I simply can't stand Andrew Garfield's dick-head version of Spiderman..

99.9% of the knuckleheads commenting here negatively about Israel have never read, let alone heard of, books like Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad and Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. Or From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. Or a book I just started, A Lethal Obsession by Robert Wistrich. Thing is I'm one of these "hope springs eternal" guys because I keep thinking people are like me who was once about as close to being a card carrying member of the KKK as you can be without actually being one. Until I read some books like Malcolm X. Black Like Me and others. While I was in Jr. High getting jumped by black kids trying to punch and stomp my guts out. The useful idiots limit this "conflict" to simply Muslims against Jews yet its a lot more profound than that:

Supplemental Article “The First and Last Enemy: Jew Hatred in Islam.” by Bostom (Frontpage Magazine archive)
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28549

People just refuse to acknowledge the Jew-Hatred that is part of a Muslims DNA. Don't believe what those Interfaith frauds tell you. "Moderate" or not; if you don't hate Jews you're not a true Muslim. If you don't believe that please explain the hatred that is like a disease in Gaza. And if you have half a brain you know it's been there LONG before Israel won its Independence.

The Depravity of the Homicide Bomber’s Recruiters (Frontpage Magazine)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-meir-levi/the-depravity-of-the-homicide-bomber%E2%80%99s-recruiters/

Female Homicide Bomber (suicide) You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22XEkJY62VA

Failed Suicide Bomber Hopes for Another Chance to Kill (You Tube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpXm9hvXroc

Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project September 26, 2002 Special Report No.10 Fiday Sermons in Saudi Mosques: Review and Analysis (MEMRI)
(This is from Saudi Arabia. Same with an article on Islam Sheikh bin Humaid that I read and am submitting below.)
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/736.htm

Islam's Hatred of the Non-Muslim by David Bukay (Middle East Forum)
http://www.meforum.org/3545/islam-hatred-non-muslim

Guest Column: Palestinian TV Teaches Kids The Way to 'Jihad Street' by Abigail R. Esman (Investigative Project)
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4394/guest-column-palestinian-tv-teaches-kids-the-way

Hamas to kids: Shoot all the Jews (Jihad Watch)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/hamas-to-kids-shoot-all-the-jews

Farfour "martyred" by Israelis in final episode (You Tube video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrieBhaGgHM

MEMRI Transcript: Farfour, Hamas' Mickey Mouse Character, Is 'Martyred' in the Final Episode of the "Pioneers of Tomorrow" Children's Show on Hamas Al-Aqsa TV
http://www.memri.org/report/en/print2274.htm

Children as combatants: Motivating children to seek Shahada
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=846

Camp Jihad UN/US Palestine Probaganda and brainwashing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbrafPTe_LQ#at=211

Hamas Summer Camps: Fun, Sun and Guns by Aryeh Savir 7-13-14 (Breaking Israel News)
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/17721/hamas-summer-camps-fun-sun-guns-photos/#t18RPE7WusjewHqd.97

Michael Coren & David Harris - Palestinian terrorist training camps for kids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtsZXCLD1Lc

“She's Buried Chest High” (You Tube video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

The "Right of Return" Is Suicide for Israel by Jonathan Schanzer (MEF)
http://www.meforum.org/334/the-right-of-return-is-suicide-for-israel

The History of the Middle East Conflict in 11 Minutes (You Tube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY

“Letter to the Editor” International Herald Tribune, July 1, 2003 by Giulia Boukhobza (Also in Bostom's “Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism” book: Chapter 68, page 677: "A Libyan Jew Breaks Her Silence 36 yrs after surviving the 67 Tripolitan Pogrom")
Congressional Record
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2003-09-04/pdf/CREC-2003-09-04-pt1-PgE1682-2.pdf#page=1

// DELVE DEEPER:
Curious? Read Andrew Lih's quick explanation of Information Theory
Even more interested? Spend an hour learning Information Theory with this Cambridge Professor
Super interested? Read "Information: a history, a theory, a flood" by James Glieck
A maths person? Read Shannon's original 1948 paper which changed the world.

Alien Isolation on Oculus Rift - Andrew Freaks Out has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

Please tell me I'm not the only one that finds Julie Andrews looking damn fine at the ripe old age of 78?

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Hey Andrew! Where did that year go? Happy Birthday ... be merry

THE LIFE CUBE PROJECT DOCUMENTARY from H. Andrews Joven on Vimeo.

Let's see, Judge Andrew Napolitano is a Judge who went to law school. He doesn't have a degree in history, he hasn't presented a book with citations or even notes. Nothing tangible about this, it's not supported by any facts whatsoever, I suggest he write an essay at least that can be backed up.

This is the problem with a lot of academia, anyone can claim anything for history because it's a soft science. You should be forced to demonstrate your findings with evidence, none of which is presented here. So it's just hard to take seriously.

I'd love to see an essay written on this subject, and references to the evidence on which this idea comes from. So far though I've only seen stuff that's ethereal.

Also maybe it's just me but why is this being brought up again? If you want to take down Lincoln whatever you can do this to every president, they're world leaders who make hundreds of decisions. To me though this is most likely about racists trying to show that the country isn't that racist and the real baddies are those who stopped the racists.

Specifically this new challenge to the Civil War reminds me of a book that came out awhile ago arguing that the Palestinians aren't actually from Palestine, so they don't belong there. There's no issue, they don't belong so the Jews are doing nothing wrong occupying their land and keeping them in a giant open air prison. This book was praised in the media for obvious reasons that Israel is one of our close allies. It didn't take long though before it was destroyed academically by some intelligent people. It has largely been forgotten because it's a waste of fucking paper.

This in my opinion is a waste of breath and time, please prove me wrong.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/TDS-Judge-Andrew-Napolitano-Discusses-Slavery-with-Jon

TDS: Judge Andrew Napolitano Discusses Slavery with Jon has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

Andrew Napolitano agrees that Lincoln did not engage in war to end slavery but to bring back the seceding confederacy, as the clip Stewart clip shows. He also shows a clip, presented without context of Napolitano talking about the war being unnecessary to free the slaves. That is addressing those many who believe the war was fought to free the slaves. Napolitano in the original interview is addressing both camps: those who think the war was about slavery and those who think it was about tariffs or something else to indicate either way, it was unnecessary. Watch Napolitano's statements on Lincoln in full, not taken with zero context like Stewart does, and you will see that even if he thinks the war was about something other than slavery, he says that. Even if it had been about slavery as many people, namely Lincoln fans, and even historian have argued, even still, it was an unnecessary "murderous" war. There is no contradiction there. If you think it was about slavery, then still it was the wrong approach to it. And more likely it was not even about slavery. So his comments are meant for someone who thinks it was about slavery. Stewart just edited out the context, as he typically does. The context being that he is addressing the persistent idea that the war for Lincoln was or became about slavery.

Maybe it needs more simplification. Napolitano's point:

Some believe the civil war was necessary to liberate slaves. But if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, there were a number of options to pursue. Instead, he 'set out on the most murderous war in American history'. Because the intention was not to free the slaves to begin with.

What about that makes no sense? If anything, the "debate" on this point is what "makes no sense."

BTW, among those who believe the war was not about taxes is Jon Stewart.

Delaware is considered a northern state. Maybe not by you but by others.
And when I lived in Maryland, everyone there seemed to consider it a northern state too. But ok, you don't consider it a northern state. Cool.
(Ask anyone in Boston if he is a "Yankee" and see how that goes!)

But what's your point now? You agree that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". That's why he did not invade or interfere with the border states. They did not secede. So how is this relevant to the original point about Jon Stewart thinking otherwise and going off on Andrew Napolitano about it? And are you now trying to claim that the north was acting in "self-defense" because of southern attacks on federal forts?


"In 1862, the General Assembly replied to Lincoln's compensated emancipation offer with a resolution stating that, "when the people of Delaware desire to abolish slavery within her borders, they will do so in their own way, having due regard to strict equity." And they furthermore notified the administration that they regarded "any interference from without" as "improper," and a thing to be "harshly repelled.""

The proposal was never put to a vote. It was not tried in other states. And it was not addressed directly to the slave owners but to politicians in the Assembly. No effort was put into it.

Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves.

The most charitable thing I could say is that Lincoln tried but failed to come up with and implement any other way to end slavery but to engage in 'bloodshed and violence' (putting aside that he claimed to not care to end slavery except as a way to get one over on the South).

Still, that only says something about his competency, his "political genius" as some say (or lack of it), but not about whether there were other options available that could have worked without the 620,000 dead and 800,000+ more maimed-or-disfigured-for-life.

Of course, there is no empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that any more than there is any empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that, without two nukes, Japan would have lost the war, or that without the Korean war, the Communists would have taken over the world, or that without the Iraq invasion, Saddam would not have built "weapons of mass destruction" to unleash on the world.

What if 'peaceful secession' would have neutered the federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (which Lincoln strongly supported), creating a flood of runaway slaves that could not have been stopped and would have broken the back of the slave system'?

The Soviet Union collapsed on its own without the US and its allies going into a bloody war against it. Maybe if the US had started a third world war with the USSR, it would have collapsed sooner. But it certainly would not have been worth the 'blood and violence'. And it is far from certain that the 5 years of Civil War accelerated the end of slavery, while it has certainly served to bolster and continue the decades of segregation, discrimination, and abuse that followed.

The first Republican president seems to have set a precedent for later Republican neocons. When faced with a problem ---> go to war.

I only ask this of those who insist that Lincoln went to war to "free the slaves" (which is what Stewart and Wilmore suggest in the video). Obviously if you dismiss that as nonsense, then sure, the answer is obvious, because he didn't care to, he just wanted to preserve the union. So, where's the contradiction?


"War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery."

Again, I understand what you are saying, I only mention the freeing of the slaves for those (like Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore apparently) who insist that the war was about "freeing the slaves."

Tom Woods would agree with this. In fact, he's written about it: that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery."

You obviously haven't read him.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, and many libertarians agree that it was (in your own words) a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". Get it? There is no disagreement there. Get it?

The issue of buying the slaves' freedom is only for those who say that the war was "necessary" to free the slaves. But it was not and it was not the main reason the war was fought. Get it?

So, about this you are in fact in agreement with Tom Woods and Andrew Napolitano and you are in disagreement with Jon Stewart. Get it?