The normally tedious “Red Ken” Livingston – London’s mayor – was right for a change in attacking Britain’s alliance with Saudi Arabia in the midst of the current Islamist craziness in the UK. (We have the same problem, as we all know.) Of course he covered this statement with the usual reactionary multi-cultural palaver. Can Livingston et al really believe this nonsense about the “religion of peace” – or are they just simply terrified?
UPDATE: Big oops. Statements about Livingston removed. My bad.
Terrified is the correct answer.
Ken got to where he is not just from his obvious “Red” leaning, but by his willingness to bluster, shout down, denigrate, and demonize his opponents. He can’t do that to the Islamists and is frantic to avoid becoming one of their targets.
Um, Roger, Red Ken isn’t gay.
The important point about Red Ken’s remarks is his coming out against Wahhabis and the Sauds. That’s a real crack in his armor, and we may have reason to hope, therefore, that this crack may widen.
Red Ken isn’t gay. He has at least one kid out of wedlock (defending his pregnant girlfriend was his excuse when he got into a punch-up at a drunken party once as mayor, and ended up throwing the other guy down a flight of stairs).
[Sorry. Had to remove link. Was too long for page. Use shot URLs where possible, please]
There was a time when we were healthy enough to hate our enemies. Until that time returns we’ll go on losing.
Roger, I have a challenge for you, which you must of course feel free not to take up as I dare say it would take time and might be a pain if the muse isn’t with you.
You don’t like the mayor’s comments. Fair enough. I wouldn’t vote for Red Ken – I don’t like the man. I don’t like his stances, I don’t like his attitude, I don’t like his mates. I also accept fully that what he has said includes both distortions and outright lies.
However, given that you are someone who makes a living from having a way with words, I wonder what your comments on an occasion like this would be, were you in charge of a large, multi-racial, multi-confessional metropolis. If you were speechwriter to a less idiotic mayor, what would you be sticking on his autocue?
I suppose my problem is that while I don’t agree with Red Ken, I’m not sure I totally agree with you either. I don’t like the pat homiles about religion of peace. However, I know a number of moderate, law-abiding and secularised Muslims and I’m not convinced that the best way to keep their support is, for example, to continually bang on about Religion Of Peace while sticking it in scare quotes – not least because over time it seems to have the effect not merely of ridiculing the rather pious assertions that are connected with the phrase, but of basically implying that it is a “religion of violence/hate”. Well, if that’s the line you’re going to take with those Muslims whose support is open to being won – never mind those who have chosen to actively align with us, it seems to me that we’ve pretty much already lost.
Excellent point, Anthony C. It is indeed a conundrum. And while I don’t have the time (or the will) to write a speech for a mayor, I will say this: Muslim have to face one important reality. Their religion is in dire need of a public reformation. It is also in need of a public acknowledgment of the necessity of the separation of church and state. The intention of the Koran, as it is now written and accepted, is to make us all Islamic. That must be ended. Then we can begin.
I’m sorry , Roger, but asking for those concessions from Islam is like asking Christianity to drop the 4 Gospels, or asking Judaism to drop the Torah and go with the Commentaries.
You are discussing core beliefs and these can not be dropped without utterly changing the nature of Islam. The Islamists would kill any Muslim who suggested these changes FIRST as apostates.
It may sound reasonable to say “Can we at least talk about this?”, but the proper Islamist response is to kill you on the spot for suggesting it in the first place.
I really am surprised by the naiveity of your comment.
Congestion Pricing can be used by wealthy and affluent people to price out and make it tough for working and middle class people to enter certain areas. Under the cover of the environment people in wealthy areas can establish environmental hurdles they can brush off. The rest of us who are too busy working or just getting by can then be priced out or forced to take mass transit. The cost and life style changes “needed” to combat global Warming will never be paid by the most fervent backers and believers of climate change. Do not be shocked if form’s of congestion pricing begin to appear in the leisure areas of the wealthy and fashionable.
Rverdi
Congestion pricing cameras are really about identifying car bombers. (not that there is anything wrong with that)
I think if you told people that the cameras were for fighting terror and saving lives you have a hard time selling it. But when you tell them the cameras are for saving the planet, then it’s perfectly acceptable.
If the folks at homeland security were smart they would charge terror as a mortal danger to the environment.
Put EPA under the HLS umbrella.
Gitmo is really a terror Yucca Mountain. Thats why the supremes (most likely Kennedy) want to take another look. They really want to make sure “the worst of the worst” are not going to be leaking out of there endangering our safety