April 4, 2007

Nancy Pelosi covers her head and visits the head of John the Baptist.

So Nancy Pelosi is visiting Syria, and President Bush is calling it "unhelpful." There's plenty of political theater here. The most telling fact, in my view, is that Republican members of Congress have gone to Syria too. So I'm not getting roped in by this little politidrama.

Much is being made of a photograph of Pelosi wearing a scarf on her head -- "Pelosi in Hijab" -- as she goes to visit a mosque that houses the head of the beheaded saint, John the Baptist. Is she bowing to Muslim oppression? She's wearing the scarf folded and tied under the chin in a style long used by American women. The mosque is the one Pope John Paul II visited. And it's a Christian tradition for women to cover their heads. In the words of St. Paul:
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious— we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)
You may not like that. I don't. But, clearly, headcovering is not just a Muslim thing. But even if it were, showing respect for the traditions of a place of worship you want to enter is completely appropriate. It's not as if she were asked to denounce Christianity to enter the mosque. The mosque was open to her as a place to worship a Christian relic, and she made the sign of the cross in there.

ADDED: Pelosi also wore an abaya. Not a Christian tradition. She also shook hands with the women inside and "watch[ed]" the men.

YET MORE: Here's Amanda Marcotte's summary of this post: "Ann Althouse wants Pelosi to be a little bit more of a sexbot." Whaa? Marcotte seems to be pulling in signals from outer space. Just flat out nutty, Amanda. Or did you even read this post? (Loser.)

AND: Amanda tries to cover up her blundering and I respond to that here.

238 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 238 of 238
Luckyoldson said...

Pogo,
Well, then you just keep on suckin', dude.

But you might also look up the word "sycophant."

Pogo said...

"sycophant"

What's funny is that Revenant hates me only slightly less than he hates you. I don't believe he can be sucked up to.

But you'll find that out if you stick around. Anyway, I'm glad we're in agreement about excluding non-soldiers from offering opinions on matters military. Who will be able to speak for the Democrats now, though?

Revenant said...

As for Vietnam, anybody who's ever read a book relating to the history of the war and it's execution knows that the "anti-war" crowd didn't get anybody killed.

People who have read *a* book on Vietnam might "know" that, if the book in question was written by Noam Chomsky.

It is, however, a historical fact that by the time of the American withdraw the communist insurgency had been crushed and the North Vietnamese army was in bad shape. South Vietnam did an excellent job of defending itself -- until anti-war Americans got its funding cut, leaving it facing a Soviet-backed enemy all by itself. The aforementioned deaths of millions and enslavement of tens of millions more inevitably followed, as it typically had in the past.

Revenant said...

What's funny is that Revenant hates me only slightly less than he hates you.

I do not "hate" you, Pogo, I just vehemently disagree with several of your viewpoints.

But certainly the notion that you're a sycophant of mine is good for a belly-laugh or two.

Luckyoldson said...

revenant,
You are something else!!

When you say, "South Vietnam did an excellent job of defending itself -- until anti-war Americans got its funding cut"...exactly how long did you feel we should stay, how much should we have spent...how many American lives should we have lost??

I mean, hell, we were only there from 1954 UNTIL 1975. (And by the way...there are ALL kinds of books that have been written about Vietnam, from every imaginable vantage point...good, bad and ugly.)

But, I suppose you're one of those gungho dudes who is still convinced that if we had just stuck around for another decade or so...we would have won...we really, really would have...really.

* And by the way, I've been to Ho Chi Min City on business many times and whenever I find myself in conversation (with people who were right there in the middle of the entire disgusting affair)...one question always comes up: what made us think American could step in and solve Vietnam's problems??

Well, I always tell them it's called imperialism...and it ain't pretty...for anybody involved.

* Oh, and by the way, if you want to read an insightful book about our new and not the least bit improved imperialistic venture, read "Fiasco."

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo,
When I referred to you as a sycophant, I meant it in relation to Bush and his neocon buddies.

As for revenant, he's merely an unpaid voice of right wing lunacy.

*I know...he says he doesn't like Bush, but that's a crock.

Revenant said...

When I referred to you as a sycophant, I meant it in relation to Bush and his neocon buddies.

Wow, deja vu.

I think what Lucky means, Pogo, is that if you suck up to me you'll wind up stuck in Iraq -- just ask President Bush.

Unfortunately, he botched the joke. :)

Luckyoldson said...

revenant,
"I think what Lucky means, Pogo, is that if you suck up to me you'll wind up stuck in Iraq -- just ask President Bush."
Unfortunately, he botched the joke. :)

Again, I have NO idea what sucking up to you or Bush has to do with being "stuck in Iraq"...say what?

I think you should consider working on those communication skills.

Then again, maybe you just don't know what sycophant means.

Revenant said...

I mean, hell, we were only there from 1954 UNTIL 1975.

Our troops were withdrawn from South Vietnam in early 1973. Your allegedly copious knowledge of American involvement in the war would be a little more impressive if you actually knew when it had happened.

I'd also like to point out that a whopping 641 Americans died in Vietnam in 1972, the last full year of our military involvement. At the time of our abandonment of the South Vietnamese the American death rate had been dropping like a rock for four years, from its peak of 16,592 recorded deaths in 1968. During that entire time we routinely killed an order of magnitude more invading troops than we lost of our own, which is why the death toll for the war stands at 1.1 million for the NVA/VC and less than 60,000 for the USA. During that time the North Vietnamese made no inroads into conquering South Vietnam. They won only after we (a) left and (b) cut off all aid to the South Vietnamese military.

And by the way, I've been to Ho Chi Min City on business many times and whenever I find myself in conversation (with people who were right there in the middle of the entire disgusting affair)

Congrats on toadying up to the victors in the conflict. The people I know who were "right there in the middle of the entire disgusting affair" are Vietnamese living here in America -- because their relatives were killed or forced into camps by the same people whose cocks you flew halfway around the world to suck.

what made us think American could step in and solve Vietnam's problems??

We weren't trying to solve "Vietnam's problems". We were trying to solve one specific problem of the country of South Vietnam, which is that it was being invaded by the Soviet-backed nation to the north. What made us think that we could solve that problem is that we had solved the exact same kind of problem many times in the recent past.

That problem having been solved, South Vietnam would undoubtedly have faced many other problems on its own, just as South Korea did. But those problems would have been much smaller ones, with much smaller consequences to both America and to the South Vietnamese.

Revenant said...

Again, I have NO idea what sucking up to you or Bush has to do with being "stuck in Iraq"...say what?

Try googling the words in the joke and see if you can figure it out. Hint: it centers around covering up for a dumb remark by pretending you meant something completely different.

Roger said...

lucky: you may use the term "imperialism," but I dont believe you understand it.

Pogo said...

Luckyoldson
Try Kerry botched joke stuck in Iraq.
Or just keep typing.
Same thing.

Luckyoldson said...

Revenant,
Be careful with Pogo: "FDA: Now pet chews could contain salmonella."

Joe said...

So HDHouse looked up my profile just so he could make a personal attack on me? What a fucking douchebag. Plus he is in advertising, and has the balls to put me down because I am a prosecutor? Hey HD, get a clue. I actually do something productive and beneficial to society, why don't you get a real job?
Douchebag.

The Exalted said...

Revenant said...
As for Vietnam, anybody who's ever read a book relating to the history of the war and it's execution knows that the "anti-war" crowd didn't get anybody killed.

People who have read *a* book on Vietnam might "know" that, if the book in question was written by Noam Chomsky.


noted extremist lefty pacifist robert mcnamara concluded that the vietnam war was a colossal mistake and was more or less lost from the get go.

South Vietnam did an excellent job of defending itself -- until anti-war Americans got its funding cut, leaving it facing a Soviet-backed enemy all by itself.

thats rich -- the north vietnamese weren't defeated when we maintained troop levels of 500,000 and bombed north vietnam into oblivion, but a few hundred million dollars in 1975 lost the war? get real.

During that entire time we routinely killed an order of magnitude more invading troops than we lost of our own, which is why the death toll for the war stands at 1.1 million for the NVA/VC and less than 60,000 for the USA.

to not point out the 1 million + south vietnamese losses in this context makes you a hack.

Luckyoldson said...

revenant,
You REALLY need to get yourself an education. Your perspective on Vietnam is so out of touch with the reality of what we now know it's laughable. (Have you ever actually READ anything about the Vietnam War??)

Oh, and by the way:
1. Almost all U.S. military personnel departed after the Paris Peace Accords of 1973. The last American troops left the country on April 30, 1975.

2. "Congrats on toadying up to the victors in the conflict. The people I know who were "right there in the middle of the entire disgusting affair" are Vietnamese living here in America..."
*Total bullshit, as usual...unless of course, you actually think everybody in South Vietnam moved to America......and that it was the SOUTH VIETNAMESE wo we were fighting. (Do you know the difference between North and South?? - DUH.)

3. "the same people whose cocks you flew halfway around the world to suck."
*Soooooo, the South Vietnamese are our enemies, huh? (My God...YOU ARE that dumb.)

4."We weren't trying to solve "Vietnam's problems. We were trying to solve one specific problem of the country of South Vietnam, which is that it was being invaded by the Soviet-backed nation to the north."
*No, it was actually based on the inane and thoroughly ridiculous, "Domino Theory."

A suggestion: Read more...talk less. (Maybe you can buy your little buddy Pogo a coloring book, too.)

Pogo said...

The "Domino Theory" referred precisely to Soviet-backed communist expansion, lucky.

The refugees to the US came primarily from So. Vietnam, as well as from other victims of the Communists, including the Hmong and Cambodians.

Luckyoldson said...

revenant:
How does this stack up to your inane Vietnam conclusions:

From Kissenger and Nixon: Partners In Power,

Using language that has a painfully contemporary echo, Kissinger and Nixon very quickly came to private conclusions about Vietnam that they never revealed publicly and denied entertaining. "In Saigon the tendency is to fight the war to victory," Nixon told Kissinger, according to the transcript of a 1969 phone conversation.

"But you and I know it won't happen—it is impossible."

Even so, according to Haldeman's unpublished diaries, Nixon later urged that Democratic critics making this same point should be labeled..."the party of surrender."

When someone told Kissinger that Nixon could not be re-elected, because of Vietnam, he disputed it and added, according to a memo of a conversation, that "anytime we want to get out of Vietnam we can," and that "we will get out of Vietnam before the [1972] election."

Nixon wanted to plan the removal of all U.S. troops by the end of 1971, but Kissinger cautioned that, if North Vietnam then de-stabilized Saigon during the following year, events could have an adverse effect on the president's campaign. According to Haldeman's diaries, Kissinger advocated a pullout in the fall of 1972..."so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election."

He apparently had nothing to say about the American lives that would be lost by deliberately prolonging the war. Just before a peace treaty was signed, Kissinger in a phone conversation advised Nixon against stating that this was a "lasting peace or guaranteed peace because this thing is almost certain to blow up sooner or later."

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo,
I know all about the Vietnam refugees, but I guarantee you that, regardless of what your guru, revenant says...they ALL didn't come to America. (I would guess the number would be somewhere in the vicinity of 1,000,000...with about 84,000,000 still living in Vietnam.)

And if you were to read a few history books, you'd know that the Domino Theory was proven to be a crock.

Pogo said...

"the Domino Theory was proven to be a crock."
After the U.S. left Vietnam, the Communists of the North conquered the South, and the Communist government remains in power today.

The communist rule of Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979 further supports the theory.

Communism did not take hold in Thailand or Indonesia, but during the 1970s there was a global expansion of communism in Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua. The majority were backed by the Soviets and Cuba.

Not a crock. Arguable whether or not regionally supporting Vietnam would have been successful. No way to know now, since we left 3 million to be murdered because we chickened out.

And don't be such a prick; it's hardly necessary. We're just bitching on a blog for chrissakes.

The Exalted said...

Pogo said...
"the Domino Theory was proven to be a crock."
After the U.S. left Vietnam, the Communists of the North conquered the South, and the Communist government remains in power today.

The communist rule of Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979 further supports the theory.

Communism did not take hold in Thailand or Indonesia, but during the 1970s there was a global expansion of communism in Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua. The majority were backed by the Soviets and Cuba.


the domino theory concerned southeast asia, your other examples are totally irrelevant.

and we could care less if cambodia turned communist, the real angst generated from the domino theory was malaysia, indonesia and india falling into communism. obviously, that didn't happen. i suggest reading mcnamara's memoirs.

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo says: "And don't be such a prick; it's hardly necessary. We're just bitching on a blog for chrissakes."

Ohhhh, really?

But when you say: "And I can criticize you for doing so, including calling you anti-American."

You don't consider calling someone un-American...being a "prick?"

Glass houses and all that...

Luckyoldson said...

roger,
What exactly is it you think I don't understand about "imperialism"...especially in regards to Vietnam and Iraq?

imperialism: "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence."

Seems fairly clear.

Pogo said...

Re: You don't consider calling someone un-American...being a "prick?"

No, not if they are being anti-American. What should I call anti-american behavior?

But repeatedly impugning someone's education is just juvenile., i.e., being a prick.

Exalted, again, that's not an unfair assessment. However, some people view the Domino threory as exclusively regional, others see it globally.

By the former, it was partially right, by the latter, quite correct. But whether losing Vietnam would have secured us anywhere else is a valid point.

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo,
Show me where I have ever been "anti-American."

Also, when you say "But repeatedly impugning someone's education is just juvenile., i.e., being a prick."

Well, I'm basing those comments on the fact that your postings illustrate either a lack of education or experience.

Anybody who's still blathering on about the Domino Theory or referring to those who disagree with administration policies and the situation in Iraq as being "anti-America" is out of touch with reality...unless of course you feel the other 65% of America who also disapprove of Bush's performance as President, the 65% who disapprove of his handling of Iraq or the 59% that approve of a troop withdrawal by 2008...also "anti-American."

Pogo said...

Re: "Anybody who's still blathering on about the Domino Theory..."

Jayzuz Christ on roller skates, lucky, you brought that up yourself.

Your entire exposition is un-american, not by lacking support for the current administration, but by failing to demonstrate any support for the US in any way. Every point you make is how the US gets it wrong. You can call that whatever you want, but absent some declaration of whose side you're actually on, I cannot distinguish your material from Chomsky's.

And fine, hate America. Just don't get torqued when I point it out.

And again, blow the "I'm smarter than you" blather out your ass, please; such pedantry is a colossal bore.

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo,
"by failing to demonstrate any support for the US in any way..."

I support the US, it's the Bush administration's performance I do not support.

As in: Skewing intelligence, not planning for the aftermath of the invasion, there not being WMD, chemical wagons, links to 9/11, links to Osama, Halliburton's war profiteering, the missing 8 billion dollars, torture, suspension of habeus corpus, Katrina, Walter Reed, etc.

Exactly what is it about this administration that you feel warrants my support???

And what is it YOU apparently think is so good??

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo,
By the way...you haven't provided any relevant posting where I show a lack of support for America.

Pogo said...

Re: "you haven't provided any relevant posting where I show a lack of support for America."

After reviewing your posts again, I'll let it stand. If that represents your kind of 'support', I'll just hope you don't make buildings, bras, or human pyramids. About as useful as 'support' from France or Jane Fonda.

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo:
You compare me to Jane Fonda and France...and wonder why I think you're mentally deficient?

*Oh, and speaking of "supporting America," why not crack open a history book and read about France and our Revolutionary War.

Pogo said...

Re: "France and our Revolutionary War"

Yes, indeed, they were once a great people.
And that's all gone now. Pity.
Now mendacious and untrustworthy, and unable to defend themselves. Hell, theyre so weak and indifferent to their own fate, they can't even reproduce in sufficinet numbers to keep their bloated welfare state afloat. What kind of people commit suicide en masse like that? And they won't enjoy being ruled by their Muslim "youths".

Truly sad.

Luckyoldson said...

Well, I guess we can all assume Pogo has never been to France.

*They can't defend themselves? Duh

Read more...talk less.

The Exalted said...

Hell, theyre so weak and indifferent to their own fate, they can't even reproduce in sufficinet numbers to keep their bloated welfare state afloat. What kind of people commit suicide en masse like that?

this is a matter of simple economics, a wealth effect. more affluent societies have lower birthrates. you should check out the reproduction rate for caucasians in the united states, its right at 2.0 or 2.1, and that number has been on a steady downward trend. if not for the tremendous immigration to the united states, we would shortly be in the same shrinking boat as the "weak and indifferent" europeans.

Pogo said...

Re: "more affluent societies have lower birthrates."
Correct, to a point.
At this rate the US will be able to meet its welfare needs.
Not the French, English, Spaniards, or Italians. Their birthrate is below replacement levels.

Except for the Muslims. Lotsa kids being born in the EU for Islam.

Re: "Duh"
Is that supposed to be a substantive response?

Jacques Albert said...

Luckyoldson:

On Vietnam, just two sentences:

A combination of cowardly and self-serving institutions, e.g., craven university administrators, leftist faculty and students who declined the danger, inconvenience and ordered life of military service (all the while parroting high-sounding "principles" against the war), gravel-voiced major media defeatists and meretricious Hollywood degenerates like Jane Fonda (who, as our Vietnam-era Tokyo Rose, a mon avis, should've stood trial for treason that cost American lives) helped sink our war effort in Vietnam.

Noam "Hate America" Chomsky (a hypocritical millionaire several times over who attacks capitalism and roots for the most savage of leftist dictatorships), whose political pin-up boy for a time was the maniacal mass murderer Pol Pot, who smilingly killed a quarter of his people and devastated its land, had his malevolent effect as well.

Now with Nancy "Moneybags" Pelosi, whose viscerally anti-military constituency in San Francisco mandates our defeat and our disarmnament, the superannuated hipsters in her district have their second chance to fancy themselves heroes again . . .

Jacques Albert said...

Correction: "Three sentences"--but I could follow with dozens more . . .

Luckyoldson said...

Jacques Albert,
Oh, okay...we'll get right on that treason trial, etc.

Old, old, old bullshit.

Adrisa said...

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."[b] 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Galatians 3:1
Mark 7:1 to 7:20
20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Just a little more intresting reading.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 238 of 238   Newer› Newest»