January 10, 2018

Big and small: compare all those glamorous actresses in black at the Golden Globes to this one woman.

71 comments:

Big Mike said...

That’s what genuine courage looks like.

Tommy Duncan said...

Sort of brings "metoo" back to its immature grade school roots.

brylun said...

That couldn't be Inga.

Rusty said...

Code pink conspicuously absent.
Thank god Obama is no longer president. With our support these people may actually succeed in liberalizing their government.

sparrow said...

Bravo: the contrast puts it all in perspective.

exhelodrvr said...

So whose policies actually accomplish more for women? Democrats, or Republicans?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

That couldn't be Inga.

You guys are so childish with your constant off-topic personal potshots at Inga. Give it a goddamn rest. It's boring, lame, and dickish.

As to the video, but wait I thought Halle Berry with her tits on display was the epitome of courage. I'm so confused!

Oso Negro said...

And Catherine Deneuve plus 99 other French women denounced the hysteria of the "Reckoning" and championed the right of men to hit on women! A great news day.

rehajm said...

There isn't equivalency so I don't care for the comparison. I do hope the white, black, pink brigade will settle down on the colors as the public rejects color coded information.

Darkisland said...

How about compare her to Operah.

What has Operah done to compare to this. When has she put herself at risk like this?

It takes some courage to do this. Unlike those courageous antefa folks, she doesn't even hide her face

Operah: Greatest American?

John Henry

rhhardin said...

It might just be pissed off, not courage.

Sebastian said...

One group wants women to be secure, the other wants women to be free.

One group wants to accommodate muzzies, the other wants to rein them in.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

You guys are so childish with your constant off-topic personal potshots at Inga. Give it a goddamn rest. It's boring, lame, and dickish.

This

As to the video, but wait I thought Halle Berry with her tits on display was the epitome of courage.

Link please.

Mac McConnell said...

Halle Barry gets paid to display her engineered tits. Not that I'm complaining.

Ralph L said...

She was having a good hair day.

Patrick said...

Couldn't have said it better myself, Pants. Sometimes this place needs a bouncer to tell people to take it outside. Good on you for bringing it up.

The Drill SGT said...

Bravo!!

Ralph L said...

Brava!

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

With our support these people may actually succeed in liberalizing their government.

Even if some concessions are won (which remains to be seen), I think they would all fall very very short of "liberalizing their government." Plus, even if Iran became more democratic, I do not see how that would do much for the American perspective. A democratic Iran would still be opposed to Israeli policies, still likely support Hezbollah, and still want a domestic nuclear energy production capacity. Plus, it does seem a tad bit hypocritical on our part considering our entire strategic arrangement in the middle east consists of partnering, supporting, and empowering illiberal autocratic forces who keep a tight lid on populist rebellions in their respective countries.

Fernandistein said...

Big Mike said...
That’s what genuine courage looks like.


I thought it looked like a pair of tights, or maybe a sweater.

hawkeyedjb said...

All those glamorous actresses in black couldn't care less about this woman. She doesn't represent an opportunity to criticize America or Donald Trump, or fight The Patriarchy, so she's little more than an annoyance.

Greg said...

Obviously since the protests are only about the economy, and the economic problems are 100% caused by global warming, she is just fanning herself because it's too hot

Leslie Graves said...

That's so great. Love that video. Thanks for finding and sharing.

Inga said...

Incredibly brave! Now if hundreds of thousandsof Iranian women do the same, that would be displaying the power of women rallying for a common purpose. It’s wonderful to see women starting to see the possibility of freedom.

Inga said...

Thank you Pants, that took some bravery on your part.❤️

n.n said...

It's over once they do the feminist Slut Walk. That's the beginning of eyes wide shut for political, financial, social, and Democrat progress. They may also want to hold an abortion rite or two in order to affirm their progressive religion. Hopefully, rational and reasonable minds will prevail.

Gahrie said...

There are times I think J. Farmer is actually an Iranian mullah typing from an internet café in Tehran.

F said...

I think the Democratic women should wear black except for pink pussy hats. That would REALLY make a statement!

William said...

The Muslim women here should take off their hijabs to show solidarity with the women of Iran. Maybe wear sheer scarves or something.

exiledonmainstreet said...

William said...
The Muslim women here should take off their hijabs to show solidarity with the women of Iran."

When a young girl did so in Canada a few years ago, her father killed her.

Bill said...

Wow. God bless her.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

There are times I think J. Farmer is actually an Iranian mullah typing from an internet café in Tehran.

Well that's all well and good. Now explain what I said that was wrong or incorrect.

Gahrie said...


Well that's all well and good. Now explain what I said that was wrong or incorrect.

Well we could start with the idea that Iran's nuclear program has anything to do with the production of energy rather than the production of nuclear weapons.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Well we could start with the idea that Iran's nuclear program has anything to do with the production of energy rather than the production of nuclear weapons.

Iran's nuclear production capacity is broadly supported by the Iranian population. That was my point. As for your contention, there actually is not good evidence that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon currently and has not been for a number of years. Also, Iran's nuclear program is already more restricted than what it is permitted under the NPT, and Iran's entire fuel cycle is under IAEA monitoring, and all of their nuclear facilities are open to routine and on demand IAEA inspection.

Gahrie said...

As for your contention, there actually is not good evidence that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon currently and has not been for a number of years.

Riiiiight......

and the check is in the mail.

I control an account with $100 million dollars in it, that I am willing to split with you. I just need $10,000 in cash to pay some fees associated with the money. Contact me for the link to send the cash......

Big Mike said...

... there actually is not good evidence that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon ...

Minor correction. There is no good evidence that you are aware of ...

Even if you had access to classified CIA information, which I rather doubt, our intelligence agencies have been caught unawares time and time again, and particularly so in that corner of the world. I think it’s fair to assume that Trump has access to information you do not.

But there’s a deeper issue. When evaluating intelligence information one must evaluate what your adversary can, not merely what you think they will do.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Riiiiight......

As the philosopher David Lewis was fond of saying, "I don't know how to refute an incredulous stare." If you have actual evidence, please provide it.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

With our support these people may actually succeed in liberalizing their government.

Even if some concessions are won (which remains to be seen), I think they would all fall very very short of "liberalizing their government." Plus, even if Iran became more democratic, I do not see how that would do much for the American perspective. A democratic Iran would still be opposed to Israeli policies, still likely support Hezbollah, and still want a domestic nuclear energy production capacity. Plus, it does seem a tad bit hypocritical on our part considering our entire strategic arrangement in the middle east consists of partnering, supporting, and empowering illiberal autocratic forces who keep a tight lid on populist rebellions in their respective countries.

Your gratuitous assertions can be equally gratuitously denied.
Uh no.

Rusty said...

"Iran's nuclear production capacity is broadly supported by the Iranian population. That was my point. "

Wait. This is the same population held hostage by their own government and who, right this moment, are protesting said government?
Pardon my skepticism at yet another gratuitous assertion.

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

I think it’s fair to assume that Trump has access to information you do not.

Obama had access to information you did not; does that translate to supporting his foreign policy or his conclusions? I don't know about you, but I prefer to make up my own mind and don't rely that politicians simply know better than me. If Trump has information that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, that would be a major international scandal. There is no motive to keep that information quiet, since revealing it would help their cause of isolating and sanctioning Iran. Plus, Iran is under a strict monitoring and inspections regime. Even the Trump administration cannot point to a substantial violation of the JCPOA, which significantly limits Iran's breakout capacity.

The way argumentation normally works, if you want to make a claim (e.g. Iran is developing a nuclear weapon), it is up to you to provide some evidence for that claim. So, if you have any, please share it.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

Your gratuitous assertions can be equally gratuitously denied.

Well, let's see about my "gratuitous assertions." I said, "A democratic Iran would still be opposed to Israeli policies, still likely support Hezbollah, and still want a domestic nuclear energy production capacity."

"Overwhelming majorities of Iranians continue to say that it is very important for Iran to have a nuclear program. The nuclear program is seen as one of Iran’s greatest achievements."
-Iranian Public Opinion on the Nuclear Negotiations

"Almost 40 percent of the Iranian public agree that their country should recognize Israel, if Israel signs a peace treaty with the Palestinian and withdraws from Palestinian areas."

"3. Do you agree that our country should recognize Israel if it reaches a peace deal with the Palestinians?
Yes 15.3%
Yes, if Israel withdraw 20.8%
No 58.8%"

-IPS Survey of Iranian Public Opinion on its Nuclear Program, Recognition of Israel, Relations with the US, and the Removal of Sanctions

"Moreover, while three-fifths support aid to the anti-Israel Palestinian Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah Islamic resistance movements, three-fifths would also accept a two-state agreement between Israelis and Palestinians."
-Iran, Lebanon, Israelis and Palestinians: New IPI Opinion Polls

Rusty said...

let's see. A public opinion poll in a country where a difference of opinion from those approved by the state will get you jailed and maybe tortured.
Sure.
I'm totally taking that at face value.
(sarc. off)

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

A public opinion poll in a country where a difference of opinion from those approved by the state will get you jailed and maybe tortured.

With all due respect, you seem to have strong opinions about a country that you know almost nothing about. There are no monolithic opinions that are "approved by the state," because there is not even a monolithic state in Iran but rather factional power centers concentrated in various areas. There are a wide range of opinions among powerful figures in Iran, and that range is reflected among the population.

So, just to take the last example I gave, " three-fifths would also accept a two-state agreement between Israelis and Palestinians." Do you consider that an opinion "approved by the state?" If not, then how do you explain nearly 60% of respondents endorsing it?

Again, Rusty, you're free to whatever opinion you like, but you actually need to provide evidence if you want to make an empirical claim. Perhaps you can explain to us how you have any opinion about what Iranians think about anything.

Rusty said...

"Again, Rusty, you're free to whatever opinion you like, but you actually need to provide evidence if you want to make an empirical claim."

As do you. A public opinion survey taken in a totalitarian state is not objective and is not empirical.

"With all due respect, you seem to have strong opinions about a country that you know almost nothing about."

I know it is a totalitarian state and assertions as to the objectivity of its citizens is suspect. If the peoples opinions were important to the state the people wouldn't be demonstrating today.

Unless you have inside information as to the workings of the Iranian state you are just offering up your opinions as well.


Birkel said...

Smug,

I thought you had called yourself an atheist at some point.

Why, then, do you misspell the Army of God like you do?

It's Hez b'Allah.

One might imagine a pedant such as yourself would want to use the proper spelling.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

As do you. A public opinion survey taken in a totalitarian state is not objective and is not empirical.

Opinion polling is done in Iran and other parts of the Middle East all the time. And concerns that you raised are addressed routinely. So, for example, from the first report I linked to:

"Concerned with the possibility that respondents might have systematically held back their own true opinions and, instead, provided answers in line with positions articulated in Iranian state-owned news media, CISSM conducted an analysis to see what proportion of the sample systematically provided responses that were in line with the stated positions of the Iranian government. The analysis found that only 9% of the respondents provided answers that are systematically and fully in line with stated positions of the Iranian government, and 91% of the respondents provided at least one response that is directly at odds with positions articulated in Iranian state-owned news media."

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

Why, then, do you misspell the Army of God like you do?

Given the issues with Romanization of Arabic, there is no single correct spelling of Hezbollah. Hizbollah, Hezballah, Hisbollah, Hizbu'llah and Hizb Allah are all possibilities. You can refer to the Collins English Dictionary here or Webster's New World College Dictionary here.

You really do need to up your trolling game, Birkel. That was lame even for you.

Birkel said...

The analyses from intelligence operatives that didn't predict a Soviet collapse almost always said that such a collapse was itself not desirable for the US.

That was about 100% of the reports written.

Top. Men.

Birkel said...

No, Smug. It was not lame.

I make a consistent habit of reminding those who might not otherwise know that Hez b'Allah considers itself the Army of God.

I know you know better.

But somehow you prefer not to remind people that the people you consistently defend really do believe they are on a mission from God.

And you, a Smug atheist!!

Birkel said...

Smug thinks God in Arabic might be spelled u'llah.

Is that your position?

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

Smug thinks God in Arabic might be spelled u'llah.

Is that your position?


No; it's the position of Webster's New World College Dictionary. From the link, which you didn't read:

"From Arabic حزب الله (Hizbu-llāh, “party of God”)"

Please try harder.

J. Farmer said...

p.s. Here are a list of books:

Hizbullah: The Story from Within

Hizbullah and the Politics of Remembrance: Writing the Lebanese Nation

In The Path Of Hizbullah

Hizbullah's Documents: From the 1985 Open Letter to the 2009 Manifesto

Hizbullah, Party of God: An Islamic Movement Perspective

The Hizbullah Phenomenon: Politics and Communication

Hizbullah's Identity Construction

The Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology

I guess none of these publishers possessed your thorough knowledge of transcribing Arabic into the Latin alphabet. Go ahead, Birkel, just three little words, "I. Was. Wrong." It'll be a good little character builder for you.

Birkel said...

Smug thinks that list of authors is not trying to do the same thing Smug is trying to do.

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what they are “trying to do.” Since you don’t know the books or any of the authors, I imagine it will be as spectacularly wrong as you’ve been hitherto.

Birkel said...

The only reason to change the name from "The Army of God" is to obscure the truth. The truth is Hez b'Allah believes they are fighting a holy war against Jews, apostates, gays, and The Great Satan.

Appeasement of religious fanatics is a fool's errand. So we'd best not use a name that tells everybody that "The Army of God" is a religiously motivated fanatical group.

Right?

Big Mike said...

@Farmer, sorry to be so slow getting back to you. I spent most of the afternoon with a plumber (thankfully not a burst pipe), and he'll be back in the morning.

Obama had access to information you did not; does that translate to supporting his foreign policy or his conclusions?

Not really. Even Democrats commented on Obama's seeming desperation to get some sort of agreement with Iran, no matter what the cost to the posterity of the United States. We now know that Obama was almost unique in his disdain for experts who told him something he didn't want to believe.

If Trump has information that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, that would be a major international scandal. There is no motive to keep that information quiet, since revealing it would help their cause of isolating and sanctioning Iran. Plus, Iran is under a strict monitoring and inspections regime.

The first of these three sentences is correct, the last is a fable. The one in the middle is unclear. Trump may have a motive of which we are unaware.

My issue with you is how cock-sure you are that you have a lock on all the world's knowledge regarding Iran. I think it's prudent to be a little circumspect.

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

The only reason to change the name from "The Army of God" is to obscure the truth.

That is not even coherent or connected to what you were saying previously.

First you wrote:

Why, then, do you misspell the Army of God like you do?

It's Hez b'Allah.


Then you wrote:

Smug thinks God in Arabic might be spelled u'llah.

Then you wrote:

Smug thinks that list of authors is not trying to do the same thing Smug is trying to do.

Sorry, but this is nonsensical.

As for the rest of your fulmination, to whom was it a reply and what does it have to do with anything I have written here?

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

Not really.

That's my point. If you were critiquing an Obama foreign policy decision, and I replied, "I think it’s fair to assume that Obama has access to information you do not," would you consider that a good counterargument? I wouldn't.

My issue with you is how cock-sure you are that you have a lock on all the world's knowledge regarding Iran.

Of course I never claimed to "have a lock on all the world's knowledge regarding Iran." I have made measured statements and am prepared to back them up. If you disagree with my statements, then tell me what you think I got wrong, and I will respond. If you want to conjecture that some secret evidence possibly exists, I don't consider that much of an argument. You can read all of the IAEA inspection reports on Iran here. You're free to declare them a fable, but please provide some supporting evidence for this.

Birkel said...

Smug cannot make sense of why calling things by theirs names is better than obscuring the truth.

Smug is a condition. Treatable but almost never cured.

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

Smug cannot make sense of why calling things by theirs names is better than obscuring the truth.

So when Netanyahu refers to "Hezbollah" in speech and in print, what truth is he trying to obscure? When Christopher Hitchens wrote "Hezbollah" to describe being physically attacked in Lebanon by their supporters after defacing a poster, what truth was he trying to obscure?

Stupid is also a condition. And in your case, apparently a terminal one.

Birkel said...

Smug thinks Netanyahu spells when he speaks words? No, Smug. That's not the way speech works.

I will grant you newspapers write his spoken words the way you suggest.

They believe they are the Army of God. Hez b'Allah.

Birkel said...

It is clear you wish to avoid naming things directly.

Why?

Typing that others did a thing is no response.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

There really is no point trying to have a discussion with you, because you are either (a) completely disingenuous or (b) a complete moron. But since you are apparently desperate for the attention and since I do not mind being charitable to those less fortunate than myself, I will indulge you. Please explain to us what is the difference between between Hezbollah, Hizbullah, and Hez b'Allah. Apparently in your fevered imagination, it is to "avoid naming things directly." Except, they all mean the exact same thing. And since even the many opponents of Hezbollah use the term "Hezbollah," it is completely incoherent to claim that a spelling variant is a a "wish to avoid naming things directly." When Abdar Koya wrote Hizbullah, Party of God: An Islamic Movement Perspective, was he trying "to avoid naming things directly?"

Chek Google Ngram. Hezbollah and Hizbullah both show up. Hez b'Allah does not. Apparently the entire written world is trying "to avoid naming things directly." Except, of course, the brave Althouse troll Birkel.

Birkel said...

The emphasis on Allah makes a difference.
One might consider why it was other people who decided to de-emphasize that point.
One might consider why you continue in the tradition of de-emphasizing the point that they are fighting a religious war, presently.

I enjoy watching you try to out-Smug yourself.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

One might consider why it was other people who decided to de-emphasize that point.

Except there were no "people who decided to de-emphasize that point." That is just something that sprang forth from your fevered imagination. Read any critical piece about Hezbollah you want, and it will say Hezbollah. Your rendering is not used anywhere. So apparently the "people who decided to de-emphasize that point" includes the entire English-speaking world. Apparently only a singular Althouse troll has the courage to speak truth to power by using a Romanization that does not exist pretty much anywhere else.

Bad Lieutenant said...

I think we can agree that nobody can be expected to spell Arabic names correctly. (If they wanted to be taken serious-like, they would speak a real language like English or even Serbo-Croat.) To neither side would I propose this as a hill to die on. Certainly the people who this is all targeted at, Arabic speakers/the Ummah, are not confused.

J. Farmer, without studies to cite, I will note that news reports have been specifically stating, and showing, that demonstrators have objected to their nation's energies being spent on Hamas, Hezbollah, and attacking Israel or anything outside Iran actually.

Birkel said...

Bad Lieutenant:

It is Hez b'Allah.
It is the Army of God, self-proclaimed.
Quit trying to take away the voice and motivation of those oppressed people and let them say, full-throatedly, that they intend to kill you in the name of God.

Let me paraphrase Smug:
There are many ways to spell this Army of God and I refuse to spell it the way that gives it the most obvious interpretation, the one the people who named it in the first place wanted it to have. All of the ways that do not make it easier to understand the group are better than the one that makes their intentions clear.

Birkel said...

If a group called themselves "The Army of Yahweh" and set about trying to exterminate a people or groups of people, I would hope that you would name that group directly too.

How do Muslims spell God?