Investigating Teh Muslims, part deuce

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110615/ap_on_re_us/us_muslims_terror_hearings

So NY Congressman Peter King is holding more hearings, this time on violent Islam in prison. It hasn't resulted in nearly as much controversy as his previous hearing where he just attacked "violent Islam" in general, but it's still drawing some protests.

For the record when it comes to violence done in the name of Islam I tend to condemn it rather strongly. Few things annoy me more when my fellow liberals seem to give certain acts a pass, often citing cultural reasons. What gets me is if these acts (such as honor killing and/or the systematic suppression of women) were done in the name of Christianity then they'd be screaming bloody murder. It shouldn't be a different reaction just because it's done by the enemy of your enemy.

That being said these investigations are awful and hateful. I think of it this way: imagine if he held hearings on violent blacks in America. He would be rightfully tarred and feathered for even suggesting it. Why? Because it's not right to suggest an entire group of people is guilty for the actions of a few. These hearings are thinly-veiled hate speech and have no place in Congress.

I'll save you some time, Congressman King. There's violence in the name of Islam. There's violence in the name of Christianity. There's violence in the name of nationalism. There's violence done in many names, so please stop the hateful posturing and work on issues that actually matter, such as jobs.

Comments

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I never claimed he was a liberal voice, in fact he calls himself a libertarian. But I agree with him in that instance, I think the sexism in the Middle East is WAY worse than the sexism in the West. Both are very much wrong but just because it needs serious improvement here doesn't mean it's not much worse elsewhere.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

He might claim to be a libertarian but I can tell you that libertarians scream "Hell No" every time he says it.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

There's more than one kind of libertarian. Just because he's not YOUR type doesn't mean he isn't one. There are some that emphasize economic freedom more, there are those that emphasize personal freedoms more. Most claim to emphasize both.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And Maher is none of those. He's the kind that is neither Dem nor Rep and can't think of anything else to label themselves.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Sure he is, very much emphasizes personal freedoms over economic is all. He supported the privatization of Social Security, ending corporate welfare and federal funding of non-profits.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Emphasizing personal freedoms does not make one a libertarian. Yes, libertarians emphasize personal freedom but that is not the actual goal of the philosophy, it is the rejection, as much as possible, of the use of government force.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Only in your view of it. The broader sense in every definition has been about freedom of expression and action. To quote Webster's:

1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2: a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action"


The bolded word is where he fails the litimus test. Yes he favors freedom of action on "some" issues, specifically drugs, sex, and abortion however he opposes it on others such as guns, the right to contract (via a support of minimum wage and government mandated affirmative action programs). Further he advocates for an interventionist foreign policy with a large military and opposes school choice programs and homeschooling both of which are core libertarian concepts.

At best he agrees with about 50% of the standard libertarian platform.

For reference...

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Like I said, your standard libertarian platform. For many it's just the next form of conservatism, a sort of neo-neoconservatism. But there are many who emphasize the personal freedoms more than financial. There are some that are outright anarchists. I don't see why you get to arbitrarily decide who is the "real" libertarian and who isn't.