…is just a short leap:

Newspaper ads for the “Trinny & Susannah Do Israel” show have sparked a row among Muslims, as they show the two British fashion advisors dressed in immodest clothing against the backdrop of the al-Aqsa Mosque and Western Wall.

Channel 10 apologized for the incident on Wednesday evening and promised to change the ads immediately.

May I point out that if a Christian preacher had complained about this they would have laughed, but then again regardless of what some would have you believe a christian preacher would not be leading mobs to kill UN workers.

When you give rewards for violence you tend to get more of it.

No not because his excellent daily cartoon Day by Day is now available at DaTechGuy’s blog but because of today’s cartoon:

Countdown to FATWA in 3...2...1

The really sad thing about this; it’s not a joke. It has reached a point where such a drawing is an act of courage, where radical Islamists will condemn such a drawing and murder over it. Even worse it has reached a point where people of the west will attack Muir for incitement. It would not surprise me if as Hitchens puts it we see

… self-righteous frenzy married to a neurotic need to take offence; the easy resort to indiscriminate violence and cruelty; the promulgation of makeshift fatwas by mullahs on the make; those writhing mustaches framing crude slogans of piety and hatred, and yelling for death as if on first-name terms with the Almighty. The spilling of blood and the spoliation of property — all for nothing

Yup, likely we will see more of this and it won’t be confined to Chris Muir via Little Miss Attila and Rogers Rules we see another candidate for Fatwa

I’m not a fan of burning books or offending people’s religion but can someone explain to me why this is being condemned by senators and presidents…

…and this is not:

As a Catholic I am outraged by the above video but it is important to show it to make the following point: I don’t recall Harry Reid’s or Lindsey Graham’s condemnation of the desecration of the body of Christ. I don’t recall breathless news stories about P. Z. Myers and his various physical attacks on the Eucharist (oddly enough his own tearing of the Koran elicited no response either) and tell me why when this is brought up the first response (particularly from our atheistic friends) is a history of the sins of Christianity when our response to online Eucharist desecration is this:

and Islam’s response is this:

The truth is that those who attack Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular know there is virtually no risk or danger to do so. They do however know that such attacks against Islam can lead to this:

Theo Van Gogh murdered Nov 2, 2004 on the streets of Amsterdam

Exit question, can someone explain to me why it is was a free speech imperative to defend the Nazi’s right to march in Skokie but not Terry Jones or Ann Barnhardt right to burn the Koran?

Update: Cross posted at The Minority Report

The Debate that first Rocked the Internet and then Rocked New England with 50,000 Watts of Power on DaTechGuy on DaRadio has now spread to the American Spectator:

For Kim Gandy and other official feminist spokeswomen, legalized abortion is the sine qua non of women’s rights, whereas Palin’s conservative supporters generally view abortion as a profound wrong. Many of these pro-life Mama Grizzlies, however, still wish to describe Palin as a “feminist” not so much because of the word’s definition (either by Webster’s or by NOW), but rather because of the informal connotations it has acquired over the years. To be a “feminist” in this informal sense of the word is to be an intelligent, independent, outspoken, and politically active woman.

Such a non-partisan and non-ideological understanding of what it means to be a feminist quite naturally enrages the left-wing women who claim proprietorship over the label. It also draws dignified protests from an intelligent, independent, outspoken and politically active woman named Phyllis Schlafly.

That is really the gist of it: Is it more valuable to the conservative movement to engage the left-wing woman who want to define what a “feminist” is strictly by calling them out on their double standard of what a “feminist” should be, or shall we reject the label all together on the theory that it only empowers our foes on the left?

Then again is it a matter of choice, if a conservative woman choose to call themselves a feminist by the dictionary definition should we discourage it? Does it empower conservatives to approach younger woman to whom the term “feminist” is understood to be the “equality of women under the law” rather than the Marxist connotations and make it easier to promote conservatism as a method of self empowerment?

I suspect this debate will not end anytime soon.

Update: I was right

My take is in the comments there; for Schlafly to say that she “made her own way”–after feminists before her had secured the vote, and broken into institutions of higher learning–is ahistorical and monstrously ungrateful. I agree that American women are very, very lucky–but, come on: what’s happened to Palin because of her plumbing (and because she conservative and charismatic, and therefore considered a threat to the left) is just wrong. Wrong.

Check out the link where Roxeanne (who stayed silent during the onair debate) makes her point.

Considering that Charlie Sheen is a tad narcissistic and self centered is anyone surprised by this:

Charlie Sheen unleashed his Violent Torpedo of Truth Tour on the Motor City on Saturday night before a crowd that greeted the actor with an adoring standing ovation and concluded with booing and walk-outs. The padded and disjointed show was a hodgepodge of video clips and Sheen-isms that felt hastily assembled and misjudged the patience of even the hardest of hardcore fans

The liveblog is painful to read but must have been more painful to sit through.

From What TMZ described it simply got worse as it went along.

The big question is this, will the follow up shows be canceled, will he tweak the shows? Will this be the official low point from which he recovers?

I have no idea but I suspect Chuck Lorie and CBS are doing fist-pumps right now.

Looking at these stories I can’t help but think of this poem:

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child. Kipling 1899

What else can one think when you see headlines like this:

NYT:

Afghans Avenge Florida Koran Burning, Killing 12

Think about what that headline implies, AVENGE. Words mean things. AVENGE suggest a just retaliation for an act. This suggests that the New York Times finds their acts a legitimate response to the burning of a Koran.

Over at the Guardian they actually have a poll asking who is responsible for these actions and as of this moment 9:44 a.m. EST 46% of the respondents blame the killings on Terry Jones.

I don’t have a lot of respect for Jones but I wonder, would those same people who blame him for the killings blame the “artist” who put up the painting of Christ/Palin and Christ/monkey up if he was attacked by a violent Christian Cult?

What’s the bottom line, both the Times, and the Guardian have concluded that we can’t expect better from the people and those who are busy blaming Jones for these murders consider the Afghans inferiors “half devil and half child”. We CAN’T expect civilized behavior from such people.

How is such an attitude by these papers any different that Kipling’s?

I’m not outraged over the burning of the Koran, I’m outraged at the murder of innocent people and the Fatwa against an US citizen for free speech, and if you consider yourself civilized you should too.

Only a very ignorant person can call Liz Taylor the last star of Hollywood’s Golden Era while O’Hara and de Havilland are still around.

Oh and I think considering Taylor was sleeping with her husband I think its classless to be interviewing Debbie Reynolds on Taylor.

…at least that would be the headline at Think Progress if they were 1. Consistent 2. Not multicultural cowards, and 3. Covering this story:

“America is not showing its power it’s showing appeasement, they are laughing all the way to the bank” Nonie Darwish

Personally I’ve got no problem with the fixing the Egyptian sewer system (promote the general welfare and all that) but we need to realize that we are earning no brownie points by doing any of this stuff. I really think the whole funding Mosques overseas stuff is just to get us wound up.

Meanwhile ThinkProgress hits Newt Gingrich for opposing Gay Marriage along with the majority of the country, Stacy notes:

Except, of course, that there wasn’t anything “secret” about the “funneling”: It was duly reported as required by law and, as Think Progress itself notes, Gingrich was outspoken in his support of the effort “to oust three of the nine Iowa Supreme Court justices” who had voted to mandate same-sex marriage in that state.

Is it “hate” to oppose same-sex marriage?

It is “hate” to oppose Obama, “Gay Marriage” is just one club to beat his opponents with, additionally Newt is a particular target because he committed the ultimate sin to them, he converted to Catholicism.

Exit question: Under Think Progress’ definition since no president has ever supported Gay Marriage and until the mid nineties no congressman ever talked about the subject would they all be considered “Haters”? I’d ask if they would call Islam “Haters” for the same reason but that one is too easy.

…and jump into the argument between two of the people I am most fond of on the net.

I’ve already talked about what I think of and owe Stacy McCain and There is no person in bloggerdom whose company I enjoy more than Little Miss Attila, but this is getting ridiculous.

Stacy put out 4000 words last night on the History of feminism. It is very detailed and quite a read. I would recommend it to anyone.

Yesterday Joy today fisked a previous Stacy’s post and answered his magnum opus with a single drawing and two sentences proving she is an expert in blog Jujutsu.

I haven’t talked to either Stacy or Joy about this exchange but I am going to comment very briefly on the substance and I’ll let them correct me if I’m misinterpreting it either of them.

The way I see it Stacy is saying that Feminism and its origins are a lot less clean than a lot of people see it and that conservatives should avoid being seen as “feminists” because it means something that is quite different that what we think it does.

The way I see it Attila is defending Feminism or what she is calling equity feminism and saying that is is not invalid for a conservative to believe in it.

A lot of this is starting to look like dogs chasing tales so lets cut to that chase:

1. Per Stacy’s argument, There are a lot of nasty roots in the feminist movement, just as there were a lot of people happy to break bread with the communists in the civil rights movement. We might even stipulate that both groups used addressing an actual wrong (Jim Crow and inequality before the law of the sexes) to advance something they were more loyal to (the overthrow of capitalism and western culture that they found racist and/or sexist). Thus feminism means something and we should let the left have that label and stew in it.

2. Per Attila’s argument the basic equality before the law of women (and the equality of souls in the before the eyes of God) is a basic human right. Such a belief and the advancement of said belief is feminism 101 in the same way that belief in Christ is Christianity 101. One can adopt the label feminist without paying homage to the leftist maxims of some of those who followed it at the time. Or to use the Christian example, Protestants don’t shun the term Christian because we Catholics were using it hundreds of years before Luther was a gleam in his mother’s eye.

In terms of an intellectual point and history, Stacy makes good points, but I think he is forgetting something about society.

Words mean things as he says but the meaning of words change over time. 150 years if someone said “Michael Jordan is cool” the answer expected would be “Well have him come closer to the fireplace.” More importantly the public perception of the meaning of those words change.

When society thinks of the word feminism, they do not think of the Marxist roots or any of the class warfare BS that the left was trying to peddle, they are thinking simply of the base equality before the law of the sexes. The terms has become mainstreamed to the point where it can be used without incident.

Stacy correctly worries that like planned parenthood’s Eugenic past, this allows Radical feminists such as NOW and those in the gender studies department to co-op the uninformed because people think they are simply supporting woman’s rights when they are in fact supporting wrongs, wrongs simply used to sexualize our society even further or as a club to beat Western Civilization, Christianity and the US while ignoring actual wrongs against women in the East and in Islam. It’s a valid worry and I think it is very important to call them out loudly and regularly!

Happily there is an easy and well known term for such people propagated over the last two decades, that can be used without using the now generic terms Feminist: Feminazi.

I submit it would be healthier and easier to deploy the Feminazi term, particularly within the movement than to try and insist people stop deploying the, I submit now generic term “feminist”. In terms of changing hearts and minds I say its the best move. Additionally it forces the feminist left (read feminazi) to explain why a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bachmann or a Tammy Bruce or a Little Miss Attila is “not” a feminist. Inevitably their anger leads them instead into the trap of proclaiming that they are not valid “women” retreating into a level of misogyny that alienates regular people and forces honest feminists to recoil, thus dividing them.

Or to put it another way Stacy has a good intellectual point, both socially and politically I think its to our disadvantage.

And although it is entertaining intellectually (and may or may not have been productive in terms of hits) I think that like Road Runner cartoons this is getting too long. I can’t think it’s generating enough hits to make it worth going on.

Stacy thinks we should abandon the term feminism to the left: Fine, that’s a valid opinion but I disagree.
Attila thinks we should not: Fine, that’s a valid opinion too. I agree and state why.

Now excuse me while I duck for cover.

Update: Cripes that generated a bunch of comments and links quickly. Maybe I should just schedule them together on the show and let them have it out. April 2nd is open.

This time in overwhelmingly democratic Maryland:

The withdrawal capped a tumultuous few weeks, which began with the bill’s sponsors saying that its passage was all but assured and that Maryland would soon become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.

But the closer the bill got to a final vote, the bumpier its path became. One of its co-sponsors, Delegate Tiffany T. Alston, a freshman Democrat from Prince George’s County, had withdrawn her support, apparently bowing to pressure from her constituency, which contains a powerful religious community.

Dan Riehl point out the obvious:

Many of the arguments against running conservatives are false arguments spun by the Left which the GOP establishment embraces because the media embraces them.

How many states are we going to concede to liberalism? We’ve done that for so long, we’re now in a place where a Leftist like Obama can get elected without being exposed until he gets into office. If the pattern continues, you can forget conservative. We’re almost at a tipping point where we’ll never have a conservative Washington because we accept the notion that conservatism can’t win in so may places, especially due to social issues.

As you might guess Jonathan Capeheart is very angry:

The outrage directed at Arora is understandable. As is the sense of betrayal. He raised money from gays and lesbians based on his support for marriage equality. He secured the endorsements of Progressive Maryland and of Equality Maryland because of it. In fact, get a load of what he wrote as an addendum to his questionnaire for Equality Maryland. emphasis mine

Hang on a second I’m confused. Haven’t we been hearing the left screaming about money in politics (particularly from the Koch family)? Doesn’t the left believe that reps should be voting based on the wishes of the people they represent and not donors? Apparently not, check some of the gay sites, they are very angry about people they gave money to voting against them.

So we must conclude the rules are as follows:

If you get money from the right and you vote your constituents vs your donors, you are a brave independent voice.

If you get money from the left and you vote your constituents vs your donors, you are a traitor.

Any questions?

Apparently its primary purpose is to make a social statement:

The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

Let me point out something very simple. The purpose of the military is not to reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix of the country. The job of the military is to:

  • Fight and deter the enemies of the united states
  • Defend our allies and to deter those who would threaten them.
  • Protect American interest and citizens.

As long as we are able to do this, I don’t care if our military is composed of three-legged aliens who all answer to the name “Harold”. I’ll let others argue the specifics, the bottom line is promotion and leadership should be based on whatever helps the military achieve those goals I listed, that it!

The moment we do otherwise we lose the best military in the world, and believe me the rest of the world and our enemies are watching.