to Main Page

Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Profile
Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Facebook profile
Create Your Badge



to Main Page
Opposing Views Heinlein Centennial web site This site is Gunny Approved
Heard the
Word of Blog?

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Open Trackback Alliance

Check out our Frappr!

Patterico's Pledge

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues,

I will not obey those rules.

« August 2005 »
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31

View blog reactions

Who Links Here

Free counter and web stats

eXTReMe Tracker

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by

Listed on BlogShares

Wednesday, 17 August 2005
The War of Light and Darkness
Topic: Out of Flyover Land
I read the following in the comments section over at
roger l. simon

Back to the real topic. A war to end Islamic state sponsored terrorism is a little vague, but has some limits. I have to disagree with the notion that the war is about womens rights around the globe. Many practices of Arab culture strike me as bizarre and abhorrent. It does not follow that we can or should try to remake their societies into what we find acceptable. Nothing is more likely to cause further conflict.

Posted by: flenser at August 16, 2005 09:43 AM
The post in question begins

Women's rights are the very center of the War on Terror. In fact I would argue Islamofascism at its core is more than anything else an expression of rage against women and that Islam itself is not much better on that score. That is why to me Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of the great positive figures of our time, a modern Joan of Arc who surpasses the original Joan in a moral sense and is at least her equal in pure guts.

At first I intended to merely comment, but my thoughts expanded, and I decided to share them here.

In my mind the Struggle we in which we are now engaged, is YES about Islamofacism, YES about the rights of Women, but as SUBSETS of the whole.

It is a much broader struggle, and to me it is between these two Memes.

Those who believe that Society should be under total control for the benefit of all, and run by oligarchic Intelligentsia, which of course includes them in the seat of power (is this not always the case) AND those who believe that Rights, Liberty and Responsibility should be the inalienable possessions of the Individual.

From this perspective the goals and Ideals of the Islamofacsist and the Far Left Socialist are identical. For the STRUCTURE of the Ideal Society is the same, for both of them. If there are no Rights for the Individual, there can be no Rights for Women.

The question was raised in the main post, as to WHY some of those on the Left seem so unconcerned with the Rights of Women, as regards Islamofacism?

From where comes the assumption that the Far Left is concerned about Rights PERIOD? What historical evidence has ever given to the World that RIGHTS were a concern of theirs? Lenin? Stalin?
Mao Tse Tung? Pol Pot? Kim Jung Il? I would be very interested in evidence that this is the case.

The commenter I started this thought sortie with, states a concern with conflict. We have as a Culture and a Society engaged in Conflict before this to wipe the stain of "bizarre and abhorrent" practices from the Face of the Earth. They were called SLAVERY and GENOCIDE. Were the goal at that time to merely avoid CONFLICT? We would all now be either in Chains or Ashes drifting out of Gas Chambers.

But wait. That WAS the Goal for a while during the last century, to avoid conflict, we have oft stated Never Again and we have with ease forgotten this and responded to some modern day Genocide and Slavery with Neville Again.

Our enemy comes in many forms and shapes, some easy to detect and some with smiles and promises, which are much more difficult to perceive.

The Fanatic Jihadist, cutting off the head of an innocent is rather easy to see as a danger. Kelo versus New London is more subtle. IT has the smile and the promise that it can make things better for the Whole, more jobs, more Tax Revenue, just TAKE what belongs to someone away from them, so WE can make more money as a Whole? Some may call my view extreme, I do not claim that this last example is not SO subtle that it is harder to see it as a threat but it, to my eyes is the same enemy.

Our young men and women go in Harm's Way to defend us against a terrible foe in the Service of Darkness.

It is to us who remain behind to , Protect and Defend what they leave behind with us, Freedom , Liberty, Equality, as laid down in the Constitution.

This WAR has many fronts and many faces and it is NOT one that we can draw back from lest we wake up one day to find ourselves and our children in chains.

Those of you who have been reading here for a while may have noticed that I often like to quote Patrick Henry.

Today I will be more blunt than what he had to say.
The Republic stands in peril, from without and from within. There is, as there was over 200 years ago a Call to Arms to Defend her. Some have answered, some will not.

We are TOLD that there can be many different sincere opinions and it would be WRONG to question the Patriotism of All of those on the other side of the political divide.

Well I will not question the Patriotism of ALL of my political and philosophical opponents , but to SOME of them?

This my Gauge

And in the SAME words used by

for the SAME reasons
I say to You.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen."

Samuel Adams
American Patriot & Politician


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 1:27 AM CDT
| Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 6:41 AM CDT

Wednesday, 17 August 2005 - 7:35 PM CDT

Name: Diane
Home Page:

I think it's sad that any gender has to be referred to. HUMAN rights should say it all.

Thursday, 18 August 2005 - 7:44 AM CDT

Name: Dan Kauffman
Home Page:

But you must keep in mind that the strict form of Shari'ai practiced by Bin Laden and Co, considers the testimony of woman to be half of a man if both are Muslim, that of a non-believer man even less, a non-believer female still less.

So THEY have a different definition of "human" than you or I.

View Latest Entries