Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | November 8, 2011

Holder Sticks Rigidly to Script

via The Daily Caller:

In his testimony, Holder also advocates for new gun-control laws that he says would have halted, or at least prevented, Operation Fast and Furious. Holder echoes California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s comments from last week, when she argued that stricter gun laws would have stopped law enforcement agents from facilitating the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Bloggers have been commenting for months that the only possible explanation for this horribly failed program is that it was an attempt to create a situation that would give an excuse for gun control.  Now Holder comes out and says it, after all of that?

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | November 4, 2011

Video: How a Local Blog Broke the Kelly Thomas Story


Content Warning: there’s a brief image of Thomas from 1:25 to 1:30, and it’s fairly disturbing.

Update: The District Attorney on the case:


Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | November 4, 2011

Drivel from Time

I’m reluctant to highlight this piece of moronic kowtowing from Time Magazine, but whatever.  Just don’t follow the link without your Adblock Plus turned on, because we really don’t need to be supporting this crap.

Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can and can’t be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

So the rape victim earned it because her skirt wasn’t long enough?  In order to make it easier for rapists to avoid raping people, we should establish dress codes?  Because that’s exactly what this idiot is proposing: speech codes to avoid pissing off homicidal maniacs.

The difficulty in answering that question is also what’s making it hard to have much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam. The Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot. Predictably, the strike unleashed a torrent of unqualified condemnation from French politicians, many of whom called the burning of the notoriously impertinent paper as “an attack on democracy by its enemies.”

I’m not sure where to begin here.  We could start with the fact that this particular satirical newspaper is, well, satire.  Its job is to make fun of people, groups, and, yes, religions.  If a Christian were to firebomb their office after an anti-Christian issue, would that have been justified as well?  Or any of the other victims of the satirists’ satire?

Alternatively, we could focus on this gem: “depictions forbidden in Islam to boot”.  WTH?  Judeo-Christian religion bans taking the name of the Lord in vain.  Would Crumley be in favor of his proposed speech codes including a censor on the use of the word “God” as an expletive?

We, by contrast, have another reaction to the firebombing: Sorry for your loss, Charlie, and there’s no justification of such an illegitimate response to your current edition. But do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.

I think here Crumley is simply severely mistaken.  The logic of campaigns against Islamic censorship is to show that we wont bow before Sharia law here in the West, at least not all of us.  While the likes of Crumley may be more than happy to embrace Islamic rule, the majority is not, and that is the message every drawing of Mohammed is meant to convey.

Of course, the idea that his intentions are well meaning is compromised by the childish jokes he feels the need to throw into every other paragraph.

Though police say they still don’t know who staged the apparent strike, the (sorry) inflammatory religious theme of the new edition has virtually everyone suspecting Muslim extremists were responsible. Which, frankly, is exactly why it’s hard not to feel it’s the kind of angry response–albeit in less destructive form– Charlie Hebdo was after in the first place. What was the point otherwise? Yet rather than issuing warnings to be careful about what one asks for, the arson  prompted political leaders and pundits across the board to denounce the arson as an attack on freedom of speech, liberty of expression, and other rights central to French and other Western societies. In doing so they weren’t entirely alone. Muslim leaders in France and abroad also stepped up to condemn the action–though not without duly warning people to wait for police to identify the perpetrators before assigning guilt, especially via association.

Again: the rape victim was obviously looking for sexual attention, she deserved what she got.  This kind of attitude is only condoned when applied to Islam, it looks absurd in any other context.  Christianity has been taunted far more than Islam, and the intention of the mocking is clearly to provoke a reaction.  Since that’s what they’re asking for, who’s up for some arson?

The reasons for such concern were as obvious as the suspicions about who had staged the strike: the coarse and heavy-handed Islamist theme of the current edition of Charlie Hebdo. As part of its gag, the paper had re-named itself “Sharia Hebdo”. It also claimed to have invited Mohammed as its guest editor to “celebrate the victory” of the Islamist Ennahda party in Tunisia’s first free elections last week. In addition to satirical articles on Islam-themed topics, the paper contains drawings of Mohammed in cartoons featuring Charlie Hebdo‘s trademark over-the-top (and frequently not “ha-ha funny”) humor. The cover, for example, features a crudely-drawn cartoon of the Prophet saying “100 Whip Lashes If You Don’t Die Of Laughter.” Maybe you had to be there when it was first sketched.

This is probably the most constructive paragraph in the entire piece.  You want to talk about how his sense of humor isn’t that funny?  Fine.  Go find an internet discussion with a bunch of other losers and talk about it.  The issue was intended to offend, as every issue is.  In every other case, the offended people just griped about it among themselves.  Why can’t the Muslims do the same?

If that weren’t enough to offend Muslims sensitive to jokes about their faith, history helped raised hackles further. In 2007, Charlie Hebdo re-published the infamous (and, let’ face it, just plain lame) Mohammed caricatures initially printed in 2005 by Danish paper Jyllands-Posten. As intended, those produced outrage–and at times violent reaction–from Muslims around the world (not to mention repeated terror plots to kill illustrators responsible for the drawings). Apart from unconvincing claims of exercising free speech in Western nations where that right no longer needs to be proved, it’s unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists. After it’s 2007 reprinting of those, Charlie Hebdo was acquitted by a French court on inciting racial hatred charges lodged by French Islamic groups over those and other caricatures—including one run as the paper’s cover cartoon depicting Mohammed complaining “It’s Hard To Be Loved By (expletives)”. When it comes to Islam, Charlie Hebdo has a million of ’em—but they’re all generally as weak as they are needlessly provocative.

The right to free speech no longer needs to be proved?  Do I need to remind people that there was a criminal investigation after the publication of the cartoons this man thinks served no purpose?  Has it already been forgotten that the person who drew the turban-bomb cartoon was attacked by a Somali with an axe and a knife as recently as 2010?  And how about Theo van Gogh?  He died for the right to speak against Islam.

Editors, staff, fans, and apologists of Charlie Hebdo have repeatedly pointed out that the paper’s take-no-prisoners humor spares no religion, political party, or social group from its questionable humor. They’ve also tended to defend the publication during controversy as a kind of gut check of free society: a media certain to anger, infuriate, and offend just about everybody at some point or another. As such, Charlie Hebdo has cultivated its insolence proudly as a kind of public duty—pushing the limits of freedom of speech, come what may. But that seems more self-indulgent and willfully injurious when it amounts to defending the right to scream “fire” in an increasingly over-heated theater.

For some reason, their screams haven’t managed to provoke violence from the other groups they taunt.  So I’m not sure what the point of this paragraph is… that Islam is the equivalent of an overheated theater?  That everyone should be afraid of Islam?

Because that’s what Islamophobia really is: fearing Islam enough to tiptoe around it.  The people who stand against the violence Islamic radicals cause, these are the least Islamophobic of all.

Why? Because like France’s 2010 law banning the burqa in public (and earlier legislation prohibiting the hijab in public schools), the nation’s government-sponsored debates on Islam’s place in French society all reflected very real Islamophobic attitudes spreading throughout society. Indeed, such perceived anti-Muslim action has made France a point of focus for Islamist radicals at home and abroad looking to harp on new signs of aggression against Islam. It has also left France’s estimated five million Muslims feeling stigmatized and singled out for discriminatory treatment—a resentment that can’t be have been diminished by seeing Charlie Hebdo‘s mockery of Islam “just for fun” defended as a hallowed example of civil liberty by French pols. It’s yet to be seen whether Islamist extremists were behind today’s arson, but both the paper’s current edition, and the rush of politicians to embrace it as the icon of French democracy, raises the possibility of even moderate Muslims thinking “good on you” if and when militants are eventually fingered for the strike. It’s all so unnecessary.

A burqa ban is something I have yet to develop an opinion on.  Certainly no one should be forced to wear one, but I’m not sure it needs to be banned outright.  But what France has done, for good or ill, doesn’t change the fact that Islam wants to force their worldview on all of us.

It’s obvious free societies cannot simply give in to hysterical demands made by members of any beyond-the-pale group. And it’s just as clear that intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they’re committed—especially if their goal is to undermine freedoms and liberties of open societies. But it’s just evident members of those same free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn’t happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off.

It’s done every day to every single other religious group on the planet.  People needlessly and mindlessly insult, demean, and attack religious belief, and religious believers, everywhere.  It’s protected speech for those who insult the other groups, and this man has never stood up against it.  Why is speech against Islam in a different category?

Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.

So, yeah, the violence inflicted upon Charlie Hebdo was outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable, and illegal. But apart from the “illegal” bit, Charlie Hebdo‘s current edition is all of the above, too.

Baiting extremists is always bravely defiant.  You may be someone incapable of real humor, but when you stray from the easy targets (Christians, Jews, Conservatives) and take on Islam, that sets you apart from the rest of the low-grade humorists of the world.  When you’re willing to lump the only religion people kill for in the 21st century in with all the rest, then you’ve raised the bar.  At that point, you do become a champion of free speech, no matter how idiotic your humor may be.

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | September 28, 2011

Ben-Hur a Palestinian?

Political Correctness run amok:

William Wyler‘s 1959 epic, “Ben-Hur,” which dominated the Academy Awards in winning 11 Oscars, including best film, director, actor (Charlton Heston) and supporting actor (Hugh Griffith), is getting the superstar treatment in Warner’s 50th-anniversary ultimate collection edition arriving Tuesday in both regular DVD and Blu-ray.

Based on the novel by Lew Wallace, the period drama revolves around Judah Ben-Hur (Heston), a Palestinian nobleman [bold font by Big Hollywood] who is enslaved by the Romans, engages in one of the most thrilling chariot races ever captured on screen, and even encounters Jesus Christ.

Really?  Palestinian?  Last I checked, Ben-Hur was a Hebrew last name, and Judah a Hebrew first name.

Fact: there were no “Palestinians” at the time that Ben-Hur is set.  The LA Times, like its counterpart in New York, seems determined to make a complete fool of itself with its blatantly anti-Semitic nonsense.

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | September 21, 2011

$16 Dollar Muffin

From The Washington Post:

They may run just over $2 at your average coffee shop, but the Justice Department paid seven to eight times as much at a gathering it held at the Capital Hilton in Washington. And on Tuesday, the muffins seemed well on their way to joining the Pentagon’s $600 toilet seat as symbols of wasteful spending.

Justice Department auditors also criticized a $76-per-person lunch at a conference at a Hilton in San Francisco, featuring slow-cooked Berkshire pork carnitas, hearts-of-romaine salad — and coffee at $8.24 a cup.

$16 dollars for a muffin?  This is where our taxpayer’s dollars are going?

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | September 21, 2011

CO2 vs Avg. Global Temp Over 600 Million Years

Via Powerline:

Climate alarmists would have you believe that the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the sole determinant (if pressed, they will say the primary determinant) of changes in global temperatures. Actually, however, both the proportion of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and the Earth’s temperatures have varied widely over the planet’s history, with no apparent correlation between the two. The point is illustrated by this graph, based on data from C.R. Scotese and R.A. Berner:

I don’t know how people are still conned by this…

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | March 11, 2011

Wall Street Journal on Wisconsin

The Wall Street Journal continues to be one of the few voices of sanity left in the newspaper industry:

Congratulations to Wisconsin Republicans, who held together this week to pass their government union reforms despite unprecedented acting out by Democrats and their union allies. Three weeks ago we described this battle as a foretaste of Greece come to America, but maybe there’s hope for taxpayers after all.

The real game for unions and Democrats is 2012. After their rout in 2010, they are pursuing what we’d call the Mayhem Strategy to mobilize their base and sour independents on the GOP. Cry havoc and create enough tumult, and many voters may sue for labor peace. This is exactly the strategy that government unions have used to block any welfare-state reforms in Europe. The public is held hostage to government workers who shut down services to stop even modest changes in their workload or benefits.

Mr. Walker and his allies have won a rare victory for taxpayers, one which should be a lesson for other states and Governors. The monopoly power of government unions can be broken.

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | August 4, 2010

eBook Readers violate civil rights?


Did you know the Justice Department threatened several universities with legal action because they took part in an experimental program to allow students to use the Amazon Kindle for textbooks?

Last year, the schools — among them Princeton, Arizona State and Case Western Reserve — wanted to know if e-book readers would be more convenient and less costly than traditional textbooks. The environmentally conscious educators also wanted to reduce the huge amount of paper students use to print files from their laptops.

It seemed like a promising idea until the universities got a letter from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, now under an aggressive new chief, Thomas Perez, telling them they were under investigation for possible violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Okay.  So the university wants to provide an option for students to use a Kindle instead of bulky textbooks.  And this somehow violates someones Civil Rights?  What?  Did they simultaneously switch to textbooks that insult and demean disabled people?

From its introduction in 2007, the Kindle has drawn criticism from the National Federation of the Blind and other activist groups. While the Kindle’s text-to-speech feature could read a book aloud, its menu functions required sight to operate. “If you could get a sighted person to fire up the device and start reading the book to you, that’s fine,” says Chris Danielsen, a spokesman for the federation. “But other than that, there was really no way to use it.”

In May 2009, Amazon announced the pilot program, under which it would provide Kindle DX readers to a few universities. It wasn’t a huge deal; Princeton’s plan, for example, involved three courses and a total of 51 students, and only in the fall semester of that year. University spokeswoman Emily Aronson says the program was voluntary and students could opt out of using the Kindle. “There were no students with a visual impairment who had registered for the three classes,” says Aronson.

Nope, the devices just couldn’t be used by the blind.  So in order to develop any new technology, we have to find a way to make it display braille?  Schools aren’t allowed to use new technology, even if the classes they would have used it for had no blind people registered for them?

And this is what we dropped the NBPP case for?

Memo to the NFB and the Justice Department: there is no “right” to an eBook reader.  Period.  This is worse than the idea that it’s racist to read an anti-Klan book.

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | August 3, 2010

Teachers Unions

From the Chicago Tribune:

A year or two ago, I received this e-mail. The writer was upset with me for arguing that school principals should have the power to fire teachers who do not perform. As numerous educators have told me, union protections being what they are, dumping a teacher — even a bad one — is an almost impossible task.

My correspondent, a teacher, took issue with my desire to see that changed, noting that without those protections, she’d be at the mercy of some boss who decided one day to fire her.

In other words, she’d be just like the rest of us.

Public school teachers have more job security than virtually any other people on the planet.  They are paid more than many other jobs requiring equal or greater skill, work only 9 months, getting 3 months of paid vacation, are swamped with benefits, and cannot be fired, even in cases of abuse.  And the unions still insist that they need more.

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | July 1, 2010

Empty Holsters

Tarrant County College denied the empty holster protest and told them that they could only protest in a designated free speech zone.

Free speech zone?  I had never heard of these before today, and this is a little disturbing.

Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Apparently restricting the locations people can peaceably assemble in doesn’t qualify as abridgment?

Older Posts »