"The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence... the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, Baa.
"Until the wolf shows up." -- LTC Dave Grossman, Killology, author of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War"
"Our enemy is denial. Denial is a big, white, fluffy blanket we pull up over our eyes and pretend the bad men will never come."
(Also see what Grossman has to say about children and violent video games.)
On June 24, 2012, I asked here:
I'm looking for research or statistics or even anecdotal information collected on North American women demonstrating that not having had access to an abortion has harmed women's lives. I'm not looking for theoretical sociological stuff, or evidence about how having children interferes with women's careers (we know that), but evidence with regard to the effects on and regrets of individual women of not having been able to have an abortion they thought they might have wanted. This claim is implicit, and sometimes explicit, in the pro-choice argument, but I've never seen any actual research backing it up. Have you?A year later, June 12, 2013, the apparently only on-going study, the "Turnaway Study", merited a write-up in the New York Times. It apparently has found very little, other than providing academic fodder for its authors to publish multiple papers with focusing on the answers to questions that have a pro-choice bent, such as whether a week or a year after an abortion or being denied an abortion, women had more or less emotional stress. None of these narrow issues with small findings are the important questions (and all of them are confounded by the difficulties in fashioning a study like this with solid methodology).
There are really only a couple or few important questions, and they still await answers:
(1) Are you sorry that instead of having an abortion you have the child you now have? The Turnaway Study hasn't been following the women long enough to get a definitive answer and, of course, it suffers from having women (with a variety of personal issues) who mostly sought and were turned away from having an abortion because they waited too long into their pregnancies. (Some had increasingly bad issues with abusive partners. Others struggled with whether to abort a fetus with birth defects. Etc.) However, even with these issues confounding the methodology, the rather astonishing findings "to date" made no headlines -- 95% of the women were happy that they had had their child. (All of these women also apparently faced all of the same issues that every parent faces with regard to "stress" or "work" or "finances" -- and there apparently is no comparison underway or planned that I am aware of comparing these women with "all women" who become parents". It might be presumed that many of them also faced more difficult circumstances while pregnant than "all women".)We cannot set sound policies without obtaining honest, un-"spun" answers to these questions.
Books by historian Thomas F. Madden. Get one. Read it. Don't be an ignoramus. Madden writes:
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common.
Is it just me, or is there suddenly a whole lot of transgenderizing going on?
Mostly male-to-female. D'ya think, maybe, that it's the estrogens in the plastic water bottles? (Why not, if it does it to
alligators in the Everglades.) Yet another "backlash" against "women's rights" by dilution and obfuscation (the same sort
of process that transformed "wife beating" into "interpersonal violence" of various physical and sundry emotional degrees, and "rape" into
the Title IX nonsense we're now seeing on college campuses) -- now even to the point of obscuring
the definition of "woman"? The popularity of the victimology diversity
identity bandwagon? Not talking here about the
medical amelioration of ambiguous sexuality -- a birth defect, but the fairly recent surge of a highly political and
trendy extreme transvestitism. Great article at
takimag.com -- Feminists to Trannies: Stay Off Our TERf. A few snips:
The TERFs argue that for men to pretend they're women is insulting to real women. To them, it is a genital form of blackface...
Since "gender" is a social construct and "femininity" is a patriarchal imposition, transsexuals are merely reinforcing anti-female memes by aping sexist stereotypes of how women should behave...
I'd say that TERFs are merely alleging that
"trans women" are men who are merely pretending to be women, no matter what "gender
identity" they claim, how many hormone injections they receive, or surgeries they undergo.
Until presented with evidence that convinces me otherwise, I will agree with them on this
Me too. I also wonder whether the hashtag activism, race-baiting, and other Hollywood-boosted*
frivolous, fantasy, and/or fashionable things that seem to be flooding the media these days aren't about
consciously-created diversions for the low-information liberal and young millenial "progressive" sets so that
they ignore the truly serious economic, constitutional and political problems currently facing this country and blighting their futures --
and the enormity of the disaster that is this presidential administration.
*(Gwyneth Paltrow advocates for both steam-cleaning your vagina and Barack Obama.)
Sultan Knish (Daniel Greenfield) has the answer for you: it's casually killing other Muslims. This is the definition of "radical" or "extremist" from the Muslim supremacy point of view -- the one that's been stupidly adopted by government officials throughout the western world, not realizing what it means. More from Greenfield:
It can't be beheading people in public.
There are two entirely different kinds of complexity, that of thought and that of expression. Ph.D. illiterates hope that we'll forget this distinction. They'd like us to see difficult, even totally obscure, expression and think: hey, this must be deep thought. Usually it's deep fraud...
Four combat tours, including Operation Iraqi Freedom. Two Silver Stars. Five Bronze Stars with Valor. Two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals. Navy & Marine Corps Commendation. Chief instructor for training, Naval Special Warfare Sniper & Counter-Sniper teams. Authored the Naval Special Warfare Sniper Doctrine, the first Navy SEAL sniper manual. President of Craft International, a world-class leader in training & security. Married father who ultimately left a job we needed him in to be with his wife and children. Volunteer helping disabled veterans. Highest kill rate in ever U.S. military history. And did it with pins and screws in one of his arms from a pre-military injury.
Let's clear up the semantic confusion and doubletalk, paradigm switching,
* Not unless your definition of "peace" is being used to further a conjob, disguising a specious equivocation.
Also: It's not "Islamism" -- it's "Islam". And it's not "Islamist" -- it's "Muslim". Stop with the newspeak euphemisms! Moreover, none of this is analogous to the Crusades. The Bible does not contain numerous repeated calls to Christians to fight, shun, tax, enslave, lie to, and slaughter non-Christians (even assuming, arguendo, that the Turks hadn't first invaded and "occupied" Byzantium and other parts of Europe.) Finally, is there something dementedly primitive about Islam that in the day and age of electronic information and global economies, it's only now attaining the emotional maturity of an illiterate 12th Century? (Is the Mormon Church going through these similar growing pains?) Stop with the apologia and cognitive dissonance!
Bill Clinton on "the world's greatest double standard":
Timeline of Muhammad's Life (A.D)More at: Islam: The Religion of Peace.
(The website is endorsed by thelizlibrary in the entirety. Start with "About this site.)
A "religion" is not merely some persons' retrospective ideas of what the beliefs and practices "should be" -- or, in the strained metaphorical interpretations of some (often self-styled) "scholars", "could be", or, in the case of Islam, should or could HAVE BEEN. It is what those beliefs and practices IN FACT ARE. What they are is dismal. Proof: look at the laws and lives of the people in every single Muslim-controlled country on earth.
Okay, so let's see... If a handful of men disguised in white hoods placed a burning cross on the front lawn of a black family's home, or carried out a lynching, would we expect top officials in the United States to make statements such as "These are just lone wolves" or "These are just disturbed criminals" or "These are only 'extremists' within the peaceful ideology of white supremacism" or "These terrorists cannot be KKK'ers because KKK'ers are law-abiding citizens"?
Is irreverent depiction or mocking of Muhammad not a crime in every Muslim country on earth? (Not even going into the myriad other idiotic and oppressive laws and customs.) So what is this -- merely a peaceful, harmless, anti-freedom "belief" system? A religion that's okay so long as its adherents don't "really" follow it, don't pay attention to what the crackpot imams have to say, and just don't believe in it too much?
Dorothy Rabinowitz had an excellent comment in the Wall Street Journal two days ago, A City of Mourning and Demonized Police", which aptly transports to Muslim terrorism:
The idea that deranged individuals with, say, a history of disturbed relationships and a tendency to violence shouldn't be seen as genuine representatives of a cause, an ideology, is decidedly odd if not itself a kind of deranged thinking. When the cause itself is a grab bag of pathologies, it isn't surprising that it attracts the disturbed.This is not about "individual Muslims" but the religion. (Most WWII-era Germans also were good; that didn't help the Jews.) Let's stop with the multi-culti goody-two-shoes non-judgmental liberal delusions already, and place blame where it belongs. And, let's laugh at Islam. PDF.
[LIZNOTE UPDATE: Let's also stop with the specious disproving of red herrings. Muhammad is depicted as an exalted prophet in a relatively paltry number of mostly older Arabic artistic works. "All" depictions of mostly everything are not banned. However, mockery is banned, as are depictions that could be misused for mockery or for idol worship.]
...from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man
SITE - INDEX |
LIZNOTES MAIN PAGE |
COLLECTIONS | WOMENS HISTORY LIBRARY
| RESEARCH ROOMS
| THE READING ROOM
FATHERLESS CHILDREN STORIES | THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE | WOMAN SUFFRAGE TIMELINE | THE LIZ LIBRARY ENTRANCE
as otherwise noted, all contents in this collection are copyright 1996-2015
the liz library. All rights
This site is hosted and maintained by argate.net Send queries to: sarah-at-thelizlibrary.org