How the bureaucracy prevents the free market from improving the organ donation situation, and why they should let the market work.
That is all.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
By the Way, Thanks!
Thank you to whoever gave me the $10.00 donation. It is appreciated.
That is all.
That is all.
On Shifting Blame
An excellent article by Ralph Nader on the vast disconnect between the civilian administration and the military, as well as an indication that the administration will not take any responsibility for its own policies.
This, of course, ties in nicely with the attempt to blame the CIA for all of the intelligence "failures" and problems in Iraq.
That is all.
This, of course, ties in nicely with the attempt to blame the CIA for all of the intelligence "failures" and problems in Iraq.
That is all.
Raimondo Echoes Glaivester on Topic of Propaganda
A while back, in reference to the planted stories in the Iraqi press, I wrote:
It's one thing to propagandize Iraqis, it's another when you get the impression that some of this propaganda is designed for its effect on American audiences.
Now, Justin Raimondo writes:
The "information warfare" campaign being carried out by the Lincoln Group and other sub rosa government contractors is not primarily directed at the Iraqis: the real target audience is Americans, whose support for the war is waning to near zero.
It's nice to be ahead of the curve.
That is all.
It's one thing to propagandize Iraqis, it's another when you get the impression that some of this propaganda is designed for its effect on American audiences.
Now, Justin Raimondo writes:
The "information warfare" campaign being carried out by the Lincoln Group and other sub rosa government contractors is not primarily directed at the Iraqis: the real target audience is Americans, whose support for the war is waning to near zero.
It's nice to be ahead of the curve.
That is all.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Other People's Predictions
Diana Moon also has some predictions for the new year. Well, she doesn't specify a time frame, but I am assuming the time-frame is the calendar year 2006. Read them here at Letter from Gotham.
That is all.
That is all.
20,000 Visits!
I have reached the fabled 20,000 mark!
I just wanted to take a moment to say that I find it interesting how many bloggers tend to make their sitemeter counter as inconspicuous as possible, choosing the smallest possible version and hiding it at the bottom of the screen.
Not me. Well, not unless your web browser shunts the right-hand sidebar to the bottom of the screen (Internet Explorer does that on both my Mac and my Virtual PC).
That is all.
I just wanted to take a moment to say that I find it interesting how many bloggers tend to make their sitemeter counter as inconspicuous as possible, choosing the smallest possible version and hiding it at the bottom of the screen.
Not me. Well, not unless your web browser shunts the right-hand sidebar to the bottom of the screen (Internet Explorer does that on both my Mac and my Virtual PC).
That is all.
Glaivester Predictions for 2006
Having an okay track record with my 2005 predictions, here are my predictions for 2006 (I'll add to these as time goes by).
(1) Killing of U.S. and other coalition troops will be down (< 50 hostile deaths for the entire coalition per month) for January and February, and then will start to climb again in March. Unless major changes in the way the war is fought occur, (see next prediction) there will be >1000 U.S. deaths in Iraq (hostile and non-hostile) by the time 2007 rolls around.
(2) There will be at least one "Lebanon attack" in Iraq this year against the coalition. By "Lebanon attack," I mean that a single attack will kill more than 50 coalition troops, as with the Beirut barracks bombing.
(3) Increasingly we will rely on airpower and on vengeance-minded Kurds and Shia to maintain control in Iraq, with the result that there is an increasing number of unreported Iraqi civilian fatalities. We won't get full reports, but the independent antiwar media will have a lot of ominous partial reports. There is a good chance that the Iraqi civilian death counts will appear to be the same or lower than they are currently, but there will also be more incidents that indicate something is being covered up (e.g. reporters being forced to leave the country, being barred from certain areas, Giuliana Sgrena-type incidents, etc.)
(4) U.S. troop levels will stay >100,000. Non-U.S. coalition troop levels will decrease by a larger percentage than American troop levels do.
(5) There will be mild attacks on Syria, from air bombing inside the Syrian border to ground raids inside the border, but nothing on the level of an invasion and nothing serious enough to produce regime change.
(6) Israel will attack Iran. This will lead to an increase in attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, particularly in the previously peaceful Shiite areas. Iran will not fall, however, even though the Israeli attack will lead to a bunch of neoconservatives frothing Michael-Ledeen style about supporting the Iranian people. The U.S. will avoid endorsing or condemning Israel's attack.
(7) The market (i.e. the Dow Jones) will not break its previous record of 11722.98 (01/14/2000), and will close below 11,000 on the last day of the market year (i.e. December 29).
(8) By the end of 2006, gold will be over $650.00 and silver over $10.50.
(9) Fighting inflation will become an issue. We will hear more and more about actions being taken against inflation. And the consumer price index will either start going up, or else the goods used to calculate the index will begin to change in a way that is designed to make inflation appear to be less than it is.
For now, that is all.
(1) Killing of U.S. and other coalition troops will be down (< 50 hostile deaths for the entire coalition per month) for January and February, and then will start to climb again in March. Unless major changes in the way the war is fought occur, (see next prediction) there will be >1000 U.S. deaths in Iraq (hostile and non-hostile) by the time 2007 rolls around.
(2) There will be at least one "Lebanon attack" in Iraq this year against the coalition. By "Lebanon attack," I mean that a single attack will kill more than 50 coalition troops, as with the Beirut barracks bombing.
(3) Increasingly we will rely on airpower and on vengeance-minded Kurds and Shia to maintain control in Iraq, with the result that there is an increasing number of unreported Iraqi civilian fatalities. We won't get full reports, but the independent antiwar media will have a lot of ominous partial reports. There is a good chance that the Iraqi civilian death counts will appear to be the same or lower than they are currently, but there will also be more incidents that indicate something is being covered up (e.g. reporters being forced to leave the country, being barred from certain areas, Giuliana Sgrena-type incidents, etc.)
(4) U.S. troop levels will stay >100,000. Non-U.S. coalition troop levels will decrease by a larger percentage than American troop levels do.
(5) There will be mild attacks on Syria, from air bombing inside the Syrian border to ground raids inside the border, but nothing on the level of an invasion and nothing serious enough to produce regime change.
(6) Israel will attack Iran. This will lead to an increase in attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, particularly in the previously peaceful Shiite areas. Iran will not fall, however, even though the Israeli attack will lead to a bunch of neoconservatives frothing Michael-Ledeen style about supporting the Iranian people. The U.S. will avoid endorsing or condemning Israel's attack.
(7) The market (i.e. the Dow Jones) will not break its previous record of 11722.98 (01/14/2000), and will close below 11,000 on the last day of the market year (i.e. December 29).
(8) By the end of 2006, gold will be over $650.00 and silver over $10.50.
(9) Fighting inflation will become an issue. We will hear more and more about actions being taken against inflation. And the consumer price index will either start going up, or else the goods used to calculate the index will begin to change in a way that is designed to make inflation appear to be less than it is.
For now, that is all.
Fester on Recruitment
A blogger calling himself Fester has done some numerical analysis about the recruiting situation.
Specifically, he is interpreting recent data on recruitment and aptitude test scores (registration required) to determine how much quality is suffering, or alternately, how good or bad recruiting would be if the Army had not lowered its standards.
I earlier mentioned this issue here.
That is all.
Specifically, he is interpreting recent data on recruitment and aptitude test scores (registration required) to determine how much quality is suffering, or alternately, how good or bad recruiting would be if the Army had not lowered its standards.
I earlier mentioned this issue here.
That is all.
Yet Another Glaivester Prediction
A few days ago I repeated a prediction that I had made several times before. Namely, I suggested that to relieve the strain on the soldiers, the U.S. Military would begin resorting to brutality in order to get more "bang for their buck" as soon as troop levels began to become unsustainable. Michael Schwartz is suggesting that this is exactly what is coming to pass, with bombing raids being used to punish recalcitrant towns, and with this likely to happen more frequently and harder as the year wears on.
Also coming to pass is another prediction, that the U.S. is beginning to participate in a civil war; that is, it is beginning to allow Kurds and Shiites to use fighting the insurgency as an excuse to execute bloody vengeance on the Sunni Arabs.
I hate to say "I told you so," but - no, wait, I love the act of saying "I told you so." It's being right about people killing each other that is not so nice.
That is all.
Also coming to pass is another prediction, that the U.S. is beginning to participate in a civil war; that is, it is beginning to allow Kurds and Shiites to use fighting the insurgency as an excuse to execute bloody vengeance on the Sunni Arabs.
I hate to say "I told you so," but - no, wait, I love the act of saying "I told you so." It's being right about people killing each other that is not so nice.
That is all.
Elect A Mormon? No Way.
A. C. Kleinheider on why Mitt Romney doesn't have a prayer of winning the GOP nomination.
I addressed this issue earlier here, where I discussed a posting on Gene Expression.
Kleinheider makes the same point as Razib, namely, that atheists, agnostics, or people with a vague belief in some sort of God are less likely to be concerned about someone having unorthodox religious beliefs than those who are strongly religious and orthodox, because they don't take religion that seriously. (Or put another way, they view all religious beliefs as weird, so the fact that Mormonism is very weird to someone brought up in the monotheism that makes up the American mainstream doesn't affect them).
That is all.
I addressed this issue earlier here, where I discussed a posting on Gene Expression.
Kleinheider makes the same point as Razib, namely, that atheists, agnostics, or people with a vague belief in some sort of God are less likely to be concerned about someone having unorthodox religious beliefs than those who are strongly religious and orthodox, because they don't take religion that seriously. (Or put another way, they view all religious beliefs as weird, so the fact that Mormonism is very weird to someone brought up in the monotheism that makes up the American mainstream doesn't affect them).
That is all.
Monday, January 02, 2006
They Do Have, and Link to, Interesting Articles, BUT...
...one thing that is frustrating about WorldNetDaily is the fact that some of its writers, including Joseph Farah, like to cloak their opinions in just enough vagueness so that they can be interpreted in very bloodthirsty ways, but they also have plausible deniability.
For example, this piece by Barbara Simpson is to some extent correct, in that we need to recognize that it is dangerous to bring alien cultures into the U.S. unless we can determine that they are compatible, and in that we should not hesitate to point out that Islam and particularly Arabs seem to be a major force behind terrorism, not only in the world, but specifically they seem to be the source of the terrorist threat currently facing the U.S.
On the other hand, because she shies away from discussing actual policies, even in vague terms, it is easy to interpret lines like
We cling to a utopian image of how to behave and ignore the rats chewing on our toes – and they won't stop there. The only way to end it is to kill the rats.
as advocating that we simply kill all of the Arabs in the Middle East. So is that what she means or not? Maybe she just wants us to kill the "terrorists."* But exactly how broadly is she defining the term?
That is all.
* The "scare quotes" are not because I deny that there are a lot of Muslims who are terrorists, or because I deny (I don't) that "terrorist" is a meaningful designation; it is simply to indicate that I am talking about whomever she defines as terrorists, and I don't trust her designations.
For example, this piece by Barbara Simpson is to some extent correct, in that we need to recognize that it is dangerous to bring alien cultures into the U.S. unless we can determine that they are compatible, and in that we should not hesitate to point out that Islam and particularly Arabs seem to be a major force behind terrorism, not only in the world, but specifically they seem to be the source of the terrorist threat currently facing the U.S.
On the other hand, because she shies away from discussing actual policies, even in vague terms, it is easy to interpret lines like
We cling to a utopian image of how to behave and ignore the rats chewing on our toes – and they won't stop there. The only way to end it is to kill the rats.
as advocating that we simply kill all of the Arabs in the Middle East. So is that what she means or not? Maybe she just wants us to kill the "terrorists."* But exactly how broadly is she defining the term?
That is all.
* The "scare quotes" are not because I deny that there are a lot of Muslims who are terrorists, or because I deny (I don't) that "terrorist" is a meaningful designation; it is simply to indicate that I am talking about whomever she defines as terrorists, and I don't trust her designations.
INSANITY
If this report is to be believed, preaching the gospel in Italy could become a civil offense.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to WorldNetDaily.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to WorldNetDaily.
Glaivester's Greatest Hits
I've added a new set of links on my sidebar for the benefit of people who reach Glaivester from a link to a particular blogpost, in case they want a good sampling of what type of stuff write about.
I'll add to it from time to time, and I may also make a few posts referencing old columns that I think are relevant to current events otherwise interesting.
That is all.
I'll add to it from time to time, and I may also make a few posts referencing old columns that I think are relevant to current events otherwise interesting.
That is all.
Farris Assan: Who the Bloody Heck Cares?
I will try to post something about the sixteen-year-old who supposedly managed to sneak off to Iraq all by himself.
Tex MacRae doesn't buy the story.
I'm not sure if I give a rat's behinder one way or the other.
That is all.
Tex MacRae doesn't buy the story.
I'm not sure if I give a rat's behinder one way or the other.
That is all.
New Blog of the Week: Mr. Snitch
An interesting blog that I discovered by using the "next blog" button on the bar on the top of the screen.
Here's to you, Mr. Snitch!
That is all.
Here's to you, Mr. Snitch!
That is all.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Predictions for 2005 - How Did I Do? (New Posts Appear Below this One!)
By the way, a big thank you to Jim Henley for the link.
Here is a post I did back at the start of 2005, predicting some things for the year.
How did I do?
1) At least 1000 American troops will die in Iraq during 2004. Troop levels will not decrease unless by necessity.
So far 844 troops have died in 2005. Barring 156 deaths in the next 18 hours or so (I'm assuming that 2005 ends for casualty counting purposes at midnight Iraqi time), this prediction will not have come true.
Troop levels reached a new high this year, and the baseline level is around 138,000. So this prediction was accurate. This graph gives a better idea of U.S. troop levels throughout the war.
2) The January 30 elections will occur, and there will be many charges of irregularities by the Sunnis, and some charges of irregularities by a few Kurdish and Shiite groups, although the majority of those groups will support the results, or at least be indifferent to them.
This is more or less what happened, I think. I'll try to find some documents to support this.
3) The insurgency will not be affected in any significant way by the elections.
Well, if one measures the strength of the insurgency by the number of combat deaths it produces, the insurgency certainly appears to have gotten weaker at the start of 2005; the number of monthly coalition deaths it produced dipped below 50 for 3 months (February, March, and April), after having been above 50 each month since August 2004. Of course, the number of deaths in the Iraqi military went up beginning in March, and the number of Iraqi civilians killed may have also gone up during this time, although no information on the civilians is available for January or February, so this isn't possible to tell at this time.
In any case, the number of coalition troops killed by hostile action went back up again in May and has stayed up for the most part since, with fatalities at 69 or above for 5 out of 8 months since, and above 45 for the other 3. During the same time, there was a marked increase in the number of Iraqi deaths, both civilian (compared to March and April) and military (compared to January through April), the former of which has stayed up throughout the year, and the latter of which has gone back down to March and April, but not January and February, levels.
Coalition wounded appear to be down, but I am not certain that that is due to the elections as much as to either increases in body armor or in alterations in the tactics of the insurgency (e.g. more IEDs, fewer armed confrontations).
I think it is fair to say that the insurgency has not been terribly affected in terms of its strength by the elections. I am cannot think of any other way in which it has been affected by the elections either [i.e. I see no effect on its make-up or tactics that appears to be connected to the elections], so I think that my prediction was correct.
[For more discussion on the insurgency throughout 2004 and 2005, see here, here, and here; these posts compare the statistics for 2004 to those for 2005; this is almost the same as comparing the year before and the year after the elections, except that it includes January 2005 as the beginning of the later period being compared instead of the end of the earlier period].
4) Ahmad Chalabi will get a position of political power.
Well, he didn't do too well in the recent elections, but he has been oil minister, deputy prime minister is now being put in charge of the oil ministry again.
Whether or not his current position is a "politically elected" one, it do give him political power, so I was right about this. Moreover, his position as deputy prime minister was not only one with political power, but one that was at least partly due to the election, and therefore a political position in all sense of the word, so I was very right about this.
5) Neither Syria nor Iran will fall on its own, but we will not invade either or them either, as we lack the number of troops to do so. Basically, I don't see the situation in the greater Middle East (i.e. outside of Iraq) changing a whole lot, whatever occurs in the war on terror or in Iraq.
Yup. Pretty much what happened, unless the de-occupation of Lebanon is considered things "changing a whole lot."
6) Nothing will happen on the Social Security front.
Nothing has.
7) Bush's amnesty proposal will begin to cause a break-up of the GOP; not that people will defect, but we will get increasing levels of criticism from the GOP against Bush that will make it difficult for the GOP to get any sort of agenda passed.
We are seeing an increasing willingness to criticize Bush on a number of issues, but that may be more from the Harriet Miers controversy than from amnesty. However, on the whole my prediction here was borne out.
8) Nothing new will happen on the gay "marriage" front.
Well, in England gay unions are now legal, and a few states may have made moves in the direction of gay quasi-marriage, but there have been no new states legalizing gay marriage, no progress on the anti-same-sex marriage amendment, and nothing really altering the situation on actual gay marriage in the U.S., and my predictions about gay marriage were mainly intended to be about gay marriage in the U.S. So I think that my prediction by and large was accurate.
9) There will be a major terrorist attack (>100 deaths) in Europe by Muslims that will cause an anti-Muslim backlash.
There was a smaller attack in England (~60 deaths), but it has not led to an anti-Muslim backlash. There were also major but mostly non-fatal riots in France, which have not apparently led to a backlash yet. Australia has had an anti-Muslim backlash, but not as a response to a major terrorist attack. So this prediction did not quite pan out.
Here I made two other predictions
I think that the Dow will go below 10,000 at least once.
No, not if you count by closing prices (see chart but we came close. And the Dow did get as low as 9,961.52 during the trading day. (This chart apparently tracks the average over the day, not just at closing). If anyone has a link to the highest and lowest closing prices of the Dow for 2005, it would be appreciated.
We will still have at least 150,000 troops in Iraq by December.
Yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup. Yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup.
Uuuuhhhh-huh, uuuuuuh-huh.(1)
So there you have it.
Predictions for 2006 to come out soon.
That is all.
(1) Apologies to Sesame Street.
Here is a post I did back at the start of 2005, predicting some things for the year.
How did I do?
1) At least 1000 American troops will die in Iraq during 2004. Troop levels will not decrease unless by necessity.
So far 844 troops have died in 2005. Barring 156 deaths in the next 18 hours or so (I'm assuming that 2005 ends for casualty counting purposes at midnight Iraqi time), this prediction will not have come true.
Troop levels reached a new high this year, and the baseline level is around 138,000. So this prediction was accurate. This graph gives a better idea of U.S. troop levels throughout the war.
2) The January 30 elections will occur, and there will be many charges of irregularities by the Sunnis, and some charges of irregularities by a few Kurdish and Shiite groups, although the majority of those groups will support the results, or at least be indifferent to them.
This is more or less what happened, I think. I'll try to find some documents to support this.
3) The insurgency will not be affected in any significant way by the elections.
Well, if one measures the strength of the insurgency by the number of combat deaths it produces, the insurgency certainly appears to have gotten weaker at the start of 2005; the number of monthly coalition deaths it produced dipped below 50 for 3 months (February, March, and April), after having been above 50 each month since August 2004. Of course, the number of deaths in the Iraqi military went up beginning in March, and the number of Iraqi civilians killed may have also gone up during this time, although no information on the civilians is available for January or February, so this isn't possible to tell at this time.
In any case, the number of coalition troops killed by hostile action went back up again in May and has stayed up for the most part since, with fatalities at 69 or above for 5 out of 8 months since, and above 45 for the other 3. During the same time, there was a marked increase in the number of Iraqi deaths, both civilian (compared to March and April) and military (compared to January through April), the former of which has stayed up throughout the year, and the latter of which has gone back down to March and April, but not January and February, levels.
Coalition wounded appear to be down, but I am not certain that that is due to the elections as much as to either increases in body armor or in alterations in the tactics of the insurgency (e.g. more IEDs, fewer armed confrontations).
I think it is fair to say that the insurgency has not been terribly affected in terms of its strength by the elections. I am cannot think of any other way in which it has been affected by the elections either [i.e. I see no effect on its make-up or tactics that appears to be connected to the elections], so I think that my prediction was correct.
[For more discussion on the insurgency throughout 2004 and 2005, see here, here, and here; these posts compare the statistics for 2004 to those for 2005; this is almost the same as comparing the year before and the year after the elections, except that it includes January 2005 as the beginning of the later period being compared instead of the end of the earlier period].
4) Ahmad Chalabi will get a position of political power.
Well, he didn't do too well in the recent elections, but he has been oil minister, deputy prime minister is now being put in charge of the oil ministry again.
Whether or not his current position is a "politically elected" one, it do give him political power, so I was right about this. Moreover, his position as deputy prime minister was not only one with political power, but one that was at least partly due to the election, and therefore a political position in all sense of the word, so I was very right about this.
5) Neither Syria nor Iran will fall on its own, but we will not invade either or them either, as we lack the number of troops to do so. Basically, I don't see the situation in the greater Middle East (i.e. outside of Iraq) changing a whole lot, whatever occurs in the war on terror or in Iraq.
Yup. Pretty much what happened, unless the de-occupation of Lebanon is considered things "changing a whole lot."
6) Nothing will happen on the Social Security front.
Nothing has.
7) Bush's amnesty proposal will begin to cause a break-up of the GOP; not that people will defect, but we will get increasing levels of criticism from the GOP against Bush that will make it difficult for the GOP to get any sort of agenda passed.
We are seeing an increasing willingness to criticize Bush on a number of issues, but that may be more from the Harriet Miers controversy than from amnesty. However, on the whole my prediction here was borne out.
8) Nothing new will happen on the gay "marriage" front.
Well, in England gay unions are now legal, and a few states may have made moves in the direction of gay quasi-marriage, but there have been no new states legalizing gay marriage, no progress on the anti-same-sex marriage amendment, and nothing really altering the situation on actual gay marriage in the U.S., and my predictions about gay marriage were mainly intended to be about gay marriage in the U.S. So I think that my prediction by and large was accurate.
9) There will be a major terrorist attack (>100 deaths) in Europe by Muslims that will cause an anti-Muslim backlash.
There was a smaller attack in England (~60 deaths), but it has not led to an anti-Muslim backlash. There were also major but mostly non-fatal riots in France, which have not apparently led to a backlash yet. Australia has had an anti-Muslim backlash, but not as a response to a major terrorist attack. So this prediction did not quite pan out.
Here I made two other predictions
I think that the Dow will go below 10,000 at least once.
No, not if you count by closing prices (see chart but we came close. And the Dow did get as low as 9,961.52 during the trading day. (This chart apparently tracks the average over the day, not just at closing). If anyone has a link to the highest and lowest closing prices of the Dow for 2005, it would be appreciated.
We will still have at least 150,000 troops in Iraq by December.
Yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup. Yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup.
Uuuuhhhh-huh, uuuuuuh-huh.(1)
So there you have it.
Predictions for 2006 to come out soon.
That is all.
(1) Apologies to Sesame Street.
Thoughts on Surveillance
Lawrence Auster defends the rationale for warrantless surveillance here and here and here.
On the other hand, Norman Solomon shows that surveillance power has been abused in the past by this administration (yes, I know that former Libido-in-Chief Slick Willy did stuff like this too).
That is all.
On the other hand, Norman Solomon shows that surveillance power has been abused in the past by this administration (yes, I know that former Libido-in-Chief Slick Willy did stuff like this too).
That is all.
Yeah, Right
An interesting Brussels Journal update on the Muslim-offending cartoons.
My favorite part was about Bjorn Atldax, a Swedish jeans designer. He hates Christianity a "force of evil" in the world, makes anti-Christian symbols on his jeans and also plans to make anti-Hindu jeans to protest the caste system.
Anti-Muslim jeans, though? Nooooo:
But he is not considering any anti-Islamic designs because “there are already a lot of anti-Islamic sentiments.”
I think this is the real reason he won't be making anti-Muslim jeans. Yeah, you can give organized religions a poke in the eye; but not the ones that most need a poke, 'cause they're the ones that poke back - and they use things that are far sharper than their fingers.
Of course, the leftist intelligentsia love to talk about how courageous they are for "standing up" to organized religion. But unless you stand up to the religions whose followers actually threaten to do you harm for doing so, the "courage" thing is mere posing.
That is all.
My favorite part was about Bjorn Atldax, a Swedish jeans designer. He hates Christianity a "force of evil" in the world, makes anti-Christian symbols on his jeans and also plans to make anti-Hindu jeans to protest the caste system.
Anti-Muslim jeans, though? Nooooo:
But he is not considering any anti-Islamic designs because “there are already a lot of anti-Islamic sentiments.”
I think this is the real reason he won't be making anti-Muslim jeans. Yeah, you can give organized religions a poke in the eye; but not the ones that most need a poke, 'cause they're the ones that poke back - and they use things that are far sharper than their fingers.
Of course, the leftist intelligentsia love to talk about how courageous they are for "standing up" to organized religion. But unless you stand up to the religions whose followers actually threaten to do you harm for doing so, the "courage" thing is mere posing.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)