November 28, 2006

Global Post Barometer.

It's the Global Post Barometer, and right now it's showing the U.S. trending negative, and the Islamists trending positive.

ADDED: Cue to Glenn Greenwald: I used the word "Islamists." Spin out your crazy fantasies about what dastardly things are implied by my copying of the word from the Washington Post's chart.

23 comments:

David said...

Gee! What's next, are we going to demand to use the Koran instead of the Bible to take the oath of office?!

the pooka said...

What's next, are we going to demand to use the Koran instead of the Bible to take the oath of office?!

They're the same to me (for that purpose, anyway).

Doyle said...

Althouse, as quoted by Greenwald:

I wonder how many people "recoil" at [Andrew] Sullivan's sanctimonious pronouncements about "Christianists." He's become so devoted to that word of his. Does he not notice how snide and hostile it feels even to people who are not fundamentalists?

Glenn was pointing out that you find snideness and hostility in the word "Christianist," but obviously not in the word "Islamist." It's the double standard, stupid.

Brian O'Connell said...

It's the double standard, stupid.

So Islamists and "Christianists" are equivalent?

What is it about some people that we can't possibly have an enemy without them creating an equivalent out of the US or some people in it? It's the mi quoque argument.

C. Schweitzer said...

Glenn was pointing out that you find snideness and hostility in the word "Christianist," but obviously not in the word "Islamist." It's the double standard, stupid.

Oh my God, what is your level of reading comprehension? Ann has already explained this issue one bizillion times. She is not against the use of "Christianist" in all contexts, just when overbroadly and wrongly used--just as she would be when using "Islamist" to discuss Muslim or Islamic matters that have nothing to do with political ideology.

She is being very precise in her language. And you are either being dense or deliberately provoking. Either way--shameful display.

paul a'barge said...

I used to the word should be "I used the word".

Just a nit.

Regarding "christianist == islamist", this is a clueless assertion. Islamist is a term common in current vernacular. The word was created to provide a descriptive, accurate alternative in order to avoid describing muslims as extremists. Christianist is a word made up by anti-christian bigots to play off the word Islamist, used in an attempt to portray christians as extremists. In other words, precisely the opposite linguistic purpose.

I hope that helps, Doyle, although knowing you from your comments, I'm not optimistic.

vegetius said...

DOYLE:
"Glenn was pointing out that you find snideness and hostility in the word "Christianist," but obviously not in the word "Islamist." It's the double standard, stupid. '
No..it's the moral equivalence of Christians and Islamists on your part
stupid

the pooka said...

OK, so, can these (Islamist/Christianist-related) conversations find a home on one of the other threads?

I, for one, am a bit tired of them.

Eli Blake said...

There is a qualitative difference in how Islam and Christianity approach the matter of the state (i.e. the government). Christianity recognizes that there is a government seperate from God (i.e. 'Render unto Caesar...') while Islam sees any government as ultimately subservient to God, Mohammed and his organization on the earth.

Now, we've seen at times both the blurring of the church/state line by some Christians and the acceptance of non-religious civil authority by some muslims, but fundamentally this difference in philosophy is spelled out in scripture. Hence I'm not sure the term 'Christianist' makes any sense.

Tim said...

Hmmm, not terribly surprising, sadly. Although the utility of the Post's "Global Barometer" is utterly slight, the usual readership of the paper will use it as fuel for their everlasting facile question, "why do they hate us," and, before the next breath passes, answer themselves, "George W. Bush, the neocons and the Christianists..."

More importantly, the long-term prospects of the West are rapidly dimming due to demographics, loss of faith and failure of will. None of these afflict the Islamic middle-east; and as the "international community" passively and impotently lets Iran fulfill Allah's vision by building nuclear then thermonuclear devices; such a device or two will intentionally slip unnoticed into the hands of terrorists and a major Western city or two, such as New York and Washington, will be no longer, Allah willing, PBUH.

The question that will not go away will be asked yet again, do we have the will to defend ourselves by doing that which is necessary to defeat militant Islamic fascists and the Islamists?

For currently we clearly do not; the anti-West Left, the gullible and faint of heart, the appeasers cross-dressing as "realists," and the Islamists and their allies are in ascendancy and the West is, unsurprisingly, in decline.

That the Post's "Global Barometer" tracks this daily will not change or influence those events.

Doyle said...

...we've seen at times both the blurring of the church/state line by some Christians

Ya think?

Doyle said...

Thank you, Tim, for writing the nutty, LGF-style comment that this post was clearly meant to elicit.

"Doing what is necessary..." "appeasement" etc.

In other words, Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism is on the rise because the U.S. has been insufficiently belligerent in the Middle East.

Madmen, the lot of you.

Truly said...

How tall do you think Doyle is?

Joe Baby said...

Doyle said:

...we've seen at times both the blurring of the church/state line by some Christians

Ya think?

------------

Did you see our discussions re: the founders on the other blog entry? They make Falwell et al look like secular humanists.

NSC said...

In other words, Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism is on the rise because the U.S. has been insufficiently belligerent in the Middle East.

Prove to me that it is on the rise other than quoting MSM copy that says it is. I can't think of a time where they have not be extreme or when they have not been anti-American. They hated us before Sept 11 and they will probably always hate us.

I can live with that. What I can't live with is them blowing us up.

I may be mad, but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

Henry said...

Wow, what a silly exercise in navel gazing. This is one of those presentations that just make you want to shout "check your premises!"

Just for example, what is the "global agenda"? How is "influence" evaluated? Why isn't Chuck Norris his own country?

Based on what I see, I suggest the name of this chart changed to "Global Sabre Rattling Barometer" or perhaps the "Global Media Freak-out Barometer."

The Drill SGT said...

I looked at both the underlying stories and the non-explanation about the non-methodology. I then tried looking at Israel and their stories and could not fathom why ceasefire with Fatah would drive Israel ratings down and saber rattling with Hizbollah would also drive Israel ratings down.

Me thinks there is a summer intern inside a box pretending to be Oz.

Alpha Liberal said...

Hey, Ann! Why don't you just address Glenn GReenwald's arguments on the merits rather than name-calling, getting snide as you do in this post and otherwise dodging his arguments?

It's called "civil discourse."

(Oh, and by your own standards you have insulted all Muslims. Shouldn't you apologize, or do you just hate them?)

Alpha Liberal said...

"Wow, what a silly exercise in navel gazing. This is one of those presentations that just make you want to shout "check your premises!"

What he said!!

OddD said...

That's it.

I'm moving to Chucknorristan.

wv: cvfdalz! The traditional form of greeting in Chucknorristan.

Tim said...

"In other words, Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism is on the rise because the U.S. has been insufficiently belligerent in the Middle East."

Thoughtful people understand Islamic extremism is a threat while anti-Americanism is an unfortunate sentiment. No nation rightfully organizes its foreign and security policies around how other nations and peoples feel about them; they organize their foreign and security policies around their interests and potential threats.

Thoughtful people also understand that American "belligerence" in the middle-east had absolutely nothing to do with the militant Islamic fascists attacks on 9/11; thoughtful people also understand nations defeat their enemies by increasing their "belligerence" to the point the enemy's capacity or will to wage war against you is diminished to the point it is no longer a threat.

In other words, thoughtful people know we cannot win the war against militant Islamic fascism without going on the offensive, no matter what concerns the overly emotional have over "anti-Americanism."

Thoughtless people think we win by doing something else altogether; some call it appeasement, others call it surrender; no doubt you find these terms objectionable no matter their truth.

Alpha Liberal said...

Hey, Ann, you didn't link to Greenwald when you attacked him. Don't you know that's poor blogging etiquette?

Ann Althouse said...

Alpha: I sure as hell did! Right here. Apology demanded, Alpha, or you are unveiled as a troll and will delete you in the future.