Ayaan Hirsi Ali , Atheist, Feminist Activist

[betsy]

Betsy, are you really suggesting that the government get involved in promoting one religion over another? That the government start providing incentives for Muslims to consider another religion?

The government should even take it a step farther. Attending an introductory/welcome session to Feminist/Humanist and youth center should be part of the orientation session given to a newly-arrived immigrant!

Pamphlets/literature of every participating religious or non-religious groups should be given to them.....just emphasizing the way Canada is as a nation: a tapestry of different cultures and religions.... and indeed a land of freedom.

As for your original post, Hirsi Ali herself has not converted to Christianity. She is an atheist - therefore, she has no credibility in saying Muslims should convert to Christianity.

On the contrary, Hirsi Ali being a former Muslim, and now being an Atheist, gives her so much more credibility for no one can say she is biased!

Edited September 19, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

Doing nothing would be a better suggestion than government-sponsored attempts at conversion to Christianity.

You think it doesn't get any worse for us to do nothing and let it go on like this? You think it deosn't get any worse for the moderate Muslim?

Just with the NYC mosque controversy alone, the backlash is astounding. I saw an indepth report in one of the USA news and apparently people in some small town America are already trying to stop ANY MOSQUES from being built in their towns! Some Muslim students (even elementary school) are said to be experiencing harrassment and bullying because of their religion!

This is the fear of the moderates like Tareq Fatah. The backlash! And it will become real!

The pendulum will swing to the other extreme if we let this go on!

Hell, many Muslims already are angered and fearful that the West is trying to destroy Islam. Currently, this assumption is incorrect. And you wish to make it true????

If so, then why come to the west? Canada has its own values. We are multicultural - although I never believed multiculturalism is such a good idea!

See? This is somehow part of what Hirsi Ali was talking about that you disagreed with!

What about the moderate Muslims like Tareq Fatah who believes in our democratic society. Are you going to let them down because they are fewer in numbers?

You fear the anger of many Muslims that's why you'd rather appease and push aside our own western values....is that the answer?

Edited September 19, 2010 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

On the contrary, Hirsi Ali being a former Muslim, and now being an Atheist, gives her so much more credibility for no one can say she is biased!

If this were true, you would not have dismissed the secular feminist Malalai Joya...simply because her criticism was not only of Islam and Islamic extremists, but also of the NATO war in her country.

Why does she have no "credibility"?

Is supporting our foreign policy the deal-breaker that determines one's "credibility"?

Edited September 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[betsy]

If this were true, you would not have dismissed the secular feminist Malalai Joya...simply because her criticism was not only of Islam and Islamic extremists, but also of the NATO war in her country.

Why does she have no "credibility"?

Is supporting our foreign policy the deal-breaker that determines one's "credibility"?

As I told you, I've never heard of Malalai Joya until you brought her up in the other thread. I cannot say much on something I've never heard about. From what I gather she lives in a country where it's either Taliban rule or fundamental tribal rules....both resulting in the same fate for women! Foreign government are faced with siding with the lesser evil!

I guess you'd rather hear me say that all foreign troops (us included) should get the hell out of Afghanistan....and believe me whereas before I supported that war thinking that we may help bring the people some semblance of peace...the corruption I hear about the government in power is making me re-think that position. I'm more inclined to support pulling out altogether. The only thing that makes me balk is the thought that the people (most especially those who supported us) will be abandoned and left at the mercy of the Taliban!

When you read the news about a female student on her way to school getting beheaded....or acid getting thrown at female faces....families getting summarily executed for letting their kids get education or aid from foreign aid groups.....it is a tough call! What happens when we leave?

I'll repeat again what I've said before....I feel sorry for her that she'd had death threats and gone into hiding.

I am talking about Hirsi Ali and her suggestion on what the western society should do in our own western turf!

One thing at a time. What better way than to start right here where we can have easier access, and better chance at success!

We're talking about RADICALIZATION of the youth - the youth being the future generation! Stopping this radicalization will eventually lead to a better life for everyone, most especially women....like Malalai Joya!

Edited September 19, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

If this were true, you would not have dismissed the secular feminist Malalai Joya...simply because her criticism was not only of Islam and Islamic extremists, but also of the NATO war in her country.

Why does she have no "credibility"?

Is supporting our foreign policy the deal-breaker that determines one's "credibility"?

Let me ask you this:

What do you have in mind? What do you think we should do?

[betsy]

If this were true, you would not have dismissed the secular feminist Malalai Joya...simply because her criticism was not only of Islam and Islamic extremists, but also of the NATO war in her country.

Why does she have no "credibility"?

Is supporting our foreign policy the deal-breaker that determines one's "credibility"?

Bringing up the suggestion of Hirsi Ali does not dis-credit the cause of Malalai Joya.

Hirsi Ali is prominent because of her background. It does not take away from Joya. There should not be any perceived "rivalry" between these two women.

She is fighting for the same cause as Malalai Joya.

[bloodyminded]

Bringing up the suggestion of Hirsi Ali does not dis-credit the cause of Malalai Joya.

Hirsi Ali is prominent because of her background. It does not take away from Joya. There should not be any perceived "rivalry" between these two women.

She is fighting for the same cause as Malalai Joya.

I didn't suggest there was rivalry (though, certainly, one appears to be a true believer in the nobility of our military actions, and one doesn't feel the same way).

I think you're the one who implied a rivalry betwene them...since anyone who criticizes the war in Afghanistan is "politicall correct."

[GostHacked]

I still don't see how Muslims are to convert to Christianity considering the woman is an athiest. Is it easier to convert an athiest to Christianity or a Muslim? Anyways, the lady is in the right mind of thinking, since she became an athiest.

[betsy]

I didn't suggest there was rivalry (though, certainly, one appears to be a true believer in the nobility of our military actions, and one doesn't feel the same way).

This is like saying "I didn't suggest there was a rivalry BUT....." You are comparing the two.

I think you're the one who implied a rivalry betwene them...since anyone who criticizes the war in Afghanistan is "politicall correct."

Please explain what you mean by this. You lost me here. Are you referring to me or to Hirsi Ali?

[bloodyminded]

This is like saying "I didn't suggest there was a rivalry BUT....." You are comparing the two.

I could have been more clear, yes.

I only meant that the women share a fundamental philosophy of human rights; but differ dramatically on the West's role generally.

Please explain what you mean by this. You lost me here. Are you referring to me or to Hirsi Ali?

To you; you told me earlier that Joya's opinions were some example of political correctness.

[betsy]

To you; you told me earlier that Joya's opinions were some example of political correctness.

I've gone back and re-read our whole exchanges in the thread "Tareq Fatah." I suggest you do the same. There was a misunderstanding of some sort there....and I made myself clear on this post #34.

So she's in hiding. If that's the real case, I genuinely feel sorry for her.

As for my rant about political correctness, it is about the siuation that we find ourselves in Canada.

Our home-grown terrorists. People like Tareq Fatah, who not only have concern over their own plight as a visible minority (getting lumped together with the jihadists)...but also their concern for their youth who are being radicalized. They speak not only as a community....but also as parents!

Before we can truly help other places.....we have to do something first with this growing concern in our own turf.

As you can see, I am consistent with my message. I've repeated on this Hirsi Ali thread that I am talking about our situation in our own turf, here in the west (as Hirsi Ali had suggested).....not in Afghanistan or any other countries!

That we need to address our own growing problem (radicalization/home-grown terrorists) here before we can fully help other countries.

Edited September 19, 2010 by betsy

[Melanie_]

Under normal cirmcumstances, yes government should not get involved at all. However, radicalization is a big problem among the youth. Whether we like it or not, whether the Quran teaches it or not....the fact remains the same: the youth are getting propagandized to hate and jihadism. The moderate Muslims who dared speak out are pointing their fingers at Imams!

This is about religion, religion is being used - whether it is indeed part of the Quran or not.

How do you fight this?

The government will have to step up one way or another to face this situation. Youth are also getting recruited through the internet....we've got to come up with a counterplan for that, considering we cannot stop a lot of these sites.

The government can get involved by providing the youth centers! These youth centers are your normal youth centers. They should hold youth activities that would be too tempting for the youth of today!

The Feminist groups obviously has to target the females....especially the mothers. A mother who has a solid voice that equals the father's can de a good deterrant for any radicalization.

Any other religions - Judaism, Hindu, Shinto, Hare Krishna etc.,.....can all take part! Atheist group are also welcome.

The idea is to offer an alternative. To dilute the message of the Imams by having all these other ideologies around.

Hirsi Ali is an Atheist. As for why she cited Christianity in particular, I speculate that she must know about the Christian ideology and consider that it might be a tempting alternative for a Muslim.

As she suggested, it has to be a concerted effort among these groups.

I find this a better strategy....and it is non-violent. This also symbolizes our full democratic freedom!

Betsy, this is wild eyed fear mongering. You aren't going to nullify Islam by trying to convert Muslims to Christianity - its more likely you are going to confirm their belief that the West wants to end their way of life. Your plan is just going to create more problems.

You need to check your understanding of "democratic freedom" - actively trying to squash one religion and proseletyzing for another doesn't sound very democratic to me!

[Melanie_]

On the contrary, Hirsi Ali being a former Muslim, and now being an Atheist, gives her so much more credibility for no one can say she is biased!

From what I've read of Hirsi Ali's work, she has very little respect for people who follow any religion. Her perspective is that simple people who need the crutch of religion might turn to Christianity from Islam, but what she's really saying is she doesn't think they are smart enough to be atheists. Her attitude is very condescending towards anyone of faith.

[betsy]

Betsy, this is wild eyed fear mongering. You aren't going to nullify Islam by trying to convert Muslims to Christianity - its more likely you are going to confirm their belief that the West wants to end their way of life. Your plan is just going to create more problems.

The idea is to offer other alternatives....other ideologies. Hirsi Ali may have singled out and endorsed Christianity....but that doesn't mean other ideologies aren't welcome to give it a shot.

You need to check your understanding of "democratic freedom" - actively trying to squash one religion and proseletyzing for another doesn't sound very democratic to me!

What about Islam proselytizing in our society....and converting people like Casius Clay into becoming Muhammad Ali....why is that okay? You mean they can proselytyze here and other religion cannot?

Why do they have the voice....and we don't? Is there something wrong with this or what???

Is that your definition of democracy?

Offering alternatives emphasize the freedom to choose!

Offering alternatives emphasize the freedom of expression!

This exercise emphasize the freedom of religion!

[betsy]

From what I've read of Hirsi Ali's work, she has very little respect for people who follow any religion. Her perspective is that simple people who need the crutch of religion might turn to Christianity from Islam, but what she's really saying is she doesn't think they are smart enough to be atheists. Her attitude is very condescending towards anyone of faith.

I don't care about her faith!

I'm talking about her suggestion which I think is quite good a strategy to fighting radicalization!

Edited September 19, 2010 by betsy

[Melanie_]

The idea is to offer other alternatives....other ideologies. Hirsi Ali may have singled out and endorsed Christianity....but that doesn't mean other ideologies aren't welcome to give it a shot.

What about Islam proselytizing in our society....and converting people like Casius Clay into becoming Muhammad Ali....why is that okay? You mean they can proselytyze here and other religion cannot?

Why do they have the voice....and we don't? Is there something wrong with this or what???

Is that your definition of democracy?

Offering alternatives emphasize the freedom to choose!

Offering alternatives emphasize the freedom of expression!

This exercise emphasize the freedom of religion!

Cassius Clay? You're dredging up an example from what - 50 years ago? And we should all be up in arms over that? Come on, Betsy, thats just laughable.

[betsy]

Cassius Clay? You're dredging up an example from what - 50 years ago? And we should all be up in arms over that? Come on, Betsy, thats just laughable.

So what? Who's saying we should be up in arms over that?

The point is there are those who convert to Islam! Just stating a fact.

Why do you say we shouldn't proselytyze and try to convert Muslims into other religion...and yet you don't see anything wrong about them proselytizing and converting individuals to Islam.

Is that your definition of democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_converts_to_Islam

Anyway, mosques are built anywhere. In fact, they are allowed to be built even in places where they can serve to be reminders of painful, tragic loss like in Ground Zero.

Btw, out of curiousity.....do you oppose the building of that controversial mosque near Ground Zero....or are you in favor?

Edited September 20, 2010 by betsy

[Melanie_]

So what? Who's saying we should be up in arms over that?

The point is there are those who convert to Islam! Just stating a fact.

Why do you say we shouldn't proselytyze and try to convert Muslims into other religion...and yet you don't see anything wrong about them proselytizing and converting individuals to Islam.

Is that your definition of democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_converts_to_Islam

Anyway, mosques are built anywhere. In fact, they are allowed to be built even in places where they can serve to be reminders of painful, tragic loss like in Ground Zero.

Btw, out of curiousity.....do you oppose the building of that controversial mosque near Ground Zero....or are you in favor?

Sure people have converted from Christianity to Islam. And people have converted from Islam to Christianity. But I didn't say Christians shouldn't proselytyze, I said governments shouldn't be promoting one religion over another. My personal belief is no one should proselytyze - keep your Invisible Sky Pixies to yourselves.

As for the mosque question, there is a thread 182 pages long discussing that. Lets not muddy the waters here.

[ToadBrother]

As you can see, I am consistent with my message. I've repeated on this Hirsi Ali thread that I am talking about our situation in our own turf, here in the west (as Hirsi Ali had suggested).....not in Afghanistan or any other countries!

That we need to address our own growing problem (radicalization/home-grown terrorists) here before we can fully help other countries.

You are aware, I hope, that this has in fact been tried before. If only people would read and learn a little history. The Elizabethan Compromise created a semi-tolerance of Catholics, providing they made some small gestures, one of them attending one Anglican communion a year. Many Catholics did, some didn't, and faced a fine, and being barred from public office. After the Gunpowder Plot, of course, this tolerance of Catholics was utterly dashed, and the notions of what should be done weren't so different from your idea. The theories were something the same, too, that Catholics were an inherently alien group, that the only way to make them good citizens was de-Catholicize them, to make life for publicly-practicing Catholics as difficult as possible. It was, to one degree or another, driven by public fury over the Gunpowder Plot, a daring terrorist plot by Catholics seeking to wipe out the Protestant state.

In the end, of course, Catholics turned out, by and large, to be decent law abiding subjects of the Crown just like their Protestant counterparts. There were a few bad apples in the Guy Fawkes mold, and certainly the Irish had no reason to love the Protestant regime that had been forced upon them, but that certainly wasn't typical of English or Scottish Catholics.

I view the Muslim population in Canada much the same. A few bad apples have taken advantage of the situation, but it hardly typifies the entire group any more than Guy Fawkes was typical of English Catholics. And forcing everyone into Christian churches will no more help the situation than the oppressions laid upon the Catholics did back then. In the end the real solution was to simply treat Catholics just like everyone else.

But there will always be people like you who, whether out of panic or out of subterfuge, will use difficult situations to attack an entire group when it's a small minority that cause the problems.

Do you think the same thing should be done with the Sikhs? After all, radical Sikh nationalists used Canada as a launching ground for one of the worst aviation terrorist attacks prior to 9-11. The radicals still cause a lot of trouble for some Sikh communities. Ujjal Dosanjh was beaten with an iron bar by just such a radical.

Every group has its nuts. The trick is to sanely approach the problem, and not just run around trying to limit religious freedoms. You won't get peace, you'll only turn the more moderate people away from you.

[ToadBrother]

The idea is to offer other alternatives....other ideologies. Hirsi Ali may have singled out and endorsed Christianity....but that doesn't mean other ideologies aren't welcome to give it a]

What about Islam proselytizing in our society....and converting people like Casius Clay into becoming Muhammad Ali....why is that okay? You mean they can proselytyze here and other religion cannot?

Why do they have the voice....and we don't? Is there something wrong with this or what???

Is that your definition of democracy?

Offering alternatives emphasize the freedom to choose!

Offering alternatives emphasize the freedom of expression!

This exercise emphasize the freedom of religion!

Which is all well and good. Just keep the state out of it. The state has no business promoting one religion over another. I'm all for the Christians and Muslims trying to convert each other, as long as they respect each others' right to believe what they like, and just leave me out of it entirely, because that's my right, too.

[betsy]

Sure people have converted from Christianity to Islam. And people have converted from Islam to Christianity. But I didn't say Christians shouldn't proselytyze, I said governments shouldn't be promoting one religion over another. My personal belief is no one should proselytyze - keep your Invisible Sky Pixies to yourselves.

As for the mosque question, there is a thread 182 pages long discussing that. Lets not muddy the waters here.

You don't want to answer a simple question whether you approve or oppose the mosque on Ground zero. Muddy the water my foot!

There's so many muddying of water on this thread.

You think bringing up Hirsi Ali's personal opinion on faith is more relevant to this topic than the very blunt and direct question I put to you about your opinion on that mosque?

And no, that's not what you said above. Let me refresh your memory. This is what you said:

Betsy, this is wild eyed fear mongering. You aren't going to nullify Islam by trying to convert Muslims to Christianity - its more likely you are going to confirm their belief that the West wants to end their way of life. Your plan is just going to create more problems.

You need to check your understanding of "democratic freedom" - actively trying to squash one religion and proseletyzing for another doesn't sound very democratic to me!

Oh, the many, many ways of muddying the water on this thread....

What is it about this liberal thinking and way of reasoning....this seeming inability to focus....this joy-riding off-topic with their silly little selfish whinings on their own faith (like as if the world revolves around it)...the high drama and hysterics....

...what more, what is this penchant for twisting and squirming about...this obsession with going around and round the bush, anywhere and everywhere....except to the real point of a discussion?

I don't want to go on and on and on in an never ending circus in the merry-go-round...

Ironically Melanie, you only served to prove Hirsi Ali right when she said:

The debate right now among Westerners is very defensive; all people want to prove is that they’re not Islamophobes.

I rest my case.

Edited September 20, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

If this were true, you would not have dismissed the secular feminist Malalai Joya...simply because her criticism was not only of Islam and Islamic extremists, but also of the NATO war in her country.

Why does she have no "credibility"?

Is supporting our foreign policy the deal-breaker that determines one's "credibility"?

Remember this post you made on the Tareq Fatah thread in Federal Forum?

There are many others speaking out, but we don't hear about them. Some are far more courageous than those you mention...and the reason we don't hear about them is that they propose the "wrong" narrative.She speaks out against Islamic radicals (unlike us, who are allied with them); she speaks on behalf of women's rights, children's rights, and the oppression of minorities and of the poor.

But since she doesn't hold to the amusing narrative--that the West is battling terrorism and medieval Islamists, but actually supports it--everyone closes their ears and says "no one" (except for those Muslims who believe there is an American-led campaign to rid the world of barbarism) is saying exactly what people like her are saying.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=3&t=16999&qpid=576571

You are bringing up Malalai Joya on this topic, an attempt to change the channel I guess...because Hirsi Ali is proposing what you consider is the "wrong narrative."

Here is Hirsi Ali, a Muslim-turned-Atheist, prominent enough to be invited to sit on talk shows and be given various interviews....managed to get the media exposure....fighting for women's rights, childrens' right and oppression of minorities and the poor....being able to present her message before the world. But instead of being glad that she was able to achieve what you lamented Joya was unable to do (having been ignored by the media you say)....you try to discredit Hirsi Ali!

Because she is spouting what you think is the wrong narrative!

Which is more important to you? Your anti-Nato sentiment... or your fight for oppression... or fight for radicalization that will only bring to perpetuate this oppression...or womens' rights....or minorities....or anti-Christian sentiments....

Confusing, no? Hard to know where to really stand, no?

Bloodyminded, ironically you only proved Hirsi Ali right by being the perfect example of what she was on about the confused liberal psyche:

Q: What does Islam do to the liberal psyche?

A: Confuses it. The liberal psyche wants to protect minorities, to apologize for imperialism, colonialism, slavery, and the appalling treatment of black people during the civil rights movement. At the same time, they want to continue to defend the rights of individuals. They’ve convinced themselves that the best way to do that in general is to defend the cultures that are non-white. But what they forget, and what they’re being confronted with, is that non-white cultures contain misogynistic, collectivist, tribal, gay-unfriendly and female-hostile traditions. And so they’re confused: on the one hand, they’re looking at minorities as groups they need to save and speak up for, and on the other hand, they’re confronted with the ideas and practices of individuals within those minorities that are very undemocratic and appalling, really.

I rest my case.

Edited September 20, 2010 by betsy

[Melanie_]

Well, Betsy, even though YOU started the thread, let me refresh YOUR memory. It is about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her view that Christians should seek to convert Muslims to Christianity, so I do think that discussing her faith is more relevent to this particular thread than the question of the mosque at Ground Zero. There is a very long thread already discussing that topic, so there is no need to bring it in here.

As for what I said, how was that muddying the waters? The question was whether or not governments should get involved in suppressing one religion in favour of another, and I pointed out that it was more likely to cause a negative impact than a positive one. Completely relevent to the the discussion.

I have to say, this particular quote from you is hilarious, particularly the bit about high drama and hysterics...

What is it about this liberal thinking and way of reasoning....this seeming inability to focus....this joy-riding off-topic with their silly little selfish whinings on their own faith (like as if the world revolves around it)...the high drama and hysterics....

...what more, what is this penchant for twisting and squirming about...this obsession with going around and round the bush, anywhere and everywhere....except to the real point of a discussion?

And, since you seem to be so concerned about Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali converting to Islam, can you tell me how many jihads he has participated in since his conversion? Can you give some examples of how he is a threat to modern America?

[GostHacked]

You don't want to answer a simple question whether you approve or oppose the mosque on Ground zero. Muddy the water my foot!

Again, Betsy, you have failed to answer some questions as well.

There's so many muddying of water on this thread.

Actually this has been a pretty good thread so far. Not much muddying going on at all.

You think bringing up Hirsi Ali's personal opinion on faith is more relevant to this topic than the very blunt and direct question I put to you about your opinion on that mosque?

What's the title and topic of this thread again?

Oh, the many, many ways of muddying the water on this thread....

What is it about this liberal thinking and way of reasoning....this seeming inability to focus....this joy-riding off-topic with their silly little selfish whinings on their own faith (like as if the world revolves around it)...the high drama and hysterics....

...what more, what is this penchant for twisting and squirming about...this obsession with going around and round the bush, anywhere and everywhere....except to the real point of a discussion?

The only one squirming here is you, from what I can tell.

I don't want to go on and on and on in an never ending circus in the merry-go-round...

We hope so too.

[bloodyminded]

Remember this post you made on the Tareq Fatah thread in Federal Forum?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=3&t=16999&qpid=576571

You are bringing up Malalai Joya on this topic, an attempt to change the channel I guess...because Hirsi Ali is proposing what you consider is the "wrong narrative."

No. i was talking about people who have no idea that other narratives exist--or else they aren't interested in hearing them.

As we can both agree: I have heard Ali's narrative; you haven't heard opposing ones by other liberal, secular Muslims.

Because they're the wrong narrative, and you don't want to hear them.

Youy're the one who brought up the subject, because you're the one who said her muslim background gives her "credibility."

If that's what it takes, then there are those who disagree with her who have "cedibility" as well.

You can't have it both ways.

Here is Hirsi Ali, a Muslim-turned-Atheist, prominent enough to be invited to sit on talk shows and be given various interviews....managed to get the media exposure

If you believe these matters speak to someone's wisdom or knowledge, then you must be very confused by all the know-nothing liberals who are "prominent enough to be invited to...talk shows and be given various interviews," and who "managed to get the media exposure."

Really, these are your criteria for ideologicla rightousness?

....fighting for women's rights, childrens' right and oppression of minorities and the poor....being able to present her message before the world. But instead of being glad that she was able to achieve what you lamented Joya was unable to do (having been ignored by the media you say)....you try to discredit Hirsi Ali!

Because she is spouting what you think is the wrong narrative!

No. I disagree with part of her narrative; whereas you think an opposing one is irrelevant, because you haven't seen it on a talk show.

Which is more important to you? Your anti-Nato sentiment... or your fight for oppression... or fight for radicalization that will only bring to perpetuate this oppression...or womens' rights....or minorities....or anti-Christian sentiments....

Confusing, no? Hard to know where to really stand, no?

Oh, there's some confusion here, yes.

Bloodyminded, ironically you only proved Hirsi Ali right by being the perfect example of what she was on about the confused liberal psyche:

I rest my case.

You have made no case. You post Ali's empty, overgeneralized remarks---and you agree with it, because of your unthinking distaste for the "left." Ali, a self-labelled liberal, irnocially has no understanding of how liberals think.

And in fact, there is no "liberal psyche," and liberals stand world apart on various issues and worldviews.

Ali simply believes that anyone who disagrees with her must be foolish.

After all, she gets invited on talk shows!

Edited September 20, 2010 by bloodyminded