Sunday, May 28, 2006

The soft bigotry of low expectations!

I would consider myself a regular leftist. I voted for Kerry, though cast my ballot for Kucinich in the primaries, and I even volunteered with ACT and ACORN. I was dedicated to getting Bush out of office - and still don't like the guy, mind you. But after the Danish cartoon riots, my eyes were finally opened to the true ways of the world, and the horrible double standards applied to Israel and the West, versus the Muslim world. I saw the way that certain hard leftists would make every appology in the book for Iran and Islamic nations - often ignoring the way these anti-progressive nations treat women, gays, and religious minorities! My question to is...when did the left lose its soul? When did it stop standing for anything? If the left is supposed to stand for basic human rights and dignity, then why doesn't it take a stronger stance against the Muslim world? I say this as someone who did not believe the Iraq War was justified. But who in the left comes out strongly in support of Israel - a much needed ally in this crucial war on terror? Very few. Why has Israel become a dirty word? I often post on left wing sites, and when I do, I am branded an idiot, and uninformed sheep, a racist, or even a Mossad agent. Predictably, those who brand me as such are often the most uninformed of them all. Those who say such wildly inaccurate things often quote directly from the Protocols of Zion - so I find it quite comical that I should be branded a racist! Those who do not quote directly from the Protocols will often speak of Israel being an "apartheid state." This is a common term bandied around. I asked a friend of mine who has a website (and is a poster on this site - but shall remain nameless) what she thought the definition of the word "apartheid" meant. She said it meant "seperation of races." Firstly, Israelis and Palestinians are the same race. So that is facially offensive. Secondly, that is NOT the definition! Dictionary.com defines it as such: An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites. Given the Arab Israelis within Israel have full rights of citizenship with Jewish Israelis, I fail to see how that is "apartheid." And as far as the Palestinians in the West Bank - given they are waging war on Israel and demand their own state - NOT inclusion - I fail to see how that is apartheid, either! The sheer level of ignorance concerning the Middle East is mind boggling. The bottom line is that Iran is the apartheid state, and leftists often ignore this key fact. Jews find it exceedingly difficult to practice their religion, they are forbidden from family reunifications, they cannot emigrate to Iran, and they cannot practice many kinds of business or have key government jobs - I CALL THAT THE ESSENCE OF APARTHEID! http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html http://www.iranchamber.com/... Yet - there is no mention of this in the media. It seems that one standard is applied to Israel and the West, and a very different (lower) standard is applied to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and most of the Muslim world. This is the VERY ESSENCE of latent racism. When you apply a different - higher - standard to nonMuslims that you never would apply to Muslims/Arabs...it implies that somehow the Muslims/Arabs are not capable of reaching such a standard. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations! Such behavior, if anything, is bigotted AGAINST Arabs/Muslims. I do not give a free pass to anyone to treat women, gays, and religious minorities in a second class status. I expect more. Sadly, much of the left does not. And this moral quagmire needs to be addressed.

6 comments:

Citisucks said...

You vote for Kerry and call yourself a true leftist-lol! Please the Democraps are a fake opposition party. See http://www.therealdifference.org and http://progressivesagainstdemocrats.blogspot.com . If you were a real leftist you would not have wasted your vote on Kerry.

Red Tulips said...

I probably wouldn't have voted for Kerry, in retrospect. I probably would have voted Libertarian.

But anyway, there are many valid reasons to vote Democrat. The big one being that they have a chance of winning.

Red Tulips said...

I only would have voted Libertarian because I live in NY - where there was need for my extra vote. I cannot say the same if I lived in a "swing state."

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

While you are a liberal, I post here because you generally seem reasonable, and actually demonstrate tolerance for even conservative points of view, and so the dialogue is far better than any other liberal's site.

That being said, I heard a great analysis. McCarthy lead a purge of communist 5th columnists that drove communists underground. When they resurfaced, they did so in the Democratic party. So the party of JFK, who was by no means perfect, but was at least sane was taken over. The hard left of the Democratic party is communist, and believe anything is fair in their goals. I mean anything, no matter how nuts is sounds. I think non-socialist democrats need to reclaim their party, just as small gov't conservatives need to reclaim "ours".

If the libertarians weren't so loopy on drugs, prostitution and open borders, they would be a real good option, but as long as we don't have run off elections, 3rd parties will stay on the margins.

N. said...

Wow, a sensible liberal. One who doesn't operate in lockstep with MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. Although I'm fairly conservative myself, I think I like you. The part about how your eyes were opened after the Danish cartoon caper was refreshing to hear. We might not agree on things, but you at least know what's at stake in this conflict.

generic cialis said...

Interesting article, added his blog to Favorites