Fatwa sex?

ISIS fatwa council on how to rape slaves….Islamically.

I love “inappropriate” humor, as if anything that makes me laugh could be inappropriate. The most truly inappropriate humor is the way evil fanatics, like ISIS (Daesh) seriously discuss “Islamic” guidelines for raping female slaves (photo above), and I find nothing funny about it, except when it is ridiculed, like the following:

Curb Your Enthusiasm is a humor series on HBO that celebrates being: inappropriate, obtuse, insensitive, insecure, twisted and other adjectives not mainstream. The show is the creation of star and comedian Larry David, who was also Jerry Seinfeld’s co-writer, perhaps even mentor, of Seinfeld. Larry stars as himself. Imagine a balding (with tufts of white hair on the side), uglier version of Larry of Three Stooges fame, whose personality combines the worst of Jerry, Elaine, Kramer and George. He’s a walking Black Death to all social graces or vestiges of politeness.

In one episode, he conceived of a comedy musical called Fatwa, based on the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and promoted it on Jimmy Kimmel live. As a result, the Ayatollah Whomever, probably Hassan Ben Sobre (in a guest appearance from the Three Stooges’ Malice in the Palace), issued a fatwa on him. Subsequent episodes have him hiding in hotel rooms, wearing a ridiculous disguise, while all his friends know where he is, and are more afraid that the fatwa will rub off on them than they are about his being killed. Finally, in desperation, he seeks the advice of Salman Rushdie, yes, the actual one (of countless cameos portraying themselves—Ted Danson, Mary Steenburgen, Jimmy Kimmel, Elizabeth Banks, Bryan Cranston, Richard Lewis, Rushdie…..and this is one episode). Rushdie tells him that the best part of being under a fatwa is the women who are attracted to “men of danger”, which leads to the best sex of all. No, not makeup sex, not breakup sex, but fatwa sex.

Are you starting to get the drift? All these stars are tripping over each other to portray themselves on the rudest, most politically incorrect series on TV. It gives me hope for Hollywood! So Salman suggests that he and Larry go out to lunch in a Hollywood restaurant, to demonstrate how fatwa sexual attraction works. As soon as they walk in, beautiful women all over the restaurant eye them, including Elizabeth Banks, who sends wine to their table. But let me digress, before getting to the steps in fatwa sex.

Another sample: Larry is holding a door open for a person behind him, when he realizes that this person isn’t a man but a woman dressed and coiffed like a man, so he lets the door go just as she reaches it. Then she asks him, “why did you let the door go just as I got there?” His answer: “I didn’t get the ‘would you hold the door’ kind of vibe from you, and was afraid you would be insulted if I held the door.” They then get into an idiotic argument about what vibe she was projecting. In another scene he’s at a memorial service for a young man who died as a result of Larry’s carelessness, and a bearded man wearing an Islamic-looking skullcap comes in. Remembering the fatwa, Larry stands and shouts “he’s got a gun”, resulting in a stampede of mourners. The bereaved father yells at Larry, “he’s my best friend.” Too late, the huge picture of his deceased son is thoroughly trampled upon. Yes, I admit I am a little warped!

Then there’s the namaste incident. At the end of a yoga class, the teacher leads the class in namaste (the common greeting in yoga, a gesture to send a message of peaceful spirituality to the universe in the hopes of receiving a positive message back. Most say namaste as a means to thank the teacher or use as an expression of relief upon the ending of the class.) Of course, our hero doesn’t participate, and the teacher calls him on it. “Well, I’m just not a namaste kind of guy, I never participate in group anything.” They then argue about the third eye. He keeps poking the center of his forehead, “if I had a third eye, that would hurt, but it didn’t therefore I don’t have one.” She’s horrified that he is abusing his third eye, as he keeps poking it. Finally, exasperated, she says, “get the f**k out and don’t come back.” Of course he observes, “that’s not very namaste of you, is it?”

But you want me to get back to fatwa sex, right? The steps are very clear: insult Islam or an ayatollah, or even just joke about either; get the attention of an ayatollah with your attitude, provoke him enough to get a fatwa issued; make sure lots of people know about the fatwa, especially women, by going on TV or YouTube about it; hold your head up high when you are in public, and do not look around furtively, like you’re worried; when women ask you, “are you the fatwa guy?”, do not ask “did the ayatollah send you?”, even if there’s a considerable bulge with rectangular shapes about her waist and a red button under her thumb, or if she is wearing a hijab (if it’s a burqa instead, just run as fast as you can); ask her to buy you an alcoholic drink to make sure her intentions are bad (in a good way); if you are still alive at this point, go with the flow.

You might wonder, “I thought uncle curmudgeon was a Christian. How can he have such a warped sense of humor?” Wasn’t the apostle Paul himself who joked he wished the judaizers would try to circumcise themselves and end up cutting it off? All I can say for myself is, better an excessive sense of humor than a hypocritical piety. Some people think Muslims don’t like to laugh at their coreligionists, but a hilarious satire on British TV called The Real Housewives of ISIS was very popular with Muslims. If they can laugh at ISIS, I can laugh at fatwa sex.

The true “wild west”.

The following history is directly copied from the Foundation for Economic Education, FEE.ORG. I believe the truth is too important to be trampled upon by Hollywood myths and popular imagination. Here is a very brief history of the real pioneer-era United States “West”, whether you can accept it or not.

Before the Civil War, the Western territories were unincorporated land. No formal government (that Americans would recognize) reached that far west yet, so the settlers had no “official” way to keep the peace. But, wherever people begin to gather, conflict of some sort or another is fairly inevitable, so various forms of conflict resolution formed. Private organizations like land use clubs, cattlemen’s associations, wagon trains, and mining camps protected private property and mediated disputes. Civil contracts, localized constitutions, and social pressure including ostracism (a very real threat so far away from the rest of America) largely kept the peace instead of threats of violence. As Bruce Benson writes of the time, “The contractual system of law effectively generated cooperation rather than conflict, and on those occasions when conflict arose it was, by and large, effectively quelled through nonviolent means.”

The homicide rates, even in what qualified as the big cities in the Old West, were astonishingly low. Major railroad stops like Wichita and Dodge City (yes, that Dodge City) had lower murder rates than major eastern cities like New York and Boston at the time.

Interactions with the local Indian tribes were mostly peaceful and trade-based. White settlers may not have always liked the native tribes they shared space with on the frontier, but it was easier and less expensive to deal with them in a generally peaceful way than it was to wage war on them. As Jennifer Roback writes in Property Rights and Indian Economies, “Europeans generally acknowledged that the Indians retained possessory rights to their lands. More important, the English recognized the advantage of being on friendly terms with the Indians. Trade with the Indians, especially the fur trade, was profitable. War was costly.”

This all changed in the mid-1860s. Now that it wasn’t so busy with that pesky Civil War, the federal government of the United States could turn its attention westward. Terry Anderson and Fred L. McChesney, who have both written extensively on this subject, put forth in the Journal of Law and Economics that once the costs of using violence against the native tribes of the Plains became distributed across the rest of the country through the use of taxation, “raid” replaced “trade” in relations with the Indian tribes. Two of the US generals, General William T. Sherman and General Grenville M. Dodge, who headed up many of the major campaigns in the Western territories go into great detail about the atrocities committed against the Plains Indians following the American Civil War, and, more importantly, why. Deals had been struck prior to the War for the federal government to subsidize the building of the transcontinental railroad, and now that the War was over, it was time for the government to make good. Violence against the American Plains Indians was at the behest of the government on behalf of crony railroad barons. The campaign to “pacify” the Western territories resulted in the devastation of the native populations and fatally injured the tenuous relations between white settlers and native tribes.

“Raid replaced trade”. The “cost of violence…distributed across the rest of the country through the use of taxation.” Let that idea sink in. Taxation of the whole distributes the cost of harm done locally. Harm is always local—armies are composed of individuals, who fire the guns, launch the missiles, swing the swords, on other individuals. The costs—equipping and feeding the forces, making or buying the weapons—are great. Taxation can pay for public works, or it can pay for conquest.