Pravda

You have got to read this article. And remember, this is what Russians read and believe (similar to the crap spewed by the New York Times). While I cannot argue with certain observations, such as the fact that American strip malls look the same everywhere, the author does not put this in direct contrast with Russia. That is, the post-Soviet Russia of today which bears the scars of almost 90 years of communism.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-09-2006/84316-ugly-0

And in a similar vein, read the political commentary on the US in Pravda, too. There you will find a wealth of Russian paranoia about US motives -- I WISH that we could be so devious and clever as they presume. The idea sets up a conflict: how can such a "stupid" President -- with such incompetent staff which apparently knows nothing of the world at large -- be so clever as to be able to manipulate the Orange Revolution, the continuing succession of NATO entries, the demise of Russian competitiveness, Georgian and Chechen rebellions, etc.? Either we are stupid and ignorant, or we are devilishly clever, we can't be both.

Which makes me look at leftist thought in general ... is that exactly the position of liberals throughout the world. The people of the US are stupid, lazy, arrogant, culturally insensitive, imperialistic, interfering and ignorant of the true ways and wiles of the world. But we are also the devil, the Great Satan, the evil manipulator behind every misfortune that befalls mankind (oh, sorry, "personkind") everywhere. I am not sure that you can really reconcile the two. You can try, but that becomes a cynical exercise in double-speach/speak which has so many caveats, if, buts and whatever that the proponent looks more like that accused than the Great Satan(s) itself/themselves.

Deval Patrick

For non-Massholes, Deval Patrick is a gentleman running for governor of the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts. He is also a classic liberal in the great tradition of Harvard Arts and Sciences, Dukakis, Bloated Windbag (Teddy K), Kerry (you don't really need to come up with an insult for him -- surplusage), Mayor Mumbles, etc. Everywhere you drive in Boston, you see Deval Patrick "Together We Can" stickers and bill boards posted up on people's lawns. And nowhere more so that the People's Republic of Cambridge -- which should tell you exactly far out of the mainstream of American thought (red state or blue) he is.

Let me count the ways that I am starting to detest this man....

In 1972, the Commonwealth enacted the CORI legislation (criminal offender record information). The idea is to allow a potential employer to find out a bit more about a potential employee ... like if that person has a criminal record. Patrick doesn't like this idea, as it means that criminals re-entering society from incarceration may have a more difficult time in gaining new employment. Putzrik thinks that everyone deserves a second (or third or whatever) chance and should not be burdened by their criminal record. Nice idea at liberal dinner parties in Cambridge, but do we want these people working at nursing homes, senior citizen housing, banks, or in our schools? If not for CORI, the Lowell Schools Department might not have learned that the head of its Math Department had 36 arrests, for offenses including assault and battery, and stalking? Putzrick would like to water this down ... so that the listed can vote for him? And who exactly are the CORI participants? But CORI does need reform and in that Putzrick is correct: it needs to be clear of errors based on name-only listing and discrimination against opportunities. If you have a criminal record, you should be entitled to take out loans, etc. if you meet the same criteria as those for other people with relevant bad credit. Make no mistake, a criminal record for speeding or hate speech does not mean that they would be bad loan candidates. A criminal record for embezzlement, gambling, burglary or armed robbery shows an equal lack of financial prudence as multiple bankruptcies. And as to Putzrick's claims that CORI results in housing discrimination: so what? If relevant information shows that the offender has a history of sex crimes, stalking, violence, etc., who the hell wants that person anywhere near their house? You see, recidivism for sex crimes exceeds 60%. Second chance? Are you out of your minds?

The Boston Globe and Herald both set up the coming race against Healy as an historic race to install the first black governor in the state house. I don't care if Dooval is black, white, or shades of puce. And it should not be a reason to vote for someone. Affirmative action does not and should not extend to the elected office of governor. That office is for the most capable human being available for election: man or woman ... oh, Kerry Healy happens to be a white woman.

Speaking of that what does Doofus think about preference? Let's "go back to the video tape." Dooval was Clinton's Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Clearly, a FOB and H, and what did he stand for? At a Congressional hearing in 1995 Dooval stated “[i]t is a myth that there are unqualified, undeserving women and minorities who are getting benefits that should go to qualified, deserving white men.” What about the gentlemen with the perfect civil-service test scores who successfully sued the Boston Fire Department for reverse Jim Crow racism? Oh, never heard of those.

More on Dooval’s career at the Justice Department: The Piscawatay, N.J., school deptarment hired two teachers on the same day - one white, one black. Nine years later, they needed to shed teachers during layoffs. Between teachers with equal seniority there was normally some game of chance to pick the loser. "This time, even though there were more than enough black teachers on the payroll, the board decided to “even the playing field” by firing the white teacher. She sued."

Dooval was presented with this case when he came into office with the Clinton administration. "But he pushed it so hard that Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff, not exactly a conservative, said Dooval was conducting a “relentless crusade” to make sure the white woman would not get her job back." How hard does Doofus push to further his extreme political views? Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, a black Democrat from Chicago (where Doofus in from) characterized his methods as 'Gestapo tactics' and running 'roughshod over citizens, over communities. (Carr.)

This 1994 description of Dooval in The New Republic:

“Deval Patrick has committed the Clinton administration to a vision of racial preference that fulfills the most extravagant fantasies of a conservative attack ad. Rather than honestly confronting the costs of affirmative action, Patrick has blithely endorsed the most extreme form of racialism.”

So when Dooval talks about evening the playing field in Massachusetts (vile carpetbagger just like his hero Hillary), you can only imagine what he really means. From the Boston Globe (which adores him) "[a]s a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Patrick had helped craft an appeal of the death sentence of Warren McCleskey, a black man on death row convicted of killing a white Atlanta policeman in 1978. The unsuccessful appeal to the US Supreme Court was based not on the case, but on statistics showing that Georgia executed murderers of whites at a far higher rate than murderers of blacks." And we are meant to approve of this case approach? Either the guy did it or not, he should not skate because Georgia juries vote for the death penalty more in one instance that the other. That is an issue for the electorate of Georgia and Atlanta (Atlanta is predominantly black).

Driver's licenses: Healy says none for illegals. Dooval says hand 'em out. The law in the Commonwealth does not required citizenship to get a license, only residency. So, says Putzrick, they should get them, irrespective that they may be then used to gain access airports and other sensitive security areas, apply for loans, almost eveything in the US where ID is required -- in short, domestically, the drivers license is the certificate of authenticity. If the Commonwealth required proof of ID to vote (unbelievable that is doesn't), it would be the key to that too. So Dooval gets to insert and normalize the vast hoards of illegals. That is important issue here -- ILLEGALS. They should not be here in the first place. They should not be entitled to the benefits of citizenship without the downside too: taxes and obedience to the law.

Companies that hire illegals should be made to pay too -- to medicare and to the local education boards, reflecting the burden of the illegals on our society. Since they don't pay taxes, to balance for that we need to fund the support system accordingly. It is not right that companies should gain from the employment of illegals without paying for that privilege -- and not hiring tax-paying Americans at a much higher salary. It is also a form of slave labor or indentured servitude being inflicted on the illegals.

In-state tuition. Putzrick wants to give the benefit of in-state tuition to illegals. So the illegals get the benefit for which tax payers get socked in this State. They are illegal -- to support this system is to support illegal activity.

Putzrick worked as General Counsel for Coke. How exactly did a NAACP lawyer, civil rights wonk and public defender-type get to be the GC for a multinational? In which way was he qualified? Anyone connected with corporate law would stiffle a snort to consider someone with those qualifications as a suitable GC. So why? Perhaps the aura from the Clinton Whitehouse? FOB? When Putz resigned (with much fanfare) from his position because of the conditions and evil doings in Coke bottling plants in Colombia, he expected some tidal wave of action. Instead it was ignored by everyone, including the workers in the plant. So Putz went back to work for Coke as a consultant -- but doing what exactly? Well, it turns out that Putz was being paid to defend Coke from allegations that it paid paramilitaries to kidnap union leaders in Columbia and torture them. His return to work as a consultant was accompanied by a paycheck of some $2.1 million. We could also examine Putz's defense actions in the Board rooms of Ameriquest and Texaco -- not exactly shining lights of corporate responsibility (Ameriquest sued in 49 states for predatory lending practices -- that is, screwing the poor).

Let's get this straight: Putz is a crusader for human rights, for "leveling the playing field" and the Bay State voters believe this. But he takes money from Coke to defend them from allegation that they hire paramilitaries to extinguish unionism at their foreign plants. Lots of money. He is, therefore, not only a hypocrite, but shows elements of the "oldest profession" in that he will turn a blind eye for the green. Sounds like a Democrat's resume? Putz IS a mover and shaker in the corporate world because he is willing to defend the uglier aspects of American corporate practices -- for a price. But meanwhile, he wants the Massachusetts taxpayer to pay for his sideline of defending the people. Sounds to me like he is feeding at both sides of the trough.

He is very similar in appeal to his arch-heros the Clintons. He has studied Bill's appeal and clearly taken Hillary's cleverness on board. HE IS VERY, VERY DANGEROUS and apparently completely without real morals or scruples. Just like Hillary and Bill. Unless he can be stamped out in the gubernatorial elections this fall, he will rise to uncomfortable prominence in the nation.

Hey Bloatbag and Kerry: how about a windfarm in Nantucket Sound? (Just a random bitch-slap).

Ryder Coup

The US was thrashed. Why? Why is it that a team comprised of some of the world's top players (at least by Sony rank) can be so comprehensively drubbed? Phil Mickelson: where were you? David Toms, a solid player, and a solid piece of lead on the ocean of Ryder history. Stewart Cink ... tried hard and at least put that whelp Garcia in his place. Tiger ... you are the world's number one player and least you won more than you lost. But why?

The answer must lie in the differences in golf as played in Europe and the United States -- otherwise, if all was the same, you'd expect to see a closer result. So what distinguishes the Euro-pro from the US-pro? Is it the person, or the game, or both?

I have to believe that it is both. You see, the US golf pro is a solitary beast and typically has been so since he left college, assuming he played on a college team at all. The US-pro has focused solely on his own performance over 72 holes as a FINANCIAL matter. That is his job. And, as we all know, the average American is exceedingly concerned with financial matters. More is good. Lots more is better. Excess is best. Europeans, by contrast, focus on other matters apart from the financial. Matters in terms of pride, nationality and honor have always been front and center to the Euro-psyche. This leads to very different approaches in problem solving.

The American solution to any problem has been to throw enough money at it so as to make it go away. The Europeans, who as a general rule have had less money to squander over the last 50 years, tend to be more creative in coming to a solution. Pride and necessity are the mothers of more than invention, they are excellent motivators too. Indeed, the image of the English boffin laboring in a shabby lab coming up with brilliant innovations is to the point here. Come up with the idea, then take it to America to commercialize. To make money.

Pride is something that you just don't see when you look at the US-pro. That wight only looks at whether he has made the cut ... that is, whether he will make that week pay for itself. When the English or Irish pros make the trip to Spain or Dubai or France on the European Tour, they are also taking with them their national pride and heritage. The US-pro is simply moving from state to state chasing sponsor cash. There is absolutely no notion of belonging to anything at all. It is lining up to access the ATM of cash that is PGA golf in the US. And the pros play like that.

You can draw a very clear correlation between the demise of US golf performance in the Ryder Cup and the rise of insane purses on the PGA tour: the Americanization of golf. Europe better watch out for this, if they are to avoid the joke that has become the US tour. You can win a half million dollar prize for coming in second at the Bo-jangles Chicken Tour Classic played at the TPC of podunk. Do the "top" players even bother to attend? No, because their appearance money at the 7-11 pro-am invitational played at Sunny Acres in Florida exceeds that. Plus they can helicopter over there from their houses at Isleworth.

US tour courses are manicured to within an inch of their lives -- perfection every time that you tee it up. European courses retain a lot more "golf" in them. In many parts of Europe, if you are in the rough, you are in deep poop indeed. Try to get out of the damned grasses that line the Irish and English seaside courses: you will break your wrists if you are so foolhardy as to try. As a consequence, the pros that play these courses day in and day out are far better equipped to hit creative golf shots, are better ball strikers and are better all round golfers than their US counterparts. If all you ever play on are lawns, you are a croquet player, not a golfer. Does this explain why the US does not do better when they play on super-courses like the the K club? Yes. Because the Euros are better ball strikers and they find a way to win because they need to.

That is, the Euros have better spirits, that essential something that lets one dig down deep to find a way to win. Spirit is bred into the player and also trained for. In the US, golf is solely concerned with "how many." Not "how." The pretty shot is not rewarded, the creative shot irrelevant. It is how many. In US club golf, the low score is the Valhalla, low gross, low net. Matchplay is not stressed. Why? Because our heros that we see every weekend are shooting for low score. Team golf is rare. Go to the competition board in ANY European club, you will see lists of matches to be played against other golf clubs. Matchplay competitions. You just don't see the same in the US. At the lowest club level, European golfers learn to play in team events, to fight for the honor of their club. American golfers are only concerned with breaking 70 (or 80) and did you see my new driver?

If the Ryder Cup was a competition over 72 holes, each player minding his own ball and totalling the score of all the players at the end of the day, then I think that the United States would crush the Europeans. Statistically this would appear to be so -- as it is this sort of golf for which the US-pro tunes his game. Oh, Sergio, where are you in the Sony rankings? What are your greens in regulation, total driving, putts per green, etc? How do you do when you play on the US tour? In that NARROW interpretation of golf you suck. But, that is not the Ryder Cup.

The Ryder Cup is far more than that. It is about pride, strategy and raw ability to hit the ball under pressure and here the Sergios excel. If the US-pro has a bad day on tour, he misses the cut. Big deal. In Europe, the payday for the also-ran is far slimmer. You can't just shrug it off. And if you are a Brit playing in Germany, you want to slam that down the throat of the German crowd. And the Spanish have their heritage to live up to. Can you imagine the Californian golfers getting their dander up against the Texan golfers? Euro-pros have multiple identities, they are sports celebrities in their won countries and represent their countries every tournament. The US-pro is, by and large, another faceless drone looking for a paycheck. And I don't see this changing anytime soon.

I prefer the pretty shot, the elegant solution, over raw score. It is the difference between Mickey D's and fois gras, between Velveeta and brie. Both feed you and both with make you fat. But the fois gras is so much more than some chopped liver and Velveeta ... is it even cheese? Play a round on a blustery day in Scotland, then compare that to a round at one of the Disney super-resort courses. No doubt both provide golf, but one is memorable and requires creativity. The other values a high wedge with spin to a perfectly smooth and predictable green.

Gotta get me over to Europe to get some golf in.

Terrorism -- a primer

The Quran is a rich document -- you can find verses that condone just about anything and prohibit an equal assortment of thoughts words and deeds.

"You can even find texts which specifically command terrorism, the classic one being Q8:59-60, which urges Muslims to prepare themselves to fight non-Muslims, ‘Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies’ (A. Yusuf Ali’s translation). Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik’s book The Quranic Concept of War is widely used by the military of various Muslim countries. Malik explains Koranic teaching on strategy: ‘In war our main objective is the opponent’s heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts.... Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him." (From Frontpage).

Clearly, which verses you choose to quote from changes the scope of your koranic authority to do and impose. But which to choose? Islamic scholars "developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. For the peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed’s time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed’s own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da’wa (mission).

So the mantra ‘Islam is peace’ is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today’s radical Muslims — just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam — it would be truer to say ‘Islam is war’. One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, ‘Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.’ A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e., a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult." (From Frontpage).

Now take this dedication to terrorism and war -- all of which is the ostensible word of God and authorizes such conduct, and contrast it with ... oh [fill in the blank's] actions towards the West? Any surprises there? Do you think that Hezbollah's leaders are bothered? Do you think that Ahmadinejad worries about lying to the (secular/infidel) West? It seems to me that the failure to understand what we are facing is the single greatest blunder in the "War on Terror" only closely followed by the lack of education of the public by the Boosh administration. Even if the New York Times and Boston Globe insist that this is xenophobic nonsense, this interpretation fits the fact pattern a lot better than their explanation of terror only being the work of a radical extreme element within Islam, or by the ill-educated. And if we only could educate them, they would see the error of their ways.

What they really mean is that if we/they could REFORM Islam. And reform, that is to deviate from orthodox belief, is a form of apostasy --- and THAT is punishable by death. So who is going to stand up in the Islamic world and propose that? How fast can you say "fatwa" and you better go to America before you get your throat cut?

Exaggeration? No. "Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Koran. He advocated a return to peaceable Meccan Islam, which he argued is applicable to today, whereas the bellicose Medinan teachings should be consigned to history. For taking this position he was tried for apostasy, found guilty and executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Another modernist reformer was the Pakistani Fazlur Rahman, who advocated the ‘double movement’; i.e., understanding Koranic verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Koran to interpret that in a modern, social and moral sense. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, an Egyptian professor who argued similarly that the Koran and hadith should be interpreted according to the context in which they originated, was charged with apostasy, found guilty in June 1995 and ordered to separate from his wife." (Id.)

So don't hold your breath folks.

Boosh the Devil - Darfur

So Chavez calls Boosh the Devil. So what? He's Ahmadinejad's bum-buddy. Of course, Boosh is the Devil. I can't really get too excited about those two speaking at the UN at all. What they said was expected. It is too bad that they are allowed into the USA at all. I'd rather they have to give their address by video conference: no reason that assholes should be welcome here -- for that matter, as far as I am concerned, the UN isn't welcome here either. Let them pollute other shores and vistas.

Darfur. Another cesspit where a Muslim controlled government is doing its best to exterminate a different group of people. But here we have "Hollywood" decrying the Boosh administration's FAILURE to react. Hang on, we poop ourselves in anger at Iraq where a dictator was removed -- for WMD or being a murdering swine, take your pick -- and that is wrong. But where other murdering swine are doing their daily chores of slaughter and genocide, we need to go in for humanitarian reasons? Is it that because there are no real politico-economic reasons/benfits for going to Darfur that make it a pure and subject for our attentions? Is it that because Iraq has oil, therefore are reasons must have been impure? Or Bosnia was not necessary, but Sudanese intervention is -- or maybe because black people are dying and not European whites? Did you note that it was the Muslims that were being eliminated by the Serbs in Bosnia -- where we went in (Bill the Liberalgod Clinton, in charge), but that is convenienty forgotten by the Muslim radicals around the world?

If Iraq is not worthwhile, if saving the Kurds and Marsh people is irrelevant, then I cannot see how Darfur is worth a damn. Is it horrible? Yes. Should it stop? Yes. Should we go and stop it? Yes. But only if the country gets behind the notion of stopping this shit going on. That is, make Congress vote on it. Stand up there Boosh in front of a joint session and ask for a show of hands RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT. Make the cameras pan around to see who is for and who is against. Commit them. Then, if the vote is "yea," force them again to authorize the use of force as commander-chief- sees fit. If this is a "no" -- quite a possibility -- retake the vote of whether to go in or not, stating "I do not want to commit American troops to combat situations without the FULL support of the people. So do we go in or not?" Again pan the cameras.

My guess is that this would cause the Democrats to shit the bed. Caught in a political trap of their own creation. Because you could not rightly go after the administration for their failure to stop genocide if you were unwilling to provide US troops the tools to accomplish the mission?

In Iraq, we have rules of engagement that prevent us dealing with the all to frequent situations where raw force is necessary, irrespective of "collateral damage." If a sniper runs into building to hide we should be able to demolish the building. Soon enough, the people who live there will shoot the sniper to prevent him from entering and destroying their lives. That is what happened in Germany in 1945-1949. It worked. It is a simple message: you help the guy who shoots us, it is the same as if you had shot us yourself. At law in the US, if you drive the car of the guy who robs the 7-11 and shoots someon, you are liable for the shooting as if you had pulled the trigger yourself. True, in the US you go to prison. In war, you die -- which is only fair in that you and your co-conspirators are tyring to kill us.

The irony is terrific in that the US troops are there (at least now) trying to provide the shooters the right to determine who will govern them, and how they want to ... live.

Benedict's Boo-Boo

The pope has been travelling and giving some words of wisdom as to attitudes of the Vatican towards various topics ... he began a speech at Regensburg University with what he conceded were “brusque” words about Islam: He quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor as saying, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

But Muslims quickly responded. Aiman Mazyek, president of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, told the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, “I don’t think the church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions," and recalled the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Vatican’s relations with Nazi Germany.

Uh, huh. But read on from the New York Times:
____________________
"In Kuwait, the leader of the Islamic Nation Party, Haken al-Mutairi, demanded an apology for what he called “unaccustomed and unprecedented” remarks.

“I call on all Arab and Islamic states to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican and expel those from the Vatican until the pope says he is sorry for the wrong done to the prophet and to Islam, which preaches peace, tolerance, justice and equality,” Mr. Mutairi told Agence France-Presse.

In Pakistan, Muslim leaders and scholars said that Benedict’s words widened the gap between Islam and Christianity, and risked what one official called greater “disharmony.”

“The pope’s statement is highly irresponsible,” said another ranking Muslim, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, an Islamic scholar. “The concept of jihad is not to spread Islam with the sword.”

The criticism from Mr. Bardakoglu, the Islamic leader in Turkey, was especially strong, and carries with it particular embarrassment if Benedict is forced to cancel or delay his visit to Turkey. Many Turks are already critical of Benedict, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had in 2004 opposed Turkey’s entry into the European Union.

The official, Mr. Bardakoglu, demanded an apology, saying that the remarks “reflect the hatred in his heart — it is a statement full of enmity and grudge.”

In Morocco, the newspaper Aujourd’hui questioned whether Benedict’s call for a real dialogue between religions was made in good faith.

“Pope Benedict XVI has a strange approach to the dialogue between religions,” the paper wrote in an editorial. “He is being provocative.”

The paper also drew a comparison between the pope’s remarks and the outcry in the Muslim world over unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published around Europe beginning last year.

“The global outcry over the calamitous cartoons have only just died down and now the pontiff, in all his holiness, is launching an attack against Islam,” the newspaper wrote."
____________________

Now is there a word(s) in Arabic (the language of the Holy Quran) for frikkin hypocrites? While Muslims are screaming for the blood of unbelievers, blowing up trains, buildings, nightclubs, subway cars etc., the Pope is being provocative? The Pope is being unfair to a group of people who have had their religious leaders call for the assasination or ritual killing of the authors of cartoons? In fact that episode puts into context how intolerant widespread Islam is of those who would criticize it and why the Pope is now on their poop list. And who shot JP2? A Christian, or Mehmet Ali Agca? Remember him?

And yes the Muslims are totally correct in pointing out the various excesses of the Catholic Church throughout history, although I think delving into the past as far as the Crusades is a little far off of the mark and ignores the reglious conquest of the region some 300 years earlier by the Muslims themselves (but presumably that does not count, nor does the fact the Jews were already there?).

9/11 myths

Friends: there is so much bullshit being put out by wannabes about the collapses, that it is offensive. Look, you take a loaded 767 fill it full of fuel, and you have by sheer physics, an incredible amount of momentum and energy. It is a wonder that the sheer impact didn't do more. Then you have aviation fuel, leaking down through the building burning. A potent combo. It was enough. We did NOT NEED explosives planted by unknown third parties to bring the building down.

The presumption of outside "assistance" is sheer nonsense. Conspiracy theorists point to jets of smoke coming out at certain point along the building as the collapse is taking place. Listen, enough serious study by independent architects and other scientists prove that the moving mass of the floors collapsing was more than enough to take out the floors below. And, the floors below were already compromised by fire, heat (remember the leaking fuel went down -- gravity wins) and by the impact itself. The jets of smoke are a result of air pressure blowing out windows as the air in the various stairwells, elevator shafts is compressed and forced out at various floors. Lots of smoke on those floors too, not to mention pulverized dust, asbestos and other items. Those were not conveniet charges set to ensure the collapse: at that point it was on autopilot already.

Folks: we didn't get 19 (mostly Saudi) volunteers to take these planes up, hijack them, and fly them into the buildings to create the environment to allow Boosh to declare war on terror. Nor were the passengers volunteers. We did not bomb the buildings oursevles, not even the Pentagon (although many people in Cambridge would volunteer for that mission).

Get over it. A bunch of Islamo-fascists did the deed -- without our help. And they -- muslims all over the world -- do hate us. So do the French and others: Americans have this stupid and childish desire to be liked at all costs. F@@k that. We ARE the 800 pound gorilla and were born that way, and unless you WANT to start driving micro-minis, eating snails, and behaving as do the Surrender Monkeys, stand up and be counted for who you are. Or move. Yes, we could behave more rationally, try and comsume less fuel, not presume that EVERYONE wants to drink Starbucks and eat Big Macs. But foreigners don't have to buy them either. If nobody comes to your restaurant, you go out of business.

Now did they -- the planners of 9/11 -- really think that they would succeed in bringing down the towers? Probably not. They probably guess that they would kill more people, but the collapse was a bonus beyond their expectations. Welcome, but not part of the plot except as a "wouldn't it be cool" goal. There were probably some strategists in Afghanistan who said " oh, f@@k, this is not exactly the ideal outcome." THAT was the goal of ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. Fright, panic and a run on the market.

Instead, what they got was a parallel to Yamamoto's "Sleeping Giant." The trouble is that we, as Americans of this time and place, are not cut from the same bolt of cloth as those of the "greatest generation." We are too worried about our private luxuries, our sniping at politicians from the wings, pooping on our soldiers. I cannot imagine Americans of today storming off of landing craft to free France and Western Europe from the yoke of the Nazis. We are afraid of handling our avowed enemies (men who would cut off our heads with pockets knives on video tape) too roughly. "They should be granted their rights" ... what fucking rights? DO you think that Patton would have been squeamish about putting someone caught with a body bomb or the remote to an IED on the rack? He'd bring his OWN pliers and a list of questions. This is not "stooping to their level", this is fighting for survival with an enemy that wants you dead. If you do not understand this, or see this clearly, you are stupid, plain and simple. And contrary to the assertions of the Human Rights Watch, torture DOES work. That's why is was invented and is still practiced around the world. Not because there are a lot of pain pervs out there. There is a standing presumption in the relevant world that you will tell your captors everything you know. That is why you are not told of the whys or hows of your mission. And just because these terrorists have the fervour of Allah behind them does not mean that needed information cannot be extracted. Dogs? Let 'em loose. Would I like to be their boots? OF COURSE NOT. But so what?

IF we as a country do not move on this threat, we are all but defeated. Give Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Deval Patrick, Teddy Kennedy etc., the keys to this country, and we might as well post Osama an invite to discuss his beefs with Hillary in the Oval Office. Time to move to Oz.

Clintonshits fear 9/11

So Michael Moore can put out a movie that he admits is pure propaganda and riddled with outright lies. The Democrats embrace the movie as truth and the last word on the perfidy of the Boosh administration. Trouble is that most of it simply isn't so.

So now along comes ABC and wants to do a docudrama on the lead up to 9/11. The FACTS used here are all beyond dispute, only the characterizations of the personnel in the Clinton administration are less than favorable: they reuptedly depict a bunch of weenies who can't do anything right (sound like the Booshies?). This opposed to many of the Moore 9/11 facts that weren't facts at all.

Once would think that the Clinton administration was still in power -- and Hills was NOT part of that administration, merely married to crooked-schwanz. So why do they have any sway at all with ABC? If there are lies, let them go ahead and force a retraction and sue them. Trouble is, if what ABC wants to screen is not comprised of lies, then ABC has an absolute defense: truth. OOOhh, wouldn't that be inconvenient for the liberals (and Hillaron -- combo of Hillary and felon), unable to sue or even deny because the truth is too ugly. ABC by contrast could stand up and state: "so sue us" in response to Clintonclan charges of slander.

Now the best part of this is that prior to last night nobody had even seen the new edited version of the ABC program: early versions were sent to journalists (many of whom were Clinton cronies or sympathizers) and leaked to the persons involved. Hillaron said, "[m]y bottom-line view, is that when it comes to something as serious and historically significant as 9/11, the truth is enough and we ought to stick to the facts.” Yeah. But one wonders why she did not stand up and complain about liberal propagana? Madeleine Albright and Sandy berger are particularly incensed at their portrayal as person who stood in the way of "taking Osama out." Funny, I would picture them in that exact role: primarily afraid that they might look bad for failing to complain or protest the sanctioning of Bin Laden. CYA. After all, that would be an example of a sovereign nation ASSASSINATING someone. Big bad liberal no-no.

For my part, having spent a number of years working in WTC 1, the North Tower, it was with an extremely heavy heart that I watched this morning's memorials. What happened there was evil on a scale that still has the power to confound, to make us sit in disbelief.... And to think that people emptied into the streets across the Arab world to dance, cheer and celebrate the deed. It shows a depth of hatred that most did not know existed and cannot fathom, even today some 5 years later. A bit more skill or luck on the part of the murderers, and the toll would have been much higher still. But what was it? Couldn't the powers of Al Qaeda find a couple of genuine airline pilots to do the deed? Or are people with that level of education beyond the grasp of those who would instigate mass murder? Do you need to find the ignorant and/or desperate to commit these acts?

Know what else? I can't think of any other group in the world that do that -- today. When was the last time you heard of some rabid Lutherans/Hindus/Jews hijacking an airliner to use as a tool to commit mass murder? Me neither.

But don't let's delude ourselves into thinking that we Westerners in the recent past haven't done our share of the atrocious. WW2 springs to mind, where we saw kamikaze fliers take solo shots at US vessels -- during a no-holds barred war. And we nuked them -- you could not call Hiroshima or Nagasaki as pivots for industrial production. But even then,the element of suicide as the vehicle was not present; it was premeditated murder from afar as in the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden. Without getting too down on the Allies, the Germans and Japanese would have done the same to us -- as they proved countless times on other peoples before we got the chance to do it to them. Think: "Rape of Nanking, or Holocaust." Mind you, in the case of the Japanese, they probably would have taken women and children out as part of a suicide mission if they could have arranged it. I doubt the Germans would have.

Nexus between WW2 Japan and modern Islamofascism? Unthinking blind devotion to some ideal and a belief, genuinely founded, that their lives were worth nothing in comparison to the political/religious goal ... Shinto and Islam. Most Japanese today cannot get to grips with their actions in WW2 and coincidently, Shinto and the worship of the Emperor are almost unknown, at least in the form of 60 years ago.... Contrast this with the reluctance of many educated Muslims around the world to condemn 9/11 and suicide bombings.... This does not speak well of vast numbers of people. It may also speak to a view, at least commonly accepted on their part, that this war is "no holds barred" and comparable to WW2 -- in which case we had better wise up quickly and deal with them in the appropriate fashion.

XDR TB & Harvard

Extreme/extensive drug-resistant TB, even worse than MDR (multi-drug resistant) TB is now rearing its ugly head around the world. IT is caused in part by taking the wrong drugs and for an incorrect course period. XDR is focused in the HIV community, particularly in Africa, but the HIV community will provide an incubation/creche for XDR worldwide -- as if people with HIV needed another threat to their very existence.

Of all TB cases in the US, 4% are XDR. Not a lot, given that TB is not all that common here, but a worrying number at any rate. XDR is a death sentence -- meaning basically that there is no cure. None. Not even third line drugs, old drugs, rare drugs or last resort drugs. If you have it, you are consigned to a long battle you will lose. Or if you are immuno-compromised, a short, nasty death. What worries me is that people with other conditions, such as asthma, emphysema and severe allergies could also be rounded up in this one, not just HIV victims.

So assuming that this spreads, what to do? First off, the government needs re-instate the control mechanisms of the period before anti-biotics: quarantine, screening and travel restrictions -- can you imagine the bleeding hearts that are already gasping at immigration control facing this one. The ALCU will infarct at the notion that in the public interest people could be involuntarily committed to sanitariums ... to die. It all depends on how it spread. This is not like H1N5 bird flu, this one already exists in a human unfriendly and infectious form. Just how infectious we can't really get a handle on -- nor how the spread might develop, but in South Africa where there are astronomical levels of HIV, the spread has been pretty quick. But globally, the numbers are not frightening ... yet, and in the US total number so of TB infections is the lowest it has been since 1953, when they started keeping statistics on this.

Note, however, the TB rate in foreign-born people in the United States was 8.7 times that of U.S. natives, the CDC said. Most of the foreign-born cases in 2005 involved people from Mexico, the Philippines, Vietnam, India and China. This means shutting down the borders if the problem escalates. Tightly. Europe (where there have been no registered cases so far) will have a harder problem in shutting off the borders ... more fire on the border issue.

Harvard ... those same tolerant people who ousted Larry Summers, are having Khatami who has likened Hezbollah to “a shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.” True, he was a "reformer" in the context of the mullahs who run the country, and admits the holocaust, but he is no friend of the West. So is it in bad taste to have a committed supporter of terrorist causes speak at Harvard University the day before the 5th anniversary of 9/11? Or is it to show that Harvard has an "open mind" about politics and viewpoints -- so long as your viewpoint matches the orthodox Harvard one. Mitt Romney has refused to spend any state money for security, which has the leftists up in arms. And why should he? Why should a single cent of my tax dollars go to waste to provide Harvard (of all places that could afford it themselves) with security to host a supporter of terrorists? Cambridge.....

Lots of things

Are happening in this fine world of ours.

Tiger Woods has won 5 straight. And you know, Tiger just finds a way to do it. This has got to be a major drag for the rest of the field: as opposed to the 2000 streak, if Tiger even brings his "B" game to the tourney, you are playing for second. And he has Elin.

Ahmadinejad urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers ... say what? He called on students to do the deed ... isn't that the same as giving them a free ride to threaten and murder? Those pargons of sense and sensibility, Iranian students (remember 1979, Mr. Carter)? Bunches of testosterone-laden 18-20 something morons running around with the authority to point the finger and purge academics? Now get me straight here, I am no friend of university academics -- I find them to be singularly feckless, opinionated (without realistic base), biased and bigoted ... but to give Pol Pot power to young fanatics to single out those destined for purging? This sounds like the worst elements of the Cultural Revolution ... hang on a moment ... I am on to something there. A-jad (like A-Rod) is trying to forment his own CR, isn't he? Hmmm. Maybe (or probably) something more than that is in the works, but starting at home, he is cleaning his office out.

What else? Steve Irwin managed to get himself stabbed in the heart by a stingray .... How freaking ironic is that? I mean, he spent his life with some of the meanest and nastiest animals on the planet and gets "offed" by a stingray ... not particularly aggressive or deadly, unless of course, you get unlucky enough to get stabbed in the heart. Oz is mourning and I have heard people all over the US sounding in disbelief. As opposed to many other wildlife stuntment -- who seem to be hunting glory and a large paycheck, Steve gave his money to his foundation and environmental charities. And it has recently emerged that he had bought over 90,000 acres of virgin habitat of Koalas in Queensland -- so that developers could never get their hands on it. Go with God, Steve.

The new season of House has started. Good show. Watch it. Better yet, get the first two seasons on DVD.

The EU members once again prove that their craniums reside in their rectums in more or less confirming that Bulgaria and Romania can join in January. On what economic or financial basis is this decision made? Huh? Oh, yes, that's right ... this is a POLITICAL decision made by leftist-useful-idiots in the Commission.

In no way, shape, manner or form is either of these two ex-stalinist states ready to merge with Germany, the UK and Spain (France deserves them). Unless, of course, the decision was made to ensure that enough local/national voters vote for more socialist drivel in whatever upcoming elections might be on the cards: because the populations of these countries will leave their hovels for your commodious council dwellings in droves.

And did I mention crime? The Romanian and Bulgarian versions of the Russian mafia may be even more bloodthirsty than their mentors and role models. Insanity. And you can't send them "home" because they will be EU citizens and "at home" camping in your frikkin back yard!!! Ask any UK constable about the local crime rate when certain itinerant persons of Romanian background come to stay a while in your neighborhood. Now invite the entire nation to camp out in your neck of the woods (slight exaggeration, but take the point) and you have a nightmare.

Let's consider this nightmare for just a moment: the problem faced by the more civilized western nations dealing with it, is just the same as dealing with Islamo-fascism. We expect them to play by our rules and they don't (the E3 still doesn't get it that Iran has absolutely no intention to do anything but equip themselves with a "device"). And so long as we insist on hopping around on one foot with our hands tied behinds our backs (oooh, profiling is soooo evil), we will be at their mercy. You see, it does mean that we need to move the goal posts closer, change the rules, stoop to their level. And it means that society will get meaner and drabber and less pleasing to live in .. all because we insist on extending the presumption of grace, goodwill and kindness to others without first making any form of intellectual analysis to see whether that night be warranted. That is, if you extend the presumption of civility to a gorilla, you should not be surprised when the gorilla decides to beat you to a pulp. And the gorilla does not care if you are hurt ... he might find it amusing. And it is just as smart as you, maybe smarter in that the gorilla "gets it."

I am sure that A-jad is laughing his nuts off at the idiocy of the EU and the stupid position that his only true threat, the US, finds itself in. He must choke on his frikkin pistachios in mirth.

But back to more traditional criminals; the Italian mafia for years had a code of keeping women and children beyond their day-to-day violence and killings. Only in recent years with the rise of the global heroin trade did that fall apart somewhat -- but the Russian mafia always used the threat of the extermination of your entire family as an everyday threat. And might start with a little rape or kidnapping to make sure the victim got the point ... just like the Stalinist state in which it was created: Stalin obliterated entire bloodlines just because he considered one member to be of questionable loyalty. No different. And now the EU wants to let some of the best students of this type of power politics join the EU.

Actually, another aspect of the schadenfreude here is particularly juicy: everyone knows how spectacularly corrupt the Commission and various subsidiary organizations are. But what they only vaguely appreciate is how completely the Bulgarians will pick their pockets: they will make Bechtel in the Big Dig look like boyscouts, or Mother Theresa. Nothing but nothing happens in the former Soviet Bloc without the liberal application of grease. And even the Germans and French will blush and the demands that will be made, not to mention rage at the sink hole for aid that will develop there. And because their birth rate is higher than that of the French and Germans, it won't take too long before they control the purse strings absolutely.

Just say "no." It makes me wonder if there won't come a point when some states do say "no." What then? Does the EU fall apart? Does it set the stage for another war in which the 5th column is everywhere? A massive, horrible civil war? Will Enlgand come to its senses and pull up the drawbridge? At least we in the US are talking about the issue and there is a movement under way to address the problem one way or another and encourage assimilation on terms favorable to the current majority. From my point of view it is pretty simple: learn English, obey the laws and pay your taxes -- I don't really even care if I have to learn Spanish, but it would be a waste in terms of cost and absurd to have 80% learn the language of 20%. It doesn't matter about what that might be in the future, either, we are considering the present. And if EVERYONE learns English now, then it will be 100% of those here who speak English, making it even more absurd that this should be an issue at all. The language is the tissue of our country, the glue and bond which makes this place work. Through the language the culture is spead and modified too. It is the critical flaw in the EU and we do not have it as of yet and nor should we have to face it.

Even then, we are relatively well off -- the bulk of our immigration flood are at least pretty/very similar to ourselves, the assimilated Americans in comparison to say a Brit and a Romanian, or an average Frenchman and an Alergian 2d gen immigrant. But this also makes the Oz and NZ policies of need seem sensible. There are a few (what used to seem outlandish and racist) Sci-Fi books out there postulating that is the future OZ and NZ will be the last habitable and civilized countries on Earth, all due to geographic isolation, and their decision to militarize to keep it that way. Dunno about that one, inasmuch as American developed with massive multicultural mixing (with English dominant) but ....