New Detroit Catholic Bishop Not Unfamiliar With Stageplays

Would Detroit's new Catholic Bishop appear out-of-place at a LIZA-POLOZA! show? I can't help but imagine that he has all sorts of specific and fabulous ideas about revamping the facility costumes, lighting, and decor. Perhaps he will replace the communion scarfs with feather boas.

Raw Milk, Please!

Scientists employed by the US government insist that raw milk -- milk that hasn't been pasteurized -- is unhealthful and dangerous. Health food freaks claim that that the benefits far exceed the risks, which are no greater than for many other foods approved by those same govt employees. OK, I've considered both sides, and I've decided that I want to purchase some raw milk from a provider. If it kills me I have nobody to blame but myself, and I'm an idiot because govt scientists are almost never wrong, right?

Please, no more laws to protect me from what other people have decided is dangerous.

Michigan to Vote on Marijuana Legalization

I dislike Marijuana. It puts me straight to sleep. I suspect that it is unhealthful to inhale the products of combustion, even of all-natural substances. But who the hell am I to stop somebody from growing a plant on their property, drying it, and smoking it, or selling to others? I do hope that Michigan voters are smart enough to free our police and citizens from the cruel and counter-productive "mutual consent" laws such as this. MJ today, crack tomorrow!

Why We Rarely Hear from Moderate Muslims

Jamal Miftah, a Muslim who lives in Tulsa, wrote a column for the newspaper Tulsa World condemning Al Qaeda and calling on fellow Muslims to reject terrorism.

In return, he was kicked out of the local mosque by leaders until he apologizes for his article—and threatened with violence by other members of the peaceful Islamic community of Tulsa, Oklahoma.


Here’s Mr. Miftah’s article in Tulsa World: Message of Islam is not jihad, fatwahs.

UPDATE: It seems the Tulsa World has pulled the article (probably out of fear of violent retaliation) from their website, but I did manage to find the text of the column on the web:

I moved to the United States in March 2003, with my four kids and wife from Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. There was a call by a local jihadi organization to fight the coalition forces in Afghanistan. One of my dearest friends, Mirza Kohistani, fell prey to that call and joined the group, despite my advice and that of his wife to him.

All the leaders of that organization returned safely after the fall of the Taliban empire, but they left behind the body of my friend and hundreds of other innocent people like him.

I am obliged to respond to Ayman al-Zawahri's recent video message, portraying himself as champion of Islam and others as liars.

My message to Ayman al-Zawahri and Muslims of the world: "Islam" means submission and is derived from a word meaning "peace." Islam, Christianity and Judaism have the same origin, the Prophet Abraham. The prophet of Islam has said that God has no mercy on someone who does not have mercy for others.

I appeal to the Muslim youth in particular and Muslims of the world in general to rise up and start jihad against the killers of humanity and help the civilized world to bring these culprits to justice and prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and
aggression.

I appeal to the Muslim clerics around the world that, rather than issuing empty fatwas condemning suicide bombing, they should issue a fatwa for the death of such scoundrels and barbarians who have taken more than 4,267 lives of innocent people in the name of Islam and have carried out more than 24 terrorist attacks on civilian installations throughout the world. This does not include the chilling number of deaths because of such activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is well over 250,000.

I appeal to al-Zawahri and his band of thugs to hand themselves over to justice and stop spreading evil and killing innocent humans around the world in the name of Islam. Their time is limited and Muslims of the world will soon rise against them to apprehend them and bring them to justice.

Etan Thomas on the "KKKramer" Incident

This is not an accidental slip of the tongue, or a temporary loss of one's temper. He actually made a reference to fork-based lynching. For a person to resort to that type of an attack has to be laboring a deep sentiment of bigotry in its ugliest form. It is part of his soul. Something that is connected to his entire being. Those were the real feelings of Richards unmasked for the entire world to see.

And...

His references to the "Afro-Americans" he offended, and the fact that he claims he is not a racist but has rage issues is absolutely absurd. Simply put, only racist people make racist remarks. [Nadir - My emphasis.] I don't care how many times he denounces his statements. Do you think this is the first time he has launched language of this nature at a Black Person before? I seriously doubt it. Finally, Richards said that his remarks should be seen as the "botched joke" that it was, and not the emanations of any serious animous towards black people. Does this sound like a man who is truly sorry, I think not.

Bridegroom Murdered by Police at His Bachelor Party

Trini Wright, a dancer at the strip club where the men had been celebrating, told the Daily News she was going to a diner with them and was putting her makeup bag in the trunk of their car when the police minivan appeared.
"The minivan came around the corner and smashed into their car. And they (the police) jumped out shooting," the 28-year-old told the newspaper for Monday editions. "No ’stop.’ No ’freeze.’ No nothing."
[Police commissioner Raymond] Kelly had said Saturday night that the police department was still piecing together what happened and that it was too early to say whether the shooting was justified. He said it was unclear whether the officers, who were all in plain clothes, identified themselves before firing.

Police brutality - in New York, in Los Angeles, in Detroit, in America - must stop.

White Student Group Offers Meaningless Scholarship to Whites Only

"A Boston University student group is offering a scholarship for white students to protest financial aid programs in the United States that select by ethnic background, university officials said..."

These students and others who oppose affirmative action and diversity programs miss the point. This is a multi-cultural world, but economic opportunity is not equal. Diversity programs are designed to help traditionally disadvantaged and oppressed people. Most white people (especially those who can afford to go to elite universities like BU or U of M) are privileged because of their race.

However, this scholarship only offers $250, and is therefore a symbolic political statement that has no real merit. If they really wanted to help whites, they would offer a scholarship to white students who suffer from real disadvantages as tution rates increase and the middle class shrinks. Many minority scholarships (including the one that helped me through school) are contingent on proof of financial need.

Instead the students make a mockery both of students who come from oppressed populations and of the poor whites who can't get into BU. This shows just how out of touch these kids are and proves that they are in need of a more diverse environment. They are obviously clueless and have no understanding of life in the real world.

This guy's career is toast

And rightly so.

"I'm not a racist. That's what's so insane about this," Richards said, his tone becoming angry and frustrated as he defended himself.

He's got to be kidding, right? How can he expect anyone to believe this after spewing the kind of venom he did?

At one point, however, Richards grew flustered and expressed second thoughts about appearing on the program when his use of the term "Afro-American" caused some audience members to laugh.

"I'm hearing your audience laugh and I'm not even sure that this is where I should be addressing the situation," he said.

Don't waste your breath apologizing pal, you're finished. Whatever comedy career you had left is over and done now.

What an idiot. And a hateful one at that.

'War on Terror,' or terrible war?: an 'Economist' correspondent considers

Max Rodenbeck, Mideast correspondent for the Economist, has written a pungent and closely argued critique, not just of Bush's prosecution of the "War on Terror" (which he considers abysmal), but also of the very idea of a war on terror, which he finds, well, naive to the point of idiocy. It appears in the New York Review of Books, which I urge all intellectually curious people to read often.
Please read above-linked article and comment.

Islam, Religion of Conquest & Deceit

Mohammad says, "War is deceit." (Sunnah Vol 4, Book 52, Number 269; The Sunnah, or Sahih Bukhari, is a collection of purported sayings and deeds of Mo, written about 200 years after his death, but regarded by Muslims as a sacred and perfect text.)

Islam is a religion of world conquest over all non-Muslims, via military means which include lying to un-conquered non-Muslims. This concept has a formal name, Al-Taqiyah, and can take many forms.

The most famous example of Al-Taqiyah appears in the Koran, where Mo and his original band of Muslims confront Mecca, and agree a treaty that bans military hostilities for ten years, in exchange for the Meccans permitting the Muslims to enter annually to engage in the pagan pilgrimage to Mecca's shrine to the moon god, "Allah". At the time, Mo's army was only about 1,500, and Mo didn't believe that it could conquer the Meccan army. So Mo honored the treaty just long enough to build his army to over 10,000. At that time he felt he could conquer the Meccans, and he discarded the treaty, conquered Mecca, and subjected its people. This subjugation included the execution of the comedian/poets who had previously ridiculed him for claiming to be the new King of the Jews, etc.

Of course Mo's Islamic army is not the first or last to lie to their adversaries in order to buy time for a future conquest. Hitler famously did this, as did the eventual US Confederates, and the US military made many treaties with American Indians which they always broke. However, only Islam amongst religions condones (even commands!) such behavior as a requirement for its adherents.

This frightens me. When people advertising themselves as Muslims, who both proclaim their actions all as deriving from Islam and the eventual defeat of non-muslim secular democracies, sign treaties with these non-Muslim democracies, I have serious doubts.

Sienfield's Kramer A Racist?

It's not clear if this really is Michael Richards of Sienfield, but *some* honkey comedian in LA at a honkey comedy club made racist remarks at some black hecklers. And... the white audience reacted to the white comedian with such disdain that they walked out. I wonder what a black audience at a black comedy club would have done had a black comedian started calling some white hecklers honkies?

Evil Righties Outgive Righteous Lefties

"Religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income... extensive data analysis demonstrates that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals."

USA's Side in Vietnam Finally Wins

Apparently the lousy VC and NVA could have spared their nation millions of deaths and decades of misery by merely giving the US plan a chance in Vietnam. South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, Italy, and Japan have already proven beyond doubt that US military operations since 1940 can lead to freedom, independence, security, and prosperity, if local people so choose. The anti-commie crusaders of the cold war were apparently correct in their assessments of communism, socialism, capitalism, and democracy. As we see here in Vietnam, "planned economies", with rationed and "universal" healthcare, housing, employment, land, etc. produces a universal average far less than what free markets do; in the case of Vietnam, extreme socialism produced extreme poverty, scarcity, hopelessness, and misery. As in China and India, reduction of poverty in Vietnam has proceeded only as a consequence of increased market freedoms.

Socialism promises perfection, but delivers far less than the accurate capitalist promise of imperfection.

Cops Bust Hookers & Johns on Craigslist

"We would prefer that [police] go after violent criminals or crooked congressmen."

Amen, brother Craig. If Nadir's dad and my dad agree to a trade of carnal knowledge and lucre, why would any of the rest of us care? I would care if they performed their transaction in a car on my street, or in my nearby park. I accept my government regulating the venues all other businesses: Nadir's dad couldn't operate his parasol kiosk out of his car on my street, or in my nearby park. But the government does permit Nadir's dad to sell his parasols *somewhere*, and my dad to purchase them.

Very sad that the voting public permits these laws which ban adults from freely entering into contracts with each other.

Feminist Against Duke Rape Faker

What is worse: A rapist going free, or a non-raper getting prosecuted via a false accusation?

And what about people who "advocate justice" closing their eyes, ears, and mouths in this case (ie, Nadir)?

Duke Rape Hoaxer, Yet More Evidence Against

Now we learn that Crystal Magnum's co-workers at her strip club claim that two days before the false accusation, she passed out drunk while working at the strip club. They say that they had to dress her in the back room, and in the process of carrying her to a car, they dropped her three times in the gravel parking lot!

In this transcript from attorney Greta Van Susteren's show, we have her -- like everyone, she initially believed the fake accusation -- firmly opposing Magnum's accusation, and prosecutor Nifong's decision to press the case.

One of her panelists, black criminal defense attorney Ted Grimm, who held out longer than most in supporting Magnum's increasingly preposterous claim, stands now firmly against her: "[It just] piles on and on. When you say it can't get any worse, then something else just pops up." He calls here for judicial misconduct proceedings against the prosecutor Nifong.

Another panelist, prosecutor Pam Bondi who also supported Magnum well after it became obvious that she was lying, stating now that the prosecution's case keeps getting chipped away until you think there's nothing left, and then something else gets chipped away!

Geoffry Feiger, the honkey Detroit criminal defense attorney who is very liberal and leftist, continues his advocacy against Magnum and Nifong. He also makes the obvious case (ignored by Nadir) that this case represents a typical example of prosecutors proceeding despite exculpatory evidence. Just imagine if this accuser had her act together, and could render her false accusation without such a flood of exculpatory evidence! Imagine if she had convinced one of the guys to pay her for sex, then accused him!

Overview of Duke Rape Hoax

This Brooklyn history professor does a really good job of over viewing the Duke Rape Hoax. He includes this important assertion: "Rape law needs modification. Until the 1970s, rape law was far too friendly to the defendant; now it is the reverse. Under North Carolina law, a jury can convict solely on the testimony of the accuser and her identifying her alleged assailants." White racists previously used this to convict clearly innocent black men of raping honkey women.

Also (Nadir, read this): "The next time the NAACP speaks up on behalf of standard procedure in a criminal justice case, the media should ask why the organization betrayed 70 years of its principles on criminal justice issues to give Nifong a pass in this case."

He started and maintains blog devoted to this outrage against justice.

Will Smith, Non-Idiot?

“All you have to know to understand how brilliant Thomas Jefferson was is the promise he wrote to Americans: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He didn’t say we deserved happiness, or that the government could provide it. It’s the pursuit that matters, the opportunity to make that pursuit. That’s what makes America unique."

And:

Although he "100%" supports Affirmative Action, he can understand why “good people with good intentions” oppose it.

He is also "a voracious reader."

So, why are all his movies so awful? Maybe the new one about the homeless single father who became a rich stock broker will be watchable!

Free Muslims / United States of Isreal & Palistine

This is a pretty good website, which includes a proposed One State solution for Isreal and Palistine. It ignores the wrong-ness of establishing Israel in the first place, and the wrong-ness of the local Arab response to that formation. Of course, if we harped on the wrong-ness of the historical formation of any nation in the way that the Arabs have selectively focused on Isreal's foundation (but not the equally appalling unjustness of the foundations of Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.), all nations would today suffer ugly internal infighting.

Hitchens on Borat

Borat attempts to make Americans look like the ignorant racist boobs that the lefties believe they are. Instead, I share the view of Christopher Hitchens, who believes that Borat shows Americans to be if not infinitely tolerant, at least no less tolerant than Brits, French, and Africans.

(Kurdish) Victory in Iraq

“Today we have five universities and soon we'll have six. Compare that with 1991, when we had one.”

The same evil US invaders, but a different people... and a different result. Why no US stealing of petro? Why no US puppet govt? Why no hatred of yankee conquerers?

The Israel lobby's most important Member

The Israel lobby may wield even more power than its critics claim. Evidently, it counts among its numbers God -- and not just any old God but the fire breather fetishized by the likes of Fallwell, Pat Roberts, and their ilk.

According to the NYT, a certain well-connected Jesus freak called the Israel-Palestine conflict a:

“battle between good and evil” and said support for Israel was “God’s foreign policy.”
The next day he took the same message to the White House.
Many conservative Christians say they believe that the president’s support for Israel fulfills a biblical injunction to protect the Jewish state, which some of them think will play a pivotal role in the second coming. Many on the left, in turn, fear that such theology may influence decisions the administration makes toward Israel and the Middle East.

Count me among their number.

This is especially disturbing, given that the Bush administration evidently urged on Isreal's ill-advised and brutal (cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods?) foray into Lebanon. I know some of you reformed leftists probably think the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh is some sort of unreliable American who should probably be experiencing firsthand the rigors of Guantanamo. which his work has done so much to expose, to the detriment of the war effort. (This is not a knock against Paul who at least has the good manners to deplore the torture and secrecy that has been so central to the Bush war policy; but rather at Six, who seems to take his cues from blustering philistines on TV). Yet here again is Hersh--the reporter who exposed the My Lai atrocity--exploiting divisions with the military apparatus to get at something like the truth:

The Bush Administration ... was closely involved in the planning of Israel’s retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah’s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel’s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.

Just like their moves on Iraq and even Afghanistan, this one has proved a bitter failure. Isarael's foray only bolstered Hezbollah's popularity and credibility. Just as the War on Terror in Iraq has only brought terror to Iraq.

The Shoeless Joe Factor

You pro-war, right-wingnuts may just have the last laugh after all.

Shoeless Joe "Independent Democrat in Name Only" Lieberman may just jump the aisle. It wouldn't be surprising, but it would be insulting. Lieberman's vice-presidential candidacy helped Gore lose in 2000, as many Dems disliked Lieberman and his record, and for good reason. But he promised to remain a Democrat, and now he is balking. Will he walk, or will he stand in the box and play team ball.

Joe owes nothing to the Dems, and perhaps he owes a bit to the GOP. Still, Lieberman has proven that loyalty means nothing to him.

Who will place the highest bid for a Senator? That's the question.

Glad the Repos Lost, II

Very eager to learn why Nadir thinks that Bush and the Repos lost this second midterm election. Will Nadir say that the Bush's voting machine rigs malfunctioned? Or that anti-black repo vote suppression efforts also malfunctioned?

I think that this article pretty well describes most of the explanation: many of us repo voters got let down by such factors as the repos proving to be no more ethical, competent, or pork-free than the demos. Also, Bush stopped pushing for a low flat tax, social security privatization, and school vouchers. And no matter if you want lots of Mexican immigrants, or much fewer, no repo wants immigration to proceed via extra-democratic means ala unenforced laws.

Nobody has yet articulated the frustration of we Christopher Hitchens repo voters who disagree with the repos on most of the "morality" issues:

- We support abortion rights (though, at least in my case, not for the reasons that liberals do).
- We support gay marriage, or at least don't care one bit about it.
- We want no religion in any official government capacity, though some of us would permit private citizens to bring religion to public spaces.

Blackface Angelina Jolie: Hollywood Racism

I'm all for race-neutral casting, which would mean Denzel Washington playing George Washington, and Brad Pitt playing George Washington Carver. I do recognize a great deal of progress in Hollywood, as many films now contain black actors playing roles that do not stipulate "black character." But we still too-often have historical accuracy guaranteeing roles for honkey actors to play honkey characters, but then discarding historical accuracy in order to place honkey actors in non-honkey roles.

The most galling example was Passion of the Christ, in which Mel Gibson exhibited great public anguish in achieving every detail of historical accuracy, right down to employing an extinct ancient language... then employed a honkey to play Jesus, a man born to an Ethiopian mother, and whose skin the Gospels describe as the color of brass, with hair like lamb's wool. Then Clint Eastwood banished all black actors from his Iwa Jima invasion, which in reality had about 10% black soldiers. Now we have Angelina Jolie playing Daniel Pearl's wife, who is a "mixed baby" (cracker-negro). I notice that the producers didn't pick a black actor to play Danny; why not? Let's make race-defying casting choices work both ways.

Steele to Head RNC?

This would help demonstrate that the Repos are serious about including blacks as officials and voters. The black republican revolution is coming, and it will be televised.

Crybabies Demand Rangel Appologize

Can we please stop demanding that public figures apologize when they say somethign that offends us? Better, can we stop getting offended? A week or so ago the righty crybabies demanded that John Kerry apologize for saying that if you perform poorly in school "you get stuck in Iraq." Now they want Rangel to apologize for saying, "Who wants to live in Mississippi?" I'm sure that Rangel has played the crybaby role before, demanding that somebody else apologize for some comment. Let's just stop; let's just all call each others' moms' whores, and move on: STOP CARING!

Bad Winners, Sore Losers

Now That The Dust Has Settled

Now that the 2006 mid-term election is history one thing that has become very apparent to me is the difference in the way that Democrats/Liberals/Leftists and Republicans/Conservatives/Right-wingers handle defeat.

When the Dems lose, rarely do they admit that it was any fault of theirs, or that their opponent out-campaigned them, or had something more appealing to offer. In fact, it’s quite to the contrary. It’s now the norm to hear the cries of “we were robbed!”, or “the election was stolen!”, or “my vote was tampered with!”, or “I was disenfranchised!”.

And then of course, instead of graciously accepting defeat we’re forced to endure the endless vote recounts and accusations of voter fraud because they didn’t get the result they wanted (i.e. were “entitled” to).

The Repos on the other hand tend to look, as they are now, introspectively, acknowledging that they lost, or in this case, got their asses kicked and ask of themselves and their fellow party members “how did this happen?”, “what can we do to fix it?”, and “what can we do and what must be done to correct the problem?”.

Granted, these are generalizations, but as a general rule they are accurate and indisputable. After all, where are all the cries of stolen elections and voter fraud and disenfranchisement this time around? It seems that as long as the Dems win, the system worked just fine.

Look, the Repos deserved to lose. They handed power back to the Dems on a silver platter. But now we’ll have to see what they do with their new-found majority status. For the last three years they’ve been able to get by on nothing but bashing the President over the head with the Iraq War, without offering any real alternative other than “cutting and running”.

But that’s not going to fly anymore. They’re going to have to put forth some real ideas now. Simply railing on about what they’re against is no longer going to cut it.

And if all they use majority status for is to conduct witch hunts and impeachment hearings in an effort to placate the radical far-left, anti-war, Bush-hating segment of their party, then their majority status will be short-lived.

On that you can rest assured.

Against Executing Hussein

I oppose capital punishment, and consider its abolition a form of civilization, one that the US has not adopted. I had not realized that the Iraqi Kurds share my view, even for the man -- Saddam Hussein -- who brutalized them. Christopher Hitchens informs us that Iraq's President, a Kurd, will not sign death warrants, not for Hussein, and not even for the apprehended Islamic savages who attempted to assassinate him. I think there's something really special going in in Iraqi's Kurdistan.

"...it is impressive that [Kurdish] leaders are the ones most in favor of magnanimity. And these, by the way, are the people that every liberal in the world is currently arguing that we should desert."

Jewish / Black Disparity in US Senate

Jews compose about 1% of the US population, but 13% of the US Senate;
Blacks compose about 12% of the US population, but only 1% of the US Senate.

One possible explanation: Blacks vote in a 90% block, for democrats, whereas Jewish voting patterns nearly approximate the general white distribution about evenly demo/repo.

Sowell on Duke Rape Hoax

Thomas Sowell neatly summarizes the Duke rape hoax. He points out how support for the hoaxer, Crystal Magnum, by the black "community activists" greatly weakens their hand in protecting black men from false accusations, and exposes their own racism. And he notices that whereas the DA has admitted to never interviewing Magnum or her stripper partner, his office expended great effort in scrutinizing the cab driver who corroborated one of the victim's alibis. The DA's effort with the pro-victim cab driver resulted in the cabbie's arrest for shop lifting committed by one of his fares, and for which he assisted in the identification, arrest, and prosecution. Will this experience make other potential pro-victim witnesses from getting involved?

Affirmative Action in MI RIP

Good riddance. The title of the measure caused confusion, but only because fools like Jesse Jackson use the term "Civil Rights" to now include racial preferences. But the language on the ballot did not include this term, and was very clear: Vote Yes to ban Affirmative Action. Nothing could be more plain, and this measure passed not because of confusion, but because a strong majority of Michigan residents reject Affirmative Action.

Black folks who work hard will do just fine, and they won't have their accomplishments demeaned. Lowering standards for blacks does not help black folks.

Glad Repos Lost

Here's why the Repos lost my vote to the Libertarians. Only by addressing these concerns will they have a chance of earning my vote again:

1. I assumed that Republican-led govt agencies are more competently run than Democrat-led agencies. Katrina -- among other examples -- proved me wrong. Bush got FEMA to NOLA in exactly the same time that Clinton always got FEMA to a disaster area: 7 days. No improvement. And as FEMA moved, it moved with preposterous inefficiency, turning away fast-acting private relief efforts (from Walmart, for example), sending ice to Maine, etc. What's the point of voting Repo if Repos can't act any more fluidly and intelligently than the idiot democrats? Apparently they're both idiots. Yes, I know that the democratic LA political machine has failed to get proper levees over the years, failed to prepare for and react to Katrina, etc. But is this what we get with Repos: "No worse than the Demos (and no better)?" Then there's all the efficiency problems with Homeland Security and the Iraq war.

2. I assumed that the Repos were less corrupt than the Demos. Instead they proved just as corrupt.

3. Bush's speech at the 911 site right after the attack was an embarrassment. Going to war should be a somberly regarded undertaking. Even the killing of retarded brutes should sadden anybody whom I respect, especially a proclaimed christian. And then consider that killing those brutes will involve losing the lives of decent, tolerant American soldiers. Compare Bush's blustering with speeches by Lincoln. Same for his "Mission Accomplished" speech. Another shame. At that point, yes, the US military had eliminated a tyranny, and had made freedom and prosperity possible for an entire nation. But the cost of that accomplishment included thousands of Iraqi people with damaged homes, lost services, and even lost lives. You never saw Lincoln beating his chest in a victory over those brutish, evil confederates. See the Gettysburg Address for a proper example of what Bush's speech should have been. Especially shameful: Bush's playing pilot, reminding people that he not only evaded Vietnam service, but used his evasion to fool around with jets.

4. I expected Repos to shrink govt, not expand it. Bush and his repo allies behaved like Demos in spending.

5. I consider 95% of Homeland Security and Patriot Acts to be either wastes or counter productive. And all of it surely requires congressional and judicial oversight (though I agree with Bush, not pre-approval).

6. Sure I applaud Bush for cutting taxes, and yes "for the rich", in an effort to flatten the tax structure. But he did a poor job explaining that these tax cuts benefit middle class people not merely as a few hundred bucks for them in their tax return, but many thousands of dollars in job security by stimulating the economy. I suppose I hope that the Demos let the Bush tax cuts expire; maybe the resulting recession and expansion of the deficit will convince more Americans that "tax cuts for the rich" in a system that penalizes "the rich" helps everyone, and the more you "tax the rich" the more you hurt everyone. And whatever happened to Bush championing total flat tax simplification?

7. Bush appointed two Supreme Court justices, and named the Chief Justice. But he used none of these opportunities to promote any non-honkies.

8. Whatever happened to privatized Social Security?

Duke Faker: "I'm going to get paid by the white boys"

That's what a strip club bouncer says Crystal Magnum, the Duke Rape Faker, told him a few days after she cried rape. She was back at work within a week, "as regular as pie", he says. "The other girls would have known if something had happened. If another dancer had been beat up or raped by a bunch of white boys, there would have been a ruckus."

Sure, this guy might be lying. And even if telling the truth, a rape victims might return to a strip job days after a real rape, and even brag about "getting paid" by her assailants, as civil redress is a legitimate right for victims of crime. But: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOULD CONVINCE ANYBODY THAT A CRIME OCCURRED?

Steven A. Smith, on his ESPN sports talk show, recently insisted that "if the players were black from a black college and the accuser a white girl from Duke, those boys would go to prison for a very long time." Nonsense.

Prior to any facts emerging other than the so-called races of the accuser and accused, a bunch -- A *BUNCH* -- of honkies on Duke's campus instantly launched a daily and ever-growing protest demanding the arrest of the accused and many other measures against the entire team. These protesters -- these cracker protesters -- caused the national media to take up the accuser's case, and the DA to pursue charges. But the FACTs led to those protesters dispersing, and many of them transforming their opinions, and the a second all-black pro-accuser movement arose.

Surely if these honkies were willing to demand prison for rich fellow honkey classmates based entirely on a mere allegation by a black stripper, they would with equal relish support accused black guys with as many facts supporting them as are supporting these Duke players. And we can be sure that all the current pro-accuser black protesters would support falsely accused black basketball players. Thus we may be sure that falsely accused black players would have bi-racial protesters in their corner, including the original honkey-led protesters who successfully won for the false black accuser national and prosecutor support.

Hussein Death Verdict: "Now There Will Be Freedom"

Here's some local Iraqi and other Arab immigrants in the Detroit area (mostly Dearborn) celebrating Hussein's death sentence; notice the car parading around flying American and Iraqi flags. One Palestinian says, "Now there will be freedom." I hope to god he understands the word "freedom" as I do, which is to say what he experiences here in the the US.

From the article: ================
"It was bumper to bumper," said one, about Warren Rd, which runs through Dearborn and neiboring Detroit (and right through my subburb, Westland). "They were lined up on the streets, too, and standing outside businesses with big flags." Beating drums, throwing candy and dancing to Arab music, Iraqis flowed into streets lined with Arab businesses. At the corner of Warren and Mansfield in Detroit, old men and young children waved Iraqi and American flags.

"There is such a thing as justice."
"This is another step in moving Iraq forward. But it is not as big a step as before." [So "before" -- the invasion -- constituted a step forward?]
"There is a better chance of freedom. Now the infighting in Iraq will end."
===============================

I didn't know that this was going on; the last time this happened on the day that the Hussein statue got pulled down. I drove my daughter to see the Arabs in Dearborn celebrating the end of a tyranny, and the birth of a chance at freedom. Freedom does not seem yet to have taken hold in most of Iraq. Will it now? The quotes from the article were hopeful; while not universally supportive of the US, far from the universal, absolute condemnation from US peaceniks before even before the first shots rang out.

As always, Christopher Hitchens provides here the best argument even now for praising and supporting the US invasion, and articulates the drawbacks of accepting defeat and leaving.

Phantom Anti-Muslim Discrimination in US

This article mentions twice discrimination against Muslims in the US... without ever providing any examples. Please, discriminate against me in this way: Muslim immigrants, we all know, have average income and wealth averages higher than the US mean.

Dumbing Down for Black Kids

This reads like a parody, but it is apparently real: black high schools ("urban") are transforming their debate teams into "hip hop" debate teams. Are black kids too stupid to sit still and listen to and read facts and logic, to comprehend it, and to compose and present their own, without music and rhymes? I know the answer with 100% certainty: No, black kids don't require "jive talk" in order to understand ANYTHING, and they can communicate without jive talk. Just raise the standards, and they will meet them.

Citizen Voter Patrols

This should help somewhat, libs and righties banding together to monitor polling places. But these people can't prevent non-residents from casting sneak votes, either party from finding inconsequential technical violations to discard absentee boxes from the other guy's precinct, or electronic glitches or shenanigans. NPR reports some areas now do require ID cards; I'll never understand how anybody can oppose that with a straight face.

Do Repos Suppress or Attract Black Voters?

This Newsweek article says that Bush made enough headway with black voters last election for these votes to have accounted for his election. It includes the tired old civil war horses, Jesse and Al, lamenting that the repos have managed to attract too many blacks to vote repo, and they aim now to re-attract these turncoat voters back to the demo ledger. But Jesse and Al have led the charge that repos "disenfranchised" blacks the last few elections. Well, which is it? Is it possible to simultaneously suppress a group of voters while also significantly increasing their likelihood to vote for you? The article mentions all the time and money the repos have spent to attract black voters. Does it make sense for them to also suppress these voters?

All the political calculus I've seen that addresses this matter indicates that if the repos can get just 15% of blacks to vote repo -- last election repos set a record with 11%, up from the usual 6% -- the demos are sunk. Is it easier for repose to squeeze a few more percentage points out of blacks than it is to "suppress" the votes of that many (with tactics that demos like Al and Jesse have used to instigate black voters!).

Rummy, Saddam, and the Lash

[This post's title is a play on Churchill's celebrated comment that Royal Navy runs on "rum, sodomy, and the lash."]

Saddam Hussein's death sentence emerged just days for the U.S. election. Coincidence or not, Bush has been gleefully making hay with it on the campaign trail.

What he doesn't say, though, is that the crimes Saddam was tried for occurred in the early 1980s--while he was a paid-up ally of the United States, years before he ran afoul of the Bushies. Indeed, Rumsfield--whose "fantastic job" as DOD head Bush recently hailed--visited Saddam soon after those crimes. Famously, he delivered not chastisements but rather a bronse-plated cowboy boot.

Here is Counterpunch:

Saddam Hussein has received a death sentence for crimes he committed more than a year before Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand in Baghdad. Let's reach back into history and extract these facts:

* On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld "visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country."

* Two days later, the New York Times cited a "senior American official" who "said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis."

* On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name." Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including "agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million." And while "no results of the talks have been announced" after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, "Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq."

* A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a New York Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government "granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years." The story recalled that "Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here," and the dispatch mentioned in passing that "State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state."

* Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam -- who went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.

* As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. "In response to the gassing," journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, "sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House."

My Vote for Mich Governer: Libertarian

Here I am, sitting at my desk, drinking some marvelous coffee, and soberly perusing my paper ABSENTEE BALLOT and comparing it with the corresponding electronic reference ballot at publius.us. Publius (bio of this Roman leader) presents the same ballot, but with weblinks for each candidate and issue. This is the only way to vote! Why drive to the polling station (sounds like the name of one of Nadir's dad's leather bars), wait in line, and vote without the benefit of knowledge resources?

For Michigan governor of course I crossed-out the Democrat and Green Party candidates. Since the Libertarians and US Taxpayer Parties fielded alternatives to the Repos, I also crossed-out the Repos. Those bastards have let me down so bad, the hell with them. The Libs are running a negro, Greg Creswell (linked above), and the USTs an Indian immigrant Bhagwan Dashairya. I could not be happier choosing between two low-taxing non-honkies. But as you can see, Bhagwan's website is an absolute mess. It provides me no help in ascertaining his views, for one thing, and for another indicates a man -- and a party -- that doesn't have its stuff together. Creswell's website, conversely, clearly displays his positions on a few issues (though not all issues pertinent to the Michigan governor). It's not great (the "contact me" page provides only US postal address, and the site contains no link to a Libertarian Party website), but much better than Bhagwan's.

I voted Libertarian in every race with such a candidate, and Repo in the few cases without a Lib contestant. In races where no candidates had websites, I didn't vote. Nearly all the judge contests exclude party affiliations, and most of the candidates have no websites. With no basis for voting, I voted for nobody.

And of course I voted to end Michigan Affirmative Action.

Against Affirmative Action... In India

India contemplates creating an Affirmative Action program in university admissions, etc., to combat the effects of hundreds of years of racial "caste" suppression. This writer, an Indian, opposes the proposition, but overlooks one of the best arguments against this plan: Indian immigrants in the US out-perform the honkey American average in education, income, wealth, credit scores, and criminal records despite historical US honkey anti-Indian attitudes.

What is the current US honkey attitude towards Indians? This: smarter and harder working than honkies, and less violent and criminal than honkies. What did it used to be? Just take a look at the old classic Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. film, Gunga Din, which depicts Indians as lazy, stupid, violent, ignorant, backwards, ridiculous, and devious. With honkies in the US thinking this of Indians, how did the honkey perception of Indians change to the point where honkies now think that Indians are *superior*? It wasn't Affirmative Action; it was THE ACTIONS OF INDIANS.

And how have Indians excelled and triumphed in the US? Combination of their own efforts, plus the lack of racism amongst 21st century honkies.

C'mon, black folks, GET IT TOGETHER! My absentee ballot arrived Saturday, and today I vote YES to eliminating Affirmative Action in Michigan, confident that my negro children's success or failure will derive 100% from their own actions, and that AA will only serve to either demean their success, or reward them for mediocrity.

Mestizos in US South: Higher Employment, Income than Blacks

If white racism against blacks in 2006 explains lower black average employment and income, how are mestizo immigrants also beating blacks in these areas? Are whites only "racist" against blacks? Or do blacks simply need to get their stuff together?

Andrew Sullivan, Hitchens on Bush's War

Is anybody smarter and funnier than Christopher Hitchens? In this TV interview, some vacuous talking head hoochie-mama finds herself hopelessly over matched in conversation with the intellectual Hitchy, who stumbles early and never recovers when introducing Hitchy as a "conservative." She can't comprehend that a Bush Iraq invasion supporter doesn't qualify as a "conservative," so she just pushes on, only to learn that she doesn't even understand commonly misused words:

"Do you think that Rumsfield is doing a fantastic job?"
"Well, 'fantastic' means fantasy, so do you mean to ask if he's doing an imaginary job?" Oh, my.

Sully joins Hitchy, and I find him wonderful as well. Sully makes very plain that he has withdrawn his support for Bush, and feels that Bush and his team are incompetent and have let down all of those who supported the effort to liberate Iraq and build a democracy there.

Neocons Now Doubting Iraqi Invasion

"I interviewed many neocons before the invasion and, like many people, found much to admire in their vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East," writes this Vanity Fair reporter.

Many lefties, like our own Nadir, claim that Bush posited a single justification for invading Iraq: WMDs. The concept of "spreading democracy" represented an improvised "new justification" in response to failing to find WMDs, these lefty peaceniks claim. But the evidence shows that prior to the invasion, all the neocons very clearly promoted the establishment of democracy in Iraq via US military action as a cornerstone objective in reversing the islamic crusader terrorism that manifested as 911.

In this article, neocon Richard Perle admits that he and the other neocons got two things wrong:
1. The extent of depravity amoungst the Iraqi Arabs (though he doesn't notice that the Iraqi Kurds have responded to the US invasion by establishing a civilization).
2. Bush's incompetence (though he doesn't notice that this same incompetence in Iraq's Kurdistan didn't prevent the people there from behaving civilly anyway).

I agree with these assessments, except for the omission of the Kurdish exception. This article presents many other neocons echoing Perle's second point (that Bush and his team very poorly implemented Iraq's liberation), but none comment on the roles played by Iraqis. Could a better implementation have led to civilization in the Sunni and Shia areas, even though the actual implementation positively affected civilization in the Kurdish area? I am unconvinced.

If the Repos are Stealing Elections, Why Vote?

Polls show that all the talk by people like Nadir claiming Republican voter fraud -- including fraud targeting blacks to suppress voting -- has caused a good fraction of blacks to both believe the claims and to lose interest in voting. Now these same "community activists" have to convince blacks to vote "anyway"... even though the republicans are supposedly "stealing" elections and "suppressing" black voters.

If republicans really are stealing elections and suppressing black voters, fully support exposing these actions and punishing the guilty. But the entire liberal/leftist ideology seems premised on a collection of mighty (and contradictory!) conspiracies standing on the throats of ordinary people: rigging petroleum prices (dialing them up to stuff petro company coffers, then dialing them down to seduce people to vote for republicans), lying about WMDs in order to steal petroleum, conducting or permitting 911 in order to set a stage for the lying about WMDs in order to steal petroleum, stealing elections and suppressing black voters, maintaining a web of racism that targets blacks (but favors Asians and Arabs, and even black immigrants), etc., etc. Why would anybody ever immigrate here? Why would anybody ever stay here? Why bother to vote?

If the repos are not stealing elections and suppressing black voters, they don't have to: likely demo voters have bought into many reasons not to bother to vote in the first place.

Another Iraq War Supporter Wants Out

I agree with this guy in blaming the Iraqi people for the overall failure there, and the apparent inability so far of Arabs in the modern age to achieve civilization, even -- this case -- when the opportunity is handed to them. Very sad. But this author overlooks the success of the people in Iraq's Kurdish third to achieve just that. The 1992 Bush I Kuwaiti war gave that portion of Iraq a chance at civilization, and the people there took it. The 2002 Bush II invasion gave the people there a chance to make their achievement permanent, while simultaneously giving the Arab 2/3rds of Iraq an even better shot at civilization that the Kurds got in 1992.

People like Nadir and Tom acknowledge times in human history when white folks demonstrated no capacity to achieve civilization during periods when non-honkeys did so, including periods when Iraqis, Iranians, Indians, and Egyptians achieved, maintained, and advanced civilization. Why are the the Toms and Nadirs incapable of acknowledging contemporary failures of non-cracker peoples? Meanwhile increasing numbers of non-crackers do achieve and maintain civilizations, in South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Iraq's Kurdistan, Singapore, and surely other nations. Just not yet in Arabia.

I further agree with the author of this article that attempting to establish a civilization in Iraq via force represented a noble effort, and enough facts and sound logic indicated enough of a chance that it was worth a try.

The Dumbest Controversy Ever?

John Kerry clearly didn't mean to insult soldiers. But even if he did, SO WHAT? I'm ashamed at the repos (to the extent that I have any respect left for them) for wasting my time with all this puffed-up anger over absolutely nothing. I can hardly imagine anything stupider or less worthy of our time than to discuss what Kerry meant by his comment.

Where's Nadir's October Surprise?

Nadir thinks that the Bush officials have performed the following:

- Staged, or permitted, 911. But why not stage or permit some more "homeland" attacks, since those boost Bush ratings?
- Lied about WMDs in Iraq in order to win support for invasion. But why not plant WMDs to validate the lie (a lie that, by the way, was used to enable an act that would expose the lie?)?
- Rigged and otherwise "stole" the elections of 2000 and 2004. But why not rig them with higher margins of victory?

A few weeks ago Nadir raised the spector of a Bush "October Surprise" to boost Republican support going into the early November national elections. Well, it's Nov 1, and the only surprise pro-repo newsflash is silly feigned outrage at a John Kerry speech comment about failure to study leading to getting stuck in Iraq.