"America has become so degenerate and the church so weak in following Jesus Christ that you are afraid to teach (what) God is against," he continued. "We are in the most dangerous position," he said to the clergy, "because as God awakens the people, they will kill leaders and preachers in their pulpits for lying to them."
(I can't wait to read the comments on this one. - Nadir)
Notice that the greater the sports-academic linkage (which equates with the size of the school sports fan base), the worse academically the sports participants perform, on average. Compare the average academic qualifications of those participants to those in sports with zero academic linkages: golf, tennis, gymnastics, swimming, ice skating, skiing, etc.
Clearly, if you care more about the academic performance of schools and students than you do having schools produce championship sports teams and athletes, you must support removing inter-school sports competitions from schools.
Oh, yeah: Coulter also supports Nadir's view on the UAE taking over US port ownership.
1. What is worse, a whore or a racist? Is it worse to sell sex to a willing participant who wants to purchase sex from you, or to deny people their human rights due to their "race"? I ask because you have declared that you countanance violent vigilantiasm against a person who calls another person's mom a whore. Thus if you regard racists as worse than whores, then you logically must countanance the beatings of people who call other people's moms racists.
2. Is it worse to falsely accuse somebody of being a whore, or a racist? I believe that the answer to the first question dictates the answer to the second question.
3. Do you condone beatings (without trial, right to appeal, legal council, etc.) only for people who call other people's moms names? What about calling people names directly? For example, instead of calling Tom's mom a whore, what if I just called him a whore, directly? According to your sense of morality, have I earned a private beating?
4. For what other offenses do you condone vigilante beatings?
5. And how badly can a person beat another person for calling his/her mom a whore (or a racist)? With bats? Lead pipes?
6. What about the beatings that the US troops have inflicted on their POWs? Surely some of the victims were captured for such things as firing on US troops, or even for calling their moms whores. Do you approve beatings for those Iraqis?
In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that’s the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.
It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars-- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.
The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.
The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to “rule” the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can’t last.
Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble-- generated by easy money-- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It’s bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.
Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.
The UAE owns Dubai Port Co., which is taking operations from London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates six US ports. A political uproar has ensued over the deal, which the White House approved without congressional oversight.
The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father.
Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm quite offended by that."
The mayor then says: "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"
1. The Koran contains no strictures against portraying mohammad or anybody else (not that this should matter to free-thinking promoters of free thought and expression).
2. Muslims during times of Islamic sophistication and enlightenment (ie, "civilization") produced many paintings of mohammad and other human forms. Notice that this conincided with the period when Muslims led the world in innovation and prosperity, as opposed to now.
3. The stricture against portraying mohammad represent a custom designed to prevent deification of any human. Fanaticly retarded muslims (as opposed to the muslims who thrived when Europe experienced their dark age, which not coincidentally included rigid tyranical and retarded imposition of christian superstitions!) are historically and currently absolutely intollerant of religious idols, to the point of destroying other people's property; see Taliban destruction of ancient buddas. Yet this absolute intollerance itself represents idol worship, with Mohammad's image being the idol, whose worship manifests as a violent proscription against any human on earth rendering an image!
4. Many islamic leaders of this violent retailliation against the cartoonists have themselves violated their own stricture, both by diseminating the cartoons... and even by creating and inserting one of their own into the disemination!
She said she will not sign off on an operating agreement until it protects Detroit’s interests and the state should not try to force them with a funding deadline.
"That is a racist attitude. I resent it very much. I’m trying not to let it color my judgments, but we’re not a plantation, blacks aren’t owned by white folks anymore," said Collins.
That's just great, Barbara. Black firemen are being threatened with physical harm by having nooses hung near their lockers in the firehouse and you're comparing folks wanting to save one the jewels of the Detroit area, the Detroit Zoo from financial ruin to slave life on an Old South plantation.
What an idiot and an asshole.
I rest my case. Detroit is doomed with people like her in charge.
Could someone please explain to me why this is better than having Saddam in power?
I'm serious. Convince me that this is a better way of life for the people of Iraq and I will denouce my leftist political views, donate money to the Republican party and give Dick Cheney a big, wet, sloppy smooch in the mouth.
While you blather on about infringements on our freedom of speech, the president at Harvard is forced by the school's faculty to resign for daring to state the obvious and an art school in St.Paul, MN "voluntarily" decides to discontinue depicting the human form as part of class cirriculum so as to not "offend" Muslim students.
You guys really kill me. You're all so intellectually enlightened that you aren't able to see the forest from the trees. I watch Paul repeatedly capitulate to his brother Tom's and friend Nadir's viewpoints with nary a bit of reciprocity in the other direction. But then, why should there be, when Tom and Nadir are obviously so much more enlightened and progressive than neanderthals such as Paul and myself?
Nadir would prefer to join the "World Can't Wait" kids to "Drive out the Bush Regime!", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. Hey, here's an idea Nadir; how about getting your WCW pals together and take part in a real, worthwhile protest and support one of the few countries in the world right now with a spine? That's too much to ask though, I know. You might actually have to admit you were wrong about something for once in your life.
You know what it all comes down to? It's all clear to me now. It's fear. Plain and simple fear. It's so much easier and safer and stylish and hip and cool to blame everything that's wrong in this world on that idiot, Chimpy Bush-Hitler, isn't it? It would take a lot more courage and cahones to publicly protest radical, militant, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-Buddist, anti-Hindu, anti-American, anti-Israel Islam, wouldn't it? Hell, it might even get you fucking killed!
Tom and Nadir, your utter contempt for you own country and the President causes you to root for our defeat, because after all, we deserve the comeuppance, right? Sick.
By the way Nadir, speaking of racism; the last time I checked there are approximately 280 million fucking people in this country, so yeah, I think it's safe to assume that at least a few of them still "hate them n*ggers". But what do you want to do about it? Are the firemen who hung those nooses idiots? Obviously, yes. Should they be fired from their jobs? Yes, absolutely. But what do you want beyond that? What's next, thought control? You cannot force people to not be racist. They have to see the light for themselves.
Enough said on that topic.
Yeah, you guys really are something. Peronally, I think you're enlightened to the point of idiocy. Since I do not posess the higher-education verbosity that you three do, I have trouble keeping up with the dialogue a good part of the time, but I always read what you have to say, and I must say I walk away pretty disgusted most of the time. That's the reason for my absence recently.
I think it's high time you boys take a step back and look what's really at stake here. Wanna live under Sharia? I didn't think so. Then you'd better wake the fuck up and start worrying about what really matters.
Danish cartoon protests in the north led to sectarian clashes which have seen dozens of deaths in four cities. On Wednesday, groups of Christian men wielding clubs and machetes rampaged through Onitsha for a second day attacking any members of the Muslim Hausa community they could find, according to witnesses.
Violence like this is both non-Christian and un-Islamic.
Instead of dismantling every existing nation to settle scores and rectify injustices from generations past, let's focus on bringing liberal, constitutional democracy to the other 98% of Arabia. When these other nations at least come close to Isreal in this regard, I am sure that Isreal will begin reforming its anti-democratic measures, most of which result only as reactions to external hostility. In the meantime, Isreal offers the region's only nation that provides rights and democracy to muslims.
The men, who play British inmates at the detention camp, were returning from the Berlin Film Festival where the movie won a Silver Bear award.
One of the actors, Rizwan Ahmed, said a police officer asked him if he intended to make any more "political" films.
"There is an uproar throughout the city of Jacksonville today after Jacksonville firefighters found nooses on their equipment Friday morning."
Lincoln officially claimed to not be a "black republican", but rather a republican who merely sought to end slavery by preventing its expansion into the new territories. Democrats insisted, though, that he was a black republican in white republican's clothing. Where they correct? Frederick Douglas initially thought not, but changed his mind after observing that within 4 years of taking office, Lincoln gave the most radical black republicans everything that they wanted: federal forces recruiting black troops and marching into slave states imposing emancipation and full black citizenship rights. Within 8 years of Lincoln's election (after the slavers made good on the bounty that they placed on his head when he began his 1860 office run), dozens of black Americans held state and federal office... as republicans. A revolution had taken place. A republican revolution.
With Lincon dead, though, democrats undid the Republican Reconstruction, and returned the democratic party to an instrument of imposing white supremacy. The democratic party in the south was the public face of the KKK.
Then came the 1960s, when a majority of republican US legislatures joined a *minority* of democrats to enact the civil rights laws that re-imposed the 1870s republican reconstruction. But since a democratic president introduced that legislation, the public credited democrats for it. And LBJ showed that white southern democrats could get black votes by supporting the legislation, using all manner of democrat principals of convoluted big government programs. Thus was born a 95% black voting block that existed for 30 years, from 1970 through 2000, a voting block so strong that its proportion far exceeded black support for various issues, including prayer in public schools, abortion rights, high "progressive" taxation, gay rights, school vouchers, and affirmative action (blacks support these democratic concepts at rates less than 95%, or in some cases oppose them).
The black voting block in the 2004 national election fell below 90%; in the crucial state of Ohio, it fell below 85%. And the republican party now stands to exceed the democrats in electing blacks to national office. Maybe ghetto parents will finally get school vouchers after all.
Most famously, attorneys could not use personal histories to establish "patterns", such an accused thief having witnesses stating that the accused had also stolen from them in other instances, or that the accuser had previously falsley accused people of stealing. In other words, an accusation of theft could be assertained only on the facts pertaining exactly to the instance under question.
Thanks to Clinton's legislation, people accused of sex crimes lost these rights, meaning that Jeniffer Flowers could sue Clinton for having previously assaulted her sexually, and include in civil court the claims of other women, for the jury to consider a "pattern of conduct", and that Clinton in his defense could not probe into the voracity of Jennifer Flowers. Liberals generally defend the rights of accused people, especially murderers and theives. But in the case of sex crimes, they insist that Mike Tyson go to prison based entirely on the claims of his accuser and others testifying to previous behavior. Thus I am glad that Clinton got "hoisted by his own petard". His impeachment had nothing to do with acts of filitio, and evertyhing to do with eroding the rights of accused persons.
The militants set a target last month of halting a third of Nigeria's 2.5m daily barrels, most of it sweet crude bound for refineries in the US and Europe. If yesterday's attacks are confirmed, that target could be reached soon. The Mend statement said that it overran an army houseboat and an oil pipeline switching station. "Both were destroyed with explosives," it said. No casualties were reported.
The photographs we are showing in the accompanying gallery represent a small fraction of these visual materials. None, as far as we know, have been published elsewhere. They include: a naked, handcuffed prisoner in a contorted position; a dead prisoner who had been severely beaten; a prisoner apparently sodomizing himself with an object; and a naked, hooded prisoner standing next to an American officer who is blandly writing a report against a wall. Other photographs depict a bloody cell.
The DVD also includes photographs of guards threatening Iraqi prisoners with dogs, homemade videotapes depicting hooded prisoners being forced to masturbate, and a video showing a mentally disturbed prisoner smashing his head against a door. Oddly, the material also includes numerous photographs of slaughtered animals and mundane images of soldiers traveling around Iraq.
One of the Pentagon's top civilian lawyers repeatedly challenged the Bush administration's policy on the coercive interrogation of terror suspects, arguing that such practices violated the law, verged on torture and could ultimately expose senior officials to prosecution, a newly disclosed document shows.
The lawyer, Alberto J. Mora, a political appointee who retired Dec. 31 after more than four years as general counsel of the Navy, was one of many dissenters inside the Pentagon. Senior uniformed lawyers in all the military services also objected sharply to the interrogation policy, according to internal documents declassified last year.
But Mr. Mora's campaign against what he viewed as an official policy of cruel treatment, detailed in a memorandum he wrote in July 2004 and recounted in an article in the Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker magazine, made public yesterday, underscored again how contrary views were often brushed aside in administration debates on the subject.
Every civilization has practiced these horrible actions... and overcome them. Here's a book about Indian cuisine, which today depends on chilis, tomatoes, potatoes, and other items taken by honky Brits from the American Indians and brought to Indian Indians. Those nasty Brits where sure horrible! Where did they learn to be so wicked? Perhaps from waves of conquering, raping, subjugating, enslaving brutes like the Normans, Vikings, and Romans. Where did those nasty Brits learn to build perminant structures and metal working? From those conquering Roman brutes. How about sea-faring and ship-building? From those conquering Viking brutes. Their germanic, unified language? Imposed by the Normans. (Imagine, stripped of their various mother toungues!)
Some historians declare that the people of the british isle lacked civilization prior to having it imposed on them horrificly by the Romans. Before getting around to conquering the American Indians and the Indian Indians, various generations of brits spent their time conquering each other... in the most brutal fashion. A fashion rather indestinguishable from that by which other civilizations formed: the Azteks and others in the Americas, the Egyptians, Ethiopians, the Persians, Zulus, Chinese, Mongols, Japanese -- indeed every where we find civilization. If any of you guys work with, or otherwise know, any Chinese people, mention to them US internment and nuclear bombing of Japanese in the 1940s. Here's what one of my Chinese co-workers had to say onn the subject: "I hate them. They stole their language from us. I better not say anything else. But I hate them. I really do. They are just awful." But of course no more awful than the ancient Chinese civilizations that so bloodily unified the dozen or so provinces to form the first dynasty. Or more awful than the Chinese Mongols who so bloodily conquered India, Afghanistan, and easter Europe. Or more awful than the Chinese communists, and the millions of Chinese that they killed.
I didn't realize any of this back when I was a leftist. I thought all the world's problems resulted from the actions of an evil white super race, and everybody else represented eternal, helpless victims who would in the absense of white folks live in blissful prosperity. Now I see that there exists no super nor inferior races. All have enslaved and been enslaved. There exist only righteous and wrong actions, not righteous and wrong people. Tracing genetic lineages finds any group at various periods sometimes righteous, sometimes wrong, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker, and at all times capable of righteousness, wrongness, strength, and weakness. Some Black African slaves in 1700 were themselves evil, raping slave holders prior to their capture by a rival group, and found themselves owned by the white descendants of slaves owned and raped by Roman conquerers.
Here's to Indian food. Too bad so many Brits, American Indians, and Indian Indians had to get killed, raped, and enslaved to produce it. How lucky we are to live as we do now.
(And whatever happened to the departments of Literature, Philosophy, History, and Biology, anyway? How can we resurrect them?)
You guys have all chided me for asserting leftist Prof. Tom Philpott, Sr's view that Universities should confine themselves to producing degrees only in the classic intellectual subjects, such as the various natural sciences (chemistry, physics, biology, anthropology, etc.), humanities (literature, linguistics, philosophy, language, history, economics, etc.), and engineering, math, architecture, and perhaps computer science. This view would cast out of the academy the majority of majors now declared by most university students:
Health Sciences (Respiratory Therapy, etc.)
Most of you advance the view that "anything worth doing is worth doing at a university", and that excluding these "non-academic" majors (as I call them) constitutes denying that these subjects have value and warrant respect and esteem. I reject that view (that to respect those subjects requires incorporating them into the university's mission), and hold that subjects that don't qualify as appropriate "university" majors certainly may qualify for adulation and respect.
Here are some studies showing that people with degrees in my "real" majors dominate the upper echelon of post-undergrad standardized testing, whereas people with degrees in what I call "non-academic" majors exclusively compose the bottom rungs.
One of the studies only shows the top-performing majors, as not to embarrass the poor-performers, and the other study only examines some of the majors on my lists.
One of the problems I see with stuffing our universities with an ever expanding menu of junk food is that these empty intellectual calories attract growing fractions of university students into their fold. This enables high school students to work less hard and take fewer true intellectual courses, because they know that even the best universities have majors that can accommodate their under-developed brain mass. I believe that universities are pandering to their paying customers, who increasingly comprise people who want the easiest effort to a "university degree" (whatever such a thing means any more).
You will notice that as the schools of business, journalism, nursing, social work, education, etc. swell, famine languishes in the halls of the majors that formed the very basis of universities in the first place: philosophy, biology, linguistics, math, history, literature. If you want the core intellectual fields to survive and flourish, you really must support my call for universities to limit themselves to those majors.
Many professors in those fields now have to create watered-down courses on behalf of the popular non-academic majors! Some biology and chemistry departments draw most of their "customers" for such courses for nursing and health science majors (students who, if such opportunities didn't exist, might have studied harder in high school and endeavored to take authentic bio and chem courses in college).
Do any of you imagine that our US businesses might be more clever and efficient if instead of a uniform managerial cadre of "business" majors (quick, list the 10 most influential "business" people of the last century; how many had such a degree? Gates? Walton? Ford? Jobs? Dell? Ikea?), their managerial cadre instead comprised a diverse intellectual background in the humanities and sciences?
How about the quality of our print journalist and televised news readers? What if they had diverse intellectual backgrounds, rather than all of them with "journalism" degrees?
How about the quality of our school teachers? Do any of you think "education" courses in the absence of mastering any intellectual subject can really produce academic excellence?
Why force nurses, repertory therapists, and pharmacists to attend school for four years? Since these people are determined to acquire specialized trade skills, why not return to the days when they acquired these trade skills in trade schools better suited and devoted to such worthy pursuits? These fields have shortages. Wouldn't those shortages shrink if interested parties could get certified in two years... and have two-years' less of school loan dept (and probably a lower annual tuition)?
As you lament the decline of academic performance in the US, take a look at the nations whose students perform well. Notice how their high schools restrict themselves to core intellectual subjects, unlike US high schools, which follow their lead from universities. When those students come to the US and pick their majors, they nearly exclusively pick core academic fields, especially in the sciences and engineering.
"When NAFTA was up for a vote in 1993, the Clintonites and their GOP fellow-travelers said it would grow our trade surplus, raise Mexico's standard of living and reduce illegal immigration. The opposite occurred. Mexico's standard of living is lower than it was in 1993, the U.S. trade surplus has vanished, and America is being invaded. Mexico is now the primary source of narcotics entering the United States."
I am curious for a response to this from my free marketeer heroes at CafeHyak.com and Larry Kudlow.
he United States and Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again, according to Israeli officials and Western diplomats.
The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement.
The federal government is on the verge of one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in American history, worth an estimated $7 billion over five years.
New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
Based on the administration figures, the government will give up more than $7 billion in payments between now and 2011. The companies are expected to get the largess, known as royalty relief, even though the administration assumes that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout that period.
I find this to be a good point. Bans and demands against free speach always bite the advocates in their nether reaches. This of course applies to the muslim nuts. They want to ban mohammad speach, but they also want to violate bans on holocaust speach. However, these muslims have never claimed to promote "freedom", the way the holocaust banners have. I see only one soltion: the people who promote freedom halt all of their demands for speach strictures. This means that Tommy and Nadir will have to refrain from demanding apologies of, and firings for, say, professors who claim that the confederates faught for a "noble cause." And Bill O'Reilly will have to stop demanding the dismissal of Ward Churchill and rewriting of Will and Grace.
Then news media and individuals can speak freely.
Also: I think that the Iranian president is totally correct about the logic of western powers establishing Isreal in Palistine... though I think if muslims had sense of their own they would accept it, and move on to the awesome task of secular, constitutional democracy in the other 97% of the region (all of which also comprise nations founded on destable injustices).
That's the tune Brownie is now singing up on the Hill, to the evident fury of his former bosses. Not the first ex-administration official to question the relationship between his former bosses and reality (see Powell, Colin; and O'Neil, Paul).
Testifying before a Senate committee, Mr. Brown said he notified a senior White House official — who he said was probably Joe Hagin, the deputy White House chief of staff, but might have been Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff — on the day the hurricane hit to report that it had turned into his "worst nightmare" and that New Orleans was flooding.
It was the first public identification of any White House official who was said to have directly received reports of extensive flooding on Monday, Aug. 29, the day Hurricane Katrina hit.
In the aftermath of the storm, administration officials said they were caught by surprise when they were told of the levee breach on Tuesday, Aug. 30. Mr. Hagin was the senior staff member with President Bush on the day the hurricane hit, when Mr. Bush was traveling in California.
How, then, can "medicine" qualify as the same sort of "right" as speach? How can I have a "right" to surgery, unless some other person is forced to provide me a building, a surgeon's efforts, and equipment? A very interesting point made by one of my favorite geniuses, Walter Williams.
Following the 2004 decision of the Bush administration and a huge bipartisan congressional majority to throw its weight behind Prime Minister Sharon’s unilateral disengagement strategy in lieu of a negotiated withdrawal, many Palestinians saw the departure of Israeli colonists from the Gaza Strip as a result of Hamas’ armed resistance, thereby giving them even less faith in a U.S.-led peace process.
Exit polls appear to indicate that had Palestinian voters believed that re-electing the more moderate Fatah movement would have allowed for the resumption of peace talks, they would not have backed the hard-line Hamas. Israel cut off negotiations with the Palestinians when right-wing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon came to office in February 2001, just one month after Israeli-Palestinian talks in Taba, Egypt came tantalizingly close to reaching a final peace agreement. The Israeli government, with apparent U.S. backing, has refused to resume negotiations ever since.
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.
He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, “will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves.”
“How do I know this? I’ve talked to Bolton’s speechwriter,” Ritter said.
Sure, the New York Times regularly prints the Scat Mary and Peepee Jesus. But that's because the nutty christians choose to permit this. But ABC fired Bill Mahr, Dr. Laura, and Rush Limbough because they violated de facto speach restrictions imposed by various citizen groups. I'm sure that the Danish newspaper that printed the mohammad cartoons would have refused to print certain certain other cartoons for similar reasons.
If kooky christians in the US can keep ABC from running a crusifiction parody in an upcoming sitcom (to cite one of an endless number of examples), why not accomidate nutty muslims? As long as we western democrats tolerate *SOME* nutty tyrants to effectively ban the expression of ideas that they hae identified, why exclude nutty muslims? I oppose this practice overall, but it does exist, and our other democratic ideals obligate us to extend to shrieking, irrational muslims the same accomidations that we shamefully extend to shrieking, irrational christians, jews, and multi-culturalists.
I'm proud that the kooky US christians are advanced and liberal enough to permit the New York Times to print Piss Jesus. But the NYT ain't printing that *despite* the kooky christians; they are printing it because the kooky christians are mature enough to accept this printing. I am certain that the NYT is cowardly enough to ban Piss Jesus if the kooky christians demanded that they do with the furror that they have successfully demanded that ABC ban the planned Will and Grace parody of Jesus's crucifiction ("Hey, I can almost see my house from here").
Nadir: What fraction of blacks that you know claim to have "Indian" ancestors? I say close to 100% of all black folks make this claim. On the PBS documentary tonight, hosted by Gates, Oprah made the same observation that all blacks claim to have Indian ancestors. Gates's findings show that only about 10% of all "blacks" in the US have any Indian ancestors.
What confounded me about the show was that none of the blacks in the exercise expressed any interest in exploring their honkey lineage. They all only wanted to learn about their black ancestors. Even more confounding is that when Gates took commedian Chris Tucker to Africa, they kept referring to the visit as a "return", though Tucker had never been to Africa. Why didn't Gates "return" to Ireland, where half of his ancestors lived?
Former (and worst in U.S. history) President Jimmy Carter:
"The efforts of Martin and Coretta have changed America, they were not appreciated even at the highest level of government. It was difficult for them personally -- with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance..."
Gotta get that illegal wiretapping thing in there, eh Jimmah? Funny though, seeing as Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General at the time and brother of that fat, bloated drunk Sen. Ted Kennedy, who also happened to be in attendance, was the one who authorized those wiretaps on MLK. Go figure.
"This commemorative ceremony this morning and this afternoon is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi..."
That's nice, Jimmah. Let's evoke Katrina racism again.
Carter's spent the last 25 years trying to revise how history will perceive that abortion that was his Presidency.
And then, to paraphrase the good Rev. Joseph Lowery:
"We know no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq (WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH CORETTA KING'S FUNERAL?!!! JESUS CHRIST!) but down here there are "weapons of misdirection" (Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. I suppose he's alluding to the allegedly dynamited levees.)
These assholes stood directly in front of President and Mrs. Bush and spewed this crap. Were it me I would have gotten up and walked out. Of course, had he done that, or not attended at all he would have been called insensitive, disrespectful and probably racist. It was a no-win situation for him.
And all this on the heels of Rosa Parks' funeral service which also turned into a political tirade. The Democrat Party has deteriorated into a cesspool of lies, personal attacks and slander. Democrats everywhere should be ashamed and thoroughly disgusted with their party.
Most wonderful is the delima now facing these ignorant, knuckle-dragging crowds: Some of their members created three of the cartoons that they all insist mandates death for the creators and disseminators. What will they do?
Nadir, these are the people you want us to appease?
"The Brussels Journal has always doubted whether the cartoons added by the imams were genuine. Whenever we mentioned them we explicitly wondered whether they were not “of the imam’s own making.” Certain Western mainstream media, however, such as the Australian network SBS and the British BBC authoritatively declared that the pigsnout was one of Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons."
It's the second resurrection of Christ. Before the world ends he wants to take in some fishing. So he gets his friend Moses and they head up to Minnesota to fish. They are about to rent a canoe when Moses says:"Jesus, can't you still walk on water? Why not just walk out there?"
So Jesus takes his reel and tackle and steps onto the lake....and falls knee deep in water.
Moses says, "Well....maybe you need a head start or something, why not go to the end of the dock and try."
So Jesus takes his reel and tackle and steps off the end of the dock and falls up to his waist.
Moses says, " Well why not rent the boat, go out to the center of the lake and try there."
So they rent the boat and go to the middle of the lake, Jesus is about to step off and try again when...
Moses says, "Wait. Just to be safe, why not get yourself into the state of mind you were in the first time you did it."
So Jesus sets down, meditates for a few minutes, and finally he's all psyched up, and steps out of the canoe.... ..and precedes to drown.So Moses does the water parting thing, and pulls Jesus up into the boat.Jesus is just beating himself up over this. He just doesn't see what's going wrong here.
Moses just stares down at the bottom of the boat.Suddenly, Moses says, "I got it! I know what's wrong! Did you have those holes in your feet last time?!?!"
The current war between Western nations and Islamic societies is about to come to a head in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Europe and elsewhere in the world. The non-religious media (including Reformed Leftist's right-wing) seem to believe that stoking these fires is okay. The death and destruction that will result are inconsequential. It's about the principle.
Bullshit. It's about human lives. Diplomacy is always more beneficial than provocation.
Unless you want the war to escalate... I suppose the decade since the end of the last World War (The Cold War) has been a bust for the weapons industry. It's time to crank it up again.
So in other words, he wants muslims to behave the way that christian nuts do in the US. ... though I believe that the christian nuts in the US have advanced to a level where they would not stage mass demonstrations against a cartoon of Jesus.
I wonder why this cleric doesn't adopt Nadir's postion: Don't lecture or admonish the murdering protesters, instead lecture and admonish the publishers of the cartoons that the violent creeps want nobody to see. So who are we to side with here, Nadir or this muslim cleric?
Meanwhile last night on one of the cable gabberies, one journalist did promote a justification for halting these mohammad cartoons that made sense to me: in time of war, the press should not broadcast images or words that will help the enemy.
Photos from the World Can't Wait's Protest in Washington D.C.
Activists Rally at White House to Demand Bush Step Down
Washington D.C. - Several thousand protestors converged on the White House on Saturday, Febuary 4, 2006 to demand the resignation of George W. Bush. The rally was organized by World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime, a coalition of groups and individuals who are mobilizing support for Bush's ouster. Speakers included radio personality Joe Madison, The Black Eagle, David Swanson writer, activist and founder of the website AfterDowningStreet.org, Juan Torres and Missy Comley Beattie of Gold Star Families for Peace, Doris "Granny D" Haddock and NADIR who performed his song "Guantanamo".
Why would anyone who wants liberalism go for a Republican imitation when they can get the real thing from Democrats? Republicans do not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the votes of liberal blacks.
Nor are they likely to win a majority of the black vote as a whole any time soon. But if Republicans can get just a fourth or a fifth of the black vote nationwide, that can shift the balance of power decisively in their favor.
It is not rocket science to see that whatever chances the Republicans have of making inroads into the black vote are likely to be better among more conservative blacks.
Black religious groups opposed to abortion or homosexual marriage are an obvious group to try to reach. So are black business owners or military veterans.
Does anyone think that President Bush's awarding a Medal of Freedom to Muhammad Ali was likely to appeal to such groups? Yet this continues a pattern in which Republicans have tried to approach black voters from the left."
He's absolutely right.
The *only* thing keeping the black vote so high for demos is the misconception that "republicans are racist" and simple social momentum. As many of my friends say, "I want lower taxes and school vouchers, but I just can't bring myself to vote republican." Putting a black candidate on the ticket stands to cause a substantial fraction of black voters to switch over to the party that more closely matches their position on the issues.
Meanwhile, by putting blacks on a demo ticket, what do the demos gain?
These kooky, retarded Muslims are exposing kookiness and retardation within the supposedly (and self-proclaimed) "free" west. I am much more bothered by the free speach bans and public demands by westernern alleged democrats than by the kooky muslims who have never claimed to be free, or even to want freedom. The retarded muslims have a very logical point to make of the democracies that make *some* speach illegal: why not other speach?
"...courts will determine whether the newspaper that originally published the cartoons is guilty of blasphemy."
What? Holland has anti-blasphemy laws? If so, why isn't this getting massive publicity? We westerners really must examine ourselves as our eyes widen in horror at the sight of these muslims demanding vigilante and legal enforcement of their sacred views. American christian nuts impose non-violent vigilante retaliation against media that broadcast situations that the nuts consider to be "offensive." Tyranical leftists do the same. And European nations have laws against speach defined (as always, by some) as "offensive". People horrified and indignant about the nutty muslims have no moral authority at all unless they are prepared themselves to tolerate expressions of thought that offend and discomfit their own selves.
This means American leftists not demanding that ABC fire Dr Laura, due to her claims that homosexuality is an immoral and unnatural mental illness. It also means rightists not demanding that the University of Colorada fire that professor who called the 911 victims "little Eichmans" (or firing the commedian who said that the 911 terrorists were not cowards). Also Europeans must permit people to deny the holocaust, fly nazi flags, and make racist (to some!) statements. People unwilling to permit any of these expressions cannot logically demand tolleration for the Mohammad cartoons. Purging the supposedly and self-proclaimed free West of intolleration must be Job One.
I just hope that the display includes cartoons that would be illegal according to the laws of some European nations, including Holocaust cartoons and racist caracatures against blacks and jews. This really is the time to promote Free Speach, with no astericks for ideas that certain people find "offensive." This should not be Free Speach for Ideas Offensive to Muslims. It **MUST** be Free Speach for Ideas Offensive to Everyone.
In any case, though, the very claim about one type of person lacking the capacity to "understand what it's like to be" another type of person may be dubious. The world of literature is full of examples where one type of person writes about other type of person, and the work gets accepted as absolutely authentic. Here's one example where a woman has written about a male prostitute. Another famous example is the gay author of "Sex in the City." Also: "The Sopranos," written by a non-mobster. Then of course there are all the Alexander Dumas books, written by a black man, wherein all the characters are white. And there's "Knock on Any Door," written by a black man (Willard Motley), and long condsidered the quintessential novel of Italian immigrants in big city America. Furthermore, no white immigrants in late 1800s Chicago questioned the ability to "understand" of Luch Parsons, a freed black slave from Texas. Well, actually she lied to everybody and told them that she wasn't black, but rather a "Mexican" immigrant. They either believed her, or did not. In any case, she was a top leader of the original US labor movement, which comprised nearly 100% European immigrants.
- "Massacre those who insult Islam"
- "Behead the one who insults the prophet"
- "Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
Because these signs are not themselves meant as jokes, they violate British laws against inciting violence. I am not certain that I support such laws; I think that I believe people should be arrested and imprisoned only for committing violence, not for urging people to do so. Yet these laws exist, and would surely be enforced if British skin-heads held signs urging death for Indian and Jamacian immigrants. According to the article, police haven't made arrests for fear of instigating further violence. But I thought that British authorities do not comprimise in such circumstances. If I went to London with Nadir, and I robbed a bank, would the bobbies decline to arrest me if Nadir threated to retailiate with a bomb?
That is the point of no return -- and we are drifting towards it, chattering away about legalisms and politics."
Thanks Gary Busey! (And Billy Zane, too.)
The whacked out former star of failed, dumb reality show "I'm with Busey" repeats the age-old anti-Semitic blood libel, that Jews steal others' organs, blood, etc. for some ill purpose--in this case by playing an evil Jewish doctor. We have a suggestion for all Jewish-American doctors: Since Gary Busey defamed you, refuse him as a patient.
In a new Turkish movie, "Kurtlar vadisi - Irak" ("Valley of the Wolves--Iraq") U.S. soldiers are portrayed as brutal murderers who "kill dozens of innocent people with random machine gun fire, shoot the groom in the head, and drag those left alive to Abu Ghraib prison - where a Jewish doctor cuts out their organs, which he sells to rich people in New York, London and Tel Aviv," according to AP. Gary Busey plays the Jewish-American doctor.
Thanks, Gary. And congrats. You're now an official member of the Anti-Semite club. In the grand tradition of Hitler, the authors of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, etc., etc., etc. So Hollywood, so "enlightened."
We'd say, boycott Busey. But he's not been in much to speak of that anyone has watched (not even anti-White man, "Into the West"). So he whored himself out to anti-Semitism in order to make a buck.
Then, there is actor Billy Zane. Boycott him, too.
He defames American soldiers, portraying one of this nasty movie's version: evil, brutal, cold-hearted murderers. According to a summary of the "fabulous" anti-American plot of this "film", his character, Sam W. Marshall, "raids [an] Arabian wedding where everyone from the region comes together. He kills tens of people. All are civilians. Leila, the bride of the wedding, loses her future groom in the killings. Apart from the people who were murdered there, also a lot of people are declared terrorists and arrested.
As noted by reader Tim, we recall only one Muslim Arab wedding attacked in recent memory, the one in Amman, Jordan. But the attackers were NOT American soldiers. They were fellow Muslim Arabs from Al-Qaeda. Hmmmm . . . where's the Billy Zane movie about that, Hollywood?
These cartoons have succeeded in galvanizing even moderate Muslims who were not active in protests against Westerners. The Western attitude that "we can do or say anything we want to anyone we want because we are superior" is one of the largest sources of death and destruction on the planet. This is the basis for Western imperialism, it was the basis for European race slavery, and it is the basis for the rest of the world's animosity against Europeans and those of European ancestry.
STOP THIS SHIT BEFORE YOU GET US ALL KILLED!!!
About the song: It’s In The Koran, by ‘Patrick Henry.’
From the author:
Commenters have argued that the Koran doesn’t say what this song claims the Koran says. To everyone who holds this view, I answer - and this is very important, so I’ll be stating it again below - that I agree with you. I agree that the Koran says what you claim it says. Islam is one of the world’s great religions, and I don’t believe that billions could have followed it if it weren’t, at its core, beautiful and life-engendering.
The problem is this: all the incidents I describe in the song have happened, and all were caused by men who disagree with you. These men have a different view of Islam. They find in the Koran inspiration and justification for their horrible acts.
To these men the Koran says that it’s proper that girls fleeing a fire should be trampled to death because they aren’t wearing headscarves. To these men the Koran says, even demands, that these girls die. The Koran says this, not to you, not to me, but to them.
The same goes for the other deeds I name: rape, torture, massacre, beheading, defilement of shrines. To these men, the Koran insists that they commit such acts.
I wrote the song from the point of view of these men because they’re the dominant force in Islam now. If you don’t believe me, remember this: Palestinians have just elected Hamas to lead their parliament, knowing that Hamas plan to institute sharia. Muslims had a choice, and they chose as leaders the kinds of men my song is about.
If you want more evidence, go to MEMRI.org and read the translations of interviews with influential Islamic figures. It’s rare to find one criticizing anything done by Muslims to non-Muslims, or even to other Muslims.
Here’s a comparison I find useful:
When the Abu Ghraib photos appeared, every American with a microphone - columnist, politician, religious leader - condemned the soldiers responsible.
When radical Muslims hide among civilians so that our soldiers can’t fight them without killing the innocent - do Arab and Muslim leaders, politicians, journalists unite to call such behavior cowardly and un-Islamic? No. When radical Muslims murder women and children? No. Gang-rapes in Scandinavia, forced mass starvation in Sudan - the list is long and wretched, and the men who commit these actions receive no criticism from the only people they might listen to: their religious leaders.
That’s why I wrote this song.
Again, if you say that Islam doesn’t permit such deeds, and that the men who perform them aren’t behaving like true Muslims, I’ll agree with you. But these men consider themselves true Muslims, the only true Muslims, and think that Muslims who disagree with them are apostates, the worst of betrayers.
I stand by every line in the song; it’s what such men believe. All I did was make their beliefs rhyme, scan and bounce like a vaudeville tune.
To those of you who feel that I’m mocking Islam, I reply: I’m not. I respect your view of it. These men - the men I’m writing about - don’t. You should be arguing with them, not with me.
On the world stage, should we really apologize for Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe? Mozart, Beethoven and Bach? Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, Breughel, Ter Borch? Galileo, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton and
Darwin? Penicillin and computers? The Olympic Games and Football? Human rights and parliamentary democracy? The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes."
"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" wrote Jihad Momani.
He told the AFP news service he decided to publish the offending cartoons "so people know what they are protesting about... People are attacking drawings that they have not even seen."
Scott Burgess has the honor roll of European papers that have reacted to the intimidation by publishing the cartoons: The Daily Ablution: An Awakening Europe Reacts - Spineless UK Press Doesn’t.
Sheehan, who won wide attention with an anti-war vigil outside Bush's Texas ranch, was attending the speech as the guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat.
In a speech on the House floor, Woolsey said Sheehan wore a shirt that highlighted the number of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq. "Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the president of the United States?" Woolsey asked.
"How can we claim to be fighting on behalf of freedom around the world, making the world safe for freedom when we are smothering freedom here at home?" she said.
"If we and the Europeans cut off aid, and Israel refuses to remit to the Palestinians the taxes they collect, the Palestinians will be put through hell for voting the wrong way. The Arabs will call us hypocrites who believe in elections only if they produce the results we demand.
And who could say they are wrong?"
Pat Buchannan is a sane conservative voice... sometimes.