It has been said that the world seems headed for a conflict between Islam and the rest of civilization. There may be a solution in the form of a massive western victory but it would be ugly and bloody. Victory by Islamic fascism would be uglier. Pacifist compliance by the west is not an available option.
Pacifist cooperation by the Islamic world, however, is an option. If Islam ceases to be aggressive, it can live in peace and self-sufficiency. This “speech” put in the mouth of Barack Obama is the most hopeful vision of Islamic reform I can recall.
Any notable languages missing?
Apparently “Je suis Charlie” can be translated as “I am a free man”. How does that work, I wonder? “Je suis gar libre?”
Update: My local French language and culture expert says, not true.
In any case, Barbara Amiel makes the case that Islamic fascists will never kill free speech in Canada, never get the chance, that is. Continue reading
I just watched Argo, the American movie about the 1979 Iranian revolution. I remember being told that it gave credit to an American for what was really a Canadian rescue. then I heard that they gave Canadians some credit in the end. That all sounds reasonable: Hollywood makes a movie, takes some liberties with the facts and then gives a nod to the truth at the end, giving a motivated viewer a lead to find the rest of the story.
No. The error is more insidious and has an evil twin. Continue reading
It approaches universal truth: If society is aghast at the treatment of an oppressed minority, it is not an oppressed minority. If it were really oppressed, society would ignore the plight, or possibly point and laugh.
Today’s example: McCarthyism
Senator McCarthy was a sober, proud, inclusive patriot telling a crucially important truth that was hidden from polite company. He was denounced as a narrow-minded, demagogic liar who enjoyed witch hunts.
Communists in America, especially in Hollywood, were not an oppressed minority but a vocal and aggressive (though covert) enemy.
McCarthy was an oppressed minority: a plight most of us ignore, or possibly jeer.
The New Dating Game; Charlotte Allen in The Weekly Standard gives a thoughtful overview of the manosphere perspective on the feminist wreckage on relationships.
The Futurist at singularity2050.com has a longish essay on feminism’s effect on society (archived) and demographics. If the future goes according to the feminist architects’ plans the end state will not. They will be on the business end of the adage, “No finite being can accurately predict its next state”. Unfortunately, my schadenfreude is impaired by that fact that this process will cost me my own civilization. It is, at times, brilliant.
… ‘feminists’ devalued the traditional areas of female expertise (raising the next generation of citizens), while attaching value only to areas of male expertise (the boardroom, the military, sexual promiscuity) … women are more unhappy than ever …
scandal. The substance is not so new. People have been saying for years that the bill is needlessly complex and that it has dozens of little disasters hidden within. That if people understood it, They’d never support it. Some went so far as to say that a bill that convoluted could only be deliberate. It’s just that the critic might be dismissed as partisan…until now.
Obamacare has a new credibility
Now the most cynical of interpretations is undeniable fact, straight from the horse’s mouth. Jonathan Gruber is on video admitting, no, bragging that the law was written to mislead the public and the CBO as to its true effects.
Gruber is wrong, however, on two points. Much (most?) of the public was not fooled, as the bill has never enjoyed widespread support. Gruber’s justification for lying, that the public’s wishes are “stupid” and incoherent, is not true. Meeting the public’s broad health care goals is possible, It just isn’t compatible with the government’s political goals. Continue reading
1 small shirt for a man, 1 giant leap backward for women