Few of us here want to touch ConanConor Friedersdorf's output, but I'm game after seeing this one, in which he
point[s] out that were every woman to vanish from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan tomorrow, the extremist Islamists in those countries would still want to kill infidels, stone gays, etc.That doesn't mean that fundamentalism isn't, at its root, about the control of women & reproduction. (That's why they disapprove of gay people, because they aren't pulling their reproductive weight in the tribal, "must have more cannon fodder" environment in which they function.) And one must wonder what C. F.'s position on gay marriage is. Funny how the pants-wetting element likes to bring up the "Oh, they hang gay people in Iran," factoid, yet seldom favors gay people having the same rights as other citizens in the West. Even the pants-wetters of the closet case persuasion take this attitude.
And another classic paragraph:
If Senator Clinton's understanding of extremists and fundamentalists is really as simplistic as that she is unfit to head our foreign policy. Oddly a really compelling defense of the above statements is that Senator Clinton, when talking about sexism, can be assumed to be disingenuously spouting anything that might help her politically.Do presidents actually "head" foreign policy? What's the deal w/ that last run-on sentence? Is Master Friedersdorf amazed that politicians will say anything, & that the unwashed masses want to be pandered to?
And a paucity of commas is no better than a lack thereof, Connie.
No comments:
Post a Comment