Here is the truth written in very clear terms:

"Radical Islamic fundamentalists claim divine authority and ultimate truth, rejecting inquiry, seeking to impose their world-view on the rest of the world through their version of religiously sanctioned murder. Church and state are one, and due process and freedom are irrelevant. Aside from religious imagery and embrace of suicide as means of murder, their creed resembles Nazism and communism. It is as much our duty as our right to discredit and destroy the idea of radical Islamic fundamentalism. And in so doing, we must not trample our superior ideals to save them; indeed, we must hold true to principles of freedom and democracy to enable their uncorking."

The entire article is beautifully written. It serves as a reminder of all that we take for granted. America truly is an amazing country. As an immigrant myself, I often tell Americans that, through no fault of their own, they do not fully appreciate what a great country this is, and how privilaged they should feel to have grown up here. I wouldn't change the way I grew up for anything in this world. The love I have for my native country is deep and passionate. It is in heart and soul. But I love this country too.

This article should be titled, "Ode to American'.

I find it telling that the ones who are the most patriotic are our immigrants. They know what it's like to live in hardship and tyranny so they don't take America for granted. For the Noam Chomskys of the world who think the grass is greener elsewhere, I fully support shipping them overseas to walk in the shoes of some of our immigrants.

What a wonderful piece!

How many of us who are native born could quote so chapter and verse of our Constitution and make such telling points?

I am proud to share "my" country with immigrants like the writer!

Jamie Irons

Yup, and you think that real Americans like this should be subject to targetted searches that you wouldn't be subject to.

He brought tears to my eyes. Thank you, Charles, for sharing this. And, Anil, I think he would probably be among the first to volunteer for a targetted search. He recognizes that the freedoms that we hold dear are most threatened by people who, unfortunately, look alot like him.

A beautiful article. Dr. Ambali is worth 1000 native-born Chomsky-bots and America-haters. And it's great that this piece appears in the Duke Chronicle - it might just cause a few campus "Blame America Firsters" to think a little bit.

It's not just the educated, middle class immigrants who love this country. Did anyone else catch the story about the young Nigerian man who was so disturbed by the embassy bombings that he joined the US Marines? He became a citizen a few weeks ago after several years of honorably serving this country.

Like Jamie, I am proud to share a country with them. (You too, Zulubaby! Glad you're here!)

Anil,
Would you look for arab terrorists in an Irish nursing home? Of course people of middle eastern decent should be targeted!!

Dr. Ambati put in eloquent words exactly the sentiments that many of us feel.
C.

Funny, lip, this terrorist doesn't look like he's of middle eastern descent. The freedoms I most hold dear seem to be as threatened by this guy as they are by any darker-skinned fellow. And I haven't seen any white people going out of there way to distance themselves from him, probably because they must all agree with his homicidally terrorist proclivities. Right?

Are any of you proud to share this country with immigrants with unpopular views? That might be a much better measure of how American you are.

Anil #9,
Um, you did notice he is under arrest and is to be charged, didn't you? As soon as they heard about it the authorities arrested him, despite his not looking Middle Eastern.

The reason for looking especially closely at people from the Middle East is that we know there are large numbers of them, making up at least one, if not several, terrorist associations, who want to kill millions of us. Nevertheless law enforcement agencies arrest others as appropritate, including home-grown terrorists who would target people of Middle Eastern ancestry here in the US. Middle Easterners are arrested when they seem to have committed crimes, and have not been rounded up indiscriminently. Do you suppose it is wise to spend large amounts of law enforcement effort on people who are very unlikely to be the ones we are looking for? In fear of seeming to "racially profile" that is exactly what the airport screeners are doing, an effort of such obvious success and usefulness for the purpose.

I did notice he was arrested. I also noticed that he wouldn't have fit the profile that Charles believes ought to be applied when looking for terrorists, and that the divergence between his appearance and that profile would be taken by most rational people as a case against the application of that profile.

Or, to put it another way, why shouldn't we fault Jeb Bush for not having done enough to stamp out terrorists like this one?

Hi All,

Anil has a blog where he has posted a topic critical of LGF. I saw fit post a reply to the head-nodders over there. I suggest all LGF readers go join the fun. It could get interesting.

[Link: www.dashes.com...]

Here is my post on his blog:

Maybe you folks who are condemning LGF should read it and learn something. Instead, you turn away because you don't want to have your pre-conceived beliefs challenged.

To those of you who say that LGF is racist, I say that speaking the truth is NEVER racist. Denying the truth in the name of multi-culturalism is ALWAYS racist.

Judging someone on their DNA is ALWAYS wrong. Beliefs are the only valid basis for judging people. What the folks at LGF have found is that Islam is a belief system that teaches hate of all non-muslims. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoarastrians are all targets of Islamic hate and we therefore judge Islam accordingly. Stating this fact is not racist. Denying this fact because most muslims are not white is racist.

So there you have it. You guys are the racist bigots.

Now, please return to your previously scheduled morally and intellectually bancrupt head-nodding.

Anil,

This is one man. An individual. He is not part of any terrorist cell. This is one person, acting alone, who has obviously lost his grip completely. I'm not sure what that has to do with profiling.

Charles put forth a proposal about who should be profiled?

You said:

"And I haven't seen any white people going out of there way to distance themselves from him, probably because they must all agree with his homicidally terrorist proclivities. Right?"

Since he's not attached to any group or organization, who do you propose distance themselves from him. All the white people? The fact that his own wife turned him in seems to have passed right over your head. She's distanced herself from him.

He has been arrested and charged, and is under psychiatric evaluation. Where are the parallels between this man and terrorist cells? He doesn't belong to an organization. If it's makes you happy, I will distant myself from him, even though he's white and Jewish like me.

Just as a refresher, the men responsible for 9/11 were all Arabs. There is one incident after another of Arabs plotting and scheming and calling for the destruction of the US. We didn't make this up. They are the ones who keep telling us about it. One man wanted to blow up the Islamic Educational Institute or something. It's just not the same thing. You must admit that your argument is weak.

Donna V., that is the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me. Thank you for making me feel welcome. I love being here :-)

HA,

Do you mean to tell me that I wrote all of that for a troll!?

Say it ain't so ;-)

The attacks last September had a lot of victims, both in the obvious, literal sense and in the countless numbers of us who have suffered smaller losses. I'd count among my losses the pleasure of a weblog I used to read on occasion, Little Green Footballs. Its older incarnation was described quite well by Joe: "Before September 11th, Little Green Footballs was a mildly political, middle-left personal weblog with frequent links about biking, web design and GWBush foibles."

That was exactly my impression, and it was part of the reason I discovered things like the neat little bit of code called lgf-referrers that powers his referrer list and the "Some Froms" list on my sidebar. Cool geek stuff.

Since the attacks, Charles, at least in the context of his weblog, lost his shit.

There is one topic for Little Green Footballs now: The evils of contemporary Islamic society. That's it. Sure, it's explored in its many facets, from people in the U.S. who remain somewhat ambivalent about the causes of Palestinian violence, to those in the world who think that engagement or dialogue might be a more effective way to temper radical fundamentalism in Islamic countries. But always, always, this one topic.

It's not just the single-mindedness that ruined the site. Topic-specific blogs are often more interesting than general interest weblogs like mine. And Charles has gotten no small amount of traffic for his efforts; In the community of webloggers who write primarily about politics and conflict, there has been plenty of attention focused on LGF. The problem is that there is no discussion.

That there could be a legitimate argument on the other side is never discussed. People with differing opinions are demonized. The worst, most egregious affronts to decency and civil discourse on the site are the comments, which range from biased to unabashedly racist.

Should a person be held responsible for the comments other people leave on his or her site? Normally, I'd say no. For someone who claims that a group ought to be able to control the actions of its most extreme members, I don't think it's asking too much for him to set a tone of respect or civility, and to control the comments by banning those who are clearly racist.

Of course, I don't know that I agree with that sort of censorship, but I'm not the sort to hold an entire group responsible for the actions of some of its members.

Bring back the rest of your weblog, Charles. The interesting parts. There are great immoralities being perpetrated in the name of Islam, no question. I find any government based on the rules of a religion offensive. And I live in New York City, don't forget, where we hold no truck with terrorists, especially suicidal ones. But what good does it do anyone to preach to an increasingly repulsive choir, working them up into a progressively more offensive frothing at the mouth?

Why don't people like me (variously identified as webloggers writing about technology, or about the Internet, or about nothing) write about the horrible goings-on in the Middle East? Because we're too busy building things. Look at the "Searches" linked in your sidebar, listing tips for PHP, or for the Netscape browser. They don't turn up relevant recent results anymore. Inciting strangers to post their racist ramblings doesn't accomplish anything. Come back and join us.

-------------------------------------------------- -----

"I find any government based on the rules of a religion offensive"

Anil, it is not the religion part that is offensive. It is the violence and destruction that is being called for in the name of Allah that is, uh, offensive.

"And I live in New York City, don't forget..." Congratulations, Mazeltov! And that makes you what? An unbelievably good person because while you live in New York and while you probably witnessed 9/11, you still manage to be non-discriminatory, non-judgemental, and opposed to racial profiling? A liberal? What? Get over yourself. Please.

"Why don't people like me (variously identified as webloggers writing about technology, or about the Internet, or about nothing) write about the horrible goings-on in the Middle East? Because we're too busy building things."

Well aren't you special. Too busy building what exactly to bother with stupid little things like the fact that we are witnessing WWIII, we just don't know it yet? Or maybe the Middle East is just too 'icky' for your pretty little head. The day will come (unfortunately) when you will realize that what Charles is doing with his weblog is far more significant than your suggestions for improvements to Google so that you can keep your alt.sex browser open. In fact, I'll take it one step further and say that Charles is recording history in the making.

What you wrote is so offensive. It really is. And if this weblog is so repugnant to you, why are you here? Charles is doing an amazing job, and don't kid yourself by saying that he gets the amount of traffic that he does because it is topic-specific. It's because it's intelligent, informative and most of all RELEVANT. This thread in particular is about a beautifully written article about America, by a man who does in fact look like he could fit the 'profile'. We need more people like him. You had to come in just to set us all straight eh? For the sake of being the contrarian?

You seemed a little bitter in your previous posts. Now I understand why.

Go back to sleep.

Not only are you a horrible snob, you are a racist too.

One more thing. If Charles didn't keep a level of respect and civility here, I would have been done in two words. One begins the a F, the next with an O. Guess what they are?

Anil #4,

Yup, and you think that real Americans like this should be subject to targetted searches that you wouldn't be subject to.

Actually, no, he probably wouldn't fit the profile. As an immigrant from India, it is likely he is not muslim. Could be, but I find it improbable.

As someone who is "building things", I assume you have some background in statistics. I Assume you understand concepts like probability, outliers and standard deviations. If so, you would realize that this Goldstein guy is an outlier.

In contrast, there is a statistically significant and measurable number of Muslims who engage in terrorism. The vast majority of Muslims who don't engage in terrorism sympathize with and rationalize it. They are taking political measures to support it through CAIR and their ilk. They support it indirectly through Islamic "charities." The silence from Muslims opposed to terrorism is deafening.

As an analogy, I would point to the old South. Most southerners supported the Klan. Some participated in it. Of those that participated in it, some were involved in lynchings. We know that the Klan was centered in the old South even though there were Klan groups elsewhere. So if you were responsible for investigating the Klan, would you start in Vermont, Minnesota or Alaska? No, I think would profile and start in Mississippi or Alabama.

Zulubaby,

You go girl!

Hi All,

Reading Anil's blog made me appreciate what a valuable resource LGF is. It prompted me to do something I should have done a long time ago - make a donation!

Hey Charles, when are you coming out with t-shirts?

Oh No! We've lost one! This guy has ASSIMMILATED. How will he ever represent the Indian-American Community? We've built this wonderful Plantation and the field hands are throwing rocks at Massah's window. This must Stop! We have got to get this man to accept his victimhood.Maybe if Clinton apologized to him for colonialism.Maybe I can promise citizenship for 300 million Indians.Then Mama could choose between beefless dogfood and her Auyervedic medicine!

Anil asked us:

"Are any of you proud to share this country with immigrants with unpopular views?"

Well, Anil, what do you mean by "unpopular views?" Those SFSU students who use their First Amendment rights to scream "Kill the Jews?" Why on earth should I be "proud" of someone who spews anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism and defends (and perhaps financially supports) terrorism? You're asking us to display the same stupid P.C. non-judgementalism Mark Steyn writes about: we should be tolerant of those who are intolerant. Well, sorry, I'm not into masochism. You're free to sprout your addleheaded views and I'm free to tell you that you're a fathead. (And criticism is not oppression, although the loonie left would like us to think so). But expecting us to be "proud" of you is like asking us to tell you your feces smell like Chanel No.5.

Remember, only a tiny fraction of Southerners owned slaves. However, the vast majority of them favored going to war and killing their fellow Americans in order to protect the "right" of the people to own slaves.

Those who villify Confederates for fighting to keep slaves and yet refuse to condemn Muslims who support terrorism gleefully apply one of the most blatant double standards since Hitler unveiled his Arayan Empire.

"How do you recognize an Arayan? He's as tall as Goebbels, as handsome as Goering, and as blonde as Hitler."

Dick Gephardt:

"Oh No! We've lost one! This guy has ASSIMMILATED. How will he ever represent the Indian-American Community?"

Do you see now why ignorant, self-centered, morons like us can't be allowed to have a real voice in running things? This is why Transnational Progressivism must be built to be beyond the reach of us cretins.

And zulubaby, sorry, you've been trolled. BTW did your car arrive yet? When are you coming by to pick me up for a cruise?

Donna,
Great response- "we should be tolerant of those who are intolerant. Well, sorry, I'm not into masochism."
Well put!

Well, Anil and his friends have written off LGF as a "fringe site full of racist nutcases." They really miss the "pre-9/11" Charles, who they talk about as if they actually knew. Yawn.

Anil: I have to admit, I'm surprised you would have such a negative reaction to Dr. Ambati's article. I thought it was 100% positive, an inspirational example of someone expressing his love for his country. He even points out flaws; it's anything but blind racist jingoism. What does racial profiling or "Jewish terrorism" have to do with it?

If you want to join in the discussions, you're welcome. But guess what? You're actually going to encounter people here who will disagree with you and challenge you to defend your opinions. Are you cool with that? I suspect not, judging from the emotional non-sequiturs you've posted so far, and the accusations of racism you and your friends are so quick to throw out. But maybe you'll surprise me.

Yes, you'll find harsh comments here occasionally, even some that might be seen as racist. Earth to Anil: this is an open forum, and quite a popular one. Whose definition of racism would you like me to use, so I can police it well enough for you?

(And what is it about free speech that angers self-professed "liberals" so much that they have to reach for the delete button? Or demand that someone else do it for them?)

Speaking of racism, what do you think about the Friday sermons from the Arab world that call Jews the "sons of monkeys and pigs," and scream for the deaths of you and your friends? No problem with that? You'd prefer not to know?

On the profiling issue, if you had bothered to actually find my real opinion (and I know there's a lot here, but hey, I do have a search function) instead of reading something out of context and forming a snap opinion, you would have found that I do advocate profiling, but not only on a racial basis. I believe Middle Eastern men should come in for extra scrutiny, but not only because they're Middle Eastern; an effective profiling system would take into account their behavior, their history, their origins and destinations, what's in their passport, how new the passport is, who stamped their visa, how they answer questions, etc. etc. We've had several very interesting and enlightening discussions about profiling here at LGF.

But yes, I do think Middle Eastern men should be scrutinized more closely than 80-year old grannies in wheelchairs, or ex-candidates for President. Is that because I'm a big old racist?

No. It's because I don't want to watch any more planes crash into buildings. Ever again. In New York or anywhere else.

The only thing missing in this thread are pom-poms and a human pyramid...

Late to the discussion as usual. However:

If LGF departed from the dear innocent good ol' days of public geekdom, the 9/11 event was sufficient cause. Now LGF is a very important public service, since none of the public media deign to keep as current or informed in as much detail as Charles does. Not only that, said media omit many facts when describing events, which is not a failing of LGF. That it focuses on the grinding of the political tectonic plates between liberal democracies and authoritarian tribal or theocratical societies is another plus. Ignoring that grinding could be suicidal, and the powder had better be kept dry.

Those of us who feel that clear complete information may be a life-or-death matter have plenty of reason to cheer the decision of the change of the LGF format. There just are historical events that trump the good old days.

Ah, yes Throbert McGee, expressing gratitude for the freedoms the US affords us, is, like, so uncool. We're all just a bunch of hick cheerleaders. It's much more hip to denounce and bitch and sneer at those simplistic Americans while admiring the authentic cultures of the Middle East. Like Saudi Arabia's or Iraq's, for instance.

You're aptly named Throbert. You undoubtably give any person with a lick of sense a throbbing headache the second you open your mouth.

I fail to understand how criticism of a religion which has followers of all races and from all countries can equate to "racism." could someone please explain this to me?

As Neal Boortz likes to point out, "racism" specifically means "the belief in the genetic superiority of a specific race", and almost nobody's used it that way for decades. Instead, "racist" has effectively become a generic all-purpose idiotarian insult along the lines of "you're a poopy-head" as the transnational left continues to spiral out of relevance. It's a shame too, since it serves only to hurt honest thoughtful liberals like Matt Welch and Brian Linse who don't deserve to be tarred with that brush.

Well, let's start with I don't want to watch any more planes crash into buildings. Ever again. In New York or anywhere else.

We agree, Charles.

First, please don't any of you hold me responsible for comments people leave on my site. I don't necessarily agree with them any more than Charles necessarily agrees with his visitors' comments.

I wrote that essay about LGF because I don't think Charles is racist. I think that he has some visitors who are.

But notice how the claims are made that liberals (whatever that means) won't debate, and resort to name-calling. Yet: You're free to sprout your addleheaded views and I'm free to tell you that you're a fathead. and on and on and on... If you could tell me what I've said that's addleheaded, we'd have a discussion.

Or do you think I want another terrorist attack? Is that why you can be so venomous and hateful towards my ideas, my contrariness (as if your ideas are some sort of default and I'm rebelling against it) or my convictions? Do you not believe that I could honestly think that some of the ideas I espouse could be important parts of finding a solution to all this violence?

I don't question that many of the ideas espoused here are part of the solution. I don't doubt for a minute that contemporary societies allegedly based in Islamic law perpetrate many evils against their citizens, particularly their women. But I'm addleheaded, so does that mean you don't agree with that statement from me?

And if this weblog is so repugnant to you, why are you here?

Because I think Charles is a good, smart person, and I think it's a shame he's reduced his writing to one topic, when there's a whole world of stuff he used to write about.

For those who claim my writing is irrelevant, let me point something out: All of the likeminded cheerleading here isn't going to accomplish anything. You all know you agree, and you all know your views are to one side of the mainstream. Unless you're willing to engage someone like, say... me in a meaningful dialogue, it'll just leave you in a self-congratulatorily irrelevant pocket.

I'm not saying my way is right, I'm saying that my ideas are part of the eventual solution that will be found, that will be right. And I was hoping Charles might be willing to lead his audience in a discussion of these ideas, in an engagement with those with whom they disagree.

For those who question my credentials, I'm a proud son of Indian immigrants, and they're, yes, more "American" (by the measures of those here) than most people who are native born. But I said that I think it's just as American to have unpopular views, and I was immediately lumped into a straw man argument with those who call for genocide against Jews.

Is that as well as you can debate? Have your skills atrophied so far? If so, could it be due to the groupthink and rah-rah boosterism going on here, and the willingness to shout down and insult those that disagree?

Do you recognize that a compromise between your beliefs and those of people like me is the only possible outcome of all of this discussion? Or are you going to hope we go away?

what do you think about the Friday sermons from the Arab world that call Jews the "sons of monkeys and pigs," and scream for the deaths of you and your friends?

Charles, I expect better. Look at that question... what do you think my response is? I'm in favor? I want my friends to die because I'm a "liberal"? It's that kind of idiocy that I'm complaining about. For what it's worth: Yup, I think Islam is just plain evil. But then again, I feel that way about all religions. (No, really.)

I think it's great you guys support what Dr. Ambati wrote, and I think you'll all be terribly surprised to find out that gasp! I agree! But that you can cheer him as a true American while saying I'm, presumably, not is fascinating. You don't know that he doesn't feel exactly the same way as me on most issues.

I've treated everyone I've talked to in this thread with respect, and I've tried to discourage undifferentiated bashing on the thread about LGF on my site. I'm disappointed that the rest of you are unwilling to treat an American like me with the respect my ideas deserve.

And Charles, the reason I said to go back to building things? It's because these communication tools have a greater chance of changing minds and opening up societies and increasing engagement between people than any amount of preaching to the choir that you can do here. It's your higher calling, and uses the skills that differentiate you. Anyone can scrape news feeds and present one message over and over every day..

Hmm. OK, the new URL replacement function isn't quite there yet. How about [Link: www.google.com...] ?

Let's see what happens if I put in my own link to Google.

Sorry, Anil. Just testing a new URL replacement class for the weblog application...

Here's a URL for ya: [Link: www.yahoo.com...]

Insufficiently Sensitive (#26),

I couldn't agree with you more.

Thanks zulubaby.

"Are any of you proud to share this country with immigrants with unpopular views?"

Whether I'm proud or not tends to oscillate with the views of said others, rather than their immigrant status.

Am I proud to share the country** with long-homegrown members of the KKK? No. Am I proud to share the country with someone like Dr. Ambati. Yes.

You're placing the "fulcrum" of decision in the wrong place for most LGF readers. They don't totter on the question of "place of origin," they look at ideas, and weigh them on their merits.

Is your world-view so "ethnocentric" that you can't distinguish between the place that a person is born and his or her political views?

Mark

** the country: speaking figuratively, since I live North of the border :-)

They really miss the "pre-9/11" Charles, who they talk about as if they actually knew.

Of course we knew you, we know the portion of yourself that you choose to share via the the web. No, that isn't the same as knowing someone for a lengthy time in a variety of venues... but it *is* all we have. It would probably be more accurate to say we knew the work you were doing and miss learning from it.

I think what is being lost in the mud-slinging and name calling is that the world has changed in a fundamental way (or at least our perceptions have changed) and there is finally a legitimate chance to find common ground.

No sane person wants to see another plane crash, another child die or more people living in fear. Regardless of where you fit into the political spectrum we can all agree that the current state of affairs is untenable and change is obviously necessary.

Honest discussion fosters thought and under the best circumstances allows one to reevaluate positions based on the words of others. Americans inevitably find the middle ground and discourse establishes exactly where that is... then, and only then, will the people we elect feel compelled to effect change.

Extremism of any stripe is counterproductive. Hell, I've gone so far left I'm coming out on the right.

To see a site with this kind of readership run by an obviously articulate and smart person deteriorate into some sort of mutual admiration society is a shame. In all honesty I can't help but see it as a squandering of resources, and Mama raised me to never waste a thing.

On a related note, reading over the posts regarding racism I tend to agree with majority and regret using the word so quickly. Charles, I do not believe your racist and publicly apologise for the accusation... it was unfounded and undoubtedly offensive to those who have been persecuted on the basis of race.

However, bigotry I'll reserve for future use.

You wrote:
“First, please don't any of you hold me responsible for comments people leave on my site. I don't necessarily agree with them any more than Charles necessarily agrees with his visitors' comments. I wrote that essay about LGF because I don't think Charles is racist. I think that he has some visitors who are.”

Anil, this is called having double-standards. You don’t want to held responsible for the comments people leave on your site, however, you wrote this about Charles:
“Should a person be held responsible for the comments other people leave on his or her site? Normally, I'd say no. For someone who claims that a group ought to be able to control the actions of its most extreme members, I don't think it's asking too much for him to set a tone of respect or civility, and to control the comments by banning those who are clearly racist.”

You wrote:
“Is that why you can be so venomous and hateful towards my ideas, my contrariness (as if your ideas are some sort of default and I'm rebelling against it) or my convictions?

It sounds like your feelings have been hurt, yet your entire ramble about LGF was nasty, not just about Charles, but about everyone who posts here. You appear to be fairly venomous toward the ideas of many people here. So what? If you are going to give it, be prepared to take it. Again, a double-standard.

You wrote (on your website):
“But what good does it do anyone to preach to an increasingly repulsive choir, working them up into a progressively more offensive frothing at the mouth?”

I don’t see where you’ve acknowledged that “many of the ideas espoused here are part of the solution”. You have conveniently lumped everyone who comments here together as a “repulsive choir”.

I previously wrote:
"And if this weblog is so repugnant to you, why are you here?"

You wrote:
“Because I think Charles is a good, smart person, and I think it's a shame he's reduced his writing to one topic, when there's a whole world of stuff he used to write about.”

Anil, you can write whatever you want on your website. You can write about a “a whole world of stuff”. Have the good grace to allow Charles to write about what is important to him (of course, providing you don’t mind), on his website. What Charles does with his site may not suit you, but I think you need to take cognizance of how ego-centric that makes you seem. It’s not about what you want, it’s not your place to instruct Charles on what to write about, and it’s not your place to judge. You’re being ridiculous. A lot of things changed after 9/11. For certain people, things that were once important to them became significantly less so after a few thousand innocent people were murdered in cold blood. Some of us can’t go back to how we were on 9/10. For some, like you perhaps, 11 months ago is looooong ago. For some of us, it’s not.

You wrote:
“All of the likeminded cheerleading here isn't going to accomplish anything. You all know you agree, and you all know your views are to one side of the mainstream. Unless you're willing to engage someone like, say... me in a meaningful dialogue, it'll just leave you in a self-congratulatorily irrelevant pocket.”

It is obvious from that statement that you have not actually taken the time to read the comments on this site. While many that comment here agree on many principles, the applications vary enormously, as do perspectives. And why are you critical of the fact that like-minded people share ideas here? What makes that peculiar? What makes it so contemptible to you? If I enjoy art, is it unacceptable to you that I meet with people who also enjoy art? There are many debates here. What you posted was stupid. I’m sorry to be harsh, but it was. You were attempting to equate one lunatic who wanted to blow up mosques with the fact that ALL the murderers that drove planes into building on 9/11 were of Middle Eastern origin. If there had been any value in it, you would have had some very interesting people to debate with. What is ‘meaningful dialogue’ anyway? Dialogue that agrees with you? You just dismissed everyone here as irrelevant. As opposed to you who is entirely relevant? To what?

You wrote:
“I'm not saying my way is right, I'm saying that my ideas are part of the eventual solution that will be found, that will be right. And I was hoping Charles might be willing to lead his audience in a discussion of these ideas, in an engagement with those with whom they disagree.”

Your smugness is annoying, and I’m being polite. Your ideas will be part of the eventual solution? What ideas Anil? I’m genuinely interested in what you propose for peace. Because all you've done so far is backtrack on what you said about Charles, defended yourself personally, and put down everyone who comments here. I still have no idea what you stand for.

You wrote:
“For those who question my credentials, I'm a proud son of Indian immigrants, and they're, yes, more "American" (by the measures of those here) than most people who are native born. But I said that I think it's just as American to have unpopular views, and I was immediately lumped into a straw man argument with those who call for genocide against Jews.”

That is so incredibly judgmental. You don’t know anyone here. How do you judge who is more or less ‘American’ than you parents? And if I prove to be more American than your parents, do I get a prize? For the record, I’m an immigrant too. Talk about self-congratulatory! And this is what you write further down: “But that you can cheer him (Dr. Ambati) as a true American while saying I'm, presumably, not is fascinating. You don't know that he doesn't feel exactly the same way as me on most issues.” The same goes for you.

You wrote:
“Is that as well as you can debate? Have your skills atrophied so far? If so, could it be due to the groupthink and rah-rah boosterism going on here, and the willingness to shout down and insult those that disagree?”

Debate is one thing. Don’t think you can make sneering statements and get away with it. You can sulk and pout as much as you like. It won’t help.

You wrote:
“Do you recognize that a compromise between your beliefs and those of people like me is the only possible outcome of all of this discussion? Or are you going to hope we go away?”

But three paragraphs ago you stated:
“my ideas are part of the eventual solution that will be found, that will be right. And I was hoping Charles might be willing to lead his audience in a discussion of these ideas, in an engagement with those with whom they disagree.”

Everyone needs to understand that compromise is necessary, except you. You don’t hold yourself accountable for anything do you? But you get on your high-horse about people disagreeing with you. Again, the double-standard.

You wrote:
“Charles, I expect better. Look at that question... what do you think my response is? I'm in favor? I want my friends to die because I'm a "liberal"? It's that kind of idiocy that I'm complaining about. For what it's worth: Yup, I think Islam is just plain evil. But then again, I feel that way about all religions. (No, really.)
I think it's great you guys support what Dr. Ambati wrote, and I think you'll all be terribly surprised to find out that gasp! I agree! But that you can cheer him as a true American while saying I'm, presumably, not is fascinating. You don't know that he doesn't feel exactly the same way as me on most issues.”

I don’t think that’s an unreasonable question because you don’t seem to know your mind about anything. You’re right, I for one am VERY surprised to hear that you support what Dr. Ambati wrote. Nowhere did you state as such, and from the tone of your initial comments on this thread, you actually sounded like you were sneering. This is why I accused you of doing nothing more significant than being contraire for the sake of it. And more importantly, if you truly believe that all religions are plain evil, then you have lost me. By the way, does that mean that those who do follow a religion are evil too?

You wrote:
“I've treated everyone I've talked to in this thread with respect, and I've tried to discourage undifferentiated bashing on the thread about LGF on my site. I'm disappointed that the rest of you are unwilling to treat an American like me with the respect my ideas deserve.”

Anil, you need to realize that respect is earned. It’s not automatic. Point out what you have done, said, or contributed that is deserving of my respect. What you wrote about Charles was disrespectful. What you wrote on your site about LGF and the people that comment here was not only disrespectful, but judgmental and condescending too. It obviously serves your purposes to believe we are all a bunch of rabid racists. Fine, whatever, it’s a pointless remark.

You wrote:
“And Charles, the reason I said to go back to building things? It's because these communication tools have a greater chance of changing minds and opening up societies and increasing engagement between people than any amount of preaching to the choir that you can do here. It's your higher calling, and uses the skills that differentiate you. Anyone can scrape news feeds and present one message over and over every day…”

If that is what you think Charles does, then I am going to dismiss you for the airhead that you are. I don’t like your smug superiority. You don’t hold a candle to Charles, and I think that what it all boils down to is this: You’re jealous. You know that Charles is leaving many weblogs, such as your own, in the dust, and you’re unhappy about it. I would say that you have a lot to learn, especially about yourself.

There are consequences for what we say and do in this world, and yes Anil that includes you.

HA (#17),

To you too :-)

Dean (#22),

Do you know that I still don't have my Bossmobile! I'll have to have a word with Bossman about it.

But, the minute it arrives I am on my way over to pick you up ;-)

It’s not about what you want, it’s not your place to instruct Charles on what to write about, and it’s not your place to judge. You’re being ridiculous.

I'm not telling Charles what to write. I'm noting that a large percentage of the people whom he used to respect and consider peers are offended by some of what he writes and by some of the company he keeps. If someone I used to have that sort of rapport with one year ago pointed out to me that they were troubled by some of the changes in my writing, or my site, or my life, I'd be appreciative that they took the time to point it out. And I'd take their words to heart, even if I disagreed.

For some, like you perhaps, 11 months ago is looooong ago. For some of us, it’s not.
Maybe you don't know what it's like in New York City, but we don't usually have the luxury of ignoring that the attacks happened. I'll thank you not to assume such things about me.

Your smugness is annoying, and I’m being polite.
Your smugness is annoying, and I'm being polite.

How do you judge who is more or less ‘American’ than you [sic] parents?
Umm, by the statements in this very thread, where people labelled this one indian immigrant as being very "American". My parents have almost entirely congruent beliefs with the statements he made, so I figured the same evaluation applied by posters above was still valid.

Everyone needs to understand that compromise is necessary, except you. You don’t hold yourself accountable for anything do you? But you get on your high-horse about people disagreeing with you. Again, the double-standard.
That's false. I have never argued that accurate, prominent reporting of the ills of many contemporary Islamic societies is unimportant. I've just pointed out that those who would seek a dialogue or engagement with the members of those cultures, like myself, are also part of the solution. Labelling me as a liberal, postmodernist, or multiculturalist (as if any of those things are bad things, or as if any of those labels apply to the extremists you assign them to) so you can discredit the opinions of those who don't universally pan all Islamic cultures and countries isn't going to get us all towards a solution for the violence.

You’re right, I for one am VERY surprised to hear that you support what Dr. Ambati wrote. Nowhere did you state as such
That's the thing, I shouldn't have to. Why would you assume, just because I'm part of the New York liberal media establishment, that I don't value the freedoms and virtues of this country? Why do you presume I don't love the United States? It's that sort of prejudice that I'm offended by, and that I'm disappointed Charles would want to associate with. I don't have to prove my loyalty, my faith, and my pride in America. It's part of who I am, despite the many who would try to believe I hate our country.

I don’t like your smug superiority. You don’t hold a candle to Charles, and I think that what it all boils down to is this: You’re jealous. You know that Charles is leaving many weblogs, such as your own, in the dust, and you’re unhappy about it.
That's where you went off the deep end and became a child. I'm jealous? What the hell are you talking about? I think Charles is a talented man, I'm aware that a large, literate, formerly interested part of his audience has been put off by the tone and tenor of many of his messages of late, and I let him know. I don't doubt that Charles strives to engage people and educate them about his area of interest.

But he's not succeeding. He's alienating those whom it would serve his purposes best to engage. I won't argue that I'm not the best, or even a particularly good, representative of voices of moderation or of those who feel that the rhetorical tactics of this audience are harmful more than helpful. There's people who do that well, and I'll defer to them. But what I am good at, and what should be called attention to, is the fact that nobody here is convincing me of any course of action, though I'm willing to listen.

Attacking civilians is bad, I got that. Governments based on religious law are bad, I've got that. But so what? I'm a reasonable, educated, non-dogmatic man, and I still think a lot of the comments here are based on a prejudice that the audience has against arab muslims, because the expressions of distaste for barbaric behavior are only expressed against that group, are expressed against all members of that group as if they're an unthinking monolith, and because there is never discussion of what we can do internally to engage people.

We can't change the behavior of people we've never met on the other side of the globe. We can change our own behavior. And I don't see any discussion of what we could do. Why is there no stigmatization of oil consumers here? Why is there no questioning of the fact that Americans aren't being asked to sacrifice, as in every great conflict in the past, but to consume more? Is our government as morally repugnant as that of various backwards theocracies around the world? Nope. But is it often immoral, or perverse, or corrupt, or acting in the interests of corporations instead of inviduals? Inarguably. And it's the only governemnt that those of us without bombs can directly change.

Aside from all of that, I think the point that I started with that's gotten lost along the way is that Charles has lost much of the humanity of his voice on the Internet. For all the arguments that, of course, he can say whatever he wants on his site, I thought it might give him pause to know that people whose opinions he once valued miss that part of him. As I tried to state right from the beginning of my discussion of this topic, it would be sad to lose a compelling human voice as another casualty of last September's attacks.

"Maybe you don't know what it's like in New York City, but we don't usually have the luxury of ignoring that the attacks happened. I'll thank you not to assume such things about me."

I do know what it's like in New York. Very well actually. But I'll explain why I assumed that about you with the following:

On your blog you wrote:

"And I live in New York City, don't forget, where we hold no truck with terrorists, especially suicidal ones. But what good does it do anyone to preach to an increasingly repulsive choir, working them up into a progressively more offensive frothing at the mouth?"

and this:

"Why don't people like me (variously identified as webloggers writing about technology, or about the Internet, or about nothing) write about the horrible goings-on in the Middle East? Because we're too busy building things".

From both of those statements, it seems that you don't like dealing with the "ickiness" factor of things. We would all like it to just go away but it doesn't, does it?

"Labelling me as a liberal, postmodernist, or multiculturalist (as if any of those things are bad things, or as if any of those labels apply to the extremists you assign them to) so you can discredit the opinions of those who don't universally pan all Islamic cultures and countries isn't going to get us all towards a solution for the violence."

I, personally, did not label you as any of those things. If you want to respond to those that did, feel free to do so. It sounds like you have a few ideas on how we can solve the violence, and I'd like to hear about them.

"That's the thing, I shouldn't have to. Why would you assume, just because I'm part of the New York liberal media establishment, that I don't value the freedoms and virtues of this country? Why do you presume I don't love the United States? It's that sort of prejudice that I'm offended by, and that I'm disappointed Charles would want to associate with. I don't have to prove my loyalty, my faith, and my pride in America. It's part of who I am, despite the many who would try to believe I hate our country."

But if you don't say so, then how would anyone know that about you? Then you'll accuse me of making assumtions about you again. Your tone certainly doesn't indicate as much. Remember, this post is about an essay, beautifully written by Dr. Ambati. You were the one that pulled in the story about the lunatic who was planning on blowing up mosques. That seemed to be more your issue that anything to do with what this thread was originally about. There's nothing in your previous statements that would lead me to believe that you are proud to be an American, or not proud to be American. I didn't actually assume any of those things about you. But if you say so...

"That's where you went off the deep end and became a child. I'm jealous? What the hell are you talking about? I think Charles is a talented man, I'm aware that a large, literate, formerly interested part of his audience has been put off by the tone and tenor of many of his messages of late, and I let him know. I don't doubt that Charles strives to engage people and educate them about his area of interest."

Fine, I'm a child. I still think you're jealous. And you let Charles know that you were concerned about the tone his site had taken as a friend, in an e-mail, or just in the nasty bit you posted in an open forum on your own site? It's a little distasteful you know. Charles at least has integrity.

"But he's not succeeding. He's alienating those whom it would serve his purposes best to engage."

It is exactly those kinds of statements that make me say that you are smug. How do you know who, and what, best serves his purposes. Get off your high-horse Anil.

"I'm a reasonable, educated, non-dogmatic man, and I still think a lot of the comments here are based on a prejudice that the audience has against arab muslims, because the expressions of distaste for barbaric behavior are only expressed against that group, are expressed against all members of that group as if they're an unthinking monolith, and because there is never discussion of what we can do internally to engage people."

You are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. But here's the thing - the people who declared holy Jihad on this country are Arab Muslims. I didn't make that up. Give me examples of other groups of people who have performed equally barbaric acts of violence against innocent people. I can almost guarentee you that they would receive the same treatment from the people that comment here. I don't know of any, but if you do, I would like to hear about it. Equally barbaric, equally vicious, equally insane and equally cruel. Yes, I have a huge distaste for acts of barbaric violence. What does that make me? Does that make me an "unabashed racist"?What do you suggest we do to internally engage people? If someone flies a plane into a building in order to murder thousands of innocents, what is there to talk about? The act itself is so insane it's difficult to grasp.

You wrote on your site:
"The worst, most egregious affronts to decency and civil discourse on the site are the comments, which range from biased to unabashedly racist."

I will thank you not to assume that about me. I tried to explain in the paragraph above.

"Why is there no stigmatization of oil consumers here?"

You need to read the comments more if you're going to make statements like that. Ask Bossman (as one example) his opinion on the subject. You're wrong about that statement.

"Why is there no questioning of the fact that Americans aren't being asked to sacrifice, as in every great conflict in the past, but to consume more?"

I don't know that the government has specifically asked us to consume more. I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

"Aside from all of that, I think the point that I started with that's gotten lost along the way is that Charles has lost much of the humanity of his voice on the Internet. For all the arguments that, of course, he can say whatever he wants on his site, I thought it might give him pause to know that people whose opinions he once valued miss that part of him."

I'll let Charles answer that one. I have no idea about whether he values your opinion or not.

But if you write things like this,
"Since the attacks, Charles, at least in the context of his weblog, lost his shit.", what do you expect? As I said before, if you're going to give it, be prepared to take it.

Goodnight Anil.

Amen, zulubaby, and others. Especially to Ian (#29): Eloquently put.

I'm with Anil on this one. I too miss the days when a day's posts actually had some variety, and when there was some actual debate. I still come back to LGF everyday, and usually I see practically the exact same thing every time.

Zulubaby,

I just had an exchange with Anil on his blog. Hopefully I lived up to the fine standard you set over here.

[Link: www.dashes.com...]

HA,

You did gooood baby!

I am exhausted, but now you have me staying up reading this.

J Lawson did some ass-kicking over there too.

Anil writes this:

"It was my hope to discuss whether one can assume a webmasters concordance with views posted on his site by virtue of their existence, or whether he/she is simply providing a forum. There is some pretty ugly stuff posted on a regular basis and when that is tolerated for a lengthy period of time I have to wonder about the complicity of the owner. I am interested in the distinction between discussion and graffiti scrawled on a wall. If dissent is muted and smothered in a flurry of ad hominum attacks and the recitation of pat buzzwords, I have a difficult time seeing the point of even enabling the feature."

Total bullshit. It was not his hope to discuss blah, blah. That had NOTHING to do with that snarky little piece that he wrote about Charles over on his blog. "Some pretty ugly stuff". Why, because it's not what he wants to hear? I agree, it's ugly out there. But Charles is not making this stuff up, for chrissakes.

Once again, the smug superiority rears its head:

"By the way, the folks I invite into my home and offer sustenence to are an accurate reflection on my character. How that is related to profiling I fail to see. We don't choose our DNA, we do choose the people we interact with."

He only surrounds himself with the finest of people, you know. He is far too refined for the likes of us hoodlums here at LGF. We offend his gentle sensibilities. And what does he mean by "we do choose the people we interact with"? That Charles should ban us all and let Anil and his friends come and play here? Please, spare me the dramatics.

"I wasn't even aware I had a message".

THIS is what annoys me. He throws out whatever he wants, and then plays dumb and says he's unaware that he had a message.

"As far as not providing solutions the reason is quite simple, I don't have any.However, I never claimed that I did and in my posts was making an effort to remain on topic; that being the evolution of one given site."

OK then, give me a minute and I'm going to rip that one up too.

Here you go, from post #38:

"But three paragraphs ago you (Anil) stated:

“my ideas are part of the eventual solution that will be found, that will be right. And I was hoping Charles might be willing to lead his audience in a discussion of these ideas, in an engagement with those with whom they disagree.”

He clearly states that he has ideas that will contribute to the eventual solution (the final solution?), and that it is only a matter of time until we see the error of our ways.

Here is a perfect example of someone who doesn't think before he speaks. He also doesn't really take a stand on anything once he's challenged. He throws out statements, as nasty as can be, and then "spins" them when he's called on them:

"Your (sic) entirely correct, my use of the term racist will poorly considered and a sweeping generalization. I have little doubt based upon reading LGF that there are racists that frequent the site (like there are anyplace else you go) but it was wrong of me to attribute the behavior to everyone. I apologise to anyone offended, especially those who have truly been persecuted on the basis of race."

And then from a guy Dean posting on Anil's site...

"The suggestion that all those who pray to Allah deserve the same vengeance and punishment, or even hold the same toxic worldview, as the members of Al Qu'eda is plainly, incontrovertably racist.

QED.

Posted by: Dean Allen on August 26, 2002 12:51 PM"

And Anil's reply to Dean:

"I dunno, Dean. I think it might be more accurately labelled xenophobic than racist.

Posted by: Anil on August 26, 2002 08:57 PM"

I am now going to sleep.

HA, great job! I'm sure Charles will be proud of all his little Infidels ;-)

Goodnight!

I have a proposed tag for the left-wing nuts. Might I suggest "foghorns" as in Foghorn Leghorn?

Foghorns can't see through the fog so they wail endlessley hoping that someone will hear them.

They haven't haven't heard of radar.

Thank you for defending LGF, especially zulubaby and HA. I really appreciate the words of support.

And now, to make Matt Haughey and Anil Dash happy, and get back in their good graces, I'm banning all of you!

<grin />

By the way, just for the record, yes I did call Matt Haughey a "juvenile know-nothing." And here's his comment at Meatfilter that led to it (the quote is from Mark Steyn’s article):

--------------------

Matt Haughey In His Own Words

Or as Charles Johnson, whose excellent "Little Green Footballs" Web site turns up dozens of fascinating Islamic tidbits every day...

muwhahahahahaha. Oh man. I'm supposed to take this editorial seriously with a statement like that?
posted by mathowie at 11:33 AM PST on August 20

--------------------

Note to Matt: the opinion of one Mark Steyn means more to me than that of several dozen Matt Haugheys and Anil Dashes.

Here is my final post to Anil:

I’ll take a break from rhetorically beating you guys up to offer my vision on how to deal with militant Islam.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King were students of human nature. As such, they had insights into the nature of those that were oppressing their peoples. They knew that Great Britain and America were sinful, yet fundamentally moral and therefore redeemable nations. They knew that non-violent resistance would succeed by holding a mirror up to their oppressors. This mirror triggered the human response of shame and remorse they knew was there. They understood the Christian concept of redemption through shame and remorse and the application of the Golden Rule. I can’t read MLK’s speeches without getting chills. The scope of his understanding is breathtaking. I recommend you guys read all his speeches, but I especially appreciate his “Promised Land” speech with its sweeping view of Western Civilization.

[Link: www.mlkonline.com...]

Redemption in Islam isn’t achieved through shame and remorse. It is achieved through jihad and martyrdom. Islam is a cult of hate and death that dehumanizes its followers. Consequently, it is a far greater challenge to tap into a Muslim’s human response of shame and remorse because it is buried under layers of hate of the infidel. Therefore, non-violent resistance alone will not stop militant Islam. A two-tracked approach is needed.

One track is the military response. The other track is the mirror. The mirror is the ideological battle to make Muslims understand the truly ugly aspects of their religion. LGF is one such mirror. It reflects just how ugly Islam is. The only way to achieve a truly moderate variant of Islam is to trigger Muslims’ sense of shame and remorse. Only after this trigger has been reached in a critical mass of Muslims can Islam experience its own Reformation and Enlightenment to truly become a great religion of peace and tolerance.

Anil, you don’t approve of the mirror that Charles holds up to Islam through LGF. If those who believe in Western Civilization fail to engage in the ideological battle, then the only approach left will be war. War in the 21st century will make the 20th century wars seem civilized. The toll will be measured in the hundreds of millions rather than the tens of millions. The longer we attempt appeasement and defer taking action, the greater the toll will be.

I urge you and your readers to reconsider your criticism of Charles and LGF. I acknowledge the rhetoric gets heated but I truly believe that LGF serves a profound public service.

zulubaby:

"But, the minute it arrives I am on my way over to pick you up ;-)"

Wow! That's great news. I'll be waiting

Anil has 55 comments about his attack on LGF! I'm sure that must be a record for him. Even if it's RELATED to LGF, it gets traffic :-)

But now he's pissed me off about something else.

He's posted a link to the story about the podiatrist with, "the real face of terrorism"

"August 24

After seeing how this terrorist bombing plot was narrowly averted, I think it's clear that it's time to begin with the racial profiling. It doesn't make sense to be checking elderly grandmothers anymore, let's focus on who the real suspects are. Let's not forget what the real face of terrorism looks like".

[Link: www.dashes.com...]

J Lawson,

I'm reading what you wrote on Anil's site, and you rock!

HA, you obviously don't know what Jihad is, taking the meaning that right-wing propaganda gives it as face-value.
I'd urge you to read the Koran in an unbiased way to find out just where Jihad is a negative word, but I'm afraid you wouldn't want to touch that book with a 10 feet pole. And you're the one talking about ideological battle ?

Charles, your 'remember me' box doesn't work on Mozilla by the way (so now not only will I be labelled a filthy left-winger, I'll also be called a commie by some of the tools who populate your comments' section).

michel v:

We are not talking about the Koran. We are talking about the radical Muslims.

We understand the difference.

michel v,

The meaning that Muslims give to Jihad is clear from 1500 years of Islamic history.

I have looked at parts of the Quran. Not the whole thing because most of it is incoherent. Regardless, the parts about Jihad are perfectly consistent with what OBL, Ayatollah Khomeni and right-wing propoganda say it is.

There is no basis in history to give it any other meaning. I know there are some who want to redefine it, but their numbers are very few as far as I can tell. I wish them the best.

Zulubaby: You said,
Anil writes this:

"It was my hope to discuss whether one can assume a webmasters concordance with views posted on his site by virtue of their existence, or whether he/she is simply...

""By the way, the folks I invite into my home and offer sustenence to are an accurate reflection on my ...

"I wasn't even aware I had a message..."

In the interests of clarity it should be pointed out that Anil never said *any* of the above. If you are going to refute his points in such great detail it would probably bolster your case to attribute them properly.

HA, thanks for admitting that you are talking about a religion which you know nothing about.
I suppose this further invalidates your point.

After all, should one read only parts of the Ancient Testament, one could go around claiming jews condone public stoning of delinquants as is clearly advocated in a part of the book. What do you think of such a claim ?
Wouldn't you reply that it's all about interpretation ? See, same goes for the Quran.
As for history, I seriously doubt you know much about muslim countries' history beyond 1980.

So anyway, it's been fun debating here, if that could be called a debate to begin with, with the false quoting and judge-a-book-by-one-verse phonomenons going on.

Cedar (#55):

Thanks for pointing that out.

This is what Anil wrote, and what I was responding to:

"Charming. So far, people like me who criticize religion for influencing government are the reason for the attacks, forgiveness and tolerance (as Gandhi preached) are Christian ideas, and you assign a hyphen where there is none: I'm the American son of Indian parents who are citizens, and it's said so on my site for years. I bet it just fucking burns you up that I can write my name on my site in two languages and have it look damned good either way.

Your world is small. Your view is simple. You ask, "It doesn’t feel so good to have the morality of your own cultural background questioned for a change?" and, given that my cultural background is American, you're damned right it feels good. It's what I do best, and I'm not as much of a fucking coward as you are, hiding behind an anonymous pair of initials without even so much as an email address. Hiding behind groupthink. Hiding behind meaningless rants against concepts that you don't even know the definition of.

"Do you know what was in their hearts? Demeanor has no correlation with belief."

Fuck that. Ask George Bush whether he still believes that black people in this country who are descended from slaves should obey their masters, as the Book of Ephesians that he claims to believe in commands them to do. He hasn't disavowed it, ever. Not once has he said the Bible is wrong in preaching subjugation of other humans as slaves.

Sharon? Never once has he disavowed the misogynist doctrine of orthodox Judaism. And these examples are men who are supposed to be leaders. Let alone the vast masses of people who support them, all of whom refuse to disavow the legacy of hatred, bigotry, and misogyny in their cultures.

Where, indeed, is the unqualified shame or remorse? From you and people of your ilk, who treat my moderation and my convictions as something less than valid, as a danger to America, as a threat to Our Way Of Life.

Understand: This is my country. Mine. I am not wrong. I can see that we disagree, and I can do it without saying you're a danger to the United States. I can do it without saying that you're the reason the terrorists attacked us. It's because I'm a better, kinder, more moral person than you. I don't treat any group as a monolith. I know that any group of a billion people, of a hundred people, of a dozen people, has extremists and moderates, lunatics and geniuses, lovers and fighters.

You're terrified, and it shows in your rhetoric. You ask if I know what's in the hearts of my friends. Not only do I know it, I know what's in yours. An unwillingness to concede that someone different from you might not be trying to destroy you. You've admitted your fear:

"the morality of my cultural background is under assault day after day, year after year by people who think like you do"

And, well, you're right. It's because you're immoral. I think it's immoral to judge a group by its most extreme members. I think it's immoral to insult someone for trying to be tolerant. I think it's immoral to present the murder of thousands of innocents as being equivalent to my pleas for nuance and differentiation in the description of groups that consist of hundreds of millions of people.

Let me ask you something: Why do you need to see this as an "us or them" situation? Even if I grant the false assumption that this preposterous monolithic enemy that you've created exists, and that they all, all one billion of them, think that it's an Us vs. Them situation, wouldn't you still want to be the one to say it's not? Isn't that what being an American is? To be a person from a culture that is made of all of the parts of the world?

You're spoiled. You've forgotten why your immigrant ancestors came here. You've forgotten what they went through when they did. I am ashamed of you, but I still know you're an American, I still know you didn't cause the attacks a year ago. I'm still willing to accept you, flawed and flailing though you are.

Posted by: Anil on August 27, 2002 06:40 PM