"This violence by Muslims is usually labelled simply as "crime," but I believe it should more accurately be called Jihad. Those who know early Islamic history, as described in books such as The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer, know that looting and stealing the property of non-Muslims has been part and parcel of Jihad from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior of Muhammad himself and the early Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know exactly where crime ends and Jihad begins. In the city of Oslo, for instance, it is documented that some of the criminal Muslim gangs also have close ties to radical religious groups at home and abroad. As Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen points out, the Koran is seen by some Muslims as a God-given "hunting licence," granting them the right to assault and even murder non-Muslims. It is hardly accidental that while Muslims make up about 10% of the population in France, they make up an estimated 70% of French prison inmates.
In the city of Antwerp, Belgium, Marij Uijt den Bogaard from 2003 to 2006 worked as a civil servant in the immigrant borough of Berchem. She noted how radical Islamist groups began to take over the immigrant neighbourhoods, but was fired when she warned against this danger in her reports to the authorities:
"Many victims of burglaries in houses and cars, of steaming and other forms of violence, can testify that aggression by Muslims is not directed against brothers and sisters, but against whoever is a kafir, a non-believer. Young Muslims justify their behaviour towards women who do not wear the headscarf, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, by referring to the Salafist teaching which says that these women are whores and should be treated as such. They told me this. I wrote it down in my reports, but the authorities refuse to hear it.""
Saturday, March 17, 2007
But It's Not A "Serious" WMD? Ho Hum...
"Chlorine was the first Chem Weapon used in WWI.
If you think it is not a "real" chemical weapon, then go test it on yourself. After your lungs are scared and unable to process oxigen [sic] you will die. Painfull [sic] death.
If you do not die then you probably will have lung problems the rest of your life and may be blinded by it.Those photos of collumns of blind soldiers marching to the rear from WWI were of chlorine victims..." [ Come to think of it, the plethora of "[sic]" is entirely appropriate for this one -- you will be very, very sic[k]... This story is currently ranging mostly in 3rd to nonexistant place on the MSM with the sole exception of #1 (amazingly) at LAT. It would seem that we're constrained not to give the appropriate response until they have nukes. And even then I've begun to wonder what NYeT will say from the grave. What's that? Why would NYeT be in its grave you ask? You've forgotten AQ's fixation with NYC and DC haven't you? -ed. ]
If you think it is not a "real" chemical weapon, then go test it on yourself. After your lungs are scared and unable to process oxigen [sic] you will die. Painfull [sic] death.
If you do not die then you probably will have lung problems the rest of your life and may be blinded by it.Those photos of collumns of blind soldiers marching to the rear from WWI were of chlorine victims..." [ Come to think of it, the plethora of "[sic]" is entirely appropriate for this one -- you will be very, very sic[k]... This story is currently ranging mostly in 3rd to nonexistant place on the MSM with the sole exception of #1 (amazingly) at LAT. It would seem that we're constrained not to give the appropriate response until they have nukes. And even then I've begun to wonder what NYeT will say from the grave. What's that? Why would NYeT be in its grave you ask? You've forgotten AQ's fixation with NYC and DC haven't you? -ed. ]
Strolling Down The Memory Hole With Plame And Wilson
(link) (from the FrontLine archives) "Narrator voiceover
"...but Cheney had no faith in the CIA."
David Kay
"I think there is one thing that influences him [Cheney], at least in our conversations. He remembered as clearly as I remembered how wrong intelligence had been in 1991." [emphasis added]
Narrator voiceover
"They had been wrong about the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Iranian revolution, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and more."
Richard Clarke
"There was a massive nuclear program in Iraq [in 1991], nuclear weapons development program, that was probably 9 - 18 months away from having its first nuclear weapon detonation. And that CIA had totally missed it. We had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility; didn't know it was there; never dropped one bomb on it." {emphasis added]
David Kay
"That's at the forefront, at least in my conversations with him [Cheney], about Iraq. ‘They were wrong before; they didn't get the evidence; how do we know what they know now?'"
Richard Clarke
"There's no doubt that the Dick Cheney that comes back into office eight years later - nine years later - has that as one of the things burned into his memory: that Iraq wants a nuclear weapon; Iraq was ‘that close' (holding up thumb and forefinger) to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue." [emphasis added]
The problem that the Administration faced after 9/11 was that intelligence was not providing an early-warning system for the nation on issues of weapons and attacks. This left the Administration essentially blind to what to expect next from the bad guys, particularly al-Qaeda, but by extension, any opponent that wished us ill.
***
***
Is your confidence in this mission waning yet? Would your confidence be waning if, like the vice president, you were part of the very small team who is responsible for protecting the country from nuclear attack? After we have already been attacked in a totally unexpected way on 9/11?
The purpose of the Wilson narrative was to discredit the Administration by discrediting part of its case for war made in Bush's State of the Union speech of January 29, 2003. And with no report having been filed - no paper trail - Wilson was subtly able to alter the terms of the debate to the question of whether a uranium transaction had occurred - not the point at issue - instead of the original British claim, repeated by the Administration, that a uranium transaction had been sought.
Wilson's column was an attack on the Administration and, when you think about it, a CIA attack on the Administration. The CIA neither restrained Wilson from publicizing his mission nor punished him for doing so. His column came at a time when Wilson wanted to establish a position with the Dems for the upcoming election, but principally in the wake of the failure to find WMDs in Iraq following the combat phase of the war. Who had said there would be WMDs in Iraq? The CIA. And who worked in the WMD section of the CIA? Mr. Wilson's wife!"
Friday, March 16, 2007
Lieberman On Hell In Washington ... But There's Hope In Iran?
"Increasingly, the debate over our foreign policy is becoming so polarized, so partisan, so bound up in the battles we are having here in Washington, that it seems blind to the real battle outside of America, the challenge of our time from the Islamist extremists who want to destroy us all, who attacked America on September 11, 2001, and intend to do so again." [ Maybe not very realistic hope in Iran, but you really need to click through and watch the video. Apparently the libs think these women are the thuggish puppets of the hateful Rethuglicans? Excuse me, over? -ed. ]
Of Burglars, Scissors And Double Standards
"I don't buy it. Berger didn't make an impulsive decision--"tired, stressed"--to smuggle documents out of the National Archives. He stole documents on multiple occasions. On one occasion, he sneaked them out of the archives, went to a nearby construction site and hid the documents under a construction trailer, so he could come back later and pick them up. I simply don't believe that Berger engaged in this kind of cloak and dagger behavior just because he found the documents "interesting" and wanted to study them at home.
Most of all, I don't see how Berger's explanation can be reconciled with his own admission that he didn't just take the documents home; he cut some of them to pieces with a pair of scissors. Why did he destroy the documents if he wasn't trying to prevent them from coming to light?"
Most of all, I don't see how Berger's explanation can be reconciled with his own admission that he didn't just take the documents home; he cut some of them to pieces with a pair of scissors. Why did he destroy the documents if he wasn't trying to prevent them from coming to light?"
G-d Done It? Or Perhaps Instead The Weather Witches?
"Since 19th century European intellectuals decided to murder G-d and throw his remains in a dumpster, Death has stalked the world, reaping hundreds of millions of souls with industrial efficiency. Of course, the really bright, post-normal folk will tell you it was Christianity done it.
Yeah...when I think of WWI, WWII, Fascism, National Socialism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Potism (Who knew?), and Islamofascism, I think G-d, don't you? For a dead guy, G-d sure causes a lot of trouble.
Did something happen to the gene pool during the Little Ice Age?" [ Actually, there were clearly some quite severe problems then. This 7 minute video might help you understand... -ed. ]
Yeah...when I think of WWI, WWII, Fascism, National Socialism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Potism (Who knew?), and Islamofascism, I think G-d, don't you? For a dead guy, G-d sure causes a lot of trouble.
Did something happen to the gene pool during the Little Ice Age?" [ Actually, there were clearly some quite severe problems then. This 7 minute video might help you understand... -ed. ]
Solzhenitsyn Saw
(link) "Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a famous Russian author and Nobel Laureate. He along with several others (Malcolm Muggeridge for example) exposed the sufferings that Russian peasants were facing due to the collectivisation of Russian industry. He along with his companions struggled to beat down the lies of traitors such as Walter Duranty (New York Times journalist) and the misguided George Bernard Shaw (another writer).
In his famous speech of 8 June 1978 at Harvard, Solzhenitsyn railed against the decadence, shortsightness and delusionment rife in the West. He spared no words for the role that the media played in this and to whom he attributed as being the “…greatest power with the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary…”.
He charged that the media lacked responsibility: the “deformation and disproportion” that he observed the media employing would receive no clarification, retraction or correction. Indeed he said that, “…one may safely assume that [the journalist] will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance…”. This would result in “…terrorists heroized, or secret matters pertaining to one’s nation’s defense, publicly revealed…” all in the name of the “everyone is entitled to know anything” mantra. Sound familiar?
Furthermore, this Nobel Prize winner of Literature, identified the uniformity with which the media reported on matters. And not because of the lack of competition. No, he points out that the media in the West enjoyed “enormous freedom”, yet gave “…stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not openly contradict their own and the general trend…” Sound familiar?
For his candidness and for his remarkable foresight (that I will discuss in a later post), Solzhenitsyn was booed off the stage." [ Boy, did he see... -ed. ]
In his famous speech of 8 June 1978 at Harvard, Solzhenitsyn railed against the decadence, shortsightness and delusionment rife in the West. He spared no words for the role that the media played in this and to whom he attributed as being the “…greatest power with the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary…”.
He charged that the media lacked responsibility: the “deformation and disproportion” that he observed the media employing would receive no clarification, retraction or correction. Indeed he said that, “…one may safely assume that [the journalist] will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance…”. This would result in “…terrorists heroized, or secret matters pertaining to one’s nation’s defense, publicly revealed…” all in the name of the “everyone is entitled to know anything” mantra. Sound familiar?
Furthermore, this Nobel Prize winner of Literature, identified the uniformity with which the media reported on matters. And not because of the lack of competition. No, he points out that the media in the West enjoyed “enormous freedom”, yet gave “…stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not openly contradict their own and the general trend…” Sound familiar?
For his candidness and for his remarkable foresight (that I will discuss in a later post), Solzhenitsyn was booed off the stage." [ Boy, did he see... -ed. ]
Harsh On The Jews?
"Fortunately, in the US this week, I was struck by an article on the oped pages of The New York Times, the very citadel of leftish political correctness. Written by an apparently completely sane professor at a prestigious US university and entitled “Biased Broadcasting Corporation”, it assailed the BBC’s Middle Eastern services for their consistently antiWestern tone and content.
When the editorial pages of The New York Times accuse the BBC of anti-Western bias it is worth taking notice. It is a little like Osama bin Laden accusing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of being a bit harsh on the Jews. It suggests that in other, even pretty unlikely, parts of the world, people are waking up to the menace to our values represented by the BBC. The British sadly, seem curiously content to remain in thrall to it. "
When the editorial pages of The New York Times accuse the BBC of anti-Western bias it is worth taking notice. It is a little like Osama bin Laden accusing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of being a bit harsh on the Jews. It suggests that in other, even pretty unlikely, parts of the world, people are waking up to the menace to our values represented by the BBC. The British sadly, seem curiously content to remain in thrall to it. "
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Crichton's A Gas
"Crichton Debates Global Warming Advocates Live. Wins. The Global Warming skeptics team led by Michael Crichton defeated the Global Warming advocates led by Brenda Ekwurzel in a debate moderated by Brian Lehrer before a live audience in New York City. Before the debate the organizers polled 57.32% to 29.88% in favor of Global Warming, but after the debate the numbers flipped to 46.22% to 42.22% in favor of the skeptics." [ The Global Warming Alarmists team didn't seem to lack for credentials either. And after reading the transcript, I really don't think -- even with how good they were -- Crichton's skeptics actually pulled together all the best arguments possible. For instance, only part of this argument about solar cycles and cosmic rays impacts on cloud formation was referenced and only lightly. They also failed to point out that China is about to overtake the U.S. for the #1 spot in emissions this year or next (making all of this posturing into so much dancing on the head of a pin unless China buys in; did I hear a chorus of "not a chance in aich ee double hockey sticks"?), the U.S. while still growing emissions is doing so at a rate substantially less than Europe in spite of all their moralizing about Kyoto signings (!), or that the meat industry in toto is actually the #1 producer of greenhouse gases by the alarmist's definition of them (interesting how PETA is marginalized by the alarmists when PETA points this out; could it be the alarmists don't want the hopelessly bad P.R. wide knowledge of this would entail -- ya think?). But the hugely negative impact on the Third world and even a well aimed shot at eugenics made for great scores. And Crichton's proposal to ban private jets was a nose crusher for the hypocrites... -ed. ]
UPDATE: Here's an older article where they were just starting to understand the cosmic ray effect clarified in the article above.
UPDATE: Here's an older article where they were just starting to understand the cosmic ray effect clarified in the article above.
It's Called Leadership
"The last line says it all. The commander stands with his men. This is something almost unknown within Washington. It's called leadership."
Churchill's Battle Of Britain Hastings
"What I would like to draw your attention to is the level of CO2 levels, as preserved in prehistoric air bubbles, from very high quality ice core records from Antarctica. When researchers first looked at the results from these cores they observed a repeating correlation between CO2 and temperature through several glacial/interglacial cycles. However, when they began to look at higher resolution cycles they say something different. They observed that temperature would go up first, with CO2 coming up later. This correlation indicates that as one might expect as temperatures warm biological productivity increases resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere. The lag between CO2 and rising or falling CO2 levels is something like 800 years.
I teach a general climate change course. To get the significance of this correlation over to the students I use the following analogy. I tell the students that based on these records if you believe that climate is being driven by CO2 then they probably would have no difficulty in accepting the idea that Winston Churchill was instrumental in the defeat of King Herold by Duke William of Orange at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. If you can believe that this historical temporal incongruity could be feasible then you can have no problem believing that CO2 is what's driving Earth's climate system.
In conclusion, the geologic record clearly shows us that there really is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Although CO2 can have a minor influence on global temperature the effect is minimal and short lived as this cycle sits on top of the much larger water cycle, which is what truly controls global temperatures. The water cycle is in turn primarily influenced by natural celestial cycles and trends." [ This article especially rocks for the technically minded. It's chock full of data and charts. You really need to go read the whole thing now. -ed. ]
Boundless Contempt ...
"In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.
The imams’ attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security." [ ... is what I have for the scum lawyers that are enabling this. I'll be very surprised if it's not the ACLU. And you don't want to know what I think of the imams. -ed. ]
The imams’ attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security." [ ... is what I have for the scum lawyers that are enabling this. I'll be very surprised if it's not the ACLU. And you don't want to know what I think of the imams. -ed. ]
The Real Terror(s)
"Say what? If this report is true, it means the Iranians are virtually admitting they are infiltrating inside Iraq. Otherwise, why the trial? Will this come up in the Congress today? Would you like to bet? Perhaps we should administer basic information tests to our representatives. But the results might be terrifying." [ Have I made it clear yet that I can never be elected to any public office? And am smart enough not to try? ;) -ed. ]
All Solved (Updated With Gandhi's Wisdom)
"In step 3, we buy the world a puppy." [ And all us warmongers somehow never thought of this! Shows you just how little we know, eh? -ed. ]
UPDATE: Sorry about that brain fart. Fred Thompson has reminded me why:
"And that’s a pretty good question. At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?
It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is NEVER. During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” “Collective suicide,” he told his biographer, “would have been heroism.”
The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhi’s way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just won’t cut it in this country. When American’s think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein." [ But look on the bright side. If Hitler had won, there wouldn't have been this continuing desperate need to keep stuffing Eugenics down the Memory Hole. Eugenics? What Eugenics? -ed. ]
UPDATE: Sorry about that brain fart. Fred Thompson has reminded me why:
"And that’s a pretty good question. At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?
It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is NEVER. During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” “Collective suicide,” he told his biographer, “would have been heroism.”
The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhi’s way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just won’t cut it in this country. When American’s think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein." [ But look on the bright side. If Hitler had won, there wouldn't have been this continuing desperate need to keep stuffing Eugenics down the Memory Hole. Eugenics? What Eugenics? -ed. ]
Read. The. Whole. Thing.
"“Of course, your next round against Hezbollah may involve the Syrians and the Iranians against you. The Iranians declared that they will not allow Hezbollah to be defeated no matter what and may launch their missiles against you. So will the Syrians. What will Israel do? It is unlikely that Israel will accept its destruction and may use their nuclear arsenal if the West will not come to their help. Perhaps our book of Revelation is not so wrong in describing that the end of the world would start at Armageddon, which we know as Har-Megiddo in Israel. The book of Revelations describe the last battle would be fought at Armageddon between the “Forces of good and the forces of evil.”
“And who would you call the forces of good ‘Israel or Islam?’ I asked looking him straight in the eyes. He gave me a startled look. “If I were a Moslem, I would have no problem to name the forces of good and it wouldn’t be Israel. As a Christian, I would probably name Israel, but as a Christian Arab I would prefer not to answer.”
We looked at each other. His answer made it clear where the Israeli Arabs stood, whether they were Moslems or Christians. And why should I be surprised? After all the Israeli Arabs call the establishment of the State of Israel their nakbah (disaster).
Is there a way to avoid the “Armageddon”?
“I think there are two ways to avoid it. One can be a major war which the West can win. As in World War Two, had the West attacked the Germans in 1936 the war would have lasted not more than a month with very few casualties. Their procrastination resulted in World War II with all its consequences. Eventually, the West will have to tackle the Iranians, it is better that they do it now to avert a world catastrophe later. With Iran defeated the Islamic onslaught will lose its base, and it may be the turning point in history to defeat the menace of extreme Islam. The majority of the Moslems don’t want this confrontation anyway.”
“You are painting a rather dark picture. When do you think we will have the next round against Hezbollah?” I asked. “I think they will attack again as soon as they are fully re-equipped and I think it will be during the summer, while Israel is still in a military and political turmoil.”
For a while, we sat in silence. He finished his second cup of coffee and got up. “I know what I am going to do. I am going to Canada to join my brother. This country is becoming much too dangerous for Christians as well,” he said. He thanked me for the coffee and we shook hands.
“You said there are two ways to avoid Armageddon?” I remembered to ask him." [ Wow. This one is truly "label" rich. Read it to find out about the second way... -ed. ]
“And who would you call the forces of good ‘Israel or Islam?’ I asked looking him straight in the eyes. He gave me a startled look. “If I were a Moslem, I would have no problem to name the forces of good and it wouldn’t be Israel. As a Christian, I would probably name Israel, but as a Christian Arab I would prefer not to answer.”
We looked at each other. His answer made it clear where the Israeli Arabs stood, whether they were Moslems or Christians. And why should I be surprised? After all the Israeli Arabs call the establishment of the State of Israel their nakbah (disaster).
Is there a way to avoid the “Armageddon”?
“I think there are two ways to avoid it. One can be a major war which the West can win. As in World War Two, had the West attacked the Germans in 1936 the war would have lasted not more than a month with very few casualties. Their procrastination resulted in World War II with all its consequences. Eventually, the West will have to tackle the Iranians, it is better that they do it now to avert a world catastrophe later. With Iran defeated the Islamic onslaught will lose its base, and it may be the turning point in history to defeat the menace of extreme Islam. The majority of the Moslems don’t want this confrontation anyway.”
“You are painting a rather dark picture. When do you think we will have the next round against Hezbollah?” I asked. “I think they will attack again as soon as they are fully re-equipped and I think it will be during the summer, while Israel is still in a military and political turmoil.”
For a while, we sat in silence. He finished his second cup of coffee and got up. “I know what I am going to do. I am going to Canada to join my brother. This country is becoming much too dangerous for Christians as well,” he said. He thanked me for the coffee and we shook hands.
“You said there are two ways to avoid Armageddon?” I remembered to ask him." [ Wow. This one is truly "label" rich. Read it to find out about the second way... -ed. ]
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Not Even 22 Rats For Dinner
"Rate of Inflation, 1,740%. Unemployment, 80%. HIV infection rate, 33%. Life expectancy, 34. Motto: “Unity, Freedom, Work.” National anthem: Kalibusiswe Ilizwe leZimbabwe “Blessed be the land of Zimbabwe”"
Keeping The Goose Warm...
"And although The Times' report avoids firmly answering the question "why?," the reason for this much-improved health isn't hard to find given that these health gains have been greatest in the industrialized world and that they started within the past two centuries.
The answer, in a word, is "capitalism."
Capitalism produces so much food that we are never malnourished; it produces ample clothing and sturdy homes to protect us from the elements; it produces the soaps, shampoos, toothpastes and detergents that we use every day to cleanse our bodies and living spaces of bacteria and other dirt. And by continually substituting machines for human labor, capitalism progressively makes our work less backbreaking and less perilous.
These gains are significant and real. And they are continuing; no one knows where, or even if, they will stop.
Those of us who recognize these important benefits of capitalism -- those of us who understand that capitalism's true greatness lies not (as many critics insinuate) in producing oceans of pointless trinkets and baubles but in making the lives of ordinary people richer and fuller and longer -- are reluctant to yield power to governments to tackle global warming. We worry that this power will kill the goose that's laying this golden egg". [ ... We'll need it to be good and warm for next Ice Age... -ed. ]
The answer, in a word, is "capitalism."
Capitalism produces so much food that we are never malnourished; it produces ample clothing and sturdy homes to protect us from the elements; it produces the soaps, shampoos, toothpastes and detergents that we use every day to cleanse our bodies and living spaces of bacteria and other dirt. And by continually substituting machines for human labor, capitalism progressively makes our work less backbreaking and less perilous.
These gains are significant and real. And they are continuing; no one knows where, or even if, they will stop.
Those of us who recognize these important benefits of capitalism -- those of us who understand that capitalism's true greatness lies not (as many critics insinuate) in producing oceans of pointless trinkets and baubles but in making the lives of ordinary people richer and fuller and longer -- are reluctant to yield power to governments to tackle global warming. We worry that this power will kill the goose that's laying this golden egg". [ ... We'll need it to be good and warm for next Ice Age... -ed. ]
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Speer's Phony Holocaust Denial: A Measuring Stick Of The Credulous
"Now it appears that Speer was more calculating even than most thought. The letter makes clear that Speer knew exactly what the Nazis would do to the Jews, and cared so little that he helped them work prisoners to death. Essentially, Speer lived a lie for the last half of his life, aided and abetted by a credulous West that for some reason wanted to believe his strange protestations of innocence."
And I'm Not A Republican
"“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”" [ Go see the other view. -ed. ]
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”" [ Go see the other view. -ed. ]
Mo's Turf
"It has long been thus: welcome to this outpost of Islamic civilisation, a colony where the stridency of the faithful collides with vogues that were once confined to the underclass of non-Muslim British society. Muhammad is not just the newest, and the final of, God's prophets; Muhammad is the newest, and the final of, the bling-bling superstars. Since the Rushdie Affair, and more recently the Cartoon jihad, even the most irreligious of the street-savvy Muslim rude-boys have come to know of the new universal limits: nobody disses Mo, the Final Gangster of all time and a Mercy to all the worlds.
Such are the strong sensibilities of those Muslims who are deprived of all high culture, and have only a very nominal sense of their own religious background. If you drew Muhammad sporting gold jewellery, a tailor-made condom hat, a goatee, wraparound orange shades, and tell him to strike a pose, they will not be amused. They will not giggle at how "hard" the prophet is. And, to paraphrase from the movie Pulp Fiction, they will go jahiliyya on your ass. Mo's turf is the entire planet, and his homeboys, which range from imams to the most ridiculous of their underclass congregants, are busy trying to strut their stuff on it.
And many are succeeding."
Such are the strong sensibilities of those Muslims who are deprived of all high culture, and have only a very nominal sense of their own religious background. If you drew Muhammad sporting gold jewellery, a tailor-made condom hat, a goatee, wraparound orange shades, and tell him to strike a pose, they will not be amused. They will not giggle at how "hard" the prophet is. And, to paraphrase from the movie Pulp Fiction, they will go jahiliyya on your ass. Mo's turf is the entire planet, and his homeboys, which range from imams to the most ridiculous of their underclass congregants, are busy trying to strut their stuff on it.
And many are succeeding."
Superior Fashion
"But most importantly, 300 preserves the spirit of the Thermopylae story. The Spartans, quoting lines known from Herodotus and themes from the lyric poets, profess unswerving loyalty to a free Greece. They will never kow-tow to the Persians, preferring to die on their feet than live on their knees.
If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others."
If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others."
Monday, March 12, 2007
Of Swindles And Designated Hitters
"As Polanyi has written, this is the perennial trick of the left: to deny the traditional moral order that is "set in the stars" and to replace it with an unhinged moral impulse that rampages through postmodernity like a wildfire. We see it in the appropriately named "environmental movement," which replaces the moral order of the heavens with the fanciful imperatives of the earth, another way of destroying the possibility of man. (I hope everyone watched this documentary, which has Petey's Good Denkeeping Seal of Approval).
"Private property is public theft." "To each according to his needs." "Living wage." "Income gap." "Poverty causes crime." "Israel causes terror." "Dissent on global warming is Holocaust denial." "A baby is distinct from a woman's body only if she doesn't want to kill it." "Homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality." "Group rights." "Diversity." "Racial quotas." "Moral relativism." "The designated hitter." Each of these luciferian ideas in one way or another denies the human blueprint and overturns the order of the cosmos, especially that last one. "American" League my a**."
"Private property is public theft." "To each according to his needs." "Living wage." "Income gap." "Poverty causes crime." "Israel causes terror." "Dissent on global warming is Holocaust denial." "A baby is distinct from a woman's body only if she doesn't want to kill it." "Homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality." "Group rights." "Diversity." "Racial quotas." "Moral relativism." "The designated hitter." Each of these luciferian ideas in one way or another denies the human blueprint and overturns the order of the cosmos, especially that last one. "American" League my a**."
Today's Stopped (Nuclear) Clock Watch
"MOSCOW - The state-run Russian company building Iran's first nuclear power plant said Monday that the reactor's launch will be postponed because of Iranian payment delays.
Russian media reports, meanwhile, indicated that the Kremlin was growing tired of Iran's nuclear defiance in the face of U.N. Security Council sanctions, with three agencies citing an unidentified official warning Iran to cooperate and stop playing "anti-American games.""
Russian media reports, meanwhile, indicated that the Kremlin was growing tired of Iran's nuclear defiance in the face of U.N. Security Council sanctions, with three agencies citing an unidentified official warning Iran to cooperate and stop playing "anti-American games.""
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The UPI's Pamela Hess ...
... sets the record straight about what real evil is. Wow. Listen to the story about the boy at the door. But how long can she be a real human being like this and continue to work for the MSM? When she gets canned, I'll support her blog with donations just as I do Totten and Yon if she keeps this up though...
Shirley, You Must Be Joking ...
"So what makes the Indian government so sure that Gen Musharraf will keep his end of bargains that he is only half-making?" [ ... when you argue that we should take negotiations with totalitarians -- not to speak of totaliterrorists -- seriously? -ed. ]
Did Someone Shout Quagmire?
"Eight years has changed nothing. The ethnic Albanians still want their own nation in Kosovo, and the Serbians refuse to part with it. Another eight years will probably produce the same result. Neither side will give an inch on the main issue, which is independence for Kosovo. Both sides remain absolutely committed to the outcome they desire and will not negotiate away their demands.
Imagine if the UN existed in 1860, and blue-helmeted soldiers occupied the Mason-Dixon line after the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, or perhaps after First Manassas. Would either the South or the North conceded on their demands? How long would it have been before either Lincoln allowed the South to secede, or for Jefferson Davis to concede sovereignty back to Washington DC? And that conflict was neither ethnic nor religious in nature, and the history of our nation only went back four score and four years, at that point -- not centuries filled with conflict between the two sides, as in Kosovo and the Balkans in general."
Today's MSM Crusades Update
"“Just how deaf has the Washington press corps become? Princeton’s world famous scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis, gave a landmark speech Wednesday at the American Enterprise Institute’s annual dinner. Warning that the 14-century-long struggle between Christianity and Islam is entering a new phase, in which radical Islamists have found a sense of identity and purpose, while we are losing our own to self-denigration and self-abasement, Lewis cited as one example the Pope apologizing last year for the crusades. Lewis urged us to have a little sense of proportion, and went on to say — and it was an illuminating line — ‘The crusade was a late, limited and unsuccessful imitation of the jihad.’
(Repeat: ‘unsuccessful’ was what Lewis said).
But that’s not how Wall Street Journal reporter Neil King Jr. described it. On the Journal’s Washington Wire blog site, under the absurdly misleading headline ‘Bernard Lewis Applauds the Crusades,’ King misquoted Lewis as having described the crusades as ‘a late, limited and successful imitation of the jihad.’" [ If I was his editor he'd be on the street and that would have never made it into ink. But sadly, this kind of malpractice has become pretty much the (unaccountable) norm for the MSM. By the way, I heard him with my own ears as I broke my 15 minutes of TV a week rule to watch him on C-SPAN -- and was not disappointed... -ed. ]
(Repeat: ‘unsuccessful’ was what Lewis said).
But that’s not how Wall Street Journal reporter Neil King Jr. described it. On the Journal’s Washington Wire blog site, under the absurdly misleading headline ‘Bernard Lewis Applauds the Crusades,’ King misquoted Lewis as having described the crusades as ‘a late, limited and successful imitation of the jihad.’" [ If I was his editor he'd be on the street and that would have never made it into ink. But sadly, this kind of malpractice has become pretty much the (unaccountable) norm for the MSM. By the way, I heard him with my own ears as I broke my 15 minutes of TV a week rule to watch him on C-SPAN -- and was not disappointed... -ed. ]
Afghanistan: The "Good" War?
"CAIRO, Egypt - Islamic militants threatened to attack Germany and Austria unless the two European nations break ranks with the U.S. and withdraw their personnel from Afghanistan, according to a Web statement.
“Germany will face more threats and dangers if it doesn’t withdraw its troops from Afghanistan,” an unidentified speaker said in a video statement posted Saturday on an Islamic Web site used by al-Qaida-linked militants." [ One, not that the Eurabians have committed more than a relative handful of troops to the "good war" in Afghanistan to get Osama anyway. Two, the timing is interesting as it occurs just as W's patience appears to have run out with Musharraf and the U.S. appears to be increasingly going after Osama in Pakistan (Waziristan) directly itself. Hmm. What if I said I wasn't shocked? -ed. ]
“Germany will face more threats and dangers if it doesn’t withdraw its troops from Afghanistan,” an unidentified speaker said in a video statement posted Saturday on an Islamic Web site used by al-Qaida-linked militants." [ One, not that the Eurabians have committed more than a relative handful of troops to the "good war" in Afghanistan to get Osama anyway. Two, the timing is interesting as it occurs just as W's patience appears to have run out with Musharraf and the U.S. appears to be increasingly going after Osama in Pakistan (Waziristan) directly itself. Hmm. What if I said I wasn't shocked? -ed. ]