An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s New Book
Today I bought Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book: Mijn Vrijheid: My Freedom. To be honest, I am not sure whether it has been translated into English yet.
That being said, I will read it the coming days and will publish a review of the book either Wednesday or Saturday.
11 Responses to “Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s New Book”
I was browsing on Amazon when I read your post, so I went back and checked and don’t see an English translation of her latest work. There is a plug for a prerelease of one called Infidel, so I’m guessing that might be the same book with a different title for the pending English version?
Anyway, it’s good to know that she is still around and still speaking out. I haven’t read her first book but I may go ahead and order it.
Glad she is on her way to being an American. Forget living in the upcoming Islamic Republic of the Netherlands.
C.Stanley: good question I am not sure. I don’t think that she would name it Infidel in English, although that might, well, sell (a lot of copies).
I will have to check that out.
“I haven’t read her first book but I may go ahead and order it.”
Her first book in English you mean? The caged virgin?
She has published more books in Dutch: I only had one: de zoontjesfabriek (the sonfactory). Now, of course, I have two.
You should really order that book: Ayaan is incredibly knowledgable and has a great, engaging writing style.
Tommy:
kdlae9jalkgj3e9agoiea9u3lkalgikj ejgkdlda la;hga eoignkld
That being said, although I am not happy with her moving, I do understand it: she will have a lot of room (and money) to do important research. Of course, she will also be much more safe in the US.
It is a pity that she moved, but luckily she has a lot of heirs here.
I meant the caged virgin, yes…wasn’t aware of the others.
Here’s what I’m really confused about. Your post on Kofi pointed out that he perhaps could be one of the most incompetent leaders of an organization in history (after all, who else is culpable for not stopping three genocides) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems like the poster woman for traditional liberalism — tolerant but steadfast about universal ideals and liberty. Yet UN criticism and Hirsi Ali support is relegated almost exclusively to the right. If liberals want to be taken seriously in confronting radical Islam but not focus exclusively on military options these two things seem ideal to rally around, and yet there is silence.
Mikkel, very true and very good point. Why do you think they don’t?
My guess: Ayaan is honest and outspoken. People feel offended by it. One is not allowed to offend you know.
My opinion on Mikkel’s question is that it’s for the same reasons that you don’t see enough Republican’s criticizing the big govt, fiscal irresponsibility of this administration and many Republican Congresses of late. And the same reason that liberals didn’t throw Clinton under the train for sexual harrassment. Both sides are hypocritical when it comes down to seeing faults of their chosen party. Distrust of the UN has become such a right wing idea that liberals can’t bring themselves to criticize it in any way, lest they give fodder to the enemy. Tolerance and multiculturalism are such tenets of liberalism that they get blinded to what they are actually tolerating or excusing.
In short, the answer is uberpartisanship, IMO. It leads to knee jerk reactions that often contradict one’s true values.
Yes, self reflection and correction have become to be seen as weaknesses. That’s why many people are starting to view global conflict whether it be Islam/West or Liberalism/Conservatism in terms of Belief/Rationality. I think they’re right that the most dangerous (because it’s more likely) outcome is not one ideology winning over another one, but that ideology itself defeats realism. It’s literally to the point where you can get a bottle of ketchup without it being “liberal” or “conservative.”
Er can’t get a bottle of ketchup. This is what I keep complaining about, that even “moderate” politicans are just moderate because they have a mixture of ideologies, as opposed to a different way of looking at the world.
I don’t have a problem with that per se, but what bothers me is that I’ve always thought moderates stayed above the partisanship and didn’t buy either party’s spin and talking points. It now seems to me that so many moderates are completely focused on the faults of the Republican party and seem to view the Dems as flawless or harmless at best. And as I’ve said repeatedly, I do understand and agree that having one party control both branches has increased the opportunity for corruption and I get that putting the other party in has potential to help correct that. But a sinking feeling in my gut says that by neglecting to apply equal standards to the Democrats, the moderates are going to elect a really unsavory bunch. I think it’s going to be quite a while before we can see any improvement.