Monday, May 28, 2007
Oh we agree, climate change is a reality. For instance, I have noted that right around June 21 the weather turns rather warm. It's called "summer." Then around November 1 it starts to get really cool. That's called "winter." Climate change is real. I have been observing this personally myself for some years.
Pelosi said she hoped Bush would be open to considering a "different way"
in the future. The California Democrat pointed to her delegation's weekend
stop in Greenland, "where we saw firsthand evidence that climate change is a
reality; there is just no denying it."
Then Pelosi issues this nonsensical non-sequitur:
What a flaming idiot. What a non-sequitur. Man's affect on the environment is so miniscule it cannot be measured. The myth of manmade Global Warming, however, will be the next avenue for leftists to seize control of the American economy.
"It wasn't caused by the people of Greenland — it was caused by the behavior of the rest of the world," she said.
I'm currently reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. It's a work of fiction, but in it Rand describes a coalition of incompetents and Washington bureaucrats who scheme to control industry and dole out resources to individuals, companies, areas and industries of the government's choosing. Bureaucrats simply appropriate businesses and production through various schemes, "for the public good." The effect is to cause highly productive entrepreneurs and industrialists to just close shop and give up. Whole industries shut down. Rand's heros, Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, call the bureaucrats what they are: looters.
The nightmare scenario that Pelosi now supports is just a real life case, similar to one in "Atlas Shrugged." It will enable global leftism to merely appropriate business and production and transfer resources as they see fit. It will punish the producers and reward the non-producers. It is just another looting scheme.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
McCrae's "In Flanders Fields" remains to this day one of the most memorable war poems ever written. It is a lasting legacy of the terrible battle in the Ypres salient in the spring of 1915. Here is the story of the making of that poem:
Although he had been a doctor for years and had served in the South African War, it was impossible to get used to the suffering, the screams, and the blood here, and Major John McCrae had seen and heard enough in his dressing station to last him a lifetime.
As a surgeon attached to the 1st Field Artillery Brigade, Major McCrae, who had joined the McGill faculty in 1900 after graduating from the University of Toronto, had spent seventeen days treating injured men -- Canadians, British, Indians, French, and Germans -- in the Ypres salient.
It had been an ordeal that he had hardly thought possible. McCrae later wrote of it:
"I wish I could embody on paper some of the varied sensations of that seventeen days... Seventeen days of Hades! At the end of the first day if anyone had told us we had to spend seventeen days there, we would have folded our hands and said it could not have been done."
One death particularly affected McCrae. A young friend and former student, Lieut. Alexis Helmer of Ottawa, had been killed by a shell burst on 2 May 1915. Lieutenant Helmer was buried later that day in the little cemetery outside McCrae's dressing station, and McCrae had performed the funeral ceremony in the absence of the chaplain.
The next day, sitting on the back of an ambulance parked near the dressing station beside the Canal de l'Yser, just a few hundred yards north of Ypres, McCrae vented his anguish by composing a poem. The major was no stranger to writing, having authored several medical texts besides dabbling in poetry.
In the nearby cemetery, McCrae could see the wild poppies that sprang up in the ditches in that part of Europe, and he spent twenty minutes of precious rest time scribbling fifteen lines of verse in a notebook.
A young soldier watched him write it. Cyril Allinson, a twenty-two year old sergeant-major, was delivering mail that day when he spotted McCrae. The major looked up as Allinson approached, then went on writing while the sergeant-major stood there quietly. "His face was very tired but calm as we wrote," Allinson recalled. "He looked around from time to time, his eyes straying to Helmer's grave."
When McCrae finished five minutes later, he took his mail from Allinson and, without saying a word, handed his pad to the young NCO. Allinson was moved by what he read:
"The poem was exactly an exact description of the scene in front of us both. He used the word blow in that line because the poppies actually were being blown that morning by a gentle east wind. It never occurred to me at that time that it would ever be published. It seemed to me just an exact description of the scene."In fact, it was very nearly not published. Dissatisfied with it, McCrae tossed the poem away, but a fellow officer retrieved it and sent it to newspapers in England. The Spectator, in London, rejected it, but Punch published it on 8 December 1915.
Stogie again. Red poppies are flowers whose seeds can remain dormant for years, and are activated into germination when the earth is broken or turned. When the soldiers in Belgium began burying their dead, there was a lot of freshly turned earth. In a few days the fresh graves were ablaze with the red poppies, as if God Himself had decorated the graves.
Because of this, the red poppy became a symbol of Memorial Day and for many years was worn by many to remember the war dead. This is an old tradition we should work to revive.
Here is McCrae's famous and beautiful poem:
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Now it's time to get started on Ayn Rand's real masterpiece. I will just start over from the beginning since it has been so long.
I go now, to fetch my second cup of coffee, my pipe and my book, to retire to my pastoral refuge in the backyard where I will sit, sip, smoke and savor, that is, savor the words of truth by Ayn Rand. I will emerge from my refuge even more sage and saintly then I am even now.
Eat your hearts out, liberals.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The torture manual can be viewed at The Smoking Gun. The Gun reports:
Read the whole thing and view the pictures here. Of course, we cannot deny the moral equivalency of our own actions. Isn't it true that we sometimes use water-boarding on terrorist captives? And haven't we made them listen to Rock music and turned the air conditioner up too high? Yeah, right. Besides, we all know there are no Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Liberals and Paleocons told us so.
Torture, Al-Qaeda Style
Drawings, tools seized from Iraq safe house in U.S. military raid MAY 24--In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Along with the images, which you'll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. Photos of those items can be seen here.
The Jawa Report also has recovered parts of a video of a 12 year old Muslim boy beheading a captive. The captive was a full grown man, and the beheading was coached by Taliban fighters who talked the 12 year old through it. The stills of the beheading are very bloody and graphic.
These animals are the ones we are fighting in our "unjust and immoral war," to quote Paleocon Mike Tuggle. What is a Paleocon, you ask? A species of invertebrates, mostly found in the Southern United States.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
I read Gerald Posner's 1993 book on the same subject, "Case Closed" and found it to be an excellent refutation of the various conspiracy thories. Bugliosi's book is said to be even better. I have to read this book! The Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories are a pet peeve of mine. I have never believed anything but the following: Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and he acted alone.
There is a university professor who put together a website that deals with all aspects of the Kennedy Assassination and refutes many of the conspiracy theories. It is "The Kennedy Assassination Page" by John McAdams. No matter what factoid of the assassination interests you, you can probably find a discussion of it here, e.g., the single bullet theory, the pristine bullet, the Grassy Knoll, the umbrella man, etc, etc. It is the best web reference going for this subject matter.
A conspiracist writes and I answer:
Burntoast: You are ill informed. James Chaney the motorcycle cop riding closest to the Pres said that he saw JFK shot in the face. Jesse Curry who was the police chief came to accept the shot from the front--you can see his take on YouTube. Curry wrote a book calling attention to the TWO shells in the TSBD that DPD turned over to the FBI, also to the .45 caliber shell in the turf at Dealy. Prejudice is not intelligence!My response:
Burntoast, you are the one who is misinformed. I can't find a source for Chaney saying that; however, suppose he did. No serious researcher would accept that as gospel without corroborating evidence, and there is none. There is plenty of evidence to prove a rear, head shot, however, including Chaney's own testimony. Per the JFK assassination page, here are the relevant testimonies of cops in the motorcade, including Chaney's:
Just prior to the shooting, two motorcycle policemen who had preceded the presidential limousine briefly slowed their cycles and waited for the slow-moving limousine to catch up with them. One was Officer Stavis “Steve” Ellis, who had just driven past the grassy knoll and turned around to face the President. "If there had been any shots fired from the grassy knoll," Ellis would state, "I couldn't have missed it since I was right even with that area when the shots were fired."As for Jesse Curry, he was the Chief of Police who was riding ahead of the motorcade. When the gunfire began, Curry thought the shots might have originated from the overpass in front of him. (He was undoubtedly hearing the echoes bouncing off the overpass.) However, Dealey Plaza is an echo chamber and many witnesses were confused as to the direction of the gunfire. Most of them, however, agree that there were three shots fired and that they came from the Texas School Book Depository.
During the shooting, my back or, more accurately, my left side was turned to the grassy knoll, but I was never more than about 100 feet from the spot where someone is supposed to have fired. Just an instant before, nobody was standing there, and I didn’t see anyone approaching. If a shot had come from that close to me, I would have known it. There was no shot fired from the grassy knoll. There were three shots fired, and all three came from back up toward the School Book Depository.
Motorcycle Officer William G. “Bill” Lumpkin had also turned around to face the President at the time the shots rang out. He recalled:
At the time [the shots were fired] I was facing east on Elm with the grassy knoll to my immediate left, and the corner of the stockade fence was less than 100 feet away. I saw nothing on that hill that looked in any way suspicious. I'm absolutely positive that there were only three shots, that they all came from back up Elm Street from the right rear of the President's limousine, and that no shot was fired from the grassy knoll.
Officer James Chaney was riding a motorcycle only a few feet from the presidential limousine’s right rear fender, close enough for his uniform to be spattered with the President’s blood after the fatal head shot; Officer Douglas L. Jackson rode a motorcycle just to Chaney’s right. A shot from the grassy knoll would have come from the right of both men and passed directly in front of them. In a diary entry the evening of the assassination, Officer Jackson wrote, "I knew that the shooting was coming from my right rear [towards the Book Depository] and I looked back that way . . ."
“You did not see the person who fired the shot?” Officer Chaney was asked by ABC newsman Bill Lord within hours of the shooting. "No sir," Chaney replied, "it was back over my right shoulder."
It is therefore dishonest to claim that Curry "accepted the shot from the front," as if his initial, confused and mistaken impression constituted some sort of clear, irrefutable truth. Balderdash.
As to the shells found in the TBSD, there were only three, all of the spent rounds from Oswald's rifle. The spent .45 shell "found in Dealey Plaza" is a myth; it never happened. Go here and read it for yourself.
1. "We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."
My Response: We are in a new kind of war and old models are obsolete. War methods and tactics must move with changing circumstances. Our enemy consists of religious fanatics who believe that God wants them to kill as many of us as possible, and that those Muslims who die in the attempt go straight to paradise. This enemy does not have standing armies and navies and engage in old-style campaigns; they have no discernible nation or government with which to negotiate; they are not going to issue formal declarations of war. They fight a guerilla war and target civilians. As 9/11 proved, we cannot wait until they attack us before we end the threat. We cannot afford to wait until a suitcase nuke obliterates Cleveland or a dirty bomb kills thousands in the New York subway.
As for pre-emptive war, it has long been established as a legitimate tactic to prevent aggression. The Brits and Canadians used it in the 19th century against a US merchant ship, the Caroline, who was about to ferry Canadian rebels and supplies to Canada to overthrow the Canadian government. The Canadian military attacked the ship, set it aflame and sent it over Niagara Falls. The American government protested but, upon hearing the facts of the situation, agreed that the attack was justified.
The Israelis bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant in the early 1980s (or therabouts) to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons against Israel. They had a right, just as they now have a right to do the same to Iran, a country who has been attacking them through proxies and supplying arms and training to Hamas and other terrorists. Also, Iran has been openly promised that it will wipe Israel off the map. The danger to Israel is imminent, and an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities should begin at once.
2. Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.
Response: All of Carter's efforts, as that of Bill Clinton, to arrange a peace in Israel with the Palestinians were a complete failure. The reason is simple and obvious: Muslims do not want to peacefully coexist with Israel and no accommodation will ever appease them. All pretended talks to that effect were calculated so that the West would continue to pump in billions of dollars in aid to the so-called Palestinians. Muslims hate Jews with a white-hot passion, because their Prophet Muhammad hated Jews and murdered many, even commanding his followers to kill Jews wherever they are found. On his death bed, Muhammad commanded his followers not to allow any religion but Islam in Arabia. Most Muslims think that means Israel cannot be allowed to exist. There is no point at "negotiating" any further with people who will not negotiate in good faith.
As for Bush refuting "negotiated nuclear arms agreements," we have to assume he is referring to missile treaties with the Soviet Union that are no longer needed and are obsolete. The US is now building anti-missile defenses to protect Europe, Israel and the United States from attacks by extremist governments in North Korea and Iran. Thank God for that.
As for Bush refuting "negotiated agreemens on the environment," we have to assume he is talking about the so called Kyoto protocol, which our own Senate (under Bill Clinton's administration) voted unanimously to reject. The Kyoto protocol would have proven ruinous to our economy and would not have had any effect on the environment whatsoever. The protocol was merely a socialist scheme to reduce production, investment and jobs in the West by transferring them to India, China and Mexico. Only a complete fool would have signed that ruinously stupid agreement.
Jimmy Carter's latest jaw-flapping only serves to reinforce his role as America's worst president. Yes, Carter retains that crown after all these years. He will always be remembered as our double-digit inflation, moribund economy president who did little to nothing when Iran invaded our embassy and took our ambassador and staff hostage for over 400 days. Carter is a bad memory that most of us would just as soon forget.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Following 9/11, Mike opposed any war from the very start and is now constructing a rationale for his preconceived position. Honest seekers of truth first assemble facts and then draw a conclusion; Mike does it backwards. First he comes to a conclusion, then seeks selective facts to support it. A raging intellectual he's not.
Like most paleocons, Tuggle has adopted the arguments and worldview of the Far Left in arguing against the war in Iraq, e.g., "it's all our fault" because the CIA allegedly helped overthrow a Communist leader of Iran back in 1953, Mohammed Mossadegh. (Actually, to say that Mossadegh was "overthrown" is a stretch. The Shah asked for his resignation as Prime Minister and when Mossadegh refused, he was fired.)
Then there was the fact that Saddam Hussein spent money allowed him for medicines on war materials instead, which caused a lot of Iraqi children to die from want of the former. That was our fault too, because we should have allowed Saddam to do whatever he wanted following his invasion of Kuwait, his gassing of the Kurds, his attempt to assassinate former President Bush, etc. Really, what choice did Al Qaeda have but to fly planes into the Word Trade Center and the Pentagon? It most certainly wasn't because there is anything intrinsically aggressive or violent about Islam, they think. They must still be pissed off by that Mossadegh thing. Yeah, right.
Of course, Paleocons are profoundly ignorant of Islam, its history, beliefs, goals and methods. Knowledge might stir them from their comfortable lethargy in the face of Muslm aggression and violence.
I detest the Paleocon worldview. Paleconservatism is an ugly blend of the worse sides of conservatism and liberalism: antisemitism and racism combined with Marxist apologia for failed Communist leaders (all the fault of the CIA), heaped with rationalizations for Islamic mass murderers and topped off with appeasement and pacifism and scented with a strong whiff of marijuana. When you think of paleoconservatism, think of bald and bespectacled Lew Rockwell bumping uglies with Cindy Sheehan. It's an apt metaphor for Paleoconservatism: an extreme libertarian coupled with a rabid America hating leftist.
It's enough to gag a maggot.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
There are so many people out there who are honestly ignorant about Islam and Muhammad, and I strongly advise them to educate themselves, since our lives and our civilization could well depend on it.
Muir's text is not an easy or fast read, but it is very interesting. Every time I finished a chapter I almost felt like brushing the desert sand off of my shirt and looking for a cold well of water, being careful not to step in a pile of camel dung as I did so.
I also read the appendix, which told of the difficulties of compiling the Coran and the Traditions of the Prophet, which were oral histories handed down for more than a century after the death of Muhammad before being written down. Sifting the massive number of histories for the most reliably authentic ones was a huge task. Muir describes the Muslim archivists and authors who strived to accomplish it, and which are the most reliable and complete.
Understanding of a complex subject does not come easy and requires work, but it can be rewarding and help you better understand what is going on in the world today.
The MSM kept silent about the crime and the trial, even though both the perpretrators were sentenced to death in November 2001. Again, quoting the above source:
At about 11 PM on the freezing cold night of December 14, 2000, Reginald Carr, 23, and Jonathan Carr, 20, invaded the home of three young Wichita men who had two female guests. The Carr Brothers forced all of them to strip naked. They beat the men and raped the women.
According to a lone survivor's horrifying pre-trial testimony, after sexually tormenting them, the Carr Brothers took the friends individually to an ATM machine and forced them to withdraw as much cash as possible. Then, the Carr Brothers transported their naked victims to a remote soccer field and forced them to kneel in the snow before shooting them execution-style in the head, and then running them over with a truck.
The four friends who died were: Jason Befort, 26, an Augusta High School science teacher and football coach; Brad Heyka, 27, a director of finance with Koch Financial Services; Heather Muller, 25, a St. Thomas Aquinas pre-school teacher who planned to become a nun; and Aaron Sander, 29, a former Koch employee who had decided to become a priest. The fifth friend, a 25-year-old woman, miraculously survived. To get help, she walked nearly a mile, naked and bleeding from her wounds, through snow and subfreezing temperatures.
Court TV originally said they would broadcast the entire trial. Then they "changed their mind" and said they would only broadcast the opening statements of the prosecuting and defense attorneys and the testimony of the survivor--but then they mysteriously "changed their mind" again and only provided a few brief news reports about the trial.We all know the drill. If you're a "rich" white guy from Duke University and you are falsely accused of a sex crime by a known liar, the MSM will give you a colonoscopy on national television at close range under bright lights. But if you're a black thug who both rapes and murders white people, well hell, that's just not news.
The story involves a young white couple in Knoxville, Tennessee who were allegedly carjacked by four black thugs, who then took them to the thugs' house. There they gang raped the girl and forced her boyfriend to watch. After that, they poured bleach down the throat of the girl to destroy DNA evidence (due to forced oral copulation). Finally, both victims were tortured and murdered. One of them, I'm not sure which, were cut into three pieces and put into garbage bags.
This is not the first time this has happened, e.g., a black-on-white race crime occurs that is particularly heinous, and it is ignored by the national media. The mainstream media (MSM) prints not a word. It's as if the crime never happened at all. I remember a few years ago when two black thugs barged in on a party of white young people. The two white women were raped, then the group of about four whites were taken to a remote spot where they were executed, one by one, with a shot to the back of the head. Only one of the women survived her wounds to tell the tale. The two black perpetrators were tried, convicted and got the death penalty. But the story was never carried by the mainstream press.
Malkin explains: black-on-white crimes do not fulfill the liberal agenda and therefore have no political value to the left. So they are merely ignored.
The MSM has great power in determining what we hear and what we do not hear; they have long been the gatekeepers to information and knowledge. They often slant the news their way, but they are even more effective in censoring that which they do not want you to hear.
Malkin asks, would the story be ignored if the racial roles in this crime were reversed?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
But I'm really annoyed. Melinda Doolittle (see picture at right), was clearly the very best of the bunch, but didn't make the finale.
The problem with a show like this is that there are millions of teeny-bopper young girls who vote for the singer they think is cutest. That's why Sanjay stayed so long - he should never have made it into the top 12, based on his mediocre singing talent. Blake Lewis should have left the competition tonight, not Melinda, and I suspect the teeny boppers are to blame for that.
I was disappointed when Clay Aiken lost the finals to Ruben Studdard. But the two were close in talent, so I couldn't really complain too much. Same with Bo Bice and Kerry Underwood. Too close to call. The marketplace, however is the best judge. The market has since shown Idol voters made the wrong choice in the first case and made the right choice in the second.
As for Melinda Doolittle, she is every bit as good as Tina Turner or Aretha Franklin. She was by far and away the best singer of this season and maybe the best of all American Idol contestants ever. I am confident the marketplace will prove me right. Melinda is a huge talent and will be a huge success professionally. I wish her the very best. I am a fan.
Ron Paul's idiotic comments were the same as those most often heard from the left, i.e. that we wronged the despots who carried out these dastardly deeds and the despots had no choice. Therefore, we should never intervene in any conflicts anywhere in the world and retreat into Fortress America.
Rudy Giuliani called Paul on it and said Paul's explanation for 9/11 was extraordinary. Rudy said he had heard a lot of explanations for 9/11, but he had never heard that one, "and I have heard a lot of absurd explanations." To this, the entire assembly broke out in loud and sustained applause, in a massive rejection of Paul's claims. See the video at Hot Air.
I have never liked Ron Paul because of his vacuous, paleo-libertarian worldview. Also, he is remarkably ignorant of Islam, its history and beliefs, which is why he doesn't have a clue as to what caused 9/11.
There is a famous black transvestite with a name similar to Ron Paul's. Don't get them confused. Black transvestite Ron Paul is a man pretending to be a woman. With the Ron Paul from Texas, it's the other way around.
From the website of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measureTo see the list, go to the website. Contrast this with the alarmist group Worldwide Fund for Nature's claim that we have only five years left "to save the planet." What a bunch of effing morons.
(see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.
The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Apparently, a large percentage of Democrats are "Truthers," kooks who believe that Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11 or was actively involved in the atrocity.
I really think the only practical political solution is to round up all the Democrats and deport them to Massachusetts and New York, which will then be converted into huge insane asylums.
When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.I hate to admit it, but I sometimes feel this same sentiment creeping into the background of my mind. That and this question: does Democracy really work? Or does it contain the seeds of its own destruction?
The highest ideal for democracy is that an informed electorate hears the facts and arguments for each candidate and political platform and then makes an intelligent decision on whom to vote for. In reality, the desire for power and votes is so great that the candidates lie and slander each other and attempt to suppress facts that damage their positions. Character defamation is the order of the day, with each side hiring private detectives to dig up any "facts" in order sully the other side.
In the Democrats' favor is the mainstream media, who enthusiastically support their efforts. The day before the recall election in California, for example, when the Los Angeles Times published the apocryphal testimony of a score of women who claimed Arnold Schwarzenegger had groped them sometime in the past. There was almost no time for Arnie to mount a rebuttal.
In the same way, Dan Rather introduced forged military documents that asserted George Bush was a spoiled rich kid who dodged his duties in the Air National Guard. Thankfully, he was exposed by the blogosphere.
The game that the Democrats play is to win at all costs, including the cost of their own integrity. That game includes the following items.
TEN WAYS DEMOCRATS UNDERMINE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
- Slander the opposition, ideally right before the election so they won't have time to refute it. Drive home the slander through endless innuendo and repetition.
- Buy the votes of many with wasteful social programs and "free" government handouts.
- Suppress the votes of Republicans (e.g. by invalidating votes from military personnel serving overseas).
- Gerrymander voting districts so that Democrats are always in the majority.
- Appoint liberal activist judges, so that when Democrats lose elections, the judges can reverse the election from the bench, e.g. like the immigration law passed in California.
- Steal elections by ballot box stuffing, as the current Governor of Washington did to overcome a narrow margin that would have given the win to the Republican. Other examples of Democrat ballot stufffing, dead people voting, etc. are legendary.
- Constantly clamor for the resignation of some high Republican official through manufactured controversies (Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales). Use Congressional subpoenas to create show trials for the persecution of these officials. This creates an impression of corruption and impropriety where none exists, gains much negative publicity for the Republicans and serves to punish and terrorize those who are not compliant to Democrat goals.
- Misuse the the prosecutor's role to prosecute Republican officials for non-crimes, as was done to Scooter Libby and Tom DeLay. This scorched-earth policy is intened to punish and terrorize Republican officials through literally ruining the lives and careers of a selected few to serve as examples.
- Preserve the Democratic majority by gaining control of education and feeding school children leftist propaganda so they will vote "right" in the future.
- Ditto the above for college campuses, by funding leftist speakers and hiring leftist professors while suppressing those with a conservative point of view.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Lewis is quoted as saying this about the Islamization of Europe:
“We are now experiencing a third attempt to bring Islam to Europe,” Lewis
pointed out. Unlike the previous attempts that were primarily military in
nature, the current Muslim push is through migration and demography.
Freedom of expression, economic opportunities and moderate climates encouraged
Muslim migration to Western Europe. The contrast between the high
birthrates of Arab-Muslims in Europe and the negative rates of native Europeans,
who marry late and have fewer children, may finally provide Islam with the
chance to Islamize Europe."
Lewis also describes Bin Laden's goals for America:
"For Bin Laden, it is now the final stage in a three-act play. Having
“destroyed the stronger and more deadly superpower,”the Soviet Union, “the
effeminate American Empire is not a problem.” Bin Laden attacked U.S.
installations in 1998 with impunity. Americans responded with “angry
words” followed by “let’s get out of here.” This attitude began in 1983
Beirut after the U.S. Marine compound was destroyed and 241 U.S. Marines were
killed, repeated in Somalia in 1994. Bin Laden’s attacks on American
interests continued throughout the 1990’s, culminating with September 11, 2001,
when Bin Laden opened the third phase - bringing his Jihad to America."
Do read the whole article at the link above.
For example, I now know why Muhammad ordered women to wear the veil to cover their faces and bosoms - it came from his own experience. Mo had been attracted to his adopted son's wife by accidentally seeing her scantily clad when he went to visit. Mo's exclamation of pleasure at the sight was not lost on his adopted son, Zeid, who quickly divorced the wife so Mo could have her. The lesson was not lost on Mo. Since divorce was easy and quick in Islam-land, excited men viewing female charms could result in chaos to Muslim families with many divorces. To prevent this, Mo ordered the veil.
I have read a lot about Muhammad over the past few years, but Muir's book supplies a lot of detail that later narratives do not provide. In addition, Muir supplies context and the "back story" to all that was happening in Mecca and Medina 14 centuries ago. As a result, I better understand events leading up to Mo's various attacks and slaughters and the rationalizations Mo and his followers use to justify them - if that is possible.
When a Bedouin tribe stole camels from Medina's herds, Muhammad sent a force to punish the robbers and regain the camels. However, when the force arrived at the enemy tribe's stronghold, they found no one there but an old woman and her daughter. The old woman was tied to two camels and torn asunder. Her daughter was made a slave and given to Muhammad, who made her a present to one of his followers. Though the offending tribe deserved to be punished, the torture-murder of an innocent old woman is criminal by any standards of civilizational decency.
Muhammad was a cunning and skilled military leader and he had a gift for tribal politics back in the day. He defeated many Bedouin tribes around him over several years, wearing them down with unrelenting attacks on their caravans and flocks and with unending war. This seems to be the same strategy Muslims use today in various conflicts around the globe.
One after another each tribe relented and joined Muhammad's band. As each one joined, Mo became stronger and the remaining opposition weaker. When a tribe joined the fold, they were obligated to supply fighters to support the next military campaign and were given a share of the booty. Early adherents to Islam were awarded the most favorable land and property. Therefore, there were two major reasons to join Islam: to avoid being attacked and to share in the loot.
I am about 3/4 the way through the book and I may finish it today. Did I tell you I am well-read on the subject of Islam? Well by golly it's true.
From Yahoo News: Mullah Dadullah, a top lieutenant of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, was killed Saturday in the southern province of Helmand [Afghanistan], said Said Ansari, the spokesman for Afghanistan's intelligence service. NATO confirmed his death, calling it "a serious blow" to the insurgency.
Dadullah is one of the highest-ranking Taliban leaders killed since the fall of the hard-line regime following the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. His death represents a major victory for the Afghan government and the international coalition that has struggled to contain a Taliban-led insurgency wracking the south and east of the country.
Boola boola! Mullah Dadullah No Longah Da Rulah!
"Mullah Dadullah was the backbone of the Taliban," said Asadullah Khalid,
governor of the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar. "He was a brutal and
cruel commander who killed and beheaded Afghan civilians."
Saturday, May 12, 2007
It is home to hundreds - - all in Islamic attire, and all African-Americans.
Most drive late model SUVs with license plates from Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The locals say that some work as
tollbooth operators for the New York State Thruway, while others are employed at
a credit card processing center that maintains confidential financial records.
While buzzing with activity during the week, the place becomes a virtual hive on weekends. The guest includes arrivals from the inner cities of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania and, occasionally, white-robed dignitaries in Ray-Bans from the Middle East.
Venturing into the complex last summer, Douglas Hagmann, an intrepid investigator and director of the Northeast Intelligence Service, came upon a military training area at the eastern perimeter of the property. The area was equipped with ropes hanging from tall trees, wooden fences for scaling, a make-shift obstacle course, and a firing range. Hagmann said that the range appeared to have been in regular use.
Whether this is just another hate-whitey dress-up game like the Black Panthers or whether it's really an Islamic threat is anyone's guess. However, "Islamberg" should be watched carefully.
Read the whole article here.
The opposite side reads "When is the last time you heard of a Jew or a Christian with a bomb strapped to their body?"
Needless to say, Muslims in North Carolina were offended. I wonder how offended they are at Muslim atrocities throughout the world, in Beslan or Thailand or Darfur?
My guess is "not very."
Here are some salient quotes from the article, with my comments:
Gary Murell put up the sign. He explained: "It was not put up there with the purpose of showing that we hate those people - It's not the people, it's the religion."
Murrell says it is a violent religion compared to Christianity. But not everyone agrees.
"I would really say that the actions of one individual really do not represent the Islamic faith," said Debbie Jaunich, with the Islamic Center of Raleigh. "The Islamic faith really calls for peace."
"It's sad to see that we still have this kind of ignorance in the community about the Islamic faith," she added.
Debbie Jaunich is full of beans. The Islamic faith does not, nor has it ever, called for peace. Tell that to the dead children of Beslan or the 2 million dead Christians of Darfur or the Indian Hindus and Thai Buddhists who are killed by Muslims almost daily.
Islam calls for perpetual war against all mankind until all people submit to Islam or become dhimmi slaves or die. Specifically, the Qur'an says:
"Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and
weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars.
By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only
Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning
Jihad, Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their
honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is
an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this
duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite." (Qur'an, Surah 2:190) - as quoted at Prophet of Doom website.
The real teachings of Muhammad and the Qur'an say it is okay to lie about Islam (a practice known as taqiya) when you are in the minority and unable to assert Islamic rule. However, this feigned timidity is to be replaced with jihad once the Muslims have grown to sufficient numbers and strength. This strategy dovetails that of Muhammad when he was a resident of Mecca (before his exile to Medina) and despised by his own tribe, the Coreish, for subverting their ancient religion.
Kudos to the bravery of the NC Baptists for denouncing this evil in our midst. People are slowly awakening to the fact that Islam is not just another religion. If it were, few people would care what they believe as long as they were peaceful and tolerant of others who do not share their faith.
Again, quoting Craig Winn of Prophet of Doom:
If you're like most Americans, your defenses are raised the moment someone
suggests that Islam might be responsible for Muslim militancy. You may think, as
I once did, that all religions strike a balance between love and divine
retribution, peace and punishment. But with Islam, that’s simply not true. Their
scriptures start out foolish, turn hateful, then punitive and violent. There is
almost no mention of peace, tolerance, or love. We have been played for fools.
And it was easy because only an infinitesimally small percentage of "infidels"
have taken the time to learn about Islam.
Friday, May 11, 2007
A conservative student newpaper, The Primary Source, at Tufts University was judged as "guilty of harrassment" by printing an alternative view during Tufts' "Islamic Awareness Week." Naturally, Islamic Awareness to Tufts means to sugar-coat that violent and intolerant ideology, i.e. to put lipstick on a pig. The publishers of The Primary Source decided to counter the propaganda with some actual but inconvenient facts about Islam. For this they were punished, not for telling lies, but for telling a truth that liberals and Islamic-apologists didn't want to hear.
FIRE, an organization that sues universities for abridgements of academic freedom, has disclosed the case of the conservative Tufts students. As noted at the FIRE website:
I have read many books on Islam, including the Qur'an, and I can attest to the accuracy of much of the above.
Today, FIRE announced the decision by a disciplinary panel at Tufts to find the conservative student newspaper, The Primary Source, guilty of “harassment” for, among other things, publishing a satirical ad that listed less-than-flattering facts about Islam during Tufts’ Islamic Awareness Week. You can see the ad here, and Eugene Volokh has also published it with excellent commentary over at his blog, but, just to make sure people see the ad for themselves, I have reprinted the full text:
Arabic Translation: Submission
In the Spirit of Islamic Awareness Week, the SOURCE presents an itinerary to supplement the educational experience.
MONDAY: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” – The Koran, Sura 8:12
Author Salman Rushdie needed to go into hiding after Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeni declared a fatwa calling for his death for writing The Satanic Verses, which was declared “blasphemous against Islam.”
TUESDAY: Slavery was an integral part of Islamic culture. Since the 7th century, 14 million African slaves were sold to Muslims compared to 10 or 11 million sold to the entire Western Hemisphere. As recently as 1878, 25,000 slaves were sold annually in Mecca and Medina. (National Review 2002)
The seven nations in the world that punish homosexuality with death all have fundamentalist Muslim governments.
WEDNESDAY: In Saudi Arabia, women make up 5% of the workforce, the smallest percentage of any nation worldwide. They are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle or go outside without proper covering of their body. (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2001)
Most historians agree that Muhammed’s second wife Aisha was 9 years old when their marriage was consummated.
THURSDAY: “Not equal are those believers who sit and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit by a special reward.” – The Koran, Sura 4:95
The Islamist guerrillas in Iraq are not only killing American soldiers fighting for freedom. They are also responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties.
FRIDAY: Ibn Al-Ghazzali, the famous Islamic theologian, said, “The most satisfying and final word on the matter is that marriage is form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person.”
Mohamed Hadfi, 31, tore out his 23-year-old wife Samira Bari’s eyes in their apartment in the southern French city of Nimes in July 2003 following a heated argument about her refusal to have sex with him. (Herald Sun)
If you are a peaceful Muslim who can explain or justify this astonishingly intolerant and inhuman behavior, we’d really like to hear from you! Please send all letters to email@example.com.
Some questions that burn in my mind are these:
1. Why would Tufts want to conceal the truth about a hateful, totalitarian ideology that is violent and intolerant to gays, women and non-believers?
2. Why didn't Tufts liberal professors or students engage in debate and write a rebuttal? (The obvious answer: because they can't.)
3. Why can't the public see that liberals are not "liberal" at all, but close-minded ideologues who try to suppress dissenting opinions that they are incapable of rebutting?
Thursday, May 10, 2007
As Dinesh D'Souza wrote a decade ago in his book The End of Racism: If it's true, it isn't racism.
Auster argued that black-on-white rape is considerably more prevalent than the other way around. Readers wrote in to say he had misinterpreted the data; the data only dealt with surveyed crime cases, not all. In other words, the data was incomplete and accurate conclusions could not be derived from it.
Maybe that's true, but I suspect the complete crime statistics are out there somewhere. The FBI used to release an annual report of crime statistics by racial groups and it was always quite unflattering to blacks, particularly in the area of violent crime. Maybe I'll poke around and see what I can find.
Meanwhile, if any readers have any references or links that shed more light and less heat on the situation, please let me know.
Larry (hope it's okay to call him that) has often posted articles on David Horowitz's website, Frontpagemag.com. His recent article there on liberal hypocrisy on race dealt with crime statistics. It showed that, while black on white rape is a high percentage of all rapes, white on black rape is very low, in some cases statistically insignificant. Larry's point was relevant to his discussion on the Duke rape case where a few white Duke atheletes were falsely accused of raping a black woman. Of course, liberals hate to hear statistics that interfere with their biases.
Larry's article resulted in hysterical shrieks of "racism" from the leftists at the Huffington Post, who then proceeded to demonize Larry and David Horowitz. They seized upon an error in Larry's interpretation of the crime statistics, but the misinterpretation was not material to the point and made no difference whatsoever in his conclusions.
Liberals are continually at war on Truth. They hate the reality which stubbornly refuses to conform itself to their prejudices and sacred myths. Crime statistics are the unvarnished truth, kiddies, and it is doubtful that either Truth or Reality are intimidated by insulting epithets from liberals.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
A few weeks ago I got into a big fight with a group of UCLA college students. They claimed that I was writing my own version of Mein Kampf by calling for the cessation of Islamic immigration into the West and by persuading others to leave.
I rebutted their juvenile ignorance in this post:
The whole point of my position, and that of other writers like Serge Trifkovic and Lawrence Auster is that it is insanity to import large numbers of hostile, unassimilable Muslims who do not share our liberal standards of tolerance, democracy and freedom. Yes, many Muslims are peaceful but not many are enthusiastic about liberal democracies, and there will always be a violent minority who wish to follow the express teachings of Muhammad, i.e. to conduct jihad against the West. Today we have yet another confirmation of this fact with the arrest of the six Jihadis planning to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey:
The defendants, all men in their 20s from the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East, include a pizza deliveryman suspected of using his job to scout out the military base.So UCLA college kiddies, what do you have to say about that?
Their goal was "to kill as many American soldiers as possible" with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and guns, prosecutors said.
"Today we dodged a bullet. In fact, when you look at the type of weapons that this group was trying to purchase, we may have dodged a lot of bullets," said FBI agent J.P. Weis.
"We had a group that was forming a platoon to take on an army. They identified their target, they did their reconnaissance. They had maps. And they were in the process of buying weapons. Luckily we were able to stop that."
The problem, not understood by UCLA students and other liberals, is that Islam really is a violent and intolerant ideology. Muslims look to the example of the "Prophet," Muhammad, who was a very violent man. He once attacked and captured a settlement of Jews. When they surrendered, he had all the men beheaded (about 800 of them), then joined in a massive rape of their widows, daughters and sisters. The Muslims kept whatever women they wanted as sex slaves, and sold the rest with the children into slavery.
Besides that old Mo regularly had people assassinated who criticized him, including several poets. He robbed caravans, held captured hostages for ransom, and attacked various tribes and villages strictly for the plunder. He was one bad dude, totally convinced that God's major goal in life was to satisfy all of his passions and lusts for sex, power and treasure.
Next, Muslims who want to be violent need only read the Qur'an and the Haddiths, the sacred texts of Islam. Old bloody Mo commanded unceasing Jihad against all the peoples of the earth until all were either Muslims, slaves (dhimmis) or dead. Further, Mo stated that the only sure path to Heaven was to die in Jihad, fighting the "Infidels." Over the centuries millions of "Infidels" have died as a result. Mo's commandment was the reason behind 9/11, behind the Muslim atrocities that occur daily around the world, whether in Darfur, India, Thailand, Malaysia or the Middle East.
Mo is the reason 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered in Turkey in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Ever hear of the Armenian Genocide? You probably have, but where have you ever read that it was caused by Islamic intolerance of the Christian Armenians, based on the teachings of Muhammad? Well now you have, because that genocide was just one of many committed by Islam down through the centuries. The Crusades were merely a defensive response to Muslim aggression; as such, they were too little, too late.
Now I don't know about you UCLA college kiddies, but having the Qur'an and the Jihad commandment as a "sacred text" kind of bothers me. Good Muslims kill people as a sacred duty. In fact, Old Mo told his minions to behead us infidels. That's the major reason we got to see those videos from the Middle East of "Infidels" being beheaded - like Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. The bloody bastards doing the deed weren't "corrupting" Islam, they were following it to the letter. They were just being "good" Muslims.
As such, I'd prefer they practice their religion elsewhere. If that makes me "Hitler," well Seig Heil, baby. But it doesn't. Hitler loved the Muslims and they loved him. They both loved killing people, especially Jews.
What do UCLA and other college kiddies like? Posing and posturing as enlightened liberals against the forces of darkness, bigotry and intolerance (except, or course, for intolerance directed at Americans). It is some sort of coming-of-age ritual among the members of their Tribe, more a cultural phenomenon than a thought process. They will continue their righteous dance for multiculturalism no matter how many American lives it may ultimately take.
Image Credit: The Study of Revenge Blog.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
We always hear this crap whenever the Royals visit the Colonies, of how gauche we all are for failing to know the intricate details of how to treat the Queen. Oh well, it isn't as bad as when Jimmie Carter kissed the Queen Mother on the mouth. Now that really was gauche. But I digress.
Those might include the following points of etiquette:
1. Don't kiss the Queen on the mouth, but if you must, absolutely no tongue.
2. Don't have the Marines Band play "Turkey In The Straw" to greet the Queen's arrival.
3. Don't wink at the Queen or ask her to play patty cake or play armpit serenades for her amusement.
4. Put the jug of corn squeezin's out of sight until the Queen leaves.
5. Don't let Dick Cheney anywhere near a shotgun while the Queen is present.
6. Don't wear overalls to the State Dinner in the Queen's honor. Wear a tie (a real one, not one of those clip-on bow ties). The tie should preferably be a somber dark blue. Don't wear that green tie with the hula girl on it.
7. Serve a proper meal for the Queen's benefit, preferably something that is easy to eat and doesn't require the use of one's fingers. Forego the usual plate of ribs and chicken wings this one time. Serve wine instead of beer, and use a glass. And remember, absolutely no food fights.
8. Don't brag about that misunderstanding at Bunker Hill. If you do, the Queen might bring up that nastiness about burning down the White House. Let's just not go there.
Well just for the record, I have never been a fan of Royalty. We fought our war of independence to can the whole idea that someone has a right to riches, palaces, great deference and respect simply as an accident of their birth. America is a meritocracy - we believe you should earn your status in life, and not have it conferred upon you. To us, Royalty is about as modern and useful as a suit of armor in the London Museum.
On the other hand, there is no reason to be rude about it. As for the Queen, you go girl.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Sarkozy is said to be pro USA and a conservative. However, his first comments to the United States included the remark that we should not back away from Global Warming. Since man-made Global Warming is nothing more than a scheme to redistribute wealth from the US to less developed countries, this is not a good sign.
However, any defeat of a Socialist, anywhere, is far better than the other way around. How anyone can still believe in this foul ideology is beyond me, an ideology that impoverishes everyone, refuses to resist tyranny and sinks a nation into an awful, gray mediocrity where economic opportunity all but disappears.
But anyway, Sarkozy is a step in the right direction (namely, to the right) and I applaud the French for their decision. Vive La France! How I would love to see that once great civilization resume its rightful place among the nations of the West.
Better, it discusses the facts supporting the conservative response, to give insight and understanding into the topic. The truth about abortion, for instance, is that it is almost never needed to save a woman's life; that abortion is brutal and painful to the fetus, and many other facts. I was ambivalent about abortion for years. Though my instinct told me it was morally wrong, I felt the moral and scientific questions regarding it were unclear. Therefore, I felt that abortions should be legal for the first trimester, regardless of how I felt about them personally. I still opposed the legality of partial birth abortion, which is clearly infanticide.
However, the moral and scientific questions are no longer so unclear and I now am unabashedly pro-life. According to the book, I am not the only one who has drifted in the pro-life direction. At least one formerly prominent abortion doctor has also changed his mind, after conducting thousands of abortions. The original plaintiff in Roe v Wade has also changed her mind and wants to see her own case overturned.
Author Gregg Jackson also gives some excellent statistics on the Reagan Presidency; he also cites useful data on gun control and its effects on crime. It is eye-opening, to say the least. This is a very useful book for anyone who wants to understand the conservative or Republican position on a variety of political issues.
It is amazing how many of the Democrat positions and arguments are simply hot air or downright lies. Read the book and decide for yourself.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
With a title like that, one might surmise that the book tilts right. It does, but I find the author spot-on in his analyses of Liberal and Democrat techniques for gaining and holding power, as well as in the self-defeating nature of their policies. I would strongly recommend this book to not only conservatives, but to college students who are still trying to make sense of it all.
The very first chapter convinced me. It is titled "Promote and Exploit Divisiveness." It accurately describes how the Left continually plays the race card in every debate, every issue, every judicial appointment. If America is divided into little fiefdoms of hostile ethncitities, all hating white people and Republicans, the Democrat Party gains. (The country, however, loses.)
That's why we hear the Democrats claiming that black people were deliberately disenfranchised in Florida in 2000 (a huge lie), that the response to Hurricane Katrina was slow because it was mostly black people who needed rescue, blah blah blah. Creating racial animus, distrust and even racial hatred is a small price to pay, Democrats seem to think, in order for them to slander the opposition and to gain and hold political power.
More about this book later.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
I know the Left likes to call itself "Reality-Based." Yeah, but only if it is an alternative reality resulting from an LSD overdose. Here's what the "reality-based" folks believe:
1. That if you don't fight Islamic terrorism, it will leave us alone. In a sense this is true, since when we are all dead they have to leave us alone, unless they like the stench of rotting corpses.
2. That CO2 emissions are more dangerous to civilization than terrorism. Yeah, right. When was the last time a HumVee beheaded a hostage? Or bombed a train? Or resulted in catastrophic climate change, for that matter?
3. That we should adopt a Kyoto-style approach to greenhouse gases, ruining our economy, forcing employers to export millions of jobs overseas to China and India, drastically raising the cost of gasoline and other forms of energy (as if it weren't high enough now) and making the United States a more impoverished place to live. All so we can lower temperatures by less than one degree over the next 50 years. Well at least we'll be able to throw out our air conditioners! And we'll be so poor that millions of Americans will become illegal immigrants by swimming the Rio Grande into Mexico. Revenge at last!
I wonder how much carbon we could repress if we all held our breath for three minutes a day. Think about it. There ought to be a law!
4. That 9/11 was an inside job where hundreds of government agents somehow wired up the World Trade Center buildings with synchronized explosives, all without detection or observation by the thousands of workers and security personnel, who never even noticed. Apparently they were all hanging around the water cooler, all 25,000 of them.
The agents had to take out the inner walls to plant tons of TNT next to the support beams, then put the walls back and repaint before anyone noticed. They obviously came in on nights and weekends to do this, or perhaps by posing as pizza delivery boys. Hundreds, if not thousands, of government agents purposely worked to murder 3,000 innocent people to accomplish...what? None of these many agents has had any pangs of conscience, as none have yet come forward to blow the whistle. Just goes to show you what can be done with Dr. Evil in charge, though Mini-Me's role in the villainy has not yet been established.
5. That taxing the pants off people who produce and invest in order to reward the lazy and unproductive will somehow issue in a new prosperity. Yeah, and strapping boulders to the backs of our track team will enable them to win the gold in the next Olympics.
6. That human virtue is directly proportional to the amount of melanin and other pigmentation in the skin. The lighter you are, the more evil you are; the darker you are, the more virtuous.
Nothing else really matters, be it good deeds, wisdom or charity. That's why Mother Teresa must take a backseat to Al Sharpton. But I'm not telling the whole story. It's not all about race. It's about race, gender and ethnicity. If you're female, you count more as a human being, because women are the ones who abort fetuses and get paid less than men. If you're angry you count more than one who is not angry. Extra points are earned by being angry at people who make a lot of money, are white, male or straight. If you are violent, then the Reality-Based Community (liberals) will put your picture on t shirts, wear your headscarf pattern to peace rallies, and invite you to speak at universities. If you're really violent and anti-democratic, they may award you a special chair at U.C. Santa Cruz or name the Student Union after you.
Enough, I'm off to bed.