The term “Islamophobe” is fast joining “racist”, “homophobe”, et al., as a reliable tool of politically-correct argument, a way of silencing the Left’s opponents and consigning dissenters to the phobic outer darkness beyond the pale of polite discourse.

Object to Hamas? You must be Islamophobic!

Want to scrutinize speakers of Farsi or Arabic more carefully at the airport? Islamophobe!

It is with this in mind that Gates of Vienna proudly launches a pre-emptive counterstrike:

If I can figure out a way to scrape it off the screen and put it on a real button, I’ll pin it to my waistcoat or on the lapel of my dinner jacket, for all the world to see.

In the meantime, this will have to do.

Update: I’ve made a smaller button for the folks who asked for it. See the next post.

 
Fausta has a post debunking the latest effort to show that Arabs invented everything. Her essay is a response to the exposition in Manchester, England, which explains itself thusly:

A unique UK based educational project that reveals the rich heritage that the Muslim community share with other communities in the UK and Europe.

1001 Inventions is a non-religious and non-political project seeking to allow the positive aspects of progress in science and technology to act as a bridge in understanding the interdependence of communities throughout human history.

1001 Inventions consists of a UK-wide travelling exhibition, a colourful easy to read book, a dedicated website and a themed collection of educational posters complementing a secondary school teachers’ pack.

You ought to click on to the site just to look at the list of sponsoring organizations. One has to admire such focused arrogance as this effort. If you can’t keep up with the pack, make stuff up.

I am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union did this kind of thing, though I can’t find any google references to their record of arrogance. I do remember they were claiming the typewriter. Of course, back then computers hadn’t come into general use or they would have been on the Soviet grab list.

And then there was the French habit of claiming, due to their deep generosity, to have bestowed everything to the rest of the world — including cricket.

Not to mention Al Gore’s various assertions regarding his contributions to the culture.

The word “arrogance” is formed from “arrogate,” though for some reason we don’t use the verb form as often. Interestingly, answers.com sneaks in a bit of political “nudge” with its definition:

ar·ro·gate (ăr’ə-gāt’)
tr.v., -gat·ed, -gat·ing, -gates.
To take or claim for oneself without right; appropriate: Presidents who have arrogated the power of Congress to declare war. [their italics]

We think of arrogance as a adjective belonging to, say, Hollywood actors or politicians, and this is often true. It is hard to be motivated toward the grinding process of acquiring fame and recognition without at least a touch of arrogance. You know you’ve arrived when you begin complaining about being known.

But to arrogate to oneself, or one’s tribe, or one’s culture, specific contributions that are in reality sadly lacking says more for one’s deficits than it does for any purported accomplishments. The Greeks called it hubris and predicted dire consequences for those so afflicted. Shakespeare was also big on proving the consequences of hubris. His usual dramaturgic solution was to have everyone dead by the fifth act — not counting, of course, the one person left standing to explain it all.

Many countries besides the Soviet Union have done this. France, for instance. In all probability though, France’s greatest invention is the faux pas. John Kerry particularly prefers this term to the Latinate prevarication. Can’t say as I blame him, especially if one’s claims to virtue are of the heroic, valorous variety and one is prone to throwing military medals around.

This proclivity for arrogance can be seen distinctly in the American Left. Perhaps it dates from their socialist heritage. Whatever the reason, claims for virtue and moral superiority radiate from those who gravitate toward large, messianic issues like global warming or greedy American mega-corporations — sorry for the redundancy there. Of course everyone knows greed = business except for small artisans who make things by hand. They are never greedy, per the folklore of the Left. One is not permitted to question why artisan cheese is three times as expensive and half as tasty as ye olde Wisconsin cheddar.

And what is the antidote to arrogance? Humility, of course. Paradoxically, it won’t be discussed by those who possess this virtue. Humility is one of those qualities which disappear as soon as one thinks of it as a personal characteristic. Unlike arrogance, it can be harder to spot. Since no one calls attention to it, you have to be able to spot it in another. Like good art, you know it when you see it.

Can you think of a culture you would describe as possessing humility? I experienced it once in a Franciscan convent, and Theodore Dalrymple, an avowed atheist, has remarked (in an essay I cannot find) on the generosity of nuns he has met in his work. So perhaps there is a clue here.

Is humility possible only when one lives within the realm of religious belief? This doesn’t mean doctrinal propositions whose adherence earns one’s way into heaven. No, it’s more like Augustine’s idea that in the grip of belief, the only response possible is to “love God and do what you will.”

Now pick your way through that mine field.

 
From Israelly Cool, and almost as good as a cartoon:

What happens if a fly falls in a cup of coffee?

(1) Englishman : Throws his cup away and walks away.

(2) American : Takes the insect out and drinks the coffee.

(3) Chinese : Eats the insect and throws the coffee away.

(4) Japanese: Drinks the coffee with the insect since it is a free bonus.

(5) Israeli: Sells the coffee to the American and the insect to the Chinese, and gets himself a new cup of coffee.

(6) Palestinian : Accuses the Israeli of throwing the insect into his coffee. Relates the issue to violence. Asks the UN for aid. Takes a loan from EC to buy another cup of coffee and uses the money for terror.

Close, but not quite. Some Americans sue the coffee vendor.

 
Intrepid commenter Wally Ballou sends this primary source material from his trip to…to somewhere on the East Coast:

Hey – I read the NYT on the train today (it was a 4-hour trip, and it was the only paper they had). I’m sure you’ll be as shocked as I was that they had some really bad journalism right on the front page.

One of their gloating articles about the hapless Bush, and about how all the Republicans were abandoning him – the 3rd paragraph on the front page caught my eye:

But it accelerated even before the Dubai ports deal was derailed by members of his own party, and before an unexpected uprising began among some neo-conservatives, who are now arguing that Iraq, while a noble effort, has turned into a failed mission that must be abandoned.

Hmm… Wally’s ears perk up:

Neo-cons against the war? My interest was piqued. Surely the gray harlot wouldn’t make a statement like that without substantiation. [She wouldn’t? — ed.]

The story was carried over to page leventy-seven and droned on and on.

Eventually, we got to the smoking gun:

paragraphs 24 and 25 —

When Mr. Bush gave a set of speeches on Iraq in December, the calls to pull out were mostly from the left. Now, a rising chorus of neo-conservatives, who urged Mr. Bush to topple Mr. Hussein, say that, having liberated Iraq, the rest is up to the Iraqis.

“The administration has, now, to cope with failure,” William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in February. “The kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.”

Wally harrumphs on this bit of disinformation and adds:

William F Buckley is a great man but hardly a chorus – and if he is a “neo-conservative” my dictionary must be broken. And the article they are referring to he most definitely did not issue a call to “pull out” but rather to rethink our strategies for victory in the knowledge that our original strategies rested on flawed postulates and have failed to achieve the expected results.

So the support for the groundswell of neo-con defeatism that only the NYT can discern? One non-neocon did not say what they allege a “rising chorus” of neo-cons is saying.

You know, this really isn’t a very ethical newspaper. Also, this just in – fire is hot.

Wally Ballou is a man of wisdom and principle. I hope he washed his hands after he put that harlot in her proper place. And, heavens, I surely do pray he didn’t leave her around for innocents abroad to pick up and read. He and Shrinkwrapped may have a strong enough mental constitution to handle this kind of claptrap, but think of the children.

This image is from Dinocrat’s archives. He retrieved it from the 1988 Walmart Annual Report.

I found Dinocrat’s post when I googled for more information on this bit of Hillary’s pre-history. I first heard it mentioned on Larry Elder . In passing, he revealed ol’ Hill’s long and lucrative relationship with Sam Walton back in her Arkansas days.

Going to Elder’s website revealed a full article from the Washington Times, dated February 13th —

Mrs. Clinton served on Wal-Mart’s board of directors for six years when her husband was governor of Arkansas. The Rose Law Firm, where she was a partner, handled many of the Arkansas-based company’s legal affairs.

She had kind words for Wal-Mart as recently as 2004, when she told an audience at the convention of the National Retail Federation that her time on the board “was a great experience in every respect.”

[…]

Throughout the 1980s, both Bill and Hillary Clinton nurtured relationships with Mr. Walton, who was a conservative Republican and by far Arkansas’ most influential businessman.

The Clintons also benefited financially from Wal-Mart. Mrs. Clinton was paid $18,000 each year she served on the board, plus $1,500 for each meeting she attended.

By 1993, she had accumulated at least $100,000 in Wal-Mart stock, according to Mr. Clinton’s federal financial disclosure that year. The Clintons also flew free on Wal-Mart corporate planes 14 times in 1990 and 1991 in preparation for Mr. Clinton’s 1992 presidential bid. [my emphasis]

Oh, the sacrifice of public servants Bill and Hillary Clinton. Each new revelation merely cements their legacy.

Meanwhile, Dinocrat says he’s purchased a most interesting movie (surely X-rated by the DNC?):

We just bought from Amazon a copy of “Sam Walton: Bargain Billionaire,” a 1987 A&E documentary featuring Sam Walton and Hillary Clinton.

Dinocrat says Hillary and Sam Walton are the only credited cast members in this epic film.

Personally, I can’t wait to read his review. When he posts it, we’ll give a link.

Don’t you think the RNC should buy copies — many, many copies? But they wont. Only Dems think to do things like that. Republicans sit around working out supply-side theories and dreaming of small government while their chief relentessly enlarges it behind their back.

 
Feingold is getting a big, fat brush-off over his hare-brained scheme to have the President censured.

Sweetness and Light quotes what she (he?) calls a “very disappointed” Associated Press article by Laurie Kellman, one of their writers:

Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold’s effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying. Vice President Dick Cheney, visiting Feingold’s state, called the resolution an “outrageous proposition.”

“Some Democrats in Congress have decided the president is the enemy,” Cheney told about 400 people at a GOP fundraiser in Depere, Wis. The crowd booed at the mention of Feingold’s resolution.

“Don’t hold back,” Cheney said.

Feingold’s fellow Democrats did just that Monday…

Did they ever:

• Nancy Pelosi offered empathy but no cigar.
• Harry Reid said he “hadn’t read it” (the five page censure resolution).
• Joe Lieberman sounded ominously ambiguous. He said he hadn’t read it either, and “wasn’t inclined simply to scold the President. I’d prefer to solve the problem”…Hmm, some final solution for George, perhaps?

Cheney, meanwhile, dared Dems to support this piece of publicity-chasing paperwork:

“The outrageous proposition that we ought to protect our enemies’ ability to communicate as it plots against America poses a key test of our Democratic leaders,” he said. “Do they support the extreme and counterproductive antics of a few or do they support a lawful program vital to the security of this nation?”

“The American people already made their decision,” Cheney added. “They agree with the president.”

But, as Sweetness and Light notes, Feingold got his name in the papers. And, I might add, the blogs, including this one. As S&L says, “so it wasn’t a complete waste of time.”

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Meanwhile, check out Sweetness and Light’s other posts. There’s one on Tony Blair getting in hot water for mentioning God. Lord, Britain is in a heap of hot water these days. It’s melt-down time over there.

And there’s another on The (DNC) LA Times skewed report on Atlanta’s former mayor, who turns out to be a convicted tax evader. Of course, as S&L points out, the paper doesn’t mention this little crime until the 21st paragraph.

Check out the sidebar. There are lots of stories you won’t see elsewhere, or at least, all these stories gathered in one place.

And don’t you think it’s interesting that this mayor, who was charged with many other kinds of fraud, is of so little interest to the DNC-MSM (I like that link of S&L’s), while a former aide of Bush’s is getting top billing.

Tsk, tsk, those Democrats.

 
TigerHawk has two recent posts up that address the same issues Gates of Vienna has been discussing of late. There must be something in the air.

The first post, “Regarding Mohammed and the prospects for ‘respect’”, seems to be following the same themes as we have repeatedly regarding the Great Cartoon Caper.

He begins with Eugene Volokh’s take on the issue and politely disagrees. TigerHawk says the real problem here is:

…that Muslims care a lot that non-Muslims do not regard Mohammed the same way that they do.

At the risk of earning a fatwa, let us speak a simple truth. With regard to Mohammed, there are three sorts of people in the world. First, there are those who have never heard of him, or know too little of him to have an opinion. Disregard them.

Second, there are the Muslims, who believe him to be the messenger of God, the true Prophet.

Finally, there are those of us who know who Mohammed was, and have chosen not to regard him as a prophet, the Messenger of God, or as having any religious significance at all.

[…]

Religious people who think deeply about their beliefs will never “respect” the other. To believe otherwise is a fool’s errand. Neither the right of freedom of speech nor the right to freely exercise one’s own religion — both of which are sacrosanct to Americans, if not all Europeans — have anything at all to do with respect. They are rules of engagement that are preferable to war for dealing with people that we do not respect. Get used to it.

“Get used to it?” TigerHawk, see “Respect Must Be Earned” to learn how things are progressing.

“The Muslims of invention” follows on Gates of Vienna’s post, “So What’s This About Muslims and Patents?”

TigerHawk expands greatly on the theme, warming to his topic as he points out:

Of the twenty putative inventions that “changed the world,” all but one occurred during the Middle Ages, from roughly the 9th to the 11th centuries (Western calendar). The only “invention” that is even arguably modern is “shampoo,” which was “introduced to England by a Muslim who opened Mahomed’s Indian Vapour Baths on Brighton seafront in 1759 and was appointed Shampooing Surgeon to Kings George IV and William IV.” And 1759 is not the date of the invention of shampoo, but its introduction in England, which surely says more about the English than Muslim ingenuity.

There is a reason for the great antiquity of the Muslim inventions that “changed the world.” The umma persecuted its own Thomas Aquinas.

TigerHawk points to Ibn Rushd Averroes, the Andalusian Arab who translated Aristotle. For this and other intellectual accomplishments he was banished. Though TigerHawk doesn’t mention Hafiz, he well could have. Many of Hafiz’ poems were destroyed by the anti-intellectual, anti-mystic, and fearful authorities in 14th-century Persia.

TigerHawk backs up his assertions with a quote from Oriana Fallaci:

Islam has always persecuted and silenced its intelligent men. I remind you of Averroes who for his distinction between Faith and Reason was accused of heterodoxy by the caliphs and forced to flee. Then, imprisoned like a criminal. Then, confined to his home and humiliated to such a degree that when rehabilitated he no longer had any desire to live and died within a few months. Not without good reason, in his famous lecture held in 1883 at the Sorbonne, Ernest Renan said that attributed the merits of Averroes to Islam would be like attributing the merits of Galileo to the Inquisition.

I agree with TigerHawk that Islam’s greatest weakness is its failure to reconcile faith and reason:

It persecuted its geniuses. Christianity did too, but the Inquisition was a losing rearguard action against the Age of Reason, which had already been ratified by Saint Thomas Aquinas and other theologians. Islam’s own inquisition persists to this day.

It’s nice to be on the same page(s) as the illustrious TigerHawk.

 
I have a good excuse for being this late. It’s SigCarlFred’s fault. I couldn’t figure out how to snip a piece of his post in the non-Council section. Finally, the Baron showed me how to view the source, word wrap, and take what I needed. Of course, I would’ve been late anyway, just not as bad…

Council Winners

First place went to “Done With Mirrors” for “Our George”. His excellent essay makes a case for the restoration of Washington’s place in our country’s mythos:

Washington is beginning to recover his reputation; he deserves it. He was the steady hand on the tiller when we set sail as a nation. Steadiness, not reckless innovation, was the thing America needed at the time. It’s to his credit that we forget the serpents of tyranny and mob rule that slithered about the American cradle. To remember, read the history of the French Revolution.

The painter Benjamin West wrote that when he talked to King George III during the Revolutionary War, the monarch asked him what he thought George Washington would do if he prevailed.

Return to his farm, West predicted — accurately, as it turned out.

“If he does that,” King George remarked, “he will be the greatest man in the world.”

I’ve said this before. George Washington’s birthday should recover its original place in our national calendar. In the early 19th century, it was one of the two great national holidays — along with the 4th of July.

Notably, President Washington is mostly ignored now. He has had the kind of calumny heaped upon him that, say, Lincoln has borne.

“The Breach” by New Sisyphus takes on the military/political cant that surrounded our entry into Afghanistan and our subsequent tactics there. Here’s what should have been done:

Afghanistan should have been invaded and occupied by a very large all-American army. Unlawful combatants, including Taliban spokesmen, should have been summarily shot, as is proper under both international law and the law of warfare as it has evolved. The war should have gone through Pakistan, laying to waste a government and a country that was the Taliban’s main enablers. The entire area should have been laid to waste, destroyed completely and utterly; and then, having delivered the short, sharp punic lesson, we should have withdrawn en masse.

I thought so then, I think so now. Instead, what we got was PC cant about how we were “liberating” the Afghans. What was sold as an unrelenting war instead became a long-term occupation, with us playing at teaching a traditional, hide-bound Muslim society about multi-culturalism, tolerance, love, peace and harmony. We installed a government and backed it with power so weak its writ barely carried into outer Kabul, let alone the badlands. We issued press releases patting ourselves on the back about how many women attended the constitutional convention, as if such a thing would be happening were we not there with guns…

New Sisyphus’ robust response might have led to a greater peace in the long run. Read the whole thing…’cause we’re going to be talking about this for years to come.

Shrinkwrapped tied for second with “The Information War.” No one in the blogosphere explains perception better than he does. Linked with New Sisyphus, there is a kind of synergy that allows us to see America’s great virtue as her great failing. We are always hesitant, we want to be seen as “the nice guy”. It never works:

…it is important to recognize the importance of “authority” in shaping perceptions; second, the plasticity of perception and memory requires constant vigilance to safe guard reality.

The Vietnam War was arguably lost 38 years ago today, when Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America”, during the CBS Evening News broadcast, declared, after the Tet Offensive in 1968, that our war effort was ” mired in stalemate.”

[…]

Cronkite was not anti-American, however, his error was instrumental in turning a terrible defeat for the North Vietnamese into a disaster for America. By virtue of his unassailable authority, he turned himself into the best weapon the North Vietnamese Communists would ever acquire.

[…]

Cronkite was not anti-American, however, his error was instrumental in turning a terrible defeat for the North Vietnamese into a disaster for America. By virtue of his unassailable authority, he turned himself into the best weapon the North Vietnamese Communists would ever acquire.

[…]

It occurred to me that while many people have assumed that the MSM have “chosen sides” and are in opposition to the West, there is really no particular evidence for such a claim. How is it that so much of the MSM reporting is inaccurate, slanted, partially accurate, and seemingly almost designed to damage our war efforts, not only in Iraq, but throughout the entire sphere of the Information War against Islamic fascism?

Go see which four groups he names as most damaging to America.

Non Council Winners

The Beginning of the Universe is Michael Totten’s fascinating look at an ancient people. After reading his post, you are left wondering, “why them? Why did these people survive being conquered by Islam— even revered by it — and keep their identity?

Totten explains why he went and shows us what he found when he got there. His pictures are worth their load time, his observations carefully anthropological:

In Northern Iraq there is a place called Lalish where the Yezidis say the universe was born. I drove south from Dohok on snowy roads through an empty land, seemingly to the ends of the earth, and found it nestled among cold hills.

I went there because the President of Dohok University told me to go. “I am a Muslim,” he said. “But I love the Yezidis. Theirs is the original religion of the Kurds. Only through the Yezidis can I speak to God in my own language.”

Yezidis are ancient fire-worshippers. They heavily influenced Zoroastrianism, and in turn have been heavily influenced by Sufi Islam. The temple at Lalish is their “Mecca.” Hundreds of thousands of remaining Yezidis — those Kurds who refused to submit to Islam — make pilgrimages there at least once in their lifetimes from all over the Middle East and Europe.

Seeing this post, you can understand why the Yezidis are attractive, but you’re still left wondering how in the world they survived so long when so many other cultures were obliterated. Strange.

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred has some parting words for the graduates of Stupid University… come to think of it, I know a few of these students. At any rate, SigCarl gives it his usual subtle interpretation:

Think about this, morons. For decades, Arab countries have tightly controlled the movement of people within their borders. No one left, no one came in, unless allowed to. How is it that so many ‘foreign fighters’ are managing to make their way across borders, to make their way into Iraq, ‘without the knowledge of their governments’? Why can’t the ancient communities of Jews and Christians seem to make their way out of regimes that persecute them and effectively hold them hostage? Jews and Christians cannot escape to find refuge, while terrorists seem to have travel passes to wherever they wish to go.

Ah, the liberties a terrorist can take. Almost makes you wish you could don the nail bomb jacket, eh?

All the rest of us are over The Watcher’s Place. See you there.

 
The latest news: the Wimp Brigade, better known as the British press, have booted out their best player: Mark Steyn has been cast into the outer darkness. His columns will no longer be carried by The Sunday Telegraph or The Spectator. What a compliment! And two in one day.

Here’s what Lionel Shriver of the Guardian has to say:

[L]et me rue the passing of Mark Steyn’s syndication in Britain, for his column has now been dropped by both the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator. I don’t know the inside story, so I can’t be certain that the jettisoning of this notoriously conservative Canadian constitutes political self-censorship.

Thus my indignation is solely on account of my own entertainment. Fair enough, few Guardian readers would share his hard-right views. I don’t always agree with him either, but I love Mark Steyn. Even though I write them, I cannot bear most columns, which when light-hearted usually err on the trivial, and when serious usually err on the po-faced. But however you may deplore his opinions, Steyn is funny. How often do you read comment pages and laugh aloud? He writes about big issues with tremendous energy, and he has a sensibility now more pertinent to British politics than ever: a refined sense of the absurd.

Mark Steyn is “hard right”? Hmm… I must look into my Neanderthal leanings, as I am certainly much “righter” than he.

Mark Steyn is consistently the best columnist in the Anglosphere. One can only admire the easy puns, jests, and witticisms lying side-by-side with astute analysis — all in the same sentence.

Poor Britain. If we have dumbed down here in America (and we have), what can you call the dimming of the cortical connections in our foreland?

Catastrophe by baby steps?

Imagine a free country booting out an excellent writer… creepy, or what?

He is surely of more value to the world than, say, UNESCO, or whatever corrupt, crawly group has slid out from underneath the doors at the UN lately. Any monies earmarked for more white SUVs should be diverted instead to The Mark Steyn Fund.

Mr. Steyn, if we have to pass the hat to keep you writing, just let us know.

Hat tip: LGF.

 
March 9, 2006. The opening volley was fired across the bow of NOW by the National Center for Men. That was the day they filed a suit in a U. S. District Court in Michigan —

on behalf of a man’s right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy

The Center for Men has trademarked this suit as “Roe vs. Wade for Men” and they are filing on behalf of Michael Dubay, of Saginaw, Michigan.

Mr. Dubay is being ordered to pay child support for a small human being he never intended to bring into the world, and whose existence — he was assured by his former girlfriend — could never materialize since his partner was unable to bear children. Mr. Dubay also claims that his girlfriend knew full well that he did not choose to have children.

So. The Center for Men is asking for “reproductive equality.” They have begun distributing (for a fee) a document entitled “Reproductive Rights Affidavit” which could be filed by men in court. It says, in part:

“I will not recognize the moral authority of a court to strip me of my constitutional right to reproductive choice. I will challenge any court order that seeks to impose a parental obligation upon me against my will by asserting my right to equal protection of the law.”

Leaving aside the wimpy tones of “moral authority” — what are they going to do, flee the country?— Mr. Dubay and the Men’s Center don’t expect the win this one, and they are prepared for the long, expensive slog as the case wends its way up the system to (they hope) the Supreme Court.

Mr. Dubay is angry, obviously. He probably feels he was duped. As a computer technician, he may consider his financial resources inadequate to bear the costs of raising a child. And if what he reports is accurate, at the very least his former girlfriend has some characterological issues she needs to address…especially if she is raising a male child.

But since Mr. Dubay has chosen to lay his affairs on the table, the intimate sexual arrangements he and his former girlfriend entered into bear thinking and talking about. There are several generational layers here.

In the very old days, Mr. Dubay would have had a shotgun wedding that may or may have not endured. Then, beginning with the great sexual license freedom of the pill, women began to have the same “choices” as men, even if those so-called “choices” were not anything they were biologically or emotionally equipped to handle. However, with the rise of the politically correct women’s groups, there suddenly came into being the modern convenience of easy abortion. What had they to lose?

What indeed…but that is for another post. At the moment, we have the troublesome knot of Mr. Dubay, his former girlfriend, and his miracle child. Miraculous and inconvenient, and not a St. Joseph in sight to relieve him of his burden.

We need a Solomon here. Someone to cut the knot of the problem. Except that he would simply divide the child between them, perhaps the right side to Mr. Dubay and the left side (or the left-overs) for the child’s mother. This might suit Mr. Dubay, but it couldn’t be termed a decision in the best interests of the child and his former girlfriend — that five hundred dollar a month albatross — would no doubt be most unhappy.

So it seems we have sexual freedom and utopia gone sour. Very sour, bitter, and with no possibility of resolution. Is there help for Mr. Dubay? Probably not. Is there hope for Mr. Dubay’s child? Decidedly not. Every child needs a father, but this is one case where half a loaf is indeed worse than none at all. For his money, Mr. Dubay is certainly entitled to reassurance that his former girlfriend will be legally restrained from speaking ill of him to his offspring. And if not for his sake, at least for the sake of the poor kid. His karma already sucks, big time.

My hope is that this suit blows the whole stinking mess sky high, with the sanctimonious “better-than-men-girls-rule” agitprop finally reduced to smithereens. Confetti. Were hardcoore feminists not so obviously anti-male, men like Mr. Dubay would not be in the position they’re in now. But the man-bashing, cultic women’s studies culture has brought this on themselves. Now their partial-birth, easy out abortions have hit a great big logical snag. For if a woman becomes pregnant, then her partner deserves some say in the outcome of her pregnancy. And that definitely complicates the equation geometrically. The rules are going to change before Mr. Dubay and his ilk are done.

Here is my suggestion to men: if you are unthinking enough to enter into unrecognized, informal, and societally uncontrolled relationships with members of the opposite sex you need a lot more than a condom and your good will to protect yourself. You had better start carrying legal forms with your contraceptive devices. They could read something like this:

We, John Doe and Jane Roe, are consenting to sexual congress on this date. Jane Roe agrees that should any issue result from this sexual engagement, she will not pursue John Doe for any child support or medical care arising from complications of pregnancy.
Signed and witnessed and notarized on this date.

Then, upon meeting a woman with whom you wish to engage in sexual congress, you could whip out the forms and your notary before you unzip and whip out anything else. Otherwise, I suggest:

celibacy,
or
marriage to someone you can stand to build a life with,
or
paternity insurance.

Yes, if you’re a busy man, the third choice could result in costly premiums, but surely no more than what Mr. Dubay has sadly and unwittingly contracted to pay for during the next eighteen years.

It is sad that the tensions between men and women have reached this exploitative and explosive level. What we are experiencing again is the Law of Unintended Consequences. All that “freedom” was more than we were mature enough to handle. We saw the freedom, but we ignored the responsibility. Again.

The old ideas of covenant and contract between men and women need to be resurrected, dusted off, brought up-to-date, and introduced once more into public conversation. It used to be they needed no explaining.

But that was before NOW.

Dearie, me…those Jews are sooo thin-skinned. But their big noses provide some compensation.

They’re taking over the world you know. That’s why Israel is such an easy place to live in. And they’re all rich.

It’s a plot, see: every time one of them is born they get a million dollars — or the equivalent in shekels — and they keep getting interest on it.

Not even the Pope can stop them. Hundreds of Swiss Guards have died trying.

How do you say “fatwah” in Hebrew?

 
One of the recurring themes of the Great Cartoon Caper is exemplified by this article in today’s Daily Telegraph of Australia:

Only an official apology by the Danish government to all Muslims for offence caused by the prophet Mohammad cartoons would prompt the lifting of the boycott of Danish goods, Muslim preachers said.

An official apology “is absolutely necessary … because your government has not dealt with them (Muslims) respectfully,” Islamic scholar Tareq al-Suweidan told a conference hosted by the Government in an attempt to ease tension over the drawings.

The keyword here is “respect” (or the antonym, “disrespect”). Other examples of the theme can be found here, here, and here.

In an interesting synchronicity, we had a commenter on yesterday’s post who said this:

I see Islamophobia is here because there is no study of the prophet Mohammed’s words. Islam does not want terrorism but it will not let itself the slandered by scared people afraid on the Internet. If you respect us than you should get respect back but you must first give apology for what is your action.

First we must respect them.

In reply to which I have one word:

Why?

Oh, I have certainly learned to fear Islam. Islamophobia is definitely a rational response to world events right now — just ask those Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia. Oh, wait; you can’t ask them: they don’t have heads anymore.

I have learned to be circumspect about Islam, to tread lightly around its outer edges. I have learned to be alert concerning it, and observe it carefully in all its different manifestations.

But I have no respect for Islam, and no amount of violence, extortion, and bullying threats will cause me to respect it.

Judaism has gained my respect. The heroic and humane actions of Jews in my own lifetime have caused me to respect them.

Hindus have gained my respect. They have developed a powerful and accomplished civilization whilst learning to accommodate widely disparate cultures in a democratic polity.

But in the past five hundred years Islam has added nothing to the general welfare of mankind. All the great accomplishments and advances that produced modern technological civilization occurred without the help of Muslims, and often in the face of their active resistance. When Islam emerges beyond its own parochial borders, the only things it gives to the rest of the world are fire, bloodshed, mayhem, and destruction.

To any Muslim or Islamic sympathizer: I invite counterexamples. Deliver them here, and I will post them.

But until there is a significant counterweight to the all the terror and backwardness, I have no respect for Islam or its Prophet.

Respect must be earned.

 
From the The San Diego Daily Transcript, an op-ed piece by Larry Stirling:

Now how many people have been slaughtered along with buildings and cars torched because hundreds of thousands Muslims object to a few non-Muslims in a secular country exercising their right of free speech?

It is hard to keep count. We may need to set up a macabre pari-mutual accounting board that totals the people killed year to date because Islamic guys wake up grouchy.

How much has the cause of freedom and democracy been set back? A very long way.

The American press unanimously and pusillanimously decided not to reprint the cartoons.

That sweeping decision to run up the white flag proves that there is a gutless press oligopoly in this nation and that is not good for any of us.

However, there is a bright side to all of this believe it or not.

Neither my Dictionary of Quotations nor Google tell me who said this, but there is a succinct quote that applies to this situation:

“History is the recordation of the race between education and catastrophe.”

In this case, catastrophe for us is to know too little about the Muslim religion. Many nations have learned to their sorrow what it means to have a large group of Muslims as their neighbors, immigrants, or conquerors.

There are endless publications attempting to warn the American people that the Muslim religion is unlike any other religion or philosophy in the world (see: “The West’s Last Chance” by Tony Blankley).

But none of those writings could have made the point as vividly as has the Muslim reaction to the cartoons. Millions more now understand that the Muslim position is that things should be their way or no way.

Every other religion or philosophy of which I am aware: Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucianism, Sikh, even Shinto, attempt to inculcate into their adherents an internal scheme of socializing principles designed to overcome their “sinful” impulses with “saintly” conduct. Such internal policing also makes them better neighbors.

It is true that there is a long gruesome history of groups subscribing to religion getting hijacked into wars when the economics of the situation happen to coincide with religious affiliations.

The Irish Catholic-Protestant conflict sadly comes to mind.

But all such wars are in direct conflict with the express tenets of their religion.

Not so with the Muslims. While the Muslim religion does inculcate a strong element of self-control (the internal Jihad), there the similarity ends.

The Muslim religion is now and, ever since a few years after its founding in Saudi Arabia, has been a warrior religion just like the Spartans of ancient Greece (see: “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Gibbons).

Ever since about 550 A.D., Muslim armies have been on the march, plundering nation after nation, flourishing not as much by their own creativity or hard work but by harnessing the talent and resources of those they militarily subjugate.

The Christian Bible abjures its adherents to: not murder; turn the other cheek; love your neighbor; and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The Koran (Qu’ran) says:

Surah 8.65 “Oh Prophet! Exhort believers to fight.”

Surah 62.6-7 “Oh ye Jews, if claim that Allah favors you over all mankind, then long for death …”

Surah 5.51 “Take not Jews and Christians as your friends.”

Surah 2.191 “Slay the aggressors (people who defend themselves) wherever you find them” (including the Olympics).

Interesting view of life and death in Islam: you can break every rule of your religion (as Mohammed Atta did before he put his plane into the World Trade Center) but if you kill a bunch of infidels, you’re redeemed. This is so primitive that it’s hard to take in…

See the rest at The San Diego Daily Transcript.

(Stirling is a retired superior court judge who now practices law with the firm of Garrison & McInnis. He is a former Army officer, member of the San Diego City Council, the California State Assembly and the State Senate. Send comments to larry.stirling@sddt.com)

Hat tip: LGF commenter Bubbaman. Thanks, B.

 
The The Bloody Borders Project got widespread linkage, attracting a lot of visitors and bringing in a variety of comments. Most of them were supportive and constructive, but there was one notable exception.

Normally I don’t respond to such a negative attack; I just let the thing lie there like a turd on the sidewalk. After all, And Dymphna has already torn the poor fellow a new one in a subsequent comment.

But this particular one got me to thinking. So, first, here is what our esteemed commenter said in full:

*cough*

I smell right-wing here and anti-Islam and plenty of prejudice. This is preaching to a crowd of people who…

a/ think Islamo-fascism exists and
b/ are clearly bigoted towards Islam

Your research and graph is very nice but proves nothing, many of the acts of terror you talk of are carried out by a wide range of groups, not a single Islamic force. Many of these ‘acts of terror’ are in fact acts of freedom fighting, circumstances vary but you are genralising [sic] all the data to fit your view of this Islam vs Christianity tinfoil hat wearing madness you are clearly buying into.

Shall we make graphs of US acts of terror? Shall we make graphs of UK acts of terror showing the volume killed? We would see a lot more hot spots there.

Isolating this dubious data only enables you to fit it to your agenda and your agenda is one of the bigot, of capturing a whole religion in a nice, bit-size packet of hate that follows your personal agenda.

I’ll say this, I have no fear of Islam but a fear of the UK and US governments stealing the freedoms of their people away from them, of sending troops to die in a war that has no basis in fact, that reaks [sic] of expansionism, I fear a nation that shows no respect for International law and the UN (and no I’m not talking about Israel but I could be…) and acts as it sees fit, forcing a polarisation of beliefs on a global scale; making people choose sides rather than work together for the common good.

This post and others like it across the blogsphere only helps to push this ‘us against them’ agenda and feeds the fire of seperation [sic] and ignorance.

Well, he really told us, didn’t he?

Since I’m preaching to the choir here in the Vast Right-Wing Echo Chamber, I might as well let fly.

First of all, I didn’t realize I was trying to “prove” anything. I collected a huge mass of statistics and displayed them graphically so as to reveal as far as possible the underlying patterns. The terrorist attacks represented by these statistics were all carried out by Muslims with the avowed purpose of following the will of Allah. If anyone doubts that, look at the original sources for the figures, the news stories behind the stark numbers.

I guess all of the reporters and data collectors were lying right-wing partisans, inventing or slanting the “facts” to further their fascistic agenda. Or something like that.

Seriously, though, it’s in the realm of fact that during the last century no other religion — not Christianity, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Judaism — has anything approaching the record that Islam has for murderous attacks against innocent people. You have to throw in the brutality of the 20th century’s “secular religions” — Communism and Nazism — before you find anything comparable. And modern Islamism is giving the old commissars and gauleiters a run for their money when it comes to gratuitous killing.

But I don’t think our commenter would be so foolish as to deny that these attacks are done in the name of Islam or are as widespread as indicated by the map. It’s just that they’re not as bad as our crimes, as the Anglosphere’s brutal state terrorism.

And there is also our delusion that there is any connection between these disparate groups, our mass insanity that makes us believe that all of these attacks are somehow connected with one another. That’s probably our biggest error, blinded as we are by our mindless ideology of hate.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The Islamofascists bear more than a passing resemblance to the Communists of the mid-20th century. Consider:

• They are international in scope, transcending national boundaries and languages.
• Their clandestine networks are guided and funded by shadowy, secret central groups abroad.
• The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation is a central strategy for their cause.
• They are aided and abetted by apologists and fellow travelers in the West.
• One of the prime vectors for the spread of their contagion is the Academy.

As Donald Rumsfeld and Wretchard have often said: this is not a war of armies or munitions. It is a war of ideas, and will be won or lost in the journals and on the television screens of the West.

To that end, the Islamists are closely following the playbook of the Communists. Like the Communists, they are spread out in loosely-connected clandestine networks. Like the Communists, they are guided and funded by a few sources, but operate independently as “indigenous” movements. And, like the Communists, they understand that the success in the propaganda war is absolutely crucial.

As soon as Communism consolidated power in Soviet Russia, it began its preparation for the World Revolution by establishing the Communist International. For the next sixty years or so the dedicated cadres and willing dupes of the Comintern took Soviet money, propaganda, and materiel, and used them to undermine and overthrow governments all over the world.

But Stalin did not directly command most of these operations. Even at the apogee of Soviet power, the Kremlin could only enforce its ukases in the Soviet Union itself and the “near abroad,” those communist vassals immediately contiguous with Soviet territory.

Tito, Hoxha, Mao, and Castro all followed Soviet guidelines when its suited their interests, and departed from them when required. But all of them were acting in the name of Communism, and all were intent on establishing their version of its soul-destroying totalitarianism.

And so it is with militant Islam. The Islamists are not directly controlled by bin Laden or King Abdullah or the mullahs of Iran; but they work towards a common purpose, co-operating with each other out of self-interest and deferring the cutting of each other’s throats until the opportune moment arrives.

Look at the Sunni-Shiite division as a parallel between Soviet Communism and Maoism. Give Zarqawi the role of Josip Broz Tito, with his propensity to ignore central direction and follow his own plans. The Communists had the KGB to spread money and disinformation; the Islamofascists have the Saudi “charities” to perform the same functions.

Call it the Islamintern. Like the Comintern, it attracts the marginal, the disaffected, the petty thugs and common criminals, and gives them a clear and simple ideology to guide their actions. It allows them to continue in their customary ways — murdering, raping, stealing and extorting — while furnishing them with a mandate from Allah to do so. The Communists were following the dictates of History, and the Islamists are carrying out the will of God.

To the willing dupes in the West, there is no connection among all these groups, just as there was none among the Viet Cong and the FMLN and revolutionaries of Angola. But somehow all these native freedom fighters just happened to be fomenting violence in the same way at the same time.

And somehow all these terrorists spread all over the globe just happen to be murdering and maiming in the name of Allah. It’s just coincidence.

The Comintern, of course, was aided in its efforts by all the fools and shills in the West.

The 1930s had George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Walter Duranty, and The New York Times.

In the 21st century, the Islamintern has Dan Rather, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, and The New York Times.

Every generation has its useful idiots.