Almost there. . .

Man do I need a weekend. Renegades at home against the Stamps, band has a gig. . . it should be a good one.

Those cheese-eating surrender monkeys are on to something
There’s an opinion piece by Daniel Pipes in the Post today that really made my head hurt. The Post didn’t put it online, but you can read it here. It starts out logically enough, saying that Britain has been too leniant on terrorists compared to France. Fair enough. He cites several sources to back up his point and offers concrete examples.

Then he moves onto his praise for France’s draconian anti-terror laws, which permit interrogation without a lawyer, lengthy pre-trial incarcerations, and evidence acquired under dubious circumstance. I wouldn’t call those good things, given that they run contrary to accepted standards of justice and the rule of law, but he’s welcome to that opinion.

Where it really goes off the rails is when he cites the French hijab ban as proof that France is harder on terrorism. Rather than cite examples and sources to back up his conclusions (as he did earlier in the piece), Pipes adopts the mind-boggling tactic of listing examples of how the French hijab ban pissed off Islamic fundamentalists, yet then argues that France is less vulnerable to terrorism.

His conclusion: “The British have seemingly lost interest in their heritage while the French hold on to theirs: As the British ban fox hunting, the French ban hijabs. The former embrace multiculturalism, the latter retain a pride in their historic culture. This contrast in matters of identity makes Britain the Western country most vulnerable to the ravages of radical Islam whereas France, for all its political failings, has held on to a sense of self that may yet see it through.”

So, he’s saying that multi-culturalism and a sense of tolerance makes you more vulnerable? I don’t see how that follows. And since he doesn’t bother to explain the link, I’ll just have to assume he’s full of crap.

It’s worth noting that Pipes gets a lot of play in right-wing papers around the world. He’s not just some schmuck. According to his website, he’s an expert on radical Islam. Makes me wish he could formulate an argument a little better.

That’s it?
Pretty much. It was a damn slow news day and I’m still not feeling so great. Lack of sleep and extreme heat don’t make for an insightful Joe.

Before I go though, I want to direct you all to the Star’s Carol Goar today. She weighs in on the debate we had on Megalomedia earlier this week about mankind’s capacity to care. The Star requires a subscription, but if you click here, Google News will get you around that.

I’m on the MediaScout tomorrow, but I’ll try to save a few delicious insights for you here. And I have to post this link again. Scott McClellan is such a weasel.


  1. This is re: today’s MediaScout post – they don’t seem to have a “feedback line” like this, so I’m givin’ ‘er to you, Joe. So… the writer today was critical of Ujjal Dosanjh for not stepping in and saying anything about Ralph Klein’s plan to offer the option of paying for non-essential procedure. The thing is, the Minister is damned if he DOES say something because, like it or not, health is Constitutionally an issue of provincial jurisdiction. That’s all there is. The feds get kicked in the teeth all the time for interfering, so U.D. is actually in a fairly difficult position. Not to be too defensive or anything, but sometimes the federal angle is not the trump card.

  2. If you email “” that’ll get it to the right people. It’s the link you get if you click on the writer’s name at the bottom of the MediaScout email. And Phil (the MediaScout head honcho) typically emails out the comments we get, so the writer will see it.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *