08 September 2006

 

A Groaner

Who would have thought the religious preference of a sex doll makes a difference?

A guy goes into an adult store and asks for an inflatable doll.

Guy behind the counter says, "Male or female?"
Customer says, "Female"
Counter guy asks, "Black or white?"
Customer says, "White"
Counter guy asks, "Christian or Muslim?"
Customer says, "What the hell does religion have to do with it?"
Counter guy says, "The Muslim one blows itself up!"

Technorati tags: , , ,

Labels: ,


13 August 2006

 

Comedy Central Pusses Out Again

I'm not a fan of Carlos Mencia and his 'oooh, I'm edgy' shtick. I've seen the commercials for his Religious Battle Royale and wondered how he would handle Mohamed. Well, he took the cowardly route. Flipping around the channels, I stopped at Comedy Central as I saw the fight in progress. A blue person with four arms, I think it is Vishnu, is attacked by an unseen assailant. Carlos is the ring-side commentator and announces that the assailant is Mohamed, who can't be shown because it is forbidden and some people might blow things up.

Just as what recently happened in "Cartoon Wars" on South Park, Comedy Central opts out of showing Mohamed. Even though he made an appearance in the Super Best Friends episode years before. For someone who purports to be an edgy comedian who takes on everyone, Carlos decides not to push the envelope. Not so tough.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Labels:


14 July 2006

 

Imagining No Israel--The Daily Kos

Ace is discussing a Daily Kos diarist's post imaging no Israel. To be fair, some of the dKos crowd are replying how wrong that is. One of Ace's commenters, caspera, has a great response that needs to be seen. Sure, Ace has way more readers than I, but it is buried in the comments. I don't know if caspera blogs, but I thought this needs to get out.
"The world let the Jews down and the Arab States have let the Palestinians down."

A pretty reasonable sentiment for Daily Kos, but it is still pretty wrongheaded, I think.

Here is the crux of the problem as I see it: Islam's notion that once land is Islamic, a good Muslim must wage war to regain it for the Caliphate. The logic of this philosophy leads ineluctably to perpetual war against Israel. The Arabs consider Israel to be Muslim land and want to regain it, but every time they have tried to do so openly, they get their asses kicked. Solution: fight a proxy war and radicalize your proxies to carry on the fight indefinitely. The Palestinians are a 190 proof distillation of the Islamist desire to get that land back. If the other Arab States weren't there, it would merely be 120 proof. It is because Israel is the only non Muslim country in the Middle East, that it is like a bone in their throat.

The Palestinians have been given one of the most badass patches of real estate on planet Earth. If the Palestinians were not radical Muslims, say they were Sicilian-American mobsters to take a classier more high-minded caste of people, Gaza would have casinos and bikini-clad hotties drinking umbrella drinks on their beautiful beaches and would be doing booming business with Israel and they wouldn't be worrying about the Arab States "letting them down." It would be a Middle Eastern Monaco. Instead, since Islam preaches no bikinis, no drinks, no fun, but please do kill the Jews, and wage perpetual war against the infidel, and reclaim that land for Dar Al Islam, Gaza is doomed regardless of what the other Arab States do.

Egyptians can comfort themselves with the knowledge that they don't have to join the jihad since they are already in Dar Al Islam. Palestinians don't have that luxury. They must wage jihad. Islam itself, not the Arab States, really, let the Palestinians down.

We can't really admit that this is what's going on in "Palestine" because that admission leads us ineluctably to the unpleasant discussions in the other threads below. Caliphate and Ummah are some of the scariest words in the English language, or whatever language they come from. They're like Borg, but worse because it's real.

A few lefties try to imagine a world without Israel because that fantasy relieves the pressure on their brains like a shunt. I think lefties are unwilling to face the following unpleasant fact: rich white people are gonna have to put the smack down on some poor brown people, and the poor brown people are the ones who are actually causing all the trouble for a change. Liberals and lefties with great justification fought White racism in the US, but they seem to be unprepared to accurately identify friend and foe outside the US Civil Rights paradigm. Seriously. I think when lefties imagine no Israel, they are actually saying, "I am so morally vain that I would prefer that all the Jews in Israel be transported elsewhere so that I don't have to rethink my worldview. It's more convenient for me." I might be wrong on this, but that's the sense I get.


Technorati tags: , , , ,

Labels: , ,


03 July 2006

 

Now Jihad Is In The Constitution

From the latest Mark Steyn column:
There are several ways to fight a war. On the one hand, you can put on a uniform, climb into a tank, rumble across a field and fire on the other fellows' tank. On the other, you can find a 12-year-old girl, persuade her to try on your new suicide-bomber belt and send her waddling off into the nearest pizza parlor.

The Geneva Conventions were designed to encourage the former and discourage the latter. The thinking behind them was that, if one had to have wars, it's best if they're fought by soldiers and armies. In return for having a rank and serial number and dressing the part, you'll be treated as a lawful combatant should you fall into the hands of the other side. There'll always be a bit of skulking around in street garb among civilian populations, but the idea was to ensure that it would not be rewarded --that there would, in fact, be a downside for going that route.

The U.S. Supreme Court has now blown a hole in the animating principle behind the Geneva Conventions by choosing to elevate an enemy that disdains the laws of war in order to facilitate the bombing of civilian targets and the beheading of individuals. The argument made by Justice John Paul Stevens is an Alice-In-Jihadland ruling that stands the Conventions on their head in order to give words the precise opposite of their plain meaning and intent. The same kind of inspired jurisprudence conjuring trick that detected in the emanations of the penumbra how the Framers of the U..S Constitution cannily anticipated a need for partial-birth abortion and gay marriage has now effectively found a right to jihad -- or, if you're a female suicide bomber about to board an Israeli bus, a woman's right to Jews.
Can't say it any better.

(h/t Jonah via the Corner)

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Labels: , , , ,


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?