Right in the wheelwell.

A couple of months ago, you may recall this bit of eco-proselytizing involving exploding children. Even the writer for the above environmentalist website acknowledged the obvious hateful implications.



Charming--and the scoundrel's "just a joke" defense was happily ineffective.

But some Greens seem enamored with the "whack 'em!" solution.

Chris Johnson found a new approach leading to the same result: using a Mayan goddess as a mascot for a U.N. climate change convention.

Great idea: nothing says "reason and creativity" quite like a goddess worshipped by a culture which was big on human sacrifice. Including children.

Sign me up.

Not so by the way, Hernan Cortes died 463 years ago yesterday. As Ms. Figueres' mascot diety makes clear, Cortes deserves to be regarded as a great, if largely unwitting, humanitarian.

Lazy narratives to push.

Did you hear the one about the Koran being burned as a protest of Islamic doctrine?

No no no no no--not by the Pentacostal microchurch led by Terry Jones.

Because, you know--they didn't actually burn any Korans.

No, I'm talking about Charles Merrill, the wealthy gay artist-of-some-sort. He actually destroyed an artistically-significant Koran gifted by King Hussein of Jordan (and valued by some at $60,000) back in July 2007. He did it to protest Islamic gay-bashing. Even sent out a press release and invited people to his website.

Media reaction? The sound of crickets. Crickets after a lungful of sarin. The closest thing to actual media coverage? A squib in the gay newspaper The Advocate.

That's odd.

But but but, you say--nobody's ever heard of Charles Merrill. He's a carnival-barking nobody busking for attention.

Fair enough. After all, the guy can't even get a mention in Wikipedia, of all places.

But. So is--was--Jones.

Why the discrepancy in coverage?

Might I humbly suggest that it's because Jones is the perfect demon-figure for lazy journalists marinating in Elmer Gantry and Inherit the Wind stereotypes about Christianity. Lord, the man's straight from Central Casting:

MSM: "It's a slow news month, and we're interested in Needlessly-Provocative Ignorant Backwoods Reverends to Caricature."

CC: "Wellll...let's see. Swaggart's pretty well clapped out, and Oral Roberts seems to be...er, dead. Hey--how would you like a guy who looks like the underfed love child of Paul Teutul and is threatening to burn the Koran?"

MSM: "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! Perfect! Eleventy!!!!!"

Gay quasi-artist who points out Islamic violence against homosexuals--not so much. "Deer in the headlights" doesn't quite capture the flavor of a reporter being detailed to cover Merrill's stunt. He might even have to ask some difficult questions, and ruin the narrative by pointing out how Muslims are--you know, at least on occasion, once in a blue moon--victimizers and not just victims. There's no clear backlash angle, either. Best to just pretend it never happened.

But Jones, with his congregation of upwards of 20? The reporters rappelled down from News Copters 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10-13 inclusive for a Two-Minutes Tut-Tutting and Worried Frowning About The Rising Tide of Intolerance.

As the President would say: Let me be clear--I'm not a proponent of desecrating other people's holy objects or symbols as a general rule (argue about them--sure. Destroy--no). Not remotely. Which is why I can't cheer Artiste' Chagoya's gay Mohammed "tapestry." Do unto others...

But I am a major proponent of a vigorous free press that reports the facts, no matter how discomfiting it may be to groups it wants to coddle. And not a snooze bar media that pulls out comfortable templates to guide its air-cover reporting.

It's the Artists!

Some are describing this as "vandalism" or even "violence":

A truck driver from Montana who is accused of destroying a controversial piece of artwork at a public art gallery in Loveland was scheduled to appear before a judge through a video link on Thursday afternoon.

Kathleen Folden allegedly screamed "How can you desecrate my lord?" on Wednesday at Loveland Museum and Art Gallery just before breaking some plexiglass surrounding the print of "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals" with a crowbar. She then allegedly tore the print and sat on the floor until police arrived.

"Romantic Cannibals" was a 12-panel lithograph that depicted Jesus involved involved a sex act and it also included comic book characters, Mexican pornography, Mayan symbols and ethnic stereotypes. It was part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists that opened in mid-September and was scheduled to run through late last month.

"Criminal mischief." Feh! How narrowly bourgeois. How typically philistine.

Nay! Miss Folden is an artist herself! Mischief? Nonsense! She was engaged in a transgressive dialogue with Prof. Chagoya, expressing her interpretive viewpoint via sound, motion, blank verse, creative impact and metaphoric exploration. Clearly Chagoya is suffering from a cramped, narrowly conventional viewpoint which needs to be shaken up by bold new approaches and vistas. Open your mind, Chagoya! Shatter the mental shackles of your quaintly upper middle class academic lifestyle, and interact with the real working class, as exemplified by daring avant-gardists like Folden! If you dare.

Okay. Sarcasm off. If only Chagoya could take off the clown nose for five seconds:

Chagoya told CBS4 by phone he was upset to learn the news that his art had been attacked. He says his work is a critique of corruption in religious institutions, not people's beliefs.

"I don't expect people to agree with me but let's have a civil discussion, you know. I've been getting a lot of hate mail that doesn't have any logical discussion behind it," Chagoya said.

Yeaaaah. He was not trying to attack beliefs by portraying Jesus in a sex act, but rather attacking institutions. That might work on Anne Rice, but if you are getting more oxygen, it's bullshit.

Let's try it this way: I want to dialogue with Chagoya about his Mexican clown pr0n, using his approach. I'll have to open the "civil discussion" with "Hello, Professor. I understand your mother was the town bike before she died of syphilis and your dad was an energetic molester of dairy cattle. What were you thinking when you barfed up that crap you miscall 'art'?"

Huzzahs!

No, this is not the beginning of a "walk in to a bar" joke:

Jewish and Muslim scholars protest English city's deletion of "Christmas" from city Christmas light display.

Executive Director of the from the Woolf Institute of Abrahamic Faiths, Dr Edward Kessler, who is Jewish, said: "'people of all faiths in this country should recognise that such developments are a curb on all our religious freedoms. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. If Christmas lights cannot be named as such how can the religious festivals celebrated by Muslims, Jews, Hindus and so on be openly celebrated? If restrictions are only imposed on Christian festivals (for the time being), the interfaith endeavour is threatened."

Prof. Kessler's Muslim counterpart is downright acidic:

Muslim colleague Dawud Bone, Stone Ashdown Director of the Centre for the Study of Muslim – Jewish Relations at the Woolf Institute said: "To call this political correctness would be to flatter those who have arrived at this policy. I am unaware of any academic research that suggests anyone of any faith is offended by Christmas lights. They are therefore responding to a problem that almost certainly does not exist and in doing so they are creating a greater problem. I believe actions such as this can only damage community cohesion and reduce the respect individuals have for each other's faiths."

A hat-tip and thanks to you both!

[H/t to the incomparable Mark Steyn.]

When Irish blood is boiling...

Okay, had to ruffle the wife's feather's with the previous post. She's the Irish one, not me.

But here's something that's really going to cause a detonation: Happy Shamrock Day, everyone!

Really, seriously--go straight to hell, you pathetic, sniveling, Christian-hating PC weiners. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. And may you do all your green beer consumption via enema.

Here are links to shake this one off.

[Thanks(?) to Rod for the find.]

"The Free World Fatwas Itself."

Mark Steyn also goes yard:

Andrew's post from this morning on Geert Wilders has stayed with me all day — especially this line from Edmund Standing:

How is [British Foreign Secretary] Miliband any better than Muslims who screamed about The Satanic Verses without bothering to read it?

Tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the Ayatollah's fatwa against Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses. Two decades on, who needs the mullahs? These days western nations are happy to fatwa their own. It's now a familiar pattern.

If you threaten violence, the authorities cave in, and do the mob's bidding in the interests of "public order" — as they did in Toronto on Wednesday, when thugs attacked a Jewish center:

The police demanded that the center itself close down — punishing the innocent and achieving the goal of the mob.

If you're a "moderate Muslim" who gets death threats and complains to the authorities,

The police will dispatch two burly Muslim police officers. These gentlemen will warn the complainer to button it, lest he rile up restive Muslims.

If young Muslim girls are being kidnapped and forced into marriage with their first cousins, the British Home Office minister will suggest that these matters are best handled discreetly and informally. If young Muslim girls are being murdered in "honor killings", the Chief Commissar of the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission will explain that they're a "small commission" and they have to be able to prioritize and that Mark Steyn is a far greater threat to the Queen's peace than killers of Muslim women.

But, if you don't threaten violence, if you don't issue death threats, if you don't kill anyone, if you just make a movie or write a book or try to give a speech, the state will prosecute you, ban you or (in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali) force you to flee your own country.

In their appeasement of thugs, buffoons like Miliband and the Tory squishes across the House of Commons on the Opposition benches are making it very clear that the state accords more respect to violence than to debate. As I said to my interrogators in Ontario this week:

When you go down that road, all you do is lead to the situation that you have in, say, Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, you can't start a newspaper and print what you think, so if you object to the House of Saud, the only thing you can do is blow stuff up.

In Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and elsewhere (as the Instaprof has often noted) the state is teaching a very dangerous lesson.

As Mark Steyn notes, Happy Fatwa 20th Anniversary. Marvel at how much worse things have gotten since.

Kathy Shaidle knocks one out of the park.

Or pulls a Darryl Sittler, given her nation of birth.

Free Speech--for me and thee:

During WW2, we spoke of "the Germans" and "the Japanese".

No "not all" to be seen.

It was understood by normal, sane, patriotic and intelligent ordinary people that not every single solitary German was a Nazi. Even before we learned the story of Oskar Schindler and other "righteous gentiles," U.S. citizens spoke of "good Germans" whose existence they were certain of. There were indeed angry Americans who beat up their German neighbors. Interestingly, there was no similar backlash against Muslims after 9/11.

We knew there were "good Japanese" too -- at least on our shores. Despite real (as opposed to imaginary persecution), Japanese Americans volunteered to serve their adopted country and became the most decorated unit, not just during WW2, but in the entire history of the US armed forces. (Alas, a similar parallel does not exist in our current conflict for some reason.)

It was common knowledge that, yes, the Germans had invented all kinds of wonderful things and created lovely music and so forth, in a (real) glorious past (as opposed to the sometimes imaginary glorious past frequently cited by Muslim apologists.)

Likewise the Japanese.

However, at that particular moment in time, the Japanese were mutilating American G.Is and running slave brothels, while the Germans were embarked on a mission to wipe out Europe's Jews and other "undesirables."

In response, Dr. Suess and Chuck Jones made some nasty cartoons, as every college kid knows.

(Oh, and we actually killed our enemies back in those days, instead of interrogating them in Laz-E-Boy chairs and feeding them 3000 calorie a day halal meals.)

But as far as your average leftist/Muslim apologist/Canadian MP is concerned, those cartoons of Dr. Suess are worse than, say, this. (Something few university students learn about, because, hey, those cartoons are so much cooler to bash.)


Read. It. All. I don't always agree with every jot and tittle she writes, and that's entirely the point--she should be able to keep writing what she wants anyway. And--here's the kicker--she's far, far more right than wrong--especially here.

She'll have the salad.

What did Churchill say about fanatics?

Someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject?

Meet Jennifer Thornburg.

Remember, she's just 19 so it's hopefully just a phase.

Why William Ayers matters.

Just ask John Murtagh.

Here's the first paragraph:

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up "a gentleman named William Ayers," who "was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that." Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: "The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George." Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

Read the whole thing.

I'm gonna go with the Muslim complaint on this one.

It's the NY Times, so I'm naturally inclined to be contradictory.

But this one is a no brainer--the ethicist is so wrong it's not even funny.

The questioner himself admits it was "a men's soccer league." Then that's it--end of story. No changing the rules in midstream. The team with the female player was violating the rules and should have accepted the full brunt of the consequences, not the team with the Muslims on it.

Sure--perhaps the Muslims may have been motivated by chauvanism. So what? That's not the point. The point is, the Muslim team was playing by the rules, and the "Dream Center" team was not.

Victims, victims everywhere.

Perhaps the most poisonous thing about multiculturalism is that inculcates the idea that everyone can try to play the victim card.

For instance, fellow beadsqueezers Tracey Ann and Matthew McVeigh.

For Matthew McVeigh, it was the moment he had excitedly been working toward for months.
But when the youngster learned that to become an official Cub Scout he would have to pledge allegiance to the Queen when reciting the Cub Scout Promise, he refused to do it on religious grounds.

Now a row has broken out after the eight-year-old was told he cannot become a fully-fledged Cub as a result.

His mother, Tracy Anne, 29, said yesterday that her son's refusal to say the part of the oath that declares a promise 'to do my duty to the Queen,' was a matter of principle for their Roman Catholic family.

* * *

'He was really excited about it. But when he had to fill out the application form, he realised he would have to pledge duty to the Queen and that's when it all kicked off.

'We weren't happy about this aspect of the Promise as we don't think it's necessary in today's world. We are supposed to live in a multi-cultural age, but this just flies in the face of that.

'I don't want to make this a religious issue, but being a Catholic in this country, a lot of things are out with our reach.

'My son cannot grow up and become Prime Minister because of his religion. The 1701 Act of Settlement specifically discriminates against Catholic people and only allows for Protestants to take the throne - so why should we make an oath to the Monarchy? It actively discriminates against Catholics.'

First of all, she's wrong--her son can become Prime Minister. The Catholic Relief Act of 1829 ensured that. Rather long odds, admittedly. Even longer of marrying into the House of Windsor, her other gripe.

Second of all--suck it up and swear the oath. This is the United Kingdom, not some benighted, fanged despotism. The Stuarts aren't coming back. Queen Elizabeth II is the legitimate head of state of a free people--you owe her your allegiance. Moreover, pledging allegiance doesn't mean a mindless endorsement of everything a free nation does or permits.

In short, we don't need to add ourselves to the ranks of the aggrieved with baseless protests like this.

Cultural jihad.

Read this brilliant and disturbing piece by Bruce Bawer, An Anatomy of Surrender.

Before you start thinking this is some kind of right wing rant, understand that Bawer is an openly-gay man living in Europe. He's seeing it, every day.