She’s the Minneapolis police chief who “married” one of her female sergeants. (Try doing that in Teheran or Riyadh.) Now, she’s one of several city officials in Minneapolis who wore Islamic Hijabs to show their Solidarity with the people who perform clitorectomies and stone gay people to death.
According to a Facebook post, Somali staffers that work at Minneapolis City Hall declared February 28 “Hijab Day” at City Hall and convinced the police chief and female city council reps to wear hijabs on the job.
Pictures include: Minneapolis police chief Janee Harteau (who recently married her favorite female sergeant – not very hijab like), city council members Elizabeth Glidden and Lisa Bender as well as other staffers.
The ACLU, American Atheists, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have been silent on the issue of public officials endorsing one religion over others (as best a brief Google search could determine.) The self-loathing nuts at Tikkun are completely on-board.
Breaking: Change in Plane’s Path was Entered via Computer – New York Times
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/03/breaking-change-in-planes-path-was.html
Tikkun Olam means “repair of the world”.
So what the Hebrew for “suicidal stupidity”?
Madness. The West is handing the Islamists a knife and baring its throat. The silence from the ACLU speaks volumes: it’s not religion they have a problem with, it’s Christianity. Logical, since Humanism is the “religion” of the Brahmin caste whose members make up the ACLU, and Christianity is the religion of their rival Old Money caste.
Societal struggle, pure and simple. Too bad it’s going to get us all killed.
“Too bad it’s going to get us all killed.”
I don’t care that much anymore if leftists commit suicide. It’s their insistence that everyone else drink the poisoned Kool-Aid too that infuriates me. So: What moral obligations do I have to those who demand that I allow myself to be murdered?
pst314: no obligation whatsoever. In fact, if they try to convince others under your protection to let themselves be murdered, you could make a good argument for the use of appropriate violence against an aggressor to protect those in your care from harm.
I wonder if she would stand in solidarity with them if one them was a baker who didn’t want to make a wedding cake for her?
I’m betting she would because ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and not Christian.
Annie, I think there’s something a little more complex than that going on. Essentially, there are two upper “castes” (here having the meaning of socio-economic whose members broadly share values, education, background, and political views), the “Brahmins,” who are the Ivy League and OWS types, and the “Optimates,” the old-money Social Register families. The Brahmins and the Optimates hate each other. The Brahmins generally practice Humanism as their religion, and the Optimates are solidly Christian, either Protestant or Evangelical.
The Brahmin-Optimate conflict thus has broad holy war tones, as the Brahmins try to minimize the already-reduced influence of the Optimates (who are hemorrhaging members due to their children joining the Brahmins) and their Worker caste (i.e., middle- and working-class people) allies, who generally share the Optimates’ religious views. The targeting of small business-owners (i.e., workers) whose theological views differ from the Brahmins’ is akin to a feudal lord telling his men-at-arms to attack and terrorize the commoners who swear allegiance to a rival lord: a tactic designed to demoralize the other side’s potential foot soldiers and general population, with little risk of reciprocal harm.
“The Brahmin-Optimate conflict”
If you’ll forgive me for commenting before thinking carefully about what you wrote, would Fred Siegel’s new book, The Revolt Against the Masses be relevant to your argument? Our elites want to strip the middle class of its power (and wealth) because they despise the middle class as boobs (what did Mencken say on that line?) and think only an elite (themselves) should be allowed to rule. And so they ally with the poor for votes and with corporations and unions (for dollars), creating a kleptocratic, redistributionist, corporatist tyranny.
I thought this was a joke, but it is true. The far left is amazing how ridiculous they are.
A lefty feminazi lesbian wearing a hijab? Now that’s thinking outside the (mutilated) BOX!!!
They blew it.
By “they” I mean the men and women who did not wear the hijab.
The hijab is just a long piece of fabric. It is essentially a scarf. So, for “hijab”-pretend-and-dress-up-day, I would recommend a scarf covered with the Star of David.
The men should have joined in with the costume and come to work wearing lipstick, rouge and a hijab with “Solidarność” or just “Solidarity” written all over it.
The whole stupid game would have been polluted by outrage over people not playing “fair” and the victory would have turned to vinegar.
Prior to the mid-1970’s, few women in the Arab world wore the hijab. Now they are all over it. What’s up with that? Simple answer: politics. The Islamic big-daddies have “suggested” that the women “choose” to wear the hijab and differentiate themselves when they are in public. The more controlling the Islamic culture is in a given area is directly related to how intensely the women “choose” the hijab.
Thus, the hijab is a statement of Islamic “law” is partially a political statement in a country like Morocco or Turkey. It is a statement that the woman obeys sharia and if there is a choice between state law and theocratic law, she will make the theocratic choice.
The government women who went along with this hijab-dress-up-day would hardly have given a second thought to a request from Scientology or the Mormons or the Amish.
I am very happy for the Chieftess of Police and her concubine lover and wish Minneapolis just the bestest police protection and service in the land. If the city gets it, it is not because of what the Chieftess does with her crotch or the concubine or the hijab. It is a pity that the Chieftess seems to have so many little cultural skirmishes to carry around on her back.
@pst314: My model requires a little explanation: In America, there are currently five “castes,” broad socio-economic groups that share broadly share education, background, employment, and politics. These can be broken up into upper and lower castes, each with their own hierarchy. A person’s “caste” is usually determined by birth, education, and employment, and is not always clear-cut on an individual level. The lower castes are: the Helots, the recent immigrants and migrant workers; the Untouchables, the criminal/welfare class; the Workers, the working/middle class. The upper castes are: the Brahmins, liberal arts majors, political science types, Ivy Leaguers, and federal employees; and the Optimates, the Old Money families like the Kennedies and Bushes, who benefit from family connection.
The Brahmins have allied with the Untouchables, using them as shock troops in social struggles; OWS was an attempt to marshall low-level Brahmins into a “fighting” force, with resounding failure. The Workers and the Optimates are allied. The Brahmins and Optimates are both elite castes, but the Optimates have been losing influence and members for years to the Brahmins, to the point that, when one uses the term “elite,” they are typically referring to a Brahmin.
It deserves mention that a new elite caste, the Populaires or Technocrats, exemplified by info tech luminaries and technical innovators like Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates, may be forming. They seem to agree with Brahmins on some issues, but oppose them on others, and seem to be libertarian more than progressive. Their foreign policy is highly Jeffersonian and non-interventionist, as opposed to the Wilsonian moralism of the Brahmins, the Monrovian colonialism of the Optimates, and the Jacksonian victory-at-all-costs attitude of the Workers, but they tend to utilitarian realists. Note that Julian Assange and Bradley/Chelsey Manning could probably be considered to be low-level Populaires.
I believe I’ve commented on this earlier, asking the question what will she wear to her hanging? That is assuming that she would dare to visit a middle eastern country where sharia law is in force.
Sean L, respectful question: where did you come up with or find the definition of Brahmin in this context? I would have thought of them as the Old Money, more conservative types (as in the Boston Brahmins in the pre-Kennedy context). (I’ll have to think longer on your analysis, but the term was getting in my way.) Thank you.
Kevin, thank you for the catch. I wrongly conflated Optimates with “Old Money,” and Brahmins with “Ivy League.” In reality, both elite groups had their origin in Old Money families. The real distinction is geographical. The Optimates descend from the gentleman farmers of the Old South; the Brahmins descend from the Boston Brahmins of New England. The Brahmin caste became prominent in the Ivy League because of geographical closeness.
Political progressiveness is prominent in the Brahmin caste due to their association with Ivy League schools, but look at their standards of behavior: Brahmins, at least the high-ranking ones like the Clintons and Obamas, are still very concerned with appearance and projecting an image of normalcy. Not much has changed in their behavior, just the the causes they support.
Gay marriage has been legal in Minnesota since last Summer. In this context, however, the quotation marks don’t work. But, they still apply in southern states.
On the Fence @ #16:
Why exactly has gay “marriage” been exempted from the full faith and credit clause from the Constitution? The women may be “married” in Minnesota, but if they move to Texas, what is their status?
I believe your point is laced with consensus gay belief but bereft in actual English common law fact.
Gay marriage is legal in Minnesota. In fact, aside from the unlawful hiccup of its recent past, it always has been.
Stay pressed.
why do you hate teh gheyz, v the k? 😉
“She’s the Minneapolis police chief who “married” one of her female sergeants.”
I am more considered with what looks like an improper subordinate-superior relationship than the sex of the parties in the relationship. I hope the sergeant has left the force.
How nice of On the Fence to come along and provide a fine example of the cluelessness and tribal reaction patterns of the gay left.
Gay leftist bigots like On the Fence and this lesbian shriek that Christians are “oppressing” gays — but cheerfully play dress-up to show their allegiance with actual oppressors.
Plus, it is an ethical violation in the vast majority of workplaces for a subordinate to enter into any kind of relationship with their supervisor. One would think they would have learned from the notorious case of Bonnie Bleskachek, but let’s face it, people who dress up to honor genital mutilation aren’t too swift.
Finally, way to make a fine reference to how gay-sex bigots like itself see marriage primarily as something they can cheapen and piss on in order to “press” the people who actually value it.
That is your answer to this?
Do you break out in some sort of hissy-fit rash when asked a direct question?
I and many others would love to hear your measured, informed assessment of why your gay marriage in Minnesota is not recognized across all of Obama’s 57 states giving you and your wedded mate the power to transport yourselves with full marital recognition when choosing to reside in any other state which does not recognize gay marriage.
Any gay “marriage” is trapped into only living in those places where the “marriage” is permitted. On the other hand, a gay couple can claim they are “married” in just about every and any little corner of the United States and hardly a soul will shiv a git. The nasty problem is that saying you are married and getting the state to go apply various property laws and standing to your union is not resolved in any way.
Under sharia, the Muslim husband may announce the talaq three times and an irrevocable divorce occurs. Do you suppose being “talaq” divorced in Minnesota is all full faith and credit fuzzy-warm throughout Obama’s 57 states?
I imagine that you take offense at my exception to gay marriage by calling it a “marriage.” Until the SCOTUS declares it valid in all of Obama’s 57 states and US territories, it is still a prototype for others to study and twist for their own circumstances. (I’m thinking polygamy here, but I understand there are other possibilities in the wings.)
I love your thinking here, heliotrope — but in reality, I can see official reprimands for people who didn’t follow the Hijab Day Rules.
Are you so pressed that you can’t handle that gender distinctions were never written into marital laws that you tailspin into “Obama 57 states” mode? Talk about hissy fit. Hindsight is 20/20! The quotation marks around “marriage” still work in the South though when discussing the gheys.
Marriage is marriage in the state of Minnesota. Stay pressed.
Oh.
Tell that to Ohio.
Sort of off topic, but you keep using the slang concept “pressed.”
As a str8 man of 72, I have had to go to the urban dictionary to see what meaning you are attempting to convey. After scrolling past a number of references to street talk emanating from my brothers, I got down to references to fudge-packing.
If you are so “pressed” on using pressed in your rebuttals (get it! re- butt -al !!!!) you had best make certain that everyone on the street is clued into your clever addiction to the term. Otherwise, a little plain English will make you appear to be less of flip flit.
“Pressed: have difficulty doing or achieving something.”
It’s in the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). Look it up.
You seem to be having difficulties countering and reconciling the fact that marriage has had a long lawful history of gender neutrality. It was often never officially written into the laws that one person was male and the other female. It was quite often–comically I might add–assumed. The phenomenon of trying to sidestep this rather giant oversight came into vogue in the 1990s/2000s when conservatives tried to rally their base by uniting behind the idea that the definition of marriage was between a man and a woman. While, traditionally, in most cultures, this was true, as far as most state and federal laws in the U.S. were concerned, it wasn’t on the books, not until a little over a decade ago.
“Tell that to Ohio.” They didn’t get the memo until 2004. But, then, two major Republicans in the Buckeye state will support a repeal that may go on the ballot in 2014 or 2016. But, perhaps that won’t even be necessary, as the 2004 “law” may have been ruled unconstitutional. I’m not keeping up on the situation in real-time.
You seem to be having a difficult time accepting this.
So … stay pressed, if you so choose.
Sorry, pal, but I have had the 20 volume OED on my shelves for nearly fifty years and have made an very comfortable living using words and studying their etymology.
Your usage of “pressed” is, at best, strained.
Furthermore, your supercilious claim that gender differentiation was only assumed in the Saxon and medieval antecedents to English Common law is spurious, if not downright simple.
Without regard to your straw men and point shifting, you have yet to explain how “marriage” between gays in Minnesota fails to rise to recognition through the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, whereas, marriage between heterosexuals does receive such recognition.
Sorry Charlie, but your are not quite ready for prime time.
What does the Full Faith and Credit Clause have to do with placing quotation marks around “marriage” if we’re discussing a state that recognizes marriage as marriage? Did the lesbians in question leave Minnesota and move to Texas? No. Hence my original comment on the quotation marks. They’re legally married under their state and federal law, and they live in Minnesota. If the blogger is from Texas, he can use all the quotation marks he desires, but that doesn’t modify the legality of the marriage in the state they reside in. If they actually moved to Texas, then, yes, the quotation marks would be applicable, as the state doesn’t recognize SSM. So, in Texan eyes, on their turf, that Minnesota union is a “marriage” legally, as well as in popular public opinion.
There’s no misuse, if maybe shorthand at worse. Stay pressed. Stay hard pressed. Doesn’t really matter. You’re having a difficult time proving gender specifications in law books before the 1990s. No need to consult the urban dictionary and throw around sexual innuendo (“fudge-packing”) and advertise your sexuality. That you’re “str8” bears little significance, as it’s suggestive (what else?) that gays are more likely to stray from proper English use than “str8’s”. (By the way, is “str8” short for “heterosexual,” because I can’t find that alpha-numeric term in the OED.) For every drag queen dumbing down language, I’m sure you have an assortment of Southern hayseeds (you were introducing crude labels and generalizations into the conversation, correct?) ready to prepare their dissertations on world affairs in I’m sure only the King’s best English.
Now go to the the OED and look up the definition of “wife” and show me where in English Common Law a “wife” can be of the male gender or a “husband” can be the female gender.
Your argument is with the ages old presumption in Saxon, Medieval and English Common Law that “man and wife” is a clear statement of one hand and one woman.
If you are arguing that legal marriage based on English Common Law permits something different, then the burden is on you to show the down through the ages the understanding of “man and wife” was flexibly applied and sanctioned.
This southern hayseed says that niggling with the assumptions of traditional marriage on the basis of omission of specificity (such as not designating that the partner be a human or alive) is just lame. Loophole law is nothing new. But it often illustrates whacky desperation.
Your defense of “stay pressed” is noted. In return, please take note that you will be hard pressed to find it commonly used as you used it and readily used as in “hard pressed” as I just used it.
My researching the slang use was motivated by your repeated strange use of “pressed” which made me wonder if it perhaps might be a popular slang term in some regional gay culture. Sure enough, there it was.
So, back at you: stay pressed. (Having said that, it still seems to be an arcane and bewildering construction.)
Your constant assumptions and mentioning of one’s sexuality is an arcane and bewildering tactic.
Thank you.
Impressive. Your evidence is noted.
More on Virginia. . .from the big news in Michigan
In addition to United States v. Windsor, Friedman also pointed to Loving v. Virginia — in which the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages was unconstitutional.
“Both the Windsor and Loving decisions stand for the proposition that, without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence,” the judge wrote.
http://m.click2houston.com/news/Judge-strikes-Michigan-s-gay-marriage-ban/25096444
Rusty,
You have very likely read my thoughts in past comments when Loving v is brought up in discussing gay marriage. It is an apples to oranges comparison fallacy.
Loving v involved one black woman and one white man marrying in violation of the miscegenation laws of Virginia. What was at question was not traditional marriage, but the mixed racial component of partners. That law was found in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Two men marrying or two women marrying or a person marrying him or her self can find no standing in the Loving v case.
Without question, Loving v was an important case. Virginia was crawling with blacks married to Indians and Indians married to whites and Catholics married to Jews and bluebloods married to hayseeds. There was no compelling state interest to be served in preventing marriage between one black and one white of different genders.
Gays have to convince the SCOTUS that the state has no compelling reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Loving v is not a useful precedent as it did not challenge marriage being limited to one man and one woman.
Get it?