Skip to comments.It’s the demography, stupid
Posted on 01/01/2006 2:52:39 PM PST by twntaipan
click here to read article
thanks for the ping. I have a horrible feeling he might be right.
Crediting Steyn's argument discredits the elections in Iraq. What goes on in Islamic countries now, with minority populations of Christians and/or Jews, or Westerners, for that matter?
Someone wrote an article in the local paper here. The person was visiting in one of the countries of the Middle East. What she described as far as a local shopping mall goes sounded like any mall in America.
Osama has been banging the drum for jihad long enough that you'd think they would all be buying airline tickets w/o the benefit of a kamikaze helmet and goggles.
It is an elightening piece, baffling as well, but I just don't buy all of it.
long but interesting piece by Mark Steyn
MUST READ bump
"The media" - specifically journalism - is in thrall to the idea of their own importance. In thrall to the idea that is, that not only is the pen mightier than the sword, the sword and everything else is irrelevant compared to the glories of PR. I think that is the only way to explain the media's antipathy towards the military, the police, and business. Everything which we rely on in the real world is, inside the virtual reality of his newspaper, seen by the journalist as a mere pretender.
The conceit of the journalist is that only the journalist keeps anyone honest.
Descarte's famous dictum, cognito ergo sum - "I think therefore I am" - has been called the lunatic fringe of philosophy because it suggests that nothing else but "I" can be proven to exist. But how is that different from a philosophy which denies that reality even exists if it doesn't show up in the newspapers?
Media bias bump.
Iran is a good example of what Steyn is saying. Irans people have become very western thinking yet it has been taken over by the extremist. The populations of most Muslim countries become complacent due to the fact they seem agree with part of the extremist thinking thus the majority doesnt do anything about the extremist.
But Steyn is predicting the downfall of Europe and western civilization. Someone raised the question earlier, around #51 on this thread or another echo like this one, that a Europe with a high unemployment isn't very likely to import more workers for jobs that don't exist. Additionally, life expectancy is rising--so many people are continuing to work longer before retirement.
Seems to me that those who see some kind of prophetic vision in Steyn's piece are, by association, arguing against success in Iraq. Steyn says that Europeans will be reluctant to give up the perks they have gotten--why would they be any less reluctant to give up perks, or liberties for that matter, if there is a larger population of Muslims on the continent?
good point but not accurate, it is much like the illegal argument where people dont want to work for near nothing.
Seems to me that those who see some kind of prophetic vision in Steyn's piece are, by association, arguing against success in Iraq.
No, you must of miss understood what I was saying earlier. The Muslim majorities become complacent if they are under Shari laws even if it is a tyrannical government. Obviously from the migration of Muslims to western countries they dont mind a free society given the chance. I believe most in Iraq are taking advantage of that opportunity.
"Steyn says that Europeans will be reluctant to give up the perks they have gotten."
This is true. The Europeans have learned to vote themselves 'freebies', they are not going change.
why would they (Europeans) be any less reluctant to give up perks, or liberties for that matter, if there is a larger population of Muslims on the continent?
I dont understand this question. I am misunderstanding this question because perks are not liberties. Unless you consider a tax a liberty. I get stuck on that point and I cann't move on.
If I understand what is meant by "sharia?" "Shari?"--a more fundamentalist-radical kind of Islam--I don't buy that idea that Muslims in Europe would embrace the concept. Seems to me there are a number of Muslims, everywhere in the West, who are "faithful" to their religion w/o being fundamentalist. So why would a vocal minority of fundamentalists sway all and any of them in country? Not all Muslims are that way in countries where Islam is predominant.
For the most part yes.
I don't buy that idea that Muslims in Europe would embrace the concept. Seems to me there are a number of Muslims, everywhere in the West, who are "faithful" to their religion w/o being fundamentalist.
I would rather go with polls:
From the article:
According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60 percent of British Muslims want to live under shariain the United Kingdom.
"So why would a vocal minority of fundamentalists sway all and any of them in country?"
Muslims in general want to live under Shari laws, that is why a fairly western thinking country such as Iran has been taken over by the whack jobs. They don't have 'elections' the people are content with what they have, so there is no revolt.
To the statement that, "Democracy may have problems but it's better than any other form of government," the people of five Arab countries strongly agreed. See the table below. Note with amazement how this agreement is greater than that for the sample from other regions, such as Western Europe. Agreement for other Muslim nations is a little lower, but still greater than for Latin American and U.S./Canada/Australia/New Zealand..
Given what you have said about polls, what's your take on this? Note also his conclusion:
Therefore, if the democratization the Arab people value is to come, it must come from pressure from the outside. In this, President Bush's "Forward Strategy of Freedom" is well aligned with our understanding of the Middle East, and it is working.
Another point tht could be made, based on the article is, given that Muslims living under dictatorship are not inclined to raise their heads above the masses, why wouldn't they embrace democratic ideals when they are away from the oppressiveness of such regimes?
Apparently the article hasn't been posted to FR. Maybe it could be? I'm not familiar enough with posting articles and I'm not comfortable with an attempt.
Here is how the question went: Could you please tell me if you agree strongly, agree, disagree or disagree strongly, after I read each one of them?
V163. Democracy may have problems but it's better than any other form of government 1 2 3 4 9
As a hard core capitalist I would pick number 9 disagree strongly. The absolute worst form of government is a true Democracy, I would honestly prefer communism over a true Democracy. Inglehart chose a question that set it self up to look bad. It seemed to have gone right over R J Rummel head he didnt get it.
I know what the article is trying to imply but when you put garbage in you get garbage out.
I've been reading some of the SCOTUS decisions related to guns. One of the more recent cases, Muscarello v United States, which had the unlikely scenario of Ginsburg and Souter joining Rehnquist and Scalia in a dissent. There is much ado about the word "carry" or "carries" with the OED, literature, and Congressional Record, as well as a citation from the M*A*S*H television show.
Reading the Justices, one is left with the impression that Congress is careless in the wording of the legislation that they pass.
An earlier case, Lopez v United States, and Justice Thomas' opinion in that case illustrate the opposite--Congress seems incapable of reading plain English and unwilling to be limited by the Constitution's plain text.
I'll hazard that a "democracy" is somewhat less repressive than a "dictatorship" and that in this case, knowing what some here know about Joe Public's ability with signifiers and signified, and that the respondents to the questionaire most likely share the comprehension and understanding of Joe Public.
Anyway, thanks for the exchange.
I absolutely disagree.
The classic example of a true Democracy is where you have three people two of the three vote to take everything from the third. In a True Democracy that third person has no legal recourse, in a Republic that person does have a legal recourse.
The anarchists that you see protesting once in a while dream society is a Democracy, they call it a Libertarian-Democracy.
I was thinking the same. Well stated.
When it is handed to them on a silver platter it should work in my opinion such as Iraq. But in Iran I don't believe the people are willing to fight against what they have today. I sure hope I am proven wrong.
MUST READ BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.