I approve.

A great nation should be able to bluntly say things as they are, and describe the past as it was. Rockwell’s painting did so.

Of course, somebody needs to tell Joe Biden that this whole “saying things as they are” bit also applies to our rivals, friends and enemies as well.

As Michelle Malkin reported yesterday many were up in arms over Katy Perry’s tweet to “Pray for Israel” after a kid requested it.

Over the past 24 hours, all hell has broken loose — with Palestinian, Muslim, and progressive Twitter followers lashing out at Perry for her innocuous tweet asking others to pray for Israel. Here’s a small sample:

She has since backed off a bit insisting “#sheneutral.”

As well she should, I’ll be she wouldn’t have made that first tweet if she knew it was trampling on inalienable rights?

Sultan is a lecturer of Muslim jurisprudence at the Cairo University. In the decree, he ruled that “every Muslim who meets a Zionist is entitled to kill him,

Now some of you might find this harsh, but it is just the modern version of the end portion of this famous speech by James Mason’s character in the movie Yellowbeard (21st century version)

Let me remind you that it’s our duty to seek out and destroy her majesty’s enemies, the foul and most foreign French! Jews! Now while the rest of the world will eventually arrive at the same conclusion it’s our urgent task to push things on a little.

So maybe Katy Perry will think twice before tweeting

..something as offensive and repressive as that!

Update: You might laugh at the flippant tone of this post; but once you start excusing infidels praying for Israel and the Jewish people next thing you know people will start questioning the Islamic right to kill them. The next thing you know you’ve got faithful Muslims actually questioning killing infidels in general. And before you know it women are driving, girls are educated, and you end up with a country full of happily married Gay Couples with with closets full of assault weapons!

Update: 2 Take a nap, wake up to an Instalanche. Life is good, or maybe I should nap more often.

Update 3 A more serious take on the subject here.

Michelle was dishing out some awesome food at the Assumption Greek Orthodox Festival in Manchester where I was covering Rick Santorum.

Ironically just after the interview Rick Santorum greeted her at the food line

Saw this at Instapundit yesterday from Michael Barone:

In a 2008 referendum in California, 70 percent of blacks voted against same-sex marriage. A same-sex marriage bill was defeated this year in Maryland after black Democratic legislators opposed it. Same-sex marriage would be legal in California and Maryland were it not for opposition by black voters.

Mainstream media reporters pepper Republican presidential candidates with questions about the issue but seldom ask Obama about it. But if it’s a fair question for Republicans, it’s a fair question for Democrats as well.

I’ve touched on this subject myself but there is one overriding factor that is ignored and is a paradox.

His “opposition” to gay Marriage only helps him among blacks because they think he is telling the truth.

His “opposition” to gay marriage doesn’t hurt him among liberals because they don’t believe he is telling the truth.

These are two mutually exclusive statements, As long as liberals are convinced he is selling a bill of good to the black community (as I do) and the black community continues to buy this bill of goods he is fine.

The moment the Black Community no longer buys it, or the moment he takes decisive actions (Bawhahahahah it’s funny just typing it) to convince the Black community he means it then you will see a backlash from one side or the other.

But democrats are betting that no matter what they believe the Black community will not abandon the 1st black president Maxine Waters and the BarberShop elections not withstanding.

Via Haemet and Roxeanne USA today discovers what a lot of us already knew that traditional religious practices, as opposed to liberal versions, are making a big comeback:

What attracts today’s youth to such “old-fashioned” orthodoxy?

As a member of this strange millennial cohort, I have wondered this myself. I think the answer comes down to this: 1960s-style liberation — from moral codes, family obligations, religious commitments — has betrayed us.

Sometime in the past century, a new creed emerged, saying everyone should make his own creed. This tolerant, open-minded ethos seemed to promise freedom: safe sex with many partners, drugs and alcohol galore and quick, no-fault divorce. So our Baby Boomer parents partied hard, yet in so many cases left us only the hangover: heartbreak, addiction and broken homes, plus rising rates of teenage depression and suicide.

The anything-goes religion of the late 20th century cannot prevent nor even explain these consequences. (After all, if I’m OK, you’re OK, and we can do whatever we want, why are so many people unhappy?) When every member of a society does whatever makes him feel good, the inevitable results are not personal fulfillment and communal harmony but selfishness and social breakdown.

How about that changing the social norms that societies have advocated for centuries is not a bright idea, who woulda thunk it? Let’s remind you of something Virginia Ironside, child of the 60’s wrote in January:

It took me years to discover that continual sex with different partners is, with very few exceptions, joyless, uncomfortable and humiliating,

What is the answer I wonder? USA today again:

With these realizations in mind, many millennials reject the assumptions of 1960s liberationists in favor of something more substantial: the creeds, practices and moral codes that defined religious life for centuries. Unlike reductionistic scientism or vague romanticism, traditional religions propose specific, compelling explanations for the world in front of us — broken, fraught with suffering, enslaved to sin, but nonetheless revealing glimpses of beauty and greatness.

More intellectually coherent than relativism, orthodoxy is also more demanding. It makes us place others above ourselves, the truth above what we’d like to be true, the fight for virtue above the pursuit of pleasure. In a word, it preaches sacrifice.

At our little political salon at the Border I was a party to a conversation about a marriage that began when the Man was 20 and the Woman was 19. Their 41 year and counting marriage outlasted those of all their friends who told them they had no prayer when they walked down the aisle in 1970. When asked how they did it, the answer was a perfect example of Catholicism as practiced outside of the cafeteria:

“Because I was always #2. My wife was always #1. When our first kid was born I moved down to #3. Now with the children and grandchildren I’m down somewhere in the teens. And she thinks the same way.”

But but I thought practicing Christians are backwards and foolish. After all the hosts of MSNBC and secularists all know they are simply ignorant:

One of the things that Dawkinsites tend to forget is that great thinkers and scientists and people of reason have been debating, writing on and discussing the existence of God in general and the truth of Christianity and Catholicism in particular for centuries before Guttenburg’s first bible rolled off the presses. Their image of the believer is a straw man.

The modernist doesn’t grasp that just because he can publish a thought to the entire world in a few seconds that his thought is superior to the great Christian thinkers of all disciplines who came before him.

But hey, the USA today article was written before the event in Madrid. Was there really much of a turnout? The answer to that question deserves it’s own post this evening.

I am getting really sick of doing posts about Rick Perry but the left’s apoplexy over him keeps inspiring me.

You might recall the left went absolutely nuts when Herman Cain and later Newt Gingrich suggested that they might hesitate to appoint a Muslim to a cabinet post without being sure their loyalty was to the US and not radical Islam. The scream was a bigoted religious test for office.

Yet today the left is hitting Rick Perry for his protestant belief in a literal bible interpretation via Moe Lane.

Evolution is not a bad theory but macro evolution has several problems, mostly in the realm of mathematics and probability. Those who go nuts if anyone questions the theory in any way are without realizing it, practicing a fundamentalist religion of their own, but the real point is the implication that because Gov Perry is willing to question evolution he is not qualified for the presidency.

This disqualifies any fundamentalist protestant from the White House.

Now maybe it’s just me as we are at war with radical Islam the former question just might be more legitimate than the latter, but to the left any belief based on Christianity, no matter what is it is, poses a greater danger than any belief based on Islam.

Exit question: If Perry’s problem with Evolution was based on a fundamentalist belief in the Koran rather than the Bible would the left dare question him on it? I doubt it.

Lisa Graas has links to a story at the Daily Caller that has to be read to be believed:

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

Lisa as you might guess is not amused and says this in part:

The collective conscience of a society is not, by itself, a “standard”. Rather, it is “mob rule” that has no basis in any standard.

Or as I have called it often here, the ICK factor.

I first mentioned the ICK factor in the early days of the blog in an attack on Richard Cohen :

And PLEASE don’t give me the “ick” factor argument about these other things being accepted. Ick is just an argument about culture. It is the same argument that one would have heard concerning gay marriage less that 20 years ago.

Then came the Polanski case:

If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

…This is all about trying to normalize behavior by an elite group of people who do not want to be judged.

We then saw the press reaction to Polanski:

in Hollywood I am not sure a 13-year-old is really a 13-year-old. Here I thought I was making an Ironic Joke and the Washington Post shows otherwise…

…Will the last blogger out the door pick up Patterico’s jaw from the floor?

Followed by John Nolte talking about how Hollywood works:

And this is how cinematic propaganda works. Whether the filmmaker’s motivations are good or evil, the idea is to get decent and thoughtful people to start second guessing themselves as they’re enveloped in the dark and held captive by the powerful sound and fury of the moving picture. First we’re led to identify and sympathize with a particular character, then that character does something designed to challenge our belief structure. This can range from, “If John Wayne opposes racism, maybe I should,” to, “Well, if a loving mother is okay with it, maybe I need to get a little more nuanced and tolerant about this whole child-rape thing.”

On its face, that may sound laughable, and maybe it is, but that doesn’t mean our eyes are lying to us. Last year merely topped off a campaign targeted at our children that began some time ago.

In that post I didn’t include his examples, but in this post I will.

In 2006’s “Notes on a Scandal,” Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett plays a school teacher engaged in a steamy sexual affair with one of her students. Like “The Reader,” the sex scenes between a mature woman and her student strive for the erotic and never once does the story stop to examine how such a destructive affair might psychologically affect a teen-aged boy. That same year, in “Little Children,” Jackie Earle Haley was Oscar-nominated for his support work as a molester just released from prison who’s the victim of that favorite Hollywood whipping boy, suburban hypocrisy. Just two years earlier, Kevin Bacon’s heroic molester in “The Woodsman” not only saves the day and wins the pretty girl, but in his valiant struggle to “reform” he’s presented as a kind of “civil rights” metaphor as policemen and “intolerant” co-workers torment him.

The award for Most Unsettling, however, must go to 2004’s “Birth,” where Academy Award winner Nicole Kidman stars as a widow convinced her dead husband has returned in the form of a 10 year-old boy. If watching a near-forty year-old woman exchange longing looks with a little kid isn’t creepy enough, wait till they end up naked in a bathtub together.

And now we see yet another attempt to move the ICK factor goal posts by the elites of the nation:

Researchers from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois will be among the panelists at the conference.

My point? I’m not surprised one bit and nor should anyone who has been paying attention over the last 3-4 decades. The question is will this be the final trigger for the latest Great Awakening or in the final decline of American/Western society?

I tend to be an optimist and I believe we will see the former over the latter.

Update: I’m surprised that the conference has not gotten much media coverage, and neither has this:

“I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry. … It’s the big secret,” Feldman said.

The “casting couch,” which is the old Hollywood reference to actors being expected to offer sex for roles, applied to children, Feldman said. “Oh, yeah. Not in the same way. It’s all done under the radar,” he said.

“I was surrounded by [pedophiles] when I was 14 years old. … Didn’t even know it. It wasn’t until I was old enough to realize what they were and what they wanted … till I went, Oh, my God. They were everywhere,” Feldman, 40, said.

Now I’d think this would be a pretty big story, wouldn’t you, yet it is going nowhere. Why? Dave Piere has one answer

So here is a claim of massive abuse and cover-ups happening in Hollywood. Where is the major media on this?

Nearly a week after the episode aired, the response to Feldman’s alarming claims has been almost non-existent in the major media. While the Boston Globe and the New York Times have hyperventilated over decades-old allegations of abuse by Catholic priests (many of which were all-too-true), neither paper dedicated even a drop of ink to Feldman’s shocker.

Could it be that major media folks do not wish to dig too deep into this story and upset one of their largest sources of income?

But the Catholic League has the right answer:

So we have professionals who seek to normalize pedophilia, and a Hollywood milieu in which it thrives, and few seem to care. In other words, when the secular elite promote, or otherwise engage in, child molestation, it really doesn’t matter. It only matters if the sicko is Fr. Murphy.

That’s pretty much it.

There are some thing that simply defy description:

A 13-year-old boy has walked free from court after admitting smashing up a shop with a stolen golf club as his mother said the riots are because the government does “f*** all” for children.

Yeah society has treated this woman poorly, how poorly? Lets see:

She is on benefits, does not live with the boy’s father and has 10 other children, the court heard.

That sounds worse than the old feudal system. And Theodore Dalrymple points out how much worse:

The rioters in the news last week had a thwarted sense of entitlement that has been assiduously cultivated by an alliance of intellectuals, governments and bureaucrats. “We’re fed up with being broke,” one rioter was reported as having said, as if having enough money to satisfy one’s desires were a human right rather than something to be earned.

“There are people here with nothing,” this rioter continued: nothing, that is, except an education that has cost $80,000, a roof over their head, clothes on their back and shoes on their feet, food in their stomachs, a cellphone, a flat-screen TV, a refrigerator, an electric stove, heating and lighting, hot and cold running water, a guaranteed income, free medical care, and all of the same for any of the children that they might care to propagate.

Sounds pretty tough to me, except they’re up on me by one flat screen. But that $80,000 education much teach them something:

Discussing the difficulties of imposing sanctions for misbehaviour or idleness at school, he described the case of a girl pupil he scolded for missing all her homework deadlines.

The youngster’s mother, a social worker, telephoned him and said: ‘Threatening to throw my daughter off the A-level course because she hasn’t done some work is tantamount to psychological abuse, and there is legislation which prevents these sorts of threats.

‘I believe you are trying to harm my child’s mental well-being, and may well take steps . . . if you are not careful.’

Yup that’s a real lesson they’re learning.

You know on 2nd thought may this IS the old feudal system come back after all, expect that instead of being serfs to a lord or the land they are serfs to their check and dole with no desire to escape to be a yeoman or a freeholder. In fact if they want or need anything instead of the nobles taking the serfs, the modern serf taxes the yeomen and freeholders who dare work for what they can’t be given as the the elites stand back and comfortably watch and beat their breasts.

England has come full circle without even the Church to fall back on. Society IS to blame, England has done it to themselves.

The Doctor: (at the 4:00 min mark) Fellas, the guns, really? I just walked into the highest security office in the United States and parked a big blue box on the rug. You think you can just shoot me?
River Song: They’re Americans!
The Doctor: (Raising his hands over his head) Don’t shoot! Definitely no shooting.

Doctor Who: The Impossible Astronaut Part 1

England is now suffering through yet another day of rioting. (or as the BBC calls them “protests“) Looting and burning are rampant and many small shop-owners have likely lost everything.

Yesterday I was talking to a fellow born in England and raised in Fitchburg who goes back and forth between the pair. I asked him about the riots in England and he blamed it on the part of the London police force armed due to the terror threat. We discussed the trade-off. An Armed police force can react with deadly force as needed but will occasionally make a mistake or overreact. That is the danger and the trade-off that is made.

The other decision that we didn’t discuss is an armed citizenry. England has no 2nd Amendment and it’s citizens have been largely disarmed. An armed citizenry will occasionally lead to an accidental death or violence when a normally law-abiding citizen cracks or overreacts (I don’t include the not law-abiding because they will not of course obey laws on weaponry). The other side of the coin however is the disarming of the citizenry means when faced with a deadly threat, they can only run. You have people who not only have no way of defending themselves against rioters who wish to loot and burn but fear punishment for doing so. At Glenn Reynolds site there is an telling quote from a reader:

The problem with comparing London and Korean shopkeepers is two fold. First, all the property owners and law abiding citizens have been disarmed. So unless a man is going to stab all these felons to death, there really is no self defense. And it’s hard to defend against flying molotov cocktails. And Second, the British Government has made it perfectly clear that they’re willing to incarcerate anyone who defends himself. They have proven this time and again by prosecuting the law abiding citizens who are afraid for their lives.

So in essence, the British government has effectively defanged their first responders in favor of their own police forces who are obviously inadequate to deal with this circumstance.

It’s wholesale surrender on a French scale.

The reality is that thanks to the disarming of the average Englishman, London not only has a population helpless against this kind of thing, but the rioters know the population is helpless before them so why should they show any restraint at all? Especially with a police force and a press more sensitive to the rioters than the victims. (I wonder if this was taking place in the neighborhoods where the BBC producers live if the BBC would upgrade the “protestors” to “rioters”)?

Culturally it is not unusual for the English to look down on Americans as violent gun-toting hotheads, as per the Doctor Who Clip quote above but lets take a look at the climax of the 2nd part of the episode:

Apparently the Doctor Who writers don’t mind poking fun at trigger happy Americans but when the chips were down, there is River Song shooting up a storm. Ironic and telling.

England has made its choice to disarm law-abiding citizens and to furthermore punish those who choose to defend themselves. This is a cultural decision. (Although I’m sure the elites have their bodyguards) These riots and their spread are the cost.

Mark Steyn wrote years ago about the disarming of Englishmen saying that while the modern Englishman would be horrified at the idea of armed men going after a bank robber Englishmen of the Edwardian Era would instead be horrified by an armed bank robbery.

I’ve said many times that in a free country you get the government you deserve. England is discovering that a free society also gets the culture they deserve as well.

Update: Why am I not surprised to read this in the Washington Post:

“This is the uprising of the working class. We’re redistributing the wealth,” said Bryn Phillips, a 28-year-old self-described anarchist, as young people emerged from the store with chocolate bars and ice cream cones.

Phillips claimed rioters were motivated by distrust of the police, and drew a link between the rage on London’s street and insurgent right-wing politics in the United States. “In America you have the tea party, in England you’ve got this,” he said.

Because of course the Tea Party is run by self described anarchists. There is no crisis so horrible that it can’t be used to hit the tea party!

Where would we be without our unbiased media folks like Tina Brown?

It’s because of stuff like this:

via Stacy McCain who notes:

What’s strange is that liberals find this type of narrative perfectly acceptable when what is being testified to is some appropriately secular conversion: “Why I became a lesbian feminist” or “When I learned the undenjiable scientific truth of global warming” or “How I discovered that my Republican parents are closet Nazis.” It is only the conversion narrative of Bible-believing Christians that liberals find obnoxiously repellant. And the idea that a Bible-believing Christian might think themselves called to high public office . . .

Well, liberals just can’t handle that — at least when the self-identified Christian is a pro-life conservative Republican. It was OK for John F. Kennedy to be Catholic, it was OK for Jimmy Carter to be a Baptist, and it was OK for Barack Obama to be whatever it is you want to call devotees of what Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches. But let a conservative Republican speak in public about his or her Christian faith, and liberals immediately start screaming about “theocracy.”

It’s like Ann Coulter says in Godless: Liberalism is a religion and abortion is its sacrament.

As Rush Limbaugh says, the MSM will always telegraph who they fear

One final thought. Pre 1965 with very few exceptions the Average American would have found absolutely nothing odd about that kind of speech coming from a political figure running for president or any office.

Update: Ann Althouse raises an interesting point:

This reminds me of why I wouldn’t let Isthmus photograph me when it did a cover story about me. I figured they’d take a lot of shots and pick one that made me look crazy or bad in some other way.

But I wasn’t striving for media coverage, and Bachmann is. She’s got to take what she can get. The media is (mostly) liberal. Deal with it. You’ve got to manage your face if you want to get elected

What can’t be cured must be endured, but it doesn’t mean we can’t call em out.