Recent comments

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   2 hours 10 min ago

    -

  • Reply to: Syriaq Civil War update   3 hours 11 min ago

    Mao's atheism destroyed the cultural patrimony of China.  Would that atheists would step up and admit it was done in the name of their religion.  And it is a religion.  Let's not kid around here, any entity where the fans can yell "Go [insert team here]" is just such a thing.

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   9 hours 56 min ago

    In that case, my friend, you have lived a blessed life.

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   15 hours 58 min ago

    -

  • Reply to: Terrorist attack in Ottawa   16 hours 55 min ago

    Look, the simplest and most direct approach to the issue of religious zealotry is to admit it exists, that it's been a continuing problem throughout history, that no one religion has a monopoly on violence - and for people of faith to take responsibility for these facts.

     

    I'm a Christian.  History furnishes ample proof of Christianity's abominable and violent excesses.  That's my position on my own faith: it is only the truth.  I have yet to see a single Muslim take such a position on Islam.  The fallacy of the excluded middle, hairsplitting over what's a fringe group, who's a terrorist, what constitutes a theocracy, all bollox.  Islam makes no bones about it:  Islam makes no distinction between religion and politics and is intent upon subjugation, not mere conversion, of the entire world.  That is a sovereign fact, starting with the word "Islam" itself, the gerund of the verb to-submit.

     

    Islamic clerics and their fataawa and their idiotic pronouncements be damned.  These Bearded Wonders and all their utterances are all irrelevant.  Islam is a religion of violence, as was my own for centuries, mine tamed only by political and military forces taking away the Pope's power to wage war.  Every religion is given substance in its believers.  By their fruits ye shall know them, said the prophet of my faith.  

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   22 hours 54 min ago

    Where Tea Party Republican Joni Ernst --in an Obama +5% state-- has led in 7 of the 9 last polls.

     

    This is the worst thing that has ever happened to me.

     

     

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   22 hours 55 min ago

    "It's not the Republicans' responsibility"

     

    If their votes don't matter, how about they just stop voting, instead of their 100% united opposition front to everything?

     

    Hmmm... maybe it's b/c their votes still count even with the filibuster gone and they bear responsibility after all.

     

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   23 hours 52 min ago

    I was worried I might strike an over-formal tone or something.

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   1 day 25 min ago

    my recent ME trip reintroduced me to how the inshallah and hamdulillah stuff is almost a part of the general use of the Arabic language, whether Muslim or Christian or secular.  Certainly no one here in our Muslim communities use it to anything like that extent.

     

    Its almost like goddammed, god forbid, gawdhelpus this and that.  

     

    It will take a few generations to redeem our language.

  • Reply to: Syriaq Civil War update   1 day 32 min ago
  • Reply to: Terrorist attack in Ottawa   1 day 52 min ago

    The entire manifesto is about the loss of the Christian West to modern Islam.  

     

    His references are to Christian rightwing writers in Europe and the United States.

     

    You might call them fringe groups and you would be right in doing so.  About condemnation of modern terrorism, every major Islamic religious leader, including those from the theocracy of Iran has done it.  No religious leader has sanctioned attacks such as those on Canada's Parliament.

     

    Our own Parliament was attacked by militants just after 9/11.  No Islamic cleric sanctioned it.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Indian_Parliament_attack

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   1 day 1 hour ago

    .

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   1 day 2 hours ago

    Murthy was passed out of committee in a party-line vote last February. There are 55 Democrats in the Senate, and the Big Douchebag removed the filibuster, so Murthy could have been brought up any time over the last ten months for confirmation. But Reid has not been brought him up for a vote in the full Senate. Those are the facts. The answer as to why the Senate hasn't voted Murthy into office is that he's a political and politicized nominee, and Democrats don't want to vote for him prior to this election. So the question is, is there a single Democrat in office, anywhere, who actually cares about the job of, you know, governing?

    Link.

    EDIT: Oh, and alhamdulillah!

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   1 day 3 hours ago

    The Democrats hold the majority in the Senate. They no longer have the filibuster to worry about in this area. They run the Senate (at least in that area). It's not the Republicans' responsibility, and hasn't been for quite a while now (though that could change in a few months, based on events upcoming in a couple of weeks).

    Happy to clarify.

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   1 day 3 hours ago

    you never know when you're going to have a serious public health problem to administer. Ebola and influenza are not on Washington's political calendar. 

     

    Are you saying you want the Democrats too gutless to stand up to the NRA & Republicans and do the job they were elected to do? Because you're welcome to them.

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   1 day 3 hours ago

    Ol' Harry blew up the filibuster for non-judicial appointments. Meaning that 51 Democrats in the Senate could confirm a SG any time they wanted to. * Meaning that the question about caring about the job of governing in this case at least is best directed to the Democratic majority in the Senate--or to the 18th green of whatever golf course is being disrupted by the Secret Service at the moment.

    *--Bonus comment: that Slate article is from March. A time when the United States was pleasingly Ebola-free and would remain so for months.

  • Reply to: Al-ḥamdu Lillāh It's Friday Open Thread   1 day 4 hours ago

    about American governance.  

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) says Ron Klain is "off to a bad start" in his new role as the president's Ebola response coordinator, and that the U.S. Surgeon General should be the one leading the effort. But what Chaffetz doesn't seem to realize is that there hasn't been a surgeon general for more than a year. 

     

    “Why not have the surgeon general head this up?" Chaffetz asked in a Wednesday appearance on Fox News. "I think that’s a very legitimate question.”

    It is a very legitimate question. An even more​ legitimate question might be why there is no Surgeon General at all. Some follow up questions, each with an appreciable claim to legitimacy, might be "Why are Republicans blocking Obama's nominee when the nation is facing a dangerous pathogen?" or "Why are Republicans taking marching orders from NRA conspiracy nuts rather than governing the country?"

     

    Chaffetz later explains that he was referring to the office of the Surgeon General, and that of course there's an acting SG who is capable of heading up the nation's Ebola preparedness. He knows that. Everybody knows that.  

     

    Which is a bit strange given that his exact quote on Fox News was 

    "Why not have the surgeon general head this up? I think that’s a very legitimate question. At least you have somebody who has a medical background who's been confirmed by the United States Senate."

    Righto.

     

    One last legitimate question: Is there a single Republican in office, anywhere, who actually cares about the job of, you know, governing?

  • Reply to: Terrorist attack in Ottawa   1 day 5 hours ago

    my "measure" is.

  • Reply to: Terrorist attack in Ottawa   1 day 6 hours ago

    That's exactly what happened. It was a terrorist attack. By a gunman. He attacked one non-military location, then sped to another non-military location and attacked it, hence "roughly".

  • Reply to: Terrorist attack in Ottawa   1 day 6 hours ago

    By your measure, no one should say anything in fluid situations, which is a ridiculous position.