just can't find a better ditty than the first "Uneasy Rider." And "Long-Haired Country Boy" will always be one of my favorite songs, to both sing loudly after too many beers and to dance to in my favoriate old dive bars in the East Village. Classic Charlie Daniels Band is considered very hip in New York bars -- but not songs that disparage people who wear head wraps because it's their religion. That's just disgusting bigotry. Todd and I were just saying at lunch today, by the way, that someone needs to open a bar in Jackson with a great jukebox with a mix of classic-kitschy country, standards, indie stuff Herman would pick out, music by local bands, blues and lots of Ella. I guarantee that we would quickly make it the most popular joints in town. Any takers? But I suppose I digress. P.S. We could also use a Beauty Bar.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-15T17:32:01-06:00

ID: 103595
Comment: For anyone who gets it: "... I ain't even got a garage" may be one of the funniest lines in American song-writing history. And Buck, as a born-and-bred redneck, I ain't gonna let people spread evil stereotypes about "all" rednecks, either, as my past moderating has shown.
Author: DonnaLadd
Date: 2005-11-15T17:36:37-06:00

ID: 103596
Comment: You know, that bar I might even have to visit. That sounds like a pretty cool mix of music... Buck, you say you're not anti-Muslim. So I'd like a post from you that makes this clear. As I said, I'd much rather see you redeem yourself. Cheers, TH
Author: Tom Head
Date: 2005-11-15T17:40:26-06:00

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment

Or login with:

OpenID

Ellington