View at your own risk. Rantburg, its owners, employees, and subsidiaries are not responsibile for any retinal damage or night sweats resulting from clicking this link.
...Arabian style! (via Chapomatic via Daily Pundit)
EGYPTIAN SYSTEM:
You have two cows. Both are voting for Mobarak!
DUBAIAN SYSTEM:
You have two cows. You create a website for them and advertise them in all magazines. You create a Cow City or Milk Town for them. You sell off their milk before the cows have even been milked to both legit and shaddy investors who hope to resell the non-existent milk for a 100% profit in two years' time. You bring Tiger Woods to milk the cows first to attract attention.
QATARI SYSTEM:
You have two cows. They've been sitting there for decades and no one realizes that cows can produce milk. You see what Dubai is doing, you go crazy and start milking the heck out of the cows boobs in the shortest time possible. Then you realize no one wanted the milk in the first place.
SAUDI SYSTEM:
Since milking the cow involves nipples, the gov't decides to ban all cows in public. The only method to milk a cow is to have a cow in on one side of the curtain and the guy milking the cow on the other.
BAHRAINI SYSTEM:
You have two cows. Some high government official steals one, milks it, sells the milk and pockets the profit. The gov't tells you there is just one cow and not enough milk for the people. The people riot and scream death to the government and carry Iranian flags. The Parliament, after thinking for 11 months, decide to employ ten Bahrainis to milk all the cows at the same time so cut back on unemployment.
LEBANESE SYSTEM:
You have two cows. One is owned by Syria and the other is controlled by the government.
YEMENI SYSTEM:
You once had a cow.
But then it got kidnapped.
051229L2132: guys, thanks for your contributions, we can make an encyclopedia of the Arab version of "two cows" here!, thanks to the Religious Policeman for the Yemeni cows, and anons for the ones below (if you want to be credited, declare your names or register!!
KUWAITI SYSTEM:
Upon hearing how popular cows are in the Gulf region, a group of young male Kuwaitis buy a herd. Unfortunately, they attach so many accessories (ski-racks, 3500 watt sub-woofers, nipple lights, etc) that the cows almost collapse under the weight and/or embarrassment. The herd are all tragically killed in a massive pile-up whilst their owners are attempting to perform donuts by the Towers.
IRAQI SYSTEM:
The British Government sends in a herd of 20 cows in a trial run to help a village outside Basra. The villagers are extremely grateful for the extra milk and the health of the children improves daily. A terrorist group then kidnaps the cows and accuses them of being traitors to âthe causeâ (whatever that is). The terrorists then produce signed confessions from the cows and systematically assassinates each one of them in front of Al Jazeera television cameras.
OMANI SYSTEM:
You have three cows, they are all healthy and produce good quality milk for sale at the market. Unfortunately, your son discovers that the money he received at the market can be used to buy beer. Your grand expansion plans for a new high-tech farm are put on hold indefinitely.
#2
ROFL! I was always fond of two cows analogies! There's probably no better shorthand way to describe workings of each political/socio-economic system.
#3
The Bangladesh "System"
There are two cows hiding in the upazila. The RAB finds out after a remanding of the usual dacoit. An unfortunate crossfire happens at 3 AM while attempting to recover the milk.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2006 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The "Palestine" System
You have two cows. The female has exposed nipples, so she is stoned to death. After blaming the Jooos for the lack of milk, you strap explosives to the male and send it into Israel. You ask the UN for money to buy more cows and explosives.
#6
You have two cows.
An angry tree Jinn takes one and leaves bullet. The other cow is declared takayinma by the school bus authorities and is accident.
#7
GF - you get the shakes when Urdu Nuggets are late, dontcha? ;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2006 18:48 Comments ||
Top||
#8
How could I have forgotten the Uddergun? (Rimshot)
Checking the evidence locker, the boyz also recovered a cut rifle, 3 bullet, and a new .303
(veal on order)
by Simon Heffer
Thanks to a happy accident of birth, I was only nine and a half when the 1960s finished.
I say happy, because when I survey a country run by people 10 years older than me, and who are still fixated by the dope-smoking, peace-and-love, hairy hippy self-indulgence for which that dismal decade is famed, I thank God I escaped.
Although an apparently conservative figure by comparison with some of his contemporaries, one damaged by this seductive ethos was poor old David Blunkett, the lothario and newspaper columnist.
Mr Blunkett was once home secretary, and when he was he decided to downgrade cannabis from a class B to a class C drug - which, in this Government's terms, makes possession and use of it virtually compulsory.
Now, though, reliable scientific and medical evidence has categorically proved something that Mr Blunkett and his advisers dismissed out of hand at the time: that cannabis does indeed addle your mind and send you bonkers.
And so his successor at the Home Office, Charles Clarke, is now about to reverse the downgrading, and try to impress on the public that cannabis use is not such a terrific idea after all.
All sensible people should welcome this recovery from the 1960s' hangover, and we should reflect how nice it would be if certain other obsessions that linger from those years were quietly parcelled up and stuck in the museum of obsolete ideas.
Our Government of former student political activists - notably Jack Straw, Charles Clarke and Gordon Brown - remains utterly hamstrung by its own teenage prejudices, and utterly boring about them. And the damage these people, in their lack of wisdom, inflict on society is still enormous, and every bit as corrosive as the scourge of drugs about which, until now, they have been so casual.
The worst manifestation of this is the culture of political correctness. Although that poisonous ethos grew out of an American campus culture of the 1970s, its wholehearted adoption here by our governing class has its roots in the largely uncritical attitude that 1960s' youth took towards anything remotely anti-establishment or radical.
It is, for example, why the idea of merit has gone out of our public life, and why utterly incapable people - be they women, ethnic minorities or white working-class men such as John Prescott - are let loose on important positions of power for which they are by ability and temperament completely unsuited.
It is also why we have a savage crime wave in this country, because of a notion over the past few decades that wrongdoing is somehow the fault of those who live by the rules, and whose lives, with their normality and affluence, are a constant provocation to criminal elements.
Worst of all, it is why frightening groups such as the BNP have been able to take such a foothold in our supposedly civilised society.
Rightly or wrongly, many poor whites living in deprived areas have allowed themselves to become convinced that the authorities for too long turned a blind eye to some of the activities of ethnic minorities, notably the creation of the sort of radical atmosphere out of which suicide bombers have been bred.
These are just some of the lingering and entirely harmful prejudices of the 1960s that one might hope would also soon come up for revaluation. Others include the ease of our divorce laws, the ready availability of the act of murder known as abortion as a form of post-coital contraception, and the notion that middle-class values are at best held in suspicion, at worst regarded as downright evil.
Oh, and there is the disaster of comprehensive schools, too. I know that this is quite an agenda for Tony Blair to overturn before he leaves office, but at least, in realising the full stupidity of his former drugs policy, he has made a start.
#2
This sets "moral conservatism" apart from "real conservatism".
The vast majority of people who are conservative are *not* moral conservatives, any more than the vast number of the moslems in the world are violent Islamist jihadis.
But as jihadis pretend to be mainstream, so too, do moral conservatives pretend to be the voices of the vast majority of conservatives. This is deception, it is not the case.
Most conservatives are just that, conservative, appreciative of what is good about the status quo; not reactionary, seeking a return to some illusory time in the nostalgic past "when things were better".
The do not believe that morality trumps reason, reasonableness, or common sense. This is not base pragmatism, amorality, or licentiousness. It is simply the desire to not be herded like cattle towards either some impatient and unhappy individuals conception of the future, *or* of the past.
For example, what other reason than morality could possibly justify keeping marijuana illegal? There is no evidence of any devastating social or personal consequence from its use; but at the same time, its illegality has caused untold suffering, pain, and horrific burdens on society. It is as bad or worse than was the prohibition of alcohol.
Reason and the reasonable mind dictates that laws against marijuana be either overturned or ignored and allowed to whither through statuatory neglect.
This is not libertarianism. This is simply wanting that an obvious and expensive waste of public money and peoples' lives be discontinued.
In fact, the very article speaks to reaction. The author sees the world today as an outgrowth of the 1960s. In this he is correct. But it is also an outgrowth of the 1940s, '50s, '70s, '80s, and '90s; each of which also contributed immensely to what our world is today.
So while the annoying "progressives" of today might be nostalgic about the 1960s, the only reason to be concerned about it, as is the author, is if you are in reaction to it. A true conservative just sees it as being in the past, with both good and ill; the unchanging past--what is done is done.
From this point of view, a checklist of the differences between moral conservatives and real conservatives is easy to postulate, though the moralists would sneeringly suggest that what real conservatives embrace is either "social liberalism" or "libertarian". This is not the case. Real conservatives are just less interested in morality than reasonableness.
For example, moralists hold to a blanket opposition to abortion. Conservatives do not like abortion, but are resigned to its necessity in some cases. They see it as neither a federal prerogative, nor even a State prerogative. It is a cruel necessity.
Moralists also (rather duplicitously) crave religion elbowing its way from a passive personal act to an intrusive act on the privacy of others. They claim oppression by being forbidden to be oppressive themselves. True conservatives have no objection to either their practice of religion or their display of their faith; they object to being proselytized, however, or being intruded upon when they wish to embrace the secular.
Finally, I could conclude by saying that real conservatives are almost never absolutist, or desireous of blanket solutions to complex problems.
Moralists pretending to conservatism far too often are willing to such absolutism, and are recognizeable by their prejudices, their "us and them" attitude, and confusing someone's condition with their behavior. They confuse being Arabic with being a jihadi; being homosexual with illegal perversity; and being in disagreement with them as being liberal or libertarian.
#4
Anonymoose. Well said. Agree on every point. It is used as a movement crutch and is an intractable impediment to freedom as to what they say the are against. These are the kneejerk conservatives Clint Eastwood characterized. Real conservatism is patriotic in the protection of individual freedom and country. These anti-characters are the left best allies.
#5
guess I'm just a Conservative then. Play my Grateful Dead CD's and subscribe to National Review.... BTW Bardo - the "kneejerk conservative" is not what Eastwood played. A law and order character stopping killers, thieves and muggers makes society safe for conservatives to live. The moral of the Dirty Harry stories was usually that law and lawyers and bleeding hearts got in the way of real justice.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2006 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Obviously the author of this article must be an imbiber of the most dangerous and destructive drug of them all - alcohol - champion destroyer of minds and morals - and prime cause of abortions the world over.
#7
ah, moose. I agree with many of the points you made, I am for the legalization of pot and medical assistance (read provide with a perscription) for addiction to the stronger stuff. I believe prohibition made the reasons for this clear.
I support abortion, though I am very uncomfortable with that. However, I do respect the right that others believe it to be murder and have the right to rally against it - just as I would like to preserve the right to rally against adults over 18 being able to seduce children for sexual gratification. In many countries this is an accepted "moral" standard.
And I am a beliving Christian who, can say that having once NOT truly believed, the fact that I am willing to admit that fact openly, elicits a sublte bigotry far greater than if I admitted I was addicted to drugs or a Believer of the Goddess of the Trees.
And I am a "conservative. I believe in limited government and respect family and traditional values as being beneifical to society. I believe that welfare, while necessary, can often cause great harm in the name of good.
So..in short - you make many good points that conceal the fact that you missed the main point of this guys argument, and brought up a straw man about the fictional "moral conservatives" by which I assume you mean "those whose morals differ from your own.
#8
2b: A conservative can most certainly be a moral person. In fact, most of them are highly moral. But to distinguish this from moralism, a philosophy of morals to be imposed on others, is important.
How you described yourself is typically conservative, by my description. The concept that few things in life need radical change, or sharp departure from the status quo.
No, I would not say that I oppose the morals of others that differ from my own. I would say that I oppose the imposition of morals one way or another. Others have no more right to use the law to impose their morals on me, than I do of imposing mine on them.
It is a conservative notion that the law should be above manipulation for personal agenda.
That is, I object to a situation where a law is created outlawing eating pizza while driving, because Kyle's mom's daughter was eating a pizza when she choked and drove off a bridge, so Kyle's mom thinks that people should be forbidden from doing that, because it leads to senseless tragedy.
I object as much as when some reverend, rabbi or imam gets a law created because heaven disapproves of eating pizza while driving. It is immoral for people to do so, so it should be banned.
The other twist is the deceptive claim that the government is imposing itself on the moralist by *not* imposing itself on others. That is, by not having blue laws of some form or another, it somehow infringes on the rights of those who would obey blue laws.
And while there are endless court cases about this last point in which there are arguments of finesse ad infinitum, the conservative view is still the same. The secularist has no more right to impose secularism on the religious, than does the religious the other way around. More than anything else, the conservative wants *courtesy* as the law.
A person who wishes to be discourteous to everyone is just as annoying as a person who wishes to be offended by everything.
#9
the whole idea of a civilization is that there are rules (laws) that are agreed upon so that we can all live better. A common good.
I'm in a hurry - so perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but it almost sounds as if we shouldn't have any traffic lights as it might impose on others.
I still think you are missing his point.
start here and read the next 4 downward.
Our Government of former student political activists - notably Jack Straw, Charles Clarke and Gordon Brown - remains utterly hamstrung by its own teenage prejudices, and utterly boring about them. And the damage these people, in their lack of wisdom, inflict on society is still enormous, and every bit as corrosive as the scourge of drugs about which, until now, they have been so casual.
#10
Frank G: You are correct about Clint. I was referring to a crack Eastwood made on O'Reilly about kneejerk conservatives who criticized Eastwood about something or other.
Libertarism is not being advocated in anonymoose's post.
Scalia, as did the liberals, the conservative judge, votes against medical marihuana for a woman with M.S. Some much for less governmental interference.
This english writer posted is a prejudiced knownothing.
#11
2b: The argument is not for commonalities that are almost universally agreed upon. Liberals, conservatives and reactionaries all agree that traffic lights are a good thing. So unless the argument has some *potentially* moral component, the argument returns to the definition of government. That is, are we to live under the laws of man, or the laws of heaven?
A man can be very moral, and very Christian, for a fact, without wanting to codify his beliefs in the laws for all. He may personally honor the 10 commandments without demanding that others do so, outside of those parts universally agreed, such as decrying of murder and theft. And even then, he can use the secular language of the law against murder and theft, in no way needing to refer to the 10 commandments.
The moralist, on the other hand, is unsatisfied with the secular law. For him, violations that are also violations of the 10 commandments are crimes *because* the violate the 10 commandments. Their being codified into secular law only interests him in the punishments to be meted out.
To separate the religious element, the prohibition of alcohol was to a great extent the first example of widespread *secular* moralism, though joined by many religious people. The "nasty nellies" were set against alcohol because it led to immorality and was an immoral thing. Tobacco today holds much the same stigma.
The emphasis again, with moralism, is the imposition of morality on others. The original author cites "lingering and harmful practices" from the 1960s. Which of these impose on him? Is he forced to smoke pot and exchange venereal diseases?
The moralist can always find some indirect imposition. If not personally, he sees harm to society as a whole. But since society still does these things, and it, as a whole, finds them less than objectionable, can we not agree to disagree?
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/07/2006 15:55 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I see the point that you are making and agree with you, for the most part, on what you are saying regarding passing laws simply for morality's sake. Another example to illustrate your point would be outlawing abortion soley to prevent premarital sex because one thinks that is premarital sex is immoral- and for no other reason.
I do take some issue with "He may personally honor the 10 commandments without demanding that others do so, outside of those parts universally agreed, such as decrying of murder and theft" ....... as the issue is the universally agreed part. You will NEVER EVER get universal agreement Therein lies the problem.
Society has to agree to draw the line somewhere when writing the laws. For some - abortion IS murder. Not because God said so, but because it involves sucking a little baby out of a womb and throwing it in the trash. So their desire is no less "moral" to prevent it (at least in their own opinion) than is yours to prevent someone from murdering a clerk at 711 cause he really needs cash for baby formula.
But I still think this is all off of the point this article is making and it is more on point with the other article we have both posted on today concerning Iran. In that article I argued that Europe is a toothless tiger that doesn't even bother to roar. That isn't actually correct. Europe has teeth - it's just doesn't bother to roar for many of the reasons stated in this article - all a hangover from the 1960's refusal to grow up and act like responsible adults.
If you belive, as I do, that Islamic Jihad is a serious threat to all that liberals claim to hold dear - then all democratic societies have to DO something other than pretend we can all just hug, sing kumbaya and stick our heads in the sand and somehow some daddy somewhere will magically make it all go away.
#14
2b: While I've no argument about the current crop of EU parlimentarians, and no doubt their particular ailment devolves from the 1960s, the illness itself long predates that time. With US complicity, the very idea of setting up social-democracies in Europe after WWII pre-ordained much of this current nonsense.
In Britain, the post-Churchill Labor government was a piece of work, venturing every excess imaginable; and much the same in Germany. In a way, they set the stage for the 1960s in Europe.
As far as the absolutism argument, i.e. abortion is murder, let me compare that with the question: is murder murder? That is, society as a whole recognizes that there are both different forms of murder, and that there are mitigating circumstances that make murder less a crime, or even not a crime.
And this is why we have judges and juries. As far as abortion goes, about 1 in 4 fetuses are naturally aborted. If they are more advanced in their development, a d&c procedure is necessary to remove them from the mother. Other fetuses are alive, but not viable for birth, often at risk to the life of the mother. Unless they are aborted, then both will die. On the other extreme are the abortions done solely as a convenience.
And yet, if you examine the extremes of the abortion argument, both sides parade their moralism and try to seize the argument. However, the vast majority of Americans of all kinds, and conservatives in particular, while they generally dislike the concept of abortion, understand that there is a grey area between the two extremes. A grey area demanding judgement. But whose good judgement?
That is why the question remains mostly unresolved. Most Americans reject the blanket arguments of both sides, though both sides will shout down any efforts at reasonableness. And yet, over time, the abortion law evolves into what the majority of Americans want.
Importantly, not as a moral decision, but as a judgemental decision. And this is the line drawn by society. Firmly in the grey area.
#15
moose - I agree with what you just wrote to the point that I went back and reread your post #2 and realized that the thrust of your original argument was different than I had initially understood - you were focusing on the morality component his argument against drugs, etc. and I was focusing more on comments like this, "because of a notion over the past few decades that wrongdoing is somehow the fault of those who live by the rules, and whose lives, with their normality and affluence, are a constant provocation to criminal elements.".
So thanks for an interesting discussion... can't find anything more to argue about :-)
Sgt. Mark Seavey was outnumbered, but not alone at the moonbat townhall hosted by Reps. Jim Moran and John Murtha last week. Near the end of the marathon session, a Vietnam veteran, General Wagner, stepped up to the microphone to deliver a message from the mother of an Iraqi war vet who gave his life for his country and for the mission. After reading a scathing letter addressed to Murtha, Wagner talked about his own experience in Vietnam:
I visit Walter Reed [Army Hospital] and talk to the young soldiers with their legs blown off. I know you do, too. I can't find one in a dozen that don't believe that they are fighting for a noble cause and are fighting to go back. And I think it's a disgrace when members of our Congress --just as they did in 1975 when they sold out the south Vietnamese--are selling out our soldiers today in Iraq!
Naturally Moran gives his 'well I support the troops too' bullshit answer at which point the good General walks out in disgust. I think I have a new hero (Wagner).
Stage two of the current phase of the political in Iraq which we anticipated a few days ago has just begun and its beginning is marked by the emergence of a new large political bloc.
The new bloc was announced today in Baghdad after the largest three blocs of Maram-the Iraqi list, the Accord Front and al-Mutlaqâs Dialogue Front-signed an agreement to form one unified political body.
This agreement will grant the new political body a significant political weight with a total of approximately 80 seats in the parliament and with good prospects for reaching something close to 100 seats if a few other smaller lists like Mishaan al-Jubooriâs list, the Islamic union of Kurdistan, Turkmen and Christians chose joining it...
...Anyway, now the equation seems easier to read with only three variables instead of four or five!...
...Allawi stressed that the new bloc rejects and condemns terrorism, of course this is something not unusual from Allawi but I think that Allawi this time was speaking on behalf of al-Dulaimi and al-Mutlaq who have recently been accused so many times by the UIA of backing terrorism...
...The dayâs other big event is something that has been awaited for quite along time, and it is an achievement of special importance for the Kurds in Iraq, today Masoud Barzani announced that the KDP and PUK have finally reached an agreement to unite the two Kurdish administrations in Erbil and Sulaymaniya. Itâs worth mentioning that since after 1991, the Kurdish region was run by two separate administrations; one by the KDP in Erbil and Duhok and the other by the PUK in Sulaymaniya...
...Politicians already know that neither the election commission nor the international investigators can change much of the results; they will pretend to be awaiting announcements from those two entities, basically to use this time to organize their lines, probe the pulse of other parties and prepare for the real negotiations that are yet to come...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
All sensible people should welcome this recovery from the 1960s' hangover, and we should reflect how nice it would be if certain other obsessions that linger from those years were quietly parcelled up and stuck in the museum of obsolete ideas.
These are just some of the lingering and entirely harmful prejudices of the 1960s that one might hope would also soon come up for revaluation. Others include the ease of our divorce laws, the ready availability of the act of murder known as abortion as a form of post-coital contraception, and the notion that middle-class values are at best held in suspicion, at worst regarded as downright evil.
