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
Wednesday, August 3. 2016
'Tacky' clothes and 'high society' weddings scorned at Scripps
Campus Madness: Censorship at DePaul, Moral Bullying at University of Houston
Academic Absurdity of the Week: Sexist Ski Slopes?
My Father, the YouTube Star
Meet the body builder without a pulse
Usain Bolt says he's never run a full mile in his life
Don’t Listen to People Who Say You Should Wait Until You’re 30 To Get Married
Tax meat until it’s too expensive to eat, new UN report suggests
Driverless taxis coming to Singapore
The vaguer the job description, the higher the pay.
Will Europe Refuse to Kneel like the Heroic French Priest? Where are the chants "We are all Catholics"?
Why the Establishment Can’t Grasp the Nature of Islam
Black Lives Matter Platform Is a Marxist Horror Show
Sowell: Black Votes Matter
Glenn Reynolds: Who's to blame for Hillary and Donald?
Why Progressives Mislead - Their coalition is fragile.
Immigration: The Issue that Got Away?
The Media Thinks They Finally Got Trump
Hillary’s lying about lying
THE REAL PARENT CONTROVERSY: Hillary Calls the Families of the Benghazi Victims Liars
The 250 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List
That is no way to make friends
Kotkin: What happened to my party?
"Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You," From the ISIS House Magazine Dabiq
US Marines Train Together with Israeli Navy to Fight ISIS
Russia scholar Stephen Cohen shuts down CNN shill host who tries to link Trump to Putin
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Props to Smerconnish for giving Mr Cohen the chance to speak in full paragraphs, which is the antidote to the problem, No? Serious journalism, to the extent it ever existed, has been swamped by Infotainment, ala manufactured drama, clichéd sob stories, celebrities, and sound bites, propelled by the unrelenting quest for traffic. Baiting public figures is just part and parcel. I don't blame the media 100%; it is driven by the viewing public which has become increasingly feminized and infantilized.
Why the Establishment Can’t Grasp the Nature of Islam ... the Koran, nine percent of which is devoted to political violence...
How much of the Hebrew Bible is devoted to political violence?
Numbers 31: "They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man... Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Also note that the West’s foundational faith, Christianity, and its root, Judaism — the two faiths Westerners are best acquainted with and whose norms they may reflexively (and unwisely) project onto Islam — have as the basis of their moral law the Ten Commandments. Islam’s moral law is Sharia.
Islam also has the Ten Commandments, while Jews have their own laws, the Halakhah, which prescribes stoning for idol worshiping, cursing one's parents, witchcraft, and violating the Sabbath.
Deuteronomy 25: If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Where are the chants "We are all Catholics"?
I know! Pick me!
Muslims attend mass around France in solidarity after brutal killing of Father Jacques Hamel in ISIL-linked attack.
Zachriel combines the worst traits of Trump and Clinton. He's a bombastic, know-it-all who knows very little and he's an inveterate liar.
His one saving grace is that he highlights things in gray so that we can easily recognize and ignore his drivel.
Mike M: he's an inveterate liar.
The first half of the comment was a question, which remains unanswered. The second half of the comment is true to our knowledge, and we'd be happy to provide citations. Did you have a substantive disagreement?
Thanks BD. Truly inspirational!
Here's a link to his full story & more of his videos:
He actually went back to school after his illness to get business knowledge so that he could set up an organization to raise money for others in similar circumstances. In this age where people are quick to see themselves as victims and look for someone/something to blame for their problems, this guy is inspirational.
The article really only addresses the local (dental) benefits or lack thereof.
There's been a great deal of interest/research lately into inflammatory mediators and GI tract microbes and how they affect or effect health and disease in remote areas of the body. Of particular note is that gingivitis and/or periodontal disease may contribute to cardiovascular disease (and other disease processes) either thru direct bacterial mechanisms or via inflammatory mediators.
Flossing seems like a low cost, low risk tool - I like to keep those little floss on a stick things handy and also believe in rinsing if you're on the go and don't have a toothbrush handy.
THE REAL PARENT CONTROVERSY: Hillary Calls the Families of the Benghazi Victims Liars
Clinton clearly did not call anyone a liar, saying "I don't hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn't said."
Your first reference was actually "historical" and not a commandment.
Your second reference is actually, it's Deuteronomy 25:11 - 12 and is more to your point - however ridiculous. Even though Deuteronomy is part of the Tora, neither Jews nor Christians take it as an excuse to go cutting the hands off of women or otherwise do violence to woman.
There is a substantial minority of Muslims who believe in Sharia - even 60% of younger American Muslims in one poll - which commands, among other things, the death penalty for apostasy, criticizing or denying the Quaran or that Mohammed is a prophet, that girls' clitoris be cut, that women who is raped cannot testify against her rapists. Not only do they believe in the "spirit" of Sharia, but they believe in the letter so the grotesque form of justice it describes is implemented and the punishments it prescribes are carried out.
mudbug: Your first reference was actually "historical" and not a commandment.
Numbers 31: "The Lord said to Moses, 'Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites.' "
mudbug: Even though Deuteronomy is part of the Tora, neither Jews nor Christians take it as an excuse to go cutting the hands off of women or otherwise do violence to woman.
There are both Jews and Christians who want to bring back stoning. In any case, we're just following the argument in the cited article. How much of the Hebrew Bible is devoted to political violence?
mudbug: who believe in Sharia - even 60% of younger American Muslims in one poll - which commands, among other things, the death penalty for apostasy
Deuteronomy 13: "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death.
Sharia is not one thing, but a wide variety of traditions that are often confused with other traditions. For instance, the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research in Cairo has ruled that female genital mutilation has "no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions."
The best lies are half-truths. On those occasions you do get something right, it's typically a minor fact extracted from the whole. Taken out of context, which you explicitly do, it's wrong.
Your efforts are sophomoric at best, but they are amusing b/c you try so hard to be precise with your language, but then you get impassioned and drop several adjectives in your posts that demonstrate clear, unsubstantiated bias.
You're a fraud as a scholar, and a fraud as an impartial observer. But your efforts to portray that as your image are intriguing, since it's obviously important to you and your peers.
DrTorch: On those occasions you do get something right
Your forgot to provide a substantive response.
DrTorch: So your argument is semantics.
Our argument is substantive. Clinton didn't call Smith a liar, but mistaken. For instance, you are mistaken on this point. That doesn't make you a liar.
So, let me get this straight, when you call people out you are being 'insulting,' but when the left and the press lie about a candidate consistently, it's totally fine? I consider what the press is doing to Trump just as bad as any insult he has thrown out there.
They are constantly bashing him for his 'temperament,' when he is the FIRST Republican candidate I can remember in my lifetime that has NOT let the press win. This is why Trump is doing so well with voters...we are sick and tired of being told by the press that we are racists, sexists, Islamophobes, etc.
Trump is our voice. Trump stands up for our opinions. In a country where FREEDOM is king, we should be holding up Trump as a truth-teller who is willing to ruin his business, his reputation for the right to speak our minds FREELY without punishment.
If it had been a question, I would have phrased it as such and used a question mark. Recognizing that you're a bit obtuse, please understand that the pronoun "he" in the second sentence does NOT refer to either Trump or Clinton.
For me, Trump simply represents "not Hillary."
I disagree with a large number of his positions and with his methods. However, I think that he will do relatively less damage to the USA than his opponents and I will, therefore, vote for him.
I do agree with him on the issue of political correctness destroying our nation and that unbridled and uncontrolled immigration is a critical security issue for the US.
You are correct that the mainstream media pundits are essentially a branch of the DNC and have no objectivity.
Mike M: If it had been a question, I would have phrased it as such and used a question mark.
Notably, you will find the question mark in the first half of our original comment: How much of the Hebrew Bible is devoted to political violence?
The second half of our comment is true to our knowledge, and we'd be happy to provide citations. Did you have a substantive disagreement?
I completely agree with you. Trump is showing the media for the Soros shills that they are and I am grateful.
Loathe as I am to reply to the chronic dishonesty inherent to your habitual framing - which is a severe bias, a form of lying itself - the answer to that question lies first in how dishonest it is itself.
Allow me to demonstrate.
"How much of Chicago is devoted to political violence?"
In this question we have a number of obvious problems. The first is that while many folks recognize and even approve of this framing insofar that it tacitly refers to the abject failure of the ruling political class to cause justice and not interfere with sound personal defense, the question is still loaded by that same framing. One cannot technically toss off such a question and expect, as you obviously have, that it rightly impugns a particular but loosely associated rationale, culture, theology, people, or intent. Such may eventually peripherally apply, but the formulation does not, at least yet, allow for them.
You, being Zachriel, made no such distinction because you, Zachriel, have an obvious agenda the use of objective fact would constitute a threat to.
Continuing, one can also not assume questions not specified, such as, who in Chicago is devoted (your word) to political violence. That's because this is a begged question, and begged questions are fallacies.
We cannot even rightly ask, what is the intent of political violence in Chicago because this too is a begged question that presumes to establish political violence as the particular sort of violence in the formulation we'd use to our rhetorical advantage wrongly when no such evidence, as yet, exists.
The best we can expect is that should "political" violence exist in Chicago - violence as the result of politics - we may be able to extrapolate a sequence of causes and events from a body of related facts that allow us, eventually, to chalk it up to politics. We might also, as you ably demonstrate, be able to shorthand our way to our preferred inference and an implication. After all, Chicago violence has an evident root and it doesn't exclude politics and if we short-circuit the entire intervening but needed factual discussion and jump to conclusions, they'd wash in company that could connect those dots in a fairly rational way.
But that doesn't apply to historical records passed on through time and by translation for which there is no direct correlation and no obvious intent. It especially applies when the association bias would like to create cannot actually be made.
In ancient texts we'd have to establish identical causes, implications, intents, and the like, and we'd have to include the added complexities of interpretation and ascribed intent. Then we'd have to draw physical parallels and connections with and to Judiasm or Christianity or whatever vague implied body I assume you'd like to tacitly associate with "Hebrew Bible", requiring a deeply complex definition through history in its own right, and finally we'd have to re-identify contemporary Christian thought and practice to parse from this loose grouping some meaningful present context because just as we're instructed Islam is never monolithic, neither may be Christianity up through the present, and that's even before we get into nebulous regions like defining the intent of a biblical G-d or His/Her/Its purported revelations and intentions as acquired by imperfect minds (if at all) in texts and scriptures.
So basically your smart little question is mostly moot. It's moot because it's question-begging. And it just took ten minutes of my time to reply to a bit of characteristic bullshit frame-bait from your team of jeenyuses it took your algorithm nine seconds to publish. This we find annoying, which explains your general reception around here. You're annoying because you exist to frame and bait.
And now we wait for either dead air or another diversionary bullshitting.
One of the best political speeches I ever heard was one I found over at Sipsey Street Irregulars. The Trump backing speech was given by Richard Spencer and can be found on YouTube titled "The Napoleon of the current year". Trump is not perfect but is perfect enough to destroy the corrupt and perverted politics of the day.
Zach, you're a douche. Face it, embrace it and move on. We have.
Looking forward to your gray highlighting of douche and why you're not a textbook example of it.
Hurry, I'm on pins and needles.
Ten: How much of Chicago is devoted to political violence?
Only a small percentage of the population is devoted to political violence, but a quantitative answer would be dependent on a great number of assumptions — as you correctly point out. Keep in mind that this isn't our measure, but the measure introduced in the article posted for discussion, an article which assigns exact percentages to such questions. That's where your argument seems to be directed. So it seems you have understood the point, after all.
She mentioned the video in her current explanation. There would be no reason to bring it up if she weren't agreeing with the mom that she had indeed mentioned it at the time. So when she is politely calling the mother "mistaken," she is either lying herself, or calling the woman a liar in a manner that can't be called out but is clear. Except she slipped.
I can't see why you would want to defend that comment without some sort of qualifier. Except that as usual, you can't do qualifiers.
Yes, Trump is destroying things that need destroying very well. There is no evidence that he will replace it with anything better, and some evidence that it might be worse.
Mere vindictiveness, even against those who deserve it, is not enough for governance. The blithe confidence that it will all somehow just work out because now the bad guys have been punched (hurrah!) stems from an oversimplified, even childish view of how the world works.
In Animal Farm they kicked out the (genuinely) oppressive humans. How'd that work out?
Ah, so diversionary bull it is, then.
After all, your crack team evidently determined that the article's point, as you now put it, was to enable flippant, question-begging, implied determinations aimed squarely at strongly implied, presumed historical pathology, a bias that once exposed in your crack team as I had here, then predictably resorted to the Z-program's command line that issues the standard Z-Team reframing and a helping of Squirrel!
Or bull, as we call it over here in meatspace.
And the funny thing - if that's the right word - is that I spared you the heavy lifting pursuant ancient Hebrews being always hunted to death, the inevitable ensuing existentialism, and somehow painting parallels - or denying them, ironically - in our times to any contemporary cultural uh, aberration such as a present one I'm reasonably thinking you'd consider defending probably right up to your own demise or that of other innocents by its hand.
At least you haven't condemned it so far, in and among all this other Z-Bull, it being indistinguishable from your own presumed faith. If machinery has faith.
And about this ancient Hebrew political violence, I wonder if the legacy of wanton, needless, sworn, holy slaughters in many places today hearkens back to a time of unavoidable existential stress in its victims sufficient that it prompted fathers and sons and brothers to invoke a G-d and wage stands against such a persistent aggressor and whatnot. I mean, if they're entitled; if they may be permitted, what with the enormous benefit of our benevolent, historical hindsight. An existential stress concerning daughters and sisters and a whole people being hacked to bits for no reason by 80 IQ freaks that if one hasn't experienced it one probably hasn't a f*cking leg to stand on concerning it.
Heaven forbid you'd ever fall on your face and invoke your G-d against such murderers, so to put it.
Ten: Ah, so diversionary bull it is, then.
It's not diversionary whatsoever. The article constructs an argument based on percentages of political violence found in sacred texts. We asked what is the percentage of political violence found in the Hebrew Bible, and provided an example.
"Did I shoot that spitball at little Sally?", he repeated back to the teacher, stalling for time until he could come up with a plausible lie.
Assistant Village Idiot: he mentioned the video in her current explanation
She mentioned the video publicly from the beginning: "We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with."
Assistant Village Idiot: So when she is politely calling the mother "mistaken," she is either lying herself, or calling the woman a liar in a manner that can't be called out but is clear.
Other people who were there heard nothing about a video.
Assistant Village Idiot: I can't see why you would want to defend that comment without some sort of qualifier.
There is no qualifier necessary concerning whether Clinton called Smith a liar. She did not.
You might argue that Clinton is lying about what was said, but then you'd have to argue that some of the family members are lying also. People often misremember things, and conflate them in their minds with other events.