Cindy Sheehan has decided to take her tour to larger venues and is "glad" she didn't meet with the President.
It didn't take long for the left wingnuts to blame President Bush for hurricane Katrina. You know the mantra. Global warming is the cause of all natural disasters and humans are causing global warming and America (aka President Bush) won't sign the Kyoto Treaty which would reduce greenhouse emissions and serve to reverse the warming trend. However, it doesn't appear that the data supports the premise advanced, at least in terms of the historic frequency of hurricanes in the Atlantic and elsewhere. But, what the heck. It makes for a good sound bite and red meat for the same folks who believe Bush orchestrated 9/11. Legal question: if Bush is to blame for this hurricane, would that then render all "acts of God" exclusions in liability insurance policies inapplicable? Just wondering.
I don't know if these fit within the category of "urban legend" but some are indeed funny! 1. On a Southwest flight (SW has no assigned seating, you just sit where you want) passengers were apparently having a hard time choosing, when a flight attendant announced, "People, people we're not picking out furniture here, find a seat and get in it!" 2. On a Continental Flight with a very "senior" flight attendant crew the pilot said, "Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached cruising altitude and will be turning down the cabin lights. This is for your comfort and to enhance the appearance of your flight attendants." 3. On landing, the stewardess said, "Please be sure to take all of your belongings. If you're going to leave anything, please make sure it's something we'd like to have. 4. "There may be 50 ways to leave your lover, but there are only 4 ways out of this airplane" 5. "Thank you for flying Delta Business Express. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride." 6. As the plane landed and was coming to a stop at Ronald Reagan, a lone voice came over the loudspeaker: "Whoa, big fella. WHOA!" 7. After a particularly rough landing during thunderstorms in Memphis, a flight attendant on a Northwest flight announced, "Please take care when opening the overhead compartments because, after a landing like that, sure as hell everything has shifted." 8. From a Southwest Airlines employee: "Welcome aboard Southwest Flight 245 to Tampa.. To operate your seat belt, insert the metal tab into the buckle, and pull tight. It works just like every other seat belt; and, if you don't know how to operate one, you probably shouldn't be out in public unsupervised." 9. "In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, masks will descend from the ceiling. Stop screaming, grab the mask, and pull it over your face. If you have a small child traveling with you, secure your mask before assisting with theirs. If you are traveling with more than one small child, pick your favorite." 10. "Weather at our destination is 50 degrees with some broken clouds, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive. Thank you, and remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Southwest Airlines." 11. "Your seat cushions can be used for flotation; and, in the event of an emergency water landing, please paddle to shore and take them with our compliments. 12. "As you exit the plane, make sure to gather all of your belongings. Anything left behind will be distributed evenly among the flight attendants. Please do not leave children or spouses." 13. And from the pilot during his welcome message: "Delta Airlines is pleased to have some of the best flight attendants in the industry. Unfortunately, none of them are on this flight." 14. Heard on Southwest Airlines just after a very hard landing in Salt Lake City: The flight attendant came on the intercom and said, "That was quite a bump, and I know what y'all are thinking. I'm here to tell you it wasn't the airline's fault, it wasn't the pilot's fault, it wasn't the flight attendant's fault, it was the asphalt." 15. Overheard on an American Airlines flight into Amarillo, Texas, on a particularly windy and bumpy day: During the final approach, the Captain was really having to fight it. After an extremely hard landing, the Flight Attendant said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Amarillo. Please remain in your seats with your seat belts fastened while the Captain taxis what's left of our airplane to the gate!" 16. Another flight attendant's comment on a less than perfect landing: "We ask you to please remain seated as Captain Kangaroo bounces us to the terminal." 17. An airline pilot wrote that on this particular flight he had hammered his ship into the runway really hard. The airline had a policy which required the first officer to stand at the door while the Passengers exited, smile, and give them a "Thanks for flying our airline." He said that, in light of his bad landing, he had a hard time looking the passengers in the eye, thinking that someone would have a smart comment. Finally everyone had gotten off except for a little old lady walking with a cane. She said, "Sir, do you mind if I ask you a question?" "Why, no, Ma'am," said the pilot. "What is it?" The little old lady said, "Did we land, or were we shot down?" 18. After a real crusher of a landing in Phoenix, the attendant came on with, "Ladies and Gentlemen, please remain in your seats until Capt. Crash and the Crew have brought the aircraft to a screeching halt against the gate. And, once the tire smoke has cleared and the warning bells are silenced, we'll open the door and you can pick your way through the wreckage to the terminal." 19. Part of a flight attendant's arrival announcement: "We'd like to thank you folks for flying with us today. And, the next time you get the insane urge to go blasting through the skies in a pressurized metal tube, we hope you'll think of US Airways." 20. Heard on a Southwest Airline flight. "Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to smoke, the smoking section on this airplane is on the wing and if you can light 'em, you can smoke 'em." 21. A plane was taking off from Kennedy Airport. After it reached a comfortable cruising altitude, the captain made an announcement over the intercom, "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. Welcome to Flight Number 293, nonstop from New York to Los Angeles. The weather ahead is good and, therefore, we should have a smooth and uneventful flight . Now sit back and relax... OH, MY GOD!" Silence followed, and after a few minutes, the captain came back on the intercom and said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, I am so sorry if I scared you earlier. While I was talking to you, the flight attendant accidentally spilled a cup of hot coffee in my lap. You should see the front of my pants!" A passenger in Coach yelled, "That's nothing. You should see the back of mine!" [Hat tip: Mrs RTH!]
As a companion piece to Ric's earlier post that all law school professors are liberal...The LA Times revealed that the "in majority" liberal professors on UC college campuses have since changed the rules...no longer are prof's required to balance their points of view, but can actually advocate their own perspectives as the only one...the author highlights some interesting examples of what some professors have done... Ask any UC student if this is the case, and I suspect you'll hear stories of professors who think their job is to convert students to their way of thinking rather than explore a variety of viewpoints in the collective pursuit of truth. Among the many instances that have been brought to my attention: • At UC Santa Cruz, a required freshman course in the humanities included "Palestine" by Joe Sacco, a comic-strip account of Palestinian life written from an unabashedly anti-Israeli perspective, with no other perspective offered, a student in the class told me. • At UC Santa Barbara, instead of the professor in an upper-division sociology class teaching theories of culture as described in the official course catalog, students reported on an anti-indoctrination website (www.noindoctrination.org) that he focused on religion and "preached about the dangers of organized religion, and essentially lumped Christian fundamentalists in the U.S.A. with Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East." • At UC San Diego, a student on the same website said a sociology class dealing with 9/11 and its aftermath focused on "why the United States has always been wrong, and why the United States is still wrong in attacking terrorism …" and that it was taught in "a hostile atmosphere in which we were told what to think rather than how to think." I admit I had all liberal professors, but I thought they were great. Even though I was usually the only conservative in the class to voice my opinion, I was never put down for it and I never was treated poorly because of it. Good grief...I used to defend Robert Bork!! I would have been crucified today. Instead, I still felt my professors respected me for my opinion. I never left class feeling I had a distorted sense of the issues. My friend and now professor himself at UCLA agrees with me that those days are over and now students are expected to go along to get along with their professors. My friend and now first year professor says the prof's don't feel as though they have "reached their students unless the students end up agreeing with them, otherwise the prof's think they've failed. That's scary. Gee I lways thought higher education was to teach young minds to think critically and for themselves, not to be indoctrinated. Who would have thought that conformity has become as endemic to liberal thought as has always been labelled for conservatives?
In 1992, the police officers who beat Rodney King are acquitted and the pent up rage born of years of oppression and mistreatment bursts forth in a frenzy of looting and pillaging. Years later it is still viewed as a cathartic event explained as a reaction to injustice and solemnly termed "The Uprising". In 2005, vagaries in the direction and strength of the Gulf Stream conjoined with an area of tropical low pressure create Hurricane Katrina, drenching New Orleans with torrential rains and high winds. The pent up rage born of years of mild weather, sunshine and great Creole-based dining bursts forth in a frenzy of looting and pillaging. Years later it will hopefully be viewed as a bunch of opportunistic thugs and societal misfits justifying their anti-social behavior and amorality by couching it in terms of oppression. UPDATE: Looters try to break into a hospital.
It's getting so you can't satirize left wing social policy any longer without running the risk that your effort at making a point by highlighting the ridiculously illogical extreme is...well, not so ridiculous that it can't be true. If I were to suggest that the best way to eliminate the practice of children using foul language at school was to allow them to use it only a certain number of times per day but no more, you'd consider it a daft idea. Well, it's true at a school in the UK.
If there wasn’t a profound cultural asymmetry not only between Israel and Palestine, but between Israel and its neighbors, how else do you explain the absence of a single group sympathetic to Israel among 300 million Arabs? Why do only 2 out of 22 Arab states diplomatically recognize Israel? Why was “I Hate Israel” a major pop hit in Egypt, while the reverse could never be true? Why do the chief imams in Saudi Arabia preach racist hatred against Jews on a weekly basis, calling them “the sons of pig and monkeys,” but chief rabbis in Israel never reciprocate? Where are the Palestinian peace marches? Is it that Palestinians have nothing to apologize for, nothing to concede, and no Israeli justice to recognize? The words excepted above are from a piece by Joey Tartakovsky and found on Victor Davis Hanson's website "Private Papers". It is worth a full read.
The world's oldest person died today. Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper of Amsterdam was born on June 29, 1890 and attributed her long life to... Isn't there a line in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" referencing a herring?
I am linking back to my earlier "Gates of Fire" post concerning Michael Yon's piece of the same name. It is an important and absolute must read for an insight into the Iraq war that will NEVER be provided by the mainstream media. If you haven't read it, please take the time to do so.
A study to be unveiled shortly reveals the unthinkable: The vast, vast, vast majority of law professors at our nations top law schools are...liberal Democrats. Examples: 91 percent at Harvard, 92 at Yale, 94 at Stanford. Next study to be released: Overeating and lack of physical exercise leads to obesity.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking at Chapman University School of Law, had this to say: "Surely it is obvious that nothing I learned in law school qualified me to decide whether there is a fundamental right to abortion or assisted suicide...It is blindingly clear that judges have no greater capacity than the rest of us to determine what is moral." Note: It's interesting to me that Justice Scalia was not only described as a 69 year old Reagan appointee (which is certainly a relevant factoid) but also as an "Italian-American father of nine..." (not at all relevant to the obvious focus of the story) Am I being overly sensitive?
This is an issue we will likely be dealing with soon. As Europe is slowly realizing what it has wrought by allowing an "anything goes" philosophy to hold sway no matter how violent and inflammatory the nature of the speech, countries like Denmark struggle with finding the balance between the rights of the individual and that of the society to protect itself. As I have quoted before: "Societies are usually not destroyed, they commit suicide."
It's so sweet when 11 year olds enter art contests and experience the thrill of winning an award for their work.
A 14 year old Palestinian boy caught with three pipe bombs. He probably didn't get the memo.
I have always thought it intellectually and morally impossible to be against the war in Iraq (or any other war for that matter) but still "support the troops." It is simply political cover of the most jaded kind. How one can believe that the invasion of Iraq and the killing of those intent on stopping us from completing the mission is a grotesque abuse of our power, but at the same time purportedly stand 100% behind the instruments that carry out this horror. Unless of course you consider our soldiers to be manipulated, simple-minded boobs unaware of what they do or why. What I believed was truly happening has been confirmed. Our returning military are being abused on college campuses.
The London Zoo is having a homo sapiens exhibit. The purpose of which is to demonstrate how humans are "just another primate" and to see that "we are not that special." Right here we have the distinction writ large between the secular and the Judeo-Christian views of life. For the secular there is no difference between humans and animals. For those of us for whom secularism is not a religion, we see humans as created in God's image and therefore, yes, different from and something more than a beast, capable of both the sublime and the base.
U.S. refineries are operating at 97% of capacity processing 17 million barrels of oil per day (while our demand is about 21 million barrels). In 1981 there were 315 operating refineries in the U.S. Today there are 144. The vote to authorize drilling in the ANWR is coming up soon. We have shut down refineries and off-shore platforms in the anticipated path of hurricane Katrina which means that, despite an expected drop-off in local production we, for all practical purposes, have no unused processing capacity to make up for that temporary loss. Expect gasoline prices to go up at least regionally, if not nationally, depending on how prolonged the shutdown is and then ask yourself: Are we doing as much as we can as a nation to "solve" the problem of high fuel costs? The answer should be a resounding "no" and a major step in the right direction would be to place more refineries on-line and maximize our domestic production. Who is generally opposed to both these steps? Those on the left who also have the loudest voices when it comes to complaining that President Bush is not doing enough to bring down oil prices. I'm all for conservation and alternative sources of energy, but in conjunction with maximizing our domestic production in the meantime. Why doesn't that make sense to some?
Here's an interesting story from the Chicago Tribune about a group called "No More Deaths" providing humanitarian aid to illegals attempting a desert crossing from Mexico into Arizona. How do you ascertain the politics of the writer/newspaper? Closely read the following line: "Smugglers are telling the illegal aliens, `Don't worry about crossing because there are people out there who will help you guys,''' [Border Patrol spokesman Gustavo Soto] said. Such supplies [of food and water] also give migrants "the false hope" that they can survive the desert, he added." So the Border Patrol official calls them "illegal" while the writer is loathe to adopt that terminology himself so settles for "migrants". Thus, the new nom de plume for illegal immigrants/aliens is now the soft term "migrants" which appears several times throughout the article.
Did I miss the visits Jesse Jackson paid to George Bush when people called for the President's assassination? Must be because Hugo Chavez was elected, not selected. What a publicity-seeking, irrelevant loser he's become.
This is an absolute must read by Michael Yon about what our soldiers deal with everyday in Iraq, their heroism and commitment to mission, and what they are up against. I plagiarize from Hugh Hewitt and Thucydides: "The secret to happiness is freedom and the secret to freedom is courage." Note: contains some graphic photos of combat.
Another reason why my sense of desperation over there ever being lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians (and anyplace else where there is conflict involving Muslims) continues to increase: Read here for a "mainstream" interpretation of what the Qur'an has to say about the quality of Jews. [Hat tip: Dhimmi Watch] While you're at it, check out the various fatwas at the bottom of the link such as : "Definition of Evil Eye", "Men Wearing Silk Neckties" (apparently forbidden by the Qur'an), "Forcing a Wife to Wear Hijab" (ultimately, yes), "Islam's Stance on Oral Sex" (grudgingly OK, unless proven to cause mouth cancer...but absolutely no anal sex), "Eating with people who are drinking wine at the same table" (nope, and if you don't say anything you are a "silent devil")... While interestingly humorous, one must remember that since the Qur'an is viewed as the verbatim words of Allah, it is seen as controlling and regulating essentially every aspect of a devout Muslim's life (quite frankly, much like a dictatorial closed society but without visible borders). Not in broad general terms such as "love they neighbor" but in minute detail as evidenced by the various fatwas that can be found on almost any site devoted to Islam. With that said, why would you expect any devout Muslim to do anything other than what is ordered by their god whether it has to do with diet, clothing or attitude towards non-Muslims? UPDATE: Football (soccer) declared un-Islamic by Saudi clerics.
Here's a rather interesting and comprehensive timeline detailing the history leading up to and beyond the Vietnam War. Inasmuch as most are historically-challenged, it would be useful for all to remind themselves (or learn for the first time) of how Ho Chi Minh came to power after Japan surrendered to the Allies in 1945 and what preceded that event: In short, the French began their occupation of a warring and divided Vietnam in about 1858. They held sway until about 1940 when Japan invaded Vietnam to coincide with its ally Germany's invasion of France. They kept the now German-controlled Vichy government in place but ruled from off stage. Ho Chi Minh, a Communist revolutionary and a member of the French Communist Party returned to Vietnam in 1941 to begin a revolution against the French/Japanese rule. When the Japanese surrendered to the British in 1945 they (Japanese) essentially turned the country over to Ho Chi Minh's "Vietminh" party that had gained significant support from the Vietnamese people. The British preferred that the French regain control as opposed to the Communist Vietminh, which led to the first Indochina War. The French were ultimately defeated in 1954 at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. The second Indochina War (i.e. Vietnam War) followed.
If any of you sports fans are following the Milton Bradley-Jeff Kent feud you know that Bradley, an African-American, has said that Kent, who is white, has a "problem" with blacks. I don't know if that's true or not, and there are quite a few major leaguers who will stand up for Kent, at least against charges of racism, but that's not relevant here. What is quite interesting to me is a statement made by Bradley and reported as part of the linked story by an LA Times sportswriter: "Me being African American is the most important thing in my life — more important than baseball." Quite revealing both in the micro and in the macro sense. With respect to this particular feud in the Dodger clubhouse, such a statement leads me to believe that perhaps Bradley may be just a wee bit hypersensitive about matters of race (yeah, I know, its not his fault given the history of oppression in this country, yada, yada, yada...) and therefore will always find the needle in the haystack, even if it's not there. On a larger scale, is it healthy for any of us to place our group identity or identities in the most exalted position in our psyches? Conflicts are inevitable when we consider ourselves above all else black, or gay, or Latino, or white, or Muslim, or Christian...you get the point...and consequently see everything through that chosen, and distorting, prism. It's one thing to try to live your life consistent with a certain set of rules or mores. It's quite another to base it upon a status which confers nothing. By the way, can you imagine the furor if Jeff Kent had said "Me being white is the most important thing in my life..."?
On July 19, 2005, I had heard that Professor Bob Ferguson of the Royal Military College in Canada [aka a Canadian equivalent of Howard Dean apparently] made a speech on Canada's National Public Radio...that the only way to stop Christians from stopping the liberal agenda is to finally put a stop to religion by regulating religion in Canada especially Catholicism...all in the guise of furthering religious freedom. He wants the government to be able to require churches to teach their religion in a certain way so as not to interfere with government. One of his most disturbing comments and the most obvious example of his ignorance of religion in general and disrepect for all religion was the statement..."Can't religious leaders agree to adjust doctrine so all religions can operate within the code?" How can a professor utter such ignorance...when he knows not of what he speaks? I cannot believe someone finally said it, although I knew it was true for a long time. What I have never understood is...if religion is so stupid, so meaningless, a "crutch" to everyday life...what are liberals so afraid of?... if they are right...religion is weak and cannot hurt them. My own liberal theology professor from college felt that personal religious morals had no place in the public square...had no right to be used in public language that would affect policy or laws. I now know how wrong he was because for that premise to be true Professor Ferguson would get his way. I read a great piece at Republican Voices regarding what Professor Ferguson said. Even Catholics weighed in on this one. If it works in Canada I am sure it will be tried by Howard Dean if his party makes it in. Didn't communism try to do this to religion too? Only the Russian Orthodox church could operate in the USSR. The church was limited to what it could say or teach so as to never be a threat to its government...and now that same idea is back again. So much for progress. Religion is "truth" for most people who bother with religion...or the path to truth just as liberal ideology is the path to truth for others. Truth is an absolute and cannot be bargained away. Truth is then only silenced by force...what is religion saying about liberal policies that liberals don't want us to hear?
I've said before that in order to get past the self-serving rhetoric spewed by most with an agenda and get even a sense of the truth one must look for telling and indisputable facts from which to extrapolate. For it is those facts which often serve as a window into the real world rather than the one that is being manufactured for popular consumption. Submitted for your approval. Two of the stars of the Israeli national soccer team, and integral to its hopes to obtain a World Cup berth, are Abas Suan and Walid Badir. What makes them stand out in addition to their skill? They are both Arab Muslims. Can you conceive for even a nanosecond any Arab or Islam dominated nation allowing Jews to attend a soccer match, much less be members of its national team? It's these sorts of seemingly unconnected tidbits that provide true insight into the nature of a culture and society. If you can't see that, you are being purposely obtuse.
It is amazing to me that liberals are still anguishing, and lying, about the Florida recount of 2000. Paul Krugman of the NY Times gets busted again.
I meant to post about this yesterday [Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt] but didn't have the time. Is it an aberration to have 65 of 490 female high school students pregnant? That's 1 in 7. At the same school. At the same time. In an era of absolutely openness about birth control and sex ed, how can this happen and what should be done? Well, maybe a little bit more stigma and opprobrium may be a place to start. When I was in high school (early 1970's) there were probably a total of 1600 students in grades 9 through 12 (roughly 50% girls) and, coming on the heels of the free love 1960's, there certainly was a good deal of sexual activity going on. But I'm fairly certain that there was perhaps one, maybe two, pregnancies during that time. Yeah, I know...how would I or anyone else know for sure...and that's true. But I can assure you that we didn't have 1 of every 7 female students pregnant mostly because it was not considered acceptable or appropriate behavior. That created pressure to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. A pressure which I don't believe exists today. Note: Best line from this article is "School officials are not sure what has contributed to so many pregnancies..." That may be part of the problem!
I came across an old quote from Mariah Carey: "When I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can't help but cry. I mean, I'd love to be skinny like that, but not with all those flies and death and stuff." [Note: This quote may be an urban legend, but what the heck]
My only comment (for now) on the Lance Armstrong doping controversy is from a lawyer's point of view. If the test for EPO (a red blood cell booster) has been available since 2001, why did whoever was responsible for having the 1999 "B" samples tested wait until 2005 to do so? That doesn't mean that the results and the link to Armstrong are bogus. It just raises a question.
Islamic swimwear!! It's all the rage in Istanbul. Coming to a WalMart near you soon!!
Counter demonstrations are underway in Crawford, Texas by families of military serving in Iraq who support their sons and daughters and the effort in which they are engaged. I don't believe the anti-war left would have been met with this response 10 years ago, and I'm sure it comes as a shock. Arthur Chrenkoff has compiled a short list of parents of service personnel who do not share Cindy Sheehan's sentiments but who, of course, are not given a national stage from which to emote.
"Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent." "Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target." "What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs." Take a moment and read Ralph Peters' column.
I wonder who is responsible for this blast? Probably Episcopalian terrorists.
The Rolling Stones' new song on their new album debuted. Here are a few lines directed at President Bush... You can call yourself a Christian, You can call yourself a patriot. Well, I think you are full of shit! Of course this is coming from Mick Jagger, a heroin addict who has never topped 80 lbs., who made all his money while in this country, yet doesn't even live in the US anymore, who probably couldn't define Christian, even if a Bible was stapled to his head...but he would know if Bush sucks or not. I love it how celebrities and musicians firmly believe that their fans could not be anything, but Democrats. Wouldn't he do more good singing about things he knows about, like drug prevention and the love of his life, David Bowie?
I'm quite rushed this morning and don't know why I keep beating my head against the wall with this and similar stories, other than it needs to be repeated until everyone gets it. A large percentage of Muslims (I studiously avoid the use of the word "radical" since I'm beginning to conclude that it is an inaccurate description) truly believe that it is their duty to spread Islam to all corners of the globe by any means necessary, including violence and not as a last resort. It happens most everywhere there is a shared border between a Muslim state and a non-Muslim state, or within a predominantly Muslim country but with a basically secular government. British Muslims aren't just preaching hate of America and the UK. They are also demonizing, for example, India. Of the 400 recognized terrorist groups operating in the world today, over 90 percent are Islamist. What should that tell you?
That lovable curmudgeon who presides over that Caribbean worker's paradise is at it again. Anti-paradise dissidents are being rounded up and jailed for the crime of being critical of the old guy and his long refuted views.
Islamic terrorists simultaneously detonate over 100 bombs across Bangladesh...an overwhelmingly Muslim country. Why? Because it is governed by secular laws. So what do we learn from this? The obvious point that these extremist terrorists are not simply concerned with Western infidels or historic slights. They are more than willing to kill their own for the greater purpose of establishing an Islamic state governed by Islamic (Sharia) law. That is the bottom line. Nothing more, nothing less.
David Frum makes much the same point made here, namely that Sharon's intent is a big "Be careful what you wish for" moment: "Could it be that Sharon is calling the bluff of Western governments and the Arab states? By creating the very Palestinian state that those governments and those states pretend to want but actually dread – Sharon is forcing them to end their pretense and acknowledge the truth: The Palestinian leadership is incapable of creating a state that can live at peace with anyone, not Israel, not the other Arab states, not Europe, not the world. Somebody else must govern the restless and violent Arab-majority territories west of the Jordan River. Israel has suffered four decades of condemnation for doing the job. Sharon is now resigning the task to anybody else who would like to step in and take over the job. Nobody wants to. But Egypt and Jordan may soon realize that they have no choice. If there is a secret behind Sharon’s plan – that is it. "
Update your Christmas card lists...Sean "Puffy" Combs also known as Puff Daddy...also known as P. Diddy...nows just wants Diddy. He says The 'P" was coming between him and his fans. He now feels closer to his "peops."
Honest question to those who support the removal of Jewish settlements from Gaza and/or believe that Palestinian terror is the result of Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip: How do you explain the fact that Palestinian Arabs have been fighting and killing Israeli Jews since Israel was established in 1948, but the "occupation" of Gaza and the West Bank didn't begin until 1967? UPDATE: Here's a quote from Yosi Klein Halevi's piece that raises another disturbing question that I have posed for some time now: [H]ad the Palestinians opted five years ago for negotiations instead of terror, they would have gotten almost all of what they now say they want. In December 2000, following the failure of the Camp David negotiations, President Clinton proposed a Palestinian state on over 96% of the Israeli-held territories, with a capital in East Jerusalem. Palestinians would have gotten three out of four of the Old City's historic quarters. Israel said yes; the Palestinians said no. So, why was that?
Jonah Goldberg succinctly sums up the Cindy Sheehan imbroglio when he says: Sheehan's loss is obviously a terrible one. But the death of her son does not make her anymore qualified to rant about Israel and oil tycoons controlling American foreign policy than it would be if her son was alive. But her backers do not care, indeed they don't think anyone has the right to even point this out.
Good piece by Thomas Sowell on our immigration policy... Mexico criticizes New Mexico governor Bill Richardson's decision to declare a security emergency along his state's southern border complaining that border security is "a shared responsibility" and that the "Mexican government does not share the views of Gov. Richardson." No shittake, since last I checked 99% of the traffic at that border was northbound.
A "Muslim Sister Swim Night" at a Seattle public pool takes place regularly with only female life guards, covered windows and no males over the age of six. Am I being insensitive when asking why the heck we would do this with public facilities supposedly open to any and all? Why the bending over backwards to accommodate what we all deep down consider to be an antiquated and, quite honestly, misogynistic practice from a deeply patriarchal society? Why do we enable segregation by "minorities" on the one hand but deplore it when arguably performed by the "majority"? Why can Muslim women commandeer a public pool for reasons of modesty, but there are no such valid concerns in NFL locker rooms when it comes to female reporters? Mark Steyn put it quite properly when he said: "By pretending that all cultures are equal, multiculturalism doesn’t ‘preserve’ traditional cultures so much as sustain them in an artificial state that ensures they’ll develop bizarre pathologies and mutate into some freakish hybrid of the worst of both worlds."
I have been thinking about Maureen Dowd's incredibly stupid and vacuous comment regarding Cindy Sheehan that "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." This brief, incorrect, but albeit poetic, statement is fraught with the contradictions that real thinkers clearly see in most liberal "philosophy." Here, we have an statement antithetical to the leftist dogma that one man's morality is no better than any other's. A clear contradiction to the "who is to say what's right or wrong" school of thought. However, when the morality dovetails with your politics, it becomes unassailably absolute. What Dowd meant to say was "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq [and then go on to protest against the war and this President] is absolute." Which leads to the more obvious flaw. What would Maureen Down say about the moral authority of the parents who buried a fallen son or daughter but supported our country's effort? UPDATE: Read James Taranto's piece about Cindy Sheehan's comments that go unreported by the MSM. Here's a taste: "I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people . . . since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for."
Four California women have died of massive infections since 2003 after taking RU-486. Health officials are examining whether these may be a connection. How long before Meryl Streep testifies before Congress about the ill effects of the abortion pill?
Read this to get a glimpse of how our President actually deals with the grieving families of soldiers killed in combat.
The more you pay attention to news reports from the MSM, the more apparent is the leftist bias. I often wonder if the writer is even aware of it most of the time, or is it so built in that it is seen in the newsroom as straightforward, centrist reporting. Case in point is the Reuters article about Castro's 79th birthday. Here's the telling sentence: "Castro's bitterest enemies, mainly right-wing exiles living in Miami, see Cuba as a gulag run by an autocrat who impoverished Cuba's 11 million people, restricts their right to leave the island and suppresses dissent." Now I'm not sure whether all of Miami's Cuban exiles are "right-wing" but that's a minor point. What is interesting to me is the use of the phrase "see Cuba as a gulag..." This phraseology suggests that it is a matter of opinion whether Cuba is run by an autocrat, is impoverished, and its people's right to express themselves and emigrate is restricted rather than as irrefutable facts. However, there is no doubt that these things are true so why couch it in terms of debatable opinion?
British man married to three wives finally found out.
“From here, from this place, our nation and our masses are walking toward the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.” Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian leader at a rally yesterday.
Mohammed Atta, the architect of 9/11, had been identified as a member of al-Qaeda (the head of a New York based cell) at least one year prior to the attacks on the WTC towers. So were three other of the hijackers. They had been identified by a classified military intelligence unit which then recommended that this information be passed on to the FBI so that it could "bring that cell in." Why didn't this happen? Because of the "wall" set up between our intelligence gathering and law enforcement organizations during the Clinton Administration (remember Jamie Gorelick of the 9/11 Commission?). Of course this was done by those who fear the Patriot Act more than Islamic terrorists while at the same time screaming that George Bush failed to do anything to prevent the attacks in the eight months he was in office. This is a story that should be pursued with vigor. UPDATE: New York Post columnist Deb Orin has more: This week brought the stunning revelation that elite military spies pinpointed Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as a terror cell more than a year before 9/11 but were barred from alerting lawmen to try to lock them up. A prime reason why that warning never came is that Gorelick as top deputy to then-Attorney General Janet Reno issued a 1995 order creating a "wall" that blocked intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law enforcement. This is a scandal of epic proportions brought about by one thing, and one thing only. The liberal penchant to be more concerned with the politically correct than with the real concerns of national security. What possible sensible reason is there for actively preventing the FBI from doing its job when information has been obtained suggesting terrorist activity. The concept of a "wall" was developed for the sole purpose shortcircuitinging any law enforcement investigation despite warnings of precisely what could happen, and did happen on 9/11. Will the MSM have the integrity to jump on this with both feet despite the fact that it occurred during the Clinton Administration?
I guess something must be said about this poor, seemingly unhinged, woman and the vultures who are using her as an antiwar, anti-Bush poster child. Being a parent myself, I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child or the enormity of the emptiness it creates. She deserves our sympathy. Having said that, it is remarkable the amount of coverage the MSM has given her without placing matters in perspective. Namely, that she was quite satisfied with her meeting with President Bush shortly after it took place. I would wager that more ink and air time has been spent highlighting her words than has been spent reporting about the parents of every other fallen soldier combined. I also would imagine that there have been mothers who have lost children to war who then blamed Lincoln or Roosevelt or Truman or Kennedy or Johnson or Nixon for the loss of their child. I don't mean to sound cruel but that is not a newsworthy event. The fact that it remains a top story reflects the clear bias of the MSM inasmuch as, for every Cindy Sheehan, there are literally hundreds of grieving parents who do not share her sentiments. How many of them have you heard about lately? Indeed, the rest of her family has come out to state that they do not share her perspective. This sordid affair bespeaks the level to which the left will plummet in order to try to undermine President Bush and the war effort.
Korean guy dies from videogame exhaustion...seven days after a strange phonecall (OK...just kidding about that last part).
In light of the discussion taking place at an earlier post re "responsibility" for unwanted pregnancies, I felt the need to expunge from my psyche a few thoughts I've had for some time now concerning the abortion debate. I say "debate" because I'm not naive enough to believe that I can or will change anyone's mind because, quite frankly, much of the debate is mindless in the sense that logic and reason are replaced by bromides and mantras. The following may result in me getting sucker punched by some of the women in my life but here goes nothing. First, let me be upfront and state that I have, over the course of many years, come to the point where I can say with significant certainty that I am pro-life. It wasn't always so. But the more I thought about the issue and the threshold questions involved the more I could not justify to myself my earlier position. Anyway, the point of the title of this post is to highlight what I consider to be the agenda-driven analysis of the abortion issue by the pro-choice crowd. It is much like BDS ("Bush Derangement Syndrome") which manifests itself in opinions and statements that seem quite divorced from reality. The issue regarding the abortion debate is rather straightforward and the questions quite clear. The initial question is: Do you believe that an abortion results in the taking of a human life (i.e. homicide, but not murder, and I'll get to this distinction in a bit)? If you don't, then there really is no issue to debate since an abortion would be tantamount to an elective surgical procedure to remove an inflamed gall bladder. A decision that clearly has no broader societal implications. However, if you do believe that at some point an unborn child is human and alive, and the taking of that innocent life should not generally be authorized or condoned, then you must answer the question when does this human life begin? There is no doubt that at some point in the gestation process you are dealing with a separate being waiting to be born but no less human and living than you and I. I've come to the conclusion that life begins at conception because...when else could it? A fertilized human egg, an embryo, is clearly human (as opposed to animal, vegetable or mineral) and is certainly alive (as you would say about any single or multi-cell organism). So if life doesn't begin at conception when during that nine month journey does it? This is where the debate usually begins to devolve into bumper-sticker talk. I have heard the argument that it begins when the fetus can "survive outside the womb without assistance" Well, two problems with that. A newborn can't survive outside the womb without assistance either, but we don't believe that you can kill a newborn (although that is not the case in some circles and societies). Also, medicine continues to push back the date that a premature infant can be delivered and still survive...viability. A child who undoubtedly would not have survived birth in 1945 can very well do so in 2005. So unless you are proposing that the point at which "human" life begins is dictated by man's technology, or lack thereof (which by the way would result in a different point in time depending on whether you live in a first world versus third world country, for example), you can't use that standard either. Where does that leave us? Well, unfortunately (watch my back here, please) in a situation where the end (unfettered access to abortion services) justifies the means (obfuscating the argument). If the argument were framed in its true terms, that the convenience of the mother (and let's be honest, 98% of abortions are done for reasons of convenience) is the prevailing virtue, it is not as compelling. So we are instead presented with "our bodies, ourselves" chants and very little constructive debate. So the real issue is what values will we as a society hold to be paramount over others, and here is the distinction between homicide and murder. While I firmly believe the debate never moves much from the mantra of "right to choose" or "control over our own bodies" because no one on the choice side wants to squarely address the issue of whether a human life is being taken (and you must wonder why that is), abortion can still be justified in some sense if its proponents had the guts to say what they really mean. That is, we believe our right to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy trumps any other rights that exist and would otherwise inure to the benefit of the unborn child. As a society, we find justifiable certain life-taking (homicide) such as in the act of self-defense, or as punishment for a heinous crime, or during warfare. None of these takings of life are considered murder, and therefore criminal and intolerable in a civilized society. Now you may debate the question of whether we should find justifiable, for example, capital punishment, but at present we do. There is therefore no reason why, if we so desired, we could not view abortion as a justifiable taking of a life if that's where we are or want to be as a society. There is no reason why pro-choicers couldn't stand up and say what they really mean: It doesn't matter if abortion is the taking of human life...my right to convenience and self-determination is more important. However, that requires elevating convenience over life and, when put in those stark terms, the argument loses all of its luster.
Today marks the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the Watts riots...which have now been transformed by the AP into an "uprising." Presumably the word "riot" is too judgmental and negative to use to describe such an uplifting cultural event. Here's the difference. An "uprising" is when a group of people stand up, often but not always violently, to their oppressors. It's a "riot" when a bunch of opportunists burn and loot their own neighborhoods. Here's a handy test. If you see a guy running out of a burning Circuit City pushing a shopping cart holding a DVD player and flat screen monitor and shouting "Power to the people!" he's not "rising up"...he's a "rioter."
Spotted Owl not making a comeback despite 15 years of industry killing protection. Now how long will it be before the environmentalists who cost thousands of loggers their jobs for no apparent reason offer their heartfelt apologies? I'm not holding my breath.
Examine the reaction of the West and Israel to the terrorism perpetrated by Israeli Jew Eden Natan Zada to that of Arabs and Muslims when a busload of innocent Israelis is blown up. It is quite instructive.
If we're gonna complain about the high price of crude oil and gasoline, then shut up about your environmental concerns over drilling in the ANWR for chrissakes! I am very disappointed that there are Republicans who are expressing "concern" on this issue. If we can't get our domestic production of crude oil up as the price of gasoline approaches $3.00 per gallon then we are paralyzed by special interest politics.
Two Arab mothers are sitting in a cafe in Baghdad, chatting over a pint of warm goat's milk. The older of the mothers pulls her bag out and starts flipping through pictures and they start reminiscing."This is my oldest son Mohammed. He's 24 years old." "Yes, I remember him as a baby" says the other mother cheerfully. "He's a martyr now though" mum confides "a suicide bomber." "Oh, so sad dear" says the other. "And this is my second son Khalid. He's 21." "Oh, I remember him," says the other happily, "he had such curly hair when he was born." "He's a martyr too" says mum quietly. "a car bomber." "Oh gracious me", says the other. "And this is my third son. My baby. My beautiful Ahmed."He's 18", she whispers. "Yes" says the friend enthusiastically, "I remember when he first started school". "He's a martyr also," says mum, with tears in her eyes. After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Muslim mother looks wistfully at the photographs and says..."They blow up so fast, don't they?"
LGF reports that a distinguished professor who is "head of the Sharia faculty at Al-Ahzar University, the most prestigious academy in Sunni Islam, and is a lecturer at Cairo University" has stated that there is absolutely no evidence that Muslims or Arabs had anything to do with 9/11. As usual, it was a fabricated story to justify going to war against Islam. The real culprits? The "dirty Zionists" of course. The obvious point made is the $64,000 question. If only a "tiny minority of extremists" think this way, why are all these well placed, powerful Muslim/Arabs saying these things? On a related issue, beginning 8/15 Israel will be moving 8000 settler families from Gaza. If the "occupation" is the genesis of Palestinian suicide terror, should we not expect that it will decrease after this move? And if it does not, can we not conclude that all that talk is simply pretext?
This question came up when I was discussing a recent story in the LA Times with my favorite priest and ex-professor...about, of course, a priest. On Sunday I went to a late mass because I needed advice. After mass and during our visit, we started discussing the priest, here in Los Angeles, who fathered a child, and now the mother wants child support and health benefits, because he is a sickly child, with lots of allergies and asthma. Now the part of the story that actually bothers me is [because priests have fathered children since the days of Chaucer in the 1300s]...but I am bothered by the Catholic church's defense. They defend their priest by saying..."she should've asked him to use a condom and take precautions." What about, "He should've asked her to use the pill or a diaphragm." Now the church has been paying child support all along...but when she came back for more...their answer was, "she should've asked him to use a condom." What shocked me more was my priest friend said the same line "she should've used a condom," before I could tell him what the official line was from the church. So I asked him just as a man, "do you believe it is her fault if this happens?...drum roll please...and of coure, his answer was..."yes." I slugged down the rest of my wine in the glass and asked..."Say it ain't so, Jo?" even though his name is Peter. Yep, it is her fault...and so I wondered, is it really the consensus out there among men, that in the end because nature requires the woman to carry the baby...therefore men are off the hook? My feeling is there are two lines of defense against pregnancy, Him and Her. If both do their part it is pretty full proof. If he carries a condom...and she uses the pill...then no problem...but if he fails to carry the condom and she fails to take the pill, why is it just her problem?
Another in a building torrent of articles finally questioning our passion for the multicultural ethic and pointing out the irony of tolerating an intolerant ideology.
The state of California cannot account for 30,000 (not a typo) of its 70,000 state-owned vehicles.
Having come across several factually deficient recitations of the "history" of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I've decided to link to my posts of a number of months ago. Please feel free to visit, or revisit, them: History of Israel and "Palestine": Part 1 History of Israel and "Palestine": Part 2 History of Israel and "Palestine": Part 3 History of Israel and "Palestine": Part 4 Interactive Reference Map for History of Israel and "Palestine"
The Democrats are in a tizzy over the recess appointment of John Bolton for fear that his penchant to "place his hands on his hips in an aggressive manner" will wilt the self-esteem of the other UN ambassadors. However, they seem not a bit concerned over the UN's attempt to take over the global internet. I'm not kidding about this effort. It's old news but, as is often the case, completely underreported by the MSM. Read here and here for more.
Is there any doubt that the liberal media are a bunch of vultures who will stop at nothing to advance the Democrats' agenda? What possibly relevant information could come from the adoption records of John Roberts' children?
The NCAA has struck a blow for civil rights by banning "hostile and abusive" team nicknames in postseason tournaments. Of course, this only applies to American Indian names and not to "The Fighting Irish" or the "Ragin' Cajuns." I have an idea: It might also be a good idea to ban all popular music that uses the word "niggaz" or any of its derivatives for the same reasons. We are now a better country and society.
A very good jobs report came out yesterday. 207,000 new payroll jobs last month (for an average of 191,000 new jobs per month this year) and an increase in average hourly earnings. Interesting sidenote: I went to Google News to get a link to this story and was unable to find it reported on its homepage under the "Business" section. Nor did it show up when I expanded the business reporting section. But there was a "Markets End Week Lower" story.
Tony Blair has big ole (insert here word or words for testicles). He is pushing for appropriate legislation to allow the deportation of all the preachers of hate and violence. Good for him and for the UK. Unfortunately, doing the same here will be more difficult because of our First Amendment protections that do not exist in the UK. Note that there will be a revisiting of the concept of "multiculturalism" by the Brits. Hopefully it will be a watershed moment that provokes other Western states to do the same and ask the obvious question why should we grant access to our country to someone who has no intention of assimilating with the dominant culture? I do have a question however. Why should there be any concern over what may happen to these guys once they are deported? They have done nothing to warrant that concern so let the chips fall where they may.
Found a new favorite cigar, the Davidoff 4000 (ring gauge 43, length 6 1/4). It's a mild to medium-bodied, very smooth smoke. Cigar Aficionado rates it 84-88 depending on its vintage. I'd actually rate it higher than that.
If you haven't heard about the long-running battle by the ACLU and its atheist client against the City of San Diego over the Mount Soledad cross, become informed. The court battle is shaping up after the voters of San Diego passed a referendum compelling the City to take the Federal government up on its offer to have ownership of the land upon which the cross is situated transferred to the feds (note: the cross has been in place since the 1950's). The ACLU is arguing, among other things, that it is a violation of the federal Constitution to have a religious display such as the cross on public lands. Arguments will take place next week. If the ACLU is successful, I assume Arlington National Cemetery is next on the hit list.
Breaking News: Al Qaeda's number two guy has blamed Tony Blair's support for the U.S. led war in Iraq as the cause of the London bombings, and threatened more of the same. Clearly this is an attempt to achieve the same effect obtained in Spain after the Madrid bombings. Hopefully our friends the Brits will have nothing of the sort. Question oft repeated: If Iraq is the flashpoint supposedly motivating the terrorist attacks, why isn't Afghanistan cited as a reason as well? Obvious answer is that, politically, you can't create very much sustained internal controversy since no thinking person can rightfully say that Afghanistan should not have been invaded after 9/11. However, it still resulted in all the same "offenses" that are complained of in Iraq. Oh, by the way, what was the obvious motivation for all the attacks leading up to and including 9/11?
The inevitable ACLU lawsuit over the subway searches in NYC has been filed. I'm not sure I understand whether the argument is that the searches are ineffective or they are ultimately going to result in racial profiling, or both. Is the ACLU against the screening of passengers before they board an airplane? What's the difference other than all passengers are screened before boarding a flight but only some are searched before boarding trains and subways? So, would the ACLU be OK with a policy where ALL passengers boarding subways were screened? This post goes hand in glove with the commentary taking place at an earlier post about profiling.
A couple weekends ago I went to hear a Peace Studies professor [a friend of mine] give a talk with a bunch of other ones on WAR...specifically the Iraq war. These speakers were all professors teaching today's college students. This is what I learned in an nutshell...Some things didn't make sense...Some did. At some point during my time with him and the other speakers these statements were made at least once. I had to start writing them down. Some were things that shocked me...Some were things that made me think. 1) Al Jazeera is a credible place to receive your news and information and preferred over American media to know the truth in the Middle East. 2) When Bush dies or leaves office that will make the US safer from terrorism than all are efforts in Iraq. 3) We are all victims of Republican "groupthink" and this war is all for Imperialism...just glamorized nationalism to sell a few more American flags. 4) We need to allow the UN peacekeeping to evolve [they showed examples of where they have done such a great job on humanitarian stuff like passing out food] and allow economic conversion of these countries to evolve and that will accomplish BETTER than what this war can do. 5) War should never been used...because it is sexist. 6) Warfare is an invention not a natural necessity. 7) Civilian resistance is the best and greatest national defense. 8) No positive peace can come from war. [I thougth WWII ended pretty postively.] 9) We just have a misunderstanding and misperception of Muslims and once that is cleared up there is no need for war. When the Muslims begin to understand us we can co-exist...but now that there is war that goal may be in jeopardy forever. 10) Bush and his ilk are the cause of all our problems...Hillary 2008.
Two related stories here. The California insurance commissioner has proclaimed that the public health care system in that state is in a "death spiral." A federal report states that U.S. citizenship is not verified for most Medicaid claims (citizenship is a requirement to be eligible for the program). Why is the cost of health care in California increasing. For the same reason hospitals are closing their ER facilities. They cannot pay for them any longer because of the level of service they must provide to an increasing number of persons who have no insurance coverage. Who are the vast majority of these persons, at least in California? Illegal immigrants.
I'm all far tough law and order, but this is a bit over the top. The crime rate must be unusually low in Fresno, CA these days.
I was reading an article today about a local guy who moonlights as a "cage fighter" and came across a description of his mother as being a "nail technician." My first thought was that she was in some way involved in the design of "straight-line metallic joining devices" (e.g. drywall, barbed etc) but later learned she was a manicurist.
More and more talk like this from people that count is encouraging... On the other hand, stuff like this is an example of how the liberal West has its head up its arse... Maybe I'm being picky, or biased because this is a WaPo piece, but to me Anne Applebaum displays one of the symptoms of today's multicultural, liberal ethic...that is, strained efforts at moral relativism. She writes that we should be able to understand why second generation British Muslims who have never been to Iraq would have "sympathy" with the 7/7 London bombers because of the equivalence of Irish-American "sympathy" for the IRA. Not an accurate parallel. Some of the Irish in America may have had sympathy for the IRA's goal of an independent Northern Ireland, but they weren't blowing themselves up, and scores of completely innocent Americans, in America to show solidarity, or in some warped way believing they were helping achieve the IRA's end. Just more squishy thinking wrapped around an agenda... "What's the difference between the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg by President Bill Clinton and the nomination of Judge Roberts by President Bush? Answer: nothing. Ginsburg appeared as liberal as Roberts does conservative, yet she was approved 96 to 3. The GOP decided it would not be a party of useless litmus tests or panderers to special interests. And in the next election, Republicans made it clear she would not have been their choice. That is, after all, what elections are about." Read Gloria Borger's entire piece... So, has anyone been following the Air America story? It is difficult since the MSM has spent more time and effort reporting about a potentially greater than usual hurricane season than the now estimated misappropriation of $875,000 from widows and orphans in order to keep Al Franken and Janeane Garafolo on the air...Michelle Malkin weighs in as well...
I came across this magazine while at the car wash recently celebrating "Hip-Hop's Incarcerated Soldiers" and thought to myself how can this type of mainstream glorification of criminal behavior be good for anyone. Here's a cogent analysis of what's wrong with today's civil rights organizations and their failure to react to what is truly negative stereotyping. Anyone who has read this blog knows of my distaste for most things hip-hop. Like someone recently said, "If a bunch of white racists wanted to come up with something that made young black males look ignorant they would have invented hip-hop and Ludacris."
"France warned that Iran would have to face the U.N. Security Council if it reopens its Isfahan Nuclear Conversion Facility and resumes uranium processing." Francois Gere of Paris' French Institute of Strategic Analysis said: "Today, the balance is shifting in the direction of a tougher tone." If I was Iran right now, I'd be terrified! I mean having to face the dreaded U.N. Security Council!! Or having to listen to a tougher tone!! The horror!! The horror!! Read the entire story.
I tend to not like to talk about what I do for a living. Not out any sense of embarrassment mind you, but simply because I don't expect most to find it particularly interesting. However, every once in a great while a case begs and pleads to be passed on to the non-legal world. Gentlemen, cross your legs for the story of the penile fracture and the duty of care during sexual activity. The case of Doe v. Moe (pseudonyms, perhaps?) made it to the Massachusetts Court of Appeal where the court had to decide whether a man could sue his sex partner for negligence when she was...well, let me just quote from the opinion: The plaintiff was lying on his back while the defendant was on top of him. The defendant's body was secured in this position by the interlocking her legs and the plaintiff's legs. At some point, the defendant unilaterally decided to unlock her legs and place her feet on either side of the plaintiff's abdomen for the purpose of increasing her stimulation. When the defendant changed her position, she did not think about the possibility of injury to the plaintiff. Shortly after taking this new position, the defendant landed awkwardly on the plaintiff, thereby causing him to suffer a penile fracture. Ouch. Fortunately, the court found that there was no requirement to exercise "reasonable care" during consensual sex on the basis that one man's lack of care is another's stimulation. (OK, I made that last little part up). The court did however find the requirement to not be "wanton or reckless" during consensual sex. [Note: I thought that's how one might want it to be.] For any of you legal eagles out there here's a link to the actual opinion.
Explain why there are those who truly believe (maybe they don't ?) that there is a legitimate compromise that can be reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians that will result in a lasting peace when such "fringe" figures as the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority says things like this.
Do you drive this car (Acura Integra)? Then invest in Lojack, or The Club, or any similar anti-theft device. You're gonna need it.
I have no doubt that this same kind of "instruction" is taking place in similar Islamic schools in the U.S. Why wouldn't it be since the players are the same, just the location of the stage is different. The obvious purpose behind it is to indoctrinate (i.e. "brainwash") youngsters at an early age. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a multiculti fool. I also have no doubt that if there was a school anywhere in this country where teachers were lecturing to their students about the superiority of the white race, or the Christian religion, the media, pundits, commentators and every politician with a functioning PR department would be all over it like a wet blanket until it was closed down. A taste of what you should all realize is being taught to young Muslim kids: "The imam told the students that the Jews were putting poison in the bananas and they should not eat them." "The teacher was alarmed by what she discovered in the school library. An image of Christ in a book on comparative religion had been defaced. When she asked students to explain, they told her that another teacher, a devout Muslim, had asked them to demonstrate that Islam was the one true faith by striking the picture with sharpened pencils. "They told me they had been made to line up and one by one stab the picture." The irony is as follows: Those that worship at the altar of tolerance and multiculturalism find themselves incapable of then being critical of a culture that practices intolerance. Odd, no?
"Art reaches perfection when it portrays the best life and best death...That is the essence of art. Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom?" President-elect of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad in a recent speech. Raise your hands all of you who think it's a spiffy idea to allow this guy to have nuclear weapons? Or that the U.S. having them is no different that Iran having them? Or that who are we to prohibit any country from arming itself? Or that the only reason Iran wants nuclear weapons is because it feels threatened by ours? Yeah, right.
"I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people.” Jimmy Carter speaking in Birmingham, England about Gitmo. He also said the war in Iraq is "unnecessary and unjust." Question #1: does he mean that there are "warranted" excuses for hurting innocent people? Question #2: did it occur to him that a former U.S. President labeling the war as he did might also provide "an unwarranted excuse"? [Note: when the word "freakin'" is run through the blogger.com spell-check it comes back "foreskin"...also appropriate in this context]
"Across camp, a group of younger children -- most between 10 and 12 -- sat in a circle in the sand singing one of the "intifada songs" they learn at camp. One boy sang verses in a rolling soprano as the others joined in on the one-word chorus. We don't want to sleep. HA-A-MAS! We want revenge. HA-A-MAS! Raise it up. HA-A-MAS! Rifle fire. HA-A-MAS! If it will take a thousand martyrs. HA-A-MAS! Kill Zionists. HA-A-MAS! Wherever they are. HA-A-MAS! In the name of God. HA-A-MAS!" Please read the entire story. Does anyone need any further evidence that we are dealing with a clash of civilizations? [Hat tip: LGF]
When worlds collide: a Muslim at a university campus insults gays...
Italy gets tough...finally...not wanting Rome to follow in the footpath of Madrid and London. France, because of its unique (to Europe anyway) belief in the primacy of its culture, ends up making the right moves despite itself. Britain OKs profiling. However, there's no stopping the pork lobby and its skewed sense of humor.
More evidence of moderation in the Muslim world.