Today, the Huffngton Post, Arianna Huffington’s left wing web site, carries an article on militant Islam that was rejected by the Washington Post, in spite of having been solicited by them, because it was too inflammatory toward radical Islam.
In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders’ film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a “kill fee.” I declined.
His thesis ? Here is part of it.
Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called “a chilling effect” on our exercise of free speech. I have, in my own small way, experienced this chill first hand. First, and most important, my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali happens to be among the hunted. Because of the failure of Western governments to make it safe for people to speak openly about the problem of Islam, I and others must raise a mountain of private funds to help pay for her round-the-clock protection. The problem is not, as is often alleged, that governments cannot afford to protect every person who speaks out against Muslim intolerance. The problem is that so few people do speak out. If there were ten thousand Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s, the risk to each would be radically reduced.
Read all of it.
Tags: Gert Wilders, hirsi ali, Islam, terrorism
[…] A Brief History… placed an interesting blog post on The Huffington Post shows courageHere’s a brief overview […]
Excellent. Thanks for posting it, Mike K. I would ahve missed it. Hats off to Huff Po.
I’m anxious to see how the Wa Po earnestly tries to convince the public it was in everyone’s best interest to not publish Harris’ piece.
Harris’s timely comparison of the reactions to the FLDS situation and the Muslims further evidences the irony. Capitulation abounds.
It’s interesting. Sam Harris is one of those “Aggressive Atheists” as I call them. He wrote “Letters to a Christian Nation.” Like Dawkins, he is pretty darned contemptuous of Western issues of faith.
But at least he shows *real* courage here, and shows the strength of his convictions. It is not particularly dangerous to criticize and lampoon Christians. In fact, it is a sport in some quarters.
But to go after Muslims? That is serious business. Though I do not agree with a great deal of what Harris writes concerning Christianity and his views on atheism, I tip my hat to this particular essay.
Good to see you still rockin’ away! We miss you at the Festering Swamp.
I am getting verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry tired of Max, as you can see.
>>>>Capitulation abounds.
Indeed. We have the school yard bully-meets-the politically correct wimp. Hi jinx ensue until the wimp is crawling naked, on all fours, apologizing for getting in the bully’s way.
Dear Bradley: I don’t know anyone who is unhappy with you, truly. It’s just that many folks would rather not tussle with people who are more interested in scoring points or arguing. Debate is one thing. Name-calling and venom are something else. You are discovering how unpleasant the latter kind of person can be (as well as hypocritical and inconsistent). I’m very sorry about that.
I know you mean well, and represent some nice people.
What doombuggy writes above sort of reminds me of how GM acts, defending people whose actions don’t merit much defense.
I for one wish everyone well. Life is too short to play Monty Python’s “The Argument Room.” And that doesn’t apply to allan, qdpsteve, James, the irrepressible Dmac, and a few others—including you! You are good folks.
Bradley, several times I have gone to the swamp to post something I thought you’d be interested in and I see the comments and just don’t do it. Sorry. I never wanted anyone banned. Just chastised. I think it may be too late now. Nice to see you drop by.
Mike K.
Well, some people just appear to be unchastiseable in their invincible ignorance. Max thinks he has the answer to racial harmony, and will sacrifice a meritocracy of labor to achieve it — despite having only a marginal acquaintance with work.
Perhaps it’s the effect of crossing the 50th birthday barrier, but I have more respect for those who can actually do things and have skill than those who opine but don’t do anything useful.
I fear we may get a president with Max’s qualities. I heard him opining on Supreme Court Justices the other day. He thought Breyer and Ginsberg were “moderate” and about like those he would nominate. Then he pointed out that Souter was nominated by a Republican. At least he didn’t mention that same about Stevens.
I find that lots of people want OTHER people to give up things—but are unwilling to give things up for themselves. My father called this the “IGMFU” principle: I’ve got mine and (blank) you”
Al Gore does it. The Hollyweird Hypocrites do it with regard to the environment. On that subject, check out this bit from Lewis Black.
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=85904
And, of course, certain people who don’t have to work for a living seem to be very certain that it is okay for other people to give up their jobs or promotion for a higher cause. People like that should give up 25% of their “income” and give it to minority scholarships. But I notice that those people don’t. The people who do contribute money to such causes usually don’t exhort others to do so—they walk the walk.
Also, it is all about the fighting. Who wants to fight, right? People who like to do that can hang out and fight elsewhere. Diversity rules!
Eric, that’s pretty much how I see things, especially with certain people who call for great sacrifices from others to ease their own guilty consciences. And such people disdain the effect of reverse discrimination on work performance, perhaps because they have no acquaintance with work of any consequence.
Of course, if you argue for a meritocracy, that automatically means you are a racist who doesn’t think minorities can keep up. So say the couch potato parasites, including a certain person whose white skin color evidently isn’t the “privilege” he thinks it is, because he can’t support himself and must parasitize off another.
Such are the guardians of our moral duties to the oppressed.
As for the Hollywood enviros, my energy consumption is a lot lower than theirs. My most recently monthly utility bill was for $25 and change. That’s mostly the result of having totally fluorescent lights, both traditional tubes and compact fluorescents. And my place is extremely well lit.
Nicely put, Bradley. We can all do more to reduce energy consumption, and that is independent of what Matt Damon does or does not do.
The SAT was designed to move away from “rich man’s privilege,” and look what happened: it is still called elitist!
I think the best solution is one that I have heard in many places, including by James on your own blog: make the assistance economically based. You will still benefit mostly minorities, without using race directly. And we *should* be trying to help out people without the wherewithal for Kaplan prep courses and such.
But the place to do it is throughout secondary school, not in college admissions.
Just my opinion. I may be white, but very few of the people I went to high school with went to college.
Have you noticed the piece in today’s NYT about elite colleges accepting more alternates ? Maybe the long delayed strike by parents over tuition is beginning. The DEmocrats screwed up the student loan market last fall and there is a crisis of availability. Maybe parents are rebelling ? It has all the earmarks of a bubble anyway. USC Medical School tuition is $40,000 per year now. In France, it is zero.
Of course, if you argue for a meritocracy, that automatically means you are a racist who doesn’t think minorities can keep up. So say the couch potato parasites, including a certain person whose white skin color evidently isn’t the “privilege” he thinks it is, because he can’t support himself and must parasitize off another.
LOL.
Gentlemen, I am with Cicero on this one: “…in rebus prosperis, superbiam, fastidium arrogantiamque magno opere fugiamus…” (…in prosperity let us most carefully avoid pride, disdain, and arrogance…).
It is true, even if the prosperity is not earned!
Let cyber-puglists do their thing, and not feed the fire. After all, that is what unhappy and angry people want. Me, I would rather discuss other issues.
Just my opinion.
Ah, GM, you missed my point (if you are reading this). I think it is nice that you are nice. But I have yet to see you remonstrate with some of the more aggressive elements. Not a big deal, and by no means implies you live in any kind of doghouse.
But you did leap immediately onto the blog to defend some nasty business. It is ironic, because I had predicted that you would. I suspect you are just trying to be what you consider to be fair-minded, which only works if all sides play nice.
As I wrote to you before, it would be interesting to see you be the target of some of the nastiness of recent weeks, and even more interesting to see how you would handle that sort of thing. You say you have been; I have not seen it yet. I hope I don’t.
I wish you well. But I always go back to Edmund Burke. Being a good conservative, I suspect you know the quotation to which I refer.
I wish you well, and have no wish to fight.
Sorry to post this here, Dr. K. But responding directly will simply lead to more fractiousness. I am simply clarifying.
very best job xtube store 34834
Very funny pictures adult tube 1301