« Hans Noel on the contributions of political science | Main | Peter Baker and Barack Obama fixate on tactics »

October 18, 2010

Comments

Media Matters claims to know the future with perfect accuracy, so they can be certain that Sharia law will never apply in the US. The rest of us have to muddle along looking at facts and evidence. The evidence shows:

-- A Supreme Court Justice (Breyer) who has said there might be no right to burn a Koran.

-- Onging efforts by organized groups to get Sharia Law used in Canada and Europe.

-- Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

-- Italy appears to have applied Sharia Law. Three members of a Brescia-based Maghrebi family (father, mother and eldest son) were accused of beating up and sequestering their daughter/sister Fatima because she wanted to live a "Western" life. In the first trial, the three were sentenced for sequestration and bad treatment. The court acknowledged that the teenager was "brutally beaten up" for having "dated" a non-Muslim and in general for "living a life not conforming with the culture" of her family. But on appeal, the family was acquitted because the court deemed that the young woman was beaten up for "her own good." The Bologna public prosecutor's office then disputed the acquittal of the three accused parties, but the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed it and ruled in favor of the charged parties.

Other examles could be provided. The point is, efforts are being made to have Sharia law apply in the west. These efforts are succeeding to a degree. It's reasonable and prudent for a political leader to recommend steps to fight these efforts.

Media Matters' version of "truth" is what the rest of us would call "denial."

P.S. Sharia Law's ugly treatment of women is comparable to Jim Crow's treatment of blacks. It should be vigorously fought, particularly by liberals who claim to support women's rights.

Douthat didn't quite say the Tea Party is "winning over independents". He said they were "winning over independents in a way that movements like the Birchers rarely did." I think it's obvious that the Tea Party is more popular among indies than the Birchers were.

I don't know much about the Birchers, but it's important to remember that the rise of the independent voter has created large pools of independents who consistently vote for one party or the other. This group was much smaller in the 1950s and 1960s, so it's hard to compare across eras.

I well recall the John Birch Society from the 1960's. They were regarded as kooks, even by most Republicans. They were noted for a few billboards, which said in big letters, "IMPEACH EARL WARREN." A popular satirical song about the John Birch Society had the line, "If your Mommy is a Commie, then you have to turn her in."

In short, the Birchers were considered so kooky, that when Douthit said the Tea Parties were winning indies better than the Birchers, he was saying almost nothing.

Interesting article about Sharia law today.

The UAE's highest judicial body says a man can beat his wife and young children as long as the beating leaves no physical marks.

The decision by the Federal Supreme Court shows the strong influence of Islamic law in the Emirates despite its international appeal in which foreign residents greatly outnumber the local population. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/18/husband-hit-wife-children-marks-left-uae-court-rules/

I might add that through some combination of fear and political correctness, almost our entire mainstream media is following Sharia law in refusing to show images of Mohammad, even though they (properly) have no problem reprinting Piss Christ. E.g., the Philadelphia Inquirer was the only major newspaper to reprint the controversial Danish cartoons.

Without attempting a point by point discussion, let it be noted that Bob Stoker's correction of myths about taxation bears more than a passing resemblance to Bram Stoker's Dracula: it sinks its fangs into fictional victims and cries out to be dispatched with a stake through the heart.

The "myths" Stoker attacks are not only tendentious but often straw men of his own devising. For example, has anyone seriously suggested that people at the top of the income distribution pay more than half of their incomes in federal taxes--unless you're including the estate taxes on what's left of their after-tax income, in which event the myth may be true for many? Meanwhile, Stoker's rebuttal of Federal taxes being higher than ever examines taxes (including individual income taxes, corporate taxes, Social Security taxes and estate taxes) as a percentage of GDP without noting that 2009 and 2010 are anomalous because of stimulus rebates and absence of estate tax this year, and without noting that the very CBO figures he cites show taxes as a percentage of GDP rising to an unprecedented 21% in 2020--and that assumes a GDP denominator that grows at unrealistically high levels (CBO projected a 3% growth in GDP in 2010 and 3.3% in 2011, neither of which will remotely be achieved, and an annual average growth rate through 2020 of 4.5%).

Economics may be the dismal science, but Bob Stoker keeps us laughing.

Re: Tax Myths

Note in the comments of the cited article the author basically admits thye "myths" cited were straw men of their own building.

"The general reaction to Mankiw's piece just got Bob thinking about the topic, and I suggested a more general primer. As is clear in the post, neither Bob nor I am making any claims about Mankiw per se."

Pretty funny!

Brendan -

It seems you define independents as mostly partisans who just call themsleves something else, i.e. true independents are basically non-existent. How do you expect Douthat to provide any evidence given that definition?

Andrew Ferguson's meta-analysis decrying D’Souza's meta-analysis...

'nuf said....


Surveys distinguish between "leaners" (independents who tend to identify with one party) and true independents (those who do not). See http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/12/three_myths_about_political_in.html

Tomorrow's Tea Party Conference at Berkeley should be amusing, given the lineup of sponsors and speakers. A movement that's straightforwardly against expansion of governmental powers and increases in taxes will no doubt look quite different after this group of far-leftists finishes their analyses.

I'll make two predictions (based on Abraham Maslow's Law of the Instrument ): The Gender and Women's Studies Dept. will find that Tea Parties are sexist; the Center for Race and Gender will find that Tea Parties are racist.

The comments to this entry are closed.