We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, January 29. 2016
Famous British desserts in pictures
Before Europe’s Intrusion - A 17th-century map reinforces what few other
If Your Church Makes Christianity ‘Cool’ And Comfortable, You Should Find A New Church
Who do we blame for fat people?
National Association of Scholars calls for restoration of intellectual freedom to higher education
Rolling Stone Rape Fabulist Ordered to Release Communications
How To Get Revenge With A Football by Marco Rubio (video)
What is at Stake for America in Bernie vs. Hillary - The revolution will either destroy America or the Left.
With Hillary Floundering, Democrat Media Machine Goes After Bernie
A good point: Trump and Bernie are 3rd party candidates inside parties
It's 12 O'Clock High for the Traditional Conservative Establishment - The Traditional Conservative Establishment's Obsolescence
The EU wants to tax food
Europe’s Moral Bankruptcy
Sweden announces it may expel up to 80,000 ‘asylum seekers’
Police In German City Allegedly Let Refugees Shoplift
Online anti-refugee posts lead to offline visits by Dutch police
Danish Teen to Be Punished for Using Pepper Spray to Hold Off Rapist
“Personality is a capitalist construct”
Tracked: Jan 31, 09:17
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Personality is a capitalist construction. Under socialism people are interchangeable insects.
The article shows another example of the left trying to destroy people with whom they disagree rather than debate and explore an issue. Sadly, it's only one example of very many.
"HuffPo: Christians ‘Can View Muhammad as a Prophet,’ Brought ‘Love, Peace’"
Christians aren't obliged to view Muhammad as anything at all; he is completely irrelevant to the Christian faith.
It would also require showing, for instance, that he was not a rapist, didn’t torture kafirs and didn’t preach or instigate conversion to Islam through the sword.
A prophet who slaughtered innocents, took young girls as sex slaves, beheading apostates, murdered, committed genocide. His name was Moses.
I'm not quite sure why you felt moved to post this under my entry.
Thought that was the process, to keep linked article comments together.
Oh how interesting. Some zero named Zachriel says that Moses (in the year 2000 BC) was a primitive beheader so that justifies many Mohammads in AD 2016 being uncouth beheaders. It must be a true because Zachriel really knows these kind of factoids.
Andy Texan: Some zero named Zachriel says that Moses (in the year 2000 BC) was a primitive beheader so that justifies many Mohammads in AD 2016 being uncouth beheaders.
Didn't say any such thing. Rather the question is whether someone can be considered a prophet who slaughtered innocents, took young girls as sex slaves, beheaded apostates, murdered, committed genocide.
JJM: Christians aren't obliged to view Muhammad as anything at all
No. The quotation said "can", not "must". They're your neighbors, in any case.
A significant portion of whom want to kill us for being infidels.
mudbug: A significant portion of whom want to kill us for being infidels.
And at least one commenter on this forum who wants to commit genocide against Muslims.
"No. The quotation said 'can', not 'must'. They're your neighbors, in any case."
You are quite mistaken. Christians not only must not but also cannot view Muhammad as a prophet. He has no place at all in Christian belief.
My neighbours out here in the Ottawa Valley include inter alios several Protestants, a few agnostics, an atheist and at least one or two Hindus. Beyond respecting their absolute right to their own beliefs, I am not obliged to accord them any further religious significance (well, perhaps the Protestants because they share common core beliefs).
My neighbours are perfectly free to view my beliefs the same way of course.
Turning this round, I'd love "HuffPo" to try suggesting to Muslims that they should view Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
JJM: You are quite mistaken. Christians not only must not but also cannot view Muhammad as a prophet.
Apparently, professed Christians come in many flavors.
"Apparently, professed Christians come in many flavors"
Apparently the simple reality that Muhammad is completely extraneous to the Christian religion and therefore irrelevant to it seems quite beyond you.
And the "HuffPo" for that matter.
Taxing food is a time honored revenue raiser is some US states.
W apologies for data not being more up to date, let me gently suggest that people who live in glass houses should not cast stones...tho I personally think food taxes are an abomination, and should be abolished in this country!
And of course food is "hidden-taxed" in almost all countries in a myriad of ways from the farm right through to the supermarket.
The European VAT method is particularly egregious though because it hides the sales tax inside the price. I lived in the UK for some time and got used to the convenience of price labels where the price displayed was the price paid (unlike in Canada and the US where you expect additional tax cost added to the sticker price at the cashier). However, that price paid included 20 percent VAT, a tax rate approaching the confiscatory.
However, at least the UK "zero-rates" food for VAT. I would hope the British consumer simply will not tolerate such an EU diktat, leading to the UK further distancing itself from a European project gone berserk.
Vlad the Impaler Tepes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler
and Charles "the Hammer" Martel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel knew how to deal with the Muslims.
And it wasn't with hugs and kisses; no concessions; no accommodations; no anything except cold steel. We keep trying to get along with the poor wretched destitute refugees by giving them pillows.
It's like bringing a half-frozen wolf that has rabies into the house.
"Aw now, honey, he'll be alright as soon's he thaws out; put him on a rug just behind the stove".
And when morning came, found out the wolf ate the baby.
That's exZachley how it happened.
Vlad, as Romanians can tell you, learned that impaling trick from the Muslims. He was a hostage prince in Turkey as a boy. (I assume that's in the link somewhere, but didn't follow it.)
chasmatic: Yes I do realize that I advocate the death of a billion people
mike m: So? What's the downside?
If you reject the moral argument against killing a billion innocent people, then you would still have the same problem the Nazis had, which was disposal of the evidence.
i only advocate the extermination of the bad mooslems - those who have discussed, plotted or carried out acts of discrimination, evil or violence towards women, Christians, Jews, or Westerners. I'm not sure that there is any discrepancy between that and their own policies, i.e. they are willing to kill their own "innocent" children by using them as suicide bombers against the aforementioned groups with the promise of paradise - I'm just speeding them on their way.
Sorry to see you get your panties in a wad over a bunch of camel jockeys.
mike m: i only advocate the extermination of the bad mooslems - those who have discussed, plotted or carried out acts of discrimination, evil or violence towards women, Christians, Jews, or Westerners.
That would be distinct from chasmatic's stated position, which is extermination of all Muslims. Not sure that discrimination would be a capital crime, but certainly there should be justice for those who commit unprovoked violence towards others.
mike m: Sorry to see you get your panties in a wad over a bunch of camel jockeys.
Turns out that Muslims are human beings.
"And at least one commenter on this forum who wants to commit genocide against Muslims."
I don't think that is accurate even though the result would be the same with the accurate description of the problem.
Imagine you are driving along on a slick highway going 75 MPH and your car skids as you enter a right hand turn. Coming towards you is an 18 wheeler and he too is going 75 MPH and you are drifting right towards it. You cannot get control and prevent an accident but you can possibly steer your car off the road into a field of cows. What would you do? Well any sane person would steer towards the steers and save their life and their families life. But then a troll comments that you want to commit genocide against cows. That's not true. You can see what is going to happen and you cannot stop the wreck but you can put yourself and your family first.
That is the world situation today. Some pundits say there may be 30-300 million radical Muslims and the rest will merely support the radicals but won't actually kill anyone. You can see what's coming (well... some people are blind to what's coming) and you would prefer to save yourself, your family, your fellow countrymen and your country. Your choice is to wait until the radical Muslims infiltrate us and acquire nukes, chemical and biological weapons and then attack the West with a vengeance with a resulting WW that kills a billion or two or three people before it's all over. After all if the world is going to wage an NBC (nuclear, biological & chemical) war wouldn't you rather that it take place in the homeland of those who are instigating it? Of course you would unless you are insane or a liberal.
But, but... you say... but then you are committing genocide. Well gee! If a group of people are committed to attack and kill you should you not defend yourself because they are all in some racial/ethnic/religious group and you wouldn't want to be accused of committing genocide? But, but... shouldn't you wait until they actually attack, you could be wrong you know? So again I ask if we are going to have a massive NBC world war wouldn't you rather do it in Northern Africa and the ME??? Why would you want to do it here?
For those of us who see what is coming we are trying to wake up the person who is driving so they can steer us all into the lesser of two bad choices. For those who are smoking pot in the back seat and have no clue what is coming they are saying: DUDE! "... at least one commenter on this forum who wants to commit genocide against Muslims."
GoneWithTheWind: I don't think that is accurate
chasmatic: Yes I do realize that I advocate the death of a billion people
GoneWithTheWind: Your choice is to wait until the radical Muslims infiltrate us and acquire nukes, chemical and biological weapons and then attack the West with a vengeance with a resulting WW that kills a billion or two or three people before it's all over. After all if the world is going to wage an NBC (nuclear, biological & chemical) war wouldn't you rather that it take place in the homeland of those who are instigating it?
So you advocate preemptive genocide. That was Hitler's argument too. Still have the problem of disposing of all the evidence of a billion murders.
I don't think that is accurate. I thought my example spelled it out quite well. Let me put it a different way. Everyone who is paying attention and is aware of what modern weapons of war can do knows that a NBC world war will be deadly to perhaps a billion or two billion people. It is also clear that for Muslims that fear of armageddon is not a deterrent to nuclear war as it was for the nuclear powers for the last 60 plus years. SO we are faced with two possibilities: Wait until the Muslims/terrorists have sufficient NBC weapons to attack the West and suffer terrible losses and perhaps lose the war entirely. OR we could choose to fight and maybe even prevent any of the NBC weapons of mass destruction ever being used AND as a added benefit fight the entire war outside the civilized Western world.
To choose either of these or to not choose and wait and see will bring the same result as you describe i.e. 'mass genocide'. The difference is where the genocidal war is fought and which side is soundly defeated (genocided). So it isn't accurate to say any commenter here "wants" to commit genocide. I suspect they would be overjoyed if all the radical Muslims changed their ways and spent their money and effort on taking care of their own people and not killing Christians. But that option is not one that the West can excercise. Only the radical Muslims can make that choice.
So what's your preference? WW III fought in the West with a billion or so citizens of the West killed or WW III fought in Northern Africa and the ME with a billion or so unrepentant terrorists and their supporters killed?
GoneWithTheWind: To choose either of these or to not choose and wait and see will bring the same result as you describe i.e. 'mass genocide'. The difference is where the genocidal war is fought and which side is soundly defeated (genocided).
So you advocate preemptive genocide.
Absolutely!! Where did genocide get such a bad reputation? You would leave your enemies alive to kill your children??? I want to kill them all and salt their lands.
The thing is you either have signed the suicide pact and will sit quietly waiting (in your case not quietly but trying to convince us all it's raining while you piss on our leg) for it to happen or you refuse to become a victim. I get it! Either out of ignorance or stubbornness you are going to sit and wait for your assigned Jihadist to come cut your head off. I don't want to. I want to take the fight to them. And I don't want to do it by sacrificing our best and brightest in the process. I want to kill them by the thousands from 20,000 feet and send in tanks and troops to finish the job. I want to make their capitol cities glow in the dark so they can be seen from the space station at night. I want to hunt them down where ever they are and send them to their 72 virgins. I want to do this because if we do not they will do it to us.
Genocide on the Japanese? Hmm, lemme see dere, yup I got it:
If Pearl Harbor hadn't taken place then Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't have either.
OK, here's a little story using another lupine analogy:
“One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, "My son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."
chasmatic: Genocide on the Japanese?
The atomic attacks were arguably terrorism, but not genocide. You do understand the difference?
Zach you can skip the condescension. Only bigots talk like that.
I "understand the difference" enough to say that the atomic attacks were acts of war.
To address a scourge such as Islam we must think in terms of extermination.
Think: Hiroshima and Nagasaki;
Collateral damage? Every time some unfortunate guy gets beheaded and the video goes viral?
Really, collateral damage? You're worried some kids or old people are gonna get killed?
Islam is not a good thing. It benefits nobody, apparently not even the adherents.
We should be fire-bombing Baghdad and other concentrations of Muslim terrorists. Can't find 'em? Enlarge the target area.
chasmatic: Think: Dresden; Think: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Again, while those attacks were arguably terrorism, they weren't genocide. Once the Germans and Japanese surrendered, the war ended.
chasmatic: To address a scourge such as Islam we must think in terms of extermination.
Yes, we understand you are explicitly advocating genocide.
What is at Stake for America in Bernie vs. Hillary - The revolution will either destroy America or the Left. ... Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are the same candidate. They’re both leftist radicals with degrees in political science who held back some of their more radical ideas to pursue political office.
It's hard to take the article seriously when it starts out so poorly. All advanced economic systems are mixed systems, with strong government sectors and robust markets. Clinton and Sanders both want a larger government role in medical insurance and education. That hardly makes them "radicals".
Z: Clinton and Sanders both want a larger government role in medical insurance and education. That hardly makes them "radicals".
Please explain how the Fed's role in education since the formation of the Education Department has made education better or less expensive.
Who do we blame for fat people?
Genetics pure and simple. It is literally impossible to become morbidly obese unless you are genetically predisposed to become morbidly obese. Some races/ethnicities have a greater genetic propensity to obesity. Most likely a simple result of evolution in a hunt and gather society over melleniums. Societies that converted to an agrarian lifestyle thousands of years ago tend to have less obesity.
The more common issue is simply being overweight by 20-50 lbs especially as we reach and pass middle age. This is simply the body doing what it was engineered to do; store energy during good times to allow a better chance of survival during lean times. It is not difficult to prevent this or reverse it to achieve a 'normal' or desirable weight. But the difference between this and genetic predispostion to obesity is enormous and doesn't even belong in the same discussion.
Is it sugar or carbs or fats that 'cause' being overweight? Absolutely but in exactly the same way these foods cause good health. I doubt you could be healthy if you cut out all fats, sugars and carbs. The food is not toxic it comes down to the amount you consume when contrasted with the calories you burn. As long as you are getting your MDRs eating extra fats and sugars will not hurt you. And as long as you are burning as many calories as you are eating fats, carbs and sugars will not make you fat. simple as that.
One of the least reliable sources for data on climate change is the US federal government. Now, a group of 300 scientists and academics want Congress to investigate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for cooking the books on climate data in order to erase the pause in the rise in temperature cited by, among other sources, the IPCC.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has to provide proof for significant human-caused climate change; yet their climate models have never been validated and are rapidly diverging from actual observations. The real threat to humanity comes not from any (trivial) greenhouse warming but from cooling periods creating food shortages and famines.
Who do we blame for fat people?
maybe some kids wouldn't be fat if they were encouraged to play outside and their parents not arrested for it. If they were encouraged to get jobs and do chores, as long as their parents weren't arrested for child abuse because of it. Maybe if the parents would also get off their duffs and do something besides sit around and eat cheetos and play on electronics. we used to eat our largest meal at the mid-day point because we needed the energy to get the farm work done. Now we eat big meals at ALL mealtimes and do NO hard physical labor. Or at least most of us, don't.
I say this coming from a family of PA Dutch where you are encouraged to eat, even if you are not hungry because, "gotta eat". The implication being that you eat because it might NOT be there one day. And because the remaining hours of the day you are expected to be productive and WORK at something. Anything. Everyone needs a purpose.
And yes, there are certain body types that tend to run heavier in certain areas, if one is not careful about consuming more than one exerts.
the movie Wall-e was NOT an instruction manual.