Bad Policing Redux

At the Federalist today, you can find my latest piece, a bit of a follow-up from something I wrote last month: “The Police No Longer Work For You, Secret Chicago Interrogations Edition.” It seems that the Chicago Police Department has been running a bit of a “black site” on the west side of the city, to which they apparently take hapless arrestees and interrogate them off the books, sometimes for twenty-four hours at a time. Even by Chicago standards, this is a gross example of police misconduct and a barbarous violation of constitutional rights.

I don’t want to become the cop-criticism guy—writers like Radley Balko are much better at it than I am—but it’s worth pointing out that the cops make it pretty easy these days. In Chicago they run a clandestine interrogation operation. In Cleveland they shot a 12-year-old boy and then blamed the boy for getting shot. Police officers regularly shoot dogs for no reason at all. There are plenty of friendly, competent, non-violent police officers out there—but of course that doesn’t really matter when you’ve been chained to a bench in a warehouse for nearly a day, or if your dog has been executed, or if you’re dead. Adding insult to injury, if you’re assaulted or murdered by a cop, there’s no reason to expect that the police officer will suffer any adverse consequences. Police are a valuable public resource, and good policing can be indispensable to the safety of a community; nevertheless, American police have a great deal of wretched problems, and absent significant police reform it’s only going to get worse.

Pielke Gets Pilloried

I’m getting a bit tired of winters under global warming—all those soaring temperature increases have generated an awful lot of snow and frigid cold—but I guess it’s here to stay. And just think: global temperatures have been stalled for a decade! If they ever decide to start increasing again, think of how much damn snow we’ll have.

I know it may seem odd; after all, haven’t we been told for years that it was getting hotter and hotter and we’ll never see snow again? But as Professor Roger Pielke Jr., shows us, it’s best to just accept what the climate fanatics tell us, without questioning anything:

The University of Colorado is vigorously defending a professor targeted for investigation by a Democratic congressman after challenging an Obama administration belief on climate change.

Roger Pielke, Jr could hardly be described as a climate change denier. Pielke has called for a carbon tax to fund technological innovation and supported increased pollution regulations to push energy producers to develop cleaner fuels.

But Pielke disagrees with the Obama administration’s view that the increasing costs of disasters can be linked to greenhouse gas emissions.

On the one hand you can appreciate the climate change lobby’s resistance to apostasy, at least from the standpoint of self-preservation. Imagine if a priest accepted the divinity of Christ but rejected His real presence in the Eucharist; you cannot believe in the one, denounce the other and still convincingly call yourself part of the Catholic fold.

But climate science is not the Catechism; questioning the party line on climate change is not heresy, nor should it be. Yet that’s precisely what has happened in the global warming debate: even the tiniest dissent—from a fellow who supports carbon taxes and pollution regulations, no less—is ruthlessly punished and stamped out. Rep. Raul Grijalva is accusing Pielke of being “funded by oil and gas interests,” which is a pretty heavy charge to level against a guy just because he had the temerity to disagree with the president.

I’d have a lot more sympathy for the “moderate” folks in the climate change debate—those who think the climate is changing and support laws to counteract it, but who don’t want to make a witch hunt about it—but in the end, this is as much their fault as it is the fanatics’. It has gotten to this point, in part, because the “moderates” have been too cowardly to stand up to to the bullies and the single-minded environmental crusaders; the bulk of the debate has been ceded to these people, and the rest of the climate change crowd now has to deal with the fact that less and less people are taking them seriously. Then, of course, there are the dismal false equivalencies:

In Merchants of Doubt, their 2010 book that vivisects bad science and industrial cynicism, science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway decried the uneven battle for the popular imagination fought, on one side, by scientists ill-equipped for high-volume cable-TV tussles and, on the other, by the “well-financed contrarians” bent on dismantling whatever lab results, peer-reviewed theories and settled science might lead to even the most benign corporate regulations.

The authors unraveled the deny-and-obfuscate tactics concocted in the 1950s by Mad Men and Big Tobacco to cloud understanding of what even the proto-mainstream media was beginning to grasp. “Cancer by the Carton,” read a 1953 headline in Reader’s Digest. “Doubt,” countered a public relations memo exhumed decades later from Big Tobacco’s yellowed files, “is our product.”

And doubt, argued Oreskes and Conway, became the mantra for purveyors of acid rain, ozone holes and, most significant, global warming. Keep the cigarettes burning, the CO2 combusting and the profits flowing for as long as possible.

Yes yes, “climate deniers” and “cigarette deniers” are one and the same, and they all just want to keep selling you Camels and combustibles until you die of lung cancer and the world burns. There’s one big difference, though: the effects of tobacco smoke were readily apparent in the 1950s and becoming more obvious all the time. “Climate change,” on the other hand, is almost a total loss at this point: the temperature hasn’t budged for decades, the massive ecological disasters have not materialized, and humanity is doing better than ever even as Co2 outputs have increased drastically in recent years. The lung cancer / cigarette link is incontrovertible; the entire climate change charade, in contrast, appears more bunk with each passing day. If you’re a smoker, you should definitely consider quitting for your health—but don’t let the eco-fanatics dissuade you from burning fossil fuels, because there doesn’t appear to be much harm in it.

Spoiling the Broth

I spend a lot of time writing about food; from the best kind of food to eat to the boneheaded government bureaus that make eating good food more difficult and more expensive. Eating well requires a fairly uncomplicated set of precepts: buy the highest-quality ingredients you can reasonably afford, cook most of your own meals, don’t lean heavily on processed stuff—and get government as much out of the food business as we possibly can.

This is fairly simple stuff; you could close down the USDA, raze the whole building, put up a simple bronze plaque in its place with those four rules on it, and you’d be good to go. Yet there is a tendency to overcomplicate the issue and thus make a boondoggle out of it. Cheryl Achterberg, at the Wall Street Journal today, has some advice on how the government might go about “influenc[ing] Americans’ eating habits:”

First, government guidelines must stop defining “good” and “bad” foods. History tells us that demonizing products that, when consumed in moderation, cause no harm erodes public credibility.

Second, nutrition-policy leaders must acknowledge that their utopian grocery cart looks nothing like the average American’s practical cart. The Dietary Guidelines must reflect the experience of how people really eat and what they can change versus how experts wish they would eat. Advice should be given in terms the public can understand and reinforce the tenets of sensible eating: balance, variety and moderation. We must also collaborate with the food industry to help produce and market healthy food and beverage choices.

This doesn’t really make any sense. For starters, Achterberg councils us not to make a distinction between “good” and “bad” foods…then tells us that we must work with the food industry to “help produce and market healthy food and beverage choices.” But “healthy,” in this case, is synonymous with “good;” you can not quantify some foods as healthy and some as unhealthy without making a value judgment about the distinction. Secondly, why do we have to “collaborate” with the food industry to make healthy food? The “food industry” already produces literal tons of healthy food such as fruits, vegetables and meat; the problem in this case is that people aren’t buying healthy food enough to please folks like Cheryl Achterberg. Since there’s already an abundance of healthy food for consumers to buy, Achterberg’s call for “collaboration” likely means only one thing: she wants to force farmers and producers to make the kind of food she finds acceptable.

Third and perhaps most importantly, while Achterberg’s ultimate advice is good, it is also insanely simple: eat with “balance, variety and moderation.” You don’t need an entire bureaucratic army to dispense such wisdom; there is no need for “nutrition-policy leaders” to qualify such rules. A two-page dispatch would suffice. The problem with “nutrition-policy leaders” isn’t just that they often get everything wrong; it’s that they take a fairly simple and easy-to-understand topic and make it hopelessly complicated—all in order to collect a big taxpayer paycheck.

A Judgment of Reason

It’s worth hoping, I suppose, that the Affordable Care Act and its various pro-abortion and contraception provisions have signified a teachable moment for the Catholic Church in America: namely, be suspicious of the government and invest it with as little power over your business as possible. Government in general (and leftism in particular) has always been fairly hostile towards religious autonomy, something the Church should be familiar with from centuries of experience. The Archdiocese of San Francisco, in fact, may be poised to receive a reminder to this effect:

The San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday afternoon that the archdiocese would “peel back” the guidelines Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone proposed for teachers, outlining expectations that staffers would reject adultery, masturbation, homosexuality and other behavior the diocese calls “gravely evil.”

The proposal generated an outcry from teacher groups, human rights organizations, lawmakers, and others concerned that staffers could be disciplined or fired for behavior that occurs in private.

Cordileone told the San Francisco Chronicle he didn’t anticipate the backlash over the plan to add detailed statements on sexual morality to faculty and staff handbooks at four Catholic high schools in the city. He spoke at a meeting with the paper’s editorial board on Tuesday.

“I was surprised at the degree of consternation over this,” Cordileone told the Chronicle.

It seems a little odd that Bishop Cordileone was “surprised” to find out that many of his constituents would be resistant to this kind of edict. It’s a fairly bold move to tell the citizens of San Francisco to reject sexual licentiousness and homosexuality; this is the same city, after all, that’s home to both the Castro District and the original Summer of Love. At one point, San Francisco was the gayest of the fifty largest cities in the country. If you’re caught off-guard when you tell the City by the Bay to “reject…homosexuality,” well, you probably don’t have your finger on the pulse of the archdiocese all that well.

Nonetheless, I’m impressed with the bishop’s boldness, and indeed it is a refreshing and gutsy move to take in a world where religious precepts have mostly become optional. The Church, after all, teaches explicitly and without reservation that homosexuality, masturbation and adultery are indeed grave sins that place one’s mortal soul in danger of eternal damnation. It’s not too much to expect the Church to both transmit its values and insist that its employees do the same. A few legislators wrote a letter to Bishop Cordileone claiming that the move would send “an alarming message of intolerance to youth.” Well, no; it’s not as if the bishop is forming a pitchfork mob to go after adulterers. And in any event, what kind of message is transmitted by the alternative? That it’s okay to have values so long as you don’t actually care about them or try to live by them? That’s a terrific lesson to impart upon your students.

It is faintly absurd, anyway, to charge Catholics with “intolerance;” whatever its faults in the past and present, the Church remains one of the more open and welcoming organizations on the planet. Just look at Pope Francis’s latest outreach in Calabria:

Pope Francis has a message for Italian organized crime groups: Repent, he said, and the Catholic church will welcome you back.

 See? Even the Mafia is welcome in the Catholic faith! It’s an offer they can’t refuse.

The Group Project Panacea

I was busy in New York City this past weekend and didn’t have much time to keep up with the news, but I was pleased to see that at least the Department of State is staying on top of things and keeping us safe:

Er…well, at least they’re trying, sort of. Honestly, it’s hard to imagine a franker display of desperation than the United States government attempting to crowdsource the answer to terrorism. “Government,” Barney Frank allegedly said, “is simply the the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”  The State Department is taking that literally: they’re so out of ideas, they can’t figure out the insanely easy solution to “countering” “violent extremism,” so they’ve been reduced to begging the citizenry to do their jobs for them.

You do have to wonder at some point if these people really believe the stuff they’re hocking, or if they’re just trying to appear busy until they can pass the buck to someone else. The graphic above really suggests the latter. “Mentor,” “engage,” “communicate:” these are all feel-good, middle-class Western solutions to a profoundly brutal, primitive non-Western problem. The salient feature of Islamic terrorism isn’t that its adherents don’t have enough “support;” the problem is that they’re insane, violent death-cultists who want to kill you. You can “partner” with ISIS all you want, but they’ll still saw your head off. That’s the scale of the problem, and the outcome you risk when you issue a slack-jawed open call for submissions on “critical” “solutions” to fighting back against a bunch of psychopathic murderous cavemen.

The Wheel Turns

Some time ago the Federalist published one of my pieces entitled, “Bring Back the Welfare Stigma.” The title is self-explanatory. It’s nothing fancy, ho-hum, a fairly garden-variety conservative opinion: welfare use should not be normalized, and should always carry with it at least a moderate amount of stigma, for two reasons: one, to make sure only the truly needy make use of welfare, and two, to make sure they feel a bit of pressure to get off it as quickly as possible. People don’t need to feel ashamed of using welfare, but neither should they feel particularly comfortable with it: it should, whenever possible, be a last resort and a brief one at that.

This isn’t that complicated, nor is it very controversial—and yet that article really continues to drive liberals nuts, and their anger is made all the more terrific by the fact that they really don’t get it at all. Earlier today, Jamelle Bouie retweeted the piece once again—almost six months from its publication date, mind you—and offered by way of explanation:

Ah, yes, a “basic” lack of decency, as opposed to a “complex” one. As I’ve written before, it’s not clear that Jamelle Bouie has ever even read the article that he’s tweeted multiple times. Near the bottom of the piece, I wrote:

Those who have truly fallen on hard times deserve our genuine sympathy, and we should not snarl at them for turning to as easy and accessible a source of relief as government welfare.

On the one hand you have an ill-informed pundit chattering about an author’s “lack of decency,” and on the other hand you have the author himself making the argument for…exactly the opposite. Well, who’re you going to believe: the guy who wrote the article, or the other guy?

This is largely unsurprising: liberals are generally loath to actually deal with the ill effects and unintended consequences of the government programs to which they are so dedicated. I wrote recently about Obamacare’s effect on my own household: my affordable health insurance was cancelled because of the Affordable Care Act, and the only viable alternative was a much more expensive insurance plan that required a government subsidy nearly three times the amount of my original premium. This is how Obamacare works: it takes away peoples’ choices and replaces them with expensive boondoggles that nobody wants. Poor Pamela Weldin of Minatere, Nebraska learned this the hard way:

For Weldin, 58, the insurer’s liquidation marked the third time she would lose her health insurance under Obamacare, the third time she would head to to shop for coverage, and the third time she would have to purchase a brand new plan.

“I’ve been pulled into the middle of all this through no fault of my own,” she said, “and there’s nothing fair about it. It is what it is, and you move forward.”

Yes, you move forward—that’s the best you can do under the Affordable Care Act: you move forward and hope that your new, expensive health insurance plan doesn’t get cancelled for a fourth time, and you hope that the idiotic and incompetent managers of the new government healthcare system don’t decide to triple your premiums and double your deductible. This is what the government does; this is how American health care now functions. Sadly, though, even a “stigma” won’t be able to repair the disastrous and wretched consequences of Obamacare: only full repeal could do that, and the future does not look particularly bright in that regard.

The Snowball Effect of Climate Change

If you live in Virginia like me, chances are you’re buried under eight to ten inches of snow, an accumulation being hailed as the worst Virginia snowstorm in five years. If that sounds like damning with faint praise, well, welcome to the Old Dominion, where the schools open late just because it’s cold out.

Oh, well. The good news is that the brutal three-quarters of a foot of snow we received seems to indicate, yet again, that the whole global warming / climate collapse scenario isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Yes, yes, we know: scientists are 38% certain that last year was several hundredths of a degree Celsius warmer than a few years ago, and global warming really means an increase in frigid weather and record-setting eight-inch snowstorms, and really at this point anything’s possible but what we know for sure is that the climate is imploding on itself and we’ve only got a few short years to switch to a 100% kelp-based energy profile before disaster really strikes. But here in the real world, we have for years been listening to doomsday reports on the skyrocketing temperatures and how that means we’re never going to have cold weather ever again, let alone snowmen. A nice, solid snowstorm is a good indication that it’s okay—prudent, even—to ignore climate doom-mongers when they start wailing and gnashing their teeth.

Still, you can expect climate change fanatics to stridently hold on to their convictions for a while longer, if only because it’s just embarrassing to admit you were so very wrong. And it looks like we can expect a load of false equivalences along with the nonsense:

Well, no. It’s not that “one snowstorm” disproves climate change—it’s that the whole entire charade of climate alarmism is bunk, and a big snowstorm is a fairly handy reminder of that. It’s not, after all, as if “one ancient fossil” disproves the premise of creationism, say—many, many fossils have done that already. But the more fossils you find, the more you can feel certain that evolution is a strong scientific theory with a wealth of convincing evidence to back it up, and that creationism is ignoring the evidence in favor of faith. The difference, of course, is that a belief in creationism harms nobody; the “worst” that creationists have come up with is demanding that the first chapters of Genesis be taught in public school alongside the theory evolution. Climate change fanatics, on the other hand, want to upend the entire modern way of life in favor of junk environmentalist dogma. Which one is more threatening—literally threatening—to your well-being?

The juxtaposition of “a billion peaceful Muslims” is a telling one in this case, indicating that Jason Sattler is out of ideas and intellectually exhausted. So far as I know, the GOP platform doesn’t say anything about Muslims or Islam generally. Of course I can’t speak for all Republicans, but I think it’s safe to say that most of the GOP isn’t terribly worried about the vast majority of Muslims. Nevertheless, Islamist terrorism is a problem, and you can acknowledge its association with the Muslim faith without implicating the great bulk of the religion’s adherents. Notably, the problem of ISIS is several orders of magnitude more pressing than that of “climate change.” Even the most dire climate change predictions, were they to actually materialize, place its worst effects at some distant point in the future, anywhere from a few decades to hundreds of years hence. Islamist terrorism, meanwhile, is killing people right now; terrorists are beheading Coptic Christians right now, and executing innocent French satirists right now. Of course these terrible atrocities don’t implicate “a billion peaceful Muslims;” but then again it is foolish to understate or mischaracterize the problem, just as it is foolish to overstate and freak out about a lousy two-one-hundredths of a degree increase in temperature. The Left increasingly has no coherent perspective on anything at all: from terrorism to global “warming,” they’re left babbling incoherently in a desperate attempt to connect the dots.

Speaking of desperation, Bill Nye recently appeared on MSNBC with Joy Reid to try and salvage what’s left of global warmism:

“Why should we care that it is cold in the winter?” MSNBC’s Joy Reid said Monday after a report on freezing weather hitting a large portion of the country this week. “Well, for one thing the unusual nature of some of the temperatures does raise, or should raise questions about climate change.”

Joining her, Nye warned, “Let’s not confuse or interchange climate change with global warming,” noting that when the climate changes, “some places get colder.”

“What I would hope for, my dream, Joy, is that you all, you in the news business would say the words ‘climate change,’” Nye continued. “Just like, ‘It could be climate change,’ ‘It’s a possible connection to climate change,’ ‘Is it possible evidence of climate change?’ Can you just toss that in now and then?”

Just so we’re clear, then: “global warming” refers to the planet getting warmer, but “climate change” can refer to the planet getting colder. So your bases are covered either way. This is a phenomenon known as “unfalsifiability,” in which a theory is validated no matter what happens. You’d expect this from an MSNBC pundit, but not from someone who styles himself “the Science Guy.”

Stop Calling Me a Feminist

Feminism is in dire straits these days, at least if we’re to judge from the desperate behavior of the feminist movement itself; take, for instance, Upworthy’s recent feminist expedition into the streets of New Orleans:

Upworthy recently took to the streets of New Orleans to find out what men think of when they hear the term “feminism” and if they consider themselves feminists. While almost all of the men interviewed embraced the basic points of feminism and even listed some of its most important goals, when asked if they identified as feminists most said no.

“I’m not exactly sure what a feminist is, I mean I respect and love women, I try to, to the best of my abilities. But I wouldn’t consider myself a feminist,” one man in the video said.

When Upworthy pointed out that “believing that women should have equal rights” is the ultimate point of feminism, most of the men conceded that, perhaps, “feminist” and “feminism” aren’t terms so separate from their own beliefs after all.

Gee, thanks for the clarification. Actually, this is a tired and time-worn trick of the feminist movement: people claim that they’re not feminists, only to have some dopey activist say, “Uh, feminism just means equality between the sexes,” leaving the non-feminist stuttering and stumbling and offering a hasty retraction. Modern feminism, of course, has become about so much more than simply equality: from demanding free contraception from the government, to repeating discredited pay equality myths, to flipping out over silly articles of clothing, feminism has become a hodgepodge of whiny crackpot nonsense and histrionic outbursts. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t still sensible, intelligent people who call themselves “feminists;” but it does mean that the word itself has become associated with an unpleasant and ugly set of political and social beliefs, and that it’s understandable that people want to avoid it.

The truth is, you’re free to call yourself a feminist, and you’re also free to say you’re not a feminist—you don’t have to conform to the labeling desires of a bunch of bullies. If you believe women should have rights equal to men, excellent. But if you don’t want to call yourself a “feminist” even though you believe these things, then don’t feel pressured to do so by an insecure and faltering movement that is desperate to recruit more people to its ranks.

Buon Appetito, Con Colesterolo

In a move that should be unsurprising to anyone who follows U.S. government food policy, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.

The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern.

Over at the Week, a terrifically indignant Michael Brendan Dougherty notes:

The American Heart Association and the U.S. government have been recommending a low-cholesterol, low-saturated fat diet for more than half a century. In 1961, when the AHA’s guidelines first came out, one in seven Americans were obese. Now one in three are.

In the meantime, the pervasive fear of fat and cholesterol led Americans to completely novel and untested dietary fads, including partially hydrogenated oils. Ever see the white gunk around a fast-food meal? It can contain formaldehyde. The reigning dietary wisdom also led Americans to “diet” on tasteless carbs. Remember people eating rice cakes and grapefruit? Often at the same time?

I’m not sure if I ever went so far as to double-fist a grapefruit and a Lundberg, but somewhere in the early 2000s, I do recall bread disappearing from our house, while at the same time my mom and aunt and uncle switched to drinking low-carb Michelob Ultra. The Atkins diet was but one wacky manifestation of America’s constant dietary neurosis, but it’s the one I most clearly remember, chiefly because it was so annoying. Try cutting out bread products and see how quickly your quality of life deteriorates.

Americans are rarely so comfortable eating as when we’re being given shoddy, quack, bogus dietary advice; I love nearly everything about this country, but our food culture is a bad joke. For years we’ve been told that cholesterol is bad, that it clogs your arteries, that we have to give up cooking with lard in favor of ever-more novel incarnations of poly-unsaturated cottonseed-flax-canola junk oil. It is, when you stop to think about it, a genuinely bizarre culinary hang-up; it is highly, doubtful, after all, that anyone really knows what cholesterol does, how it “clogs your arteries,” how it interacts with your body. Like “believing in” evolution, the opposition to cholesterol is not something that requires any actual scientific knowledge; you just have to say that cholesterol is bad, and scold people about it whenever you get the chance.

For years I’ve been rendering and cooking with my own lard—it is superior to any vegetable oil for just about every cooking purpose—and the usual response to such information is a shocked gasp of disgust: “You’re going to have a heart attack before you’re thirty,” people have claimed. These folks generally are unable to provide any scientific evidence to back up such a claim; they just know it. Similar to climate change mania, food fads like low-fat and low-cholesterol diets are less concerned with substantiating their claims and more concerned with sneering anti-scientific certainties. It’s why we currently have a landscape of neurotic American food hang-ups, and why our health has declined while our food has tasted worse and worse. Don’t listen to the government when it comes to what you should eat.

Live and Let Die

Early last month after the Charlie Hebdo shooting, I stated the obvious in pointing out that Islam has a violence problem; not that all adherents to the Islamic faith are violent, of course, but simply that the foundational tenets of Islam lend themselves to violence in a way that Christianity’s, say, or Judaism’s really do not. Dopey dewy-eyed secular Western progressives have not quite figured this out, which is why that sappy “COEXIST” bumper sticker has enjoyed such popularity on the backs of Western automobiles. As Mark Steyn points out today:

If it weren’t for the Islamic crescent in the “C” you wouldn’t need a sticker at all.

Strictly speaking, this is entirely correct; if you break down the entire sticker, you don’t find much of a threat anywhere else. The “O” in the sticker is a peace sign; the “E” combines the male and female symbols in a vague platitude towards gender equality; the “X “symbolizes Judaism by way of the Star of David; the I is a send-up to paganism or wiccanism or some other irrelevant -ism; the “S” is superimposed over the Taoist yin & yang; and the “T” is a cross, representing Christianity. Out of all these, there’s only one from which you face any real danger if you piss its adherents off.   Draw a satirical cartoon depicting the Horned God, and then draw one depicting Mohammed. Which one would you feel more comfortable printing in a magazine? Which one is more likely to get you shot in the head? To ask this is not to implicate all Muslims in Islamic violence—but it is to acknowledge the roots of Islamic violence itself. If we’re going to solve the problem of cartoonists getting executed over the drawing of some cartoons, we’re at least going to have to admit the reason for their execution. A society too cowardly to do this is going to find itself with more and more Charlie Hebdo-like slaughters, and less and less “coexistence.”