Tribal wars

*Guys, sorry this is so late.  If it’s not been obvious from hints, I’ve been having some medical issues, one of which has gone nuclear these last three days, preventing my sleeping and interfering with my thinking.  It took me two hours to write this post.  And yes, help has been called for, there’s a medical appointment on Monday which was the fastest it could be managed, and there might be a pain prescription called in.  Anyway, some stuff I thought of over the mess yesterday.*

Every time I think I’m out of politics for a while, they pull me back in.

Yesterday, it was the disturbing trend both on face book, on this blog and on their blogs, of leftists soft and hard saying “You know, the right-wingers defending Charlie Hebdo are stupid, because they made fun of Christians and Jews too.” Or, of course, my favorite, starting back when I quoted a Simon and Garfunkel song here “You know, you can’t identify with/like their art/think they shouldn’t have been killed for cartoons/whatever because these people were leftist.”

The answer I have is: What in HEAVEN’S NAME IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Yes, I would have shouted that, if my son who worked till two thirty am weren’t still asleep.

Of course I know what is wrong with them, and it is a serious problem for us, and also part of the reason they instinctively defend and identify with Islam.

They’re not, in any sense, autonomous individuals who flock to other individuals that happen to agree with them. They are a tribe. As a tribe, to fit in, they have this list of things they must mouth. But it’s not even very important they adhere to these “principles.” If it were, Clinton would have been kicked out. As would have Obama, for his favoring of Wall Street for that matter.

What is important is that you SAY you belong to the tribe and that you don’t turn against the tribe or other people who say they belong to the tribe, ever, no matter what.

Which is why they tell us things like “They made fun of Christians and Jews” and “they were leftist” as though this should mean that we wouldn’t grant them right of speech or right of life regardless of speech.

They are wrong, of course. We – at least most of us on the libertarian/conservative/constitutionalist right believe that the right of free speech is non-negotiable. Libel and defamation are already illegal (though hard to prove) but other than that, there are no restrictions on free speech. And NO ONE should die for cartoons.

To the extent that you are trying to prevent the often offensive humorists at Charlie Hebdo from working, you’re preventing me from working.

Oh, sure, I’m not likely to make fun of Christians or Jews. (Well, not most of them. I can make fun of individual Christians and Jews, of course.) I’m not likely to make fun of Western civilization, unless it’s the parts that are really funny.

But no one knows what people might read into what I write. I’ve had people accuse me of being a militant leftist because I had gay characters in A Few Good Men. I’ve had people say it’s obvious I’m anti-Christian because I make fun of Earth worship in Darkship Thieves. I’ve had people tell me I obviously hate smart people. Heck, I’ve had people read my books with gay characters and tell me I’m CLEARLY homophobic.

What I’m trying to say is that my grandmother was right: opinions are like backsides, everybody has one.

It’s not just that as human beings you should be allowed to say whatever you want and think whatever you want. It’s that as artists things go into your writing that you don’t know you’re putting in and have no idea how people will interpret.

Punishing art – No matter how bad you think it is – with death is closing down all art. Punishing expression with death is closing down all expression.

I don’t care if Charlie Hebdo were Satanists who drank puppy shakes ever Tuesday and sacrificed pencils to the elder gods – they were killed for cartoons. CARTOONS people.

Compared to the evil of killing people for lines drawn on paper, everything short of human sacrifice is a minor infraction.

Je suis Charlie because like them I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

My political convictions are not tribal. They’re born of reason. Attacking them from a tribal perspective just makes me angry – at the attacker.

The other part of this is if I’m reading these attacks right, the attackers, like all tribal cultures think it’s all right to kill people who are not in their particular tribe.

And that, my friends, is something I’d rather not have found out about our fellow citizens.


391 thoughts on “Tribal wars

  1. Off topic. I’ve a pressing interest in finding a source for, I think, 16×3 wheels. These are for a car, and motorcycle wheels apparently will not work.

    This size and type apparently needs a manufacturer prepared to do custom work. I’ve found a fair amount of ‘custom wheels’ sites that are apparently sellers and not manufacturers.

    Any advice, questions, flames?

      1. It is a one off, and the design is still fluid. So we aren’t committed to a hole pattern. I misspoke, we are trying to find a source for rims to match the tires we have already sourced.

        1. Your likely looking at a billet set made to order and it is odd that everything google, bing, etc give for cars is anything but custom made, but do it for bikes and get an overload of people machining wheels (or making spoked ones) to your design. Maybe a wire wheel maker for cars. I have seen shops doing it on the custom car shows on tv, but none seemed to show up in the searches (and sorry, but I aint spending days sorting through all the trash links for ya 😛 ) The only thing close I found were 4 inch front runner style wheels for drag cars (spindle mount and bolt on, or OEM temp spare wheels (some Fords use a 16×4 aluminum space saver wheel)

          1. I googled for custom and vintage car wheels, and managed to find one guy who thought he might be able to do it. That said, when another guy called him back, it sounded like it wouldn’t work.

            I’ll try to look into bike wheel makers, and see.

        2. oh, and I have made wheel from steel rims in different widths than stock by cutting and welding. If you are making some car to use a 16X3 rim with a tire it can;t be too heavy. unless it is electric, then all bets are off on weight

          1. Yeah, one possibility is using 16×3 motorcycle rims, and welding sheet/plate in as a hub. I think it might hold with good enough welds, I just dunno if that gives us enough choice for offset.

            It might be electric, but there are significant reasons to keep weight down.


            1. oh, check with Coker tire and wheel for drop center rims with no center They might have what you need, but you’ll likely have to call them. I find their site buggy as all get out.
              They also have spoked rims in many sizes. Even if you used a motorcycle spoked rim, you can machine a hub and then offset the rim by spoke length and tension. If you look at some wheels the hub flanges are not always centered in the rim width. you could get the rim centered to what you want that way.

            2. one other thing … um yeah .my brain comes up with ideas long after I wander away, sorry … Sidecars and Trikes. HD uses a 4×110 hub on its trikes iirc and they are spoked wheels on some of the models (or maybe they are custom wheels).
              There are places that make customs wheels for those and they will do what ever offset and rim sizes you wish.
              pricey though

              1. I’m often the same way. I have trouble letting go of an analysis, and while often come up with good material long after other parties are no longer interested. Or I take too long getting stuff together.

                Thank you again.

  2. Best wishes on a speedy and effective resolution to the health issues.

    And I totally agree with your point.

  3. In fairness, perhaps they think all right wingers wish to run a secret police in all polities hunting down all leftists.

    I mean, if I were running death squads in France targeting everyone to my left, it would be petty to object to immigrants doing the work I hadn’t gotten around to doing yet.

    I don’t care about France enough to even want to do that. I care too much about, and am too committed to America to make any decision of that sort.

    1. Rather torn by that. France, of course, has ‘made their bed’ – with a large immigrant population that they made little to no attempt to assimilate, and that didn’t WANT to assimilate.

      But that’s a problem throughout the EU. Some of the stories coming from the Scandanavian states are exceedingly disquieting, and it’s starting to look like once Muslims make up a certain percentage of a nation they start pressing to (a) impose Sharia law, and (b) start trying to alter the nation’s culture into a microcosm of what they came from. Starting with ‘reasonable’ requests for accommodation, the requests get more and more broad and wide-ranging and the

      And it gets to a point where to say ‘No, we’re not going to do (whatever)’ is used as an excuse to proclaim RAAAAAAAACIST thought or intent (Yes, Islam isn’t a race, it’s an ideology, but since when has that stopped people from using the R-word to express their offense?)

      At that point, you’ve got serious trouble in River City and it ain’t gonna be solved by forming a boy’s band. (Sorry, saw ‘Music Man’ the other night.)

      I think France is on the far side of that line, as is Sweden. Norway’s not there yet, neither is Germany… but they’re close. The US is further away, but there’s folks in DC who’d gladly support Sharia law if it’d get them a couple of points in an election.

      So France’s problem isn’t just France’s problem – they’re the canary in the coal mine and they’re showing us that the problem is real and inescapable.

      1. Oh, flamin’ sparkles. Didn’t finish a paragraph…

        Starting with ‘reasonable’ requests for accommodation, the requests get more and more broad and wide-ranging, and the ‘intelligensia’ – figuring that maybe appeasement will get them votes – start pushing for a ‘multicultural’ society.

        1. One person that I believe knows and understands Muslim thought said that ‘according to Muslim belief, one is to be faithful to the infidel’s laws until there is 4% Muslim population. Thereafter, one must advocate Sharia.’

          I read that in France they have a law for everything, one area is employment. You can not fire a person without just cause. Therefore, if you hire someone, you are stuck with them forever. Also, therefore there is no training program because, if the apprentice fails to have any ability or facility in the job, you are still stuck with him or her. There is a constant hiring frenzy for qualified personnel; because, no one wants to get stuck with say a cook that can’t boil water. Not only does this hurt the immigrant but also the young people. Equality, you know.

          1. Gives me a new appreciation for the ‘can terminate the working relationship for any reason at any time in either direction’ locations.

      2. But the two cops killed doing their duty were a Muslim and a young black woman. Some of the immigrants, at least, are siding with their adopted land and taking up arms in its defense (at least symbolically, I don’t know if they were actually armed.)

        1. There’s a large community of peaceful Muslims in the world—it just happens to be American. See, there are a lot of people who come to America to be American, and some of them happen to be Muslim. (Yes, there are also those who come for other purposes. But note that most of the American idiots who do things like go off to join ISIS are pampered suburbanites; a lot of Muslims came here to get AWAY from that sort of thing.)

          1. As long as the doctrines of taqqiya and hudna are part of Islam, we can never be sure if they are “peaceful”…. or sleepers.

            It’s almost as though Islam tries to make sure everyone will distrust it’s followers.

          2. Finland has had a small population of Muslims for our whole independence. Tatars. They never caused any problems, haven’t demanded any special treatment, fought in our wars, obey Finnish laws with no (major) complaints.

            Admittedly theirs was always a very small group. But what I know about them, it seem there would have been no problems even with a much larger group.

            1. Pohjalainen, from the very founding of the religion, as long as Muslims are a small minority (under 5%), they’re not a major problem. Over that, and they are. See my comment here showing how this goes back to the founding and founder of the religion

              1. Or it may have something to do with the fact that they lived as an independent group separated from other Muslims and surrounded by people who would have been suspicious of them for several generations before anybody was talking about political correctness or the blessings of multiculturalism. They had to fit in if they wanted to live well and without problems. I think it’s likely they have developed somewhat different outlook and traditions than those who have stayed in countries where their religion was the majority one.

                Whether that outlook can survive in modern world is a different thing. I suppose it’s even likely at least some of their young members may start to radicalize now.

                  1. Yes. And with most of them most of their neighbors were non-Muslims, they have mostly lived well integrated with the native Finns, although most of them live in Helsinki or very close to it.

                    1. I guess what I was groping for here is the thought that yes, they can become peaceful and good neighbors and transform their religion into a true religion of peace because people generally are rather good when it comes to justifying and explaining things in a way which is most beneficial to them and fits their situation best – when they have to.

                      And that ‘have to’ is the clinch. Most of them probably really do want to just live their lives in peace and work and make money and get married and have kids and have some fun sometimes. But now large percentages can while letting others still play wannabe world conquerors. And right now to the ones who prefer to stay aside it may even look like these world conquerors can perhaps win, which would be nice to them, they’d get to be in the ruling class without having had to sacrifice all that much to it. They are not particularly scared of the West because the West has become something quite tame looking, there aren’t that many other incentives to them to keep their more belligerent brethren down and several not to interfere (like the fact that trying to interfere might get them killed) so why even try?

                      To get them out of our necks we’d need to give them those reasons to control their own, I presume. Become something at least a bit scary again. Looking scary but fair at the same time seems like a good strategy – something that will stomp you flat if you provoke them, but will not attack you without you giving them a reason.

      3. Jerry, we don’t need to be smug; we allowed the leftists to sabotage our assimilation mechanisms too. Multi-culti is exactly based on sabotaging that mechanism.

    2. “In fairness, perhaps they think all right wingers wish to run a secret police in all polities hunting down all leftists.”

      In counter-fairness, that is because they are delusional. There is a direct correlation with how far left you are, and how delusional you are about your opponents. That’s Science. It’s been proven in the lab.

      1. As previously, and frequently, noted: A great many leftists have a real problem with recognizing when they are projecting; and therefore do a lot of it.
        Odd, libertarians, etc. – not so much: we don’t expect others to be like us!

        1. Exactly. They believe that we are just like them only diametrically opposed. They absolutely cannot comprehend that we truly believe in the principles of the Enlightenment or in tolerance and restraint in the service of Liberty for all.
          As I have pointed out to a few SJW/liberals from time to time;
          “If my “side” actually were as evil, intolerant, unrestarined and violent as your “side” accuses us of being, your “side” wouldn’t remain breathing for very long.”

        2. Actually, Libertarians DO expect everyone else to be like them, but they expect them to be rational and capable of working out what is meant by enlightened self-interest.

          Unfortunately, Reality differs.

      2. I don’t wish to hunt down all leftists; I simply don’t think there’s a choice. When people are legislating things known to be harmful and refuse to listen to the facts that prove them harmful, what is the alternative? Allow the harm to continue?

  4. Speaking as a Christian who gets seriously annoyed at mockery, ridicule and worse directed toward Christianity and Christians, I call BS (not toward you Sarah).

    Christians and Jews don’t react with violence against mockery and ridicule but these Muslims did.

    The fault isn’t in the cartoons, the fault belongs to those who reacted with violence.

    1. Paul, if you think Christians and Jews don’t react vehemently and sometimes violently to mockery, ridicule, or even honest disagreement, I suggest yuo take it up with Giordano Bruno, Galileo, the 30 Years War, the Quakers in England, the Mormons in Nauvoo, Catholic priests in the South during the Divil Rights thing, or anti-Semitism in Europe to this day.

      1. When has that happened within the last fifty years or so?

        Sorry Charlie, but I’m comparing today’s Christians & Jews to today’s Muslims.

        There may be idiots who see no difference between Christians and Muslims today but I hope there’s none here.

            1. Sometimes (often) religion is just a marker to divide “us” from “them”. The violence isn’t about the religion and is not justified by the religion, it’s merely identified by the religion. At least I’ve never heard Catholics or Protestants in Ireland explaining that the Bible demands they kill non-believers, apostates or heretics.

              1. Yeah, massive difference between “done because religion demands it” and “well, the religion of THIS side is different than the religion on THAT side, so it’s religious!”

                1. Yeah. If you press anyone who claims that most wars are religious, you eventually turn up that they are defining religious wars as not fought by atheists.

            2. Yeah. One of the Good Friday Accord negotiators was taken aback when a reporter asked his religion and he said “I’m an atheist.” The reporter came right back with “But are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?” Marker indeed.

              1. You will find, if you read atheists, that a lot of them are indeed if not Protestant or Catholic, Christian or Jewish or whatever. Their chief trait tends to be that an argument against their faith is a conclusive argument against God in any form whatsoever.

      2. You might want to do a little research on those first two if you think they had to do with Christians not taking well to rude jokes…..

      3. “anti-Semitism in Europe to this day.”

        Good heavens. You DO know that’s mostly Muslim anti-Semitism?

            1. And if that mostly was confined to Monsieur le Frog of Rue No Name, I wouldn’t have said anything.

              When a major government official can say something like that in front of witnesses, and not only have no consequences but get appointed to another Ambassadorship, I suggest that anti-Semitism is far more widespread than mostly Muslim.

        1. You DO know that’s mostly Muslim anti-Semitism?
          I’m not sure what the referent for that is but I am sure the general social level of anti-Semitism in northern and western Europe is at least at the same level of anti-Semitism as FDR’s attitude or the Ivy’s in the days of the Jewish quota – generally socially acceptable to condemn Jews and Israel and mandatory in some circles. It might be argued that Ken Livingstone say or Vanessa Redgrave was an outlier but they did not stray far from the mass opinion. Things have not gotten better in recent days. I cannot speak for southern or eastern Europe from personal observation but I rather suspect it is no better and likely worse there.

          1. They can live with that kind of anti-Semitism. What they would have more problems with is the Muslim variety, that goes far beyond condemning them.

            1. I suppose.

              It wasn’t Muslims who ordered the visibly Jewish associated businesses closed for the day yesterday.

              Stores on the normally crowded Rue des Rosiers in the Marais were told by French authorities to close early, a precautionary measure against further attacks against Jewish establishments. The police were on constant patrol on the narrow streets in the area throughout the afternoon, as many Jews prepared for their weekly Friday evening prayers. “Are we surprised? No. Am I scared? No. There’s no point in being scared,” said a defiant Martine Oiknine, a manager at the falafel restaurant Mi-va-mi. She insisted on staying open despite the order to close.

              Emphasis added. Not the I am Charlie attitude but rather what led to the Velodrome d’Hiver – live on your knees to avoid dying on your feet.

              Then again my brother who identifies as Suisse Romande in France rather than American encounters anti-foreigner sentiment. His wife speaks with a Parisian accent and escapes it. She does mock his accent in the family though – maybe for the children’s sake?

        2. Mary,

          Don’t forget the The Rothschild’s (Jews ) rule the world anti-capitalists types.

          1. I’ve had very limited experience, but those folks I’ve actually talked to who believe that junk think it’s a group that are Jews, not that the Jews are the ruling group.

            Possibly selection bias, since someone delusional enough to think that all Jews are part of X* is unlikely to be in the same circles I frequent.

            First time I found out someone actually believed that junk, I was with one of the Jewish guys on the ship. We shared “recipes” during Lent. (He was, obviously, avoiding pork and generally used cheese as his protein unless the entree was really good; I was avoiding carne. Since this was before I found out that meat-broth was OK, we had a lot to talk about.)

            *not a Jews-argue-a-lot joke, honest; it’s just that the amount of brain-screwing that is required to explain away various obviously not ruling anything examples is unlikely to be isolated to this one theory.

            1. Foxfier,

              What was the argument that Hitler used disenfranchise the jews? He Blamed them for Germany’s financial woes, and that wasn’t the first time. Blaming the Jews for their supposed control of banking and money lending is the much old and familiar justification for hating the Jews.

              My point was that this mentality still pervades a lot of Europe. How much I’m not sure, I do see a lot of it come out during G-8(7) and G-20(19) conferences.

              I find it that it more of who do we blame more for our current problems Muslims or Jews.

              1. The myth of the universal ‘Jewry,’ as he called it, took a rather massive hit from his actions; the only way that it can still be held now is by also holding the “no Jews really died” psycho belief.

                Very big difference between whipping folks up against a group that at least seems to be doing well (and all the major powers that might be against you, from a quick scan of the Holocaust Research Project’s “The Jewish Question” quotes) and the ones that everyone has grown up with pictures of living skeletons, piles of dead bodies and similar.

                1. Foxfier,

                  There are more than you think, you find them in OWS and Free-Palestinian movements and the like.

                  Said but true.

                  1. you find them in OWS and Free-Palestinian movements and the like.

                    So, yeah, the folks whose delusion leaks out all over the place…..

                  2. Thing is, it is sad– the amount of stuff that has to be messed up to result in things like THAT is “had to shoot Old Yeller” level sad.

            2. Sorry, Foxfier, that last sentence should read, “I find it that it more of who do [they] blame more for our current problems Muslims or Jews.”

              Was writing from their point of view and not making that clear.

            3. P.S.

              I get into a lot of arguments with a certain subset of the Anarchist movement over this. You find a lot of them in the OWS I don’t want people to assume I think this is just a European problem.

              Is it all of [fill in the blank] or is it a subset. Are their systemic problems or is it individuals or small groups within the larger causing the problems.

              Now let’s take Islam their are in my opinion certain fundamental flaws that allow (encourage?) a certain type of A**hole to develop. These flaws need to be addressed. Those within needed to do so, if they do not want those outside to address it for them.

              I treat people as individuals and hold them accountable for their actions. If there is determined to be a larger systemic cause for their actions, I still hold them accountable, but the larger systemic cause still needs to be addressed and a solution found.

            4. I think that if “argues a lot” were a particularly Jewish trait, ALL of us here would be Jewish, rather than merely the (somewhat higher than the population average, I’m pretty sure) number here who actually are.

              1. Wayne, sir, whatever do you refer to?

                I, myself, am such a comfortably agreeable soul and I cannot imagine such aspersions could apply. Here? Perish the thought.

                  1. Careful. Snort-whistles can do funny things to your sinuses. Not to mention weird flutters of the soft palate

                1. Well … um… we – my brothers and sister and I – were all brought up as proper Lutherans, with catechism classes and all that, where an appreciation for theological argument (sorry – spirited discussions) was encouraged. My next oldest brother is dark-tanned, dark-haired and has brown eyes, and in junior high and high school was often assumed to be Jewish because of these traits – as well as the taste for involved theological discussions.

                  1. There’s also the Catholic tradition of having a “Devil’s Advocate” to look at the issues with ANY proposal, so you’ve go to have an appreciation for all sides of an argument, and be able to pick the most powerful one.

      4. BTW, folks, one of the beliefs that got Giordano Bruno in such trouble was that he thought it was obviously that blacks were not same species as whites.

  5. Thank you so much, Sarah. You just clarified the entire leftist groupthink + hypocrisy dichotomy. It is all so clear now.
    True genius lies in simplifying the complex – and you have shown yourself to be a master many times over.
    Best wishes for a speedy and full recovery.

  6. Neil Gaiman linked to an article he wrote six years ago about why freedom of speech has to be absolute, and how that means that yes, you will be defending “icky speech.”

    And my uncle put it rather pithily when he said that he thinks that the only rational way to respond to an insult is to insult the person back; anything more is disproportionate.

    1. They miss that the Eye for an Eye was a limit not a license. Unfortunately we’re getting demonstrations of why the limit was (and still is for folk still catching up and not ready for the forgiveness concept) needed. It’s scary that a vicious mentality that is at least 3000 years old is still going strong.

    2. Actually, I think a lot of nonsense in the U.S. today would be done away with if instead of outlawing it, we adopted a code duello. I’m certain Todd Palin would have soon stopped most of the nonsense directed at his wonderful wife if we had a code duello in place.

      1. Except that the SJW’s would then hire every professional duelist on the planet. If they are willing to ruin your career, trust me, they’d end your life if they could.
        This is the kind of evil we are dealing with.
        It’s making me question the entire concept of “tolerance”. We tolerate them, and they continue to try and destroy the entire system.

        1. Yeppers!
          Two things that the left consistently believe in their heart of hearts are:
          The ends always justifies any means necessary to achieve them.
          If you’re not cheating you’re not trying hard enough.

                1. Necessary, though.
                  However, they need not be entirely exempt. They may, instead, be only challengeable by a government official, elected or unelected.

        2. “Except that the SJW’s would then hire every professional duelist on the planet.”

          Is that within the code? Seems like a corruption.

          1. Most of the code duellos I’ve read about tend to allow it, because otherwise the weak have no recourse. and not everyone has the time to become / remain proficient at arms. We would end up ruled by the professional duelists.

        3. Did you read System of the World?

          Specifically the Captain arranging to get in a duel with a known “professional duelist”, and then picking a weapon (naval cannon) that he’d never fought with?

              1. Have you ever *read* any of the gun forums out there?

                We might have more guns, and sometimes more matters, but proficient? >>shudder<<

                1. William,

                  Compare our side to theirs who’s going to have the more proficient individuals? Yes, we have our idiots too, but I put forth they are not in the majority. Where on their side the majority think black gun scary.


                    1. Kind of hard to separate military and police from gun owners, but then the number of legal gun owners is going to be a lot lower than surveys indicate because most good, smart gun owners in the last 30 years figured out that you don’t want to tell random-person-on-the-phone that you’ve got guns. You may or may not have talks with your kids tell them that you never tell anybody that there are any guns at home, even if mommy has her concealed carry on her in the waiting room.

                      They still get returns between 30 and 50%, and the guys who estimate small arms world-wide say we’ve 89 per 100 people. Since 20% of our population is 14 and under, and not all adults are going to be physically capable of using a weapon, that’s rather nice. (CIA World Factbook)

                      There’s also situations like my husband and myself, before we had enough to get our guns, technically being a household without guns… if there’d been anything my mom thought we MIGHT need a gun for, she’d have jumped in her car with a selection and we would not be in that number, anymore, on that same day.

          1. How about the tall blacksmith, challenged by a short duelist, who selected sledgehammers in 6 feet of water?

    3. And my uncle put it rather pithily when he said that he thinks that the only rational way to respond to an insult is to insult the person back; anything more is disproportionate.

      Here’s another rational way to respond to an insult:

      “I look forward to hearing you explain exactly why I should care about whatever inconsequential insults you have chosen to direct at me.”

  7. I can’t understand the appeasers. You have to really have your head in the sand to think appeasement works. Islamists don’t want acceptance– they want submission. I’m also tired of the not-all-Muslims-are-like-that line of defense. That may be true, but if there were so many moderate Muslims, that should by sheer numbers vastly outnumber the radicals, why are they so quiet in the face of attacks like this? I get that in certain places they don’t dare speak out but I’d like to see all of these so-called moderate Muslims (in large numbers, not just the paltry few we see now) that live in Western countries condemn the terrorists– otherwise I don’t want hear anything more about them and damn well don’t want to hear any more leftists make excuses for them.

    I’m also very annoyed at the leader of the Catholic league who has come out and basically said that the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo had it coming. Seriously? What a jerk he must be.

    1. “What a jerk he must be.” “the Catholic League.”

      That says it all right there, and I think I speak for most Catholics in saying that the Catholic League and “jerk” are pretty much synonymous.

      1. I’m Catholic and do not appreciate that guy as a representative for my religion. I’ve been irritated by that I first saw him make the statement yesterday. He was on television this morning (I forget which show) and I just changed the channel. :fume:

        1. Bill Donahue is basically out there every day, opposing speech he doesn’t like with speech that other people don’t like. Sometimes that’s what conservatives or Catholics like, and sometimes it’s not, but he’s making a fuss every time something happens.

          If he starts advocating for blasphemy laws or something stupid like that, he’ll be out of line. Otherwise, he’s just being the same gadfly every day.

          And yeah, I’m starting to think he is that guy who starts a fight at the wake.

          1. And if you’re wondering why I’m amused, it’s because I’m not related to this one, so I don’t have to hiss things under my breath or kick him under the table.

          2. I think you’re probably right, although– as I said at your place– the thing I object to is the massively dumb choice of words if he did not MEAN “not tolerated.” Ruined any chance of the nicer version you mentioned doing any good.

        2. Wheat and tares, wheat and tares — we’ve been warned that this will get sorted out — at the end of the world.

    2. Let’s be fair. There was a time when being a “moderate” muslim had benefits. Being “Moderate” allowed various rich mulims to take their fortunes and their harems out for an airing on the cote d’ azure. Whe ther theyactually WERE muslim is, lf course, open to question. They had been given reason to APPEAR moderate.

      Then it became fashionable to be “revolutinary” and “radical” , and tye benefits of moderation vanished.

      I have no expectation of moderate muslims stading up against their rabid co-religionists until theynhave some expectation of being supported when the nutters come out of tye woodwork. Our preformance in Iraq ian’t going to help there.

      Damn Obama. God damn Obama.

      1. I agree that the moderates (if they exist) do need to know that they will be supported. But I hear the 1.6 billion number being bandied about a lot– as in there are 1.6 billions Muslims world wide. That’s an awful lot of support in and of itself if the majority are in fact moderate.

        One comment above thread mentioned how Muslims first immigrate, and appear to assimilate, until they have numbers large enough to start insisting on sharia law and pushing outward and insisting that the rest of the world accommodate and then submit to their law. That’s what I fear we are seeing.

        1. From what I’ve read on France, the original generation of immigrants were doing pretty good assimilating – but then France enacted labor laws that made it almost impossible to get hired if you weren’t of French heritage. (Not explicitly, but you know how the law of unintended consequences turns out.)

          AND they had generous welfare benefits, for those who couldn’t find jobs.

          Bored, paid, and aggravated at the country they lived in. Great combination, isn’t it?

          1. So the French are trying to have it both ways? They can tell themselves that they’re compassionate to immigrants but proud nationalists at the same time? Yeah, that’ll end well…

            1. Keep in mind at all times that the policies of France are, by and large, the policies of Paris, a city that has always had a greatly exaggerated idea of its own importance. More exaggerated, even, than Washington D. C., which is kind of mind boggling.

              1. When we were writing our Constitution, every now and again they glanced across the Atlantic, shuddered, and wrote something in to prevent that.

                The existence of Washington D.C. was to prevent the sort of importance Paris had.

                1. It may have been after the French Revolution but IIRC there was comments in France about the US not gathering all the power into the “center of the country”.

                  Apparently John Adams asked a rhetoric question about “where was the center of the US”.

                  To the French, Paris is/was the center of France and “of course” all power should be gathered there.

                  Of course, it helped that when the Constitution was written, the Thirteen former-colonies considered themselves as “independent” nations and were trying to create a strong union without “destroying” themselves as “States”.

                  1. A swamp that was pretty much unlivable till the invention of AC, nature conspired with the US to make sure that lawmakers were given every incentive not to be in DC.

        2. I’ve heard moderate muslims won’t kill you themselves, but they will pay, hide and support those who will. Personally, I’m tired of waiting for them to clean up their act.

        3. I don’t know if it still is, but for several years, it was bandied about that, “Only 10% of Muslims are radicalized.”

          Well, 10% of 1.6 Billion is 160 Million. THAT is the (minimum) number we have to think about dealing with, even if only 1% of those are, in fact, likely to become violent. Because the rest of that group will support them, and likely will report their “moderate” brethren when they DO speak out against the radicals.

          1. I have heard that number too and it scares the bejesus out of me. I do think that any peace seeking Muslims are between a rock and hard place because the radicals are so vicious. That’s why we absolutely cannot be in the business of appeasement.

            1. There are definitely sects that are peaceful – I recall one Shia sect that explicitly teaches that jihad should be carried out only in an internal, spirtual battle against one’s own sins and weaknesses – but they are AFAIK always small, because it’s not a culturally popular or safe position to take. I have known Muslims in the US that I would trust to watch my back, but since they’d been here for several years and at least partially assimilated I don’t know how much their personal culture had changed.

              1. Two of the central tenets of all Islam are the greater jihad and the lesser jihad. The greater jihad is the one you speak of. The lesser jihad is the one most Americans equate with the word jihad. I’m not familiar with the sect you speak of, but in general this is nothing new.

                1. Jim, you might check your sources on that. The greater and lesser jihad doctrine is very new (in relative terms) and came from India/Pakistan in the 1860s-70s. The four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence don’t recognize it (Suni and Shia). Not to say that there are not Muslims who follow it, or who give lip service to it as a form of taqiyya/kitman, but it’s not the dominant interpretation in most Islamic countries and cultures.

              2. FOR, I think of those as MINOs – Muslim in name only. There are several folks I know like that. They are about as unobservant as can be, but because of family ties (chains?) don’t officially convert to anything else. Although I think the gal who had the bacon wrapped, almond-stuffed dates at her anniversary reception said her piece. And yes, the pieces were good. No, none of her family was there.

                    1. Are you suggesting I wrap my wife in bacon and fill her with almonds?
                      The idea has merit.

                    1. Just don’t bump any of the other experiments you find in there. Some of ’em are volatile.

                      Others are voracious.

                    2. No-no. Transplanted that fellow to the garden, by one of the dimensional gates that kept leaking — unpleasantness.

                      Haven’t had any slavering monstrosities interrupt the BBQ since.

                      Which is good or bad news, depending on which of the Huns needs to work off some extra energy…

                    3. baked. We used to do dates and bacon. Never thought of the almonds. D*mn it, guys is there even something like a low carb somewhat substity (texture/shape, I can add sweetener) for dates?

                    4. Dates need sweetened? You have a serious sweet tooth.

                      Can you handle honey? I’ve used it in replacement of sugar and fake sugar to great success, and it takes nowhere near the same amounts to achieve a pleasant sweet taste.

                    5. Sarah can’t handle carbs. She’s looking for something without carbs, that has the same texture as a date without the carbs. She’ll add artificial sweetener if needed, wrap in bacon.

                      The only thing that comes to my mind is tofu.

                    6. I have no idea what is currently available. When the Atkins Diet was at its peak there were some low carb bars that were pretty good, had a texture and flavor something like dates. We kept a box around the cube to still hunger pangs without starting a sugar rush and crash cycle

                    7. I’m not convinced that squash would have the same texture as dates, but pieces of winter squash with an almond and wrapped in bacon, then baked sounds good.

                    8. But any form of dried fruit is going to have carbs; ironically more than the fresh fruit.

                    9. No!

                      What you have done is reduced the volume , by removing water, and thus concentrating the sugar into a smaller package. The amount of sugar in a Apple is the same dried or not.

                      The problem is that you will over it dried or juiced fruit not realizing.

                    10. You’re right; I was thinking in volume and didn’t make that clear. 1 cup raisins != 1 cup grapes.

                    11. Sarah,

                      I think the confusion as to what you mean by Carbs stems from complex an non-complex carbohydrates.

                      A lot of people use “Carbs” as short hand for complex carbohydrates found in bread.

                      You mean it as avoiding all Carbs and Starches that cause the flare ups.

                      Some FYI for those not familiar.


                    12. yes. I’m not doing this for fun, and for whatever reason I’m not even losing weight. I’m bad periodically. My irresistible temptation is corn, so I had corn chips at our friends, and now my hands have three wounds, which is an issue for typing.
                      However, if I let myself go I have wounds all over my body. It also flares the asthma and the rheumatism (It’s all auto-immune.) The temptation for a grand suicide is there, but no.

                    13. Sarah,

                      If I step over a line tell me to back off. That said I would like to suggest reading or at lest reviewing the free sample of this book. (This a new book that I’ve read since that last time we talked about this.)

                      I don’t want to intruded on the personal; but from what you have shared, just cutting out or back on the carbs (Sugar) is not working. It is only alleviating the symptoms and not addressing the underlying cause.

                      There might be suggestions within the book that you and your doctor have not thought of, and might be the key to a final solution.

                      As always take care.

                      P.S. It’s hard to hear of someone in pain and not be in a position to take care of them and fix their problems. You just want to rape them up and make the boo-boo all better even if they happen to be older than you.

                    14. Whole Crap!!!!

                      Wrap!!! That was supposed to be wrap them up !!!!! Stupid spell check rap =/+ rape.

                    15. I’m glad you caught that and added the correction. I mean, it was obvious it was an error, but I’m sitting here going, “Wait – what was he TRYING to say?” I was substituting letters in the middle, instead of thinking that you may have missed the first letter.

                    16. Josh, it’s a good thing you’re such a swell guy (no sarcasm), else I might’ve been shocked (shocked, I say!) at your notion of caring for the unwell.

                1. I do wonder how many Muslims are – as you suggest – MINOS. Quiet apostates in their heart, but say quiet just to keep family peace, and themselves from being murdered as apostates.
                  I revived one of my old mil-blog essays on this and posted it on Facebook, here -
                  What if these recent spasms of violence are not demonstrations of overwhelming power … but of fear of loosing it, as apostates slip quietly away?

                  1. Compelling essay. Accords well with some of my experiences in the ME, though I don’t think I gave the individual instances deep thought. Looking back…

                    I wonder, how many would cling to brutal and barbaric tenets if the strong men/tyrants/roving bands were stripped away?

                  2. I do wonder how many Muslims are – as you suggest – MINOS. Quiet apostates in their heart, but say quiet just to keep family peace, and themselves from being murdered as apostates.

                    *thinks about Terry Pratchett’s ‘Unseen University,’ and the “endarkened” group before*

                    I think mebbie Sir Terry has been talking to people….
                    I know I’ve had the “crab bucket” metaphor in my head all day, thinking about the “how does such a horrible, self-defeating culture stay in power?” question, and the obvious in light of current events answer of: by killing anybody who tries to change it.

                    1. “how does such a horrible, self-defeating culture stay in power?” question, and the obvious in light of current events answer of: by killing anybody who tries to change it.

                      That’s pretty much how I see it. I don’t believe they’ll stop unless they meet an unbreakable wall of resistance.

                    2. They eventually WILL meet an unbreakable wall of resistance, I just wonder how many people will die and how many cities we’ll lose before we build that unbreakable wall of resistance. I think the reconquista took centuries.

                    3. …by killing anybody who tries to change it.

                      Sadly, yes. There is a certain desperation to many living under these regimes.

                      Having spoken to a few Arab Christians, it’s insidious. Simply because it’s not “kill all infidels” but it very much is “on our sufferance.” (Remembering their cautious hope when speaking to American soldiers hurts.)

                      And that feeling of living subject to the whim of someone else is certainly not limited to Christians in those holes. Everybody outside of the power circles feels it.

                      Knowing change can only come from them doesn’t lessen the burden of the knowledge.

                  3. What if the frequent explosions of violence at the slightest of critical voices were not a demonstration of power and strength, but of tamped-down fear – fear that if the orthodoxy is questioned or defied, then the whole construct will come crashing down in ruins?

                    *considers, in light of the issues with their culture we’ve pointed at here, especially compared to the things that make J-C culture resilient*

                    This… makes sense, sort of. They show strength by attacking insultors, sure, but also attacking threats– and if you have to go looking for a chance to show how strong you are, when you didn’t before…..

                    1. From the same essay linked below, about the frequent eruptions to contain women’s freedom in England:

                      “However secular the tastes of the young Muslim men, they strongly wish to maintain the male dominance they have inherited from their parents. A sister who has the temerity to choose a boyfriend for herself, or who even expresses a desire for an independent social life, is likely to suffer a beating, followed by surveillance of Stasi-like thoroughness. The young men instinctively understand that their inherited system of male domination—which provides them, by means of forced marriage, with sexual gratification at home while simultaneously freeing them from domestic chores and allowing them to live completely Westernized lives outside the home, including further sexual adventures into which their wives cannot inquire—is strong but brittle, rather as communism was: it is an all or nothing phenomenon, and every breach must meet swift punishment.’

              3. One can issue in the other:

                Muslims who reject the West are therefore engaged in a losing and impossible inner jihad, or struggle, to expunge everything that is not Muslim from their breasts. It can’t be done: for their technological and scientific dependence is necessarily also a cultural one. You can’t believe in a return to seventh-century Arabia as being all-sufficient for human requirements, and at the same time drive around in a brand-new red Mercedes, as one of the London bombers did shortly before his murderous suicide. An awareness of the contradiction must gnaw in even the dullest fundamentalist brain.

                Furthermore, fundamentalists must be sufficiently self-aware to know that they will never be willing to forgo the appurtenances of Western life: the taste for them is too deeply implanted in their souls, too deeply a part of what they are as human beings, ever to be eradicated. It is possible to reject isolated aspects of modernity but not modernity itself. Whether they like it or not, Muslim fundamentalists are modern men—modern men trying, impossibly, to be something else.

                They therefore have at least a nagging intimation that their chosen utopia is not really a utopia at all: that deep within themselves there exists something that makes it unachievable and even undesirable. How to persuade themselves and others that their lack of faith, their vacillation, is really the strongest possible faith? What more convincing evidence of faith could there be than to die for its sake? How can a person be really attached or attracted to rap music and cricket and Mercedes cars if he is prepared to blow himself up as a means of destroying the society that produces them? Death will be the end of the illicit attachment that he cannot entirely eliminate from his heart.

                The two forms of jihad, the inner and the outer, the greater and the lesser, thus coalesce in one apocalyptic action. By means of suicide bombing, the bombers overcome moral impurities and religious doubts within themselves and, supposedly, strike an external blow for the propagation of the faith.

                Full essay here:

          2. I have to say that my reaction to the assertion “Only 10% are radicalized.” has always been “Well, that makes 160 million we need to kill, let’s get started.”

            *rolls up sleeves*

        4. ” Muslims first immigrate, and appear to assimilate, until they have numbers large enough to start insisting on sharia law and pushing outward and insisting that the rest of the world accommodate and then submit to their law.”

          Remember the discussion in the prior thread about the Islamic doctrine of abrogation, and how it allowed suras written after Mohammed had an army to kill unbelievers to replace the conciliatory sounding ones from when he didn’t? That’s what you are seeing.

          Islam has specific doctrines, taqqiya and hudna on deceiving unbelievers. Hudna in particular states specifically that any treaty with an unbeliever is only binding until the Muslim party is strong enough to break it and subjugate the infidel.

          Christianity maintains just the opposite: it is the duty of the believer to proclaim he is a Christian even in the face of persecution.

          1. Jews, without their own country until the 20th century, often living on sufferance, believe in a live and let live policy.

              1. Not only is evangelization not a commanded duty, it is frowned upon. Basically for Orthodox Jews it’s follow the Torah, observe the commandments, study the torah and all its commentators, and otherwise live as best one can. There is of course commandments that is not spoken of much. Matir Asurim. The freeing of prisoners. One is obliged to help co-religionists(We are a people as well as a religion.) in trouble.

                1. Of course, some are not rigorous about it. Quote the Great Commission at them, and they start trying to convert the Christian from believing in it.

                2. (Not mattir asurim but pidyon sh’vuyim. The former is one of the praises of God, that he “unties those who are bound”; the latter is the idea of “redeeming captives”.)

                  1. Facepalm. I should have known better than to quote hebrew from memory. It’s been 30 years since I was in Yeshiva.

      2. . Being “Moderate” allowed various rich mulims to take their fortunes and their harems out for an airing on the cote d’ azure.

        It’s down right creepy to watch “Schoolhouse Rock” and in the “I Got Six” episode, they’ve got a rich prince with the 10 rings, 11 camels and 12 wives. I remember that– went totally over my head, I’d heard of harems in stories and any place with camels was close enough.

        Now? Uh… let’s just say that I over-think a bit on what their lives might be like, even if he is dressed like a disco dancer and they’re in a relatively liberal version of burqas. (You can clearly see both eyes, there’s wrists, and I think I saw an ankle– enough to be beaten for in some places.)

            1. About a third of the songs on the DVD are so bad that I had totally forgotten about them– not just since I was a kid, but in the year or so between when Princess watched it several times, and when there was any interest again.

              Two out of three being good is nothing to sniff at, mind you; it just startled me that I’d forgotten so many.

            1. I saw some of the photos from when they were current, at my grandma’s house– she was a reporter and had a lot of old magazines. Even figuring that they were probably photographing things most like the US, it’s sad.

              Makes the “traditional” garb and what it suggests no less creepy.

    3. I have actually read someone saying that we should tolerate them, why would they tolerate us if not?

      I pointed out that we need to make our tolerance the price of theirs. Only a lunatic would try to make an exchange after giving up his goods.

      1. It is insane for us to be tolerant of them, and for us to tolerate their intolerance. That intolerance needs to be refuted, rejected, routed around, built under, deconstructed, subverted and defeated, so we can have it out on the battlefield of ideas. One set of rules for us and another for them? They get to have their say and we have to shut up? No way.

      2. We should tolerate them as long as they are willing to be tolerant and peaceful, because that’s what modern liberal pluralistic democracies do.

    4. I am also Catholic and I have never liked him and his organization. Years ago I was receiving unsolicited e-mails from his organization, I formed my dilike of him than like “Who does he think he is? I didn’t ask him to speak for me.”

    5. “I can’t understand the appeasers. You have to really have your head in the sand to think appeasement works.”

      I wasn’t happy with the Bush administration (though less unhappy than with the current one), but he said at least one thing that I truly thought was spot on. “No more Munichs. No more Yaltas.” Long before Bush, dealing with another bunch of Islamic thugs, American statesman responded to first French, then Islamic, demands for tribute with the phrase “Millions for defense, not on cent for tribute.” Those two statements should, IMNSHO, be amongst the cornerstones of American foreign policy.

    6. There’s a difference between “moderate” and “on our side”.

      The vast overwhelming majority of Muslims don’t really care about what is going on in France or America, just like you don’t really care about what is going on in Morocco or Kazakhstan.

      1. There’s also a vast difference between “moderate and willing to police their own loonies” and “not actively shooting guns at us but giving money and other logistical support to the loonies using them as human shields while shooting guns at us”.

        I’m not going to give them a pass on standing around like the Irish politicians Kipling describes in Cleared.

        Bear witness, Heaven, of that grim crime beneath the surgeon’s knife,
        The “honourable gentlemen” deplored the loss of life!
        Bear witness of those chanting choirs that burke and shirk and snigger,
        No man laid hand upon the knife or finger to the trigger!

        Cleared in the face of all mankind beneath the winking skies,
        Like phœnixes from Phœnix Park (and what lay there) they rise!
        Go shout it to the emerald seas — give word to Erin now,
        Her honourable gentlemen are cleared — and this is how: —

        They only paid the Moonlighter his cattle-hocking price,
        They only helped the murderer with counsel’s best advice,
        But — sure it keeps their honour white — the learned Court believes
        They never give a piece of plate to murderers and thieves.

        They never told the ramping crowd to card a woman’s hide,
        They never marked a man for death — what fault of theirs he died? —
        They only said “intimidate,” and talked and went away —
        By God, the boys that did the work were braver men than they!

        Their sin it was that fed the fire — small blame to them that heard —
        The boys get drunk on rhetoric, and madden at a word —
        They knew whom they were talking at, if they were Irish too,
        The gentlemen that lied in Court, they knew, and well they knew!

  8. What – are the leftoids missing the part about “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it?!” Do they not wholly and truly grasp that yes, we do say and believe it?
    I guess so…

    1. They say what they need to say, when they need to say it – and what they said fifteen minutes ago may have little or no bearing on what they’ll ‘believe’ in ten minutes.

      So, yes – they don’t believe it. They expect it to be abandoned as quickly as they’d dump a concept, as soon as it proves inconvenient to keep believing it.

      1. Yes, they also practice their own form of taqqiya and hudna. That’s why I’ve been saying for years that you cannot form a society based on trust and include leftists (or Muslims) in it.

    2. Progressives of all stripes project their motives and potential actions onto their opponents. This is why the gun grabbers are totally serious about the dangers that they see. They see themselves.

      I am not certain about conservatives. It is possible that we project also, but if so we are projecting desires to build, create and help onto our opponents. This may be no less crazy, but is less likely to be called out.

      1. Pretty much everyone projects, sometimes. However, we’re more likely to examine what we’re saying and realize that we are projecting, and then go back over the data and decide whether or not we were correct, after taking that into account.

        Unfortunately, the projection we seem to be most prone to in arguments with the Left is presuming them to be rational.

      2. I don’t know if it goes to the level of projection, but I’m a big believer that people tend to understand a lot by analogy. (There’s many a reason Jesus taught in parables.)
        What does everybody know, even if what they know is wrong? Themselves.

        Now, folks who are trying to adjust their theory as they go will use that as a sort of guide– folks who are being guided by a theory aren’t going to adjust the theory. Results then will depend heavily on how good the theory is…..

    3. Maybe they stick with the original spirit of that quote?

      IANAE, but I’ve been told he wrote it well after there was any chance he might actually be called to defend anything, and the spirit did not express itself elsewhere…. (Can’t even remember who wrote it, mostly stuck in my head as a “check your wallet” mental note.)

      1. “The original spirit of that quote.” According to Jonah Goldberg’s Tyranny of Clichés (which I highly recommend), it’s sort of a paraphrasing of an attitude of Voltaire about a banned book – which he at first hated, but once it became fashionable to like it (because the Dauphin hated it, and Parliament banned it, and it was being publicly burned), that made the author a cause celebré, Voltaire’s attitude changed, and the biographer, S.G. Tallentyre, a century after the fact, wrote “‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was [Voltaire’s] attitude now.”

        So, the original spirit of the quote is a condensation of a man’s attitude changing because it was suddenly fashionable to like something he had previously hated.

  9. On the contrary, all religions as a whole should be mocked and frequently. Those with humor that laugh and start making better mockeries than you, are the individuals you friend and immediately, because that’s a good sign the person will stick by you regardless of differences.

    Those who become huffy-puffy horrified, are still better in most respects than muslims because at the most all they do is screech like a glittery hoo ha. Huffy-Puffs are too loud of a group far too frequently. Feh.

    1. Eh, not unless you can produce quality mockery. I’ve read some that was such a shocking revelation of the empty mind that produced it.

    2. Decent people shouldn’t try to cause actual harm, but yes, there SHOULD be teasing, mocking, laughing at yourself, or the faith will get sick. Like the old saw goes, angels can fly because they take themselves lightly. (Fulton Sheen, although he was very obviously quoting.)

    3. You remind me of a running argument between my Lady and myself; we both think Ray Stevens “Mississippi Squirrel Revival” is funny as hell. I think it is also a pro-Christian song. She doesn’t.

      The verse that gets me?
      “Oh, the miracles God has wrought in this old world!
      But the one I’ll remember till my dying day
      is when he put that Church back on the narrow way
      with a half-crazed Mississippi squirrel!”

      1. Heck, I know of a few preachers (and one very reformed rabbi) who have muttered about their congregations and the need for squirrels.

        1. “Rent-a-Squirrel: Reasonable rates, up to five squirrels* available depending on congregation size, call today and save up 25%.

          *All squirrels are locally humanely trapped.”

          1. I think that some congregations are so large that they’d need 10 squirrels. Also there are some places where that(opportunity for squirrel killing) would be considered half time entertainment. 😉 (jk)

      2. I don’t know if it’s so much pro-Christian as not hostile… which, I guess, falls into the “those who are not against us are for us” thing.

        Kind of in the “Catholic Dictionary school of humor.

        You know, things like:
        RECESSIONAL HYMN: The last song at Mass, often sung a little more
        quietly, since most of the people have already left.
        JONAH: The original “Jaws” story.
        PROCESSION: The ceremonial formation at the beginning of Mass,
        consisting of altar servers, the celebrant, and late parishioners looking for
        RECESSIONAL: The ceremonial procession at the conclusion of Mass – led
        by parishioners trying to beat the crowd to the parking lot.
        RELICS: People who have been going to Mass for so long, they actually
        know when to sit, kneel, and stand.

        See also, the “what kind of car would Jesus drive” school of jokes. His mom has a Fiat, one of the apostles has a Honda because they went in one Accord, etc.

    4. I understand what you are saying, but — knowing who God is, and His character — I do have a hard time with anyone mocking Him. Mock religion, sure, but I would leave the Creator of the Universe alone!

      1. I said nothing about mocking the deity of choice of the religion. Just the religion.

        For crying out loud, I’m pagan. I have a lot more pairs of ears to avoid mocking than ya’ll do. 😛

        1. You’d have fit right in with the joking during potluck after services last Saturday. Although you likely already know most of them.

        1. Oh, I know He’s got a great sense of humor.
          We just tend to be the butt o the joke.

        2. I must remind you that He might understand the reasons for the platypus a little better than we do, which tends to make things less funny by decreasing the incongruity in them.

  10. Ok, so now that I’m done praying for Sarah’s recovery…

    This matches a lot of what I’m thinking. Killing people for art – no matter how offensive – is sick, twisted and wrong. Murdering someone who did nothing but draw a picture or write a line is disgusting. The level of zealotry and hatred needed to even conceive of that type of an attack…

    Yeah, I just don’t get it.

    What I can accept is that there are murderous assholes all over the world and they’re not limited to one particular religion. What I cannot accept is the support shown to these terrorists because someone insulted their religion. What I cannot support is those same leftist pukes talking about their “fear of the backlash.”

    On one hand, I can’t help but wonder if the reason they fear a backlash is because, at some level, they believe that the Islamists have one coming and they’re looking to exploit it when it happens. On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder if they’re just too stupid to realize that if the right in this country, as well armed as it is, would have wiped them out decades ago if we were one tenth as violent as they claim we are.

    Sarah speaks of tribes, and this is what I don’t get. The leftists in this country are clearly _not_ of the Tribe of the Radical Islamist Fundamentalists. The RIFs acknowledge their religion and crow their belief that they are doing Allah’s work. The leftists won’t even acknowledge the fact that the RIFs are, in fact, RIFS…

    My paranoid side (which makes up a large portion of my personality) wonders if this isn’t a deliberate choice on the part of the libprogs to get rid of people they consider to be their enemies: namely, White, Christian males and Western society in general. That couldn’t be right though, could it? Are the stinking libtards really dumb enough to believe that they can control this crap once they’ve neutralized the Western patriarchy? Really? Someone, anyone, please convince me that I’m wrong. I really don’t want to believe that anyone that stupid is capable of influencing others.

    1. You forgot the blacks who don’t act like ghetto trash, the Native Americans who refuse to stay on the reservation, the non-straight sexualities who refuse to act like victims, the pagans who enjoy hunting…. Everyone who does not act like the SjW’s think they should act is in danger from them.

      1. SJW’s aren’t terribly bright. If you don’t stay in the box they’ve assigned you, they can’t possibly understand – or, more importantly, control – you.

    2. “Are the stinking libtards really dumb enough to believe that they can control this crap once they’ve neutralized the Western patriarchy?”

      Academically, they see all the non-SJW elements in Western Civilization as the things which are keeping their utopias from coming about. They’re convinced that they’re the ‘deep thinkers’ – and don’t see just how shallow their preconceptions and conclusions are. For some of them, it’s simple reflexive conditioning on the order of ‘West bad, they fight West, must be good.’ They’re not ‘thinking’ as such.

      Realistically, the life they lead would be impossible under what they support. But the belief in the virtue of ‘the other’ is a glamour that hides the blood and hate, and lets them see kittens and butterflies instead.

      1. Minor nuance: a lot of the libprogs probably know they, personally, aren’t ‘the deep thinkers’ — but they believe with religious fervor that their tribe contains the deep thinkers with the right answers to everything, and that following the thought-script laid out by their tribal leaders will make them part of the inevitable good-guys-&-winners.

    3. Sorry, you’re not wrong. The reason the VileLibProgs/CommiePinkoTraitors support Islam is simply that they believe “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” And Western culture is their enemy. It’s just that simple.
      Oversimplified example – the Soviets supported the Arabs, so that makes Arabs the natural allies of the left.
      Of course, reality and human nature are their true enemy, but that’s a different story.

      1. The obviously need to review The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries, specifically #29;

        29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.

        On the other hand, we don’t want them to do that, it is better that they are as ineffective as possible.

      2. I’m not totally convinced that you are right, at least not broadly. I think that the vast majority of the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives (LIRPs) support Islam simply because it runs against the cultural grain. They have sooooo much emotional capitol invested in being superior, cleverer, and more “nuanced” than the Great Unwashed that they end up supporting a lot that doesn’t actually serve their ends very well, and then they are stuck with it because they just CAN’T back down in from of all those PEASANTS.

        They aren’t thinking are far or as c;early as “enemy”; they are only going as far as “This position sure gets a rise out of all those proles!”

        One more reason to consider them an egregious waste of oxygen.

        1. Perhaps a small ammendment to your thought: The LIRPS are thinking that they can push the proles faces into the dirt by forcing them to accept the unaccaptable. They are right too, until a prole has had enough of it and decides that “better to be dead than red” and “but I will damn well have a huge honor guard”.

          1. One could say that most of history is the story of some self-selected elite pushing the Proles around, and what kind of hell broke loose when the Proles decided they havd had enough.

    4. It’s probably that they believe that stupid Marxist claptrap that these people are oppressed, and once they throw off the “oppressors” (other white people, capitalists, small government types, etc.), they will be peaceful, and hippy-dippy free love then commences with mutual respect for all people.

      Which is STUPID. It’s gut-wrenchingly, flea-brained MORONIC to NOT TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD.

      They don’t have the same worldview. Both leftists and radical Islamists think they’re using the other (except for Putin, who apparently is funding the radical right in Europe. That’ll end well. NOT). Both of them have a condescending, deprecating view of the other. Seriously, Leftists like that remind me of that smarmy guy in Die Hard who went to make a deal with the terrorists because he could talk people out of anything, then wound up getting shot. Which is exactly where the end game of this winds up.

      In both cases, we are fighting a war of ideology.

      1. You haven’t noticed that they are characterized by contempt for all other people — at best?

        The reason why they are continually astounded by a program not having the effect they expected is that no matter how much evidence they get to the contrary, they really believe that they are the only real people, and the rest of us are chessmen they move around the board as they wish, without our having any ability to move on our own, or resist their hands.

        Would you listen to what a chessman said its motives were?

        1. Well, maybe not chessmen, but children and babies. Poor, unfortunate, ignorant tan people and those rednecked, farmer-tanned hicks out in flyover country who cling to their sky-god and boomsticks.

          Maybe that’s why they react SO strongly to black conservatives. They’re proof that culture isn’t genetic, and prove that their class struggle rhetoric is just so much wind. That culture matters, yes, but culture is what we do. Not what chromosome is where or where our great-great-great grandparents came from.

          1. Definitely chessmen in places. They think they can increase taxes — meaning rates AND revenue — reliably and predictably. No matter how often you point out that you can only increase rates, and revenue will do whatever happens after people are done reacting to the increase. No matter how often it happens in the real world.

              1. They have explicitly told me that businesses hire the people they need and so can’t manage with less. I pointed out that doctors hire cleaning companies in spite of not NEEDING them, as they can clean their own offices — and I kid you not, one dismissed it because a cleaning company is not an employee.

      2. That’s what always makes me shake my head in awe and wonder: these idjits (VileProgs) absolutely cannot believe that when someone says “we’re coming to kill you and will destroy you unless you [convert/pay up/give us your daughters and sons/whatever],”‘ and they’ve done it else where, that they actually mean what they say!

          1. You have summed it up perfectly. The believe in neither Good not Evil, only _theoretical_ “self interest.” Which, of course, doesn’t really exist. Since they also are “too enlightened” to believe in any God, the concept that someone not only does, but fanatically so, is simply not in their Universe.

  11. Every cloud has a silver lining – I rationalized buying a Tavor if anybody in the Springs or thereabouts wants to play with it a little.

    And despite Mr. Heinlein’s suggestion (Expanded Universe) that we must be ready to abandon targets – I’m not sure that living next to the Yellowstone Caldera is that much safer. Now that the roads are mostly Interstate standards there’s a lot of crime on (and next to) the highways too. If you have to belong to a tribe the Vandals have a proven record.

    1. I’m up in Aurora, but could make it down at some point. I’ve never run a bullpup, and the only other person I know with one (the MSAR clone of teh AUG) has them in long term storage because his wife is in school in Rochester NY.

      1. I’ll drop you a line next week – my other goodies except EDC are at home in Saint Anthony – bring your own magazines (and 5.56 or .223) if at all possible – I do have some old style normal capacity magazines (from an early 6920) LEO marked serial numbered and dated to make a prima facie case of prior possession for Colorado but they too are in a free state. Best place to plink to my knowledge is up Ridge Road from Woodland Park about halfway shy of the old authorized range.

        I had been impressed by Gabe Suarez demoing the FN 2000 series in a sales pitch but after seeing a couple videos from Jerry Miculek on Steyr, FN2000 and Tavor where Mr. Miculek burned a finger near the muzzle on the FN and some other points I took the advice of Michael “Wolf” Bane the TV star (he’s a fan of Sarah’s no idea if our hostess has ever watched his TV show). The price went up $100 while I was debating.

        1. Ok, we’ll sort something out. I’ve got a bit of .223/556 and plenty of magazines. Most, however, are the polymer kind.

          I’ve also got a PTR 91, a Sig556, and AK 47 if you wanna get some trigger time on one of those.

  12. The appropriate thing to do when you don’t like someone’s cartoons is to not buy them and say “Hey, those are crude.” or “Those are badly drawn.” or “I find those offensive.” Which apparently enough French did, as Charlie Hebdo had closed for a number of years. But what one does not do is commit violence.
    I’m not sure the French have anything like the stomach for free speech that Americans have–they’ve banned Islamic clothing already–and I’m very concerned that we’re seeing the opening of another world war.

    I’ll be praying for you, too, Sarah.

    1. Or sometimes, “those are childish drivel that does not convey anything like the message you meant.”

      Satire is hard because it has to hit near enough home to hurt. Many a “satire” has those already agreeing with it chortling about the blow, and those whom it is aimed at blinking and wondering what the point was — and did they really think that sort of depiction reflects the stupidity of what they satirize rather than their own?

    2. We’ve been in a world war against islam for a while now, it’s just that the powers-that-be don’t want to frighten the serfs with reality. Israel has been on the front line for a long time, now the rest of us have skin in the game.

      Get well Sarah, we’ve got us some chronic-fatigue-fibromyalgia going on here in San Diego.

  13. Regarding your sleep problem; don’t know if you have tried aroma therapy, but it does work for some things and one of them is sleep aid. If you can find a store that sells REAL essential oils, get a small bottle of valerian and the instructions on how to use it. Trust me, it does work.

    As far as the muzzies being “invited” into France(and elsewhere), let’s face it, the hoi polloi had no say in those invitations. It was the goober smoochers who did that with the idea of creating a cheaper-to-operate hoi polloi. This will not end well for any of the players involved… tribes and all that.

        1. The weather has been doing for my wife lately. When it’s changing, her hands and lower arms throb, and when an electrical storm is on its way, they burn like being shocked by static.

        2. This is specific and related to er… lady trouble. And that’s all I’m going to say. Hey, the biopsy was negative, but it doesn’t mean there’s nothing wrong.

          1. The biopsy was negative, and that’s one (big) thing ruled out. (still worthy of celebration, IMO)

            It’s progress. Differential diagnoses are a pain (sorry) but being able to definitively cross off possibilities (especially the big ones) does keep the process moving forward.

            Here’s wishing you luck and the physician skill on marking out the rest of the possibilities and fixing the culprit.

          2. Yeah ,,, please take care of that before it becomes crawling on your hands and knees in pain to trying to reach the bathroom (that was the level when mom finally got things taken care of)

          3. Sounds strangely familiar to what my wife went through a couple of years ago. Things can and do work out. Keep on keeping on.

      1. I hope you feel better soon. I don’t comment often, but I’m a frequent lurker. I’ll definitely add you to my prayers. I have a chronic pain condition too (genetic issue) so I know what it can be like.

        My sister though… Poor kid. She shattered her foot on a trampoline (!) two weeks ago. She’s the only person I know who can do that. She just had surgery two days ago (after almost 3 weeks of living with multiple breaks!) and now she’s in that terrible post-surgery stage. The pain killers are barely making a dent. It sounds awful to say it but when I feel sorry for myself I think of her and am immediately humbled. *Sigh* Getting old sucks.

        1. Co-worker’s wife when in for back surgery (crushed vertebra) and some of the screws wound up fracturing things *worse*, so back in for more surgery, and then she got a clot in her leg…

          And then on the way to get some pain meds the co-worker got rear-ended and now has minor whiplash.

          1. Ugh! That’s just awful! I suppose I can one-up you a bit by telling you that my sister got fired from her job the same week she was home waiting to get in for surgery… But it’s all terrible.

    1. Heh, valerian works all right. And it smells and tastes pretty nasty, which is why all those valerian teas are mixed with Other Stuff. Of course, if you don’t care anymore about the taste, you probably really need the valerian.

      1. Valium is easier to take. 20 years ago there was a conspiracy type person who was touting valerian and cayenne pills as a cure for smoking, drinking and most anything else.

          1. St. John’s Wort is another effective herb – recommended by a nurse practitioner as an alternative to xanex. Sleepy Time extra is good.
            Lots of herbal remedies actually work in spite of modern medicine.

            1. That kinda thing could get you hounded out of some places!

              Fortunately, this isn’t one of those places.

  14. “And that, my friends, is something I’d rather not have found out about our fellow citizens.”

    Oh, you already knew that. I hate to believe it, but can’t deny it.

    1. Lots of folk have figured it out – it may help explain the huge increase in gun and ammo sales the last few years. While it’s depressing to realize 50% of the population is subnormal, 50% is brighter and quicker.

  15. I don’t care if Charlie Hebdo were Satanists who drank puppy shakes ever Tuesday and sacrificed pencils to the elder gods –

    Great. Now we know what happens to the REALLY sad puppies. Let’s save those sad puppies!

  16. Frankly, I think it’s fear that’s behind a lot of the crap the Left has been spouting. They’re afraid that every Islamist atrocity is going to help the Right.

          1. No. Don’t let them have the cake. They’d claim it all for themselves and accuse us of privilege for wanting some for ourselves.

              1. Oh, come on. There’s no way he doesn’t know that we’ve been nuclear capable for years. Well, we would be nuclear capable if we could ever get the cats to stop playing with the neutron triggers.

  17. What they can’t understand is that I don’t care what they believe as long as their belief doesn’t encompass trying to force me to believe the same things.

  18. A little something I posted over on MGC. Beg pardon for the repetition, but I think it’s worth repeating. Quoted text is from someone else followed by my response.

    “This issue undermines efforts by moderate and progressive Muslims to advance the notion of freedoms based on an Islamic ethos.”

    I would be more inclined to be supportive were such efforts not noticeably weak and sporadic.
    On Tuesday September 11, 2001 I worked on a US military base. Once the full impact of the attack was known we were all sent home. As I recall I was off work the rest of the week, so like most I watched a lot of TV. There were still at the time those horrible images of the two strikes on the towers, on the Pentagon, and eventually the debris field of flight 93. Periodically the reports would switch to foreign feeds around the world. Most were filled with sympathy for us, but I can still vividly recall how in Muslim countries it was party in the streets. Not just a few, but streets full of crowds of celebrating people delighted that the Great Satan had been struck a blow for Islam.
    Since that day I have waited for moderate Muslims to rise up in protest against the violent jihadists. Fourteen years later I am still waiting.

      1. “Convert or die” that’s your plan?

        Exactly how well do you think that will work? How well would it work on you?

        1. Do you have a better one? I’d settle for total quarantine like Heinlein’s “Coventry’. Maybe I’m out of sequence here – I’d go with “Take all their oil and convert them to Christianity” as well

        2. “If it’s you or me, it’s gonna be you.”

          If that entails converting them from the belief that they’ve got to make it them or us, yup.

      2. Bad idea, and also wrong morally. The problem is people taking certain suras as commanding terrorist behavior. The key is to turn disbelief in such notions into a survival trait, particularly among the leaders.

        1. Sura 9:5 “And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is gracious, merciful.

          I think that one’s pretty clear.

          I’m perfectly willing to live alongside anyone who’s willing to try to convert me *once* and leave it alone, after all I can recognize the impulse.

          But when that conversion is “this is your one chance or I’m cutting off your head”, we got problems.

    1. This! I wish your average SJW could have seen first hand the partying in the street that day. They *might* have some grasp of the problem we’re dealing with if they had. But, knowing them, they’d find a way to justify the celebration.

      1. I wish they would have too. Especially the part where someone says “Hey, THERE’S an American RIGHT THERE!”

        Because, as I explained to someone earlier today “I am well, but I am not good”.

          1. That’s just the cover story. They’re really super-secret anti-troll codes.

        1. Comment for Comments.

          You don’t have anything to say but you want e – mail notifications.

          Oh, I guess I can now also say, “Check the ATH FAQ and BBQ.”

        2. Comment for comments. Sometimes word press acts up and won’t email the comments on the post unless you make a comment.

      1. *twitch*

        Y’know, I don’t think of the game when I hear that, instead I get this song stuck in my head:

        Note: it’s obscene and an ear-worm.

          1. Heck, they were selling doggy stiles on late night TV around here not that long ago.

          2. Thinking about it… I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they bleeped it themselves, to lampshade how it’s an incredibly dirty song that doesn’t use any obscene words.

            The obscenity is entirely in the suggestion, which is pretty dang impressive.

  19. What amazes me is that when the headlines are “Muslim Fundamentalists Kill People”, the other side’s immediate response is “Oh no! The poor Muslims!” These are the sort of people who would sympathize with their own murderer, during the act.

    1. I’ve recently learned the name of the fallacy “Motte and Bailey” where you have radical ideas that are hard to defend (The Bailey, aka the farmland around a Fortress) and inoffensive ideas that are easy to defend (the Motte, or fortress). So whenever you get called on your more horrible ideas, you jump back to the more easily defensible ones.

      I picked up on this in regard to feminism (Delightfully illustrated by a cartoon about Tumblr feminists that Rory put on her blog). They spout things like misandry, and worse, but if you call them on these nasty things they say under the name of Feminism, they retreat to “Feminism is all about treating people equally, how could you be opposed to that?”

      Thus, Islam also is full of horrible, evil ideas, and when you call them on it, it’s all “Oh no, Islam is a religion of Peace”. And the Muslims don’t even have to do it, the Liberals will step up and defend them that way FOR them.

      (And I’m a little ticked that Firefox’s dictionary has misogyny in it, but not misandry.)

      1. I honestly don’t have a problem with what religion someone follows. But the moment they use that religion to justify murder or oppression, buddy, I have a problem with THAT.

      2. A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of pleasantly habitable land (the Bailey), which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier, such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible, and so neither is the Bailey. Rather, one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.

        Practical Ethics – Oxford

        Not a bad source for logic and debate but a bad source for normal usage on motte and bailey fortifications FREX the Old Bailey is not so called because it’s pleasantly habitable land.

        More commonly in the realm of fortifications rather than fallacy one might see

        A motte-and-bailey castle is a fortification with a wooden or stone keep situated on a raised earthwork called a motte, accompanied by an enclosed courtyard, or bailey, surrounded by a protective ditch and palisade

  20. it is two fold, As I’m sure you know, we are being monitored as seditious types by our ‘beloved’ gov’t (Hi guys and gals!) and there are certain codes we use to hide evil and seditious communiques .
    That is part of what you are seeing here.
    (hidden from the gov’t portion follows:)
    {{{{what is really being relayed is this comment is to subscribe to the comments and have them emailed to his account}}}}
    (end hidden portion)

      1. I think the NSA guys tried to use the wire taps as maple sugaring taps and now everything’s stuck in the wrong place. *waves at Fed the Fred*

        1. Nah, I think we can blame this one on the Horvath. Even if it was Fred’s coworkers that installed the tap…

      1. I bet they monitor the correct spellings of many items in the list, too. Looks like the writer came up with that list himself, not ‘found’ an actual list.

        The search software they use can search for *thousands* of words, phrases, codewords, etc, in multiple languages, and even mixtures of languages. Anyone who thinks it as simple as a list that short is living in the late 1990s.

        1. Besides that, they don’t want to tag everyone that uses the phrases that are actually in the list, because then the list would effectively include everyone on the internet. So they would populate a data dictionary with a few hundred thousand words and phrases, and add up the hit rate (I’d probably have several statistical markers, actually) for when a code item was associated with a person’s name or site.

        2. And there still is likely some poor low level GS sorting through all the false positives.

          (hi guys! Have fun with mandatory regulation training. Is it still open book?)

          Sobering thought. How many other countries in the world could we sit here and heckle the man behind the curtain?

                  1. Then again, the White Cat could be the Evil Overlord. [Very Big Grin]

                    One author had the heroes confront a man with a white cat and it turns out the white cat was a shifter who was the Evil Overlord. [Evil Grin]

  21. The contemporary resurgence of tribalism is not healthy in today’s society. In software terms, it is a regression.

    Thank you for standing up and speaking out.

  22. *Grin* Just listened to Dorothy Rabinowitz (WSJ editorial board TV show) eloquently, calmly, forcefully, gracefully eviscerating the PC panderers and the “root cause” rubbishers. The only thing she didn’t do was finish by smiling sweetly and saying “Bless their hearts.”

Comments are closed.