MARK PERRY at the American Enterprise institute presents some interesting charts related to common feminist fallacies. Here’s one with his commentary:

Every year the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) publicizes its “Equal Pay Day” to bring public attention to the gender pay gap. “Equal Pay Day” last year fell on April 14, and allegedly represents how far into 2014 the average woman had to continue working to earn the same income that the average man earned in 2013. Inspired by Equal Pay Day, I introduced “Equal Occupational Fatality Day” in 2010 to bring public attention to the huge gender disparity in work-related deaths every year in the US. “Equal Occupational Fatality Day” tells us how many years into the future women would be able to work before they experienced the same number of occupational fatalities that occurred in the previous year for men.

(more…)

CALLING Muslim mass murderers Islamic “extremists” is like calling Stalin a Communist “extremist” or Hitler a Nazi “extremist.” They were not extremists if extremism means they took a moderate worldview and went too far. They were acting upon their principles. These principles were held by people who would never murder, but that does not mean that the principles themselves did not entail murder.

Here’s Dr. Bill Warner, from the Center for the Study of Political Islam, on this subject of Islamic “extremism.” [See a particularly acute case of Islam Denial Syndrome in today’s New York Times, which states: “The rash of horrific attacks in the name of Islam is spurring an anguished debate among Muslims here in the heart of the Islamic world about why their religion appears cited so often as a cause for violence and bloodshed.”]

From Warner’s talk:

So how many times have you heard this? Islamic State cuts off heads or they’re selling sex slaves in Africa and the apologists for Islam say, “Oh, that’s radical, that’s extreme, that’s not real Islam. I know some Muslims at work and they’re fine people; and besides that, it’s just a tiny minority that’s doing all those things.” So, in other words, “We don’t need to worry about it.”

What do they mean by extreme? Certainly cutting off heads falls in that category. But, you know there are other things that are extreme, like beating your wife, child brides, inbreeding (i.e., marrying your first cousin). Those are extreme things too. And what do all these extreme things have in common? They’re all in the Sharia. (more…)

  ANN BARNHARDT, famous for publicly burning pages of the Koran, reacts to the French massacre here and here: I see that there have been many protest marches and gatherings in France wherein people are holding up signs saying, “Je suis Charlie.”  “I am Charlie.”  Um, I’m not Charlie.  These people were not the pillars of society or role models, as evidenced by their pro-sodomite blasphemy linked above.  Satan frequently uses these multi-vectored attacks because one has to be able to process multiple datasets simultaneously AND identify and maintain the connections (and disconnections) between them.  And, as we have discussed before, modern western man has been so dumbed-down and contra-educated that holding ONE premise and following a single-track logical progression is nearly impossible for most people today.  In this case, we have to juggle multiple subjects and then tease out the truth and the morally upright position and reaction.  Let’s see if we can do it. A.) These people did not deserve to be murdered.  Obviously. B.) They are not martyr saints. C.) Freedom of speech is not a “god” unto itself.  Only God is God, and His rights trump ours.  Americans, in particular, have a tendency to worship the Constitution and the American governmental paradigm, particularly with regard to the “rights of man” over and above God.  Careful with that.  It’s a very slippery slope. D.) The issue here is islam [sic], and the fault, blame and culpability for these murders…

FROM Father Frederick Faber’s The Foot of the Cross, as quoted at Christ or Chaos:

In the judgment of the world, and of worldly Christians, [the] hatred of heresy is exaggerated, bitter, contrary to moderation, indiscreet, unreasonable, aiming at too much, bigoted, intolerant, narrow, stupid, and immoral. What can we say to defend it? Nothing which they can understand. We had, therefore, better hold our peace. If we understand God, and He understands us, it is not so very hard to go through life suspected, misunderstood and unpopular.

(more…)

  JEANETTE V. writes: Two men who fell in love and had sex change operations are now getting married as lesbians. The only reason this is even covered by the news media is to desensitize people and make freakishness normal.

  FROM a New York Times report about the two brothers, Cherif and Said Kouachi, believed to have been the gunmen in the massacre in Paris on Wednesday: The massacre, which singled out cartoonists and other staff members at a newspaper that frequently mocked Islam, Christianity and all forms of religious and secular authority, left France stunned. It also raised questions about how Chérif Kouachi, so well known to the police for so many years, and his brother had managed to conceal their intentions. [Do any "terrorists" openly announce their intentions?] Part of the answer may be that they appear to have moved smoothly between normal immigrant society and an extremist Islamist underground. [Normal immigrant society is Muslim.] Born in the 10th Arrondissement, they came from secular backgrounds and initially drifted into petty delinquencies, not religious fanaticism. [To kill for the prophet is not Islamic fanaticism unless Mohammed was also an Islamic "extremist," in which case all Muslims are extremists.] Libération, a French newspaper, described Chérif Kouachi as an orphan whose parents were Algerian immigrants. It said he was raised in foster care in Rennes, in western France, and trained as a fitness instructor before moving to Paris, where he lived with his brother Said in the home of a convert to Islam. He held menial jobs, working at times as a pizza delivery man, shop assistant and fishmonger. [In other words, they found work and opportunity in France, but still resented their adopted country.]

IN REACTION to the French massacre, the entire Western world is calling for freedom of speech. But as Tiberge points out at Galliwatch, the very existence of large numbers of Muslim agitators in France is a result of the destruction of freedom of speech, not by terrorists but by the French elite:

Has it occurred to any of the apostles of freedom of speech that if there really were freedom of speech in France there would be no terrorism? Has it occurred to them that for forty years the French have been muzzled on behalf of the Muslims, and that the so-called freedom of speech they are “defending” today does not exist? Has it occurred to them that this is not really about freedom of speech at all? Are they trying to say that having fifteen million Muslims in their country is not a problem so long as they have “freedom of speech”? And since freedom of speech does NOT apply to the Front National or to the Catholics against moral depravity or to Identitarians fighting for their heritage, who is it that benefits from “freedom of speech”? Answer: The Muslims, the terrorists, and the pornocrats!

(more…)

THOMAS F. BERTONNEAU writes:

The criminals have been identified and confronted, two arrested, one killed.  Good. [CORRECTION: Two are still at large and one has turned himself in. Read here.]

But there is this, from the NBC Website: “Authorities identified the three [Charlie Hebdo murderers] as Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, both French and in their early 30s, and 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, whose nationality wasn’t immediately clear.”

I have italicized the incredibly stupid, incredibly mendacious, utterly wicked elements of the sentence.

(more…)

  The Place Royal in Nantes.

  THE Telegraph reports on the new novel Submission, by French author Michel Houellebecq. The book was featured on the front cover of this week's Charlie Hebdo, the satirical newspaper attacked by alleged Muslim gunmen today.

THE cartoonist Jean Cabut, below, was one of 12 people shot to death today by alleged followers of the Religion of Peace at the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper which has made fun of the Muslim prophet in cartoons and text. The killers are still at large.

From The Daily Mail: “Charlie Hebdo featured the author Michel Houellebecq this week. His latest novel imagines Muslims taking over the French government in 2022. Inside, there was an editorial, attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, and more cartoons – one showing the Prophet with a clown’s red nose.”

The newspaper was firebombed in 2011 and repeatedly threatened and yet kept going. According to Wikipedia, one of Cabut’s cartoons depicted Muhammad “under the caption ‘Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists,” crying : ‘C’est dur d’être aimé par des cons!’ (‘So hard to be loved by jerks!’).’

Here is a description of the newspaper, again from The Daily Mail:

Magazine Charlie Hebdo has become a byword for offensive statements in France after taking several highly provocative swipes at Islam.

The magazine once named Prophet Mohammed as its guest editor, published cartoons of the holy figure in the nude, and once renamed itself Sharia Hebdo with the cover slogan ‘100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter’. (more…)

ANNE writes:

Regarding your post “Education-by-Gadget:”

I have a nine-year-old, a five-year-old and a two-year-old. All girls. And a baby due any moment.

We do not own a television or subscribe to cable although we own two laptops, a desktop, one tablet, one smartphone, one “old school” cell phone, and a house phone.  My husband and I used to enjoy watching sports, particularly college basketball, but gave it up.

(more…)

STEPHEN from the Gold Coast of Australia writes:

What an absolutely charming photograph by Henri Cartier-Bresson of the boy carrying bottles of wine. Thank you very much for posting it.

So much to enjoy and learn from in this deceptively simple photo far beyond the obvious charm  of the boy’s proud and impish grin.

(more…)

  JOHN HARRIS writes at the Center for Literate Values: [E]ducation-by-gadget doesn’t “prepare” our children for tomorrow: it programs them for a very specific kind of tomorrow. It condemns them to envision only that tomorrow and no other; it so degrades their intellectual and spiritual eyesight as to be capable of viewing only certain horizons. .... Why would we suppose that toddlers forced to learn only from buttons and screens would be preparing for a humane, creative future? In answer to his question: No one really supposes that. Gadgets are the greatest (and the cheapest) babysitters ever invented.

  IT'S HAPPENED at last. See the report from Eye of the Tiber.

SVEN writes:

Thanks as always for your blog. I would like to ask your opinion on the future of traditionalists in the millennial generation. I’m in my mid-twenties, and hold “old-fashioned” convictions on heritage, family, and church. We are taught to respect our elders, but as I realize the importance of old and ancient ways more every day, I cannot help but feel a sense of betrayal at how liberal (for lack of a better word) most of them are. My fiancée’s mother, for instance, who considers herself a conservative Catholic, often says things that would not have been out of place on the Woodstock stage in the summer of ’69. How can I reconcile the respect one should show for one’s elders with the fact that most of them have no respect for their elders, our forefathers? Do you think that there are a growing number of young folks like me who are rejecting the nihilism and meaninglessness of the modern Western culture to opt for the safety of the old ways?

(more…)

IF YOU thought Jorge Bergoglio took a break from insulting Catholics over Christmas, you were wrong. In his address on Dec. 22 to the Roman Curia, Bergoglio raised the art of Catholic-bashing to new heights. He accused the administrative staff of “mental and spiritual ‘petrification,'” a superiority complex, “spiritual Alzheimer’s disease,” and “existential schizophrenia.” All in all, a stunning number of explosive insults were hurled under the guise of a call to Christian repentance. It was a thrashing.

Perhaps not everyone accepts Bergoglio’s “God of surprises?”

“A Curia which is not self-critical, which does not keep up with things, which does not seek to be more fit, is a sick body,” Chaos Frank said.

Thomas Droleskey writes:

As a consummate demagogue, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s whole aim in his address of six days ago was to portray the current state of the conciliar curia in broad strokes so as to prepare the way for radical changes in its structure and operation next year, 2015. (more…)