Where was Obama? Really?

by

by Ugh

Is it just me or is the whole "the U.S. didn't send a sufficiently high level official/Obama himself to march in Paris – outrage!" thing ridiculous?  I'd dismiss it as mindless partisan blather, but then the White House starts saying it should have done so.  Perhaps they're of the mind "meh, there's no harm in apologizing and if it gets people to focus on real issues, why not?"

Of course, if he went or someone of "sufficient gravitas" was sent in his place (John Kerry?), then the opposite talking point is "A terrorist shoots up a tabloid in a foreign country and the President of the United States interrupts everything to jet over there?!!?  How low Obama has brought this country.  tsk. tsk."

Feh.

693 thoughts on “Where was Obama? Really?”

  4. Fox News host Greta Van Susteren tweeted: “This is really embarrassing…
    I guess that’s just another #FoxNewsFacts.

  5. Fox News host Greta Van Susteren tweeted: “This is really embarrassing…
    I guess that’s just another #FoxNewsFacts.

  6. Fox News host Greta Van Susteren tweeted: “This is really embarrassing…
    I guess that’s just another #FoxNewsFacts.

  10. You just have to understand, ugh. In this, as in everything, it’s all about us.
    Minor details, like the total disruption of the march by American Presidential security? Irrelevant! Minor details like, is anyone really going to decide from this that American has suddenly gone soft of terrorist? Riiiight! It’s all about us.

  11. You just have to understand, ugh. In this, as in everything, it’s all about us.
    Minor details, like the total disruption of the march by American Presidential security? Irrelevant! Minor details like, is anyone really going to decide from this that American has suddenly gone soft of terrorist? Riiiight! It’s all about us.

  12. You just have to understand, ugh. In this, as in everything, it’s all about us.
    Minor details, like the total disruption of the march by American Presidential security? Irrelevant! Minor details like, is anyone really going to decide from this that American has suddenly gone soft of terrorist? Riiiight! It’s all about us.

  13. Although, its incredible that David Cameron’s security and Angela Merkel’s security etc didn’t seem to disrupt the march, I assume Biden’s could be tolerated. Kerry wasn’t there because he ha meetings in the Middle East? Really? I certainly understand either way, but perception does matter. And its not being “soft on terrorism”. It’s being there for a friend.
    OTOH, If Biden goes the anti French faction would have had a field day

  14. Although, its incredible that David Cameron’s security and Angela Merkel’s security etc didn’t seem to disrupt the march, I assume Biden’s could be tolerated. Kerry wasn’t there because he ha meetings in the Middle East? Really? I certainly understand either way, but perception does matter. And its not being “soft on terrorism”. It’s being there for a friend.
    OTOH, If Biden goes the anti French faction would have had a field day

  15. Although, its incredible that David Cameron’s security and Angela Merkel’s security etc didn’t seem to disrupt the march, I assume Biden’s could be tolerated. Kerry wasn’t there because he ha meetings in the Middle East? Really? I certainly understand either way, but perception does matter. And its not being “soft on terrorism”. It’s being there for a friend.
    OTOH, If Biden goes the anti French faction would have had a field day

  16. People have too much time on their hands if they can even think of something like this to complain about.

  17. People have too much time on their hands if they can even think of something like this to complain about.

  18. People have too much time on their hands if they can even think of something like this to complain about.

  19. Many of those leaders will go back to their countries and get back to the business of censoring their own news media, and surviving Hebedo staffers can’t wait to get back to the office and rip some of these mountebanks:
    http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/parading-caricatures-hypocritical.html
    I wonder how FOX would react if Obama had made the trip, only to be satirized viciously, along with America at large, for our drone policies abroad.
    Meanwhile, how would the fascist religious right in Israel, kept at bay only by Netanyahu’s willing belligerence, react if Charlie Hebedo opened a branch in Jerusalem and started going after some of the fire-breathers in the Knesset and the Cabinet.
    What form would the censorship against Hebedo take?
    Obama should have sent Dick Cheney to represent and then as the demonstrations winded down alerted Interpol to pick him up and send him on to The Hague for some official heckling.
    I read somewhere yesterday (I’ll try to remember to look for the link) that Charlie Hebedo does have limits on their satire: the editors spiked a column a few years ago that they deemed anti-Semitic, which is probably a good thing, despite my own preference for edgy humor, but still, do they have limits or do they not?
    Whaddaya think FOX? Say Marine Le Pen gains power in the intermediate future, helped along by anti-Muslim fervor, translated into anti-immigrant fervor, but also cuts taxes, government spending, and healthcare drastically, and in the meantime begins to show its vicious, fascist anti-Semitic persona in public pronouncements toward French Jews and Israel.
    And then censors Hebedo for going after a Le Pen government.
    Who you gonna hate then, FOX, ya filth? America has no idea of the truly virulent fascist tendencies (ours like to dress the part, but little else, despite their inroads into the Republican Party) circling beneath the surface of European politics.
    I read recently too that only @20% of French Muslims show much interest in religion conviction; the rest are pretty much secular. and the large majority are appalled by these murderous acts.
    Note also the young Muslim who shielded the Jews who were in his shop from the murderers, probably saving their lives.

  20. Many of those leaders will go back to their countries and get back to the business of censoring their own news media, and surviving Hebedo staffers can’t wait to get back to the office and rip some of these mountebanks:
    http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/parading-caricatures-hypocritical.html
    I wonder how FOX would react if Obama had made the trip, only to be satirized viciously, along with America at large, for our drone policies abroad.
    Meanwhile, how would the fascist religious right in Israel, kept at bay only by Netanyahu’s willing belligerence, react if Charlie Hebedo opened a branch in Jerusalem and started going after some of the fire-breathers in the Knesset and the Cabinet.
    What form would the censorship against Hebedo take?
    Obama should have sent Dick Cheney to represent and then as the demonstrations winded down alerted Interpol to pick him up and send him on to The Hague for some official heckling.
    I read somewhere yesterday (I’ll try to remember to look for the link) that Charlie Hebedo does have limits on their satire: the editors spiked a column a few years ago that they deemed anti-Semitic, which is probably a good thing, despite my own preference for edgy humor, but still, do they have limits or do they not?
    Whaddaya think FOX? Say Marine Le Pen gains power in the intermediate future, helped along by anti-Muslim fervor, translated into anti-immigrant fervor, but also cuts taxes, government spending, and healthcare drastically, and in the meantime begins to show its vicious, fascist anti-Semitic persona in public pronouncements toward French Jews and Israel.
    And then censors Hebedo for going after a Le Pen government.
    Who you gonna hate then, FOX, ya filth? America has no idea of the truly virulent fascist tendencies (ours like to dress the part, but little else, despite their inroads into the Republican Party) circling beneath the surface of European politics.
    I read recently too that only @20% of French Muslims show much interest in religion conviction; the rest are pretty much secular. and the large majority are appalled by these murderous acts.
    Note also the young Muslim who shielded the Jews who were in his shop from the murderers, probably saving their lives.

  21. Many of those leaders will go back to their countries and get back to the business of censoring their own news media, and surviving Hebedo staffers can’t wait to get back to the office and rip some of these mountebanks:
    http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/parading-caricatures-hypocritical.html
    I wonder how FOX would react if Obama had made the trip, only to be satirized viciously, along with America at large, for our drone policies abroad.
    Meanwhile, how would the fascist religious right in Israel, kept at bay only by Netanyahu’s willing belligerence, react if Charlie Hebedo opened a branch in Jerusalem and started going after some of the fire-breathers in the Knesset and the Cabinet.
    What form would the censorship against Hebedo take?
    Obama should have sent Dick Cheney to represent and then as the demonstrations winded down alerted Interpol to pick him up and send him on to The Hague for some official heckling.
    I read somewhere yesterday (I’ll try to remember to look for the link) that Charlie Hebedo does have limits on their satire: the editors spiked a column a few years ago that they deemed anti-Semitic, which is probably a good thing, despite my own preference for edgy humor, but still, do they have limits or do they not?
    Whaddaya think FOX? Say Marine Le Pen gains power in the intermediate future, helped along by anti-Muslim fervor, translated into anti-immigrant fervor, but also cuts taxes, government spending, and healthcare drastically, and in the meantime begins to show its vicious, fascist anti-Semitic persona in public pronouncements toward French Jews and Israel.
    And then censors Hebedo for going after a Le Pen government.
    Who you gonna hate then, FOX, ya filth? America has no idea of the truly virulent fascist tendencies (ours like to dress the part, but little else, despite their inroads into the Republican Party) circling beneath the surface of European politics.
    I read recently too that only @20% of French Muslims show much interest in religion conviction; the rest are pretty much secular. and the large majority are appalled by these murderous acts.
    Note also the young Muslim who shielded the Jews who were in his shop from the murderers, probably saving their lives.

  22. Although, its incredible that David Cameron’s security and Angela Merkel’s security etc didn’t seem to disrupt the march
    Not particularly.
    The group of leaders gathered separately from the main march – as you can see in the photo I linked above.

  23. Although, its incredible that David Cameron’s security and Angela Merkel’s security etc didn’t seem to disrupt the march
    Not particularly.
    The group of leaders gathered separately from the main march – as you can see in the photo I linked above.

  24. Although, its incredible that David Cameron’s security and Angela Merkel’s security etc didn’t seem to disrupt the march
    Not particularly.
    The group of leaders gathered separately from the main march – as you can see in the photo I linked above.

  25. The Jihadist wing of the Republican Party speaks in the sub-person of Ted Cruz:
    The absense is symbolic of America’s world stage and it is dangerous. The attack on Paris, just like previous assaults on Israel and other allies, is an attack on our shared values. And, we are stronger when we stand together, as French President François Hollande said, for “liberty, equality, and fraternity.”
    His pomme frites de liberte must really be smothered in cheap ketchup for him to think we’re going to them down at this late date.
    Had Obama/Biden/Obama gone, the pig Cruz would have hogged the mic and asked archly: Why are we sending a Muslim sympathizer to Paris to represent American interests?”
    FOX would have run photos of Obama’s Muslim father underneath the footage of Obama canoodling with the other leaders.
    We need a Hebedo/Pussy Riot satirical uprising in this country.
    I’m pretty sure elements of the right wing would firebomb their offices.

  26. The Jihadist wing of the Republican Party speaks in the sub-person of Ted Cruz:
    The absense is symbolic of America’s world stage and it is dangerous. The attack on Paris, just like previous assaults on Israel and other allies, is an attack on our shared values. And, we are stronger when we stand together, as French President François Hollande said, for “liberty, equality, and fraternity.”
    His pomme frites de liberte must really be smothered in cheap ketchup for him to think we’re going to them down at this late date.
    Had Obama/Biden/Obama gone, the pig Cruz would have hogged the mic and asked archly: Why are we sending a Muslim sympathizer to Paris to represent American interests?”
    FOX would have run photos of Obama’s Muslim father underneath the footage of Obama canoodling with the other leaders.
    We need a Hebedo/Pussy Riot satirical uprising in this country.
    I’m pretty sure elements of the right wing would firebomb their offices.

  27. The Jihadist wing of the Republican Party speaks in the sub-person of Ted Cruz:
    The absense is symbolic of America’s world stage and it is dangerous. The attack on Paris, just like previous assaults on Israel and other allies, is an attack on our shared values. And, we are stronger when we stand together, as French President François Hollande said, for “liberty, equality, and fraternity.”
    His pomme frites de liberte must really be smothered in cheap ketchup for him to think we’re going to them down at this late date.
    Had Obama/Biden/Obama gone, the pig Cruz would have hogged the mic and asked archly: Why are we sending a Muslim sympathizer to Paris to represent American interests?”
    FOX would have run photos of Obama’s Muslim father underneath the footage of Obama canoodling with the other leaders.
    We need a Hebedo/Pussy Riot satirical uprising in this country.
    I’m pretty sure elements of the right wing would firebomb their offices.

  28. Here’s a (long and) pretty good article on the Hebdo affair from France (as opposed to the screeds in our own press explaining at second hand what it all means):
    http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/olivier-tonneau/110115/charlie-hebdo-letter-my-british-friends
    “… Firstly, a few words on Charlie Hebdo, which was often “analyzed” in the British press on the sole basis, apparently, of a few selected cartoons. It might be worth knowing that the main target of Charlie Hebdo was the Front National and the Le Pen family. Next came crooks of all sorts, including bosses and politicians (incidentally, one of the victims of the shooting was an economist who ran a weekly column on the disasters caused by austerity policies in Greece). Finally, Charlie Hebdo was an opponent of all forms of organized religions, in the old-school anarchist sense: Ni Dieu, ni maître! They ridiculed the pope, orthodox Jews and Muslims in equal measure and with the same biting tone. They took ferocious stances against the bombings of Gaza. Even if their sense of humour was apparently inacceptable to English miunds, please take my word for it: it fell well within the French tradition of satire – and after all was only intended for a French audience. It is only by reading or seeing it out of context that some cartoons appear as racist or islamophobic. Charlie Hebdo also continuously denounced the pledge of minorities and campaigned relentlessly for all illegal immigrants to be given permanent right of stay. I hope this helps you understand that if you belong to the radical left, you have lost precious friends and allies…”
    (One of the striking things to me is the radical difference between French and British satire.)

  29. Here’s a (long and) pretty good article on the Hebdo affair from France (as opposed to the screeds in our own press explaining at second hand what it all means):
    http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/olivier-tonneau/110115/charlie-hebdo-letter-my-british-friends
    “… Firstly, a few words on Charlie Hebdo, which was often “analyzed” in the British press on the sole basis, apparently, of a few selected cartoons. It might be worth knowing that the main target of Charlie Hebdo was the Front National and the Le Pen family. Next came crooks of all sorts, including bosses and politicians (incidentally, one of the victims of the shooting was an economist who ran a weekly column on the disasters caused by austerity policies in Greece). Finally, Charlie Hebdo was an opponent of all forms of organized religions, in the old-school anarchist sense: Ni Dieu, ni maître! They ridiculed the pope, orthodox Jews and Muslims in equal measure and with the same biting tone. They took ferocious stances against the bombings of Gaza. Even if their sense of humour was apparently inacceptable to English miunds, please take my word for it: it fell well within the French tradition of satire – and after all was only intended for a French audience. It is only by reading or seeing it out of context that some cartoons appear as racist or islamophobic. Charlie Hebdo also continuously denounced the pledge of minorities and campaigned relentlessly for all illegal immigrants to be given permanent right of stay. I hope this helps you understand that if you belong to the radical left, you have lost precious friends and allies…”
    (One of the striking things to me is the radical difference between French and British satire.)

  30. Here’s a (long and) pretty good article on the Hebdo affair from France (as opposed to the screeds in our own press explaining at second hand what it all means):
    http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/olivier-tonneau/110115/charlie-hebdo-letter-my-british-friends
    “… Firstly, a few words on Charlie Hebdo, which was often “analyzed” in the British press on the sole basis, apparently, of a few selected cartoons. It might be worth knowing that the main target of Charlie Hebdo was the Front National and the Le Pen family. Next came crooks of all sorts, including bosses and politicians (incidentally, one of the victims of the shooting was an economist who ran a weekly column on the disasters caused by austerity policies in Greece). Finally, Charlie Hebdo was an opponent of all forms of organized religions, in the old-school anarchist sense: Ni Dieu, ni maître! They ridiculed the pope, orthodox Jews and Muslims in equal measure and with the same biting tone. They took ferocious stances against the bombings of Gaza. Even if their sense of humour was apparently inacceptable to English miunds, please take my word for it: it fell well within the French tradition of satire – and after all was only intended for a French audience. It is only by reading or seeing it out of context that some cartoons appear as racist or islamophobic. Charlie Hebdo also continuously denounced the pledge of minorities and campaigned relentlessly for all illegal immigrants to be given permanent right of stay. I hope this helps you understand that if you belong to the radical left, you have lost precious friends and allies…”
    (One of the striking things to me is the radical difference between French and British satire.)

  37. Marty, nobody in the world, nobody, has the kind of overwhelming security that an American President gets. Which has been true for decades. The security that a head of government like Merkel or Cameron gets is about what the Vice President of the US gets, maybe less.
    You can argue that this is seriously over-the-top. And you might well be right. But for the moment, that is how the world is.

  38. Marty, nobody in the world, nobody, has the kind of overwhelming security that an American President gets. Which has been true for decades. The security that a head of government like Merkel or Cameron gets is about what the Vice President of the US gets, maybe less.
    You can argue that this is seriously over-the-top. And you might well be right. But for the moment, that is how the world is.

  39. Marty, nobody in the world, nobody, has the kind of overwhelming security that an American President gets. Which has been true for decades. The security that a head of government like Merkel or Cameron gets is about what the Vice President of the US gets, maybe less.
    You can argue that this is seriously over-the-top. And you might well be right. But for the moment, that is how the world is.

  40. Regarding the Birmingham thing, British Prime Minister David Cameron choked on his porridge at FOX’s Steve Emerson
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-cameron-fox-steven-emerson-idiot
    Emerson has made a pretty good living from his terrorism grift…. what a gig.
    Interesting that mainstream Muslims in an France and elsewhere are choking on their porridge in disgust at the murderous actions of these insane terrorist ideologues and now conservatives of various stripes are choking on the same porridge at the rhetorical horsecrappola peddled by American grifters against the majority of Muslims, all good family-values people.
    There’s a minority radical conservative poison let loose around the world, manifesting in all cultures and countries, puke religion and puke economics, sadistic, capitalizing on Fear of the Other.
    They hate each other too.
    Don’t find any solace in that.
    Murdering the French satirists, Putin murdering Ukrainians, the murderous Bocco Haran, al Qaeda, ISIS, Republicans murdering the poor and other Americans with pre-existing conditions, and Latin American immigrant children, all delighting in the suffering they cause, tweeting their delight like low-level Reichsfuhrers to the Volk — it’s all one murderous movement the world-over, lovers of a mythological conservative past intent on restoration, standing athwart history (actually, reverse cowboy) and yelling “Stop!”
    This thing they call Conservatism — which goes by the wrong name.
    Get a new title.

  41. Regarding the Birmingham thing, British Prime Minister David Cameron choked on his porridge at FOX’s Steve Emerson
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-cameron-fox-steven-emerson-idiot
    Emerson has made a pretty good living from his terrorism grift…. what a gig.
    Interesting that mainstream Muslims in an France and elsewhere are choking on their porridge in disgust at the murderous actions of these insane terrorist ideologues and now conservatives of various stripes are choking on the same porridge at the rhetorical horsecrappola peddled by American grifters against the majority of Muslims, all good family-values people.
    There’s a minority radical conservative poison let loose around the world, manifesting in all cultures and countries, puke religion and puke economics, sadistic, capitalizing on Fear of the Other.
    They hate each other too.
    Don’t find any solace in that.
    Murdering the French satirists, Putin murdering Ukrainians, the murderous Bocco Haran, al Qaeda, ISIS, Republicans murdering the poor and other Americans with pre-existing conditions, and Latin American immigrant children, all delighting in the suffering they cause, tweeting their delight like low-level Reichsfuhrers to the Volk — it’s all one murderous movement the world-over, lovers of a mythological conservative past intent on restoration, standing athwart history (actually, reverse cowboy) and yelling “Stop!”
    This thing they call Conservatism — which goes by the wrong name.
    Get a new title.

  42. Regarding the Birmingham thing, British Prime Minister David Cameron choked on his porridge at FOX’s Steve Emerson
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-cameron-fox-steven-emerson-idiot
    Emerson has made a pretty good living from his terrorism grift…. what a gig.
    Interesting that mainstream Muslims in an France and elsewhere are choking on their porridge in disgust at the murderous actions of these insane terrorist ideologues and now conservatives of various stripes are choking on the same porridge at the rhetorical horsecrappola peddled by American grifters against the majority of Muslims, all good family-values people.
    There’s a minority radical conservative poison let loose around the world, manifesting in all cultures and countries, puke religion and puke economics, sadistic, capitalizing on Fear of the Other.
    They hate each other too.
    Don’t find any solace in that.
    Murdering the French satirists, Putin murdering Ukrainians, the murderous Bocco Haran, al Qaeda, ISIS, Republicans murdering the poor and other Americans with pre-existing conditions, and Latin American immigrant children, all delighting in the suffering they cause, tweeting their delight like low-level Reichsfuhrers to the Volk — it’s all one murderous movement the world-over, lovers of a mythological conservative past intent on restoration, standing athwart history (actually, reverse cowboy) and yelling “Stop!”
    This thing they call Conservatism — which goes by the wrong name.
    Get a new title.

  43. wj,(and Nigel I guess) which is why I suggested that the security excuse really didn’t work for sending Biden.

  44. wj,(and Nigel I guess) which is why I suggested that the security excuse really didn’t work for sending Biden.

  45. wj,(and Nigel I guess) which is why I suggested that the security excuse really didn’t work for sending Biden.

  52. Well, Obama could have sent a PAST president.
    Like Dubya. Why, just think of the advantages of that, regardless of the outcome.

  53. Well, Obama could have sent a PAST president.
    Like Dubya. Why, just think of the advantages of that, regardless of the outcome.

  54. Well, Obama could have sent a PAST president.
    Like Dubya. Why, just think of the advantages of that, regardless of the outcome.

  55. So, where do we all stand on the question of a nominally free American press declining, by and large, to show the original Charlie Hebdo cartoons?
    –TP

  56. So, where do we all stand on the question of a nominally free American press declining, by and large, to show the original Charlie Hebdo cartoons?
    –TP

  57. So, where do we all stand on the question of a nominally free American press declining, by and large, to show the original Charlie Hebdo cartoons?
    –TP

  64. So is the Capital caferteria once again serving French fries? Or has that horrid Muslim Kenyan forced them to stick with “freedom fires”? Just wondering.

  65. So is the Capital caferteria once again serving French fries? Or has that horrid Muslim Kenyan forced them to stick with “freedom fires”? Just wondering.

  66. So is the Capital caferteria once again serving French fries? Or has that horrid Muslim Kenyan forced them to stick with “freedom fires”? Just wondering.

  67. “So, where do we all stand on the question of a nominally free American press declining, by and large, to show the original Charlie Hebdo cartoons.”
    Some journalist somewhere the other day pointed out that there is such a thing as “editing”, which is not the same thing as “censorship”.
    Which before the Internet, and other cultural loosenings, was more or less true, and I haven’t a problem with that point of view as journalistic practice, a long tradition.
    But, you know, I didn’t get rid of the Fairness Doctrine, did I now?
    Given my proclivities for living on the rhetorical edge, I’m pretty sure if I had the demographic reach of certain alternative media in this country, I could go after certain conservative religious (not that there is anything wrong with that) gun nut pigs in such a way as to place myself and probably my family in danger of a conservative Fatwa, among the targets I’m dying to pick a fight with.
    In this country, they started it with the demonization, at the highest levels.
    I’d like to end it for once and all and then get back to civilization.
    Poking a rattlesnake in the neck rarely works out, unless you have some anti-snake-poison serum on hand for satirists.
    Galileo was a bit of a satirist.

  68. “So, where do we all stand on the question of a nominally free American press declining, by and large, to show the original Charlie Hebdo cartoons.”
    Some journalist somewhere the other day pointed out that there is such a thing as “editing”, which is not the same thing as “censorship”.
    Which before the Internet, and other cultural loosenings, was more or less true, and I haven’t a problem with that point of view as journalistic practice, a long tradition.
    But, you know, I didn’t get rid of the Fairness Doctrine, did I now?
    Given my proclivities for living on the rhetorical edge, I’m pretty sure if I had the demographic reach of certain alternative media in this country, I could go after certain conservative religious (not that there is anything wrong with that) gun nut pigs in such a way as to place myself and probably my family in danger of a conservative Fatwa, among the targets I’m dying to pick a fight with.
    In this country, they started it with the demonization, at the highest levels.
    I’d like to end it for once and all and then get back to civilization.
    Poking a rattlesnake in the neck rarely works out, unless you have some anti-snake-poison serum on hand for satirists.
    Galileo was a bit of a satirist.

  69. “So, where do we all stand on the question of a nominally free American press declining, by and large, to show the original Charlie Hebdo cartoons.”
    Some journalist somewhere the other day pointed out that there is such a thing as “editing”, which is not the same thing as “censorship”.
    Which before the Internet, and other cultural loosenings, was more or less true, and I haven’t a problem with that point of view as journalistic practice, a long tradition.
    But, you know, I didn’t get rid of the Fairness Doctrine, did I now?
    Given my proclivities for living on the rhetorical edge, I’m pretty sure if I had the demographic reach of certain alternative media in this country, I could go after certain conservative religious (not that there is anything wrong with that) gun nut pigs in such a way as to place myself and probably my family in danger of a conservative Fatwa, among the targets I’m dying to pick a fight with.
    In this country, they started it with the demonization, at the highest levels.
    I’d like to end it for once and all and then get back to civilization.
    Poking a rattlesnake in the neck rarely works out, unless you have some anti-snake-poison serum on hand for satirists.
    Galileo was a bit of a satirist.

  70. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room.
    Of course there’s such a thing as “editing”, and when you choose to not publish something, that’s not censorship, unless you do it in response to a threat, of course. In which case it IS censorship, but you’re not the censor, the person making the threat that terrified you is. So, yes, this WAS censorship, and our media are regularly censored in this fashion.
    Just not by themselves. By anybody willing to get violent if the media publish something they really don’t like. Which is a really foolish message to send, but at least it’s a truthful message, which is something for our media.
    This was not, of course, an oversight on Obama’s part, or a “mistake”. It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.

  71. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room.
    Of course there’s such a thing as “editing”, and when you choose to not publish something, that’s not censorship, unless you do it in response to a threat, of course. In which case it IS censorship, but you’re not the censor, the person making the threat that terrified you is. So, yes, this WAS censorship, and our media are regularly censored in this fashion.
    Just not by themselves. By anybody willing to get violent if the media publish something they really don’t like. Which is a really foolish message to send, but at least it’s a truthful message, which is something for our media.
    This was not, of course, an oversight on Obama’s part, or a “mistake”. It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.

  72. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room.
    Of course there’s such a thing as “editing”, and when you choose to not publish something, that’s not censorship, unless you do it in response to a threat, of course. In which case it IS censorship, but you’re not the censor, the person making the threat that terrified you is. So, yes, this WAS censorship, and our media are regularly censored in this fashion.
    Just not by themselves. By anybody willing to get violent if the media publish something they really don’t like. Which is a really foolish message to send, but at least it’s a truthful message, which is something for our media.
    This was not, of course, an oversight on Obama’s part, or a “mistake”. It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.

  73. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room.
    And his detractors will claim that it’s just more evidence of his arrogant disdain for the nostrils of the world.
    Sometimes a fart is just a fart.
    Sometimes it’s not even a fart.

  74. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room.
    And his detractors will claim that it’s just more evidence of his arrogant disdain for the nostrils of the world.
    Sometimes a fart is just a fart.
    Sometimes it’s not even a fart.

  75. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room.
    And his detractors will claim that it’s just more evidence of his arrogant disdain for the nostrils of the world.
    Sometimes a fart is just a fart.
    Sometimes it’s not even a fart.

  76. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room
    Make that any rather than ‘this’, and I might agree with you.
    It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.
    Now you’re just trolling.

  77. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room
    Make that any rather than ‘this’, and I might agree with you.
    It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.
    Now you’re just trolling.

  78. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room
    Make that any rather than ‘this’, and I might agree with you.
    It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.
    Now you’re just trolling.

  79. Leave out the “now” and you’d still be right, Nigel.
    It’s a shame Brett doesn’t troll by drawing comics.
    –TP

  80. Leave out the “now” and you’d still be right, Nigel.
    It’s a shame Brett doesn’t troll by drawing comics.
    –TP

  81. Leave out the “now” and you’d still be right, Nigel.
    It’s a shame Brett doesn’t troll by drawing comics.
    –TP

  82. “Now you’re just trolling.”
    No, if I’m not mistaken, the origin of Brett’s last claim there was indeed his posterior.
    A fart by any other name.
    eau de Bellmore.
    That’s O.K., I sometimes go all Pepe Lepeu around here myself, just to impress the girls.

  83. “Now you’re just trolling.”
    No, if I’m not mistaken, the origin of Brett’s last claim there was indeed his posterior.
    A fart by any other name.
    eau de Bellmore.
    That’s O.K., I sometimes go all Pepe Lepeu around here myself, just to impress the girls.

  84. “Now you’re just trolling.”
    No, if I’m not mistaken, the origin of Brett’s last claim there was indeed his posterior.
    A fart by any other name.
    eau de Bellmore.
    That’s O.K., I sometimes go all Pepe Lepeu around here myself, just to impress the girls.

  85. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room
    speck, plank, eye.

  86. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room
    speck, plank, eye.

  87. If this President farts, his courtiers will patiently explain that he was perfuming the room
    speck, plank, eye.

  88. This was not, of course, an oversight on Obama’s part, or a “mistake”. It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.
    And your basis for your belief here would be what? Perhaps you have a quote; something Obama has said along these lines? Or is it just that you so dislike/dispise him (for whatever reasons) that absolutely anything he does, or does not do, simply must be deliberate and from the worst possible motives you can imagine?

  89. This was not, of course, an oversight on Obama’s part, or a “mistake”. It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.
    And your basis for your belief here would be what? Perhaps you have a quote; something Obama has said along these lines? Or is it just that you so dislike/dispise him (for whatever reasons) that absolutely anything he does, or does not do, simply must be deliberate and from the worst possible motives you can imagine?

  90. This was not, of course, an oversight on Obama’s part, or a “mistake”. It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.
    And your basis for your belief here would be what? Perhaps you have a quote; something Obama has said along these lines? Or is it just that you so dislike/dispise him (for whatever reasons) that absolutely anything he does, or does not do, simply must be deliberate and from the worst possible motives you can imagine?

  94. More aromatics from that well-known social website, Pooter.
    Natch, a Texas Congressman doing the pooting, from the State where even the Comanche were driven out by the flatulent invaders.
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/an-elected-official-ladies-and-gentlemen.html
    An air biscuit, if you will. A heinie hiccup, a sphincter whistle, a bit of rectal reasoning from the usual suspects, stepping on the duck, steam-pressing those Calvins.
    A fart that could end a marriage.
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but a righteous get out and walk, Donald.

  95. More aromatics from that well-known social website, Pooter.
    Natch, a Texas Congressman doing the pooting, from the State where even the Comanche were driven out by the flatulent invaders.
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/an-elected-official-ladies-and-gentlemen.html
    An air biscuit, if you will. A heinie hiccup, a sphincter whistle, a bit of rectal reasoning from the usual suspects, stepping on the duck, steam-pressing those Calvins.
    A fart that could end a marriage.
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but a righteous get out and walk, Donald.

  96. More aromatics from that well-known social website, Pooter.
    Natch, a Texas Congressman doing the pooting, from the State where even the Comanche were driven out by the flatulent invaders.
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/an-elected-official-ladies-and-gentlemen.html
    An air biscuit, if you will. A heinie hiccup, a sphincter whistle, a bit of rectal reasoning from the usual suspects, stepping on the duck, steam-pressing those Calvins.
    A fart that could end a marriage.
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but a righteous get out and walk, Donald.

  103. Obama also didn’t make a stop at the Phoenix VA hospital, even though he was just down the road giving a speech on the housing recovery. This, too, is a scandal, or some number of people seem to think so, given what I’ve seen on fb.
    I replied to a post critical of the non-visit with an op-ed discussing how disruptive it would have been for the president and his security detail to simply show up at the VA because he happened to be in town for an event, and that had he done so, he would have been criticized for orchestrating a photo-op at the expense of veterens receiving the care they needed that day.
    A friend of a friend replied something along the lines of “He didn’t show up at the VA. I know people who live there. He’s a Muslim POS!” When I replied that the article didn’t say he showed up and wrote, “Muslim, huh?” I received a reply of “YES!!! He’s an ADMITTED Muslim!!! Fncking POS!!!” (A – He’s not. B – What if he was? C – I thought he was supposed to be a SEEKRIT Muslim.)
    This guy’s name wasn’t Brett Bellmore, but I’ll bet he and Brett could hang out and plink a few cans in the backyard while discussing Obama’s Muslim sympathies.

  104. Obama also didn’t make a stop at the Phoenix VA hospital, even though he was just down the road giving a speech on the housing recovery. This, too, is a scandal, or some number of people seem to think so, given what I’ve seen on fb.
    I replied to a post critical of the non-visit with an op-ed discussing how disruptive it would have been for the president and his security detail to simply show up at the VA because he happened to be in town for an event, and that had he done so, he would have been criticized for orchestrating a photo-op at the expense of veterens receiving the care they needed that day.
    A friend of a friend replied something along the lines of “He didn’t show up at the VA. I know people who live there. He’s a Muslim POS!” When I replied that the article didn’t say he showed up and wrote, “Muslim, huh?” I received a reply of “YES!!! He’s an ADMITTED Muslim!!! Fncking POS!!!” (A – He’s not. B – What if he was? C – I thought he was supposed to be a SEEKRIT Muslim.)
    This guy’s name wasn’t Brett Bellmore, but I’ll bet he and Brett could hang out and plink a few cans in the backyard while discussing Obama’s Muslim sympathies.

  105. Obama also didn’t make a stop at the Phoenix VA hospital, even though he was just down the road giving a speech on the housing recovery. This, too, is a scandal, or some number of people seem to think so, given what I’ve seen on fb.
    I replied to a post critical of the non-visit with an op-ed discussing how disruptive it would have been for the president and his security detail to simply show up at the VA because he happened to be in town for an event, and that had he done so, he would have been criticized for orchestrating a photo-op at the expense of veterens receiving the care they needed that day.
    A friend of a friend replied something along the lines of “He didn’t show up at the VA. I know people who live there. He’s a Muslim POS!” When I replied that the article didn’t say he showed up and wrote, “Muslim, huh?” I received a reply of “YES!!! He’s an ADMITTED Muslim!!! Fncking POS!!!” (A – He’s not. B – What if he was? C – I thought he was supposed to be a SEEKRIT Muslim.)
    This guy’s name wasn’t Brett Bellmore, but I’ll bet he and Brett could hang out and plink a few cans in the backyard while discussing Obama’s Muslim sympathies.

  106. ” It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.”
    If you’re interested, I could find a couple of links to people on the far, far, far left who think like that.
    It’s interesting how people on the right part of the political spectrum have absolutely no idea just how much distance there is to their left, and how much space there is between people to their left, and their far left, and their far, far left. (I guess I said far, far, far left above, but that might be one too many. Well, unless Brett’s left is the center and the far left are the liberals and the far far left are the leftists and the far cubed lefties are the people who really didn’t care that Muslim fundamentalist murderers killed cartoonists. Actually, I think Brett’s left is the right, so if anything I need more “fars”.)

  107. ” It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.”
    If you’re interested, I could find a couple of links to people on the far, far, far left who think like that.
    It’s interesting how people on the right part of the political spectrum have absolutely no idea just how much distance there is to their left, and how much space there is between people to their left, and their far left, and their far, far left. (I guess I said far, far, far left above, but that might be one too many. Well, unless Brett’s left is the center and the far left are the liberals and the far far left are the leftists and the far cubed lefties are the people who really didn’t care that Muslim fundamentalist murderers killed cartoonists. Actually, I think Brett’s left is the right, so if anything I need more “fars”.)

  108. ” It was a sincere expression of his belief that Muslims killing people who offend them isn’t a big deal.”
    If you’re interested, I could find a couple of links to people on the far, far, far left who think like that.
    It’s interesting how people on the right part of the political spectrum have absolutely no idea just how much distance there is to their left, and how much space there is between people to their left, and their far left, and their far, far left. (I guess I said far, far, far left above, but that might be one too many. Well, unless Brett’s left is the center and the far left are the liberals and the far far left are the leftists and the far cubed lefties are the people who really didn’t care that Muslim fundamentalist murderers killed cartoonists. Actually, I think Brett’s left is the right, so if anything I need more “fars”.)

  109. It will be interesting in 50 years if the President is remembered as the first Muslim President. Perhaps Nikki Haley will be remembered as the second, the first female Muslim President. Oh, wait, she is Sikh, and Methodist. How can she be a Republican anyway?Nevermind.

  110. It will be interesting in 50 years if the President is remembered as the first Muslim President. Perhaps Nikki Haley will be remembered as the second, the first female Muslim President. Oh, wait, she is Sikh, and Methodist. How can she be a Republican anyway?Nevermind.

  111. It will be interesting in 50 years if the President is remembered as the first Muslim President. Perhaps Nikki Haley will be remembered as the second, the first female Muslim President. Oh, wait, she is Sikh, and Methodist. How can she be a Republican anyway?Nevermind.

  112. DJ, there’s some reason to argue that our supposedly linear political spectrum is actually a circle. When you get far enough to the far left, you are on the farthest far right. And vis versa. The number of areas of agreement between the two can be quite startling.

  113. DJ, there’s some reason to argue that our supposedly linear political spectrum is actually a circle. When you get far enough to the far left, you are on the farthest far right. And vis versa. The number of areas of agreement between the two can be quite startling.

  114. DJ, there’s some reason to argue that our supposedly linear political spectrum is actually a circle. When you get far enough to the far left, you are on the farthest far right. And vis versa. The number of areas of agreement between the two can be quite startling.

  121. cleek, I think that’s the (orthogonal) libertarian edge. The left and right “edges” are all about total enforcement on everyone of the one and only true and right view of how the world should work. In short, complete totalitarianism; the opposite of anarchy.
    It’s also, in both cases, completely about controlling others “for their own good.”

  122. cleek, I think that’s the (orthogonal) libertarian edge. The left and right “edges” are all about total enforcement on everyone of the one and only true and right view of how the world should work. In short, complete totalitarianism; the opposite of anarchy.
    It’s also, in both cases, completely about controlling others “for their own good.”

  123. cleek, I think that’s the (orthogonal) libertarian edge. The left and right “edges” are all about total enforcement on everyone of the one and only true and right view of how the world should work. In short, complete totalitarianism; the opposite of anarchy.
    It’s also, in both cases, completely about controlling others “for their own good.”

  127. Oh, wait, she is Sikh, and Methodist. How can she be a Republican anyway?Nevermind.
    It’s always been kinda interesting to me how some portions of Indian polytheism interact with Christian monotheism. Specifically those who take a “just one more God among many”.
    More on point, though, as someone who spent most of their adulthood surrounded by Indians (mostly Hindus, but a few Sikhs, Jains, Muslims, and Christians too) it is not even vaguely surprising to see a second-generation Indian to be Republican. India covers the spectrum politically (their current PM is a member of the reasonably-despicable BJP – an explicitly Hindu Nationalist party), and those that have the wherewithal to immigrate tend to be middle or upper class, so an awful lot of them are going to cleave Republican (setting aside some cultural reasons they would as well).
    (I know you’re being somewhat facetious, and I’m more or less being incredulous that the people you’re being facetious about can exist – I mean, I totally know and agree they do, but it boggles my mind as to the shear amount of myopic blinkered ignorance it must take for them to exist…)

  128. Oh, wait, she is Sikh, and Methodist. How can she be a Republican anyway?Nevermind.
    It’s always been kinda interesting to me how some portions of Indian polytheism interact with Christian monotheism. Specifically those who take a “just one more God among many”.
    More on point, though, as someone who spent most of their adulthood surrounded by Indians (mostly Hindus, but a few Sikhs, Jains, Muslims, and Christians too) it is not even vaguely surprising to see a second-generation Indian to be Republican. India covers the spectrum politically (their current PM is a member of the reasonably-despicable BJP – an explicitly Hindu Nationalist party), and those that have the wherewithal to immigrate tend to be middle or upper class, so an awful lot of them are going to cleave Republican (setting aside some cultural reasons they would as well).
    (I know you’re being somewhat facetious, and I’m more or less being incredulous that the people you’re being facetious about can exist – I mean, I totally know and agree they do, but it boggles my mind as to the shear amount of myopic blinkered ignorance it must take for them to exist…)

  129. Oh, wait, she is Sikh, and Methodist. How can she be a Republican anyway?Nevermind.
    It’s always been kinda interesting to me how some portions of Indian polytheism interact with Christian monotheism. Specifically those who take a “just one more God among many”.
    More on point, though, as someone who spent most of their adulthood surrounded by Indians (mostly Hindus, but a few Sikhs, Jains, Muslims, and Christians too) it is not even vaguely surprising to see a second-generation Indian to be Republican. India covers the spectrum politically (their current PM is a member of the reasonably-despicable BJP – an explicitly Hindu Nationalist party), and those that have the wherewithal to immigrate tend to be middle or upper class, so an awful lot of them are going to cleave Republican (setting aside some cultural reasons they would as well).
    (I know you’re being somewhat facetious, and I’m more or less being incredulous that the people you’re being facetious about can exist – I mean, I totally know and agree they do, but it boggles my mind as to the shear amount of myopic blinkered ignorance it must take for them to exist…)

  130. I agree that the outrage is overdone, and would be there regardless of what Obama did.
    If he had gone to Paris during the crisis and single-handedly captured the terrorists his critics would have found something wrong.
    But we still should have sent someone to the demonstration. If not Obama then maybe Biden or Kerry or Bill Clinton.

  131. I agree that the outrage is overdone, and would be there regardless of what Obama did.
    If he had gone to Paris during the crisis and single-handedly captured the terrorists his critics would have found something wrong.
    But we still should have sent someone to the demonstration. If not Obama then maybe Biden or Kerry or Bill Clinton.

  132. I agree that the outrage is overdone, and would be there regardless of what Obama did.
    If he had gone to Paris during the crisis and single-handedly captured the terrorists his critics would have found something wrong.
    But we still should have sent someone to the demonstration. If not Obama then maybe Biden or Kerry or Bill Clinton.

  133. Nobody (apparently including the white House) is arguing that it wasn’t a mistake.
    The argument seems to be over whether it was a deliberate snub (for whatever obscure reason), or just the kind of screw up which happens occasionally in any organization.

  134. Nobody (apparently including the white House) is arguing that it wasn’t a mistake.
    The argument seems to be over whether it was a deliberate snub (for whatever obscure reason), or just the kind of screw up which happens occasionally in any organization.

  135. Nobody (apparently including the white House) is arguing that it wasn’t a mistake.
    The argument seems to be over whether it was a deliberate snub (for whatever obscure reason), or just the kind of screw up which happens occasionally in any organization.

  136. To hear Fox News tell it, you might think that l’affaire Obama would be a big deal in the French press. The only relevant story I could find in Le Monde was a short piece titled (my translation) “White House Embarrassed to Have Missed the March” which was mostly a straightforward report on Josh Earnest’s press briefing and mea culpa. No outrage that I could see.
    The piece concludes with this paragraph:

    La presse américaine était, il est vrai, plus à l’aise pour évoquer l’absence de M. Obama à Paris que pour aborder le sujet douloureux de la publication de ces dessins controversés à laquelle s’étaient notamment refusés CNN et le New York Times.

    My French is very rusty, but here’s my attempt at a translation:

    The American press, to be sure, was more comfortable about evoking Mr. Obama’s absence from Paris than about confronting the painful subject of the refusal to publish the controversial cartoons, notably by CNN and the New York Times.

    Make of it what you will.
    –TP

  137. To hear Fox News tell it, you might think that l’affaire Obama would be a big deal in the French press. The only relevant story I could find in Le Monde was a short piece titled (my translation) “White House Embarrassed to Have Missed the March” which was mostly a straightforward report on Josh Earnest’s press briefing and mea culpa. No outrage that I could see.
    The piece concludes with this paragraph:

    La presse américaine était, il est vrai, plus à l’aise pour évoquer l’absence de M. Obama à Paris que pour aborder le sujet douloureux de la publication de ces dessins controversés à laquelle s’étaient notamment refusés CNN et le New York Times.

    My French is very rusty, but here’s my attempt at a translation:

    The American press, to be sure, was more comfortable about evoking Mr. Obama’s absence from Paris than about confronting the painful subject of the refusal to publish the controversial cartoons, notably by CNN and the New York Times.

    Make of it what you will.
    –TP

  138. To hear Fox News tell it, you might think that l’affaire Obama would be a big deal in the French press. The only relevant story I could find in Le Monde was a short piece titled (my translation) “White House Embarrassed to Have Missed the March” which was mostly a straightforward report on Josh Earnest’s press briefing and mea culpa. No outrage that I could see.
    The piece concludes with this paragraph:

    La presse américaine était, il est vrai, plus à l’aise pour évoquer l’absence de M. Obama à Paris que pour aborder le sujet douloureux de la publication de ces dessins controversés à laquelle s’étaient notamment refusés CNN et le New York Times.

    My French is very rusty, but here’s my attempt at a translation:

    The American press, to be sure, was more comfortable about evoking Mr. Obama’s absence from Paris than about confronting the painful subject of the refusal to publish the controversial cartoons, notably by CNN and the New York Times.

    Make of it what you will.
    –TP

  139. Obama’s absence wasn’t reported in Britain at all as a thing; I doubt if Cameron would have gone in person if it wasn’t an election year, and if the UK Foreign Secretary had gone, which is the usual level of representation on such occasions, nobody would have had a clue who he was*. At least Holder has some recognition factor.
    *Philip Hammond.

  140. Obama’s absence wasn’t reported in Britain at all as a thing; I doubt if Cameron would have gone in person if it wasn’t an election year, and if the UK Foreign Secretary had gone, which is the usual level of representation on such occasions, nobody would have had a clue who he was*. At least Holder has some recognition factor.
    *Philip Hammond.

  141. Obama’s absence wasn’t reported in Britain at all as a thing; I doubt if Cameron would have gone in person if it wasn’t an election year, and if the UK Foreign Secretary had gone, which is the usual level of representation on such occasions, nobody would have had a clue who he was*. At least Holder has some recognition factor.
    *Philip Hammond.

  142. Rumor has it that the Emperor of Japan was at the demonstrations in Paris, but he mingled with the crowds and nobody recognized him.

  143. Rumor has it that the Emperor of Japan was at the demonstrations in Paris, but he mingled with the crowds and nobody recognized him.

  144. Rumor has it that the Emperor of Japan was at the demonstrations in Paris, but he mingled with the crowds and nobody recognized him.

  148. Canada sent its Public Safely Minister to France.
    Conservative Harper stayed put. Obviously loves him some cartoonist killing at the hands of Muslim jackasses, huh, Brett?
    Will American conservatives call for the Keystone pipeline to be canceled completely to protest this oily Canadian indifference to jihadist terrorism?
    How do we know Middle Eastern terrorists — two at a time — aren’t going to luge through the pipeline, infected with Ebola and carrying NRA-approved military weaponry to kill all of us?
    Close that border! Deport infant Canucks!

  149. Canada sent its Public Safely Minister to France.
    Conservative Harper stayed put. Obviously loves him some cartoonist killing at the hands of Muslim jackasses, huh, Brett?
    Will American conservatives call for the Keystone pipeline to be canceled completely to protest this oily Canadian indifference to jihadist terrorism?
    How do we know Middle Eastern terrorists — two at a time — aren’t going to luge through the pipeline, infected with Ebola and carrying NRA-approved military weaponry to kill all of us?
    Close that border! Deport infant Canucks!

  150. Canada sent its Public Safely Minister to France.
    Conservative Harper stayed put. Obviously loves him some cartoonist killing at the hands of Muslim jackasses, huh, Brett?
    Will American conservatives call for the Keystone pipeline to be canceled completely to protest this oily Canadian indifference to jihadist terrorism?
    How do we know Middle Eastern terrorists — two at a time — aren’t going to luge through the pipeline, infected with Ebola and carrying NRA-approved military weaponry to kill all of us?
    Close that border! Deport infant Canucks!

  151. I was just thinking today about the Ebola-hyperventilating of just a couple short months ago, with its attendant Obama-blaming in certain circles (or tesseracts).
    Now that it hasn’t produced widespread illness and death in these United States, I’m waiting for all the Obama-blamers to make their apologies.

    As of December 2014, there have been a total of four laboratory-confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease (commonly known as “Ebola”) which were diagnosed in humans in the United States.[3] There have been a total of ten reported cases, including these four cases as well as six cases medically evacuated from other countries; the first was reported in September 2014.[4] Eight of the people contracted the disease outside the US and traveled into the country, either as regular airline passengers or as medical evacuees; of those eight, two died (as of December 2014, the two dead victims represent 0.000000625% of U.S. population).[5] A total of two people have contracted disease while in the United States. Both were nurses who treated an Ebola patient; both have recovered.

    I guess it could start up again, so maybe that’s why the apologies haven’t yet been forthcoming.

  152. I was just thinking today about the Ebola-hyperventilating of just a couple short months ago, with its attendant Obama-blaming in certain circles (or tesseracts).
    Now that it hasn’t produced widespread illness and death in these United States, I’m waiting for all the Obama-blamers to make their apologies.

    As of December 2014, there have been a total of four laboratory-confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease (commonly known as “Ebola”) which were diagnosed in humans in the United States.[3] There have been a total of ten reported cases, including these four cases as well as six cases medically evacuated from other countries; the first was reported in September 2014.[4] Eight of the people contracted the disease outside the US and traveled into the country, either as regular airline passengers or as medical evacuees; of those eight, two died (as of December 2014, the two dead victims represent 0.000000625% of U.S. population).[5] A total of two people have contracted disease while in the United States. Both were nurses who treated an Ebola patient; both have recovered.

    I guess it could start up again, so maybe that’s why the apologies haven’t yet been forthcoming.

  153. I was just thinking today about the Ebola-hyperventilating of just a couple short months ago, with its attendant Obama-blaming in certain circles (or tesseracts).
    Now that it hasn’t produced widespread illness and death in these United States, I’m waiting for all the Obama-blamers to make their apologies.

    As of December 2014, there have been a total of four laboratory-confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease (commonly known as “Ebola”) which were diagnosed in humans in the United States.[3] There have been a total of ten reported cases, including these four cases as well as six cases medically evacuated from other countries; the first was reported in September 2014.[4] Eight of the people contracted the disease outside the US and traveled into the country, either as regular airline passengers or as medical evacuees; of those eight, two died (as of December 2014, the two dead victims represent 0.000000625% of U.S. population).[5] A total of two people have contracted disease while in the United States. Both were nurses who treated an Ebola patient; both have recovered.

    I guess it could start up again, so maybe that’s why the apologies haven’t yet been forthcoming.

  154. the ebola FUD served its purpose: put a shadow on Obama. now that the election is over, there’s no need to revisit it.

  155. the ebola FUD served its purpose: put a shadow on Obama. now that the election is over, there’s no need to revisit it.

  156. the ebola FUD served its purpose: put a shadow on Obama. now that the election is over, there’s no need to revisit it.

  157. What if the entire world is a crowded theater in which the gratuitous yelling of “Fire” is unwise, if not illegal?
    See, it gets complicated:
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-free-speech-consensus-challenge.html
    One man’s satire seems to be another man’s hatred, but who can tell when all sensitivities toward the Other are branded as “politically correct”, as they are in this country, which has its own fascist, nationalist pig filth (until we decide what constitutes yelling Fire in a crowded theater, I’ll stick with pig filth) substrata, which you don’t have to go very far to find …. say, the House of Representatives.
    Especially in certain supposedly advanced societies wherein fascism and hatred of the Other lurks below the surface.
    A French Jew yesterday said on NPR that while the presence of Muslim jihadists in France is definitely a threat, what he really worries about is the backlash from the ever-present fascist, nationalist right-wing, for whom anti-Muslim hatred is just an adjunct to the latter’s long-standing and rabid anti-Semitism.
    On most other topics, their policy prescriptions resemble the Republican Party’s, with the poor constituting much of the Other, ripe for the f&cking.
    He fears moves by a future French government, probably a very reactionary conservative one, to force his full assimilation into French society, thus compromising his local culture and faith.
    It seems, according to polls in this country, that conservatives are more willing to go full bore in defense of insulting the Muslim faith while liberals are somewhat less so.
    Yet, I’m fairly certain that, given the right satirical public venue, I could get myself shot dead by certain elements of the armed conservative faithful in this country (that C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Walker Percy are among my favorite writers — both of whom, I suspect might think twice about the wisdom of Hebdo’s satire, while of course condemning the murders — probably wouldn’t matter).
    Pig vermin in all societies are the most politically correct swine of all.
    FOX Tease: “Liberal OBWI satirist shot dead, but did he deserve it?”

  158. What if the entire world is a crowded theater in which the gratuitous yelling of “Fire” is unwise, if not illegal?
    See, it gets complicated:
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-free-speech-consensus-challenge.html
    One man’s satire seems to be another man’s hatred, but who can tell when all sensitivities toward the Other are branded as “politically correct”, as they are in this country, which has its own fascist, nationalist pig filth (until we decide what constitutes yelling Fire in a crowded theater, I’ll stick with pig filth) substrata, which you don’t have to go very far to find …. say, the House of Representatives.
    Especially in certain supposedly advanced societies wherein fascism and hatred of the Other lurks below the surface.
    A French Jew yesterday said on NPR that while the presence of Muslim jihadists in France is definitely a threat, what he really worries about is the backlash from the ever-present fascist, nationalist right-wing, for whom anti-Muslim hatred is just an adjunct to the latter’s long-standing and rabid anti-Semitism.
    On most other topics, their policy prescriptions resemble the Republican Party’s, with the poor constituting much of the Other, ripe for the f&cking.
    He fears moves by a future French government, probably a very reactionary conservative one, to force his full assimilation into French society, thus compromising his local culture and faith.
    It seems, according to polls in this country, that conservatives are more willing to go full bore in defense of insulting the Muslim faith while liberals are somewhat less so.
    Yet, I’m fairly certain that, given the right satirical public venue, I could get myself shot dead by certain elements of the armed conservative faithful in this country (that C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Walker Percy are among my favorite writers — both of whom, I suspect might think twice about the wisdom of Hebdo’s satire, while of course condemning the murders — probably wouldn’t matter).
    Pig vermin in all societies are the most politically correct swine of all.
    FOX Tease: “Liberal OBWI satirist shot dead, but did he deserve it?”

  159. What if the entire world is a crowded theater in which the gratuitous yelling of “Fire” is unwise, if not illegal?
    See, it gets complicated:
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-free-speech-consensus-challenge.html
    One man’s satire seems to be another man’s hatred, but who can tell when all sensitivities toward the Other are branded as “politically correct”, as they are in this country, which has its own fascist, nationalist pig filth (until we decide what constitutes yelling Fire in a crowded theater, I’ll stick with pig filth) substrata, which you don’t have to go very far to find …. say, the House of Representatives.
    Especially in certain supposedly advanced societies wherein fascism and hatred of the Other lurks below the surface.
    A French Jew yesterday said on NPR that while the presence of Muslim jihadists in France is definitely a threat, what he really worries about is the backlash from the ever-present fascist, nationalist right-wing, for whom anti-Muslim hatred is just an adjunct to the latter’s long-standing and rabid anti-Semitism.
    On most other topics, their policy prescriptions resemble the Republican Party’s, with the poor constituting much of the Other, ripe for the f&cking.
    He fears moves by a future French government, probably a very reactionary conservative one, to force his full assimilation into French society, thus compromising his local culture and faith.
    It seems, according to polls in this country, that conservatives are more willing to go full bore in defense of insulting the Muslim faith while liberals are somewhat less so.
    Yet, I’m fairly certain that, given the right satirical public venue, I could get myself shot dead by certain elements of the armed conservative faithful in this country (that C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Walker Percy are among my favorite writers — both of whom, I suspect might think twice about the wisdom of Hebdo’s satire, while of course condemning the murders — probably wouldn’t matter).
    Pig vermin in all societies are the most politically correct swine of all.
    FOX Tease: “Liberal OBWI satirist shot dead, but did he deserve it?”

  160. There were two viruses stalking us — the terrible Ebola, which as of 11:59.59 pm, November 5, 2014 was shown to be a phantom, trojan horse, the gift that keeps on giving, shrouding a much more murderous pathogen, the more deadly piggybacking virus, the ascendancy of the right-wing Republican plague, which will kill many more Americans than all of those who have died in the world from Ebola.
    I have a vaccine, but no one will be able to handle it.
    Too many side effects.

  161. There were two viruses stalking us — the terrible Ebola, which as of 11:59.59 pm, November 5, 2014 was shown to be a phantom, trojan horse, the gift that keeps on giving, shrouding a much more murderous pathogen, the more deadly piggybacking virus, the ascendancy of the right-wing Republican plague, which will kill many more Americans than all of those who have died in the world from Ebola.
    I have a vaccine, but no one will be able to handle it.
    Too many side effects.

  162. There were two viruses stalking us — the terrible Ebola, which as of 11:59.59 pm, November 5, 2014 was shown to be a phantom, trojan horse, the gift that keeps on giving, shrouding a much more murderous pathogen, the more deadly piggybacking virus, the ascendancy of the right-wing Republican plague, which will kill many more Americans than all of those who have died in the world from Ebola.
    I have a vaccine, but no one will be able to handle it.
    Too many side effects.

  163. “So, where do we all stand on the question of a nominally free American press declining, by and large, to show the original Charlie Hebdo cartoons?
    –TP”
    The only way to defend the freedom of speech of someone who was murdered to silence them is to take their words and scream them to the heavens.
    Anything else is… Maybe whatever else you might do has value, but its not defending the freedom of speech of those who were killed.

  164. “So, where do we all stand on the question of a nominally free American press declining, by and large, to show the original Charlie Hebdo cartoons?
    –TP”
    The only way to defend the freedom of speech of someone who was murdered to silence them is to take their words and scream them to the heavens.
    Anything else is… Maybe whatever else you might do has value, but its not defending the freedom of speech of those who were killed.

  165. “So, where do we all stand on the question of a nominally free American press declining, by and large, to show the original Charlie Hebdo cartoons?
    –TP”
    The only way to defend the freedom of speech of someone who was murdered to silence them is to take their words and scream them to the heavens.
    Anything else is… Maybe whatever else you might do has value, but its not defending the freedom of speech of those who were killed.

  166. both of whom, I suspect might think twice about the wisdom of Hebdo’s satire, while of course condemning the murders
    Pedantic twitch: you really should say “Charlie’s satire” here, because it sounds very weird when you say “Weekly’s satire”.

  167. both of whom, I suspect might think twice about the wisdom of Hebdo’s satire, while of course condemning the murders
    Pedantic twitch: you really should say “Charlie’s satire” here, because it sounds very weird when you say “Weekly’s satire”.

  168. both of whom, I suspect might think twice about the wisdom of Hebdo’s satire, while of course condemning the murders
    Pedantic twitch: you really should say “Charlie’s satire” here, because it sounds very weird when you say “Weekly’s satire”.

  169. This incident is the first time I have ever heard the claim that everyone who defends free speech is obligated to repeat the speech, even if it is the sort of speech that a newspaper would never have normally printed. I don’t agree. I’ve seen some of the cartoons–they aren’t hard to find.
    I read Nigel’s link up thread and many others on both sides and whatever the alleged politics of the cartoonists, I thought the cartoons repugnant. One made fun of the fundamentalists who were murdered by the Egyptian security forces when Morsi was overthrown. Haha, really funny, very progressive. One blogger put it side by side with a parody showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists being shot through their newspaper rather than the Koran. Point taken and equally hilarious, no doubt.
    One can defend freedom of speech without being required to repeat that speech. Otherwise,what’s the point of that word “freedom”?

  170. This incident is the first time I have ever heard the claim that everyone who defends free speech is obligated to repeat the speech, even if it is the sort of speech that a newspaper would never have normally printed. I don’t agree. I’ve seen some of the cartoons–they aren’t hard to find.
    I read Nigel’s link up thread and many others on both sides and whatever the alleged politics of the cartoonists, I thought the cartoons repugnant. One made fun of the fundamentalists who were murdered by the Egyptian security forces when Morsi was overthrown. Haha, really funny, very progressive. One blogger put it side by side with a parody showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists being shot through their newspaper rather than the Koran. Point taken and equally hilarious, no doubt.
    One can defend freedom of speech without being required to repeat that speech. Otherwise,what’s the point of that word “freedom”?

  171. This incident is the first time I have ever heard the claim that everyone who defends free speech is obligated to repeat the speech, even if it is the sort of speech that a newspaper would never have normally printed. I don’t agree. I’ve seen some of the cartoons–they aren’t hard to find.
    I read Nigel’s link up thread and many others on both sides and whatever the alleged politics of the cartoonists, I thought the cartoons repugnant. One made fun of the fundamentalists who were murdered by the Egyptian security forces when Morsi was overthrown. Haha, really funny, very progressive. One blogger put it side by side with a parody showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists being shot through their newspaper rather than the Koran. Point taken and equally hilarious, no doubt.
    One can defend freedom of speech without being required to repeat that speech. Otherwise,what’s the point of that word “freedom”?

  172. But defending freedom of speech while being scrupulously careful not to repeat what got the other guy killed, and urging others not to repeat it either, is a rather attenuated defense. Not so much “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, as, “I disapprove of what you say, but, really, let’s all be prudent and not provoke them to kill us, too.”

  173. But defending freedom of speech while being scrupulously careful not to repeat what got the other guy killed, and urging others not to repeat it either, is a rather attenuated defense. Not so much “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, as, “I disapprove of what you say, but, really, let’s all be prudent and not provoke them to kill us, too.”

  174. But defending freedom of speech while being scrupulously careful not to repeat what got the other guy killed, and urging others not to repeat it either, is a rather attenuated defense. Not so much “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, as, “I disapprove of what you say, but, really, let’s all be prudent and not provoke them to kill us, too.”

  175. Brett pretty much nails it. If the material was not otherwise easy to find, there may be some reason to republish, or at least give directions for someone to find it. But in a case like this, it isn’t really necessary.

  176. Brett pretty much nails it. If the material was not otherwise easy to find, there may be some reason to republish, or at least give directions for someone to find it. But in a case like this, it isn’t really necessary.

  177. Brett pretty much nails it. If the material was not otherwise easy to find, there may be some reason to republish, or at least give directions for someone to find it. But in a case like this, it isn’t really necessary.

  181. But defending freedom of speech while being scrupulously careful not to repeat what got the other guy killed, and urging others not to repeat it either, is a rather attenuated defense.
    This is why the ACLU newsletter is so given to posting reveries by KKK Grand Wizards, I suppose.

  182. But defending freedom of speech while being scrupulously careful not to repeat what got the other guy killed, and urging others not to repeat it either, is a rather attenuated defense.
    This is why the ACLU newsletter is so given to posting reveries by KKK Grand Wizards, I suppose.

  183. But defending freedom of speech while being scrupulously careful not to repeat what got the other guy killed, and urging others not to repeat it either, is a rather attenuated defense.
    This is why the ACLU newsletter is so given to posting reveries by KKK Grand Wizards, I suppose.

  196. “This is why the ACLU newsletter is so given to posting reveries by KKK Grand Wizards, I suppose.”
    Yes, exactly: Because KKK Grand Wizard reveries are routinely censored by murderous rampages! Everybody knows that, so you just left it unmentioned.
    It’s a very attenuated defense of freedom of speech, but it isn’t as though there weren’t people who think freedom of speech should be attenuated. That the problem with the Charlie Hebdo attack, was that the Muslims shouldn’t have had to do it, because the French government should have already shut them down itself.

  197. “This is why the ACLU newsletter is so given to posting reveries by KKK Grand Wizards, I suppose.”
    Yes, exactly: Because KKK Grand Wizard reveries are routinely censored by murderous rampages! Everybody knows that, so you just left it unmentioned.
    It’s a very attenuated defense of freedom of speech, but it isn’t as though there weren’t people who think freedom of speech should be attenuated. That the problem with the Charlie Hebdo attack, was that the Muslims shouldn’t have had to do it, because the French government should have already shut them down itself.

  198. “This is why the ACLU newsletter is so given to posting reveries by KKK Grand Wizards, I suppose.”
    Yes, exactly: Because KKK Grand Wizard reveries are routinely censored by murderous rampages! Everybody knows that, so you just left it unmentioned.
    It’s a very attenuated defense of freedom of speech, but it isn’t as though there weren’t people who think freedom of speech should be attenuated. That the problem with the Charlie Hebdo attack, was that the Muslims shouldn’t have had to do it, because the French government should have already shut them down itself.

  199. Send in the Clowns!
    It’s a very attenuated defense of freedom of speech, but it isn’t as though there weren’t people who think freedom of speech should be attenuated.
    When you write a sentence that tortured, it’s obvious you are in over your head. You’ve got those unnamed people (that’s another Bellmore tell) who just want to attenuate speech (“attenuate speech” Nice phrase. What the hell does it mean?)
    And of course, the folks you are standing up for are just the Plain People of the Internet, the people who worship at the the church of the Blessed Freedom of Speech? Who don’t think anything should be censored? How exactly does that work?
    Don’t bother, they’re here…

  200. Send in the Clowns!
    It’s a very attenuated defense of freedom of speech, but it isn’t as though there weren’t people who think freedom of speech should be attenuated.
    When you write a sentence that tortured, it’s obvious you are in over your head. You’ve got those unnamed people (that’s another Bellmore tell) who just want to attenuate speech (“attenuate speech” Nice phrase. What the hell does it mean?)
    And of course, the folks you are standing up for are just the Plain People of the Internet, the people who worship at the the church of the Blessed Freedom of Speech? Who don’t think anything should be censored? How exactly does that work?
    Don’t bother, they’re here…

  201. Send in the Clowns!
    It’s a very attenuated defense of freedom of speech, but it isn’t as though there weren’t people who think freedom of speech should be attenuated.
    When you write a sentence that tortured, it’s obvious you are in over your head. You’ve got those unnamed people (that’s another Bellmore tell) who just want to attenuate speech (“attenuate speech” Nice phrase. What the hell does it mean?)
    And of course, the folks you are standing up for are just the Plain People of the Internet, the people who worship at the the church of the Blessed Freedom of Speech? Who don’t think anything should be censored? How exactly does that work?
    Don’t bother, they’re here…

  202. This is, perhaps, a more nuanced (and informed) take on the free speech angle
    Yes. A good essay. Thanks, Nigel.

  203. This is, perhaps, a more nuanced (and informed) take on the free speech angle
    Yes. A good essay. Thanks, Nigel.

  204. This is, perhaps, a more nuanced (and informed) take on the free speech angle
    Yes. A good essay. Thanks, Nigel.

  205. Not so much “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, as, “I disapprove of what you say, but, really, let’s all be prudent and not provoke them to kill us, too.”

    Which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from open-carry advocates conspicuously hanging around groups that oppose gun violence, amirite?

  206. Not so much “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, as, “I disapprove of what you say, but, really, let’s all be prudent and not provoke them to kill us, too.”

    Which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from open-carry advocates conspicuously hanging around groups that oppose gun violence, amirite?

  207. Not so much “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, as, “I disapprove of what you say, but, really, let’s all be prudent and not provoke them to kill us, too.”

    Which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from open-carry advocates conspicuously hanging around groups that oppose gun violence, amirite?

  208. I disapprove of what you say, but, really, let’s all be prudent and not provoke them to kill us, too.
    Freedom of speech is certainly one aspect of the issue, but I’m not sure it’s the only one. Specifically, I’m not sure that what is needed right now is for Charlie Hebdo cartoons to be printed by every available media outlet.
    There are lots of reasons an organization might decide to not reprint inflammatory material. Fear of violence is one, but not the only one. And, fear of violence is not necessarily a bad reason for doing, or not doing, something. Especially if your action might create consequences for people other than yourself.
    Just ask the senior management at Starbucks.
    In any case, I don’t see the 1st Amendment under threat by print media etc. deciding to not reproduce Charlie Hebdo cartoons at this particular moment in time. It’s not like they aren’t readily available for view by anyone, anywhere, with access to the internet.
    the French government should have already shut them down itself.
    IMO the French government shouldn’t shut down Charlie Hebdo. Nor do they seem in any hurry to do so.
    That said, 1st Amendment applies to the US. France is another country, they get to make their own rules.

  209. I disapprove of what you say, but, really, let’s all be prudent and not provoke them to kill us, too.
    Freedom of speech is certainly one aspect of the issue, but I’m not sure it’s the only one. Specifically, I’m not sure that what is needed right now is for Charlie Hebdo cartoons to be printed by every available media outlet.
    There are lots of reasons an organization might decide to not reprint inflammatory material. Fear of violence is one, but not the only one. And, fear of violence is not necessarily a bad reason for doing, or not doing, something. Especially if your action might create consequences for people other than yourself.
    Just ask the senior management at Starbucks.
    In any case, I don’t see the 1st Amendment under threat by print media etc. deciding to not reproduce Charlie Hebdo cartoons at this particular moment in time. It’s not like they aren’t readily available for view by anyone, anywhere, with access to the internet.
    the French government should have already shut them down itself.
    IMO the French government shouldn’t shut down Charlie Hebdo. Nor do they seem in any hurry to do so.
    That said, 1st Amendment applies to the US. France is another country, they get to make their own rules.

  210. I disapprove of what you say, but, really, let’s all be prudent and not provoke them to kill us, too.
    Freedom of speech is certainly one aspect of the issue, but I’m not sure it’s the only one. Specifically, I’m not sure that what is needed right now is for Charlie Hebdo cartoons to be printed by every available media outlet.
    There are lots of reasons an organization might decide to not reprint inflammatory material. Fear of violence is one, but not the only one. And, fear of violence is not necessarily a bad reason for doing, or not doing, something. Especially if your action might create consequences for people other than yourself.
    Just ask the senior management at Starbucks.
    In any case, I don’t see the 1st Amendment under threat by print media etc. deciding to not reproduce Charlie Hebdo cartoons at this particular moment in time. It’s not like they aren’t readily available for view by anyone, anywhere, with access to the internet.
    the French government should have already shut them down itself.
    IMO the French government shouldn’t shut down Charlie Hebdo. Nor do they seem in any hurry to do so.
    That said, 1st Amendment applies to the US. France is another country, they get to make their own rules.

  211. “amirite”
    I would like to point out, before it happens, that if Brett now starts discussing 2nd amendment rights and gun control, you can’t complain that he turns every thread into that discussion. Hopefully he wont take the bait.

  212. “amirite”
    I would like to point out, before it happens, that if Brett now starts discussing 2nd amendment rights and gun control, you can’t complain that he turns every thread into that discussion. Hopefully he wont take the bait.

  213. “amirite”
    I would like to point out, before it happens, that if Brett now starts discussing 2nd amendment rights and gun control, you can’t complain that he turns every thread into that discussion. Hopefully he wont take the bait.

  214. “Hopefully he wont take the bait.”
    AAAGGGHHH! What undying horror have I unleashed? Sorry sorry SOrry SoRRY SORRY SORRY!

  215. “Hopefully he wont take the bait.”
    AAAGGGHHH! What undying horror have I unleashed? Sorry sorry SOrry SoRRY SORRY SORRY!

  216. “Hopefully he wont take the bait.”
    AAAGGGHHH! What undying horror have I unleashed? Sorry sorry SOrry SoRRY SORRY SORRY!

  217. From Nigel’s link (quoted there from elsewhere):

    ‘What is really racist is the idea that only nice white liberals want to challenge religion or demolish its pretensions or can handle satire and ridicule. Those who claim that it is ‘racist’ or ‘islamophobic’ to mock the Prophet Mohammad, appear to imagine, with the racists, that all Muslims are reactionaries. It is here that leftwing ‘anti-racism’ joins hands with rightwing anti-Muslim bigotry.’

    I felt like a cartoon character with a big lightbulb over my head when I read that.

  218. From Nigel’s link (quoted there from elsewhere):

    ‘What is really racist is the idea that only nice white liberals want to challenge religion or demolish its pretensions or can handle satire and ridicule. Those who claim that it is ‘racist’ or ‘islamophobic’ to mock the Prophet Mohammad, appear to imagine, with the racists, that all Muslims are reactionaries. It is here that leftwing ‘anti-racism’ joins hands with rightwing anti-Muslim bigotry.’

    I felt like a cartoon character with a big lightbulb over my head when I read that.

  219. From Nigel’s link (quoted there from elsewhere):

    ‘What is really racist is the idea that only nice white liberals want to challenge religion or demolish its pretensions or can handle satire and ridicule. Those who claim that it is ‘racist’ or ‘islamophobic’ to mock the Prophet Mohammad, appear to imagine, with the racists, that all Muslims are reactionaries. It is here that leftwing ‘anti-racism’ joins hands with rightwing anti-Muslim bigotry.’

    I felt like a cartoon character with a big lightbulb over my head when I read that.

  220. Relax, I also care about the 1st amendment.
    “In any case, I don’t see the 1st Amendment under threat by print media etc. deciding to not reproduce Charlie Hebdo cartoons at this particular moment in time.”
    Of course the 1st Amendment isn’t under threat by the print media chickening out on this. First, because Muslims firebombing newspaper offices isn’t Congress passing a law, (Which is what the 1st amendment has to do with.) second, because the threat is from the Islamic terrorists, not the newspapers.
    But, let’s not pretend this scrupulous regard about whether publishing such images would offend Muslims derives from a concern for their tender feelings. No, it derives from a concern that they’ll go berserk and attack anybody who publishes them.

  221. Relax, I also care about the 1st amendment.
    “In any case, I don’t see the 1st Amendment under threat by print media etc. deciding to not reproduce Charlie Hebdo cartoons at this particular moment in time.”
    Of course the 1st Amendment isn’t under threat by the print media chickening out on this. First, because Muslims firebombing newspaper offices isn’t Congress passing a law, (Which is what the 1st amendment has to do with.) second, because the threat is from the Islamic terrorists, not the newspapers.
    But, let’s not pretend this scrupulous regard about whether publishing such images would offend Muslims derives from a concern for their tender feelings. No, it derives from a concern that they’ll go berserk and attack anybody who publishes them.

  222. Relax, I also care about the 1st amendment.
    “In any case, I don’t see the 1st Amendment under threat by print media etc. deciding to not reproduce Charlie Hebdo cartoons at this particular moment in time.”
    Of course the 1st Amendment isn’t under threat by the print media chickening out on this. First, because Muslims firebombing newspaper offices isn’t Congress passing a law, (Which is what the 1st amendment has to do with.) second, because the threat is from the Islamic terrorists, not the newspapers.
    But, let’s not pretend this scrupulous regard about whether publishing such images would offend Muslims derives from a concern for their tender feelings. No, it derives from a concern that they’ll go berserk and attack anybody who publishes them.

  223. No, it derives from a concern that they’ll go berserk and attack anybody who publishes them.
    Specifically, it derives from a concern that people who subscribe to a fairly narrow brand of militant political fundamentalist Islam might do so.
    Nobody’s worried about, for instance, the folks that work on my car, or the folks that own the White Hen near me, or the folks that own the place where I buy falafel. Or, at least, I’m not, and you shouldn’t be either.
    Crazy violent militants come in all kinds of packages, there’s nothing remarkable about people choosing to not provoke them in one context or another.

  224. No, it derives from a concern that they’ll go berserk and attack anybody who publishes them.
    Specifically, it derives from a concern that people who subscribe to a fairly narrow brand of militant political fundamentalist Islam might do so.
    Nobody’s worried about, for instance, the folks that work on my car, or the folks that own the White Hen near me, or the folks that own the place where I buy falafel. Or, at least, I’m not, and you shouldn’t be either.
    Crazy violent militants come in all kinds of packages, there’s nothing remarkable about people choosing to not provoke them in one context or another.

  225. No, it derives from a concern that they’ll go berserk and attack anybody who publishes them.
    Specifically, it derives from a concern that people who subscribe to a fairly narrow brand of militant political fundamentalist Islam might do so.
    Nobody’s worried about, for instance, the folks that work on my car, or the folks that own the White Hen near me, or the folks that own the place where I buy falafel. Or, at least, I’m not, and you shouldn’t be either.
    Crazy violent militants come in all kinds of packages, there’s nothing remarkable about people choosing to not provoke them in one context or another.

  226. newspapers and magazines in the US refuse to run all kinds of inflammatory material, every day. and it’s not only because they worry that they will incite someone to violence, but also that they’ll lose readership, or lose advertisers, or attract misguided criticism, or stir up the hordes of people who need to be victims.
    just because our concern du jure looks like it could apply to what a business does doesn’t mean that’s what’s actually happening.

  227. newspapers and magazines in the US refuse to run all kinds of inflammatory material, every day. and it’s not only because they worry that they will incite someone to violence, but also that they’ll lose readership, or lose advertisers, or attract misguided criticism, or stir up the hordes of people who need to be victims.
    just because our concern du jure looks like it could apply to what a business does doesn’t mean that’s what’s actually happening.

  228. newspapers and magazines in the US refuse to run all kinds of inflammatory material, every day. and it’s not only because they worry that they will incite someone to violence, but also that they’ll lose readership, or lose advertisers, or attract misguided criticism, or stir up the hordes of people who need to be victims.
    just because our concern du jure looks like it could apply to what a business does doesn’t mean that’s what’s actually happening.

  229. I keep flashing on childhood taunts, when a kid might be persuaded to do something s/he had no desire to do by someone else saying “I dare you!” or “If you were [whatever] you wouldn’t chicken out!” etc.
    If a newspaper decided not to publish something because they thought it was too raunchy or offensive or racist or simply unfunny, I don’t see that they have any moral obligation to do so just because someone else has suffered for doing so. One can (and should) deplore and condemn the brutal ignorant violence that occurred in Paris without having to honor the victims by imitating all their actions. Or else whenever there’s a case of gay-bashing all of us – straight, gay, and Brett – would have to “come out” as homosexual in solidarity, amirite?
    Johnny ate a worm and got sick, so you have to eat a worm or you hate Johnny.
    I don’t think so.
    (OTOH, if you were borderline about publishing something in the first place, and now the image is “newsworthy” and you decide to go ahead – why not?)

  230. I keep flashing on childhood taunts, when a kid might be persuaded to do something s/he had no desire to do by someone else saying “I dare you!” or “If you were [whatever] you wouldn’t chicken out!” etc.
    If a newspaper decided not to publish something because they thought it was too raunchy or offensive or racist or simply unfunny, I don’t see that they have any moral obligation to do so just because someone else has suffered for doing so. One can (and should) deplore and condemn the brutal ignorant violence that occurred in Paris without having to honor the victims by imitating all their actions. Or else whenever there’s a case of gay-bashing all of us – straight, gay, and Brett – would have to “come out” as homosexual in solidarity, amirite?
    Johnny ate a worm and got sick, so you have to eat a worm or you hate Johnny.
    I don’t think so.
    (OTOH, if you were borderline about publishing something in the first place, and now the image is “newsworthy” and you decide to go ahead – why not?)

  231. I keep flashing on childhood taunts, when a kid might be persuaded to do something s/he had no desire to do by someone else saying “I dare you!” or “If you were [whatever] you wouldn’t chicken out!” etc.
    If a newspaper decided not to publish something because they thought it was too raunchy or offensive or racist or simply unfunny, I don’t see that they have any moral obligation to do so just because someone else has suffered for doing so. One can (and should) deplore and condemn the brutal ignorant violence that occurred in Paris without having to honor the victims by imitating all their actions. Or else whenever there’s a case of gay-bashing all of us – straight, gay, and Brett – would have to “come out” as homosexual in solidarity, amirite?
    Johnny ate a worm and got sick, so you have to eat a worm or you hate Johnny.
    I don’t think so.
    (OTOH, if you were borderline about publishing something in the first place, and now the image is “newsworthy” and you decide to go ahead – why not?)

  232. To my way of thinking (if you can call it that), saying “this insults Muslims” is not what you say if you want the provocation to stop. You say “this is not funny”.
    Of course, fanatics prefer to be “offended”, and to wear their victimhood as a badge that provides self-justification for their actions.

  233. To my way of thinking (if you can call it that), saying “this insults Muslims” is not what you say if you want the provocation to stop. You say “this is not funny”.
    Of course, fanatics prefer to be “offended”, and to wear their victimhood as a badge that provides self-justification for their actions.

  234. To my way of thinking (if you can call it that), saying “this insults Muslims” is not what you say if you want the provocation to stop. You say “this is not funny”.
    Of course, fanatics prefer to be “offended”, and to wear their victimhood as a badge that provides self-justification for their actions.

  235. One interesting example, again from Nigel’s link, of a Charlie Hebdo cartoon that was supposedly racist, sexist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim was the one described as follows:

    The case seems clear: an outrageously racist and sexist depiction of girls abducted by Boko Haram and made sex slaves presented, in racial stereotyping, as grotesquely screaming pregnant women of colour, with a future as ‘welfare queens’ in France.

    So, what was going on?

    …mixing two unrelated events that made the news in France last year – the Nigerian school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram; the French government announcing welfare benefit cuts – is a double snipe, in classic Hebdo style, at both Boko Haram and those who hold grotesque fantasies and stereotypes about ‘welfare queens’, i.e. the French Far Right and its followers.
    (…)
    (think of the Steve Colbert Report done by Southpark, but ten times amplified by France’s tradition of mean, challenging joking, made to grin and bear it, going back to the 17th century )
    (…)
    …a more nuanced understanding of the often purposefully un-nuanced and crude jokes Charlie Hebdo were making, often risking indeed to perpetuate what they seemingly intended to criticize – the outrageous racism of Marine Le Pen and her followers – is in evidence.

    It’s easy enough to see how some people might not get it, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re not getting it. Others, still, who might actually get it – acting in bad faith – will capitalize on others not getting it.

  236. One interesting example, again from Nigel’s link, of a Charlie Hebdo cartoon that was supposedly racist, sexist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim was the one described as follows:

    The case seems clear: an outrageously racist and sexist depiction of girls abducted by Boko Haram and made sex slaves presented, in racial stereotyping, as grotesquely screaming pregnant women of colour, with a future as ‘welfare queens’ in France.

    So, what was going on?

    …mixing two unrelated events that made the news in France last year – the Nigerian school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram; the French government announcing welfare benefit cuts – is a double snipe, in classic Hebdo style, at both Boko Haram and those who hold grotesque fantasies and stereotypes about ‘welfare queens’, i.e. the French Far Right and its followers.
    (…)
    (think of the Steve Colbert Report done by Southpark, but ten times amplified by France’s tradition of mean, challenging joking, made to grin and bear it, going back to the 17th century )
    (…)
    …a more nuanced understanding of the often purposefully un-nuanced and crude jokes Charlie Hebdo were making, often risking indeed to perpetuate what they seemingly intended to criticize – the outrageous racism of Marine Le Pen and her followers – is in evidence.

    It’s easy enough to see how some people might not get it, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re not getting it. Others, still, who might actually get it – acting in bad faith – will capitalize on others not getting it.

  237. One interesting example, again from Nigel’s link, of a Charlie Hebdo cartoon that was supposedly racist, sexist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim was the one described as follows:

    The case seems clear: an outrageously racist and sexist depiction of girls abducted by Boko Haram and made sex slaves presented, in racial stereotyping, as grotesquely screaming pregnant women of colour, with a future as ‘welfare queens’ in France.

    So, what was going on?

    …mixing two unrelated events that made the news in France last year – the Nigerian school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram; the French government announcing welfare benefit cuts – is a double snipe, in classic Hebdo style, at both Boko Haram and those who hold grotesque fantasies and stereotypes about ‘welfare queens’, i.e. the French Far Right and its followers.
    (…)
    (think of the Steve Colbert Report done by Southpark, but ten times amplified by France’s tradition of mean, challenging joking, made to grin and bear it, going back to the 17th century )
    (…)
    …a more nuanced understanding of the often purposefully un-nuanced and crude jokes Charlie Hebdo were making, often risking indeed to perpetuate what they seemingly intended to criticize – the outrageous racism of Marine Le Pen and her followers – is in evidence.

    It’s easy enough to see how some people might not get it, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re not getting it. Others, still, who might actually get it – acting in bad faith – will capitalize on others not getting it.

  238. another angle:

    Writers at Vox have indeed been bombarded with threats for our Charlie Hebdo coverage. But not one of those threats has come from a Muslim or in response to publishing anti-Islam cartoons. Revealingly, they have rather all come from non-Muslims furious at our articles criticizing Islamophobia.

  239. another angle:

    Writers at Vox have indeed been bombarded with threats for our Charlie Hebdo coverage. But not one of those threats has come from a Muslim or in response to publishing anti-Islam cartoons. Revealingly, they have rather all come from non-Muslims furious at our articles criticizing Islamophobia.

  240. another angle:

    Writers at Vox have indeed been bombarded with threats for our Charlie Hebdo coverage. But not one of those threats has come from a Muslim or in response to publishing anti-Islam cartoons. Revealingly, they have rather all come from non-Muslims furious at our articles criticizing Islamophobia.

  241. “But, let’s not pretend this scrupulous regard about whether publishing such images would offend Muslims derives from a concern for their tender feelings. No, it derives from a concern that they’ll go berserk and attack anybody who publishes them.”
    Why can’t it be both?
    It is not my practice to attend, say, a Sunday morning Baptist religious service in Texas and to wait for the big-haired white TV fraud commandeering the festivities to finish his fiery perorations (a toll-free number running as a banner at the bottom of the screen advertising his virtual offering plate, the better to fund his fleet of Caddies and African gold mines) and then stand in the third row of the audience with a bullhorn and and announce that the baby Jesus can kiss my f*cking ass, because number one, in my real life as opposed to my internet persona, I in fact attenuate my speech and behavior because I do try to take the possibly hurt feelings (this is so politically correct of me) of the more sincere parishioners the pastor is fleecing into consideration, but also because I have a strong suspicion those big, beefy guys in suits up on the stage who swoop in to catch the fakirs who think they have been healed of all physical afflictions by the pastor’s dramatic hand on their foreheads as they fall backwards, are probably concealed carrying deadly weaponry, if not at least small truncheons, given the number of sh*theads in the Texas State House, and will form a phalanx of well-coiffed brutality to usher me into a side room or the lobby and at the very least kick my ass that the baby Jesus was so recently requested to kiss.
    This despite the fact that I have nothing against the baby Jesus (or the Prophet Mohammed, or Buddha, or Vishnu; on the other hand Shiva, Kali, the Yahveh of the Old Testament, I mean really, slaughter your son, Abraham? and a roster of others could use some attentuation) or his decent followers, but rather, like John Lennon, find his mercenary acolytes to be thick and ordinary, not to mention opportunistic and probably murderous as they place their lying lips against his hem (ie Robertson and his hurricanes, the black, American Muslim murderers of Malcolm X, not that J. Edgar Hoover wouldn’t have gotten around to killing him anyway, etc).

  242. “But, let’s not pretend this scrupulous regard about whether publishing such images would offend Muslims derives from a concern for their tender feelings. No, it derives from a concern that they’ll go berserk and attack anybody who publishes them.”
    Why can’t it be both?
    It is not my practice to attend, say, a Sunday morning Baptist religious service in Texas and to wait for the big-haired white TV fraud commandeering the festivities to finish his fiery perorations (a toll-free number running as a banner at the bottom of the screen advertising his virtual offering plate, the better to fund his fleet of Caddies and African gold mines) and then stand in the third row of the audience with a bullhorn and and announce that the baby Jesus can kiss my f*cking ass, because number one, in my real life as opposed to my internet persona, I in fact attenuate my speech and behavior because I do try to take the possibly hurt feelings (this is so politically correct of me) of the more sincere parishioners the pastor is fleecing into consideration, but also because I have a strong suspicion those big, beefy guys in suits up on the stage who swoop in to catch the fakirs who think they have been healed of all physical afflictions by the pastor’s dramatic hand on their foreheads as they fall backwards, are probably concealed carrying deadly weaponry, if not at least small truncheons, given the number of sh*theads in the Texas State House, and will form a phalanx of well-coiffed brutality to usher me into a side room or the lobby and at the very least kick my ass that the baby Jesus was so recently requested to kiss.
    This despite the fact that I have nothing against the baby Jesus (or the Prophet Mohammed, or Buddha, or Vishnu; on the other hand Shiva, Kali, the Yahveh of the Old Testament, I mean really, slaughter your son, Abraham? and a roster of others could use some attentuation) or his decent followers, but rather, like John Lennon, find his mercenary acolytes to be thick and ordinary, not to mention opportunistic and probably murderous as they place their lying lips against his hem (ie Robertson and his hurricanes, the black, American Muslim murderers of Malcolm X, not that J. Edgar Hoover wouldn’t have gotten around to killing him anyway, etc).

  243. “But, let’s not pretend this scrupulous regard about whether publishing such images would offend Muslims derives from a concern for their tender feelings. No, it derives from a concern that they’ll go berserk and attack anybody who publishes them.”
    Why can’t it be both?
    It is not my practice to attend, say, a Sunday morning Baptist religious service in Texas and to wait for the big-haired white TV fraud commandeering the festivities to finish his fiery perorations (a toll-free number running as a banner at the bottom of the screen advertising his virtual offering plate, the better to fund his fleet of Caddies and African gold mines) and then stand in the third row of the audience with a bullhorn and and announce that the baby Jesus can kiss my f*cking ass, because number one, in my real life as opposed to my internet persona, I in fact attenuate my speech and behavior because I do try to take the possibly hurt feelings (this is so politically correct of me) of the more sincere parishioners the pastor is fleecing into consideration, but also because I have a strong suspicion those big, beefy guys in suits up on the stage who swoop in to catch the fakirs who think they have been healed of all physical afflictions by the pastor’s dramatic hand on their foreheads as they fall backwards, are probably concealed carrying deadly weaponry, if not at least small truncheons, given the number of sh*theads in the Texas State House, and will form a phalanx of well-coiffed brutality to usher me into a side room or the lobby and at the very least kick my ass that the baby Jesus was so recently requested to kiss.
    This despite the fact that I have nothing against the baby Jesus (or the Prophet Mohammed, or Buddha, or Vishnu; on the other hand Shiva, Kali, the Yahveh of the Old Testament, I mean really, slaughter your son, Abraham? and a roster of others could use some attentuation) or his decent followers, but rather, like John Lennon, find his mercenary acolytes to be thick and ordinary, not to mention opportunistic and probably murderous as they place their lying lips against his hem (ie Robertson and his hurricanes, the black, American Muslim murderers of Malcolm X, not that J. Edgar Hoover wouldn’t have gotten around to killing him anyway, etc).

  247. “straight, gay, and Brett”
    I’m aware of those who self-identify as “bi”, but where does the classification “Brett” fall on the sexual persuasion continuum?
    Marketers everywhere may have identified a new fashion segment.
    Sounds more like one of those jokes that starts with: “So, a straight guy, a gay guy, a chicken, and Brett walk into bar soaking wet carrying a two-man canoe. Brett says to the bartender …..”

  248. “straight, gay, and Brett”
    I’m aware of those who self-identify as “bi”, but where does the classification “Brett” fall on the sexual persuasion continuum?
    Marketers everywhere may have identified a new fashion segment.
    Sounds more like one of those jokes that starts with: “So, a straight guy, a gay guy, a chicken, and Brett walk into bar soaking wet carrying a two-man canoe. Brett says to the bartender …..”

  249. “straight, gay, and Brett”
    I’m aware of those who self-identify as “bi”, but where does the classification “Brett” fall on the sexual persuasion continuum?
    Marketers everywhere may have identified a new fashion segment.
    Sounds more like one of those jokes that starts with: “So, a straight guy, a gay guy, a chicken, and Brett walk into bar soaking wet carrying a two-man canoe. Brett says to the bartender …..”

  250. Brett says to the bartender …
    “I’d order the chicken with 40 cloves of garlic, but that still puts us one seat short in the canoe, so just bring me a bourbon and water with a PBR on the side. Hold the water, the bourbon, and the PBR.

  251. Brett says to the bartender …
    “I’d order the chicken with 40 cloves of garlic, but that still puts us one seat short in the canoe, so just bring me a bourbon and water with a PBR on the side. Hold the water, the bourbon, and the PBR.

  252. Brett says to the bartender …
    “I’d order the chicken with 40 cloves of garlic, but that still puts us one seat short in the canoe, so just bring me a bourbon and water with a PBR on the side. Hold the water, the bourbon, and the PBR.

  253. From the chicken-hawk who hunts reindeer from a helicopter:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sarah-palin-obama-chicken-paris
    You know, this along with Brett’s formulation above about newspapers “chickening” out with regard to republishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, may empower chickens, much maligned, not to mention grossly mistreated on the way to fricasseeing and other culinary provocations, to strike back with violence and assassination, perhaps using pigeons as rogue drones.
    Brett should do an experiment. Put a billboard emblazoned with the most provocative Charlie Hebdo (thank you Nombrilisme vide for picking my nits up above), cartoons against Mohammed and the Popes, and Marine Le Pen, atop his house and visible to guys in caves and Paris cafes from the Google Earth satellites.
    Add a provocative cartoon about the Texas gun rights desperado who stuck his foot into the Texas Congressman’s doorway, just to mix things up a bit.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-guns-poncho-nevarez-panic-buttons
    We’ll await events.
    Anybody home? Nope, just we chickens!

  254. From the chicken-hawk who hunts reindeer from a helicopter:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sarah-palin-obama-chicken-paris
    You know, this along with Brett’s formulation above about newspapers “chickening” out with regard to republishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, may empower chickens, much maligned, not to mention grossly mistreated on the way to fricasseeing and other culinary provocations, to strike back with violence and assassination, perhaps using pigeons as rogue drones.
    Brett should do an experiment. Put a billboard emblazoned with the most provocative Charlie Hebdo (thank you Nombrilisme vide for picking my nits up above), cartoons against Mohammed and the Popes, and Marine Le Pen, atop his house and visible to guys in caves and Paris cafes from the Google Earth satellites.
    Add a provocative cartoon about the Texas gun rights desperado who stuck his foot into the Texas Congressman’s doorway, just to mix things up a bit.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-guns-poncho-nevarez-panic-buttons
    We’ll await events.
    Anybody home? Nope, just we chickens!

  255. From the chicken-hawk who hunts reindeer from a helicopter:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sarah-palin-obama-chicken-paris
    You know, this along with Brett’s formulation above about newspapers “chickening” out with regard to republishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, may empower chickens, much maligned, not to mention grossly mistreated on the way to fricasseeing and other culinary provocations, to strike back with violence and assassination, perhaps using pigeons as rogue drones.
    Brett should do an experiment. Put a billboard emblazoned with the most provocative Charlie Hebdo (thank you Nombrilisme vide for picking my nits up above), cartoons against Mohammed and the Popes, and Marine Le Pen, atop his house and visible to guys in caves and Paris cafes from the Google Earth satellites.
    Add a provocative cartoon about the Texas gun rights desperado who stuck his foot into the Texas Congressman’s doorway, just to mix things up a bit.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-guns-poncho-nevarez-panic-buttons
    We’ll await events.
    Anybody home? Nope, just we chickens!

  256. “But defending freedom of speech while being scrupulously careful not to repeat what got the other guy killed, and urging others not to repeat it either, is a rather attenuated defense.”
    I wouldn’t object if the NYT did choose to print them because they are newsworthy. In fact, if nobody printed the cartoons I would urge that someone print them so I could see what the fuss was about. But that doesn’t obligate any particular person or organization to print them, given the obvious fact that in the modern era anybody can find them online. The NYT has a policy, I gather, of not printing offensive material and they know that their readers can find the cartoons elsewhere, so no, I don’t think they are betraying any principle here. (I’m in general not a big fan of the NYT and could say a few things about what they won’t print, but that’s a tangent.)
    But I’m not going to join a parade that requires me to demand that everyone print cartoons that I think were morally repugnant. This is one of the bad side effects of terrorism–the extreme polarization it causes and is presumably designed to cause. All of a sudden I’m supposed to think that going out of my way to be as offensive as possible to Muslims (nonviolent ones and violent ones) is a necessary defense of free speech. Nope. The only thing I’m morally required to do is defend the legal rights of people to say and write and draw extremely offensive things.

  257. “But defending freedom of speech while being scrupulously careful not to repeat what got the other guy killed, and urging others not to repeat it either, is a rather attenuated defense.”
    I wouldn’t object if the NYT did choose to print them because they are newsworthy. In fact, if nobody printed the cartoons I would urge that someone print them so I could see what the fuss was about. But that doesn’t obligate any particular person or organization to print them, given the obvious fact that in the modern era anybody can find them online. The NYT has a policy, I gather, of not printing offensive material and they know that their readers can find the cartoons elsewhere, so no, I don’t think they are betraying any principle here. (I’m in general not a big fan of the NYT and could say a few things about what they won’t print, but that’s a tangent.)
    But I’m not going to join a parade that requires me to demand that everyone print cartoons that I think were morally repugnant. This is one of the bad side effects of terrorism–the extreme polarization it causes and is presumably designed to cause. All of a sudden I’m supposed to think that going out of my way to be as offensive as possible to Muslims (nonviolent ones and violent ones) is a necessary defense of free speech. Nope. The only thing I’m morally required to do is defend the legal rights of people to say and write and draw extremely offensive things.

  258. “But defending freedom of speech while being scrupulously careful not to repeat what got the other guy killed, and urging others not to repeat it either, is a rather attenuated defense.”
    I wouldn’t object if the NYT did choose to print them because they are newsworthy. In fact, if nobody printed the cartoons I would urge that someone print them so I could see what the fuss was about. But that doesn’t obligate any particular person or organization to print them, given the obvious fact that in the modern era anybody can find them online. The NYT has a policy, I gather, of not printing offensive material and they know that their readers can find the cartoons elsewhere, so no, I don’t think they are betraying any principle here. (I’m in general not a big fan of the NYT and could say a few things about what they won’t print, but that’s a tangent.)
    But I’m not going to join a parade that requires me to demand that everyone print cartoons that I think were morally repugnant. This is one of the bad side effects of terrorism–the extreme polarization it causes and is presumably designed to cause. All of a sudden I’m supposed to think that going out of my way to be as offensive as possible to Muslims (nonviolent ones and violent ones) is a necessary defense of free speech. Nope. The only thing I’m morally required to do is defend the legal rights of people to say and write and draw extremely offensive things.

  262. I criticized it, because I don’t believe it is the proper roll of a news agency to manipulate debate rules to keep one of the candidates out of the debate. But it did nicely demonstrate that Fox is part of the Republican establishment, for all that they are more tightly constrained to please the base than party leaders.

  263. I criticized it, because I don’t believe it is the proper roll of a news agency to manipulate debate rules to keep one of the candidates out of the debate. But it did nicely demonstrate that Fox is part of the Republican establishment, for all that they are more tightly constrained to please the base than party leaders.

  264. I criticized it, because I don’t believe it is the proper roll of a news agency to manipulate debate rules to keep one of the candidates out of the debate. But it did nicely demonstrate that Fox is part of the Republican establishment, for all that they are more tightly constrained to please the base than party leaders.

  265. Anyway, why would a regular media outlet republish the cartoons? Context.
    How can a reader decide whether Muslims are reasonable to be outraged, if they have no idea what they’re being outraged over? It’s like reporting that somebody was struck after swearing at somebody else, and not having any idea if it was “shucky darn” or something that would make a sailor blush.
    Context. They’re denying us context by doing this.

  266. Anyway, why would a regular media outlet republish the cartoons? Context.
    How can a reader decide whether Muslims are reasonable to be outraged, if they have no idea what they’re being outraged over? It’s like reporting that somebody was struck after swearing at somebody else, and not having any idea if it was “shucky darn” or something that would make a sailor blush.
    Context. They’re denying us context by doing this.

  267. Anyway, why would a regular media outlet republish the cartoons? Context.
    How can a reader decide whether Muslims are reasonable to be outraged, if they have no idea what they’re being outraged over? It’s like reporting that somebody was struck after swearing at somebody else, and not having any idea if it was “shucky darn” or something that would make a sailor blush.
    Context. They’re denying us context by doing this.

  268. How can a reader decide whether Muslims are reasonable to be outraged, if they have no idea what they’re being outraged over?
    if a person can’t figure out that mass murder because of some cartoons is outrageous, seeing the actual cartoons probably won’t help.
    They’re denying us context by doing this.
    they’re not denying us anything. you can google for the cartoons if you want to see them. this isn’t hard.

  269. How can a reader decide whether Muslims are reasonable to be outraged, if they have no idea what they’re being outraged over?
    if a person can’t figure out that mass murder because of some cartoons is outrageous, seeing the actual cartoons probably won’t help.
    They’re denying us context by doing this.
    they’re not denying us anything. you can google for the cartoons if you want to see them. this isn’t hard.

  270. How can a reader decide whether Muslims are reasonable to be outraged, if they have no idea what they’re being outraged over?
    if a person can’t figure out that mass murder because of some cartoons is outrageous, seeing the actual cartoons probably won’t help.
    They’re denying us context by doing this.
    they’re not denying us anything. you can google for the cartoons if you want to see them. this isn’t hard.

  271. How can a reader decide whether Muslims are reasonable to be outraged, if they have no idea what they’re being outraged over?
    Which Muslims? I’ve heard this crazy story about Muslims being outraged over the murders. I guess we should see some bloody corpses in the paper to know how reasonably outraged Muslims are over the killings.

  272. How can a reader decide whether Muslims are reasonable to be outraged, if they have no idea what they’re being outraged over?
    Which Muslims? I’ve heard this crazy story about Muslims being outraged over the murders. I guess we should see some bloody corpses in the paper to know how reasonably outraged Muslims are over the killings.

  273. How can a reader decide whether Muslims are reasonable to be outraged, if they have no idea what they’re being outraged over?
    Which Muslims? I’ve heard this crazy story about Muslims being outraged over the murders. I guess we should see some bloody corpses in the paper to know how reasonably outraged Muslims are over the killings.

  274. “They’re denying us context by doing this”
    Je suis le equite de doctrine.
    I am the Fairness Doctrine, or rather Brett suddenly is.
    On the other hand, we were supplied the context of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction — the Super Bowl — but denied a glimpse of the offending body part.
    Probably by the same offended people who clamor today to see Allah portrayed as wearing a butt plug and a tutu, or whatever the cartoons portrayed.
    We never get the full picture.
    Laurie Petrie never once pooped on the Dick Van Dyke Show. Well, she probably did but she had to go offset to find the context, the bathroom.
    I guess I’m for trigger warnings as a cover page for Charlie Hebdo, much as I despise trigger warnings.
    Call me a hypocrite, someone, anyone. But use a trigger warning.
    Not the literal kind like the French murderers used or Ted Nugent and Jodi Ernst (hey, she’s been given the rebuttal to the State of the Onion for her armed threats during her campaign) threaten to use.
    For a heads up, just put your lips together and blow.

  275. “They’re denying us context by doing this”
    Je suis le equite de doctrine.
    I am the Fairness Doctrine, or rather Brett suddenly is.
    On the other hand, we were supplied the context of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction — the Super Bowl — but denied a glimpse of the offending body part.
    Probably by the same offended people who clamor today to see Allah portrayed as wearing a butt plug and a tutu, or whatever the cartoons portrayed.
    We never get the full picture.
    Laurie Petrie never once pooped on the Dick Van Dyke Show. Well, she probably did but she had to go offset to find the context, the bathroom.
    I guess I’m for trigger warnings as a cover page for Charlie Hebdo, much as I despise trigger warnings.
    Call me a hypocrite, someone, anyone. But use a trigger warning.
    Not the literal kind like the French murderers used or Ted Nugent and Jodi Ernst (hey, she’s been given the rebuttal to the State of the Onion for her armed threats during her campaign) threaten to use.
    For a heads up, just put your lips together and blow.

  276. “They’re denying us context by doing this”
    Je suis le equite de doctrine.
    I am the Fairness Doctrine, or rather Brett suddenly is.
    On the other hand, we were supplied the context of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction — the Super Bowl — but denied a glimpse of the offending body part.
    Probably by the same offended people who clamor today to see Allah portrayed as wearing a butt plug and a tutu, or whatever the cartoons portrayed.
    We never get the full picture.
    Laurie Petrie never once pooped on the Dick Van Dyke Show. Well, she probably did but she had to go offset to find the context, the bathroom.
    I guess I’m for trigger warnings as a cover page for Charlie Hebdo, much as I despise trigger warnings.
    Call me a hypocrite, someone, anyone. But use a trigger warning.
    Not the literal kind like the French murderers used or Ted Nugent and Jodi Ernst (hey, she’s been given the rebuttal to the State of the Onion for her armed threats during her campaign) threaten to use.
    For a heads up, just put your lips together and blow.

  277. Rushdie’s Satanic Verses provoked no less a Muslim than the Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s murder and offering money for it. Banning the book in Iran, where Khomeini was the undisputed Head of State, evidently wasn’t adequate vindication of The Prophet. .
    The Jyllans Posten cartoons provoked masses of people (presumably self-avowed Muslims) in countries with authoritarian (and officially Muslim) governments to riot, with burning and killing and so forth. It is extremely doubtful that a Danish newspaper had wide circulation in those countries, but admittedly anyone who cared to be offended could probably find the cartoons on the web.
    Skipping over the idiot “pastor” from Jerkwater FL who announced he would burn a Koran, and caused the then-unindicted General Petreaus to worry publicly about riots in Kabul; and skipping over the crap movie that provoked riots in several Muslim cities, including BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi; we come to the latest thing that at least two particular a$$holes (who claimed to be Muslim) considered so provocative that only mass murder could (so they declared) avenge The Prophet.
    In all these cases, non-Muslim religious authorities like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury deplored the violence but tsk-tsk-ed (or worse) at the poor judgement of the “provocateurs”. A cynical atheist might view this as “religion” closing ranks against those of little faith.
    Anyway, this insult-repaid-with-injury business seems to be a recurring motif, as is the free-speech-but theme.
    I don’t know how I feel about the whole thing. The main complication, for me, is the fact that western powers (some nominally secular like the US and some officially Christian like England) have historically run rough-shod over majority-Muslim countries — and also treated Muslim minorities within their own borders with popular, if not official, contempt. “Punching down”, metaphorically, is gauche — whether The Left or The Right does it.
    I do know this: your religion can forbid you to eat ham, get a divorce, or insult The Prophet, and it’s no skin off my nose. But if your religion also presumes to forbid me to eat ham, get a divorce, or insult your prophet — well, we can’t get along on that basis.
    This spirit — that your religion imposes strictures on me; that your “faith” deserves more deference that your politics or your taste in art — is not unique to Islam by any means. And that’s my real worry: if I defer to the touchiest Muslims in the world, do I have to defer to the touchiest Jews and the touchiest Christians next?
    –TP

  278. Rushdie’s Satanic Verses provoked no less a Muslim than the Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s murder and offering money for it. Banning the book in Iran, where Khomeini was the undisputed Head of State, evidently wasn’t adequate vindication of The Prophet. .
    The Jyllans Posten cartoons provoked masses of people (presumably self-avowed Muslims) in countries with authoritarian (and officially Muslim) governments to riot, with burning and killing and so forth. It is extremely doubtful that a Danish newspaper had wide circulation in those countries, but admittedly anyone who cared to be offended could probably find the cartoons on the web.
    Skipping over the idiot “pastor” from Jerkwater FL who announced he would burn a Koran, and caused the then-unindicted General Petreaus to worry publicly about riots in Kabul; and skipping over the crap movie that provoked riots in several Muslim cities, including BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi; we come to the latest thing that at least two particular a$$holes (who claimed to be Muslim) considered so provocative that only mass murder could (so they declared) avenge The Prophet.
    In all these cases, non-Muslim religious authorities like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury deplored the violence but tsk-tsk-ed (or worse) at the poor judgement of the “provocateurs”. A cynical atheist might view this as “religion” closing ranks against those of little faith.
    Anyway, this insult-repaid-with-injury business seems to be a recurring motif, as is the free-speech-but theme.
    I don’t know how I feel about the whole thing. The main complication, for me, is the fact that western powers (some nominally secular like the US and some officially Christian like England) have historically run rough-shod over majority-Muslim countries — and also treated Muslim minorities within their own borders with popular, if not official, contempt. “Punching down”, metaphorically, is gauche — whether The Left or The Right does it.
    I do know this: your religion can forbid you to eat ham, get a divorce, or insult The Prophet, and it’s no skin off my nose. But if your religion also presumes to forbid me to eat ham, get a divorce, or insult your prophet — well, we can’t get along on that basis.
    This spirit — that your religion imposes strictures on me; that your “faith” deserves more deference that your politics or your taste in art — is not unique to Islam by any means. And that’s my real worry: if I defer to the touchiest Muslims in the world, do I have to defer to the touchiest Jews and the touchiest Christians next?
    –TP

  279. Rushdie’s Satanic Verses provoked no less a Muslim than the Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s murder and offering money for it. Banning the book in Iran, where Khomeini was the undisputed Head of State, evidently wasn’t adequate vindication of The Prophet. .
    The Jyllans Posten cartoons provoked masses of people (presumably self-avowed Muslims) in countries with authoritarian (and officially Muslim) governments to riot, with burning and killing and so forth. It is extremely doubtful that a Danish newspaper had wide circulation in those countries, but admittedly anyone who cared to be offended could probably find the cartoons on the web.
    Skipping over the idiot “pastor” from Jerkwater FL who announced he would burn a Koran, and caused the then-unindicted General Petreaus to worry publicly about riots in Kabul; and skipping over the crap movie that provoked riots in several Muslim cities, including BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi; we come to the latest thing that at least two particular a$$holes (who claimed to be Muslim) considered so provocative that only mass murder could (so they declared) avenge The Prophet.
    In all these cases, non-Muslim religious authorities like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury deplored the violence but tsk-tsk-ed (or worse) at the poor judgement of the “provocateurs”. A cynical atheist might view this as “religion” closing ranks against those of little faith.
    Anyway, this insult-repaid-with-injury business seems to be a recurring motif, as is the free-speech-but theme.
    I don’t know how I feel about the whole thing. The main complication, for me, is the fact that western powers (some nominally secular like the US and some officially Christian like England) have historically run rough-shod over majority-Muslim countries — and also treated Muslim minorities within their own borders with popular, if not official, contempt. “Punching down”, metaphorically, is gauche — whether The Left or The Right does it.
    I do know this: your religion can forbid you to eat ham, get a divorce, or insult The Prophet, and it’s no skin off my nose. But if your religion also presumes to forbid me to eat ham, get a divorce, or insult your prophet — well, we can’t get along on that basis.
    This spirit — that your religion imposes strictures on me; that your “faith” deserves more deference that your politics or your taste in art — is not unique to Islam by any means. And that’s my real worry: if I defer to the touchiest Muslims in the world, do I have to defer to the touchiest Jews and the touchiest Christians next?
    –TP

  280. So now, in Texas, one is “permitted” by the sub-human Islamic terrorist Republican Party pig filth running that state’s legislative travesty to install a “panic button” in your state house office to alert “whomever” when these c*cksucking anti-American Republican Libertarian vermin issue threats of violence to elected representatives, otherwise known as liberals, who along with immigrants, Obamacare enrollees, and the rest of the targets of mass murder by the genocidal Republican Party need to become heavily armed as soon as possible to defend themselves with just and final violence.
    ttp://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/01/15/gunfondlers-big-fans-of-statistics-but-only-the-invented-ones/
    That last Texan John Wilkes Booth f*ck in the face of the Rep issuing those threats? He’s a dead motherf*cker. As dead as the Charlie Hebdo murderers.
    What are stinking guns for, Brett, if not to shoot f*cks like that in the face in self defense and then hunt down their f8cking children.
    George Zimmerman’s people. Kill as many of them as possible as quickly as possible.
    You f*cking like satire?

  281. So now, in Texas, one is “permitted” by the sub-human Islamic terrorist Republican Party pig filth running that state’s legislative travesty to install a “panic button” in your state house office to alert “whomever” when these c*cksucking anti-American Republican Libertarian vermin issue threats of violence to elected representatives, otherwise known as liberals, who along with immigrants, Obamacare enrollees, and the rest of the targets of mass murder by the genocidal Republican Party need to become heavily armed as soon as possible to defend themselves with just and final violence.
    ttp://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/01/15/gunfondlers-big-fans-of-statistics-but-only-the-invented-ones/
    That last Texan John Wilkes Booth f*ck in the face of the Rep issuing those threats? He’s a dead motherf*cker. As dead as the Charlie Hebdo murderers.
    What are stinking guns for, Brett, if not to shoot f*cks like that in the face in self defense and then hunt down their f8cking children.
    George Zimmerman’s people. Kill as many of them as possible as quickly as possible.
    You f*cking like satire?

  282. So now, in Texas, one is “permitted” by the sub-human Islamic terrorist Republican Party pig filth running that state’s legislative travesty to install a “panic button” in your state house office to alert “whomever” when these c*cksucking anti-American Republican Libertarian vermin issue threats of violence to elected representatives, otherwise known as liberals, who along with immigrants, Obamacare enrollees, and the rest of the targets of mass murder by the genocidal Republican Party need to become heavily armed as soon as possible to defend themselves with just and final violence.
    ttp://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/01/15/gunfondlers-big-fans-of-statistics-but-only-the-invented-ones/
    That last Texan John Wilkes Booth f*ck in the face of the Rep issuing those threats? He’s a dead motherf*cker. As dead as the Charlie Hebdo murderers.
    What are stinking guns for, Brett, if not to shoot f*cks like that in the face in self defense and then hunt down their f8cking children.
    George Zimmerman’s people. Kill as many of them as possible as quickly as possible.
    You f*cking like satire?

  283. But I’m not going to join a parade that requires me to demand that everyone print cartoons that I think were morally repugnant. This is one of the bad side effects of terrorism–the extreme polarization it causes and is presumably designed to cause.
    Worth repeating. I’ve seen this cast as a “heightening the contradictions” event enough that this is worth repeating a lot.

  284. But I’m not going to join a parade that requires me to demand that everyone print cartoons that I think were morally repugnant. This is one of the bad side effects of terrorism–the extreme polarization it causes and is presumably designed to cause.
    Worth repeating. I’ve seen this cast as a “heightening the contradictions” event enough that this is worth repeating a lot.

  285. But I’m not going to join a parade that requires me to demand that everyone print cartoons that I think were morally repugnant. This is one of the bad side effects of terrorism–the extreme polarization it causes and is presumably designed to cause.
    Worth repeating. I’ve seen this cast as a “heightening the contradictions” event enough that this is worth repeating a lot.

  286. “But I’m not going to join a parade that requires me to demand that everyone print cartoons that I think were morally repugnant.”
    Morally repugnant my ass. I’ve got a Matt Groening collection that’s probably a hundred times worse. The Danish cartoons were so mild the instigators in the Middle East added their own product to the mix when showing them, just so people wouldn’t laugh it off.
    The story here is just how absurdly thin skinned these terrorists are, just how microscopic the supposed provocation is. But who’s going to get that, when virtually every media outlet has been terrified into not showing anybody the cartoons?

  287. “But I’m not going to join a parade that requires me to demand that everyone print cartoons that I think were morally repugnant.”
    Morally repugnant my ass. I’ve got a Matt Groening collection that’s probably a hundred times worse. The Danish cartoons were so mild the instigators in the Middle East added their own product to the mix when showing them, just so people wouldn’t laugh it off.
    The story here is just how absurdly thin skinned these terrorists are, just how microscopic the supposed provocation is. But who’s going to get that, when virtually every media outlet has been terrified into not showing anybody the cartoons?

  288. “But I’m not going to join a parade that requires me to demand that everyone print cartoons that I think were morally repugnant.”
    Morally repugnant my ass. I’ve got a Matt Groening collection that’s probably a hundred times worse. The Danish cartoons were so mild the instigators in the Middle East added their own product to the mix when showing them, just so people wouldn’t laugh it off.
    The story here is just how absurdly thin skinned these terrorists are, just how microscopic the supposed provocation is. But who’s going to get that, when virtually every media outlet has been terrified into not showing anybody the cartoons?

  289. Seriously, it’s like somebody gets beat up for saying “darn”, and the media bleep him in all the reports so that people will imagine far worse. These Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be laughed off as practically PG if the target weren’t Islam. Ditto for the Danish cartoons.
    That’s the real story, and not republishing conceals it, by encouraging people to imagine that the cartoons were hugely worse than they really were. It leads people to think, “Sure, they shouldn’t kill the cartoonists, but they WERE provoked.”, when the ‘provocation’ was laughably trivial.

  290. Seriously, it’s like somebody gets beat up for saying “darn”, and the media bleep him in all the reports so that people will imagine far worse. These Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be laughed off as practically PG if the target weren’t Islam. Ditto for the Danish cartoons.
    That’s the real story, and not republishing conceals it, by encouraging people to imagine that the cartoons were hugely worse than they really were. It leads people to think, “Sure, they shouldn’t kill the cartoonists, but they WERE provoked.”, when the ‘provocation’ was laughably trivial.

  291. Seriously, it’s like somebody gets beat up for saying “darn”, and the media bleep him in all the reports so that people will imagine far worse. These Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be laughed off as practically PG if the target weren’t Islam. Ditto for the Danish cartoons.
    That’s the real story, and not republishing conceals it, by encouraging people to imagine that the cartoons were hugely worse than they really were. It leads people to think, “Sure, they shouldn’t kill the cartoonists, but they WERE provoked.”, when the ‘provocation’ was laughably trivial.

  292. You have some strange ideas of “practically PG”. That, or ’tis you who’s passing judgement without having seen all the cartoons. Seriously, I’m not exactly sure how you get from “naked male genitalia and buttocks, (transgender) female breasts” to “practically PG”. You can call American media prudish for feeling that way, but I fail to see in any way, shape, or form how the full body of Charlie Hebdo‘s Islamic oeuvre could come anywhere near PG.

  293. You have some strange ideas of “practically PG”. That, or ’tis you who’s passing judgement without having seen all the cartoons. Seriously, I’m not exactly sure how you get from “naked male genitalia and buttocks, (transgender) female breasts” to “practically PG”. You can call American media prudish for feeling that way, but I fail to see in any way, shape, or form how the full body of Charlie Hebdo‘s Islamic oeuvre could come anywhere near PG.

  294. You have some strange ideas of “practically PG”. That, or ’tis you who’s passing judgement without having seen all the cartoons. Seriously, I’m not exactly sure how you get from “naked male genitalia and buttocks, (transgender) female breasts” to “practically PG”. You can call American media prudish for feeling that way, but I fail to see in any way, shape, or form how the full body of Charlie Hebdo‘s Islamic oeuvre could come anywhere near PG.

  298. The story here is just how absurdly thin skinned these terrorists are, just how microscopic the supposed provocation is. But who’s going to get that, when virtually every media outlet has been terrified into not showing anybody the cartoons?
    a more realistic question is “Who isn’t going to get that?”
    because there simply can’t be many people who think cartoons could be provocative enough to justify the murder of the cartoonists. there just can’t be.
    you’ve apparently seen the cartoons. did you have to use some top-secret spy shit to track them down and view them? something nobody else has access to? no? then why so worried that other people can’t find them too, if they want to see them?

  299. The story here is just how absurdly thin skinned these terrorists are, just how microscopic the supposed provocation is. But who’s going to get that, when virtually every media outlet has been terrified into not showing anybody the cartoons?
    a more realistic question is “Who isn’t going to get that?”
    because there simply can’t be many people who think cartoons could be provocative enough to justify the murder of the cartoonists. there just can’t be.
    you’ve apparently seen the cartoons. did you have to use some top-secret spy shit to track them down and view them? something nobody else has access to? no? then why so worried that other people can’t find them too, if they want to see them?

  300. The story here is just how absurdly thin skinned these terrorists are, just how microscopic the supposed provocation is. But who’s going to get that, when virtually every media outlet has been terrified into not showing anybody the cartoons?
    a more realistic question is “Who isn’t going to get that?”
    because there simply can’t be many people who think cartoons could be provocative enough to justify the murder of the cartoonists. there just can’t be.
    you’ve apparently seen the cartoons. did you have to use some top-secret spy shit to track them down and view them? something nobody else has access to? no? then why so worried that other people can’t find them too, if they want to see them?

  301. These Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be laughed off as practically PG if the target weren’t Islam.
    (…)
    It leads people to think, “Sure, they shouldn’t kill the cartoonists, but they WERE provoked.”, when the ‘provocation’ was laughably trivial.
    Which is it? Are the cartoons PG, but for the Islam, or are they assumed to be worse than they really are because they’re so hard to find? Are these two different audiences you speak of? How big are they? (Are they just two different shades of liberals who love them some Muslims but not Jews and Christians?)

  302. These Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be laughed off as practically PG if the target weren’t Islam.
    (…)
    It leads people to think, “Sure, they shouldn’t kill the cartoonists, but they WERE provoked.”, when the ‘provocation’ was laughably trivial.
    Which is it? Are the cartoons PG, but for the Islam, or are they assumed to be worse than they really are because they’re so hard to find? Are these two different audiences you speak of? How big are they? (Are they just two different shades of liberals who love them some Muslims but not Jews and Christians?)

  303. These Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be laughed off as practically PG if the target weren’t Islam.
    (…)
    It leads people to think, “Sure, they shouldn’t kill the cartoonists, but they WERE provoked.”, when the ‘provocation’ was laughably trivial.
    Which is it? Are the cartoons PG, but for the Islam, or are they assumed to be worse than they really are because they’re so hard to find? Are these two different audiences you speak of? How big are they? (Are they just two different shades of liberals who love them some Muslims but not Jews and Christians?)

  304. They’re denying us context by doing this.
    The cartoons etc are available, widely. Nobody has been denied anything.

  305. They’re denying us context by doing this.
    The cartoons etc are available, widely. Nobody has been denied anything.

  306. They’re denying us context by doing this.
    The cartoons etc are available, widely. Nobody has been denied anything.

  307. Nigel:
    “‘Outrage’ is putting it a little too strongly; disappointment maybe.”
    Wrong – google it. Of course, ‘outrage’ is the normal setting for these people.
    “I suggest he might have sent Joe Biden – no one could have taken offense at that.”
    Assumes facts not only not in evidence, but contradicted by *all* facts over the past six years.

  308. Nigel:
    “‘Outrage’ is putting it a little too strongly; disappointment maybe.”
    Wrong – google it. Of course, ‘outrage’ is the normal setting for these people.
    “I suggest he might have sent Joe Biden – no one could have taken offense at that.”
    Assumes facts not only not in evidence, but contradicted by *all* facts over the past six years.

  309. Nigel:
    “‘Outrage’ is putting it a little too strongly; disappointment maybe.”
    Wrong – google it. Of course, ‘outrage’ is the normal setting for these people.
    “I suggest he might have sent Joe Biden – no one could have taken offense at that.”
    Assumes facts not only not in evidence, but contradicted by *all* facts over the past six years.

  310. Please bookmark these articles. Years from now, you can reminisce “hey, remember that time when the US right-wingers wanted to avoid insulting the French? Good times, good times”
    Then have some heart-clogging Camembert and a nice Bordeaux.

  311. Please bookmark these articles. Years from now, you can reminisce “hey, remember that time when the US right-wingers wanted to avoid insulting the French? Good times, good times”
    Then have some heart-clogging Camembert and a nice Bordeaux.

  312. Please bookmark these articles. Years from now, you can reminisce “hey, remember that time when the US right-wingers wanted to avoid insulting the French? Good times, good times”
    Then have some heart-clogging Camembert and a nice Bordeaux.

  313. “Morally repugnant my ass.”
    I described one of the cartoons upthread–no doubt someone will claim “context” renders its message the exact opposite of what it says, but what it depicts is an obvious fundamentalist being shot through a Koran saying “The Koran is sh**. It doesn’t stop bullets.” This was apparently a response to the massacre of peaceful Muslim Brotherhood protestors after the Egyptian military toppled the Morsi regime. One can despise the Muslim Brotherhood and still find this humorous depiction of mass murder morally repugnant. The site where I saw this (and I will post another link in a later post) puts a parody next to it showing a cartoonist being shot through “Charlie Hebdo” saying the same thing. Now the second cartoon was meant to ridicule the first, on the principle that nothing is sacred. I think it made a good point, though taken out of context it could be made to sound like applause for the murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. In fact, I’m not completely sure that wasn’t part of the message. And that’s the problem with this kind of satire–when you sink this low it can be difficult to tell the intent. And the cartoonists who do this sort of work have to know this. At any rate, unless I’m told otherwise, I’m going to assume that Charlie Hebdo meant to ridicule the Muslim Brotherhood protestors–their hatred of Islam and religion is so great it led them to dehumanize massacre victims. The second cartoon (showing a cartoonist being murdered) should only be shown next to the first, to make clear what it is about. But I’m not sure the message of the second cartoon is only to make a sound moral point.
    I also still think people should be able to draw morally repugnant cartoons without fear of being shot.
    As for the childish insults to various religions, again people should have the right to do this. I don’t have to applaud. Contrary to the Hebdo defenders, I find it very hard to believe you can engage in that kind of satire for a long period of time without it morphing into something resembling bigotry against the religious believers. There is also some question as to whether Charlie Hebdo really did insult all religions equally. One claim I saw yesterday is that when they ridiculed Israel, they did it with a cartoon showing how Israel’s behavior contradicts the Torah. When they ridiculed Muslims, they made it seem like atrocities were part of what Islam taught. The truth is that like all religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism can be made to justify atrocities, or compassion, or some weird mixture of compassion in some cases and atrocities in others. And no, Muslims are not the only people nowadays who use their ideology (I’m going to broaden this) to justify atrocities. Christians, Muslims, Jews and also secular upholders of Western values can all take their core principles and turn them into an excuse for murder.

  314. “Morally repugnant my ass.”
    I described one of the cartoons upthread–no doubt someone will claim “context” renders its message the exact opposite of what it says, but what it depicts is an obvious fundamentalist being shot through a Koran saying “The Koran is sh**. It doesn’t stop bullets.” This was apparently a response to the massacre of peaceful Muslim Brotherhood protestors after the Egyptian military toppled the Morsi regime. One can despise the Muslim Brotherhood and still find this humorous depiction of mass murder morally repugnant. The site where I saw this (and I will post another link in a later post) puts a parody next to it showing a cartoonist being shot through “Charlie Hebdo” saying the same thing. Now the second cartoon was meant to ridicule the first, on the principle that nothing is sacred. I think it made a good point, though taken out of context it could be made to sound like applause for the murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. In fact, I’m not completely sure that wasn’t part of the message. And that’s the problem with this kind of satire–when you sink this low it can be difficult to tell the intent. And the cartoonists who do this sort of work have to know this. At any rate, unless I’m told otherwise, I’m going to assume that Charlie Hebdo meant to ridicule the Muslim Brotherhood protestors–their hatred of Islam and religion is so great it led them to dehumanize massacre victims. The second cartoon (showing a cartoonist being murdered) should only be shown next to the first, to make clear what it is about. But I’m not sure the message of the second cartoon is only to make a sound moral point.
    I also still think people should be able to draw morally repugnant cartoons without fear of being shot.
    As for the childish insults to various religions, again people should have the right to do this. I don’t have to applaud. Contrary to the Hebdo defenders, I find it very hard to believe you can engage in that kind of satire for a long period of time without it morphing into something resembling bigotry against the religious believers. There is also some question as to whether Charlie Hebdo really did insult all religions equally. One claim I saw yesterday is that when they ridiculed Israel, they did it with a cartoon showing how Israel’s behavior contradicts the Torah. When they ridiculed Muslims, they made it seem like atrocities were part of what Islam taught. The truth is that like all religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism can be made to justify atrocities, or compassion, or some weird mixture of compassion in some cases and atrocities in others. And no, Muslims are not the only people nowadays who use their ideology (I’m going to broaden this) to justify atrocities. Christians, Muslims, Jews and also secular upholders of Western values can all take their core principles and turn them into an excuse for murder.

  315. “Morally repugnant my ass.”
    I described one of the cartoons upthread–no doubt someone will claim “context” renders its message the exact opposite of what it says, but what it depicts is an obvious fundamentalist being shot through a Koran saying “The Koran is sh**. It doesn’t stop bullets.” This was apparently a response to the massacre of peaceful Muslim Brotherhood protestors after the Egyptian military toppled the Morsi regime. One can despise the Muslim Brotherhood and still find this humorous depiction of mass murder morally repugnant. The site where I saw this (and I will post another link in a later post) puts a parody next to it showing a cartoonist being shot through “Charlie Hebdo” saying the same thing. Now the second cartoon was meant to ridicule the first, on the principle that nothing is sacred. I think it made a good point, though taken out of context it could be made to sound like applause for the murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. In fact, I’m not completely sure that wasn’t part of the message. And that’s the problem with this kind of satire–when you sink this low it can be difficult to tell the intent. And the cartoonists who do this sort of work have to know this. At any rate, unless I’m told otherwise, I’m going to assume that Charlie Hebdo meant to ridicule the Muslim Brotherhood protestors–their hatred of Islam and religion is so great it led them to dehumanize massacre victims. The second cartoon (showing a cartoonist being murdered) should only be shown next to the first, to make clear what it is about. But I’m not sure the message of the second cartoon is only to make a sound moral point.
    I also still think people should be able to draw morally repugnant cartoons without fear of being shot.
    As for the childish insults to various religions, again people should have the right to do this. I don’t have to applaud. Contrary to the Hebdo defenders, I find it very hard to believe you can engage in that kind of satire for a long period of time without it morphing into something resembling bigotry against the religious believers. There is also some question as to whether Charlie Hebdo really did insult all religions equally. One claim I saw yesterday is that when they ridiculed Israel, they did it with a cartoon showing how Israel’s behavior contradicts the Torah. When they ridiculed Muslims, they made it seem like atrocities were part of what Islam taught. The truth is that like all religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism can be made to justify atrocities, or compassion, or some weird mixture of compassion in some cases and atrocities in others. And no, Muslims are not the only people nowadays who use their ideology (I’m going to broaden this) to justify atrocities. Christians, Muslims, Jews and also secular upholders of Western values can all take their core principles and turn them into an excuse for murder.

  319. And here’s a link to a former employee of Charlie Hebdo (who quit in 2001) who thinks it was Islamophobic. The piece was written in 2013.
    link

  320. And here’s a link to a former employee of Charlie Hebdo (who quit in 2001) who thinks it was Islamophobic. The piece was written in 2013.
    link

  321. And here’s a link to a former employee of Charlie Hebdo (who quit in 2001) who thinks it was Islamophobic. The piece was written in 2013.
    link

  322. FWIW, there’s a response by their religion editor linked at the end of the piece lj posted above. It bordered on “yes, we’re categorically anti-Islam, and if you weren’t an awful person you would be too!”, though they went to the trouble of dressing that up in respectable leftist anti-totalitarianism.

  323. FWIW, there’s a response by their religion editor linked at the end of the piece lj posted above. It bordered on “yes, we’re categorically anti-Islam, and if you weren’t an awful person you would be too!”, though they went to the trouble of dressing that up in respectable leftist anti-totalitarianism.

  324. FWIW, there’s a response by their religion editor linked at the end of the piece lj posted above. It bordered on “yes, we’re categorically anti-Islam, and if you weren’t an awful person you would be too!”, though they went to the trouble of dressing that up in respectable leftist anti-totalitarianism.

  325. Maybe that’s not dressing it up. Maybe that’s respectable anti-totalitarianism not suffering from Stockholm syndrome or mindless multi-culturalism.

  326. Maybe that’s not dressing it up. Maybe that’s respectable anti-totalitarianism not suffering from Stockholm syndrome or mindless multi-culturalism.

  327. Maybe that’s not dressing it up. Maybe that’s respectable anti-totalitarianism not suffering from Stockholm syndrome or mindless multi-culturalism.

  328. Brett, had you read it, you’d know the context a bit better. The author and (circa 2013; dunno if she still is) CH’s religion editor is an atheistic political refugee from Morroco who essentially describes Islam as being utterly inseparable from totalitarianism because it’s advocated by totalitarian regimes, and offers as a defense against charges of Islamaphobic racism the cutting observation that Islam is not a race, and to charges of coded racism, or useful idiocy, that no, those aren’t possible because Islam is really bad, and bad people support it. Oh, and she makes it personal, a lot.
    I deprive her of her grace and nuance by summing up so brutally, but when you tease the various bits apart, it’s by all appearances traditional leftist French anti-clericism holding hands with leftist anti-totalitarianism – and for that matter it’s not really “free” from the “taint” of multiculturalism aside from its anti-Islamist bent. Indeed, to the contrary, she goes out of her way to seek to refute such notions, so I fear hers is not the pure and pristine Truth you want to hold up to ward off liberal delusions.

  329. Brett, had you read it, you’d know the context a bit better. The author and (circa 2013; dunno if she still is) CH’s religion editor is an atheistic political refugee from Morroco who essentially describes Islam as being utterly inseparable from totalitarianism because it’s advocated by totalitarian regimes, and offers as a defense against charges of Islamaphobic racism the cutting observation that Islam is not a race, and to charges of coded racism, or useful idiocy, that no, those aren’t possible because Islam is really bad, and bad people support it. Oh, and she makes it personal, a lot.
    I deprive her of her grace and nuance by summing up so brutally, but when you tease the various bits apart, it’s by all appearances traditional leftist French anti-clericism holding hands with leftist anti-totalitarianism – and for that matter it’s not really “free” from the “taint” of multiculturalism aside from its anti-Islamist bent. Indeed, to the contrary, she goes out of her way to seek to refute such notions, so I fear hers is not the pure and pristine Truth you want to hold up to ward off liberal delusions.

  330. Brett, had you read it, you’d know the context a bit better. The author and (circa 2013; dunno if she still is) CH’s religion editor is an atheistic political refugee from Morroco who essentially describes Islam as being utterly inseparable from totalitarianism because it’s advocated by totalitarian regimes, and offers as a defense against charges of Islamaphobic racism the cutting observation that Islam is not a race, and to charges of coded racism, or useful idiocy, that no, those aren’t possible because Islam is really bad, and bad people support it. Oh, and she makes it personal, a lot.
    I deprive her of her grace and nuance by summing up so brutally, but when you tease the various bits apart, it’s by all appearances traditional leftist French anti-clericism holding hands with leftist anti-totalitarianism – and for that matter it’s not really “free” from the “taint” of multiculturalism aside from its anti-Islamist bent. Indeed, to the contrary, she goes out of her way to seek to refute such notions, so I fear hers is not the pure and pristine Truth you want to hold up to ward off liberal delusions.

  331. “who essentially describes Islam as being utterly inseparable from totalitarianism because it’s advocated by totalitarian regimes,”
    The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    “and offers as a defense against charges of Islamaphobic racism the cutting observation that Islam is not a race”
    What can I say to this, but QED?
    It seems to me that you’ve just, albiet perjoritively, described a crushing case against your own position, and then assumed that to have stated it was to refute it.

  332. “who essentially describes Islam as being utterly inseparable from totalitarianism because it’s advocated by totalitarian regimes,”
    The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    “and offers as a defense against charges of Islamaphobic racism the cutting observation that Islam is not a race”
    What can I say to this, but QED?
    It seems to me that you’ve just, albiet perjoritively, described a crushing case against your own position, and then assumed that to have stated it was to refute it.

  333. “who essentially describes Islam as being utterly inseparable from totalitarianism because it’s advocated by totalitarian regimes,”
    The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    “and offers as a defense against charges of Islamaphobic racism the cutting observation that Islam is not a race”
    What can I say to this, but QED?
    It seems to me that you’ve just, albiet perjoritively, described a crushing case against your own position, and then assumed that to have stated it was to refute it.

  334. Let’s see. Islam was founded (by Mohammed; not their theological version of when the religion started) in the early 600s AD. So 1400 years ago.
    1400 years after Christianity was founded there were how many Christian majority states which were liberal democracies? The Protestant Reformation, with its impact on the Church and state, was another century in the future.
    So hard to argue that, on the evidence so far, one religion is compatible with liberal democracy and the other is not. You can make an even better case that either one takes 1500+ years to get there.

  335. Let’s see. Islam was founded (by Mohammed; not their theological version of when the religion started) in the early 600s AD. So 1400 years ago.
    1400 years after Christianity was founded there were how many Christian majority states which were liberal democracies? The Protestant Reformation, with its impact on the Church and state, was another century in the future.
    So hard to argue that, on the evidence so far, one religion is compatible with liberal democracy and the other is not. You can make an even better case that either one takes 1500+ years to get there.

  336. Let’s see. Islam was founded (by Mohammed; not their theological version of when the religion started) in the early 600s AD. So 1400 years ago.
    1400 years after Christianity was founded there were how many Christian majority states which were liberal democracies? The Protestant Reformation, with its impact on the Church and state, was another century in the future.
    So hard to argue that, on the evidence so far, one religion is compatible with liberal democracy and the other is not. You can make an even better case that either one takes 1500+ years to get there.

  337. It seems to me that you’ve just, albiet perjoritively, described a crushing case against your own position, and then assumed that to have stated it was to refute it.
    It seems to me that you’re arguing with someone outside of this thread.
    Oh, and that you’ve also assumed that to blithely ignore the remaining third of the sentence you quoted was to refute it.
    OTOH, I probably should have gone with “banal” instead of “cutting” to properly express why I felt contempt for that expansive portion of her reply (between 1/4 and 1/3 of the 3600-ish words therein, depending on where you draw the lines), but your ridiculous attempt to cram – sight unseen, when even a cursory reading would have precluded such folly – left-wing French cultural politics into a pat little right-wing American cultural pigeonhole annoyed me and upped the snideness in my reply.

  338. It seems to me that you’ve just, albiet perjoritively, described a crushing case against your own position, and then assumed that to have stated it was to refute it.
    It seems to me that you’re arguing with someone outside of this thread.
    Oh, and that you’ve also assumed that to blithely ignore the remaining third of the sentence you quoted was to refute it.
    OTOH, I probably should have gone with “banal” instead of “cutting” to properly express why I felt contempt for that expansive portion of her reply (between 1/4 and 1/3 of the 3600-ish words therein, depending on where you draw the lines), but your ridiculous attempt to cram – sight unseen, when even a cursory reading would have precluded such folly – left-wing French cultural politics into a pat little right-wing American cultural pigeonhole annoyed me and upped the snideness in my reply.

  339. It seems to me that you’ve just, albiet perjoritively, described a crushing case against your own position, and then assumed that to have stated it was to refute it.
    It seems to me that you’re arguing with someone outside of this thread.
    Oh, and that you’ve also assumed that to blithely ignore the remaining third of the sentence you quoted was to refute it.
    OTOH, I probably should have gone with “banal” instead of “cutting” to properly express why I felt contempt for that expansive portion of her reply (between 1/4 and 1/3 of the 3600-ish words therein, depending on where you draw the lines), but your ridiculous attempt to cram – sight unseen, when even a cursory reading would have precluded such folly – left-wing French cultural politics into a pat little right-wing American cultural pigeonhole annoyed me and upped the snideness in my reply.

  340. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    Indonesia.

  341. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    Indonesia.

  342. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    Indonesia.

  343. 1400 years after Christianity was founded there were how many Christian majority states which were liberal democracies?
    and until the end of WWI, you could count the number of democracies on two hands.

  344. 1400 years after Christianity was founded there were how many Christian majority states which were liberal democracies?
    and until the end of WWI, you could count the number of democracies on two hands.

  345. 1400 years after Christianity was founded there were how many Christian majority states which were liberal democracies?
    and until the end of WWI, you could count the number of democracies on two hands.

  346. So, rather than liberal multi-culturalists considering the cartoons offensive because they ridicule Islam, as opposed to some other more ridicule-worthy religion, Brett is now claiming they’re okay because they target Islam, as opposed to some other religion, since Islam is so worthy of ridicule.

  347. So, rather than liberal multi-culturalists considering the cartoons offensive because they ridicule Islam, as opposed to some other more ridicule-worthy religion, Brett is now claiming they’re okay because they target Islam, as opposed to some other religion, since Islam is so worthy of ridicule.

  348. So, rather than liberal multi-culturalists considering the cartoons offensive because they ridicule Islam, as opposed to some other more ridicule-worthy religion, Brett is now claiming they’re okay because they target Islam, as opposed to some other religion, since Islam is so worthy of ridicule.

  349. Can we make a hierarchy of “worthy of ridicule” religions? Because they all look pretty stupid from the outside, but I think you’d still have to rank Scientology much more “worthy” than (say) Buddhism.
    Or is it the practitioners of a religion that earn the ridicule? That would get some “snake handling/faith healing/speaking in tongues” types higher in the rankings, even if the underlying theology is kinda “meh”.
    Perhaps it’s just my lack of familiarity, but oddly enough, I’ve never heard of “poisonous snake handling” being a popular religious activity in Australia.

  350. Can we make a hierarchy of “worthy of ridicule” religions? Because they all look pretty stupid from the outside, but I think you’d still have to rank Scientology much more “worthy” than (say) Buddhism.
    Or is it the practitioners of a religion that earn the ridicule? That would get some “snake handling/faith healing/speaking in tongues” types higher in the rankings, even if the underlying theology is kinda “meh”.
    Perhaps it’s just my lack of familiarity, but oddly enough, I’ve never heard of “poisonous snake handling” being a popular religious activity in Australia.

  351. Can we make a hierarchy of “worthy of ridicule” religions? Because they all look pretty stupid from the outside, but I think you’d still have to rank Scientology much more “worthy” than (say) Buddhism.
    Or is it the practitioners of a religion that earn the ridicule? That would get some “snake handling/faith healing/speaking in tongues” types higher in the rankings, even if the underlying theology is kinda “meh”.
    Perhaps it’s just my lack of familiarity, but oddly enough, I’ve never heard of “poisonous snake handling” being a popular religious activity in Australia.

  352. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    Indonesia? Pakistan? Tunisia? Malaysia?

  353. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    Indonesia? Pakistan? Tunisia? Malaysia?

  354. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    Indonesia? Pakistan? Tunisia? Malaysia?

  355. Snarki: Can we make a hierarchy of “worthy of ridicule” religions?
    No. Well … maybe. It depends on who “we” is.
    If “we” means “us liberal multi-culturalists” I don’t think a hierarchy of ridicule-worthiness is intellectually honest. Islam is exactly as worthy of ridicule as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism, or Sientology.
    “Exactly as”, I said. In my humble opinion, it goes without saying.
    –TP

  356. Snarki: Can we make a hierarchy of “worthy of ridicule” religions?
    No. Well … maybe. It depends on who “we” is.
    If “we” means “us liberal multi-culturalists” I don’t think a hierarchy of ridicule-worthiness is intellectually honest. Islam is exactly as worthy of ridicule as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism, or Sientology.
    “Exactly as”, I said. In my humble opinion, it goes without saying.
    –TP

  357. Snarki: Can we make a hierarchy of “worthy of ridicule” religions?
    No. Well … maybe. It depends on who “we” is.
    If “we” means “us liberal multi-culturalists” I don’t think a hierarchy of ridicule-worthiness is intellectually honest. Islam is exactly as worthy of ridicule as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism, or Sientology.
    “Exactly as”, I said. In my humble opinion, it goes without saying.
    –TP

  361. Yeah, sort that list by percentage of Muslims. How far down it do you have to go, to find a reasonably free country? By which I mean, not that Muslims who want to stay Muslims are reasonably free, but countries with minimal religious liberty, for instance.
    Yeah, you post stuff that proves her case, and think you’ve refuted it.
    “Indonesia? Pakistan? Tunisia? Malaysia?”
    Malaysia? Where if you’re an ethnic Malay you’re legally mandated to be a Suni Muslim? Where if you want to convert from Islam, the case automatically goes to a Sharia court?
    Tunisia? Listed as “Not free” by Freedom House?
    Pakistan? Where roving mobs burn the homes of Christians? Where members of a Muslim sect which rejects the idea of violent Jihad are legally barred from calling themselves Muslims, or their churches “mosques”?
    Indonesia? I’ll grant, they’re rated “partly free”, because religious persecution is technically illegal, merely subject to the authorities refusing to prosecute the people doing it.
    Seriously, you aren’t even trying, are you? You just named four random countries, without even checking to see if they’d qualify as free.

  362. Yeah, sort that list by percentage of Muslims. How far down it do you have to go, to find a reasonably free country? By which I mean, not that Muslims who want to stay Muslims are reasonably free, but countries with minimal religious liberty, for instance.
    Yeah, you post stuff that proves her case, and think you’ve refuted it.
    “Indonesia? Pakistan? Tunisia? Malaysia?”
    Malaysia? Where if you’re an ethnic Malay you’re legally mandated to be a Suni Muslim? Where if you want to convert from Islam, the case automatically goes to a Sharia court?
    Tunisia? Listed as “Not free” by Freedom House?
    Pakistan? Where roving mobs burn the homes of Christians? Where members of a Muslim sect which rejects the idea of violent Jihad are legally barred from calling themselves Muslims, or their churches “mosques”?
    Indonesia? I’ll grant, they’re rated “partly free”, because religious persecution is technically illegal, merely subject to the authorities refusing to prosecute the people doing it.
    Seriously, you aren’t even trying, are you? You just named four random countries, without even checking to see if they’d qualify as free.

  363. Yeah, sort that list by percentage of Muslims. How far down it do you have to go, to find a reasonably free country? By which I mean, not that Muslims who want to stay Muslims are reasonably free, but countries with minimal religious liberty, for instance.
    Yeah, you post stuff that proves her case, and think you’ve refuted it.
    “Indonesia? Pakistan? Tunisia? Malaysia?”
    Malaysia? Where if you’re an ethnic Malay you’re legally mandated to be a Suni Muslim? Where if you want to convert from Islam, the case automatically goes to a Sharia court?
    Tunisia? Listed as “Not free” by Freedom House?
    Pakistan? Where roving mobs burn the homes of Christians? Where members of a Muslim sect which rejects the idea of violent Jihad are legally barred from calling themselves Muslims, or their churches “mosques”?
    Indonesia? I’ll grant, they’re rated “partly free”, because religious persecution is technically illegal, merely subject to the authorities refusing to prosecute the people doing it.
    Seriously, you aren’t even trying, are you? You just named four random countries, without even checking to see if they’d qualify as free.

  364. Tunisia? Listed as “Not free” by Freedom House?
    Listed as “Partially Free” with 3 on all three indices. Keep up, Brett.
    But since you like this criteria so much, how about Senegal? 95% Muslim, and rated as “free” (2/2/2) by FH?
    Hell, your original criteria was “but even moderately free”, so let’s add Albania (82%, “partially free” at 3/3/3). Turkey should probably be mentioned, too – it’s a nation with many problems, but recall that a lot of its problems with “freedom” originate in its defiantly-secular military, and problems or no, it has a strong (albeit far from perfect) democratic tradition.
    This isn’t exactly the proof of her point you’d like to think it is, and it’s absolutely not proof of your much broader point.
    Also, you’re getting far too much unearned credit here. Correlation is not causation. Islam is a religion whose majority states are almost exclusively in the Third World, which might possibly be a factor in why they tend to be more authoritarian states than not. IOW, they’re states that for the most part had up until the prior century been ruled directly or indirectly by foreign, oppressive Christian states that used divide and rule to maintain their power and in some cases (*cough* Iran *cough*) explicitly overthrew the democratic government whose absence now so vexes you.
    This is a wee bit more complicated than your facile explanation would imply.

  365. Tunisia? Listed as “Not free” by Freedom House?
    Listed as “Partially Free” with 3 on all three indices. Keep up, Brett.
    But since you like this criteria so much, how about Senegal? 95% Muslim, and rated as “free” (2/2/2) by FH?
    Hell, your original criteria was “but even moderately free”, so let’s add Albania (82%, “partially free” at 3/3/3). Turkey should probably be mentioned, too – it’s a nation with many problems, but recall that a lot of its problems with “freedom” originate in its defiantly-secular military, and problems or no, it has a strong (albeit far from perfect) democratic tradition.
    This isn’t exactly the proof of her point you’d like to think it is, and it’s absolutely not proof of your much broader point.
    Also, you’re getting far too much unearned credit here. Correlation is not causation. Islam is a religion whose majority states are almost exclusively in the Third World, which might possibly be a factor in why they tend to be more authoritarian states than not. IOW, they’re states that for the most part had up until the prior century been ruled directly or indirectly by foreign, oppressive Christian states that used divide and rule to maintain their power and in some cases (*cough* Iran *cough*) explicitly overthrew the democratic government whose absence now so vexes you.
    This is a wee bit more complicated than your facile explanation would imply.

  366. Tunisia? Listed as “Not free” by Freedom House?
    Listed as “Partially Free” with 3 on all three indices. Keep up, Brett.
    But since you like this criteria so much, how about Senegal? 95% Muslim, and rated as “free” (2/2/2) by FH?
    Hell, your original criteria was “but even moderately free”, so let’s add Albania (82%, “partially free” at 3/3/3). Turkey should probably be mentioned, too – it’s a nation with many problems, but recall that a lot of its problems with “freedom” originate in its defiantly-secular military, and problems or no, it has a strong (albeit far from perfect) democratic tradition.
    This isn’t exactly the proof of her point you’d like to think it is, and it’s absolutely not proof of your much broader point.
    Also, you’re getting far too much unearned credit here. Correlation is not causation. Islam is a religion whose majority states are almost exclusively in the Third World, which might possibly be a factor in why they tend to be more authoritarian states than not. IOW, they’re states that for the most part had up until the prior century been ruled directly or indirectly by foreign, oppressive Christian states that used divide and rule to maintain their power and in some cases (*cough* Iran *cough*) explicitly overthrew the democratic government whose absence now so vexes you.
    This is a wee bit more complicated than your facile explanation would imply.

  367. Yeah, Pakistan, where Asia Bibi has just had her death sentence upheld. Lovely example of the ability of freedom and Muslim populations to co-exist.

  368. Yeah, Pakistan, where Asia Bibi has just had her death sentence upheld. Lovely example of the ability of freedom and Muslim populations to co-exist.

  369. Yeah, Pakistan, where Asia Bibi has just had her death sentence upheld. Lovely example of the ability of freedom and Muslim populations to co-exist.

  370. Yeah, correlation is not causation, but as XKCD says, “Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there.” That’s an awfully strong correlation to just laugh off.
    “Turkey should probably be mentioned, too – it’s a nation with many problems, but recall that a lot of its problems with “freedom” originate in its defiantly-secular military,”
    Or maybe the freedom itself derives from that defiantly secular military refusing to give the populace the religious oppression they demand.
    You really need to face the fact that the case for Islam being compatible with a free society is awfully weak. Laughably weak, I’d say.

  371. Yeah, correlation is not causation, but as XKCD says, “Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there.” That’s an awfully strong correlation to just laugh off.
    “Turkey should probably be mentioned, too – it’s a nation with many problems, but recall that a lot of its problems with “freedom” originate in its defiantly-secular military,”
    Or maybe the freedom itself derives from that defiantly secular military refusing to give the populace the religious oppression they demand.
    You really need to face the fact that the case for Islam being compatible with a free society is awfully weak. Laughably weak, I’d say.

  372. Yeah, correlation is not causation, but as XKCD says, “Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there.” That’s an awfully strong correlation to just laugh off.
    “Turkey should probably be mentioned, too – it’s a nation with many problems, but recall that a lot of its problems with “freedom” originate in its defiantly-secular military,”
    Or maybe the freedom itself derives from that defiantly secular military refusing to give the populace the religious oppression they demand.
    You really need to face the fact that the case for Islam being compatible with a free society is awfully weak. Laughably weak, I’d say.

  376. You need to face the fact that you haven’t even tried to make the case that it’s not – you’ve just waggled your eyebrows suggestively at a large number of nations in the global south – many with equally-oppressive Christian-majority neighbors – and nudged us in the ribs while going “Eh? Eh?”
    Again, correlation is not causation, and no amount of pithy platitudes can change that. If you have a case to make, make it.
    And while you’re at it, please do one of your sweeping dismissals explaining how the example of Senegal really shows Islam is incompatible with an “even moderately free” society – and heck, throw in Albania and Tunisia too.

  377. You need to face the fact that you haven’t even tried to make the case that it’s not – you’ve just waggled your eyebrows suggestively at a large number of nations in the global south – many with equally-oppressive Christian-majority neighbors – and nudged us in the ribs while going “Eh? Eh?”
    Again, correlation is not causation, and no amount of pithy platitudes can change that. If you have a case to make, make it.
    And while you’re at it, please do one of your sweeping dismissals explaining how the example of Senegal really shows Islam is incompatible with an “even moderately free” society – and heck, throw in Albania and Tunisia too.

  378. You need to face the fact that you haven’t even tried to make the case that it’s not – you’ve just waggled your eyebrows suggestively at a large number of nations in the global south – many with equally-oppressive Christian-majority neighbors – and nudged us in the ribs while going “Eh? Eh?”
    Again, correlation is not causation, and no amount of pithy platitudes can change that. If you have a case to make, make it.
    And while you’re at it, please do one of your sweeping dismissals explaining how the example of Senegal really shows Islam is incompatible with an “even moderately free” society – and heck, throw in Albania and Tunisia too.

  385. Brett: …the case for Islam being compatible with a free society is awfully weak.
    One problem with this statement is that it seems to single Islam out from among the major religions.
    The case for religion being compatible with a free society is awfully weak. What made the “Christian” nations into fairly free societies was the gradual withering away of religion as a social force. It wasn’t any sort of moral or theological superiority of Christianity.
    Islam is different from Christianity, as any serious Muslim or serious Christian will tell you. Islam is NOT different from Christianity, many Muslims, Christians, and secular multi-culturalists will tell you. What is an honest atheist supposed to make of THAT?
    –TP

  386. Brett: …the case for Islam being compatible with a free society is awfully weak.
    One problem with this statement is that it seems to single Islam out from among the major religions.
    The case for religion being compatible with a free society is awfully weak. What made the “Christian” nations into fairly free societies was the gradual withering away of religion as a social force. It wasn’t any sort of moral or theological superiority of Christianity.
    Islam is different from Christianity, as any serious Muslim or serious Christian will tell you. Islam is NOT different from Christianity, many Muslims, Christians, and secular multi-culturalists will tell you. What is an honest atheist supposed to make of THAT?
    –TP

  387. Brett: …the case for Islam being compatible with a free society is awfully weak.
    One problem with this statement is that it seems to single Islam out from among the major religions.
    The case for religion being compatible with a free society is awfully weak. What made the “Christian” nations into fairly free societies was the gradual withering away of religion as a social force. It wasn’t any sort of moral or theological superiority of Christianity.
    Islam is different from Christianity, as any serious Muslim or serious Christian will tell you. Islam is NOT different from Christianity, many Muslims, Christians, and secular multi-culturalists will tell you. What is an honest atheist supposed to make of THAT?
    –TP

  388. Seriously, you aren’t even trying, are you? You just named four random countries, without even checking to see if they’d qualify as free.
    Well, I must admit I really wasn’t. After all, I was responding to your initial claim, not the current one with the mysteriously missing modifier. But if you want to demonstrate how ridiculous my answer is to an entirely different question, well I can’t stop you.

  389. Seriously, you aren’t even trying, are you? You just named four random countries, without even checking to see if they’d qualify as free.
    Well, I must admit I really wasn’t. After all, I was responding to your initial claim, not the current one with the mysteriously missing modifier. But if you want to demonstrate how ridiculous my answer is to an entirely different question, well I can’t stop you.

  390. Seriously, you aren’t even trying, are you? You just named four random countries, without even checking to see if they’d qualify as free.
    Well, I must admit I really wasn’t. After all, I was responding to your initial claim, not the current one with the mysteriously missing modifier. But if you want to demonstrate how ridiculous my answer is to an entirely different question, well I can’t stop you.

  394. it’s so nice to live in America where none of our laws are based on the collected myths of stone-age sheep herders, and there isn’t a loud faction of people who insist that what this country really needs is to have even more of those beliefs turned into law, and where an oath of office isn’t assumed to be invalid if not taken on a Bible, and there isn’t an all volunteer army of people who harass (or even murder) people who don’t agree, and where being an atheist gets you more than 4% of the vote.

  395. it’s so nice to live in America where none of our laws are based on the collected myths of stone-age sheep herders, and there isn’t a loud faction of people who insist that what this country really needs is to have even more of those beliefs turned into law, and where an oath of office isn’t assumed to be invalid if not taken on a Bible, and there isn’t an all volunteer army of people who harass (or even murder) people who don’t agree, and where being an atheist gets you more than 4% of the vote.

  396. it’s so nice to live in America where none of our laws are based on the collected myths of stone-age sheep herders, and there isn’t a loud faction of people who insist that what this country really needs is to have even more of those beliefs turned into law, and where an oath of office isn’t assumed to be invalid if not taken on a Bible, and there isn’t an all volunteer army of people who harass (or even murder) people who don’t agree, and where being an atheist gets you more than 4% of the vote.

  397. It is indeed nice to live in America, where you won’t be executed if you attempt to change religions, where arson against churches is not routinely ignored by police, and so forth. Unlike almost every majority Muslim nation.
    The level of self deception necessary to pretend that Islam doesn’t have a big, big problem in this regard is staggering.

  398. It is indeed nice to live in America, where you won’t be executed if you attempt to change religions, where arson against churches is not routinely ignored by police, and so forth. Unlike almost every majority Muslim nation.
    The level of self deception necessary to pretend that Islam doesn’t have a big, big problem in this regard is staggering.

  399. It is indeed nice to live in America, where you won’t be executed if you attempt to change religions, where arson against churches is not routinely ignored by police, and so forth. Unlike almost every majority Muslim nation.
    The level of self deception necessary to pretend that Islam doesn’t have a big, big problem in this regard is staggering.

  400. “The level of self deception necessary to pretend that Islam doesn’t have a big, big problem in this regard is staggering.”
    Strawman alert. Is there someone here who denies that there are massive human rights problems in many Muslim countries? I’d be happy to talk (or more likely listen) to serious discussion of these issues, but not from the Islamophobic morons on both right and left (thinking of Bill Maher there, so no, sapient, if you happen to be reading, I don’t mean every liberal that I disagree with about, say, drone strikes). It’s obvious that there are people who leap on the crimes of a particular faction because they hate that faction, and not because they care about human rights. Orwell’s “Notes on Nationalism” is the definitive essay on that sort of person. Islamophobes are obviously the kind of people he was describing. And yes, if you look hard enough you can find a few people on the far far left who really do minimize or even excuse Islam-inspired massacres.

  401. “The level of self deception necessary to pretend that Islam doesn’t have a big, big problem in this regard is staggering.”
    Strawman alert. Is there someone here who denies that there are massive human rights problems in many Muslim countries? I’d be happy to talk (or more likely listen) to serious discussion of these issues, but not from the Islamophobic morons on both right and left (thinking of Bill Maher there, so no, sapient, if you happen to be reading, I don’t mean every liberal that I disagree with about, say, drone strikes). It’s obvious that there are people who leap on the crimes of a particular faction because they hate that faction, and not because they care about human rights. Orwell’s “Notes on Nationalism” is the definitive essay on that sort of person. Islamophobes are obviously the kind of people he was describing. And yes, if you look hard enough you can find a few people on the far far left who really do minimize or even excuse Islam-inspired massacres.

  402. “The level of self deception necessary to pretend that Islam doesn’t have a big, big problem in this regard is staggering.”
    Strawman alert. Is there someone here who denies that there are massive human rights problems in many Muslim countries? I’d be happy to talk (or more likely listen) to serious discussion of these issues, but not from the Islamophobic morons on both right and left (thinking of Bill Maher there, so no, sapient, if you happen to be reading, I don’t mean every liberal that I disagree with about, say, drone strikes). It’s obvious that there are people who leap on the crimes of a particular faction because they hate that faction, and not because they care about human rights. Orwell’s “Notes on Nationalism” is the definitive essay on that sort of person. Islamophobes are obviously the kind of people he was describing. And yes, if you look hard enough you can find a few people on the far far left who really do minimize or even excuse Islam-inspired massacres.

  403. “Is there someone here who denies that there are massive human rights problems in many Muslim countries?”
    No, they mostly just deny that it has anything to do with them being Muslim countries. Having lived close to Dearborn for many years, I find it difficult to accept that. I don’t think that it’s just coincidence that virtually every Muslim country is a civil liberties nightmare. I think it’s something about Islam.

  404. “Is there someone here who denies that there are massive human rights problems in many Muslim countries?”
    No, they mostly just deny that it has anything to do with them being Muslim countries. Having lived close to Dearborn for many years, I find it difficult to accept that. I don’t think that it’s just coincidence that virtually every Muslim country is a civil liberties nightmare. I think it’s something about Islam.

  405. “Is there someone here who denies that there are massive human rights problems in many Muslim countries?”
    No, they mostly just deny that it has anything to do with them being Muslim countries. Having lived close to Dearborn for many years, I find it difficult to accept that. I don’t think that it’s just coincidence that virtually every Muslim country is a civil liberties nightmare. I think it’s something about Islam.

  406. I think it’s something about Islam.
    Review the slaughter that took place in Reformation Europe. Does that say something about Christianity?
    Observe the current de facto oppression of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Does that say something about Judaism?
    Gaze in wonder at the ravings of Tom Cruise and Greta Van Susteren. Do we condemn Scientology as a result?

  407. I think it’s something about Islam.
    Review the slaughter that took place in Reformation Europe. Does that say something about Christianity?
    Observe the current de facto oppression of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Does that say something about Judaism?
    Gaze in wonder at the ravings of Tom Cruise and Greta Van Susteren. Do we condemn Scientology as a result?

  408. I think it’s something about Islam.
    Review the slaughter that took place in Reformation Europe. Does that say something about Christianity?
    Observe the current de facto oppression of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Does that say something about Judaism?
    Gaze in wonder at the ravings of Tom Cruise and Greta Van Susteren. Do we condemn Scientology as a result?

  409. The level of self deception necessary to pretend that Islam doesn’t have a big, big problem in this regard is staggering.
    you should probably prove that. prove the problem is with Islam and not with the politics and borders and economics that have been imposed upon Islamic countries.
    and you should probably take into account the effects of everybody’s best friend, Saudi Arabia. because it’s been busy exporting fundamentalism and theocracy (and the guns and money to enforce them) for decades while the west said “meh, just keep the oil flowing. why should we care?” terrorism isn’t an Islamic disease, it’s something Islamic countries are currently infected with.
    unless, do you think Ireland was Islamic throughout the last half of the 1900s ? how about the spate of bombings in the early 1900s in the US – Islamic ? Eric Rudolph, Islamic? Sheik Unabomber? is the KKK an Islamic organization?

  410. The level of self deception necessary to pretend that Islam doesn’t have a big, big problem in this regard is staggering.
    you should probably prove that. prove the problem is with Islam and not with the politics and borders and economics that have been imposed upon Islamic countries.
    and you should probably take into account the effects of everybody’s best friend, Saudi Arabia. because it’s been busy exporting fundamentalism and theocracy (and the guns and money to enforce them) for decades while the west said “meh, just keep the oil flowing. why should we care?” terrorism isn’t an Islamic disease, it’s something Islamic countries are currently infected with.
    unless, do you think Ireland was Islamic throughout the last half of the 1900s ? how about the spate of bombings in the early 1900s in the US – Islamic ? Eric Rudolph, Islamic? Sheik Unabomber? is the KKK an Islamic organization?

  411. The level of self deception necessary to pretend that Islam doesn’t have a big, big problem in this regard is staggering.
    you should probably prove that. prove the problem is with Islam and not with the politics and borders and economics that have been imposed upon Islamic countries.
    and you should probably take into account the effects of everybody’s best friend, Saudi Arabia. because it’s been busy exporting fundamentalism and theocracy (and the guns and money to enforce them) for decades while the west said “meh, just keep the oil flowing. why should we care?” terrorism isn’t an Islamic disease, it’s something Islamic countries are currently infected with.
    unless, do you think Ireland was Islamic throughout the last half of the 1900s ? how about the spate of bombings in the early 1900s in the US – Islamic ? Eric Rudolph, Islamic? Sheik Unabomber? is the KKK an Islamic organization?

  412. Gaze in wonder at the ravings of Tom Cruise and Greta Van Susteren. Do we condemn Scientology as a result?
    Let me rethink that one a bit…..

  413. Gaze in wonder at the ravings of Tom Cruise and Greta Van Susteren. Do we condemn Scientology as a result?
    Let me rethink that one a bit…..

  414. Gaze in wonder at the ravings of Tom Cruise and Greta Van Susteren. Do we condemn Scientology as a result?
    Let me rethink that one a bit…..

  415. also, historically and according to its own scriptures, Islam itself is as tolerant of other religions as Christianity is. what isn’t tolerant of other religions is fundamentalist Islam, specifically, the flavor of intolerant Islam propagated and cultivated by the Saudis.

  416. also, historically and according to its own scriptures, Islam itself is as tolerant of other religions as Christianity is. what isn’t tolerant of other religions is fundamentalist Islam, specifically, the flavor of intolerant Islam propagated and cultivated by the Saudis.

  417. also, historically and according to its own scriptures, Islam itself is as tolerant of other religions as Christianity is. what isn’t tolerant of other religions is fundamentalist Islam, specifically, the flavor of intolerant Islam propagated and cultivated by the Saudis.

  418. Just as a reminder, this is what Brett originally said:
    The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, . . .
    Still stand by that, Brett?
    If not, kindly STFU.

  419. Just as a reminder, this is what Brett originally said:
    The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, . . .
    Still stand by that, Brett?
    If not, kindly STFU.

  420. Just as a reminder, this is what Brett originally said:
    The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, . . .
    Still stand by that, Brett?
    If not, kindly STFU.

  421. “No, they mostly just deny that it has anything to do with them being Muslim countries.”
    Oh, bull. Who would deny that the human rights violations in various Muslim countries often stem from some interpretation of Islam? What you are trying to do is argue something well beyond that. The fact is that there is something in almost any religion or ideology that can be used to justify atrocities of one form or another. Self-proclaimed defenders of Western ideals are not immune to this, and obviously the universal claims of the validity of our ideals lend themselves to abuse that way. But I’m not going to stop donating to HRW or Amnesty International because people use the notion of human rights to justify unjust wars.

  422. “No, they mostly just deny that it has anything to do with them being Muslim countries.”
    Oh, bull. Who would deny that the human rights violations in various Muslim countries often stem from some interpretation of Islam? What you are trying to do is argue something well beyond that. The fact is that there is something in almost any religion or ideology that can be used to justify atrocities of one form or another. Self-proclaimed defenders of Western ideals are not immune to this, and obviously the universal claims of the validity of our ideals lend themselves to abuse that way. But I’m not going to stop donating to HRW or Amnesty International because people use the notion of human rights to justify unjust wars.

  423. “No, they mostly just deny that it has anything to do with them being Muslim countries.”
    Oh, bull. Who would deny that the human rights violations in various Muslim countries often stem from some interpretation of Islam? What you are trying to do is argue something well beyond that. The fact is that there is something in almost any religion or ideology that can be used to justify atrocities of one form or another. Self-proclaimed defenders of Western ideals are not immune to this, and obviously the universal claims of the validity of our ideals lend themselves to abuse that way. But I’m not going to stop donating to HRW or Amnesty International because people use the notion of human rights to justify unjust wars.

  424. “Still stand by that, Brett?”
    Mostly. You’ve managed to identify a Muslim country where the oppression is largely informal, I’ll grant you that. This is like somebody disputing that something is a disease, because somebody somewhere got a mild case of it, and it was merely “almost” everybody who croaked.

  425. “Still stand by that, Brett?”
    Mostly. You’ve managed to identify a Muslim country where the oppression is largely informal, I’ll grant you that. This is like somebody disputing that something is a disease, because somebody somewhere got a mild case of it, and it was merely “almost” everybody who croaked.

  426. “Still stand by that, Brett?”
    Mostly. You’ve managed to identify a Muslim country where the oppression is largely informal, I’ll grant you that. This is like somebody disputing that something is a disease, because somebody somewhere got a mild case of it, and it was merely “almost” everybody who croaked.

  427. So Senegal is oppressive, but only largely informal in its oppression? That does explain the scathing 2014 State Department report on Senegalese religious freedom:

    Section III. Status of Societal Respect for Religious FreedomShare
    There were reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice.
    In January unidentified vandals broke into a Christian chapel in Darou Khoudos about 50 miles away from the capital and overturned liturgical objects. Police opened an investigation into the incident. By year’s end the police had not reported results from the investigation.

    If you’re too lazy to read the whole report, that one line, describing exactly one incident, is the only negative thing State had to say about religious freedom in Senegal in 2013. They had some other negative things to say about them in terms of general civil and political freedom, but for a third-world country they’re not awful – and they’re doing better than us on some items State identified.
    Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it worthy of your mealy-mouthed “largely informal[ly oppressive]” declaration? Well, to the degree that it’s oppressive, yes. But how oppressive is that again, Brett? How exactly? And your sly little disease analogy doesn’t hold in any case, because your correlation that you want to be synonymous with causation is rather depending on your incompatibility claims holding. Because if it’s possible for a nation to have an open, pluralistic society while having a near-100% Muslim population, then it literally can’t be the case that your simple, pat theory that Muslim-majority states are repressive because they’re Muslim-majority states is correct. Period, full stop. If it’s possible for a near-100% Muslim state to be an open democracy, then it can’t be that having an Islamic majority causes totalitarianism. Which was your blithe claim upthread. Which you still “mostly” stand by, despite the fact that your correlation – which is all you’ve offered as “proof” – is accompanied by a counterexample. Correlation is only able to waggle its eyebrows and point when nothing is standing there glowering at it and yelling “That’s not so!”; at that point you need to actually show causation or shut the hell up.
    There’s more at work than simple religious demography, as I and others have (cursorily) pointed out. The stubborn insistence with which you continue to shift your goalposts so as to be able to claim that there isn’t in the face of countervailing facts is a depressing thing to behold.

  428. So Senegal is oppressive, but only largely informal in its oppression? That does explain the scathing 2014 State Department report on Senegalese religious freedom:

    Section III. Status of Societal Respect for Religious FreedomShare
    There were reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice.
    In January unidentified vandals broke into a Christian chapel in Darou Khoudos about 50 miles away from the capital and overturned liturgical objects. Police opened an investigation into the incident. By year’s end the police had not reported results from the investigation.

    If you’re too lazy to read the whole report, that one line, describing exactly one incident, is the only negative thing State had to say about religious freedom in Senegal in 2013. They had some other negative things to say about them in terms of general civil and political freedom, but for a third-world country they’re not awful – and they’re doing better than us on some items State identified.
    Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it worthy of your mealy-mouthed “largely informal[ly oppressive]” declaration? Well, to the degree that it’s oppressive, yes. But how oppressive is that again, Brett? How exactly? And your sly little disease analogy doesn’t hold in any case, because your correlation that you want to be synonymous with causation is rather depending on your incompatibility claims holding. Because if it’s possible for a nation to have an open, pluralistic society while having a near-100% Muslim population, then it literally can’t be the case that your simple, pat theory that Muslim-majority states are repressive because they’re Muslim-majority states is correct. Period, full stop. If it’s possible for a near-100% Muslim state to be an open democracy, then it can’t be that having an Islamic majority causes totalitarianism. Which was your blithe claim upthread. Which you still “mostly” stand by, despite the fact that your correlation – which is all you’ve offered as “proof” – is accompanied by a counterexample. Correlation is only able to waggle its eyebrows and point when nothing is standing there glowering at it and yelling “That’s not so!”; at that point you need to actually show causation or shut the hell up.
    There’s more at work than simple religious demography, as I and others have (cursorily) pointed out. The stubborn insistence with which you continue to shift your goalposts so as to be able to claim that there isn’t in the face of countervailing facts is a depressing thing to behold.

  429. So Senegal is oppressive, but only largely informal in its oppression? That does explain the scathing 2014 State Department report on Senegalese religious freedom:

    Section III. Status of Societal Respect for Religious FreedomShare
    There were reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice.
    In January unidentified vandals broke into a Christian chapel in Darou Khoudos about 50 miles away from the capital and overturned liturgical objects. Police opened an investigation into the incident. By year’s end the police had not reported results from the investigation.

    If you’re too lazy to read the whole report, that one line, describing exactly one incident, is the only negative thing State had to say about religious freedom in Senegal in 2013. They had some other negative things to say about them in terms of general civil and political freedom, but for a third-world country they’re not awful – and they’re doing better than us on some items State identified.
    Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it worthy of your mealy-mouthed “largely informal[ly oppressive]” declaration? Well, to the degree that it’s oppressive, yes. But how oppressive is that again, Brett? How exactly? And your sly little disease analogy doesn’t hold in any case, because your correlation that you want to be synonymous with causation is rather depending on your incompatibility claims holding. Because if it’s possible for a nation to have an open, pluralistic society while having a near-100% Muslim population, then it literally can’t be the case that your simple, pat theory that Muslim-majority states are repressive because they’re Muslim-majority states is correct. Period, full stop. If it’s possible for a near-100% Muslim state to be an open democracy, then it can’t be that having an Islamic majority causes totalitarianism. Which was your blithe claim upthread. Which you still “mostly” stand by, despite the fact that your correlation – which is all you’ve offered as “proof” – is accompanied by a counterexample. Correlation is only able to waggle its eyebrows and point when nothing is standing there glowering at it and yelling “That’s not so!”; at that point you need to actually show causation or shut the hell up.
    There’s more at work than simple religious demography, as I and others have (cursorily) pointed out. The stubborn insistence with which you continue to shift your goalposts so as to be able to claim that there isn’t in the face of countervailing facts is a depressing thing to behold.

  433. “The stubborn insistence with which you continue to shift your goalposts so as to be able to claim that there isn’t in the face of countervailing facts is a depressing thing to behold.”
    It’s terrible how unquestioning belief can rot a mind.

  434. “The stubborn insistence with which you continue to shift your goalposts so as to be able to claim that there isn’t in the face of countervailing facts is a depressing thing to behold.”
    It’s terrible how unquestioning belief can rot a mind.

  435. “The stubborn insistence with which you continue to shift your goalposts so as to be able to claim that there isn’t in the face of countervailing facts is a depressing thing to behold.”
    It’s terrible how unquestioning belief can rot a mind.

  436. “then it literally can’t be the case that your simple, pat theory that Muslim-majority states are repressive because they’re Muslim-majority states is correct. Period, full stop”
    Well, oddly, in the middle of a pretty well framed argument this statement literally isn’t accurate. It doesn’t have to be true, but one exception doesn’t mean it can’t be true in the other cases.

  437. “then it literally can’t be the case that your simple, pat theory that Muslim-majority states are repressive because they’re Muslim-majority states is correct. Period, full stop”
    Well, oddly, in the middle of a pretty well framed argument this statement literally isn’t accurate. It doesn’t have to be true, but one exception doesn’t mean it can’t be true in the other cases.

  438. “then it literally can’t be the case that your simple, pat theory that Muslim-majority states are repressive because they’re Muslim-majority states is correct. Period, full stop”
    Well, oddly, in the middle of a pretty well framed argument this statement literally isn’t accurate. It doesn’t have to be true, but one exception doesn’t mean it can’t be true in the other cases.

  439. You’ve managed to identify a Muslim country where the oppression is largely informal, I’ll grant you that.
    So Brett, are you saying that, in this definitively not Muslim-majority country, there is not informal oppression? Expect people to remember that, the next time you go off about how the (Federal) government is oppressing you on some issue. Just a thought.

  440. You’ve managed to identify a Muslim country where the oppression is largely informal, I’ll grant you that.
    So Brett, are you saying that, in this definitively not Muslim-majority country, there is not informal oppression? Expect people to remember that, the next time you go off about how the (Federal) government is oppressing you on some issue. Just a thought.

  441. You’ve managed to identify a Muslim country where the oppression is largely informal, I’ll grant you that.
    So Brett, are you saying that, in this definitively not Muslim-majority country, there is not informal oppression? Expect people to remember that, the next time you go off about how the (Federal) government is oppressing you on some issue. Just a thought.

  442. Marty: “Well, oddly, in the middle of a pretty well framed argument this statement literally isn’t accurate. It doesn’t have to be true, but one exception doesn’t mean it can’t be true in the other cases.”
    Utter nonsense. Or, to quote Brett Bellmore, “utter and complete” nonsense. And you endorse it.
    It is hardly a “well-framed argument” if it is based on absolute statements that the author later weasels away from. His absolute statement is absolutely refuted by even a single exception, not to mention the several other cases that would certainly qualify by most standards as meeting his “moderately free” criterion.
    And yet you defend it.
    If you want to initiate a thread on the problems of integrating Islam and democracy – problems which both politicians and scholars in states such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Tunisia, etc. have been wrestling with for years – then go to it.
    Just don’t nail your flag into the shifting sands of Brett’s absolutist rhetoric, or you’ll get nothing but instant refutation of this nonsense.
    (I suppose you might think that you go into debate with the allies you have, not the allies you wish you had. Even so . . .)

  443. Marty: “Well, oddly, in the middle of a pretty well framed argument this statement literally isn’t accurate. It doesn’t have to be true, but one exception doesn’t mean it can’t be true in the other cases.”
    Utter nonsense. Or, to quote Brett Bellmore, “utter and complete” nonsense. And you endorse it.
    It is hardly a “well-framed argument” if it is based on absolute statements that the author later weasels away from. His absolute statement is absolutely refuted by even a single exception, not to mention the several other cases that would certainly qualify by most standards as meeting his “moderately free” criterion.
    And yet you defend it.
    If you want to initiate a thread on the problems of integrating Islam and democracy – problems which both politicians and scholars in states such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Tunisia, etc. have been wrestling with for years – then go to it.
    Just don’t nail your flag into the shifting sands of Brett’s absolutist rhetoric, or you’ll get nothing but instant refutation of this nonsense.
    (I suppose you might think that you go into debate with the allies you have, not the allies you wish you had. Even so . . .)

  444. Marty: “Well, oddly, in the middle of a pretty well framed argument this statement literally isn’t accurate. It doesn’t have to be true, but one exception doesn’t mean it can’t be true in the other cases.”
    Utter nonsense. Or, to quote Brett Bellmore, “utter and complete” nonsense. And you endorse it.
    It is hardly a “well-framed argument” if it is based on absolute statements that the author later weasels away from. His absolute statement is absolutely refuted by even a single exception, not to mention the several other cases that would certainly qualify by most standards as meeting his “moderately free” criterion.
    And yet you defend it.
    If you want to initiate a thread on the problems of integrating Islam and democracy – problems which both politicians and scholars in states such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Tunisia, etc. have been wrestling with for years – then go to it.
    Just don’t nail your flag into the shifting sands of Brett’s absolutist rhetoric, or you’ll get nothing but instant refutation of this nonsense.
    (I suppose you might think that you go into debate with the allies you have, not the allies you wish you had. Even so . . .)

  445. I’m sure that Brett’s extensive travels in Islam majority countries, his countless hours of discussions with muslims as well as his knowledge of Arabic make him qualified to make the absolute statements that he does.

  446. I’m sure that Brett’s extensive travels in Islam majority countries, his countless hours of discussions with muslims as well as his knowledge of Arabic make him qualified to make the absolute statements that he does.

  447. I’m sure that Brett’s extensive travels in Islam majority countries, his countless hours of discussions with muslims as well as his knowledge of Arabic make him qualified to make the absolute statements that he does.

  448. Well, oddly, in the middle of a pretty well framed argument this statement literally isn’t accurate. It doesn’t have to be true, but one exception doesn’t mean it can’t be true in the other cases.
    I completely agree that this should be an overstatement, but Brett was extremely categorical when we first set off on this winding digression. By a sensible standard, you’re absolutely right that literally would be an ill-chosen word. Brett had, however, taken the tack of being equally categorical and had declared that Islam is so incompatible with freedom that not even one somewhat free example could be found to have resisted its pernicious influence. So by that ridiculously narrow standard espoused by “if a state is a Muslim-majority state, then it is oppressive”, or words to that effect, one counterexample is all that’s needed to shoot down the argument – modus tollens and all that. Hence, literally.
    I suppose this comes down to whether we’re understanding at the overbroad rule as being “for all states S, if S is Muslim-majority, then S is oppressive” (MM(S)->O(S)) or “for all states S, if S is oppressive and S is Muslim majority, then S is oppressive because S is Muslim-majority” ((O(S) && MM(S))->(MM(S)->O(S))). I did not get the sense, however, that Brett was going with the more-complicated latter conception given his fervent denial that there was an S such that MM(S) && ~O(S) (which yes, I know is just restating the first formulation, but that’s the point…)

  449. Well, oddly, in the middle of a pretty well framed argument this statement literally isn’t accurate. It doesn’t have to be true, but one exception doesn’t mean it can’t be true in the other cases.
    I completely agree that this should be an overstatement, but Brett was extremely categorical when we first set off on this winding digression. By a sensible standard, you’re absolutely right that literally would be an ill-chosen word. Brett had, however, taken the tack of being equally categorical and had declared that Islam is so incompatible with freedom that not even one somewhat free example could be found to have resisted its pernicious influence. So by that ridiculously narrow standard espoused by “if a state is a Muslim-majority state, then it is oppressive”, or words to that effect, one counterexample is all that’s needed to shoot down the argument – modus tollens and all that. Hence, literally.
    I suppose this comes down to whether we’re understanding at the overbroad rule as being “for all states S, if S is Muslim-majority, then S is oppressive” (MM(S)->O(S)) or “for all states S, if S is oppressive and S is Muslim majority, then S is oppressive because S is Muslim-majority” ((O(S) && MM(S))->(MM(S)->O(S))). I did not get the sense, however, that Brett was going with the more-complicated latter conception given his fervent denial that there was an S such that MM(S) && ~O(S) (which yes, I know is just restating the first formulation, but that’s the point…)

  450. Well, oddly, in the middle of a pretty well framed argument this statement literally isn’t accurate. It doesn’t have to be true, but one exception doesn’t mean it can’t be true in the other cases.
    I completely agree that this should be an overstatement, but Brett was extremely categorical when we first set off on this winding digression. By a sensible standard, you’re absolutely right that literally would be an ill-chosen word. Brett had, however, taken the tack of being equally categorical and had declared that Islam is so incompatible with freedom that not even one somewhat free example could be found to have resisted its pernicious influence. So by that ridiculously narrow standard espoused by “if a state is a Muslim-majority state, then it is oppressive”, or words to that effect, one counterexample is all that’s needed to shoot down the argument – modus tollens and all that. Hence, literally.
    I suppose this comes down to whether we’re understanding at the overbroad rule as being “for all states S, if S is Muslim-majority, then S is oppressive” (MM(S)->O(S)) or “for all states S, if S is oppressive and S is Muslim majority, then S is oppressive because S is Muslim-majority” ((O(S) && MM(S))->(MM(S)->O(S))). I did not get the sense, however, that Brett was going with the more-complicated latter conception given his fervent denial that there was an S such that MM(S) && ~O(S) (which yes, I know is just restating the first formulation, but that’s the point…)

  451. The US government can lock up US citizens forever without charge, heck, they can have US citizens killed based on nothing but name calling.
    Given that, I really have no idea how the US can be considered a free country – and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

  452. The US government can lock up US citizens forever without charge, heck, they can have US citizens killed based on nothing but name calling.
    Given that, I really have no idea how the US can be considered a free country – and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

  453. The US government can lock up US citizens forever without charge, heck, they can have US citizens killed based on nothing but name calling.
    Given that, I really have no idea how the US can be considered a free country – and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

  457. So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%, and just blow off the point: She actually has evidence on her side. Lots of it.
    I don’t think the left, ideologically, are capable of coping with Islam. It’s like a devoted libertarian facing a economic problem that demands government regulation: It is very difficult to admit the existence of problems that demand answers that run contrary to your ideology.

  458. So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%, and just blow off the point: She actually has evidence on her side. Lots of it.
    I don’t think the left, ideologically, are capable of coping with Islam. It’s like a devoted libertarian facing a economic problem that demands government regulation: It is very difficult to admit the existence of problems that demand answers that run contrary to your ideology.

  459. So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%, and just blow off the point: She actually has evidence on her side. Lots of it.
    I don’t think the left, ideologically, are capable of coping with Islam. It’s like a devoted libertarian facing a economic problem that demands government regulation: It is very difficult to admit the existence of problems that demand answers that run contrary to your ideology.

  460. It is very difficult to admit the existence of problems that demand answers that run contrary to your ideology.
    Truer words were never spoken …
    Just out of curiosity: what are your “answers” to the “problem” of 2 billion muslims worldwide? How would you “cope” with Islam if you had power?

  461. It is very difficult to admit the existence of problems that demand answers that run contrary to your ideology.
    Truer words were never spoken …
    Just out of curiosity: what are your “answers” to the “problem” of 2 billion muslims worldwide? How would you “cope” with Islam if you had power?

  462. It is very difficult to admit the existence of problems that demand answers that run contrary to your ideology.
    Truer words were never spoken …
    Just out of curiosity: what are your “answers” to the “problem” of 2 billion muslims worldwide? How would you “cope” with Islam if you had power?

  463. I don’t have a complete answer at this point, but the first step in finding an answer is to admit there’s a problem.
    My partial answer would be: We need to make Middle East oil irrelevant. Islam would be Islam, with or without the oil, but it’s spread would not be heavily subsidized without it.
    And, without the dependence on Middle East oil, we wouldn’t have to tippy toe around the nature of the regimes there. Our relations with the Saudis would be rather different in a world where they couldn’t collapse the world’s economy at the turn of a spigot. If we weren’t held hostage, we wouldn’t be suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
    I think that flood of oil money changed Islam for the worse, because the center of Islam doesn’t have to be functional. It isn’t moderated by the need to have a normally functioning economy. People can look at places like Dubai, and think that Islam can be the basis for a functioning, modern society. And maybe not realize that’s only the case when massive amounts of money from outside are flowing in.
    So, I see a large part of the solution in energy technology.
    Beyond that, how to deal with Islam? We need a better way to deal with religion in general. I mean, look at Scientology: They’re basically a criminal enterprise that calls itself a religion to gain immunity from the law. The Mafia with a tax exemption. If you can’t deal with Scientology, you certainly can’t deal with Islam, which is a real religion that just has some criminal tendencies.
    We need less reluctance to recognize that a lot of mosques are as much terrorism recruiting centers as they are churches. We need to understand that doing something about that isn’t a violation of religious liberty, it’s just requiring religions, too, to be bound by normal laws.
    My real concern: Islam isn’t getting better, it’s getting worse. The problem is growing, in part because political elites are largely committed to pretending it isn’t a problem. At some point the problem is going to get so freaking big, that this won’t be possible anymore. And then we might actually end up in that world-wide war between Islam and everybody else, for real, just because the problem couldn’t be addressed when something less would serve.
    Telling Muslims that, no, they aren’t entitled to force everyone else to hold their mouths concerning Islam would be a start, I think. They desperately need to hear criticism.

  464. I don’t have a complete answer at this point, but the first step in finding an answer is to admit there’s a problem.
    My partial answer would be: We need to make Middle East oil irrelevant. Islam would be Islam, with or without the oil, but it’s spread would not be heavily subsidized without it.
    And, without the dependence on Middle East oil, we wouldn’t have to tippy toe around the nature of the regimes there. Our relations with the Saudis would be rather different in a world where they couldn’t collapse the world’s economy at the turn of a spigot. If we weren’t held hostage, we wouldn’t be suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
    I think that flood of oil money changed Islam for the worse, because the center of Islam doesn’t have to be functional. It isn’t moderated by the need to have a normally functioning economy. People can look at places like Dubai, and think that Islam can be the basis for a functioning, modern society. And maybe not realize that’s only the case when massive amounts of money from outside are flowing in.
    So, I see a large part of the solution in energy technology.
    Beyond that, how to deal with Islam? We need a better way to deal with religion in general. I mean, look at Scientology: They’re basically a criminal enterprise that calls itself a religion to gain immunity from the law. The Mafia with a tax exemption. If you can’t deal with Scientology, you certainly can’t deal with Islam, which is a real religion that just has some criminal tendencies.
    We need less reluctance to recognize that a lot of mosques are as much terrorism recruiting centers as they are churches. We need to understand that doing something about that isn’t a violation of religious liberty, it’s just requiring religions, too, to be bound by normal laws.
    My real concern: Islam isn’t getting better, it’s getting worse. The problem is growing, in part because political elites are largely committed to pretending it isn’t a problem. At some point the problem is going to get so freaking big, that this won’t be possible anymore. And then we might actually end up in that world-wide war between Islam and everybody else, for real, just because the problem couldn’t be addressed when something less would serve.
    Telling Muslims that, no, they aren’t entitled to force everyone else to hold their mouths concerning Islam would be a start, I think. They desperately need to hear criticism.

  465. I don’t have a complete answer at this point, but the first step in finding an answer is to admit there’s a problem.
    My partial answer would be: We need to make Middle East oil irrelevant. Islam would be Islam, with or without the oil, but it’s spread would not be heavily subsidized without it.
    And, without the dependence on Middle East oil, we wouldn’t have to tippy toe around the nature of the regimes there. Our relations with the Saudis would be rather different in a world where they couldn’t collapse the world’s economy at the turn of a spigot. If we weren’t held hostage, we wouldn’t be suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
    I think that flood of oil money changed Islam for the worse, because the center of Islam doesn’t have to be functional. It isn’t moderated by the need to have a normally functioning economy. People can look at places like Dubai, and think that Islam can be the basis for a functioning, modern society. And maybe not realize that’s only the case when massive amounts of money from outside are flowing in.
    So, I see a large part of the solution in energy technology.
    Beyond that, how to deal with Islam? We need a better way to deal with religion in general. I mean, look at Scientology: They’re basically a criminal enterprise that calls itself a religion to gain immunity from the law. The Mafia with a tax exemption. If you can’t deal with Scientology, you certainly can’t deal with Islam, which is a real religion that just has some criminal tendencies.
    We need less reluctance to recognize that a lot of mosques are as much terrorism recruiting centers as they are churches. We need to understand that doing something about that isn’t a violation of religious liberty, it’s just requiring religions, too, to be bound by normal laws.
    My real concern: Islam isn’t getting better, it’s getting worse. The problem is growing, in part because political elites are largely committed to pretending it isn’t a problem. At some point the problem is going to get so freaking big, that this won’t be possible anymore. And then we might actually end up in that world-wide war between Islam and everybody else, for real, just because the problem couldn’t be addressed when something less would serve.
    Telling Muslims that, no, they aren’t entitled to force everyone else to hold their mouths concerning Islam would be a start, I think. They desperately need to hear criticism.

  466. NV, I agree with most of your 12:44, the one point I will make is that Senegal seems to be heavily influenced by Sufism which does make a less powerful counter example.

  467. NV, I agree with most of your 12:44, the one point I will make is that Senegal seems to be heavily influenced by Sufism which does make a less powerful counter example.

  468. NV, I agree with most of your 12:44, the one point I will make is that Senegal seems to be heavily influenced by Sufism which does make a less powerful counter example.

  469. I completely agree that making Middle East oil irrelevant is the right answer . . . even though I don’t think that the problem is actually Islam. The problem, rather, is the kind ultra-fundamentalist Islam (Wahabism, specifically) that the Saudi’s have embraced. Since that’s their state religion and the source of their political legitimacy, they spend lots and lots of money promoting it worldwide. And oil is why they have the funds to do so.
    So, make the oil a minor factor in the economy, and that money goes way down. When the money supporting fundamentalist imams around the world goes away, what gets preached in those mosques changes. Again. And since virtually all schools of Islam are dramatically less fundamentalist, the kind of Islam getting promoted to Muslims around the world becomes less absolutist, less self-righteous, and less violently opposed to anybody else’s views.
    It won’t be instant, of course. But the sooner things head rapidly in that direction, the better for everybody.

  470. I completely agree that making Middle East oil irrelevant is the right answer . . . even though I don’t think that the problem is actually Islam. The problem, rather, is the kind ultra-fundamentalist Islam (Wahabism, specifically) that the Saudi’s have embraced. Since that’s their state religion and the source of their political legitimacy, they spend lots and lots of money promoting it worldwide. And oil is why they have the funds to do so.
    So, make the oil a minor factor in the economy, and that money goes way down. When the money supporting fundamentalist imams around the world goes away, what gets preached in those mosques changes. Again. And since virtually all schools of Islam are dramatically less fundamentalist, the kind of Islam getting promoted to Muslims around the world becomes less absolutist, less self-righteous, and less violently opposed to anybody else’s views.
    It won’t be instant, of course. But the sooner things head rapidly in that direction, the better for everybody.

  471. I completely agree that making Middle East oil irrelevant is the right answer . . . even though I don’t think that the problem is actually Islam. The problem, rather, is the kind ultra-fundamentalist Islam (Wahabism, specifically) that the Saudi’s have embraced. Since that’s their state religion and the source of their political legitimacy, they spend lots and lots of money promoting it worldwide. And oil is why they have the funds to do so.
    So, make the oil a minor factor in the economy, and that money goes way down. When the money supporting fundamentalist imams around the world goes away, what gets preached in those mosques changes. Again. And since virtually all schools of Islam are dramatically less fundamentalist, the kind of Islam getting promoted to Muslims around the world becomes less absolutist, less self-righteous, and less violently opposed to anybody else’s views.
    It won’t be instant, of course. But the sooner things head rapidly in that direction, the better for everybody.

  472. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.

    So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%,

    the same person wrote both of those.
    boggle.

  473. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.

    So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%,

    the same person wrote both of those.
    boggle.

  474. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.

    So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%,

    the same person wrote both of those.
    boggle.

  475. So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%, and just blow off the point: She actually has evidence on her side.
    Her observation was a banal one, and her evidence wasn’t something that I disputed; the point of contention was whether her reasonable observation that repressive dictatorships are quite willing to use the majority religion as another tool to crush dissent. Of course they do. Christian-majority dictators do the same thing. Minority totalitarian regimes also use their religion to crush dissent. None of these observations protect her from charges of bigotry. They just might mean that bigotry is co-existing with valid observations.
    And that’s where you started having problems; not being able to admit the existence of problems that demand answers that run contrary to your ideology, as you put it. Islam is full of rot, and the rot’s root is in the Kingdom – not in Mekkah, mind you: in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia has been pushing radicalism outward for years to bolster its internal stability and political influence, and that’s a problem. A huge problem. Like, if a Muslim community wants a mosque, getting religious resources is hard if they’re moderate but comparatively easy-peasy if they’re willing to kowtow to the fundamentalists in the Kingdom. Like, if a Muslim convert wants a Qur’an, they’re probably going to end up with a translation published by the Kingdom with commentaries accompanying the translation to make sure it’s even worse than the translation itself would paint it to be (I have three translations, and one is a Saudi edition from the 90s – the difference is radical and slightly vulgar… though I am led to understand that in the late nineties that edition was cast aside for being too liberal). And this problem is made much worse by the West playing footsie with the Kingdom for reasons of realpolitik. The continuing spread of Saudi Wahhabism and Salafism is a very real problem, and one we’ve helped along by closely allying ourselves with the Kingdom. But the solution isn’t to try to marginalize Islam – heightening the contradictions plays into the hands of the radicals who very much want us to conclude that Islam is incompatible with open, modern society so they can point and preen that anyone wanting to have both their faith and modernity needs to accept theocracy. We to try to support the moderates who speak out rather than attacking the religion itself. We need to separate criticisms of the faith of Islam, movements within that faith, and totalitarian regimes that use that faith as a tool of control. Simplistic conflation of all of the above, and attacks on the faith strictly for the purpose of attacking the faith help no one but the culture warriors. Again, if the enemy is seeking to heighten contradictions, the answer is to refuse to play their game, not to double down and tell them to bring it on.
    So yeah, no. The right answer isn’t to lecture Muslims on their problems and to tell them they need to shut up and listen to anything and everything critical we (the non-Muslim portions of the West) have to say to them, no matter how caustic and hatefully phrased it might be. I’m not trying to justify shooting cartoonists, so don’t claim that I am. But CH had a puerile, irresponsible editorial tone, and in the context of French culture their words were toxic, and they were quite earnest useful idiots for both nationalists and fundamentalists. They deserved censure. Not censorship, and certainly not bullets, but you telling us we need to hold our mouths concerning Charlie’s sort of exceedingly incisive commentary helps no one we should want to be helping.

  476. So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%, and just blow off the point: She actually has evidence on her side.
    Her observation was a banal one, and her evidence wasn’t something that I disputed; the point of contention was whether her reasonable observation that repressive dictatorships are quite willing to use the majority religion as another tool to crush dissent. Of course they do. Christian-majority dictators do the same thing. Minority totalitarian regimes also use their religion to crush dissent. None of these observations protect her from charges of bigotry. They just might mean that bigotry is co-existing with valid observations.
    And that’s where you started having problems; not being able to admit the existence of problems that demand answers that run contrary to your ideology, as you put it. Islam is full of rot, and the rot’s root is in the Kingdom – not in Mekkah, mind you: in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia has been pushing radicalism outward for years to bolster its internal stability and political influence, and that’s a problem. A huge problem. Like, if a Muslim community wants a mosque, getting religious resources is hard if they’re moderate but comparatively easy-peasy if they’re willing to kowtow to the fundamentalists in the Kingdom. Like, if a Muslim convert wants a Qur’an, they’re probably going to end up with a translation published by the Kingdom with commentaries accompanying the translation to make sure it’s even worse than the translation itself would paint it to be (I have three translations, and one is a Saudi edition from the 90s – the difference is radical and slightly vulgar… though I am led to understand that in the late nineties that edition was cast aside for being too liberal). And this problem is made much worse by the West playing footsie with the Kingdom for reasons of realpolitik. The continuing spread of Saudi Wahhabism and Salafism is a very real problem, and one we’ve helped along by closely allying ourselves with the Kingdom. But the solution isn’t to try to marginalize Islam – heightening the contradictions plays into the hands of the radicals who very much want us to conclude that Islam is incompatible with open, modern society so they can point and preen that anyone wanting to have both their faith and modernity needs to accept theocracy. We to try to support the moderates who speak out rather than attacking the religion itself. We need to separate criticisms of the faith of Islam, movements within that faith, and totalitarian regimes that use that faith as a tool of control. Simplistic conflation of all of the above, and attacks on the faith strictly for the purpose of attacking the faith help no one but the culture warriors. Again, if the enemy is seeking to heighten contradictions, the answer is to refuse to play their game, not to double down and tell them to bring it on.
    So yeah, no. The right answer isn’t to lecture Muslims on their problems and to tell them they need to shut up and listen to anything and everything critical we (the non-Muslim portions of the West) have to say to them, no matter how caustic and hatefully phrased it might be. I’m not trying to justify shooting cartoonists, so don’t claim that I am. But CH had a puerile, irresponsible editorial tone, and in the context of French culture their words were toxic, and they were quite earnest useful idiots for both nationalists and fundamentalists. They deserved censure. Not censorship, and certainly not bullets, but you telling us we need to hold our mouths concerning Charlie’s sort of exceedingly incisive commentary helps no one we should want to be helping.

  477. So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%, and just blow off the point: She actually has evidence on her side.
    Her observation was a banal one, and her evidence wasn’t something that I disputed; the point of contention was whether her reasonable observation that repressive dictatorships are quite willing to use the majority religion as another tool to crush dissent. Of course they do. Christian-majority dictators do the same thing. Minority totalitarian regimes also use their religion to crush dissent. None of these observations protect her from charges of bigotry. They just might mean that bigotry is co-existing with valid observations.
    And that’s where you started having problems; not being able to admit the existence of problems that demand answers that run contrary to your ideology, as you put it. Islam is full of rot, and the rot’s root is in the Kingdom – not in Mekkah, mind you: in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia has been pushing radicalism outward for years to bolster its internal stability and political influence, and that’s a problem. A huge problem. Like, if a Muslim community wants a mosque, getting religious resources is hard if they’re moderate but comparatively easy-peasy if they’re willing to kowtow to the fundamentalists in the Kingdom. Like, if a Muslim convert wants a Qur’an, they’re probably going to end up with a translation published by the Kingdom with commentaries accompanying the translation to make sure it’s even worse than the translation itself would paint it to be (I have three translations, and one is a Saudi edition from the 90s – the difference is radical and slightly vulgar… though I am led to understand that in the late nineties that edition was cast aside for being too liberal). And this problem is made much worse by the West playing footsie with the Kingdom for reasons of realpolitik. The continuing spread of Saudi Wahhabism and Salafism is a very real problem, and one we’ve helped along by closely allying ourselves with the Kingdom. But the solution isn’t to try to marginalize Islam – heightening the contradictions plays into the hands of the radicals who very much want us to conclude that Islam is incompatible with open, modern society so they can point and preen that anyone wanting to have both their faith and modernity needs to accept theocracy. We to try to support the moderates who speak out rather than attacking the religion itself. We need to separate criticisms of the faith of Islam, movements within that faith, and totalitarian regimes that use that faith as a tool of control. Simplistic conflation of all of the above, and attacks on the faith strictly for the purpose of attacking the faith help no one but the culture warriors. Again, if the enemy is seeking to heighten contradictions, the answer is to refuse to play their game, not to double down and tell them to bring it on.
    So yeah, no. The right answer isn’t to lecture Muslims on their problems and to tell them they need to shut up and listen to anything and everything critical we (the non-Muslim portions of the West) have to say to them, no matter how caustic and hatefully phrased it might be. I’m not trying to justify shooting cartoonists, so don’t claim that I am. But CH had a puerile, irresponsible editorial tone, and in the context of French culture their words were toxic, and they were quite earnest useful idiots for both nationalists and fundamentalists. They deserved censure. Not censorship, and certainly not bullets, but you telling us we need to hold our mouths concerning Charlie’s sort of exceedingly incisive commentary helps no one we should want to be helping.

  481. Without agreeing or disagreeing with elements of Brett’s 7:14am statement (there is something counter to every crumbling ideology in there), it is a truly astonishing, breathtaking document, considering the source.
    An awful lot of collectivist “We”, Kemosabe, without mentioning once (in the larger sense) what will be the organizing principle and agency of all of this.
    One suspects it won’t be the local PTA. In fact, perhaps only Saudi Arabia, Putin’s Russia, or North Korea have the governmental chops to get the job done.
    I could see the U.S. Government hiring the Cliven Bundy crowd as consultants, as the lion lays down with the veal chop.
    The only remnant of the Constitution left standing, for example, might be one of the commas in the Second Amendment, natch, hovering in midair like Wily Coyote before the plunge.
    I can think of certain elements of our society who might use this interregnum to suggest popping down to the local Catholic Arch-Diocese to harass the homosexual recruiting center and perhaps confiscating the offering plate to close that tax-exemption loophole … again, something for everyone.
    Regarding oil, and again, who wouldn’t agree with some of this, but the first move to oil independence, given the fungible nature of the commodity, might be to complete the Keystone Pipeline, but hook it up at the Gulf Coast to another pipeline alongside that sucks the oil right back into Canada, so Canada can sue their own energy resources independently.
    One irony of Saudi Arabia’s recent OPEC maneuvering is that the commodity, currency, and financial market disruption is not caused by cutting production, but by keeping the production floodgates open.
    We can’t handle that either, because Mr. Market, or is it Mrs. Market, dictates that now domestic exploration must be cut.

  482. Without agreeing or disagreeing with elements of Brett’s 7:14am statement (there is something counter to every crumbling ideology in there), it is a truly astonishing, breathtaking document, considering the source.
    An awful lot of collectivist “We”, Kemosabe, without mentioning once (in the larger sense) what will be the organizing principle and agency of all of this.
    One suspects it won’t be the local PTA. In fact, perhaps only Saudi Arabia, Putin’s Russia, or North Korea have the governmental chops to get the job done.
    I could see the U.S. Government hiring the Cliven Bundy crowd as consultants, as the lion lays down with the veal chop.
    The only remnant of the Constitution left standing, for example, might be one of the commas in the Second Amendment, natch, hovering in midair like Wily Coyote before the plunge.
    I can think of certain elements of our society who might use this interregnum to suggest popping down to the local Catholic Arch-Diocese to harass the homosexual recruiting center and perhaps confiscating the offering plate to close that tax-exemption loophole … again, something for everyone.
    Regarding oil, and again, who wouldn’t agree with some of this, but the first move to oil independence, given the fungible nature of the commodity, might be to complete the Keystone Pipeline, but hook it up at the Gulf Coast to another pipeline alongside that sucks the oil right back into Canada, so Canada can sue their own energy resources independently.
    One irony of Saudi Arabia’s recent OPEC maneuvering is that the commodity, currency, and financial market disruption is not caused by cutting production, but by keeping the production floodgates open.
    We can’t handle that either, because Mr. Market, or is it Mrs. Market, dictates that now domestic exploration must be cut.

  483. Without agreeing or disagreeing with elements of Brett’s 7:14am statement (there is something counter to every crumbling ideology in there), it is a truly astonishing, breathtaking document, considering the source.
    An awful lot of collectivist “We”, Kemosabe, without mentioning once (in the larger sense) what will be the organizing principle and agency of all of this.
    One suspects it won’t be the local PTA. In fact, perhaps only Saudi Arabia, Putin’s Russia, or North Korea have the governmental chops to get the job done.
    I could see the U.S. Government hiring the Cliven Bundy crowd as consultants, as the lion lays down with the veal chop.
    The only remnant of the Constitution left standing, for example, might be one of the commas in the Second Amendment, natch, hovering in midair like Wily Coyote before the plunge.
    I can think of certain elements of our society who might use this interregnum to suggest popping down to the local Catholic Arch-Diocese to harass the homosexual recruiting center and perhaps confiscating the offering plate to close that tax-exemption loophole … again, something for everyone.
    Regarding oil, and again, who wouldn’t agree with some of this, but the first move to oil independence, given the fungible nature of the commodity, might be to complete the Keystone Pipeline, but hook it up at the Gulf Coast to another pipeline alongside that sucks the oil right back into Canada, so Canada can sue their own energy resources independently.
    One irony of Saudi Arabia’s recent OPEC maneuvering is that the commodity, currency, and financial market disruption is not caused by cutting production, but by keeping the production floodgates open.
    We can’t handle that either, because Mr. Market, or is it Mrs. Market, dictates that now domestic exploration must be cut.

  484. Canada might “sue”, but first “use” and see how it goes.
    I don’t disagree with the characterization of Wahhabism here, but at this point in history, destabilizing (as much as I’d like to) the Saudi regime and along with it, the Putin regime, by destroying their economies might clear the way for unleashing even more ferocious and murderous demons as the two countries disintegrate.
    Just saying.

  485. Canada might “sue”, but first “use” and see how it goes.
    I don’t disagree with the characterization of Wahhabism here, but at this point in history, destabilizing (as much as I’d like to) the Saudi regime and along with it, the Putin regime, by destroying their economies might clear the way for unleashing even more ferocious and murderous demons as the two countries disintegrate.
    Just saying.

  486. Canada might “sue”, but first “use” and see how it goes.
    I don’t disagree with the characterization of Wahhabism here, but at this point in history, destabilizing (as much as I’d like to) the Saudi regime and along with it, the Putin regime, by destroying their economies might clear the way for unleashing even more ferocious and murderous demons as the two countries disintegrate.
    Just saying.

  487. One point I’ve been meaning to make:
    Given that Islamist radical terrorist extremism defines its battlefield as the entire world and everyone, armies and civilians, as a potential combatant, Charlie Hebdo, from a strictly strategic perspective, underestimated their enemy and miscalculated their own choice of satirical tactics.
    Look, if you are in a foxhole on a Normandy Beach in 1944 and you thought it would be useful to stand up during a lull in the fighting and yell at the Nazi positions — “I’m going to screw Adolph’s mother when we get to Berlin” — thus giving away your position, the first thing that would happen if you weren’t first picked off by a sniper or were otherwise scragged by the Germans, is your commanding officer, perhaps chuckling in spite of himself, would place you under arrest for later court-martializing, unless he thought it prudent to shoot you in the back for endangering his troops and the invasion strategy.
    If you buy the terrorist ethos of the world as battlefield.
    I guess Charlie Hebdo, and I support their absolute right to free speech as a matter of law, not to mention their chutzpah, though I question some of their judgements, thought they were “counting coup”, like some American Indian tribes, by swooping in and whacking the enemy harmlessly on the back of the head or some such, daring the Calvary to respond by shooting them in the back as the warriors rode off whooping their glee.
    It was satire by any other name.

  488. One point I’ve been meaning to make:
    Given that Islamist radical terrorist extremism defines its battlefield as the entire world and everyone, armies and civilians, as a potential combatant, Charlie Hebdo, from a strictly strategic perspective, underestimated their enemy and miscalculated their own choice of satirical tactics.
    Look, if you are in a foxhole on a Normandy Beach in 1944 and you thought it would be useful to stand up during a lull in the fighting and yell at the Nazi positions — “I’m going to screw Adolph’s mother when we get to Berlin” — thus giving away your position, the first thing that would happen if you weren’t first picked off by a sniper or were otherwise scragged by the Germans, is your commanding officer, perhaps chuckling in spite of himself, would place you under arrest for later court-martializing, unless he thought it prudent to shoot you in the back for endangering his troops and the invasion strategy.
    If you buy the terrorist ethos of the world as battlefield.
    I guess Charlie Hebdo, and I support their absolute right to free speech as a matter of law, not to mention their chutzpah, though I question some of their judgements, thought they were “counting coup”, like some American Indian tribes, by swooping in and whacking the enemy harmlessly on the back of the head or some such, daring the Calvary to respond by shooting them in the back as the warriors rode off whooping their glee.
    It was satire by any other name.

  489. One point I’ve been meaning to make:
    Given that Islamist radical terrorist extremism defines its battlefield as the entire world and everyone, armies and civilians, as a potential combatant, Charlie Hebdo, from a strictly strategic perspective, underestimated their enemy and miscalculated their own choice of satirical tactics.
    Look, if you are in a foxhole on a Normandy Beach in 1944 and you thought it would be useful to stand up during a lull in the fighting and yell at the Nazi positions — “I’m going to screw Adolph’s mother when we get to Berlin” — thus giving away your position, the first thing that would happen if you weren’t first picked off by a sniper or were otherwise scragged by the Germans, is your commanding officer, perhaps chuckling in spite of himself, would place you under arrest for later court-martializing, unless he thought it prudent to shoot you in the back for endangering his troops and the invasion strategy.
    If you buy the terrorist ethos of the world as battlefield.
    I guess Charlie Hebdo, and I support their absolute right to free speech as a matter of law, not to mention their chutzpah, though I question some of their judgements, thought they were “counting coup”, like some American Indian tribes, by swooping in and whacking the enemy harmlessly on the back of the head or some such, daring the Calvary to respond by shooting them in the back as the warriors rode off whooping their glee.
    It was satire by any other name.

  493. Brett @7:14: “So, I see a large part of the solution in energy technology.”
    Some of the rest of us agree, but so far have been unable to pry the incandescent bulbs from your
    cold, dead, hands.

  494. Brett @7:14: “So, I see a large part of the solution in energy technology.”
    Some of the rest of us agree, but so far have been unable to pry the incandescent bulbs from your
    cold, dead, hands.

  495. Brett @7:14: “So, I see a large part of the solution in energy technology.”
    Some of the rest of us agree, but so far have been unable to pry the incandescent bulbs from your
    cold, dead, hands.

  499. Maybe it’s a Mayberry deal.
    Hell, it’s only good ole Dallas. He’s shot the sheriff on numerous occasions. Where do you think the song title came from? Sure, he got a little carried away, calling in those bomb threats and all, but he don’t mean no harm. Let him sleep it off at home.

  500. Maybe it’s a Mayberry deal.
    Hell, it’s only good ole Dallas. He’s shot the sheriff on numerous occasions. Where do you think the song title came from? Sure, he got a little carried away, calling in those bomb threats and all, but he don’t mean no harm. Let him sleep it off at home.

  501. Maybe it’s a Mayberry deal.
    Hell, it’s only good ole Dallas. He’s shot the sheriff on numerous occasions. Where do you think the song title came from? Sure, he got a little carried away, calling in those bomb threats and all, but he don’t mean no harm. Let him sleep it off at home.

  505. More efficient lighting won’t reduce demand for oil noticeably; Hardly any of it is used for electricity generation in the first place. I’m all for nuclear, yes, but that won’t replace oil, either, unless we went in a large way for either electric vehicles or synthetic fuels.

  506. More efficient lighting won’t reduce demand for oil noticeably; Hardly any of it is used for electricity generation in the first place. I’m all for nuclear, yes, but that won’t replace oil, either, unless we went in a large way for either electric vehicles or synthetic fuels.

  507. More efficient lighting won’t reduce demand for oil noticeably; Hardly any of it is used for electricity generation in the first place. I’m all for nuclear, yes, but that won’t replace oil, either, unless we went in a large way for either electric vehicles or synthetic fuels.

  508. more efficient everything will reduce that demand, and lightbulbs are a step in that direction. and the less pushback from the knuckle-headed pro-ineiffciency crowd, the better.

  509. more efficient everything will reduce that demand, and lightbulbs are a step in that direction. and the less pushback from the knuckle-headed pro-ineiffciency crowd, the better.

  510. more efficient everything will reduce that demand, and lightbulbs are a step in that direction. and the less pushback from the knuckle-headed pro-ineiffciency crowd, the better.

  511. Oh, that’s brilliant. More efficient lighting is part of more efficient everything. More efficient cars are ALSO part of more efficient everything. Therefore, since more efficient cars would reduce demand for oil, so would more efficient lighting.
    Where’d you learn logic? You were cheated.

  512. Oh, that’s brilliant. More efficient lighting is part of more efficient everything. More efficient cars are ALSO part of more efficient everything. Therefore, since more efficient cars would reduce demand for oil, so would more efficient lighting.
    Where’d you learn logic? You were cheated.

  513. Oh, that’s brilliant. More efficient lighting is part of more efficient everything. More efficient cars are ALSO part of more efficient everything. Therefore, since more efficient cars would reduce demand for oil, so would more efficient lighting.
    Where’d you learn logic? You were cheated.

  517. Look, opposition to the regulatory attack on incandescent bulbs isn’t due to some crazy opposition to efficiency. It’s due to the regulation being obnoxiously ham-handed.

  518. Look, opposition to the regulatory attack on incandescent bulbs isn’t due to some crazy opposition to efficiency. It’s due to the regulation being obnoxiously ham-handed.

  519. Look, opposition to the regulatory attack on incandescent bulbs isn’t due to some crazy opposition to efficiency. It’s due to the regulation being obnoxiously ham-handed.

  520. Read it. The argument relies on the assumption that the objection to incandescent bulb bans is motivated by a hostility to energy efficiency, rather that a belief the bans were heavy handed and ill advised.
    You can always make anything about anything else, by inventing a belief system for the people you disagree with. That doesn’t mean they actually hold that belief system.

  521. Read it. The argument relies on the assumption that the objection to incandescent bulb bans is motivated by a hostility to energy efficiency, rather that a belief the bans were heavy handed and ill advised.
    You can always make anything about anything else, by inventing a belief system for the people you disagree with. That doesn’t mean they actually hold that belief system.

  522. Read it. The argument relies on the assumption that the objection to incandescent bulb bans is motivated by a hostility to energy efficiency, rather that a belief the bans were heavy handed and ill advised.
    You can always make anything about anything else, by inventing a belief system for the people you disagree with. That doesn’t mean they actually hold that belief system.

  523. I, for one, am absolutely OUTRAGED that the FSHA bans triangular wheels on cars, because the ban is heavy-handed and ill-advised.
    I think there’s a ban on drinking Chlorox too; might want to check if it’s sufficiently “heavy handed”, because they put some pretty harsh language on the label.

  524. I, for one, am absolutely OUTRAGED that the FSHA bans triangular wheels on cars, because the ban is heavy-handed and ill-advised.
    I think there’s a ban on drinking Chlorox too; might want to check if it’s sufficiently “heavy handed”, because they put some pretty harsh language on the label.

  525. I, for one, am absolutely OUTRAGED that the FSHA bans triangular wheels on cars, because the ban is heavy-handed and ill-advised.
    I think there’s a ban on drinking Chlorox too; might want to check if it’s sufficiently “heavy handed”, because they put some pretty harsh language on the label.

  526. That comment would probably work better if they actually did ban triangular wheels. Rather than leaving you free to use them if the circumstances warranted doing so. I don’t think they’ve actually banned drinking clorox, specifically, either. Might be some harsh language on the label, but if Congress had mandated “harsh language” on the labels of incandescent bulbs, there might have been some sarcasm, but outrage would have been minimal.
    The point, anyway, is that the Niagara of oil money pouring into the Middle East is what created the world-wide problem of Islamic terrorism. The most direct way to deal with it, long term, is not to nuke Mecca, but to make that oil as close to worthless as possible.
    And banning incandescent bulbs doesn’t really contribute to accomplishing that. Widespread adoption of electrically powered vehicles would. But unless you like the idea of coal powered cars, that does mean a large scale build out of nuclear.

  527. That comment would probably work better if they actually did ban triangular wheels. Rather than leaving you free to use them if the circumstances warranted doing so. I don’t think they’ve actually banned drinking clorox, specifically, either. Might be some harsh language on the label, but if Congress had mandated “harsh language” on the labels of incandescent bulbs, there might have been some sarcasm, but outrage would have been minimal.
    The point, anyway, is that the Niagara of oil money pouring into the Middle East is what created the world-wide problem of Islamic terrorism. The most direct way to deal with it, long term, is not to nuke Mecca, but to make that oil as close to worthless as possible.
    And banning incandescent bulbs doesn’t really contribute to accomplishing that. Widespread adoption of electrically powered vehicles would. But unless you like the idea of coal powered cars, that does mean a large scale build out of nuclear.

  528. That comment would probably work better if they actually did ban triangular wheels. Rather than leaving you free to use them if the circumstances warranted doing so. I don’t think they’ve actually banned drinking clorox, specifically, either. Might be some harsh language on the label, but if Congress had mandated “harsh language” on the labels of incandescent bulbs, there might have been some sarcasm, but outrage would have been minimal.
    The point, anyway, is that the Niagara of oil money pouring into the Middle East is what created the world-wide problem of Islamic terrorism. The most direct way to deal with it, long term, is not to nuke Mecca, but to make that oil as close to worthless as possible.
    And banning incandescent bulbs doesn’t really contribute to accomplishing that. Widespread adoption of electrically powered vehicles would. But unless you like the idea of coal powered cars, that does mean a large scale build out of nuclear.

  529. That doesn’t mean they actually hold that belief system.
    what they actually believe is irrelevant. we shall know them by what they say and do. when modest attempts at regulating efficiency are met by knuckleheaded protestations and when those who strive for efficiency are smothered in mocking clouds of waste, we know we are dealing with knuckleheads.

  530. That doesn’t mean they actually hold that belief system.
    what they actually believe is irrelevant. we shall know them by what they say and do. when modest attempts at regulating efficiency are met by knuckleheaded protestations and when those who strive for efficiency are smothered in mocking clouds of waste, we know we are dealing with knuckleheads.

  531. That doesn’t mean they actually hold that belief system.
    what they actually believe is irrelevant. we shall know them by what they say and do. when modest attempts at regulating efficiency are met by knuckleheaded protestations and when those who strive for efficiency are smothered in mocking clouds of waste, we know we are dealing with knuckleheads.

  535. I believe the appropriate response here, from what I’ve seen, would be:
    Shorter Cleek: “When people disagree with me about something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”
    Anyway, maybe you should try selling energy efficiency as a war on Middle Eastern Islam, instead of a way to save bunny rabbits? If you want right-wing support, I mean, instead of an excuse to despise right wingers while not accomplishing anything.

  536. I believe the appropriate response here, from what I’ve seen, would be:
    Shorter Cleek: “When people disagree with me about something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”
    Anyway, maybe you should try selling energy efficiency as a war on Middle Eastern Islam, instead of a way to save bunny rabbits? If you want right-wing support, I mean, instead of an excuse to despise right wingers while not accomplishing anything.

  537. I believe the appropriate response here, from what I’ve seen, would be:
    Shorter Cleek: “When people disagree with me about something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”
    Anyway, maybe you should try selling energy efficiency as a war on Middle Eastern Islam, instead of a way to save bunny rabbits? If you want right-wing support, I mean, instead of an excuse to despise right wingers while not accomplishing anything.

  538. Shorter Cleek: “When people disagree with me about this something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”

  539. Shorter Cleek: “When people disagree with me about this something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”

  540. Shorter Cleek: “When people disagree with me about this something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”

  541. I would ask Brett to turn down the incandescent heat of his hypocrisy, but it keeps the fuel bills down…

  542. I would ask Brett to turn down the incandescent heat of his hypocrisy, but it keeps the fuel bills down…

  543. I would ask Brett to turn down the incandescent heat of his hypocrisy, but it keeps the fuel bills down…

  544. “The point, anyway, is that the Niagara of oil money pouring into the Middle East is what created the world-wide problem of Islamic terrorism. The most direct way to deal with it, long term, is not to nuke Mecca, but to make that oil as close to worthless as possible.”
    Simple, is it? Is that all that “caused” Islamic terrorism? Perhaps you meant “helped enable and finance”.
    Arabia and Persia reduced to tribal penury on the level of Afghanistan? Certainly we’ve had no trouble from that non-oil producing country bombed into the stone age by the Soviet Union and then us.
    Just a bunch of bunny rabbits, they are.
    I look forward to the Israel lobby’s and the Texas oil lobby’s responses to the move to worthless oil, not that worthless coal, oil, and I assume, natural gas isn’t a worthwhile goal.
    A snap of the fingers.

  545. “The point, anyway, is that the Niagara of oil money pouring into the Middle East is what created the world-wide problem of Islamic terrorism. The most direct way to deal with it, long term, is not to nuke Mecca, but to make that oil as close to worthless as possible.”
    Simple, is it? Is that all that “caused” Islamic terrorism? Perhaps you meant “helped enable and finance”.
    Arabia and Persia reduced to tribal penury on the level of Afghanistan? Certainly we’ve had no trouble from that non-oil producing country bombed into the stone age by the Soviet Union and then us.
    Just a bunch of bunny rabbits, they are.
    I look forward to the Israel lobby’s and the Texas oil lobby’s responses to the move to worthless oil, not that worthless coal, oil, and I assume, natural gas isn’t a worthwhile goal.
    A snap of the fingers.

  546. “The point, anyway, is that the Niagara of oil money pouring into the Middle East is what created the world-wide problem of Islamic terrorism. The most direct way to deal with it, long term, is not to nuke Mecca, but to make that oil as close to worthless as possible.”
    Simple, is it? Is that all that “caused” Islamic terrorism? Perhaps you meant “helped enable and finance”.
    Arabia and Persia reduced to tribal penury on the level of Afghanistan? Certainly we’ve had no trouble from that non-oil producing country bombed into the stone age by the Soviet Union and then us.
    Just a bunch of bunny rabbits, they are.
    I look forward to the Israel lobby’s and the Texas oil lobby’s responses to the move to worthless oil, not that worthless coal, oil, and I assume, natural gas isn’t a worthwhile goal.
    A snap of the fingers.

  547. Is that all that “caused” Islamic terrorism?
    Wait a minute! I think I’m hearing hints that you might hate America and/or white Europeans. Don’t oppress the poor, downtrodden imperialist-colonialists, now.

  548. Is that all that “caused” Islamic terrorism?
    Wait a minute! I think I’m hearing hints that you might hate America and/or white Europeans. Don’t oppress the poor, downtrodden imperialist-colonialists, now.

  549. Is that all that “caused” Islamic terrorism?
    Wait a minute! I think I’m hearing hints that you might hate America and/or white Europeans. Don’t oppress the poor, downtrodden imperialist-colonialists, now.

  550. banning incandescent bulbs

    Incandescent bulbs have been banned?
    Somebody better tell Lowes, Menard’s, Wal-Mart, etc before they get raided.

  551. banning incandescent bulbs

    Incandescent bulbs have been banned?
    Somebody better tell Lowes, Menard’s, Wal-Mart, etc before they get raided.

  552. banning incandescent bulbs

    Incandescent bulbs have been banned?
    Somebody better tell Lowes, Menard’s, Wal-Mart, etc before they get raided.

  553. While incandescent heat bulbs are still available, I’m disappointed that the heat lamp/vent fixtures that I use to install over bathtubs/showers is no longer available. They were not only a very popular energy efficiency improvement (when used properly), they also did a good job of controlling the growth of stachybotrys mold.

  554. While incandescent heat bulbs are still available, I’m disappointed that the heat lamp/vent fixtures that I use to install over bathtubs/showers is no longer available. They were not only a very popular energy efficiency improvement (when used properly), they also did a good job of controlling the growth of stachybotrys mold.

  555. While incandescent heat bulbs are still available, I’m disappointed that the heat lamp/vent fixtures that I use to install over bathtubs/showers is no longer available. They were not only a very popular energy efficiency improvement (when used properly), they also did a good job of controlling the growth of stachybotrys mold.

  556. the heat lamp/vent fixtures that I use to install over bathtubs/showers is no longer available

    Not any of these are what you are looking for?

  557. the heat lamp/vent fixtures that I use to install over bathtubs/showers is no longer available

    Not any of these are what you are looking for?

  558. the heat lamp/vent fixtures that I use to install over bathtubs/showers is no longer available

    Not any of these are what you are looking for?

  559. Probably not, since a vent with a heat lamp built in is not at all the same thing as a “heated vent”. What Jeff wants is not entirely gone from the market, but they are quite a bit harder to find now.

  560. Probably not, since a vent with a heat lamp built in is not at all the same thing as a “heated vent”. What Jeff wants is not entirely gone from the market, but they are quite a bit harder to find now.

  561. Probably not, since a vent with a heat lamp built in is not at all the same thing as a “heated vent”. What Jeff wants is not entirely gone from the market, but they are quite a bit harder to find now.

  562. Assuming I haven’t read all the comments, how did a discussion of Obama’s failing to visit France turn into one about lightbulbs ?
    (& assuming I have, ditto.)
    Gun nuts, I get that’s a thing.
    Incandescent bulb nuts ???
    Not cool, man.

  563. Assuming I haven’t read all the comments, how did a discussion of Obama’s failing to visit France turn into one about lightbulbs ?
    (& assuming I have, ditto.)
    Gun nuts, I get that’s a thing.
    Incandescent bulb nuts ???
    Not cool, man.

  564. Assuming I haven’t read all the comments, how did a discussion of Obama’s failing to visit France turn into one about lightbulbs ?
    (& assuming I have, ditto.)
    Gun nuts, I get that’s a thing.
    Incandescent bulb nuts ???
    Not cool, man.

  565. 1: Obama fails to visit France in response to Islamic terrorism.
    2: How to deal with Islamic terrorism?
    3: Make oil worthless so that Saudis can’t fund it.
    4: Oh, wait, you can’t suggest that, you objected to the incandescent light bulb regulations.
    Admittedly, I find step 4 a bit dubious myself.

  566. 1: Obama fails to visit France in response to Islamic terrorism.
    2: How to deal with Islamic terrorism?
    3: Make oil worthless so that Saudis can’t fund it.
    4: Oh, wait, you can’t suggest that, you objected to the incandescent light bulb regulations.
    Admittedly, I find step 4 a bit dubious myself.

  567. 1: Obama fails to visit France in response to Islamic terrorism.
    2: How to deal with Islamic terrorism?
    3: Make oil worthless so that Saudis can’t fund it.
    4: Oh, wait, you can’t suggest that, you objected to the incandescent light bulb regulations.
    Admittedly, I find step 4 a bit dubious myself.

  568. Thanks for the help Slart.
    The Broan QTX110HL Ultra Silent Series Bath Fan with Heater and Light might do the job but it requires 1500 watts as compared to 150 watts and the sense of heat is not instantaneous.. None of the rest are anything like what I provided. They will provide the ventilation required if I can remind the costumer to leave them on long enough to dry the bathroom.

  569. Thanks for the help Slart.
    The Broan QTX110HL Ultra Silent Series Bath Fan with Heater and Light might do the job but it requires 1500 watts as compared to 150 watts and the sense of heat is not instantaneous.. None of the rest are anything like what I provided. They will provide the ventilation required if I can remind the costumer to leave them on long enough to dry the bathroom.

  570. Thanks for the help Slart.
    The Broan QTX110HL Ultra Silent Series Bath Fan with Heater and Light might do the job but it requires 1500 watts as compared to 150 watts and the sense of heat is not instantaneous.. None of the rest are anything like what I provided. They will provide the ventilation required if I can remind the costumer to leave them on long enough to dry the bathroom.

  571. Sorry about my diversion but energy efficiency improvement is one of my things. Even if I could find what I need the local building department will no longer let me install it. I’ve abide to regulation but it does complicate and sometimes hamper.
    On topic making a stink about BO not showing up in Paris seems silly to me, but the conversation has been interesting to read.
    I just had nothing intelligent to add to it.

  572. Sorry about my diversion but energy efficiency improvement is one of my things. Even if I could find what I need the local building department will no longer let me install it. I’ve abide to regulation but it does complicate and sometimes hamper.
    On topic making a stink about BO not showing up in Paris seems silly to me, but the conversation has been interesting to read.
    I just had nothing intelligent to add to it.

  573. Sorry about my diversion but energy efficiency improvement is one of my things. Even if I could find what I need the local building department will no longer let me install it. I’ve abide to regulation but it does complicate and sometimes hamper.
    On topic making a stink about BO not showing up in Paris seems silly to me, but the conversation has been interesting to read.
    I just had nothing intelligent to add to it.

  574. You are looking for the old kind of ceiling heater with radiant strips, or what? Hard to tell what it is you’re looking for.
    If you’re looking for a heating bulb together with a lighted ceiling fan, that may be a problem. But you can buy the heater separately (Broan makes 1- and 2-bulb heat lamps for the bathroom), and probably cobble together a bezel to cover the whole mess.

  575. You are looking for the old kind of ceiling heater with radiant strips, or what? Hard to tell what it is you’re looking for.
    If you’re looking for a heating bulb together with a lighted ceiling fan, that may be a problem. But you can buy the heater separately (Broan makes 1- and 2-bulb heat lamps for the bathroom), and probably cobble together a bezel to cover the whole mess.

  576. You are looking for the old kind of ceiling heater with radiant strips, or what? Hard to tell what it is you’re looking for.
    If you’re looking for a heating bulb together with a lighted ceiling fan, that may be a problem. But you can buy the heater separately (Broan makes 1- and 2-bulb heat lamps for the bathroom), and probably cobble together a bezel to cover the whole mess.

  577. The Broan integrated heater and vent/light is, I gather, a bit like a vent/light coupled together with a 1250-watt hairdryer.

  578. The Broan integrated heater and vent/light is, I gather, a bit like a vent/light coupled together with a 1250-watt hairdryer.

  579. The Broan integrated heater and vent/light is, I gather, a bit like a vent/light coupled together with a 1250-watt hairdryer.

  580. Broan used to make what I need. Perhaps they still do but I can’t find it. It was just a simple/cheap bathroom vent that held a heat lamp. Mounting it over the tub was very popular and effective.
    Right now I have 2 bathrooms in remodel and removing the ugly old resistance heaters vents. I’ll just install new vents and hope the renters use them before the walls turn black.
    The world has bigger problems for me to solve.

  581. Broan used to make what I need. Perhaps they still do but I can’t find it. It was just a simple/cheap bathroom vent that held a heat lamp. Mounting it over the tub was very popular and effective.
    Right now I have 2 bathrooms in remodel and removing the ugly old resistance heaters vents. I’ll just install new vents and hope the renters use them before the walls turn black.
    The world has bigger problems for me to solve.

  582. Broan used to make what I need. Perhaps they still do but I can’t find it. It was just a simple/cheap bathroom vent that held a heat lamp. Mounting it over the tub was very popular and effective.
    Right now I have 2 bathrooms in remodel and removing the ugly old resistance heaters vents. I’ll just install new vents and hope the renters use them before the walls turn black.
    The world has bigger problems for me to solve.

  583. Brett, if we had gone from the step 3 you list to step 4, pretty muich everybody would agree that was a step too far. Thing is, there is some reason to suspect that others perceived a somewhat different steps 4 and beyond.

  584. Brett, if we had gone from the step 3 you list to step 4, pretty muich everybody would agree that was a step too far. Thing is, there is some reason to suspect that others perceived a somewhat different steps 4 and beyond.

  585. Brett, if we had gone from the step 3 you list to step 4, pretty muich everybody would agree that was a step too far. Thing is, there is some reason to suspect that others perceived a somewhat different steps 4 and beyond.

  586. I’m in full support of regulating how new homes should be built to more energy efficient standards. Our bigger problem though is with all of our existing housing stock. Extensive and expensive remodels are great for those who can afford it. More modest work and changing habits can also be effective. But the idea of regulating behavior/habits rubs many in a bad way. Making people stop using inefficient lighting sounds like a silly small thing but it really adds up to some serious wattage when multiplied by 300,000,000+

  587. I’m in full support of regulating how new homes should be built to more energy efficient standards. Our bigger problem though is with all of our existing housing stock. Extensive and expensive remodels are great for those who can afford it. More modest work and changing habits can also be effective. But the idea of regulating behavior/habits rubs many in a bad way. Making people stop using inefficient lighting sounds like a silly small thing but it really adds up to some serious wattage when multiplied by 300,000,000+

  588. I’m in full support of regulating how new homes should be built to more energy efficient standards. Our bigger problem though is with all of our existing housing stock. Extensive and expensive remodels are great for those who can afford it. More modest work and changing habits can also be effective. But the idea of regulating behavior/habits rubs many in a bad way. Making people stop using inefficient lighting sounds like a silly small thing but it really adds up to some serious wattage when multiplied by 300,000,000+

  589. The world has bigger problems for me to solve.
    Yup. That’s odd they don’t have those old exhaust fans w. heat lamp? I should think the fan cfm is what dries out the space. How about an occupancy sensor light switch? Fan always comes on when you are in the room. Comes in handy for more than moisture from the bath/shower.
    signed,
    fellow contractor

  590. The world has bigger problems for me to solve.
    Yup. That’s odd they don’t have those old exhaust fans w. heat lamp? I should think the fan cfm is what dries out the space. How about an occupancy sensor light switch? Fan always comes on when you are in the room. Comes in handy for more than moisture from the bath/shower.
    signed,
    fellow contractor

  591. The world has bigger problems for me to solve.
    Yup. That’s odd they don’t have those old exhaust fans w. heat lamp? I should think the fan cfm is what dries out the space. How about an occupancy sensor light switch? Fan always comes on when you are in the room. Comes in handy for more than moisture from the bath/shower.
    signed,
    fellow contractor

  592. The Broan integrated heater and vent/light is, I gather, a bit like a vent/light coupled together with a 1250-watt hairdryer.
    Holy sh*t. What does it do in the quarter mile?

  593. The Broan integrated heater and vent/light is, I gather, a bit like a vent/light coupled together with a 1250-watt hairdryer.
    Holy sh*t. What does it do in the quarter mile?

  594. The Broan integrated heater and vent/light is, I gather, a bit like a vent/light coupled together with a 1250-watt hairdryer.
    Holy sh*t. What does it do in the quarter mile?

  595. Yes enough cfm will dry the place if people will just turn it on and leave it on for the proper length of time. One friend had a wife that loved her long hot showers but he could not get her to use the exhaust fan for some reason. When the walls and ceiling turned black they called me in to see what I could do. I simply installed a second vent that included the heat lamp directly over the shower controlled by a single switch. She loved it and I may have saved their marriage.

  596. Yes enough cfm will dry the place if people will just turn it on and leave it on for the proper length of time. One friend had a wife that loved her long hot showers but he could not get her to use the exhaust fan for some reason. When the walls and ceiling turned black they called me in to see what I could do. I simply installed a second vent that included the heat lamp directly over the shower controlled by a single switch. She loved it and I may have saved their marriage.

  597. Yes enough cfm will dry the place if people will just turn it on and leave it on for the proper length of time. One friend had a wife that loved her long hot showers but he could not get her to use the exhaust fan for some reason. When the walls and ceiling turned black they called me in to see what I could do. I simply installed a second vent that included the heat lamp directly over the shower controlled by a single switch. She loved it and I may have saved their marriage.

  598. I, too, would think it’s the exhaust fan drying things out, not the heat lamp. I installed one of those two bulb Broans in my mother’s bathroom years ago, and while the heat lamp was very nice stepping out of the shower, you’d have to leave it on a very long time before it would have much effect on the temperature of the room itself.

  599. I, too, would think it’s the exhaust fan drying things out, not the heat lamp. I installed one of those two bulb Broans in my mother’s bathroom years ago, and while the heat lamp was very nice stepping out of the shower, you’d have to leave it on a very long time before it would have much effect on the temperature of the room itself.

  600. I, too, would think it’s the exhaust fan drying things out, not the heat lamp. I installed one of those two bulb Broans in my mother’s bathroom years ago, and while the heat lamp was very nice stepping out of the shower, you’d have to leave it on a very long time before it would have much effect on the temperature of the room itself.

  610. “When people disagree with me about something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”
    atta tribesman, defend your coal-rollin, energy-wasting bretheren. they need your help cause the wicked ‘viromentalists are gonna oppress em! be their useful knucklehad.

  611. “When people disagree with me about something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”
    atta tribesman, defend your coal-rollin, energy-wasting bretheren. they need your help cause the wicked ‘viromentalists are gonna oppress em! be their useful knucklehad.

  612. “When people disagree with me about something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”
    atta tribesman, defend your coal-rollin, energy-wasting bretheren. they need your help cause the wicked ‘viromentalists are gonna oppress em! be their useful knucklehad.

  613. What will people more clever than me invent next?
    Take it a step further. A occupancy sensor coupled with a humidity sensor and a solid state relay that won’t let the fan go “off” (even if you flip the switch) until the time is right. Rig it up for odors, too….patent pending.
    Sully wrote some good stuff there but, as a conservative, he is blind to the public policies that have brought us to this lamentable economic inequality pass.

  614. What will people more clever than me invent next?
    Take it a step further. A occupancy sensor coupled with a humidity sensor and a solid state relay that won’t let the fan go “off” (even if you flip the switch) until the time is right. Rig it up for odors, too….patent pending.
    Sully wrote some good stuff there but, as a conservative, he is blind to the public policies that have brought us to this lamentable economic inequality pass.

  615. What will people more clever than me invent next?
    Take it a step further. A occupancy sensor coupled with a humidity sensor and a solid state relay that won’t let the fan go “off” (even if you flip the switch) until the time is right. Rig it up for odors, too….patent pending.
    Sully wrote some good stuff there but, as a conservative, he is blind to the public policies that have brought us to this lamentable economic inequality pass.

  616. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    One of the more conspicuous elephants in the room here is mineral assets. As in, “they have stuff, we want it, let’s install our SOB”.
    Why is the house of Saud dominant in Saudi Arabia?
    How did a claque of fundamentalist clerics come to power in Iran?
    For two fairly notable examples.
    Situations typically have more than one cause. “It’s because their Muslims!” seems somewhat simplistic.
    Just trying to inject a tiny note of reality.

  617. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    One of the more conspicuous elephants in the room here is mineral assets. As in, “they have stuff, we want it, let’s install our SOB”.
    Why is the house of Saud dominant in Saudi Arabia?
    How did a claque of fundamentalist clerics come to power in Iran?
    For two fairly notable examples.
    Situations typically have more than one cause. “It’s because their Muslims!” seems somewhat simplistic.
    Just trying to inject a tiny note of reality.

  618. The utter and complete absence of even so much as one majority Muslim state that is, not even a liberal democracy, but even moderately free, does somewhat argue for this position.
    One of the more conspicuous elephants in the room here is mineral assets. As in, “they have stuff, we want it, let’s install our SOB”.
    Why is the house of Saud dominant in Saudi Arabia?
    How did a claque of fundamentalist clerics come to power in Iran?
    For two fairly notable examples.
    Situations typically have more than one cause. “It’s because their Muslims!” seems somewhat simplistic.
    Just trying to inject a tiny note of reality.

  619. Shorter Cleek: “When people disagree with me about something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”
    I’ve seen worse heuristics.

  620. Shorter Cleek: “When people disagree with me about something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”
    I’ve seen worse heuristics.

  621. Shorter Cleek: “When people disagree with me about something, I know I’m dealing with knuckleheads.”
    I’ve seen worse heuristics.

  622. I’m sure that Brett’s extensive travels in Islam majority countries, his countless hours of discussions with muslims as well as his knowledge of Arabic make him qualified to make the absolute statements that he does.
    Hey man, he lived near Dearborn!
    So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%, and just blow off the point: She actually has evidence on her side.
    I think you mistake “blowing off the point” with noting that what you said is factually false. By more than just a rounding error.
    If you have a case to make, make it. Just making up random crap is not persuasive.

  623. I’m sure that Brett’s extensive travels in Islam majority countries, his countless hours of discussions with muslims as well as his knowledge of Arabic make him qualified to make the absolute statements that he does.
    Hey man, he lived near Dearborn!
    So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%, and just blow off the point: She actually has evidence on her side.
    I think you mistake “blowing off the point” with noting that what you said is factually false. By more than just a rounding error.
    If you have a case to make, make it. Just making up random crap is not persuasive.

  624. I’m sure that Brett’s extensive travels in Islam majority countries, his countless hours of discussions with muslims as well as his knowledge of Arabic make him qualified to make the absolute statements that he does.
    Hey man, he lived near Dearborn!
    So, basically you’re going to obsess about whether it’s 99% of Muslim majority countries, instead of 100%, and just blow off the point: She actually has evidence on her side.
    I think you mistake “blowing off the point” with noting that what you said is factually false. By more than just a rounding error.
    If you have a case to make, make it. Just making up random crap is not persuasive.

  625. Senegal seems to be heavily influenced by Sufism which does make a less powerful counter example.
    Why? Isn’t Sufism Islam?
    The fact that there are significant populations of Muslims who are, specifically, NOT VIOLENT as a matter of religious conviction would seem to be exactly and precisely the point. To me, anyway.
    The most direct way to deal with it, long term, is not to nuke Mecca, but to make that oil as close to worthless as possible.
    I invite you to do a quick back-of-envelope calculation of how much of the valuation of global equity holdings consist of untapped oil reserves.
    Or, more to the point, equity holdings in US corps.
    It’s not a hard set of numbers to find, at least at the ballpark level.
    The problem there is not Islam.
    Gun nuts, I get that’s a thing.
    Incandescent bulb nuts ???
    Same/same. It’s all liberty, man.
    Also, WTF is the heat lamp thing? You have a special light bulb in the bathroom to cook you like a hot dog at the 7-11 when you get out of the shower?
    Don’t you people have robes?
    God forbid anyone should be minutely uncomfortable for, like, 3 and a half seconds. We’ll by god burn every freaking dino byproduct on the planet before we let that happen.

  626. Senegal seems to be heavily influenced by Sufism which does make a less powerful counter example.
    Why? Isn’t Sufism Islam?
    The fact that there are significant populations of Muslims who are, specifically, NOT VIOLENT as a matter of religious conviction would seem to be exactly and precisely the point. To me, anyway.
    The most direct way to deal with it, long term, is not to nuke Mecca, but to make that oil as close to worthless as possible.
    I invite you to do a quick back-of-envelope calculation of how much of the valuation of global equity holdings consist of untapped oil reserves.
    Or, more to the point, equity holdings in US corps.
    It’s not a hard set of numbers to find, at least at the ballpark level.
    The problem there is not Islam.
    Gun nuts, I get that’s a thing.
    Incandescent bulb nuts ???
    Same/same. It’s all liberty, man.
    Also, WTF is the heat lamp thing? You have a special light bulb in the bathroom to cook you like a hot dog at the 7-11 when you get out of the shower?
    Don’t you people have robes?
    God forbid anyone should be minutely uncomfortable for, like, 3 and a half seconds. We’ll by god burn every freaking dino byproduct on the planet before we let that happen.

  627. Senegal seems to be heavily influenced by Sufism which does make a less powerful counter example.
    Why? Isn’t Sufism Islam?
    The fact that there are significant populations of Muslims who are, specifically, NOT VIOLENT as a matter of religious conviction would seem to be exactly and precisely the point. To me, anyway.
    The most direct way to deal with it, long term, is not to nuke Mecca, but to make that oil as close to worthless as possible.
    I invite you to do a quick back-of-envelope calculation of how much of the valuation of global equity holdings consist of untapped oil reserves.
    Or, more to the point, equity holdings in US corps.
    It’s not a hard set of numbers to find, at least at the ballpark level.
    The problem there is not Islam.
    Gun nuts, I get that’s a thing.
    Incandescent bulb nuts ???
    Same/same. It’s all liberty, man.
    Also, WTF is the heat lamp thing? You have a special light bulb in the bathroom to cook you like a hot dog at the 7-11 when you get out of the shower?
    Don’t you people have robes?
    God forbid anyone should be minutely uncomfortable for, like, 3 and a half seconds. We’ll by god burn every freaking dino byproduct on the planet before we let that happen.

  628. Sully wrote some good stuff there but, as a conservative, he is blind to the public policies that have brought us to this lamentable economic inequality pass.
    The thing with Sully is not that he’s a conservative, in the sense that that word is used here, but that he’s a Tory.
    I’m not sure we really have Tories per se here anymore, I think they went out with the white-shoe born-to-rule country club set.
    On second thought, considering that the (R) candidate for Prez last go-round was Willard ‘Mitt’ Romney, maybe we have lots of Tories.
    To his credit, in the piece cited he’s concerned about the social unrest and instability that can follow inequality. I note the same thing in other conservatives, e.g. Charles Murray.
    I don’t think Sullivan is anti-government action the way American conservatives are. I just don’t think he wants the wogs driving the bus.

  629. Sully wrote some good stuff there but, as a conservative, he is blind to the public policies that have brought us to this lamentable economic inequality pass.
    The thing with Sully is not that he’s a conservative, in the sense that that word is used here, but that he’s a Tory.
    I’m not sure we really have Tories per se here anymore, I think they went out with the white-shoe born-to-rule country club set.
    On second thought, considering that the (R) candidate for Prez last go-round was Willard ‘Mitt’ Romney, maybe we have lots of Tories.
    To his credit, in the piece cited he’s concerned about the social unrest and instability that can follow inequality. I note the same thing in other conservatives, e.g. Charles Murray.
    I don’t think Sullivan is anti-government action the way American conservatives are. I just don’t think he wants the wogs driving the bus.

  630. Sully wrote some good stuff there but, as a conservative, he is blind to the public policies that have brought us to this lamentable economic inequality pass.
    The thing with Sully is not that he’s a conservative, in the sense that that word is used here, but that he’s a Tory.
    I’m not sure we really have Tories per se here anymore, I think they went out with the white-shoe born-to-rule country club set.
    On second thought, considering that the (R) candidate for Prez last go-round was Willard ‘Mitt’ Romney, maybe we have lots of Tories.
    To his credit, in the piece cited he’s concerned about the social unrest and instability that can follow inequality. I note the same thing in other conservatives, e.g. Charles Murray.
    I don’t think Sullivan is anti-government action the way American conservatives are. I just don’t think he wants the wogs driving the bus.

  631. Why? Isn’t Sufism Islam?
    Not according to the fundies.
    On the other hand, the Kristian(TM) Right does not consider anyone a ‘true’ Christian except those that don’t share their particular narrow interpretation of The Faith (i.e. >90% of those that consider themselves to be Christian).
    To my knowledge Sufism is the Islamic equivalent of the Mystics and the latter were also seen with at best suspicion by the religious othodoxy, so ‘not true Muslims’ might be an opinion about Sufis shared by not a few.

  632. Why? Isn’t Sufism Islam?
    Not according to the fundies.
    On the other hand, the Kristian(TM) Right does not consider anyone a ‘true’ Christian except those that don’t share their particular narrow interpretation of The Faith (i.e. >90% of those that consider themselves to be Christian).
    To my knowledge Sufism is the Islamic equivalent of the Mystics and the latter were also seen with at best suspicion by the religious othodoxy, so ‘not true Muslims’ might be an opinion about Sufis shared by not a few.

  633. Why? Isn’t Sufism Islam?
    Not according to the fundies.
    On the other hand, the Kristian(TM) Right does not consider anyone a ‘true’ Christian except those that don’t share their particular narrow interpretation of The Faith (i.e. >90% of those that consider themselves to be Christian).
    To my knowledge Sufism is the Islamic equivalent of the Mystics and the latter were also seen with at best suspicion by the religious othodoxy, so ‘not true Muslims’ might be an opinion about Sufis shared by not a few.

  634. The thing with Sully is not that he’s a conservative, in the sense that that word is used here, but that he’s a Tory
    The meaning that the word bears in the US bears little relation to what the rest of us on the planet think of as ‘conservative’.
    (Although, to be fair, Margaret Thatcher, one of Sullivan’s icons, was hardly a conservative either.)

  635. The thing with Sully is not that he’s a conservative, in the sense that that word is used here, but that he’s a Tory
    The meaning that the word bears in the US bears little relation to what the rest of us on the planet think of as ‘conservative’.
    (Although, to be fair, Margaret Thatcher, one of Sullivan’s icons, was hardly a conservative either.)

  636. The thing with Sully is not that he’s a conservative, in the sense that that word is used here, but that he’s a Tory
    The meaning that the word bears in the US bears little relation to what the rest of us on the planet think of as ‘conservative’.
    (Although, to be fair, Margaret Thatcher, one of Sullivan’s icons, was hardly a conservative either.)

  637. Not according to the fundies.
    Who died and made them god?
    Look, here was the thread of conversation:
    Brett “Mr Binary Logic” Bellmore: there are no, zero, zip, nada Muslim majority countries that are even modestly free.
    N. Vide: Senegal
    Marty: Yeah, but those are the peaceful Muslims, so they don’t count.

  638. Not according to the fundies.
    Who died and made them god?
    Look, here was the thread of conversation:
    Brett “Mr Binary Logic” Bellmore: there are no, zero, zip, nada Muslim majority countries that are even modestly free.
    N. Vide: Senegal
    Marty: Yeah, but those are the peaceful Muslims, so they don’t count.

  639. Not according to the fundies.
    Who died and made them god?
    Look, here was the thread of conversation:
    Brett “Mr Binary Logic” Bellmore: there are no, zero, zip, nada Muslim majority countries that are even modestly free.
    N. Vide: Senegal
    Marty: Yeah, but those are the peaceful Muslims, so they don’t count.

  640. Senegal
    Turkey.
    A (nominally) secular democratic state with 95-100% of the population Muslim.
    And a NATO ally, to boot.
    Guess they don’t count, either
    Methinks ‘muslim’ might have become a synonym for ‘arab’ in some minds.

  641. Senegal
    Turkey.
    A (nominally) secular democratic state with 95-100% of the population Muslim.
    And a NATO ally, to boot.
    Guess they don’t count, either
    Methinks ‘muslim’ might have become a synonym for ‘arab’ in some minds.

  642. Senegal
    Turkey.
    A (nominally) secular democratic state with 95-100% of the population Muslim.
    And a NATO ally, to boot.
    Guess they don’t count, either
    Methinks ‘muslim’ might have become a synonym for ‘arab’ in some minds.

  643. Hartmut: Not according to the fundies.
    russell: Who died and made them god?
    If the fundies have no MORE right to define a religion than the moderates do, they have no LESS of a right, either.
    This opinion, smacking as it does of egalitarianism if not tolerance, may be disputed by BOTH the fundies and the moderates.
    –TP

  644. Hartmut: Not according to the fundies.
    russell: Who died and made them god?
    If the fundies have no MORE right to define a religion than the moderates do, they have no LESS of a right, either.
    This opinion, smacking as it does of egalitarianism if not tolerance, may be disputed by BOTH the fundies and the moderates.
    –TP

  645. Hartmut: Not according to the fundies.
    russell: Who died and made them god?
    If the fundies have no MORE right to define a religion than the moderates do, they have no LESS of a right, either.
    This opinion, smacking as it does of egalitarianism if not tolerance, may be disputed by BOTH the fundies and the moderates.
    –TP

  649. “Turkey.
    …
    Guess they don’t count, either”
    Especially since Turkey has just 8 more years to go before the centenary of their “secular democratic state”.
    Isn’t there a specific term for ignoring, or refusing to accept, hard evidence that one is mistaken about something? Just at the tip of my tongue, but can’t quite recall. Help, Obi-Sidi-Wan, you’re my only hope.

  650. “Turkey.
    …
    Guess they don’t count, either”
    Especially since Turkey has just 8 more years to go before the centenary of their “secular democratic state”.
    Isn’t there a specific term for ignoring, or refusing to accept, hard evidence that one is mistaken about something? Just at the tip of my tongue, but can’t quite recall. Help, Obi-Sidi-Wan, you’re my only hope.

  651. “Turkey.
    …
    Guess they don’t count, either”
    Especially since Turkey has just 8 more years to go before the centenary of their “secular democratic state”.
    Isn’t there a specific term for ignoring, or refusing to accept, hard evidence that one is mistaken about something? Just at the tip of my tongue, but can’t quite recall. Help, Obi-Sidi-Wan, you’re my only hope.

  652. If you make a list of “absolutely perfect democratic nations, with no flaws WHATSOEVER”, you get an empty page.
    IMO, go head and post your list.

  653. If you make a list of “absolutely perfect democratic nations, with no flaws WHATSOEVER”, you get an empty page.
    IMO, go head and post your list.

  654. If you make a list of “absolutely perfect democratic nations, with no flaws WHATSOEVER”, you get an empty page.
    IMO, go head and post your list.

  655. russell:
    Also, WTF is the heat lamp thing? […] God forbid anyone should be minutely uncomfortable for, like, 3 and a half seconds.
    Or its possible different people lead different lives, and may have different needs. The first time I saw one it was at a college girlfriend’s house, and my reaction was pretty much the same as yours…a completely ridiculous appliance. It turns out it was installed for her mother, who had MS, and needed it to keep from cooling off to fast from the shower.
    As for me, I now have one, and I use it. I rent an old, relatively drafty house, and its far more efficient to heat the small bathroom for the 3 minutes after I get out of the shower in the morning than it is to bring the entire house to a reasonable temp (thermostat is set to 50, which is certainly tolerable, but a mite cold when you are wet).
    Also, you know, I just like burning dinosaurs.

  656. russell:
    Also, WTF is the heat lamp thing? […] God forbid anyone should be minutely uncomfortable for, like, 3 and a half seconds.
    Or its possible different people lead different lives, and may have different needs. The first time I saw one it was at a college girlfriend’s house, and my reaction was pretty much the same as yours…a completely ridiculous appliance. It turns out it was installed for her mother, who had MS, and needed it to keep from cooling off to fast from the shower.
    As for me, I now have one, and I use it. I rent an old, relatively drafty house, and its far more efficient to heat the small bathroom for the 3 minutes after I get out of the shower in the morning than it is to bring the entire house to a reasonable temp (thermostat is set to 50, which is certainly tolerable, but a mite cold when you are wet).
    Also, you know, I just like burning dinosaurs.

  657. russell:
    Also, WTF is the heat lamp thing? […] God forbid anyone should be minutely uncomfortable for, like, 3 and a half seconds.
    Or its possible different people lead different lives, and may have different needs. The first time I saw one it was at a college girlfriend’s house, and my reaction was pretty much the same as yours…a completely ridiculous appliance. It turns out it was installed for her mother, who had MS, and needed it to keep from cooling off to fast from the shower.
    As for me, I now have one, and I use it. I rent an old, relatively drafty house, and its far more efficient to heat the small bathroom for the 3 minutes after I get out of the shower in the morning than it is to bring the entire house to a reasonable temp (thermostat is set to 50, which is certainly tolerable, but a mite cold when you are wet).
    Also, you know, I just like burning dinosaurs.

  658. Turkey added to watchdog’s list of religious liberty violators.
    It’s worth noting that the targets of religious oppression in some majority-Muslim nations are folks who are the wrong kind of Muslim.
    Shia in Sunni states, Sunnis in Shia states, Sufis and Amadiyya everywhere.
    It’s also worth noting that it’s not just Muslim-majority states that are hostile to certain forms of religious practice.
    It’s also worth noting that, until quite recently, established religions and the suppression of non-established religious practice was dead common in most of the world. Right here in the good old USA, for example, and there is no shortage of people who would be quite happy to bring it back.
    The Constitution only disallows *federal* establishment of religion, right? Good thing nobody is trying that argument on nowadays, especially right here in our Christian nation.
    Oops, forgot, Judeo-Christian, sometime in the last few years the Jews have been allowed on the bus.
    There are lots of reasons why many Muslim-majority states do poorly on indexes of religious and political freedom at this point in time. Many of those reasons have bugger-all to do with religion, of any stripe. To discuss the issue without recognizing and considering all of that requires some combination of bigotry and willfull ignorance.

  659. Turkey added to watchdog’s list of religious liberty violators.
    It’s worth noting that the targets of religious oppression in some majority-Muslim nations are folks who are the wrong kind of Muslim.
    Shia in Sunni states, Sunnis in Shia states, Sufis and Amadiyya everywhere.
    It’s also worth noting that it’s not just Muslim-majority states that are hostile to certain forms of religious practice.
    It’s also worth noting that, until quite recently, established religions and the suppression of non-established religious practice was dead common in most of the world. Right here in the good old USA, for example, and there is no shortage of people who would be quite happy to bring it back.
    The Constitution only disallows *federal* establishment of religion, right? Good thing nobody is trying that argument on nowadays, especially right here in our Christian nation.
    Oops, forgot, Judeo-Christian, sometime in the last few years the Jews have been allowed on the bus.
    There are lots of reasons why many Muslim-majority states do poorly on indexes of religious and political freedom at this point in time. Many of those reasons have bugger-all to do with religion, of any stripe. To discuss the issue without recognizing and considering all of that requires some combination of bigotry and willfull ignorance.

  660. Turkey added to watchdog’s list of religious liberty violators.
    It’s worth noting that the targets of religious oppression in some majority-Muslim nations are folks who are the wrong kind of Muslim.
    Shia in Sunni states, Sunnis in Shia states, Sufis and Amadiyya everywhere.
    It’s also worth noting that it’s not just Muslim-majority states that are hostile to certain forms of religious practice.
    It’s also worth noting that, until quite recently, established religions and the suppression of non-established religious practice was dead common in most of the world. Right here in the good old USA, for example, and there is no shortage of people who would be quite happy to bring it back.
    The Constitution only disallows *federal* establishment of religion, right? Good thing nobody is trying that argument on nowadays, especially right here in our Christian nation.
    Oops, forgot, Judeo-Christian, sometime in the last few years the Jews have been allowed on the bus.
    There are lots of reasons why many Muslim-majority states do poorly on indexes of religious and political freedom at this point in time. Many of those reasons have bugger-all to do with religion, of any stripe. To discuss the issue without recognizing and considering all of that requires some combination of bigotry and willfull ignorance.

  661. Or its possible different people lead different lives, and may have different needs.
    If you want a heat lamp, have a heat lamp. Live your life.
    Where I draw the line is when we start making public policy based on imaginary god-given rights to have a heat lamp. Or incandescent light bulb, or 15mpg SUV, or whatever else floats your boat.
    “The American way of life is not negotiable!” declared George Herbert Walker Bush at the earth summit in Rio, back in 1992.
    As if the choice is ours, and ours alone.

  662. Or its possible different people lead different lives, and may have different needs.
    If you want a heat lamp, have a heat lamp. Live your life.
    Where I draw the line is when we start making public policy based on imaginary god-given rights to have a heat lamp. Or incandescent light bulb, or 15mpg SUV, or whatever else floats your boat.
    “The American way of life is not negotiable!” declared George Herbert Walker Bush at the earth summit in Rio, back in 1992.
    As if the choice is ours, and ours alone.

  663. Or its possible different people lead different lives, and may have different needs.
    If you want a heat lamp, have a heat lamp. Live your life.
    Where I draw the line is when we start making public policy based on imaginary god-given rights to have a heat lamp. Or incandescent light bulb, or 15mpg SUV, or whatever else floats your boat.
    “The American way of life is not negotiable!” declared George Herbert Walker Bush at the earth summit in Rio, back in 1992.
    As if the choice is ours, and ours alone.

  664. If the fundies have no MORE right to define a religion than the moderates do, they have no LESS of a right, either.
    Both have the complete and total right to define what *they* believe.
    Just as we all have the complete and total right to define what we believe, don’t believe, or are completely indifferent to, as the case may be.
    So, yes, egalitarianism and tolerance sound good to me, also.

  665. If the fundies have no MORE right to define a religion than the moderates do, they have no LESS of a right, either.
    Both have the complete and total right to define what *they* believe.
    Just as we all have the complete and total right to define what we believe, don’t believe, or are completely indifferent to, as the case may be.
    So, yes, egalitarianism and tolerance sound good to me, also.

  666. If the fundies have no MORE right to define a religion than the moderates do, they have no LESS of a right, either.
    Both have the complete and total right to define what *they* believe.
    Just as we all have the complete and total right to define what we believe, don’t believe, or are completely indifferent to, as the case may be.
    So, yes, egalitarianism and tolerance sound good to me, also.

  667. If the fundies have no MORE right to define a religion than the moderates do, they have no LESS of a right, either.
    Actually, they do. If you have a religion which 1000 people espouse, you do not, as a group of 20 people, get to define what the religion is. Even if you have more money than everybody else combined, and control of the religion’s holiest places. You can argue your version of what that religion ought to be, but you can not claim to define what it is.
    P.S. The same applies to political philosophies. Having (partial) control of the most powerful country on earth, and pots more money than anybody else, doesn’t automatically get you freedom to redefine “conservative” to suit you preferences.

  668. If the fundies have no MORE right to define a religion than the moderates do, they have no LESS of a right, either.
    Actually, they do. If you have a religion which 1000 people espouse, you do not, as a group of 20 people, get to define what the religion is. Even if you have more money than everybody else combined, and control of the religion’s holiest places. You can argue your version of what that religion ought to be, but you can not claim to define what it is.
    P.S. The same applies to political philosophies. Having (partial) control of the most powerful country on earth, and pots more money than anybody else, doesn’t automatically get you freedom to redefine “conservative” to suit you preferences.

  669. If the fundies have no MORE right to define a religion than the moderates do, they have no LESS of a right, either.
    Actually, they do. If you have a religion which 1000 people espouse, you do not, as a group of 20 people, get to define what the religion is. Even if you have more money than everybody else combined, and control of the religion’s holiest places. You can argue your version of what that religion ought to be, but you can not claim to define what it is.
    P.S. The same applies to political philosophies. Having (partial) control of the most powerful country on earth, and pots more money than anybody else, doesn’t automatically get you freedom to redefine “conservative” to suit you preferences.

  670. Live your life.
    Thanks, I appreciate your blessing.
    Where I draw the line is when we start making public policy based on imaginary god-given rights to have a heat lamp.
    My point is that, you, a well-meaning individual who doesn’t seem interested in running other people’s lives, couldn’t imagine a use case from something that others find very useful. For my ex’s mother, it kept her healthy. For me, it keeps me from burning more dinos. Both good things in my book.
    Much as we shouldn’t be making policy decisions on the god-given right to use heat lamps, we also shouldn’t make policy decisions on what you think is unnecessary or wasteful.
    I realize your snark doesn’t rise to the level of policy, but it’s a minor pet peeve of mine when people go off on: WTF is the deal with X? Why can’t they do Y like me?
    People live different lives. They have different needs. All of us end up doing things a way others would find wasteful or unnecessary.

  671. Live your life.
    Thanks, I appreciate your blessing.
    Where I draw the line is when we start making public policy based on imaginary god-given rights to have a heat lamp.
    My point is that, you, a well-meaning individual who doesn’t seem interested in running other people’s lives, couldn’t imagine a use case from something that others find very useful. For my ex’s mother, it kept her healthy. For me, it keeps me from burning more dinos. Both good things in my book.
    Much as we shouldn’t be making policy decisions on the god-given right to use heat lamps, we also shouldn’t make policy decisions on what you think is unnecessary or wasteful.
    I realize your snark doesn’t rise to the level of policy, but it’s a minor pet peeve of mine when people go off on: WTF is the deal with X? Why can’t they do Y like me?
    People live different lives. They have different needs. All of us end up doing things a way others would find wasteful or unnecessary.

  672. Live your life.
    Thanks, I appreciate your blessing.
    Where I draw the line is when we start making public policy based on imaginary god-given rights to have a heat lamp.
    My point is that, you, a well-meaning individual who doesn’t seem interested in running other people’s lives, couldn’t imagine a use case from something that others find very useful. For my ex’s mother, it kept her healthy. For me, it keeps me from burning more dinos. Both good things in my book.
    Much as we shouldn’t be making policy decisions on the god-given right to use heat lamps, we also shouldn’t make policy decisions on what you think is unnecessary or wasteful.
    I realize your snark doesn’t rise to the level of policy, but it’s a minor pet peeve of mine when people go off on: WTF is the deal with X? Why can’t they do Y like me?
    People live different lives. They have different needs. All of us end up doing things a way others would find wasteful or unnecessary.

  673. I missed a lot of this thread I think but since there is a mystical tradition in Senegal that Sufism incorporates locally, meaning it is a separate philosophy from the religion, I thought it was a distinction worth noting. YMMV

  674. I missed a lot of this thread I think but since there is a mystical tradition in Senegal that Sufism incorporates locally, meaning it is a separate philosophy from the religion, I thought it was a distinction worth noting. YMMV

  675. I missed a lot of this thread I think but since there is a mystical tradition in Senegal that Sufism incorporates locally, meaning it is a separate philosophy from the religion, I thought it was a distinction worth noting. YMMV

  676. to hear “conservatives” tell it, Christianity is under constant attack in the US: by public and private actors, all the time, everywhere.

  677. to hear “conservatives” tell it, Christianity is under constant attack in the US: by public and private actors, all the time, everywhere.

  678. to hear “conservatives” tell it, Christianity is under constant attack in the US: by public and private actors, all the time, everywhere.

  679. I thought it was a distinction worth noting.
    You were and are correct.
    Most, probably all, religious traditions partake in, and are flavored by, other traditions that exist in the cultures where they are practiced.
    That’s true of fundamentalist varieties as well, not just the more tolerant ones.
    I take your point here, but the argument being made by Brett in this thread is that there is something inherent in Islam that makes Muslim nations oppressive and intolerant of other beliefs and points of view.
    In that context, the presence of a significant group of Muslims who are exactly *not that* seems worth noting.
    It’s true that Sufism in Senegal and elsewhere is influenced by other traditions. That’s also true of fundamentalist Islamic traditions like Salafism and Wahaabism.
    Sufism is actually a much older tradition than either of those.
    it’s a minor pet peeve of mine when people go off on: WTF is the deal with X? Why can’t they do Y like me?
    I take your point overall, but I’m really not interested in people doing X Y or Z like me.
    If heat lamps get the job done for you, that’s great. If they lower your energy consumption to boot, bonus.
    Basically, my comment about them was an overreaction. I was imagining heat lamps becoming the next battlefield in the great war of kenyan muslim socialism against our freedoms, and it struck me as absurd.
    My bad.

  680. I thought it was a distinction worth noting.
    You were and are correct.
    Most, probably all, religious traditions partake in, and are flavored by, other traditions that exist in the cultures where they are practiced.
    That’s true of fundamentalist varieties as well, not just the more tolerant ones.
    I take your point here, but the argument being made by Brett in this thread is that there is something inherent in Islam that makes Muslim nations oppressive and intolerant of other beliefs and points of view.
    In that context, the presence of a significant group of Muslims who are exactly *not that* seems worth noting.
    It’s true that Sufism in Senegal and elsewhere is influenced by other traditions. That’s also true of fundamentalist Islamic traditions like Salafism and Wahaabism.
    Sufism is actually a much older tradition than either of those.
    it’s a minor pet peeve of mine when people go off on: WTF is the deal with X? Why can’t they do Y like me?
    I take your point overall, but I’m really not interested in people doing X Y or Z like me.
    If heat lamps get the job done for you, that’s great. If they lower your energy consumption to boot, bonus.
    Basically, my comment about them was an overreaction. I was imagining heat lamps becoming the next battlefield in the great war of kenyan muslim socialism against our freedoms, and it struck me as absurd.
    My bad.

  681. I thought it was a distinction worth noting.
    You were and are correct.
    Most, probably all, religious traditions partake in, and are flavored by, other traditions that exist in the cultures where they are practiced.
    That’s true of fundamentalist varieties as well, not just the more tolerant ones.
    I take your point here, but the argument being made by Brett in this thread is that there is something inherent in Islam that makes Muslim nations oppressive and intolerant of other beliefs and points of view.
    In that context, the presence of a significant group of Muslims who are exactly *not that* seems worth noting.
    It’s true that Sufism in Senegal and elsewhere is influenced by other traditions. That’s also true of fundamentalist Islamic traditions like Salafism and Wahaabism.
    Sufism is actually a much older tradition than either of those.
    it’s a minor pet peeve of mine when people go off on: WTF is the deal with X? Why can’t they do Y like me?
    I take your point overall, but I’m really not interested in people doing X Y or Z like me.
    If heat lamps get the job done for you, that’s great. If they lower your energy consumption to boot, bonus.
    Basically, my comment about them was an overreaction. I was imagining heat lamps becoming the next battlefield in the great war of kenyan muslim socialism against our freedoms, and it struck me as absurd.
    My bad.

  682. One more plug for the conservation of energy and water. Mounting a heat lamp over the shower makes taking a ‘Navy Shower’ on chilly mornings much more feasible.
    I know little of the variety of muslim attitudes but back when Iran was holding American hostages my work partner was a student from Tehran. He was my friend and had a pacifist attitude toward our government even though policy was keeping him from receiving any help from his family back in Tehran. I lost contact with him and hope he was not later gassed by Saddam.

  683. One more plug for the conservation of energy and water. Mounting a heat lamp over the shower makes taking a ‘Navy Shower’ on chilly mornings much more feasible.
    I know little of the variety of muslim attitudes but back when Iran was holding American hostages my work partner was a student from Tehran. He was my friend and had a pacifist attitude toward our government even though policy was keeping him from receiving any help from his family back in Tehran. I lost contact with him and hope he was not later gassed by Saddam.

  684. One more plug for the conservation of energy and water. Mounting a heat lamp over the shower makes taking a ‘Navy Shower’ on chilly mornings much more feasible.
    I know little of the variety of muslim attitudes but back when Iran was holding American hostages my work partner was a student from Tehran. He was my friend and had a pacifist attitude toward our government even though policy was keeping him from receiving any help from his family back in Tehran. I lost contact with him and hope he was not later gassed by Saddam.

  685. the next battlefield in the great war of kenyan muslim socialism against our freedoms, and it struck me as absurd
    I would agree, that is absurd.
    Mounting a heat lamp over the shower makes taking a ‘Navy Shower’ on chilly mornings much more feasible.
    That’s a really good idea, I might start doing that.

  686. the next battlefield in the great war of kenyan muslim socialism against our freedoms, and it struck me as absurd
    I would agree, that is absurd.
    Mounting a heat lamp over the shower makes taking a ‘Navy Shower’ on chilly mornings much more feasible.
    That’s a really good idea, I might start doing that.

  687. the next battlefield in the great war of kenyan muslim socialism against our freedoms, and it struck me as absurd
    I would agree, that is absurd.
    Mounting a heat lamp over the shower makes taking a ‘Navy Shower’ on chilly mornings much more feasible.
    That’s a really good idea, I might start doing that.

  688. There are lots of reasons why many Muslim-majority states do poorly on indexes of religious and political freedom at this point in time. Many of those reasons have bugger-all to do with religion, of any stripe.
    Unless my perception of it is grossly misrepresentative, I think Albania would be a good point of reference for this statement. Secular parliamentary democracy, between 60% and 80% Muslim, depending on your source, and by what I’ve read, all the oppression it does is rooted in Soviet-era habits of governance (with no large-scale “private oppression” going on besides that – just your typical Western-style interpersonal discrimination against gender, ethnicity (which does blur into religion; this is the Balkans, after all), and orientation). Not a shining exemplar of free and open society (though at the same time not awful by third or second world standards), but certainly not a nation whose Muslim-majority status seems to be leading it inevitably down the road to theocratic tyranny.

  689. There are lots of reasons why many Muslim-majority states do poorly on indexes of religious and political freedom at this point in time. Many of those reasons have bugger-all to do with religion, of any stripe.
    Unless my perception of it is grossly misrepresentative, I think Albania would be a good point of reference for this statement. Secular parliamentary democracy, between 60% and 80% Muslim, depending on your source, and by what I’ve read, all the oppression it does is rooted in Soviet-era habits of governance (with no large-scale “private oppression” going on besides that – just your typical Western-style interpersonal discrimination against gender, ethnicity (which does blur into religion; this is the Balkans, after all), and orientation). Not a shining exemplar of free and open society (though at the same time not awful by third or second world standards), but certainly not a nation whose Muslim-majority status seems to be leading it inevitably down the road to theocratic tyranny.

  690. There are lots of reasons why many Muslim-majority states do poorly on indexes of religious and political freedom at this point in time. Many of those reasons have bugger-all to do with religion, of any stripe.
    Unless my perception of it is grossly misrepresentative, I think Albania would be a good point of reference for this statement. Secular parliamentary democracy, between 60% and 80% Muslim, depending on your source, and by what I’ve read, all the oppression it does is rooted in Soviet-era habits of governance (with no large-scale “private oppression” going on besides that – just your typical Western-style interpersonal discrimination against gender, ethnicity (which does blur into religion; this is the Balkans, after all), and orientation). Not a shining exemplar of free and open society (though at the same time not awful by third or second world standards), but certainly not a nation whose Muslim-majority status seems to be leading it inevitably down the road to theocratic tyranny.

Comments are closed.