Why abandon a belief merely because it ceases to be true? —ROBERT FROST
Some of the more bizarre forms of mass hysteria, however, are uniquely male. “Penis panics,” for instance, periodically sweep portions of Africa and Asia. In 1967, hospitals in Singapore were flooded by frantic men convinced their penises were shrinking. Nine years later, a similar outbreak swept Thailand, eventually affecting two thousand men. And in 2001, mobs in Nigeria lynched at least a dozen suspected penis thieves.
Whenever we have a stake in the outcome of an event, no matter how big or how small, that interest tends to bend our perception of the matter at hand. This is true whether we are alumni watching a football game involving our alma mater, or auditors examining the books of a client, or doctors prescribing a drug from a pharmaceutical company that has given us a free coffee mug. No matter the situation, our interpretation of information tends to be guided by our own self-interest.
A number of studies have shown that the normal restrictions that govern thought, expression, and behavior for most of us do not seem to apply to the powerful; they roam in a very different psychological space.
So if facts don’t change minds, what does?
=Kidding Ourselves: The Hidden Power of Self-Deception (Joseph T. Hallinan)
Publishing editorials of opposing views that try and justify heinous acts on the part of the Muhammadans outraged over cartoons as USA Today has done is an act of freedom of the press that cannot be condemned, even though the choice to do so was, in my opinion, inappropriate at best. But the persistent almost insane pattern of behavior from the liberal, progressive left denying the obvious truth, when it is hitting them persistently in the face by the backside of a 500 pound rotten tuna, is more than worrisome.
These are acts by Muslim Islamic terrorists-Repeat after me all ye surreal PC, liberal infected brainwashed fools.. Islamic Terrorists, Islamic Muslim Terrorists…. Now, Mr. President, was that really so hard to do?
They shouted in Arabic “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is Greatest) and “We are avenging the Prophet Mohammed” as they sprayed their victims with hundreds of bullets from their semi-automatic weapons.
Their “victims” were the top editorial cartoonists of the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine, who had dared to practice their right of free speech. Their offense? Publishing cartoons deemed “offensive” by Muslim leaders around the world. The perpetrators? Islamic terrorists.
Yet in the immediate hours after the murders in Paris, the response from western leaders was scurrilously predictable in their refusal to describe the attack as an “Islamic terrorist attack.”
Phrasing the problem of “violent extremism,” as the Obama administration has done repeatedly, of being a problem exclusively of only Al Qaeda and now ISIS, is intellectually spurious and truly dangerous to our national security.
Indeed, the responses from our own president, French President Hollande and British Prime Minster David Cameron all spouted the same empty pabulum in asserting that the Paris attack had nothing to do with Islam or any religion for that matter. But the hollow comments coming from our own leaders are steeped in the stench of appeasement and cowardice.
Howard Dean: Stop Referring To “Muslim Terrorists” In Describing Paris Attackers | JONATHAN TURLEY
Former Democratic Party head Howard Dean has caused a controversy with his remarks on Wednesday criticizing people who call the murderers in Paris “Muslim terrorists.” Dean certainly makes a strong point when he says “They’re about as Muslim as I am,” he said. “I mean, they have no respect for anybody else’s life, that’s not what the Koran says.” It is easy to forget that most Muslims are as appalled and outraged as non-Muslims by these horrific crimes. However, I do not agree that we have to adopt another verboten term. The fact is the “Muslim extremist” or “Muslim terrorist” refers to the motivation and self-identity of the killers not their adherence to the proper reading of Islam.
While Dean is getting a lot of heat over this, I think that this is a fair point to raise, even if you reject the suggestion.
USA Today caused a stir last night when they published a column from Anjem Choudary, whom they describe as “a radical Muslim cleric” from London specializing in shari’a law. Earlier in the day, the Financial Times attracted a raft of criticism for publishing a column that insinuated that Charlie Hebdo‘s staff brought on their massacre themselves, but Choudary doesn’t even bother with a sop to free speech, which he dismisses as a non-Islamic concept. Instead, Choudary blames France for not protecting “the sanctity of a Prophet,” and says we should not expect anything else other than murder from Muslims when that doesn’t happen:
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.