Freed by the Burqa & Other Feminist Fruitiness

What do you say to a Western Feminist who praises being covered up like a prized couch? Underneath that sheet, Maude, is a lovely "piece". We must protect it.

Feminism means coming out of the kitchen, from under the thumb of oppressive men and society at large, does it not? Aren't modern feminists decrying the trek back to the kitchen by educated women who should be changing the world for the better instead of changing a dirty baby's butt? Some do. Some others convert to Islam and cover themselves up in deference to men who might be turned on by their arms, hands, hair, fingers, legs, butt, breasts or any other body part they fetishize.

Dr. Sanity skewers the insanity of a feminist woman praising the virtues of covering. She says:

It is astonishing to me that there are women who justify Islam and even describe it as "liberating" because it "frees" women from having to worry about issues like fashion or looks. By that line of reasoning, you could say that Death "frees" people from having to worry about Life.

The Anchoress is funny and incisive as usual and says:

Clearly, as demonstrated in the other two featured op-eds, Riley’s interpretation of that Koranic verse is not everyone’s. Further, I would argue that under any religious system, not merely Islam, all of the things she is claiming for herself would be equally available to her. Riley probably doesn’t realize this because very likely her previous religion was the religion of PC secularism, which is all about rhetoric and illusion. Having fully embraced its illusions, she can never again claim for herself a “Western” religion without losing her feminist face. Hence she has turned Eastward, and covered it.

And well, well, well this feminist is terrorist sympathizer. Who would have thunk it? Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy says this:

Yvonne Ridley singing the praises of hijab while pretending to be a liberal? PLEASE!

Yvonne Ridley is a member of George Galloway’s RESPECT party, and has written numerous essays defending Islamic terrorism. She described those murdered in last year’s terrorist attacks in Jordan as “collaborators.” She wrote, “I think I’d rather put up with a brother like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi any day than have a traitor or sell-out for a father, son or grandfather.” She described Shamil Basaev, the mastermind of the massacre of Russian school children at Beslan, as “a Shaheed,” or martyr.

What next, Adam Gadahn? At least tell the complete truth about Ridley in your short bit about who she is [“Yvonne Ridley is political editor of Islam Channel TV in London and coauthor of “In the Hands of the Taliban: Her Extraordinary Story” (Robson Books).”]

The Anchoress actually has a fantastic wrap-up. All of a sudden, the woman's a blogging fool. Sheesh! Should have visited this morning. Every take today is as sharp as a new razor.

"Harold, Call Me!"--Updated

Funniest political ad. Ever. It's about time some life was breathed into this sad-sack genre.

Go over to Alabama Liberation Front for deconstruction. Via Instapundit.



Update: According to Ann Althouse--this ad is "shameful" and I'm racist for liking it. As of this writing, Althouse hasn't specified what part of the ad is "shameful". Lots of debate in the comments, though. Watch this ad again and tell me if you think the ad is racist.

The heavy-handed, somber-toned, scary fade-outs used in most political ads are almost satirical. They are so tired and boring, people invariably change the channel and roll their eyes. I don't think they change anyone's opinions. I'm not sure this ad will change anyone's mind, either.

Should politics be above using humor to make a point? Politics is a blood sport and has never been above much of anything, in my experience. I'd be outraged if the ad were racist, but I just don't see it.

Brendan Loy Believes Nancy Pelosi

At least one person believes her. I like Brendan. When I pop over to his blog, I feel uplifted by his happy takes and idealism. That's a great thing. Plus, he's always got great Hurricane analysis. Plus, he's funny. Plus, he's red-headed (auburnish) and I have a soft spot in my heart for men coifed thusly. He's the whole package: sweet, smart, funny, and he loves Tolkien and football. If he weren't married and I weren't married, I might dial him up.

There is just one little, wee thing about Brendan, besides being a cat lover. It's his whole, doggedly determined affinity for Democrats. Even that, though, I believe will fade.

Match. Made. In. Heaven.: He'll be Republican by 30.

America at War With Itself: Secularism vs. Judeo-Christianity UPDATED, Scroll Down

A belated welcome to Siggy and Mama readers! Please take a look around--were talking about impolite topics these days: sex, politics and religion. Oh, and racism, too. Why not? I'm quite sure, there's enough to offend everyone.

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

Maxed Out Mama goes off today on a righteous rant. Her post is excellent and deserves a careful, thoughtful reading.

Before I reference my favorite passages from her post, I would like to note something. Within America, we face a question whose answer determines our future. We know what the future looks like should we continue on our current path--we have had the benefit of watching Europe morph into a multi-cultural morass. Their society is defined by conflict, nihilism, and a pervasive sense of helplessness. Meanwhile, an undercurrent of intolerance, hate and revenge brews.

The question: Are we a God-fearing country or are we a Secular country?

Which is it? The first dictates certain actions. The second does, as well. You see, for those who are areligious or anti-religious, their moral compass is quite lax (not all, mind you, but the minorities matter as much as the majorities according to their dogma). Their religion is their personal comfort. This belief leads to certain conclusions.


While our Judeo-Christian society tolerates those who fall outside the Judeo-Christian belief system--sinners who have yet to reform is the hopeful ideal, the Secular system is quite intolerant of those who do not tolerate everything they believe is tolerable. And what's tolerable is quite dependent on the individual. So we end up in inane places where bestiality is hotly debated as an individual right.

And why shouldn't bestiality or euthanasia or necrophilia or pedophilia or polygamy or abortion or adultery or thievery or extortion be allowed? The fittest will survive. The rest will shrink and die. If a Jeff Skilling can manage to snooker thousands of people, shame on them for being stupid.

Nearly every law on America's books ties back to the Magna Carta and ultimately, the Bible. One could argue that the rational results of these laws is a society filled with knowledge, reason, abundance and every good thing imaginable. Perhaps that's why so many Americans dig their heels in when it comes to changing to allow every perverted (who gets to define that word?) thing become not just tolerated but endorsed legally.

Mama says it better:

Why? SC&A answers the question:
Non believers would argue that belief in God is a kind of crutch- and it is in that argument that we can see that they do not understand the meaning of ‘faith in God.’ In fact, real faith is assuming a burden, obligations that would otherwise be ignored. The Jewish notion is particularly illustrative- it is one of assuming ‘the yoke of Heaven.’

With real faith there is no respite from those obligations. In fact, the obligations and ‘ascent’ are unrelenting. There is a never ending field that must be plowed so that who follow the believer will find spiritual nourishment and meaning. There are no vacations from the obligations believers assume.

Exactly. This is the philosophy, the essential stance, that the NY Times finds so dangerous. It concentrates on destroying this idea, which their philosophy finds terrifying. They do not fear the bombers and the destroyers - they fear us. They fear those who believe that there is an absolute, external reality which has the right to make individual claims upon us which will mandate self-sacrifice. Traditional atheism in the American culture has denied the existence of a God, but not has not denied the existence of an external reality or the concept that recognizing an external reality imposes obligations on us individually.

The new philosophy of "secularism" has come to adopt the idea that reality, if it is uncomfortable, can be changed. Of course, it cannot. And of course, reality will often be very, very uncomfortable. Yet it will continue to exist, and the sum of our individual inabilities or abilities to recognize reality and to respond to it well ultimately governs the life and success of all cultures. This new secularism is also at war with traditional American atheism.

SC&A's post merits reading and rereading, but for now I want to cite a comment in response to the post from one Ryotto:
Life is not meaningless to the secular tribe. In fact, life on this earth is what matters most.

Unlike the religious tribe, who will mindlessly vote for anyone who wears his religion on his sleeve, no matter how disastrous his policies are, the members of the secular tribe are concerned about what kind of place we will leave to future generations. Will we leave them an overpopulated, polluted Earth which is dominated by the greed of big business and has little regard for the individual, or will we leave them an Earth which is better than the one we were given?

For some secularists, Ryotto's point is true. These are the traditional atheists who do recognize duty toward others. But it is obvious that Ryotto doesn't recognize this duty, because the first duty of all those who do believe in external reality is to recognize that reality as well as they can. When Ryotto must continue on to describe the "religious tribe" this way...

To the religious tribe, it really doesn’t matter, as long as they can spend eternity floating around in some kind of imagined paradise.

... it becomes obvious that Ryotto has a problem with reality. It takes a stunning amount of willful blindness not to realize that the commands of faith are almost purely directed toward our obligations toward other human beings, and not to recognize the historical role that these commands have played in the life of our nation. Abolition, emancipation of women, child-labor laws, the progressive era fighting for just compensation for working-class men and women - all of these movements were initiated by religious people. The churches and synagogues spawned the hospitals, nursing homes and charities then, and they still do now.

When you must resort to lies to make your point, you have no point. Just as every atheist is not trying to avoid reality, it is fact that most religious people are responding to the reality that they see and experience, and that the Ten Commandments still have place in the life of this country because they still accurately tell us something about the results of our actions over time.

Does lying, stealing or cheating work? Does abusing or ignoring your parents work? Properly understood, "sin" in the Judeo-Christian tradition means denying reality with your actions, a.k.a. doing things that seem wonderful right now, but do not work out over the long term. Isn't "...punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me" an apt description of what we are seeing in our society from those who have romped off on the path of self-fulfillment while ignoring their responsibilities to others? Change "God" to "the real world", and can any atheist not at war with reality deny that these rules are still basic requirements for a workable society?

It is also a fact that the US press is dominated by an elite that has little contact with reality and wishes to preserve that circumstance, and that it represents the true life of the American people not at all. It is a froth destined to be swept away by the currents of history and reality. I will not mourn its passing.

Shrinkwrapped wrote in a puzzled fashion last year that he could not understand why he found many religiously-oriented bloggers more thoughtful and reality-oriented than the secularists. In "Talking 'bout My Generation" he takes another look at what the denial of personal responsibility has wrought:
Children who are raised to believe the sun rises and sets for them are loathe to risk their own comfort for anything that does not directly threaten them. After all, since the ascendancy of the left among the Western elites, the idea that there could exist anything more important than the attainment of one's personal happiness (usually confused with the pursuit of pleasure and material accumulation) has been accepted as the only sine qua non for a just society. The heightened Narcissism of my generation is the substrate upon which so many of our troubles rest, which is why I write about it so often.

Secularism is really state-sponsored Narcissim. It is a religion. It is a belief system. There is dogma. And it is being foisted on Americans. The hope is that America will trade their Judeo-Christian roots for the fleeting feel-good forbidden fruit of Secular selfishness.

America will choose and her choice will determine her survival.

Update: My, my, my. This topic is not only on my mind today. Everyone is talking about God--even Psychiatrists. Please go read this post by Sigmund, Carl and Alfred. I'd like to note that he is in my Blog Roll and if you haven't been hitting the links recently, you're missing out. This is just one example.

Stem Cell Research & Politics-UPDATES, Scroll Down

What do you say to a guy suffering with a debilitating disease, absolutely convicted about a controversial, non-proven therapy that would involve tax-payers dollars because no private venture will fund it, that is used to promote a political candidate?

John Hawkins expresses my sentiments. I've talked repeatedly about the difference between Embryonic Stem Cell Research versus research on stem cells found in umbilical chord blood, bone marrow, breast milk, and even fat. While the latter actually has already been used and shows great promise, Embryonic Stem Cells don't. Not to mention they are taken from a potential baby that dies that possibly, may give life to someone else.

The implication from the ad is that by voting for the other candidate you're killing Michael J. Fox or at the very least withholding a life-saving cure from him. The ad is exploitive, emotionally manipulative and misleading. Who can respond to this ad without seeming cold and heartless? That's what the Democrats count on, of course. An unanswerable ad, because they are morally superior beings.

I love Michael J. Fox, I think he is funny, smart and has dealt with his disease courageously. I also do not believe American taxpayers should be paying for morally questionable research.

Update: Well, here's a response ad against the Missouri Constitutional Amendment. Holy Cow! Look at the celebs in this one. I hate to even imagine how much it cost to put this thing together. Maybe they're all so filled with purpose, they're doing it for free. Somehow, I doubt it.



Update II: The Anchoress has a fantastic post about all this, that you must read. She sums up with a previous sum up that I some how missed but will include here. Powerful:

That research…made me believe that Embryonic stem cells are like uncut heroin…waaaay, way to powerful to use - they are part of begotten life in its purest form (perhaps still too near to God for our fooling with) - and they are so maleable as to be (so far in research) unpredictable and unusable. And that’s not even getting into the moral and ethical questions of whether or not a human embryo should be exploited in such a way, particularly when Adult Stem Cells are showing remarkable results in everything from helping sufferers of Sickle Cell Anemia and Thallassemias Major and Minor, to spinal injuries, skin regeneration and more.
[…]
And I say that as a woman dealing with a chronic blood illness, and waiting to hear - finally - about a diagnosis that has taken a great deal of time to pinpoint. Both health issues are being looked into with adult stem cells, and that’s good news…I wouldn’t want any treatment derived from embryonic stem cells.

I still feel that way…

Kevin Federline is a "Cultural Suicide Bomber"

Agent Bedhead just got added to my blog roll. You must read her for a good laugh.

The Manolo: "This is Clearly Child Abuse"

The holiday sweater gets its fashion due.

Bestiality: Defending the Base and Degrading

We have sunk to defending the right to have sex with animals here in America. Can the fall of Rome be far behind?

I mean really are we so legalistic in this country that an abominable notion like screwing one's own dog is up for legal and moral discussion? And yet, over in the comment sexion at Sean Gleeson that's exactly what's happening.

Who are you to decide that sex with animals is wrong? Who are you to decide that marrying the football team is wrong? Who are you to decide that sex with an infant daughter is wrong?

Commenter Coyote sums up the spirit of the libertarian argument--which is why I can't be libertarian:

He was right! Just so all of you can think less of me, I have no problem legalizing prostitution, polygamy, pornography, incest, drug abuse, and bestiality involving consenting adults (kids, who by definition are not legally capable of making adult decisions, are a different legal matter). Here for example is my rant on legalizing prostitution. Here is my favorite ode to Polygamy. Here is my summary post on letting individuals run their own damn life.

When people come to tell you that it is OK for them to use coercion and force against you, but only to protect you from yourself, or even more nebulously to protect your “human dignity,” run away screaming. Here is a bet: Give me absolute dictatorial powers but limited only to things I could justify as “protecting human dignity” and I would have a full-bore fascist state built by the end of the week. Because that phrase can freaking mean anything at all. And it is always, always, always the person who makes such statements who envisions themselves (not you our me!) defining the terms.

I am not sure what my “dignity” is or where it rests, but please, as long as I am not hurting anyone else, leave the protection of it to me alone.

The key of course is what Coyote's definiton of "as long as I am not hurting anyone else". What is his definition of discomfort, pain, trauma?

The United States constitution, whether libertarians like it or not, took some religious principles for granted. A certain morality was assumed. A certain morality was understood to be the underpinnings of a society.

Who gets to decide these questions? The Christian God or your next door dog screwing, polygamist? (He owns a dog brothel.)

I'm no fan of witch trials or Nazis--the libertarian's feared result of a moral government run amok. I'm also no fan of creating a society by the least common denominator, where the rule we strive for is "as long as no one is harmed" and the definition of "harm" is murder.

Update: I just thought of another thing--even murder is okay as long as it's abortion and euthanasia.

Update II: More Bestiality in the news, courtesy Ace. Oh yes, our society keeps on improvin'. Oh, and here's a nice haiku to sum it up:

Humping a dead dog?
Another victimless crime.
One more freedom lost.

Posted by: Roy on October 23, 2006 06:44 PM

John Hawkins: "The French Intifada Continues On"

Yes it does. An average of 112 cars burned--A DAY. A day, people. That is insane! In addition, the police are now being marked as targets. They are called into a neighborhood for help and get rocks thrown at them.

It's an undeclared civil war. And I had a friend suggest that "France might be a good place to live, they have socialized medicine and we don't."

Update: Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters has more:

Even the larger police unions have started to rethink their previous denials of organized resistance in the banlieus. One union official talks about the escalation from individual and spontaneous rock-throwing to complicated ambushes, and calls them "an act of war". And with the anniversary of last year's riots about to arrive, the police believe that organizers want to re-enact and expand them.

These actions have had a distinct political effect in France and across Europe. The multiculturalism that Europeans practice has been sorely tested and now has subsided in place of a more practical understanding of the importance of shared culture. Jack Straw in the UK has called for an end to the veil for Muslim women, as France did in its schools earlier. Both nations, with significant and vocal Muslim minorities, have begun to demand assimilation from their transplants rather than understanding and accommodation from the natives. The National Front's slogan of "France, love it or leave it" has gained traction in mainstream French politics, with Nicolas Sarkozy remining unhappy residents that the screen door won't hit them on the way out of France.

This shows the limitations of multiculturalism. No one has a problem when people engage in their own cultural rituals and speak their own language; it becomes a problem when they force native populations to adopt them for themselves. Immigration should exist where people want to assimilate into the culture of the nation they adopt, and not where people arrive to set up enclaves of the Old Country and then demand that their hosts recognize their authority to do so. America's success with immigration came from the impulse of its immigrants to join in the American culture and the American dream, not because we started printing ballots in eighteen different languages to accommodate people who didn't want to learn English.

Amen, Captain Ed. Assimilate. Or, go home.

Alberto Fernandez Represents the State Department

Via Little Green Footballs: Is it any wonder that Bush hasn't gone Nixonian--all paranoid and fearful? With "allies" in his own State Department saying "the U.S. policy in Iraq diplayed 'arrogance' and 'stupidity.'"

Nice. And here' Reuter's headline: Diplomat admits U.S. 'arrogance' in Iraq

Cartoonish, I Mean Cartoonist, Ted Rall Hates the Military

Newsbusters has a recent cartoon--go look at it here--and Noel Sheppard wonders how Rall can sell his "vitriolic scribblings to anyone other than the Nation and Keith Olbermann." In true, nuanced Leftist fashion, Rall calls Bush a "Psycho Fascist Moron."

This comic strip was written in response to this letter to the New York Times:

The strip was apparently fashioned after a letter written to the New York Times by a Major Gary P. Brickner who wrote of his experience walking through Newark airport, and asked the question: “For every person in the airport who thanked me for my [military] service, there was one who conspicuously avoided eye contact. Was it because I reminded him of his own lack of sacrifice in this war when others have sacrificed all?”

Did I tell you guys about my military experience on the Disney ship? I'll tell you again. After dinner at the fancy restaurant Palo, we finished at the same time a highly decorated Air Force pilot. As we were walking out, I said admiringly to him (my husband and sister were with me):

"I love to see a man in uniform. You look great!"

He said, "Thanks."

Then I said, "You know, don't believe what you read in the newspapers and hear on the news. We Americans are behind you 100% and believe in what you're doing. We are so thankful. So, thank you."

I was a little embarrassed to say something. Soldiers must feel like celebrities these days. He was on a ship for much deserved R/R after two tours in Iraq. I didn't want to bug him. But I wanted him to know, you know?

If it were me, I'd be discouraged some days, I think, because you hear from friends and family who say, "Don't pay attention to all that you see and read. We're behind you." But do regular people really believe that, or is that what my family and wife and friends want me to believe to keep me going?

It must have been the right decision to say something, because I saw him later (in civies) with his wife (she had been in the bathroom and he was waiting when I said something) and pointed to me and my family and smiled. "They're the ones," he said.

Back to Ted Rall. These guys write and say horrible things knowing full well the military reads them. They express mock outrage that someone would question their patriotism. Why? They should be honored to have their patriotism questioned. They are far from patriots. They are angry that anyone would sacrifice themselves willingly for an ideal they enjoy with scorn--freedom.

Because of the Left's own unresolved authority issues, they cannot, will not ever embrace power used to enforce an action. They hate the military. They hate soldiers. They hate authority. They hate the notion that there is a right or wrong. They hate the notion that the U.S. might be the enforcers of right and wrong when so many injustices are imbedded into the fabric of American society. Really important things like the pushback against Gay Marriage and Abortion, for two examples. Wrong takes on such important social issues prove, without a doubt, that average Americans are stupid rubes intent on killing anyone who doesn't see things like them.

Have I summed up the position well enough? The only problem of course, is that the Terrorists are using the Western press and share the same motivations. Rage, jealousy, the desire for prominance, a finely honed sense of injustice which justifies the most outrageous acts in return--together, these perverse allies would like to undo everything America stands for. Nevermind, that in the Media's case they take suicidal action.

Never, Never Believe What You Read in the Media

Greyhawk over at Mudville Gazette on the mis-quoted Brititsh General. You know, those "unbiased" British papers.

Don't worry, Greyhawk, we don't believe a word.

*******

As an aside, you may want to check out my Blog Roll. I've added some Military Blogs for your edification, and I plan to add more. If you have a favorite, let me know.

Glenn Greenwald Writer of Tortured Prose

And Greenwald is popular with Leftists who, as usual, prefer substance over form--as long as the substance meets certain p.c. criteria.

Ann Althouse adds her critique of the Master of Sock-Puppets writing style. (What's a sock-puppet? Find out here.)

Tracking Disease

My new friend and uber-blogger Maxed Out Mama, worries about things like economic crashes, crushing debt, Mortgage ARM defaults and bird flu epidemics. Now, I'm not saying that she's not right to worry (she conducts risk assessments afterall, it's kind of her job). It's just that too much information can be a bad thing. Sometimes I'm glad I don't understand the nuts and bolts of the economy, for example, so I can blissfully buy at Target with narry a pang of regret.

Over at medGadget, they spotlight a thing called HEALTHmap Global Disease Tracker. This seems like an excellent advance. It is visual. It is accessible. It is relatively simple to understand.

The worrywarts among us can indulge their apocolyptic fantasies. Or, maybe, this map will assuage their troubled souls. Either way, it's a cool advance and excellent use of technology.

The BBC's Admitted Bias

A friend of mine, whose opinion I highly value, but whose politics I suspect are rather different from mine, sung the praises of the BBC recently. "They really have the best world news," He said. He was serious. I'm not sure how well I covered my incredulity. "Of course," he added, "they do seem to be anti-Israel." Oh, there's that little thing.

My mind replayed the multiple instances of serious propogandized moments at the BBC. The logic of trusting "most" of the news from a source where a huge chunk of it is obvious horse dooky didn't seem to trouble my friend. Now, when I see BBC, CNN (Saddam's Baghdad Bureau), Reuters (terrorist photogs, doctored photos, blatant lies), I just don't believe them. Add in the New York Times editorial page.

The Big Media worldwide display their bias a couple ways:

1. Editting out news they don't want to "give oxygen"
2. Ignoring stories that don't suit a political purpose
3. Using questionable sources with blatant agendas, or terrorist agendas
4. Manipulating news, pictures, polls to suit a perspective
5. Outright lies

Here's what came out of the "secret meeting" to discuss the BBC's own bias. I actually find the discussions funny. Please read the whole article. To see these pseudo intellectuals bumble in circles also shows the absolute lack of moral compass. The compass is always set at "anything, but God, good, white, Christian, Israel or American goes":

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

Rooting out this nonsense would take a landmover, the bias is so widespread and deeply rooted. Here's an example:

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

The British fund this nonsense. Much as we Americans fund NPR. Ah, NPR. I actually enjoy some of the offerings, and some of the BBC's (which end up on NPR like Frontline and some science shows), but they are biased.

Anything I read or see, I view with skepticism. Thankfully, this little Internets gizmo thingamabobby can help me sift through the perspectives to find the truth.

H/T Instapundit