Rattling the Cage: Pity Rick didn’t rag the Muslims

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4 recent scandals involving public figures accused of running down minorities show that any offensive commentary on followers of Islam incurs no real consequences.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=190458

In America, you can’t rag the Jews publicly and you can’t rag the blacks publicly. It’s taboo – you lose your job, you have to quit the campaign if you say bad things about Jews or blacks – even if what you say is, you know, true.

After Jews and blacks come the Latinos, Asians, Catholics and all the other ethnic and religious minorities – none of them have the victim status that blacks and Jews enjoy, they’re not as controversial, so nobody in America is much inclined to slag them off anyway. (Latino illegal immigrants, however, are a different story, and you can put them down as much as you want so long as you specify that you’re talking about “illegal immigrants,” or at least “immigrants,” and not Latinos in general.)

With one exception, political correctness protects every ethnic and religious minority in America from public bad-mouthing, and that one exception is Muslims. In America, you can say anything you want as publicly as you want against Muslims, against Islam, against the Koran, and the only thing mainstream America might do is elect you. You will have trouble in very narrow, left-liberal, Ivy League circles, but that’s all. Everywhere else in the USA, Muslims are fair game. (All Arabs count as Muslims, of course, even if they’re Christian).

THIS IS the deal, and it can be seen in four recent American scandals involving public figures accused of running down Jews, blacks or Muslims. The most recent was CNN’s Rick Sanchez, who said Jews have great power in the American media and are far from being an oppressed minority anymore (which is true).

...

Whole article at http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=190458 .

[azurnoir]

1. Arab and Muslim have become fairly interchangable for

a good deal of the American public, most Americans are unaware that there is a fairly large number of Muslims who are Asian

IMO Derfner hit the nail on the head with this one all around

[oberliner]

2. This person has no idea what he is talking about

He clearly has no understanding of the present day United States.

Outside of those same "left-liberal, Ivy League circles" there are nasty, unpolitically-correct jokes made about Jews, African-Americans, Latinos, and Asians all the time.

Just turn on any talk show on the radio for some very public examples - broadcast to, in some cases, millions of fans.

[shira]

3. The Gideon Levy crowd hates liberal Zionists like Derfner, Bradley Burston, etc...

...who believe in 2 states with minor border adjustments, and are therefore not proper "progressive" Leftwing anti-Zionists for so-called justice (full right of return, strict 1967 borders...).

Levy and his worshippers think liberal Zionists are actually worse than Rightwingers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x327212#334297

Derfner, Burston, etc... are only useful when their criticism can be used to bash Israel.

[oberliner]

4. Closed-mindedness - Gideon Levy once said he was brainwashed

Then he "woke up" presumably.

Maybe he ought to learn to say more than just thank you in Arabic.

Derfner and Burston also do not impress me.

Ditto MJ - the least impressive of all.

Where oh were is the writer who can avoid the snark and give folks the straight story.

Is it even possible, on this topic, to write that way?

[LeftishBrit]

5. Which writers do you like?

I do like both Burston and Derfner (though this article is not up to his usual standard - at least if I translate it to Europe). Maybe I do like a certain amount of political snark, at least it's about people I disapprove of! I don't care for Levy; too negative and pessimistic, with lots of criticism but no proposals for improvement. And who is MJ? - usually would mean Michael Jackson, but presumably not here.

[oberliner]

7. Good question

Perhaps the fact that I can't come up with any names off the top of my head means that I am a bit too critical.

Ray Hanania has written some interesting/amusing pieces - though he is more of a comedian/observer than a journalist. And I'm not even sure if he writes articles any more.

MJ is MJ Rosenberg. His stuff has been posted here from time to time (and I usually have some disparaging thing to say about him when it does).

[LeftishBrit]

49. I like Hanania too.

As well as Burston and Derfner, I like Oz, Grossman, Strenger and some others. I particularly like the Bitter Lemons blog, which is dedicated to dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian writers (www.bitterlemons.org).

I have the impression that you are not that keen on most professional journalists as a group: a view with which I have some sympathies, as these are people who make a profession out of giving the world their opinions, which generally implies some degree of arrogance (in the case of those who are sincere about their writings; the insincere 'rentamouths' have worse qualities). I am more tolerant in general at least of those with whom I agree(!); even if arrogant, they are using it for good - but I do often prefer nonprofessional 'citizen writers'. I really liked the Good Neighbors blog that combined Israeli, Arab and other Jewish and Muslim bloggers sharing their perspectives; sadly this seems to be now defunct as a blog, but some individual writers are continuing. Among the 'Good Neighbors' writers, I particularly like the writings of the Palestinian blogger Ramzi Sfeir:

http://ramzisfeir.wordpress.com/

and more recently

http://www.ramzisfeir.com

[oberliner]

50. Thanks for the link

I will definitely check out that blog.

One arrogant writer with whom I often disagree is Christopher Hitchens - but there is something about his style that I do like.

I guess it is all a matter of personal taste.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Easy: Levy, Burston, Derfner etc all give approximations of "the straight story" on a regular basis

It's unfortunate that the straight story is not sympathetic enough to Israel for your tastes, but that's your fault and not theres.

[oberliner]

16. Not true

It's unfortunate that you perceive the "straight story" to be whatever is in line with your tastes, but that's your fault and not theres .

Look at Gideon Levy's recent story about Sabbar Kashur.

He made no effort to dig deeper into the facts of the case (such as by, for instance, speaking to the woman in question) and the article could not be less "straight" and more tilted towards his particular preconceived notions.

And possibly yours?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Yes, certainly I have preconceived notions, like "racism is bad".

Yes, the reason I admire Levy, Burston, Derfner etc is that they regularly write things which "agree with my preconceived notions" - which is to say, "which I think are right". All three are primarily opinion writers, not investigative journalists (or at least, the columns of theirs I read are; I don't know much about their other careers).

In the case you cite, Levy was commenting on a case which had already been very widely reported; to single him out for criticism for putting the same slant on it everyone else was doing feels like you are looking for excuses to attack him.

Yes, Levy (and Burston have Derfner) regularly writes things with which I do not agree. But they're all on the money far more often than e.g. Ray Hannania (who you say you admire in another post in this thread), who still hasn't given up on "peace through ending the hatred", as opposed to "peace through still hating one another, but just not killing people", which makes his views and recommendations mostly useless, if not actively harmful.

[oberliner]

22. And is Palestinian a race? Is Jewish? Arab? Could this be another of your preconceived notions?

Again, I would encourage you to reexamine some of your underlying assumptions that you may not even be aware exist!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Palestinian is not a race, Jewish covers a race, Arab is a race as much as anything is.

"A race" is, of course, an extremely nebulous and undefined term, so your question isn't well-defined.

However, I can think of two responses which probably help construct an anwer.

One is that looking at someone's DNA in sufficient (i.e. far better than is currently possible) will give you no idea at all whether they're Palestinian, it will let you make a well-informed guess as to whether they're Jewish under Israeli law* or not but leave you far from certain, and tell you with a reasonable degree of confidence whether or not they're Arab.

The second is that hostility Arabs qua Arabs is always racism, pretty much by definition; hostility to Jews as a group is likewise always racism but hostility to the practice of the Jewish religion is not necessarily (although it's often motivated by it); hostility to Palestinians might not be racism to a hair-splitting etymologist, for the same reason that e.g. anti-Irish bigotry in the US would not be, but in practice it is (although hostility to e.g. the Palestinian leadership is obviously not).



*Of course, there are a bunch of other definitions of "Jewish" too, just to muddy the waters - it's a stupid word that desperately needs to be replaced by a bunch of words to cover its different meanings.

[oberliner]

28. Well you do appear to have given these questions a lot of thought

Thanks for your response.

[shaayecanaan]

21. Hanania has a blog of sorts

here:-

http://professivecomicstrips.blogspot.com/

not sure that you would agree with much of what he says.

[oberliner]

23. Thanks for the link

Looking over the site, I'd say I agree with him at least fifty percent of the time.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. As always, a simple lie.

I'm a big admirer of Gideon Levy - I think he talks more sense about Israel than just about any other commentator published in mainstream Israeli media on a regular basis - but I also admire the likes of Derfner, Burston, Oz etc even though there are things I disagree with them about.

There may be a few posters on DU who admire Levy but despise Burston and Derfner, but they're heavily outnumbered by ones who don't.

[shira]

24. Really? Let's test you on that...

What do you think of Levy's statements:
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2010/04/gideon-levy-in-intifada.html

GL = Gideon Levy

"DC: Have you completely rejected Zionism?

GL: Zionism has many meanings. For sure, the common concept of Zionism includes the occupation, includes the perception that Jews have more rights in Palestine than anyone else, that the Jewish people are the chosen people, that there can't be equality between Jews and Arabs, Jews and Palestinians. All those beliefs which are very basic in current Zionism, I can't share them. In this sense, I can define myself as an anti-Zionist.

On the other hand, the belief about the Jewish people having the right to live in Palestine side by side with the Palestinians, doing anything possible to compensate the Palestinians for the terrible tragedy that they went through in 1948, this can also be called the Zionist belief. In this case, I share those views.

DC: If somebody was to call you a moderate Zionist would you have any objections?

GL: The moderate Zionists are like the Zionist left in Israel, which I can't stand. Meretz and Peace Now, who are not ready, for example, to open the "1948 file" and to understand that until we solve this, nothing will be solved. Those are the moderate Zionists. In this case, I prefer the right-wingers.

DC: The right-wingers are more honest?

GL: Exactly."


=================


And also this...
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/sw120910.html

I've just finished reading Yitzhak Laor's Myths of Liberal Zionism, which is obviously very critical of the 'Zionist Left'. What do you think of the politics of people like David Grossman, Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and Meretz? Do they offer a sufficiently radical critique of Israeli policy, and if not, why is their critique so compromised?

LEVY:
First of all, I had Oz and Yehoshua at my home for dinner a few weeks ago, so I have to be very cautious in what I say, but I am very critical about this kind of thinking. You can add Shimon Peres and Labor to this. This is the typical Israeli hypocrisy, and I in many ways appreciate Lieberman more than Shimon Peres, because with Lieberman, at least, what you see is what you get. It's very clear what he stands for. With people like Shimon Peres or Meretz -- and I don't say they are identical -- or Oz and Yehoshua and Grossman, they want to eat the cake and leave it complete, as we say in Hebrew. This doesn't work.

I think they lack courage, some of them. Others, like Shimon Peres, are hypocrites who talk about peace and do the opposite. I think that Oz and Yehoshua and Grossman, who I know very well personally, mean well. But in many ways they are still chained in the Zionistic ideology. They haven't released themselves from the old Zionistic ideology, which basically hasn't changed since '48 -- namely, that the Jews have the right to this land, almost the exclusive right. They are trying to find their way to be Zionistic, and to be for peace, and to be for justice. The problem is that Zionism in its present meaning, in its common meaning, is contradictory to human rights, to equality, to democracy, and they don't recognise it. It's too hard for them to recognise it, to realise it. And therefore their position is an impossible position, because they want everything: they want Zionism, they want democracy, they want a Jewish state, but they want also rights for the Palestinians . . . it's very nice to want everything, but you have to make your choice and they are not courageous enough to make the choice.

Meretz supported Gaza massacre --

LEVY:
And so did Yehoshua! In the book there is an exchange between him and I. So did he.

Why did it support it? Was it public pressure? Has this had implications for the Israeli left?

LEVY:
Meretz lost its way a long time ago and it's now almost a non-entity. It's a group of three members of parliament -- which is nothing -- each of whom has his own interest, nothing to do with the occupation. One is dealing with gay rights, the other is dealing with economical questions, and the occupation is totally forgotten. Meretz right now is in a deep, deep crisis, and they supported 'Cast Lead' like they support most of what this government is doing, in a way that is shameful for Meretz. But Meretz is anyhow very, very marginal -- three members of parliament -- and they are losing all their worlds, because they will never become accepted by the right-wingers, and they lose the left-wingers, because what are they? To support 'Cast Lead', I can vote Likud -- what do I need Meretz for?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. I think this is an excellent summary, but poor polemic.

I think that if one approaches what Levy has written with the goal of understanding it, he's pretty much spot on; if one approaches it with the goal of deliberately misunderstanding, as you do, and takes the passages that are clearly meant as rhetorical exaggeration as statement of fact and ignores passages like

"at my home for dinner a few weeks ago"

"about this kind of thinking" (emphasis mine)

"and I don't say they are identical"

"They are trying to find their way to be Zionistic, and to be for peace, and to be for justice."

"not courageous enough"


So I think that what we have here serves the purpose of "setting out situation to someone who does not understand it" very well, but the purpose of "protecting author from malicious accusations from those who deliberately misunderstand it" rather badly.

[shira]

27. What's being deliberately misunderstood? Levy is against the vast majority of Israel's Left...

...who, in his mind, as well intentioned as they may be, are still no better than Rightwingers when all is said and done.

Levy speaks for a miniscule (maybe 1% at best) of Israeli Jews. He's basically against almost all of world Jewry WRT Israel and if it were up to him Palestine would be yet another tyrannical Muslim theocracy with Jews living in the same precarious conditions as those surviving in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran.

As Bradley Burston wrote...

"Neither does anyone have exclusive rights to the meaning of justice. There is a name for the hard leftist who rejects the right of Jews to have a state of their own – any state in any part of the Holy Land, no matter how democratic and respectful of minority rights - but who accepts the rights of Muslims to have formally Islamic nations:

Anti-Semite."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Majority, but not vast majority.

There are few Israeli leftists who agree with Levy - you're right on at least that much - but then there are so few leftists of any stripe left in Israel that the others don't constitute a vast majority. The Israeli political spectrum basically ranges from ultra-hawkish to even-more-hawkish at present.


And at this stage, when talking about ethics, "Israelis think" is no guideline at all. Israel has become an echo chamber where, when it comes to the Palestinians and the occupation, logic and basic human decency are regarded as unforgiveable sins and wicked lunacy is completely mainstream.


As to the Burston quote you keep bandying around, I think it's simple obfuscation. I support the exactly the same right for Jews as I do for the Palestinians and everyone else - which is to say, I support the right of each individual Jew to have a state of their own, but not the right to have a state where they as an ethnic group receive special privileges. All states must be based solely on geography, not on ethnicity, and those philosophies, like the vast majority interpretations of Zionism, which say otherwise are explicitly racist. If Israel chooses to become democratic and respectful of minority rights, I will enthusiastically support it, but at that point it will, by definition, no longer be more than purely cosmetically Jewish, and at present it's a long, long way from either of those states.

[oberliner]

31. "The Israeli political spectrum basically ranges from ultra-hawkish to even-more-hawkish at present"

Staggering that a person who is even vaguely following the topic could believe something like this.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. As always when someone denies this: Look at the last election results.

Party Seats
Kadima 28
Likud 27
Yisrael Beiteinu 15
Labor 13
Shas 11
United Torah Judaism1 5
National Union2 4
Hadash 4
United Arab List-Ta'al 4
The Jewish Home 3
New Movement-Meretz 3
Balad 3
Total 120


The Israeli populace may say all sorts of things in opinion polls, but when it comes down to it they nearly all voted for parties lead by hawks.

[oberliner]

38. Yes - the center-left party won the most seats

My point is proven by those election results.

Unfortunately Livni was unable to form a government.

Are you also someone who doesn't think there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans because both supported the war?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. Kadima is hardly centre left.

This is the party that was founded by Ariel Sharon and gave us OCL, remember.

[shira]

41. Do you believe there is no significant difference b/w Republicans and Democrats in the USA? n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. No. N.T.

[shira]

43. No? Do you believe Democrats (after 2 more years in Iraq/Afghanistan) are more dovish than Kadima?

[oberliner]

44. What drew you to a site devoted to helping Democrats get elected?

Especially since, presumably, getting Democrats elected is not of interest to you.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. Huh?

In case you are misunderstanding, I mean "no, I don't believe that" and not "no, I don't think there are differences".

As to why I'm here - it's good practice arguing, and occasionally I learn something.

Participation on DU does not accomplish anything - it doesn't lead to Democrats getting elected, it doesn't change the world, it doesn't even change anyone's minds. It's an intellectual exercise only. If you want to help get Democrats elected, go join the Democratic party and campaign for them (I'm not an American, so this isn't a relevant question for me; I'm not currently a member of the labour party but may join if/when a) I have paid employment and b) they move back to the left).

[oberliner]

47. The "no" was unclear

Thank you for clarifying.

Many folks here also do lots of things to help Democrats get elected, such as campaigning for them, but I think participation on DU accomplishes a lot and does help Democrats get elected. I know there have been some great get-out-the-vote events published here and some folks have been able to network with others in their area to help with local candidates.

I've also seen posters on DU do a great job of organizing ideas in a way that will help to change people's minds and present topics in a way that the Democratic position can be more persuasive to undecideds.

[shira]

32. You're still missing the point, probably deliberately.

And the main point is that even if Israel's sane Liberal Zionist Left (Meretz, Peace Now, Oz, Strenger, Yehoshua, Grossman, etc..) made up the vast majority of Israel's political system with the Rightwing banned, outlawed, jailed or deported, that would not be good enough for the Gideon Levy cheerleaders, and presumably you.

Israel would still be on probation like no other country with its very existance debatable. Unlike any other country on earth.

All this talk of land, racism and human rights is a distraction.

You describe Israelis as hawkish, but your POV as well as Gideon Levy's (full right of return, Hamas/PLO sharing power equally with Jews, etc..) would lead to more war and blood, less democracy and civil rights, etc. You make Israel's hawks appear dovish in comparison.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. You have no idea of what sanity is.

And no, I don't miss that point. I genuinely don't know what a country governed by liberal zionists would be like, but if it continued to discriminate against non-Jews then that wouldn't be good enough for me (although if it stopped occupying land outside its own borders it would be a massive step in the right direction). Nothing but a complete end to racist discrimination would be good enough for me, and it's not clear to me whether the liberal zionists you list support this would supoprt if they didn't have to play to such a right-wing gallery (or rather which of them would, since they're not homogenous)

Since I've been repeatedly and explicitly stating this, I don't know where you get the idea that I'm missing it.



Israel is *like* no country on earth - there is no other country (that I am aware of) primarily populated by recent immigrants who ethnically cleansed the natives to make room for them to settle.



Incidentally, I don't know where you got the idea that I support Hamas sharing power with the PLO, but permit me to disabuse you of it. Please do not repeat that lie (although I suspect it's too much to hope that you won't).

[shira]

36. (Edited) And putting the PLO in charge of Israel after full RoR is sanity?

There is no Liberal Left within Palestinian society. It doesn't exist. But you trust such leadership will magically come into creation someday soon and will ensure equal rights and the eradication of racism and discrimination forever, once they're elected by a Palestinian majority to rule over Israel and its Jews?

AND they'll do a better job at this than Israel's Liberal Zionists?

Seriously?

:eyes:

Why aren't you equally against the existance of all the world's liberal democracies, since they haven't come close to putting a full end to racism and discrimination?

:shrug:

You're against Hamas but what will happen to Hamas if they don't get to share power with the PLO? Are you for killing thousands of them off, deporting or jailing all of them, along with Islamic Jihad and other terror orgs? You realize the PLO is hardly any better than Hamas WRT protecting basic human rights of its citizens? That they're still FAR more Rightwing than Lieberman and his goons? What makes you think they'll suddenly start to care for the basic human rights of Palestinians and Jews?

:shrug:

Why are you for empowering the extreme Rightwing PLO and entrusting them to protect the basic rights of all Palestinians and Israelis, when they've never once demonstrated in their existence that they are committed to such values?

Finally, most Israelis and Palestinians are against one-state. Why do you believe imposing such a solution against the will of the majority will lead to a better situation and not more bloodshed?

Your view (which is the same as the POV of warmongering Rightwing rejectionists) is far more hawkish than Lieberman's. Therefore, it's understandable why you oppose Israel's most liberal zionists.

[shira]

48. Donald, I look forward to an honest reply from you to this. Thanks. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

6. In the UK and Europe too.

Muslims do come in for a lot of it; but they also have groups that protect them to a degree, as do most of the other groups mentioned. If there is one group that really has very little representation and redress, it's the Roma - with nasty consequences. Also 'Immigrants' as an undifferentiated group.

[shaayecanaan]

8. To be honest there are probably other fashionably bashable minorities...

In the US it seems increasingly permissible to criticise Chinese. This is because the right-wing hates China because it is full of slanty-eyed communists and the Left hates China because they stole all the manufacturing jobs.

Hillary Clinton said during the primaries "What has China given us except lead-filled toys and poisoned baby formula?" That statement stuck with me in particular because it would have been considered outrageous anywhere outside the US.

I think there is a very strong stigma associated with anti-semitism and perhaps an equally strong stigma associated with anti-Black sentiment, at least in the United States. I would say that there is probably less stigma associated with the denigration of other minorities and in the case of Muslims and Islam I would say that any stigma is relatively weak.

I would point to the example of Marty Peretz, for example, in saying that even in educated circles it is possible to denigrate Muslims with a moderate degree of impunity. I do not think that that would be the case for any other minority.

[azurnoir]

10. no not bashing Chinese really very little of that

now Hmong in some area's might be bashed even other Asians tend to bash them but that's another story here it's mainly the 2 M's that being Mexicans if you are Spanish speaking most here will assume you are Mexican and that equates to illegal and Muslims

[shaayecanaan]

12. I suppose was referencing "China bashing" more than...

"Chinese bashing" I suppose. Some of the rhetoric about China is unbelievable, though. The constant bitching from the US about "currency manipulation". What a load of bullshit. A country can only manipulate its exchange rate by buying or selling currencies. A good portion of the assets that China purchases through US currency is public debt. Would the US prefer that China not fund its budget deficit any more?

I imagine the fact that Latinos are a considerable electoral force keeps some cap on the amount of denigration that either political party can heap on them.

Less so for the Muslims. The treatment afforded Geert Wilders is a case in point. Sure, he hates Muslims, but hey, he can't be that bad since he's not anti-semitic.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/04/mainstreaming_hate

[azurnoir]

20. Jon Kyl a Republican Senator hosted a film screening

for Wilder shortly after Obama was sworn in

US lawmaker hosts anti-Islamic Dutch lawmaker

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Jon Kyl is hosting a film screening at the Capitol building on Thursday for a far-right Dutch lawmaker who claims that Islam inspires terrorism.

Kyl is sponsoring the event for Geert Wilders, who was denied entry to London earlier this month because British authorities said he posed a threat to public order.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_02_23_US_lawmaker_hosts_anti-Islamic_Dutch_lawmaker/

that along with Arizona's putrid law regarding immigrants which in a way is as bad as Israels loyalty oath

Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration

Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill, SB 1070, on Friday. More Photos »

The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.

Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it.

Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.”

The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

unfortunately the politicians reflect their constituents

[azurnoir]

11. self delete wrong place

[shaayecanaan]

9. dupe. sorry nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. I'm afraid I think it's you who doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

Derfner's point is that bigotry against Muslims is acceptable in the mainstream of political discourse, which is not true of other minorities, and I think it's bang on.

[oberliner]

17. Do you live in the United States?

Bigotry against Muslims is no more or less acceptable in the mainstream of political discourse in the US than bigotry against Jews, Latinos, African-Americans, or Asians.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Go tell that to the 9-11 mosque protestors.

Or to Angle, Beck, Coulter, Goode, Gingritch, Peretz, Prager, etc.

[oberliner]

29. Ask them what they think about illegal immigration

You will get the same sort of thing from them on that topic in many cases.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Funny you should say that...

Go reread (read?) the Derfner article I posted in the first place. Perhaps you'd like to moderate your dismissal of it?

[oberliner]

37. Not an accident - it's another example of Derfner not having a clue

I'd encourage you to take a holiday to the US and actually listen to some of the conversations and the "mainstream" discussions.

I'd encourage Derfner to do the same - and maybe do a bit more listening.

What are discussions about English-only education all about?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. Why is agreeing with you an example of him not having a clue?

Like you, he says that immigrants are the other group it's acceptable to rag on.

[oberliner]

45. No agreement whatsoever

Look at his comment:

"Latino illegal immigrants, however, are a different story, and you can put them down as much as you want so long as you specify that you’re talking about “illegal immigrants,” or at least “immigrants,” and not Latinos in general."

This shows that he hasn't a clue. Latinos in general are "slagged on" all the time. The English-only debate is one example.

Ask about illegal immigration and you will soon hear comments that have nothing to do with illegal immigrants and everything to do with prejudice against Latinos.

Have you ever listened to Michael Savage?

[oberliner]

52. Have you re-evaluated your position on this in light of recent events?

Specifically with respect to Juan Williams.

[oberliner]

51. NPR Ends Williams' Contract After Muslim Remarks

NPR News has terminated the contract of longtime news analyst Juan Williams after remarks he made on the Fox News Channel about Muslims.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737&ps=cprs

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. Any news from Fox? N.T.