France is having a national debate on whether to outlaw concealing one's face in public.
Interesting. I'll bet the only thing making it a debate is religious reasons.
While I may feel uncomfortable if somebody were to hide their face in public (I don't think I've met anybody, not since us kids in the hardest winters of my childhood), I don't believe it's right to outlaw it. Why not also outlawing curtains? After all, it would be much harder to manufacture bombs if everybody can look into your home 24/7, you can't argue against that.
Update: so far as I know, the reason for the suggested law is violent demonstrators who wear ski masks so the police can't identify them. If there was such a law, they can arrest them merely for wearing the masks.
Good for France. I mean really - what's to debate? Allow an archaic dress code which was created by men, not women and which has nothing to do about equality to take root and possibly flourish in a country where it once did not exist? There are many other countries that should also be having this debate!
ReplyDeleteUpdate: so far as I know, the reason for the suggested law is violent demonstrators who wear ski masks so the police can't identify them. If there was such a law, they can arrest them merely for wearing the masks.
ReplyDeleteHey! If the police can wear dark tinted full face masks/shields and do not have to wear any ID during these demonstrations, why can't the demonstrators do the same? The right thing to do is not allow anyone to cover up their identity!
ReplyDeleteThis kind of law is already existing in Germany since years, called "Vermummungsverbot".
ReplyDeleteI agree the police should have non-ambiguous ID labels, but that's not the case ... :-(
Of course, any policeman is actually obliged to give his name and number, if asked by someone, but try that during a fierce demonstration ... then you know what you will get most probably :-(
Why not also outlawing curtains?
ReplyDeleteIn Calvinistic communities it was like that to demonstrate "I have nothing to hide before God and mankind". That's the reason why you find in Netherland often houses without curtains (at least I have seen that some years ago in the countryside).
Demonstrators aren't the only ones who wear ski masks when they don't want to be recognized - robbers often do that too.
ReplyDelete"After all, it would be much harder to manufacture bombs if everybody can look into your home 24/7, you can't argue against that."
ReplyDeleteYeah, good point ! Or put cameras everywhere. Even in the bathrooms, of course. I can't imagine why they are doing that already !
["Multi-part huge patented P-4 post straight ahead" fair warning]
ReplyDeleteFirst, there have indeed been grave incidents where organized gangs used demonstrations as an opportunity to wreak urban havok, and they wore masks. I think people have died. It's a growing means of criminal impunity. The rationale is, that you have the constitutional right to demonstrate, but open-facedly, so being masked in a demonstration automatically becomes grounds for arrest. Urban violence is a very serious concern in France today.
The other problem, is that fundies use a well-known tactic. They promote "the veil" in an ethnically opportune neighborhood (read on further to find out HOW they do it), and then social pressure and intimidation arise, trying to FORCE women not following that trend into complying. It's becoming a dramatic threat to women's rights. Unveiled young women have gotten gang-raped under the "excuse" that, by not covering their hair, "they openly signal themselves as whores".
It's not a fight of religions. The real intolerance is not where they say. It's an organized lobbying assault claiming a dubious interpretation of freedom to propagate a liberticidal system. Its first victims? Muslim women of France themselves! Some are brainwashed into believing that having no face (even at home sometimes) and being submissive to men is "their free right", even if it helps STEAL that same right from other women. But these other women are fighting back, in a manner that I very much admire: I urge you to read there [the Neither Whores Nor Submissives movement].
At least, in France, they CAN speak up. For now. Unlike many other, less media-investigated countries. ):-P
It's all part of a much wider and deeper debate in France, about "National Identity". A lot of trouble is arising from conservative and backwards communitarism, with the latest waves of immigration displaying an upsetting trend into completely rejecting integration. Speech is being heard, that the Republic's Law is to be followed, "so long as it doesn't contradict our religious beliefs". You can imagine the can of worms...
It's a worldwide problem, alas. In Egypt, 30 years ago, it was an exceptional occurrence to ever see a woman in the streets wearing the scarf. Nowadays, it's become the norm!
Spontaneous social evolution? My ass! The method is well known, and witnessed also in Lebanon, everybody knows how it goes: fundie organisms PAY muslim women, a monthly rent, for wearing the scarf and displaying it, until they modify the publicly perceived image of "religious practice" at a sufficient scale. Then comes the time for money savings: at one point, women not scarfed get intimidated, with a speech claiming that "exposing your hair is immoral, and you can look around you, the majority clearly agrees".
It's well and nice, in fact it is essential, to worry about freedoms. But the need has arised to become aware of freedom's enemies exploiting "freedom" as a means to smother it. Communitarism is very visibly attempting to split the French nation, and BinL's agents/buddies are often found involved in the ideological foundation and the zealous "preaching".
Have you seen the incredibly fierce slogans of hate displayed in the fundie demonstrations in the UK? When does "let's kill others" overstep the legitimate boundaries of freedom of speech? When pogroms happen in Europe anew, it'll be too late. Was it freedom of speech to murder Theo Van Gogh? His only "crime": make a movie where a muslim woman (also fairly marked for death) exposed the sub-human state of submission in which A LOT of the islamic world enslaves women.
My father has worked in the Gulf. Here's a scene he witnessed with his own eyes. A rich local man, eating at a fancy restaurant. Sitting right ON THE FLOOR, a woman, entirely veiled. When he finished eating, he gave her scraps. A woman is supposed to walk 5 steps behind her husband in the street, not at his level, and neither sit with him at the table. "To always know her place".
ReplyDeleteMy father asked the restaurant staff who that woman was. Take a guess. The guy's umpteenth throw-away wife?
No: his mother.
This is what the "full-body veil" symbolizes.
I've got far worse stories which I'll spare you...
Here is France's OFFICIAL position:
The country is a LAIC Republic. It means that everybody is free of their religious beliefs and practices, SUBORDINATED to the Republic's Laws. Therefore, sneaking a religious tone OF ANY SORT into a global part of the nation, like a neighborhood, is not permitted. The so-called "anti-veil" law forbidding it in schools was, in reality, a law against ostentation of ANY RELIGIOUS SIGN, because schools are a place of laicity. By definition. The law aimed to regulate the sources of growing intolerance and communitarism-related problems. A response to dangerously increasing tribalism in a civilized country.
Part of INTEGRATING to the Life of the Nation, of becoming part of that Society, is to be, literally, "open-faced".
A few reminders about France: the official "Nation of Human Rights", very involved in international diplomacy, welcoming a record number of Third World immigrants and refugees, and also Europe's #1 country for number and proportion of muslim citizens. BinL. KNOWS it is a symbol to relentlessly attack, in hopes of scoring some form of psychological victory for his "movement". France is also, if my info is correct, one of only FOUR countries in the world where a laic regime is written in the Constitution itself. No "in God we trust" on the Euro bills, you can check.
In summary, the debate boils down to this: freedom cannot be used as an instrument to limit freedom, that's its only true limitation.
And the GNU free license, about freely distributed content, includes such a limitation: it allows anybody to have it, but prohibits anyone from registering it as their own and making it free no more. "Freedom forbids one thing, and this is to remove freedom."
Once more, my dear Eolake, your sole mistake (IMO) in that matter was being too idealistic. You think and conceive Freedom like a civilized man, judging others by your own highly civilized standards. But you can't apply the same rules with uneducated barbarians, who one day cry "please respect my freedoms", and the next will slit your throat from being "Danish like those cartoonists", or blow you to smithereens. Muslim extremism is all linked, it's a worldwide network of cultist madness.
Women will probably be forbidden to cover their face in France WHEN IN PUBLIC? Do you know how many countries forbid women, from any religion, from NOT covering their identity? Isn't this a crime against the very essence of women, not to mention denying them first a face, then the status and rights of a human being? (Please forgive my possible bias, I am a fetishist of smiling faces with a soul within.)
Also, about freedom, a few brutal reminders regarding the countries whose clerics recommend veiling women "for proper attire":
ReplyDelete- In Algeria, carrying more than one Bible with you is enough to go to prison (as mentioned in the news), for it is considered as evidence of "proselytism against islam", which is an official crime. This -and the following- usually applies to most islamic countries.
- It is also a crime, punishable sometimes by death under the name "apostasy", for someone to convert FROM islam. In Egypt, girls from the Christian Coptic minority [English update coming soon, and also there] regularly get kidnapped by extremists, force-converted and force-married to said extremists. Technically legalized rape. The country's law is then against them: they cannot "_un-convert", and they cannot ask for divorce, it's a man's privilege.
- In Egypt still, it is prohibited by law to build a church, or make any sort of repair to one for any reason, without a Government permit. Such permits are as rare as a Guyana Magenta One Cent stamp. Translation for those of you who are not philatelists: there is, at best, one known in existence. The stamp, I mean. Slightly less for permits.
- In Saudi Arabia, doing a Christian prayer, alone or in company, in the quiet privacy of your own home, is also enough to get arrested.
- Shari'a states that a raped woman needs to produce four male witnesses for it to be acknowledged in a court of law. Otherwise, she gets indicted with adultery. Whose sanctions, as you doubtless have guessed, are severe. You thought Leviticus was barbaric? You've seen nothing!
- Even in Lebanon, the most "progressive" of all arabo-muslim countries, men enjoy many rights that are still denied to women. I think my blog has mentioned "honor crimes" enough times.
So please, forgive me if I root for the French on this one, because I like the idea of a country refusing to get "persuaded" into becoming a follower of the Shari'a. Just like I rooted for those Danish cartoonists.
I just have this reflex for disliking thick-skulled warmongering savages.
It's nice to have deep beliefs. Really. I respect a person following islam, like I do any religion. Even Atheism. But I loathe their fanatics, like I do those of any religion. Including Atheism.
Is anybody naive enough to believe the burqa in Europe is NOT an excuse to propagate the vilest travesty of that religion? To get the minds jaded to a relentless effort of shifting Society's standards?
Why don't we also stone Janet Jackson? When she exposed her tiny bit of nipple, she was wearing pants. Leviticus explicitly states that a woman wearing men's clothes must be lapidated.
How about a multi-million reward murder fatwa for slitting Bill Maher's throat, or beheading his children in retaliation? If "he's against islam", then surely he must perish with extreme prejudice.
BTW, anybody got recent news on Rushdie? Still alive, still targeted. And still a muslim, I believe. Even from within, criticism is forbidden by the Cutthroat Cultists. Even though I've been told that the controversial "Satanic verses" can be found in the very official Koran. (I haven't checked, that Book is written very messily.)
But does anybody speak of the rabid fabricated primal antisemitism that fills the TV networks of any arab country? They relentlessly spread their propaganda, amidst deafening silence of the virtuous Western Freedoms Defenders. That banter was practically an official part of my school cursus, in the early Eighties. Ever seen a routine arab caricature on Jews? The Nazis would be envious.
ReplyDeleteJust wait until I finish my post draft on the Hamas-TV rip-off of Mickey Mouse: Farfoor, the kamikaze-promoting children's mascot.
Farfoor was beaten to death by "Zionist soldiers" in his last show, then replaced by Arnoob the bunny swearing that other martyrs would avenge Farfoor's martyrdom. "Right children?"
So many muslim regimes have already yielded, more or less entirely, to the "holy pressure" of the fanatics and their mentality...
Oh, sure. The fundamentalists LOVE freedom. When it's on THEIR side. Until they grab power... Then they are free to make "some people more free than others". ):-P
Learn from the details of 9/11, people. From those falsely well-integrated Western-looking psychos. The Armies of Hate are marching. Don't grant them "freedom of circulation" with their brandished weapons and flags.
This potato sack they throw over women? That's One-Eye-Omar and Mama's-Boy-Osama's military flag.
F x S = K None should be infinite, lest the other become zero.
I confess, I do sound like I'm speaking passionately. Yes, padre, I *am* passionate. Every time true freedom is threatened by outrageous hypocritical technicalities. Like every time somebody assassinates in the name of the God of Love.
I do believe that the muslim world today still hasn't undergone its Renaissance to rise above archaic times to shining Reason. In fact, it tends to go backwards, "people" were far more relaxed and open 100 years ago. We folks living in this region have witnessed the degradation. Such as in the Egyptian streets.
It's not about the religion, it's about the cultures and the mentalities, of which the burqa is a quite official banner. While some argument that "the veil is not what islam is about" (and so much IS TRUE), others jump like frantic Jack-in-the-boxes every time the scarf is questioned, wailing that "this is islamophobia, boo-hoo, you meanies". Same deliberate ambiguity is how they handle Liberties. "The only one which I'll respect is my own", is how the fanatic speaks. Just listen between the words.
Somebody prove to me that the burqa liberates more women that it enslaves, or even that the overall result is neutral, and I'll VOTE for it. Preferably women who are not completely illiterate and married at age 9 (what could THEY know apart from the Stockholm Syndrome?). Prove to me that worldwide islam, political and customary, is in reality, factually (spare me the angelic THEORIES), a progressive and civilizing force, and I'll confess talking out of my sphicter.
P.S.: "fart!" ;-)
P.P.S.: I similarly dare anybody to claim in my face that today's hyper-prude USA have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Or that Israel's "peace-but-colonies" policy is in any way in adequacy with the Torah.
That fart above? All psycho bigots of any label can share its aroma.
Peace, yo.
"If there was such a law, they can arrest them merely for wearing the masks."
ReplyDeleteIn a demonstration, not at a ski resort.
Let's be honest, what can be the reasons for concealing your face in a civilized country, amidst a demonstration of thousands? Except if you want to break the law (vandalism, pillage, assault) without being identifyable on camera?
The only significant instance where police HIDE their faces (protective face shields are another matter, trust me they're vital sometimes), is in anti-terrorist or organized crime busts, to protect their families from becoming targets for retaliation if identified by the bandits. I'd say that's rather legitimate. As long as there exists a higher authority which can be held accountable for any abuses.
"Of course, any policeman is actually obliged to give his name and number, if asked by someone"
Especially in the 'States. That's one of the really nice things about the USA and their laws.
"That's the reason why you find in Netherland often houses without curtains"
Didn't that, "you know", lead to a natality drop??... ;-p
"robbers often do that too."
Well said, Ray.
If what you have to hide is your innocent family, a mask is legitimate (just ask Spider-Man). A criminal's identity while the crime is being committed... less so! :-P
"Even in the bathrooms, of course. I can't imagine why they are doing that already !"
Because a mask would nullify the usefulness of the camera!
As in this news story:
"SIMI VALLEY, California -- A 28-year-old man, employed by a Family Christian Book Store in Simi Valley, California, accidentally recorded himself setting up a peeping camera in the store's bathroom. Police said the man accidentally taped himself hiding the camera between boxes in the corner of a store restroom used by both men and women, according to local news reports.
The camera was discovered Sunday by a female patron who alerted police to its presence. Officers said they found the video of the man hiding the camera on the recorded video, adding they have not yet determined how long the camera was in place or how many victims there may have been.
The man was arrested and charged with peeping with a recording device."
I've read several such stories.
See? With a ski mask, the peep would still be scott free.
(And perhaps also scott-dressed. In "traditional" kilt. I bet he's into this sort of thing, that perv.)
One bizarre twist about the burqa, is Western women finding it a titillating idea, that you could theoretically wear nothing underneath, and still walk in total impunity in the streets of a very strict country.
(Let's hope the cold weather doesn't betray you by POINTING out the trick!)
The right thing to do is not allow anyone to cover up their identity!
ReplyDeleteNot exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, eh Jimbo? Didn't exactly think that one through now did you? But then some people just love any excuse to express a little good old fashioned righteous indignation. There's nothing people today love better than being offended.
> "If there was such a law, they can arrest them merely for wearing the masks."
ReplyDelete> Let's be honest, what can be the reasons for concealing your face in a civilized country, amidst a demonstration of thousands? Except if you want to break the law (vandalism, pillage, assault) without being identifyable on camera?
Well, now there was strike in France for many months against government reforms on universities that were done quite without consulting universities and something about 80% of the universities were on strike for four month. Not much in the newspapers, at least not the reasons and the expected outcome of the reforms.
These were not vandal demonstrations, yet some local "leaders" were threatened, for example beaten by the police and then accused of having beaten the police (a case I know personally).
There was one case of vandalism done by people masked, (no connection with education demonstrations) as far as I remember from the news... And a lot of peaceful demonstrations. I think if they could pass the law that you are not allowed to demonstrate with a covered face, yet they have the right to cover their face, not to take your deposition if you go to the police for having been agressed by the police... It is quite disturbing.
All this comes in an atmosphere where freedom of speech is beginning to be threatened in France.
Gee, Anonymous – Seems to me you’re expressing a bit of a righteous indignation kind of a mood yourself by getting upset about my comment. Your comment added ‘so much’ to the debate (That’s all you got? Pascal shames you here). Sounds like you’re the one who’s offended. Maybe that’s because you’re someone who loves to cover up? As in Anonymous?
ReplyDeleteRight on James: "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss (dish) people." - Lawrence Peter
ReplyDelete"Not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, eh Jimbo? Didn't exactly think that one through now did you?"
ReplyDelete[A-hem!] I'm afraid you forgot the second half of your comment there. You know, the part where you proceed to explain WHY exactly you deem that statement to be dumb?... A.k.a. the "reasoned" part?
Even if you seem in agreement with what *I* argumented about special police forces, the proper civil way on blog discussions is to expand ideas, not just merely "reacting to reactions".
Let's not turn THIS thread into a battlefield of masked urban guerilla. ;-)
"(That’s all you got? Pascal shames you here)."
Well, James, you might disagree with me on some of the discussion's point, but you sure know how to be fair! :-)
Anna testified...
"These were not vandal demonstrations, yet some local "leaders" were threatened, for example beaten by the police and then accused of having beaten the police (a case I know personally)."
That's quite possible. Black sheep can exist among the Police just as among demonstrators. But in a proper regime, you can:
- Expose all of this in the media, a reasonable proportion of which is free and independant.
- Go to the courts, which (I hope) can usually be fair.
- Go to the European courts if your country is wronging you. (Score one major point for the Union!)
Anyhow, the (very real) issue of police brutality and power abuse isn't exactly relevant to the topic of masks. It's a different matter. Not denying it exists in France (it does), but let's stay on-topic.
In the Wild West, there were two instances where people used their scarf to cover their face:
- During a dust storm. (Reminds me of the original goal of ski masks. :-)
- To commit a crime, like rob a stage coach or bank.
Should I remind you how Talibans typically commit their kamikaze bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Almost every time opportune, by disguising themselves as women under a burqa! Imagine, a disguise so convenient, you can pass for a woman without shaving your foot-long beard!
In France, and -let's admit it- most Western countries, every time there is a demonstration, it can be the opportunity for totally unrelated gangs of vandals to sneak in the crowd and then start causing havok. Often with masks. Outlawing them is, I believe, protecting the civic rights of the true demonstrators to use this democratic right of theirs without fearing violence outbusts. Many demonstrations include mothers and their young children. Should they fear the disturbingly frequent drift into urban guerilla? Such anarchy (= excessive liberty) only threatens their civilized freedom to demonstrate.
Just like the lawless Wild West genuinely needed to be tamed, at least a bit.
[Cont'd]
[Part 2 of 2]
ReplyDeleteYou know, I remember V for Vendetta. And how the masks were a vital means to go around the complete absence of liberties in a dictatorship. Methinks such is not the case in France. I follow its news closely. So far, freedom of speech seems rather excessive to me (lots of dumb statements and hollow banter) than declining. I'd rather it be excessive. Do you have any idea of all that's being said about Sarkozy today? If half of it were true, if he were such a horrible dictator wannabe as is being claimed quite loud, he'd prohibit all media to keep it from being said! Only in a free country can it still be said nevertheless...
In France, you can make very fierce caricatures of the Pope or the President, and not have the slightest worry about any consequences. Have you heard the satires of comedian Anne Roumanoff? "Grumpy of the Seven Dwarves married Snow White", "Mr tiny sausage"... If someone spoke that way of the President in an arab country, they'd sleep in jail the same night!
I have to entirely disagree with you there, Anna: occasional abuses in the System (which need to be relentless fought) do not mean that freedom of speech is declining in France. Its main official limitation, is apology of or incitation to crime and/or racial hate. The book written by the Doctor of late Pres. Mitterrand was forbidden by a court order, yes, but only because of the argument that it violated medical professional secrecy. I, as a Doctor, tend to disagree with THAT ruling (harmless stuff about a now defunct person), but it was upholding the law. If a non-Doctor had written the exact same stuff, the book would be in all the stores. Attempts to ban biographies are seldom successful in France, with the exception of slander. (Or should I say "libel", since it's in writing.)
For the occasional abuses of law enforcers, see above. They shall always be possible, anywhere! Democratic responses do exist. You're not any less free of your speech in France than in the USA. In fact, more so. You make a cartoon of Jesus Christ ass-fucking the President, it's VERY tasteless, AND it's obscene, and also blasphemous, but it's not illegal. You're just required to limit pornographic or highly violent material to the viewing of adults.
Ever heard of "immorality" trials in France? Like criminalizing Lisa Simpson porn? Me neither.
A most popular puppet satire show (Les Guignols) portrayed Sarkosy being chased by then-President Putin wielding a chainsaw: "I spoke with him about human rights in Russia, he didn't seem one bit upset." No consequences for the show.
A while ago, voodoo puppets of Sarkozy and his left-wing political opponent were marketed. Sarkozy sued to have their sale forbidden, pleading abuse of his image and copy rights infringements. He lost. The end.
In contrast, when a popular satirical show in Lebanon dared SHOW (not ridicule) an actor playing the Hezbollah leader, riots started IMMEDIATELY because of "insult to a religious figure". (Hassan Nasrallah is both a political and religious leader.) Nasrallah himself ordered his zealous supporters to pipe it down, but the show was suspended for several weeks.
Just to give some perspective about "free countries".
No regime is perfect. But let us know what imperfections are democratically worrying.
Joanne,
Good one!
But small minds also typically discuss sports. ;-)
Correction: in proper English legal terms, I probably should have written
ReplyDelete"Sarkozy sued to have their sale forbidden, pleading image infringement."
Gee, Anonymous – Seems to me you’re expressing a bit of a righteous indignation kind of a mood yourself by getting upset about my comment. Your comment added ‘so much’ to the debate (That’s all you got? Pascal shames you here). Sounds like you’re the one who’s offended. Maybe that’s because you’re someone who loves to cover up? As in Anonymous?
ReplyDeleteI figured it was obvious to everyone else why the police might have a reason to do that. You really can't see why that might be? Really?
As for being offended, your special kind of gross stupidity is a bit offensive, yes.
Case in point, that tired bit about anonymity. Have you revealed anything at all about yourself by calling yourself "James"? James what? Create an account and post your email address and if you have it a website with an indepth biography. Just to put me and all my anonymous buddies in their place.
Right on James: "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss (dish) people." - Lawrence Peter
ReplyDeleteOf course, the lowest of the low are those who let other people do their thinking for them in the form of quotations.
[A-hem!] I'm afraid you forgot the second half of your comment there. You know, the part where you proceed to explain WHY exactly you deem that statement to be dumb?... A.k.a. the "reasoned" part?
ReplyDeleteAs I said above, I really thought it was obvious to everyone except Jimbo why the police might have a reason to do that. You know, the SAS do the same thing. I wonder why.
I expect a bit more from you than the idiocy of Jimbo. At least you have an account and we know something about your identity. Yes, I know, I'm anonymous. But I'm upfront about that - I don't put in some common name like James and think I'm someone no longer anonymous.
"somehow no longer anonymous"
ReplyDeleteJoanne - Thanks for the interesting quote - it appears Anonymous just proved it to be true!
ReplyDeleteJoanne - Thanks for the interesting quote - it appears Anonymous just proved it to be true!
ReplyDeleteYou must be referring to yourself there, James, as you are (as I pointed out) anonymous. Nice try, though. (Well, not really.) You know what you've just done, though? I know, you need me to point it out. You've just attacked the person rather than his arguments. What do they call that? Never mind. You wouldn't know.
I do kind of feel bad, pointing out your many shortcomings.
"your special kind of gross stupidity is a bit offensive"
ReplyDeleteStupidity is a condition.
Ignorance is a choice.
Tell me, young Padawan, which is more offensive?
"the lowest of the low are those who let other people do their thinking for them in the form of quotations."
Take wisdom even from the madman's mouth. (Arab proverb)
Tell me, young ninja turtle, are proverbs also brainwashing if you have thought them through?
Judge ideas, not people. (Masteress Pursah)
Some quotes I have heard, of course, are not all that wise. For example:
"FART!" (Anonymous)
Flatulences may be fun -and a great relief- but they are not very deep in wisdom.
I shall leave you now (for my meditation) with an off-topic but nice Chinese proverb:
"Better to live in a straw house where there is laughter than in a weeping palace."
A screen name helps know who you're talking to when there are several anonymous comments.
ReplyDeleteThis is precisely why I'm not using one: just to annoy Eolake and Pascal. And Jimbo, of course.
"I'm no pretender."
That's a load of baloney, Yet Another. I don't see how anybody could mistake me for any of the above guys.
ReplyDeleteThen again, you always were the weakest link in our Monad, weren't you? The spoon in the knives drawer.
You fools! Don't you see they're playing you against each other?
ReplyDelete[Aaaarrrrrgh!] I knew I should have given you serial numbers, like Hydra and Kobra.
The fine law-abiding folks were always grateful every time we unmasked one of them no-good trolls, ghosts, alien invader clones and other monsters. The four of us fully believe in the Law protecting the principle of citizen arrest. Right, Scoob'?
ReplyDeleteThe Wise Man - Thanks for the quotes (never heard them before). I'll take good thoughts on how to to think and live right wherever, whenever and from whoever I can get them!
ReplyDelete[Enigmatic Asian smile]
ReplyDeleteThe pearls of wisdom are not always wasted on hogs.
The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.
A good journey is its own reward.
If the nearsighted ant could see the Moon, perhaps it would dream of the stars.
"Ooh, I've got a million of them!" (Alf)
"A great many people mistake opinions for thoughts."
ReplyDeleteHerbert Victor Prochnow
This has gone way off-topic, but with some interesting stuff! :-)
ReplyDeleteHeard this yesterday in a news report on Yemen: terrorists there are, today, posing a big problem by disguising themselves as women, which no policeman or soldier dare search. And then "kaboom!"
It's becoming awfully cliché...
Yemen authorities, who of course cannot even consider the idea of changing the dress code in that most "conservative" country (birth land of Osama's daddy), responded by creating a "special Special Forces" feminine unit. Army uniforms, and a mere "ski mask" cowl on their head. Which is rather daring attire, but highly functional! (Their C.O. didn't even wear a cowl, wow, hot-hot-hot!)
The, um, "divine freedom fighters" counter-responded by targeting that feminine unit with suicide-bombing attacks.
You can understand their feeling: these women are unfair cheating tactics ruining their sportive-spirited clever technique of feminine disguises!
I guess these deep believers only consider it impure for a man to wear women's clothes if said man is gay?...
Yemen also happens to produce the world's absolutely most renowned honey, from the Al-Shifa Valley. You can find it in any Lebanese supermarket.
Could all that tribal strife be about NOT the full-body veil, but actually about control of the honey?
"What do you think, honey?"