SF Chronicle Accuses Bush of Anti-Semitism

An unexpurgated and unmitigated Horse's Ass named Jon Carroll writes for the Moon Bat Chronicles, otherwise known as the San Francisco Chronicle. Carroll claims Bush's criticism of the New York Times is really a secret appeal to the anti-semitic bigotry of Bush's base, since "New York" is actually a code word for "Jews."

Carroll writes:

The name of the New York Times contains the word "New York." Many members of the president's base consider "New York" to be a nifty code word for "Jewish." It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word "Jew" and (b) without irritating the Israelis. A number of prominent Zionist groups think the New York Times is insufficiently anti-Palestinian, so they think the New York Times isn't Jewish enough.

Jon Carroll is the worst kind of unethical Leftist here in the Bay Area and we generally reserve for him only our deepest contempt. For instance, Moon Bat City (San Francisco) regularly hosts anti-Jewish extravaganzas at San Francisco State University and other locations in Lunatic City. There is nothing more anti-semitic and pro-terrorist than a San Francisco Leftist journalist. Calling "New York" a code name for "Jew" seems especially absurd, even for Jon Carroll. What about the all the Chinese, the Irish and the Puerto Ricans who have long been residents of New York? Obviously Jon Carroll is an unethical and egregious liar who slanders conservatives without a second thought as to the accuracy of his charges.

But then I thought about it, and you know, Carroll may be right about the name of a big city being a "code word" for an epithet of some sort. For example, I have known for a while now that "San Francisco" is a code word for ASSHOLES. Which may explain its status as Gay Capitol of the World.

The good news is that the Moon Bat Chronicles is bleeding red ink like a terrorist sympathizer caught in the path of a Caterpillar bulldozer. With any luck Jon Carroll will be beating the pavement soon looking for a real job. It won't be easy since his entire work experience consists of being a flaming prick. Outside of journalism, there isn't much call for those kinds of skills.

New York Times Retaliates for Criticism

From David Horowitz's blog:

The NY Times points cranks, radicals, al-Qaeda operatives and would be assassins to the summer homes of Cheney and Rumsfeld - Friday, June 30, 2006 12:36 PM

In an apparent retaliation for criticism of its disclosure of classified intelligence to America's enemies, the New York Times June 30th edition has printed huge color photos of the vacation residences of Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, identifying the small Maryland town where they live, showing the front driveway and in Rumsfeld's case actually pointing out the hidden security camera in case any hostile intruders should get careless:
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/travel/escapes/30michaels.html

Read the rest of the article here.

The NY Times is BEGGING for a treason indictment. I say let's give it to them.

This Bird Has Flown

Picture at right: The remaining baby bird just before leaving the nest.

UPDATE: I learned that my two birds are female Purple Finches. I saw one this morning (July 1) on my roof accompanied by two young males with the purple-red heads. Later she came and sat on one of the bars of the gazebo after I called to her.

********
In an earlier post I wrote about the bird nest in my backyard gazebo and how I became acquainted with the whole bird family, the mom, pop and two baby birds. Due to the red coloring on the father bird, I am pretty sure they are Purple Finches.

Alas, my little birds are gone. They’ve grown up and left the nest. On Tuesday morning I looked out the kitchen window and saw one of them on the roof of the gazebo, chirping away. She soon flew away and I have seen her no more.

Her sister, however, remained in the nest, reluctant to leave. On Wednesday, I stayed home from work and read in the gazebo. When I peeked into the nest, the remaining bird became frightened of me and flew out of the nest and into the mesh netting that encloses the gazebo. I put my hand under her and she briefly sat on my finger before flapping away again, halted by the mesh and sort of hovering there, chirping softly. This time I gently scooped her up with both my hands. She immediately quieted down and showed no fear, and I walked her back to the nest and placed her in it. She settled down and promptly went to sleep.

The next morning, Thursday, I became worried that this remaining bird might starve because she would not leave the nest. I tried to give her a piece of bread, but this just spooked her again and she flew out of the nest against the mesh again. I briefly touched her, but she slipped through the opening at the top of the mesh and flew chirping towards a tall, leafy tree in a neighbor’s back yard, a tree filled with other birds. So she has now left the nest too.

I looked in the nest last night to see if she might have returned, but she hasn’t. I miss the little birds. I am suffering from “empty nest syndrome”….literally. But I am at least pleased that the two birds grew up well and have successfully assumed life on their own. Now when I sit in the backyard to read, I will look at every Finch and wonder if it is one of my birds. It’d be nice if they'd visit once in a while or at least shoot me an email. Kids! They're all the same.

From the River to the Sea

If there is any cause or any people in the world that is wafted to the rafters in praise and sympathy from the Left, it is the Palestinians. Here we have a people who train their children to become suicide bombers and kill innocent men, women and children just because they are Jews. They have attacked the Jewish State relentlessly since its inception 50 years ago, proclaiming their desire to "drive the Jews into the sea."

These are people who danced in the streets when Osama's thugs flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, murdering 3,000 innocent people. They just recently voted in vicious terrorists as their leaders, effectively giving the bird to any peace process. But the Left supports them with great crocodile tears, because the Left is sick to the bone. They are drawn to evil as a dog is to its own vomit.

Some of the Palestinians' other notable accomplishments: resisting all attempts to provide them with a country of their own, at peace and prosperity with its neighbor Israel. They don't want peace. They're Muslims. They want dead Jews. They want all of Israel (which they call Palestine), every bit of it, and have coined the slogan "From the River to the Sea" in support of their goal.

The Palestinians' latest accomplishment is the taking of a 19 year old Israeli soldier as hostage. Then they crossed into Israel and kidnapped an 18 year old Israeli boy who is believed dead (the body is so mutilated they can't be sure it's his) [Update: the body found was not that of the Israeli youth. The youth was found shot to death, his body left in an abandoned car.]. A month ago they bombed a restaurant in Israel, killing a 15 year old American Jewish boy, then publicly expressed joy at his death and their hopes for his soul to enter Hell.

I'll be honest. I detest the Palestinians, their cause, and the fools who support them. I have zero sympathy for their suffering because it is so egregiously self-inflicted. The Palestinians themselves are the authors of their fate, by their hatred, their bigotry, their foul religion, their psychotic culture. Do not pity them; they have none for you.

I'd like to see the Israelis drive them all out, into the surrounding Muslim despotisms and out of Israel. I'd like to see Israel get serious about paying them back in kind for the last 50 years of murder, terrorism and villainy. If they kidnap an Israeli boy, hold their leaders responsible and execute one of them in reprisal. If they bomb a restaurant or a bus in Israel, flatten their markets and mosques. For every Jew they kill, kill 100 of them. If that sounds harsh, so be it. The Palestinians have no feelings of sympathy for non-Muslims and appeals to their humanity will not work. They have none. It is time to appeal to their basic instincts for physical survival. It's time to make the Palestinians bleed.

All "peace talks" and negotiations with the Palestinians are futile and a waste of time. Using the Muslim doctrine of al-taqiya, or deception, they have never negotiated in good faith. It is time to assume they never will and to act accordingly.

Today Israeli tanks are rolling into Gaza. I wish them Godspeed. Destroy the Palestinian State! "From the River to the Sea" indeed! Liberate all of Israel and let the blue and white Star of David float over every square inch.

UPDATE: David Horowitz said this on his blog at Frontpagemag.com yesterday:

Hamas has murdered an 18 year old boy whose crime was that he was a Jew in
the West Bank. This lynching will not be protested by any Palestinian.
It probably won't be protested by any leftwing supporter of the
Palestinians either. Hamas is a Nazi organization dedicated to the destruction
of the Jewish state and the killing of Jews as a religious act. Hamas
leaders have written this creed in black and white and called it their
"covenant." Nonetheless they have the support of the majority of the Palestinian
people and their genocidal acts and agendas find sympathetic understanding
in the "social justice" left. If the Israelis were to execute every Hamas
leader they have captured tonight -- that would be simple social
justice. But no leftist and no Palestinian would accept it as such.

Islam's Worldwide Support for Terror

From Lawrence Auster's View From the Right, June 27:

A Pew Foundation poll of the attitudes of Muslims in six Muslim countries and four Western countries shows widespread Muslim support for terrorism and suicide bombing. In no Muslim population does a majority acknowledge that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attack. Daniel Pipes lamely concludes that the Pew survey “sends an undeniable message of crisis from one end to the other of the Muslim world.” Uh, no, Mr. Pipes—the crisis is not in the Muslim world, the crisis is in the Western world, which imported and now contains vast West-hating Muslim populations.

Of course, to be fair, in some Muslim countries only about 10% justify terrorism in support of Islam, though it is substantially higher in other countries like Nigeria. Gee, what's 10% of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide? I believe that comes to a mere 150 million Muslims who believe in murdering people and blowing things up. And half of those are in Great Britain!

And some worrywarts are concerned. Of course there are always fanatics in every religion. They've got 150 million Osama Bin Ladens and we've got Pat Robertson. Well Robertson has never even harmed a fly, but he has made politically incorrect statements a time or two, and we are not prepared to quibble over the degree of one's fanaticism. Clearly 150 million Muslims and Pat Robertson are moral equivalents.

Now wait a minute Stogie, there was Timothy McVeigh, the fanatic who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma. See, violent fanatics are not just limited to the Muslim religion! Well, of course, McVeigh was actually an atheist, but it is well known that he once drove by a Christian church. Again, let's not quibble over degrees of extremism.

We must face the sad truth: we're no better than they are. Bring the troops home now and order your wife a burqa.

Five Famous Americans: Stogie's History Quiz

Fight Evil, Burn a Qur'an

Last night while reading through some of my favorite blogs, I learned that several Russian embassy employees, previously abducted in Baghdad, were beheaded by the insurgents. Butchered in cold blood while other Muslim bastards filmed it.

The reason the Muslim Spawn of Hell gave for the murders was that they were exacting revenge for the Russian crackdown on Muslim animals in Chechnya. Chechnya, you know, where these holy men of God murdered around 300 young school children.

I had to find some way to express my revulsion for this human scum and their evil and false religion. I found it. I created the graphic at left and am releasing it to the blogosphere. If you agree with the sentiments expressed, please do post it on your blogs and websites.

Islam and The Lesson of the Cuckoo Bird

A mama bird has built a bird nest in the gazebo in my back yard. Apparently she did it when the weather was rainy and I wasn't using the gazebo as a place to read and smoke cigars. However, we met each other when the weather turned warm. Mama bird flew in with a piece of straw in her mouth, saw me sitting at the table in the gazebo, said "Eeek!" and flew out again. I informed my wife of the nest and told her no one was to disturb it until the baby birds were grown and gone.

For the past few weeks we have learned to get along. The mama bird sits on the babies at night and the father bird helps feed the two baby birds that have hatched. I sit there and watch this wonderful nature lesson from only a few feet away. The mama bird is a beige colored bird with a pale blue breast; the father bird resembles her but has red plumage on his head and wings and is quite pretty. Lately I have been able to see the baby birds flapping their wings. They have feathers now and I suspect they will be leaving the nest soon.

My gazebo birds and recent readings on evolution have made me aware of the cuckoo bird (true story), which visits England in the spring. See my realistic illustration of one of these above right.

The cuckoo bird isn't really nice. The mama cuckoo knows which species of birds lay eggs similar in shape and color to her own, and lays her eggs in other bird's nests so other mama birds will raise her young for her. The cuckoo lays her egg, then kicks one of the other eggs out of the nest so the number remains the same. (I didn't even know birds could count, so this was a surprise to me.) Then, when the baby cuckoo hatches, he kicks all the other eggs out so he is the sole beneficiary of his adopted mama bird. Often the baby cuckoo grows bigger than his adopted mom before he leaves.

I think this is pretty lame - the cuckoo is a guest in someone else's nest, where he destroys the host's future progeny while advancing his own. He is a hostile guest with hidden malevolent intent.

I don't know about you, but this reminds me of certain immigrants into England and the West in general. These human versions of the cuckoo bird move in and demand special favors, e.g. that the British flag and piggy banks be hidden from view as these offend them. They really squawk if anyone publishes cartoons poking fun at cuckoo birds, and make threatening noises about decapitating people, all the while protected by their host mama bird in spite of their really bad attitude. They not only want to destroy Western eggs, but maybe plant a few bombs and blow up the nest and maybe the whole darned tree. That's gratitude for you.

Amazingly enough, these nasty birds are welcome in Britain, Europe and North America where they are protected from criticism no matter what they say or do. Not surpisingly, they just keep migrating in greater and greater numbers. Where else can a bird crap all over his hosts while they feed, shelter and protect him?

Which leads us to this all-important question: which of the players in this scenario is the real cuckoo bird anyway?

Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Air

This past week we've seen a lot of hot air in the news, namely, prognostications of doom from global warming. Supposedly, we humans have artificially raised the temperature of the earth with our consumption of fossil fuels. The evidence for this is pretty weak, leading many to refer to the global warming scenario as "junk science."

I suspect that the real reason for advancing the "global warming" scare is to give government a good excuse to exert more control over business and the private sector. The Left couldn't do it with socialism or communism because the voters would never buy it, so now they look for back-door ways to accomplish the same thing.

The news on msn.com was that we are having our "hottest year in 400 years." However, that only means we are getting back to normal following abnormally cold years in the recent past.

In fact, there was a mini-ice age in the not so distant past. One website reports:

Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years
1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire
consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health,
economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased
glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near
glaciers and the sea.

And in the 1970's scientists reported a global COOLING phenomenon that was leading to a disasterous new ice age. As reported by Senator Inhofe in a speech on global warming:

Appell and Blix sound very much like those who warned us in the 1970s that
the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling. On April 28, 1975,
Newsweek printed an article titled, "The Cooling World," in which the magazine
warned: "There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food
production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on
earth."In a similar refrain, Time magazine for June 24, 1974 declared: "However
widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when
meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that
the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades."In
1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science
Foundation, stated: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has
fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." Two years
earlier, the board had observed: "Judging from the record of the past
interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an
end. . . leading into the next glacial age."

So don't be overly alarmed at this latest Leftist campaign to advance their big government schemes. Global warming is just a lot of hot air.

Conclusions on the Evolution Controversy

The evolution debate on this blog has resulted in the most vigorous discussion yet, but it is somewhat off topic and I’d like to move onto other things. But, since it’s my blog, I get the last word (except for your comments of course).

My background: I am informed on the subject of evolution as I was once a biology major in college, until I realized I was facing starvation upon graduation. I then changed my major to Business and Accounting. Nevertheless, I was thoroughly convinced of the truth of evolution by the time I graduated, and was not particularly troubled by it. I figured the universe and everything in it was made by God, and it wasn’t up to me to dictate to Him how He should go about it.

Below I consider why I found evolution so believable and why I’ve changed my mind.

1. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny – embryos of higher life forms seem to repeat their evolutionary development, starting off as one celled organisms that become a blastula (like a sponge), then a gastrula (simple animals with a tummy) then a fish (with gills, a simple heart, etc) and on until maturity. However, the apparent replay of evolutionary development in an embryo is subjective and based on appearance, not functionality (the so-called gill slits in human embryos have no actual function).

2. Homology – organisms in a class, like mammals, tend to be similar in anatomy and blood and immunities as other organisms in their class, insinuating that they all derived from a common ancestor. This is also subjective and unprovable. If the basic architecture of a bear works well for the bear, why shouldn’t it also work well for another mammal (like a horse)? Evolutionists resort to their own religious or metaphysical arguments in the issue of homology and other aspects of evolution, claiming that if God made the animals they would all be constructed differently. In short, they use their own personal conceptions of God to argue for evolution.

3. Vestigial organs – Unused organs have long been cited as compelling evidence for evolution, like the appendix, hair covering mans’ body, the tail bone or coccyx, the pineal gland, etc. Many organs believed to be vestigial when Darwin was alive have now been found to be functional (the appendix functions as part of the immune system and the coccyx is a fastening point for certain ligaments). This argument in favor of evolution has lost enormous steam since 1859, the date Origin of Species was published.

4. Irreducible Complexity – Recent arguments against evolution state that complex mechanisms like the human eye could not have evolved, since they are composed of numerous complex structures and systems that are interdependent and necessary for the functionality of the eye. Darwin himself admitted this issue, using the eye as an example, but argued that “counterintuitive observations” shouldn’t be used to refute the theory of evolution, because we can’t always dismiss complex phenomena as impossible based solely on our intuition. (Unless of course, the phenomenon is creationism or God.) Ann Coulter humorously compares the “counter-intuitive” argument to the Marx Brothers, who used to ask, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” Evolutionists live by a double standard in this argument, because they have no problem using their intuition to confirm evolution where there is no testable proof.

5. The fossil record – In college I was most impressed by drawings of various horses that seemed to follow a clear evolutionary path, with simple and small horses with toes developing into larger horses with less toes, until we get to the modern horse with no toes, only one hoof per foot. Lately I have learned that the famous horse drawings were largely mistaken. Many of the horses lived at the same time as the other horses, and when new species appeared in the fossil record, they did so suddenly.

The basic problem with the fossil record is its almost complete absence of any animals that could be considered transitional forms. It does not support the theory of evolution. In fact, when Darwin first published Origin of Species his biggest critics were not ministers but paleontologists.

6. The Cambrian explosion – In a period of about 5 million years, all of the modern forms of life suddenly appeared with no apparent ancestors or precursors. This is one of the most troubling problems for evolutionists.

7. Evolutionists’ use of metaphysical arguments – almost all major evolutionary theorists justify the theory as being true only because creation can’t be true. They argue that if God created life, He would have done a better job of it, made different species better adapted to their environments, and would have created the species all at once rather than over millions of years. I mean, what was God doing, tinkering around and experimenting? However, the theory of evolution should not rest on evolutionists’ personal beliefs about God or the nature of God, as these are decidedly unscientific arguments.

8. The cell – The smallest unit of life, the cell, is mind-boggling in its complexity. How it could have somehow developed from a puddle of organic goo definitely strains credulity. Even smaller than a cell, a strand of DNA is very complicated and the same argument applies.

9. The flexibility of the theory of evolution -- The theory of evolution has been adapting itself to new facts over the past 150 years. The theory is very adaptible, in that its proponents assume it to be true and so it is bent, scissored and rearranged to explain new facts as they arise.

10. The lack of laboratory evidence -- the theory cannot be proven in the laboratory as can other theories; it has no premises or principles that can be demonstrated experimentally, no outcomes that can be predicted and thus proven. The theory of evolution has got to be the shakiest theory in the history of science. It is all built on presupposition and conjecture.

Since I had my “Road to Damascus” moment a week ago and switched sides in this debate, I am doing something I would never have considered only a few months ago: I am reading books that rebut evolution. I am currently reading Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by Cornelius G. Hunter, a biophysicist. Hunter is one of a growing number of scientists who have grave doubts about the accuracy of Darwin’s theory. Hunter is not sensationalistic nor does he espouse religious views in his book. He merely deals with the major premises of the theory of evolution, the evidence that does exist and the problems with it, and does so in an objective tone. I will read more books on the subject when I finish this one.

What does this all mean to me personally? If evolution didn’t create life on Earth, what natural or supernatural forces did? I can’t answer that because I don’t know, but I do know that my sense of wonder at life has been largely restored.