Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

We've Moved!

2009-04-28T08:21:00.002-05:00

Million Dollar Basketball Babies:Should the sport’s top prospects go to college?

2009-03-26T06:08:00.001-05:00

Lance Stephenson’s nickname is “Born Ready”—as in, ready for the NBA. But on a winter night in a tiny gym in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, the 6-foot-5 high-school senior mostly looked ready for a time-out—of the preschool variety. Stephenson slumped when teammates failed to pass him the ball, shook his head in disgust when they missed shots, jogged back lazily on defense, and whined about fouls. Stephenson’s other nickname is “Sir Lance-a-lot,” but he seldom looked heroic, and seemed to be doing little to lead his team, three-time defending New York City public-school champion Abraham Lincoln, as it beat host Paul Robeson, 81–72.

Then the final statistics arrived: 38 points and 14 rebounds, including 17 of Lincoln’s deficit-erasing 27 fourth-quarter points. During an after-school practice the next day, Lincoln’s coach, Dwayne “Tiny” Morton, said the performance highlighted Stephenson’s main flaws: impatience and thoughtlessness. Still, Morton was unwavering on the question of ability. I asked how many players he’d seen in his 14 years as a coach at Lincoln who were ready for the NBA, born or otherwise. “Two,” he replied. “Sebastian and Lance.”

Sebastian is Sebastian Telfair, a whippety 5-foot-11 point guard who, in the spring of 2004, landed a Sports Illustrated cover and became one of a record eight high-school seniors chosen in the first round of the NBA draft. That won’t be Stephenson’s destiny, because the NBA has since banned the leap from prom to pro, requiring draft-eligible players to be at least one year removed from their high-school graduating class.

But college might not be Stephenson’s next stop, either. A year ago, Brandon Jennings, a high-school point guard from Los Angeles, signed a pioneering three-year, $1.65 million contract with the Italian professional club Lottomatica Virtus Roma. A few months later, he received a reported $2 million deal with the apparel company Under Armour. Since his signing, scouts for European teams have begun attending high-school games in the U.S., and Under Armour has been sending free sneakers to Stephenson and other potential high-school exports.

In Rome, Jennings is getting a chance to build up more than his bank account. Elite teams in Europe’s top leagues—in Italy, Spain, Russia, Greece—are considered a notch below the NBA but a full cut above the NCAA’s best. The players are grown men, many of them veterans of top U.S. college programs and the NBA. Coaches are hardened tacticians, practices are grueling, and systems of play are complex. Games are more physical than in the NCAA, and seasons are twice as long. NBA scouts pack top contests. “In Europe, they don’t baby you,” said Sonny Vaccaro, who brokered Jennings’s tryout and signing. “You get beat up, sworn at, kicked out of practice. If your character can hold up, you win.”

Vaccaro has been an executive at Nike, Adidas, and Reebok, and he helped make the recruiting and marketing of young players a big business in the past three decades. These days, though, he is crusading against what he considers the NCAA’s phony amateurism and the NBA’s misguided rulemaking. Qualified players, he told me, should be able to earn a good salary playing basketball when they want to, not when the NCAA or NBA decides they can. Over the past year, the families of several high-school seniors have contacted Vaccaro about the European option, he said, and he has identified eight underclassmen, some as young as freshmen, “who are interested when the time comes.” This year or next year, Vaccaro predicted, a player will turn pro and head to Europe after his junior year of high school.

If that seems like one more sign of the basketball apocalypse, consider that many of the Europeans who populate NBA rosters began playing professionally as young as 14. In any case, Vaccaro believes Europe should be a destination only for exceptionally talented and relatively mature players. And Jennings has cautioned that his Italian sojourn hasn’t been one big scoop of gelato: “I don’t want anyone coming over here thinking it’s easy,” he wrote on his Under Armour blog.

Once the basketball machine gets rolling, though, it can be hard to stop. Jennings is expected to opt out of his contract with Lottomatica after this season and enter the NBA draft in June. If he’s a high pick, adolescent interest in playing abroad may rise rapidly.

On the court after practice, Stephenson’s father, Lance Sr., said Kansas, Southern Cal, and St. John’s were recruiting his son. But if he fails to become NCAA-eligible—a legitimate concern, according to people around him—his options will change. No one I talked to seemed confident that Stephenson was emotionally prepared for the professional grind on the Continent. But with the door open, nothing can stop him from dribbling through it, ready or not. “I think he’d be a better pro right now than a college player,” his father said. “Going overseas, it’s not out of the question.”

'What a human catastrophe is the doctrine of human rights!'

2009-03-24T06:49:00.000-05:00

Theodore Dalrymple

What a human catastrophe is the doctrine of human rights! Not only does it give officialdom an excuse to insinuate itself into the fabric of our lives but it has a profoundly corrupting effect on youth, who have been indoctrinated into believing that until such rights were granted (or is it discovered?) there was no freedom. Worse still, it persuades each young person that they are uniquely precious, which is to say more precious than anyone else; and that, moreover, the world is a giant conspiracy to deprive them of their rightful entitlements. Once someone is convinced of their rights, it becomes impossible to reason with them; and thus the reason of the Enlightenment is swiftly transformed into the unreason of the psychopath.

The doctrine of rights has borne putrid fruit. In the ward recently was a young woman of the now very extensive slut-babymother class, whose jaw was clenched in a habitual expression of world-destroying hatred. Her glittering saurian eyes swivelled mistrustingly, on the qui vive for infringements of her rights. She exuded grievance as a skunk exudes its odour.

She had been admitted to hospital because she had been out celebrating the night before. In England now, celebration is synonymous with aggression and public nuisance, and she had conformed to type by screaming and pulling another slut-babymother's hair. When the police arrived, she claimed her drink had been spiked and was dumped by them in the hospital rather than in the slammer, where she belonged.
The police having departed, she turned the attention of her lip, as we call it around here, to the admitting doctor, who took down verbatim some of what she said to him.

Her recorded remarks were littered with a word beginning with F, followed by very neatly drawn asterisks, which proves that in India, at least (where the doctor came from), there is still some sense of dignity, decorum and self-respect.

The following morning a friend of the patient arrived in the ward before visiting time. Both patient and friend were what is called in the prison "very verbal", which is to say mouthy. A nurse, acting on the biblical observation that a soft answer turns away wrath, asked them to keep their voices down, only to discover that the Bible has been superseded in modern Britain and that wrath turns away a soft answer. The nurse then told the visitor that she had to leave or else.

Shortly after her departure under foul-mouthed protest, the wife of another patient came to sit with him. She was a respectable Sikh woman with a gentle manner, but it was not yet visiting time, and the nurses feared to provoke the slut-babymother by allowing her to stay, when they had told the slut-babymother's visitor to leave. The nurses could all too well imagine the scene: Why am I not allowed a f—ing visitor when that man over there is?

In vain would the nurses point out the difference in the conduct of the two visitors; if anyone had a right to a visitor, everyone did, irrespective of the conduct of the visitor.
To avoid a conflict over rights, the Sikh woman was asked to wait outside, which she did without demur, reading a book of prayers.

A little later I bumped into one of our security guards whose job it is to deal with slut-babymothers and yob-babyfathers.

"How are you?" I asked.

"Can't grumble," he replied.

"Oh, surely you can," I said.

"No one would listen if I did," he said.

"Well, there you've got it," I said. "That's your reason to grumble. No one would listen if you did. It's a kind of meta-grumble."

Come to think of it, that's what I've been doing all these years: meta-grumbling. It's been great fun.

Government At Work: Another Monument To Failure

2009-03-23T03:14:00.000-05:00

The Local:

A pair of stone-age boats, thought to be the oldest in Europe, have been allowed to rot in a partially collapsed shed while the northern German regional archaeology authorities stood by broke and helpless, it emerged this week.

The two 7,000-year-old wooden boats and a third one thought to be around 6,000 years old, were hailed as a sensation when they were found during construction work on the Baltic coast near Stralsund in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern seven years ago.

But now they are effectively ruined, after a lack of funds resulted in them being stored inappropriately. “It is a loss for Germany if not for the whole world,” said Andreas Grüger, director of the Stralsund historical museum.

The boats had been entrusted to the Authorities for Culture and Preservation of Ancient Monuments in Schwerin for restoration and conservation. But Michael Bednorz, head of the State Office admitted that financial difficulties meant that they were kept in a shed instead of an appropriate space.

“The log boats are only an example for our problems,” he said.

“They are a drastic illustration of what happens when the regional authorities cannot fulfil their obligations.”

Although much damage was inflicted during the first two years of storage, they were then further damaged when the shed they were stored in partially collapsed in 2004. Yet still they were not moved to safety.

The state office’s storage facilities have less than a good reputation – mice have chewed up ancient documents in the main archive mice while a water leakage destroyed precious artefacts in another depot.

The remains of the boats have now been sent to the University of Applied Sciences in Berlin where students are planning to investigate the extent of the damage and draw up a plan to save at least fragments.

The Perfect Crime? Twins With Identical DNA Set Free

2009-03-20T05:12:00.001-05:00

Der Spiegel:

Saved by their indistinguishable DNA, identical twins suspected in a massive jewelry heist have been set free. Neither could be exclusively linked to the DNA evidence.

German police say at least one of the identical twin brothers Hassan and Abbas O. may have perpetrated a recent multimillion euro jewelry heist in Berlin. But because of their indistinguishable DNA, neither can be individually linked to the crime. Both were set free on Wednesday.

In the early morning hours of February 25, three masked men broke into Germany's famous luxury department store Kaufhaus Des Westens (KaDeWe). Video cameras show how they climbed into the store's grand main hall, broke open cabinets and display cases and made off with an estimated €5 million worth of jewelry and watches.

When police found traces of DNA on a glove left at the scene of the crime, it seemed that the criminals responsible for Germany's most spectacular heist in years would be caught. But the DNA led to not one but two suspects -- 27-year-old identical, or monozygotic, twins with near-identical DNA.

German law stipulates that each criminal must be individually proven guilty. The problem in the case of the O. brothers is that their twin DNA is so similar that neither can be exclusively linked to the evidence using current methods of DNA analysis. So even though both have criminal records and may have committed the heist together, Hassan and Abbas O. have been set free.

Both brothers have stolidly refused to comment ever since their arrests on February 11. Since no further evidence has become available, police cannot detain them.

"Those who remain silent are not necessarily covering up their guilt, but rather simply making use of their constitutional rights," Hassan O.'s lawyer Axel Weimann told Berlin's Tagesspiegel newspaper on Wednesday. He also noted that the glove with DNA evidence was not necessarily proof that either twin had been at the scene of the crime, since it could have been placed there by someone else in order to frame the brothers.

According to the daily, the twins sent a message that they were "proud of the German constitutional state and gave it their thanks."

There is still no trace of a third suspect -- or the loot.

AIG Bonus Execs Revealed

2009-03-19T13:21:00.000-05:00

The AIG Bonus Check We'd Like To See

2009-03-19T13:18:00.000-05:00

More Rewritten History In The Middle East

2009-03-19T05:04:00.000-05:00

If the reunification efforts on Cyprus are so contentious and controversial, how will the Palestinians (who refuse to even recognize the state of Israel)ever reach a peace treaty with Israel?

Der Spiegel:

Negotiations on the reunification of Cyprus have been going well for six months, but a spat over school books within the Greek-Cypriot community shows the extent to which hostilities can quickly bubble up to the surface.

A bizarre spat over school books has revealed just how deep the divisions are between the two communities on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. With talks on a possible reunification at a sensitive point, a row over school books has shown that the old enmities on the island persist.

Andreas Dimitiriou, the education minister in the Greek-dominated Republic of Cyprus, has come in for furious criticism because he sent a letter to schools saying that "Greek-Cypriot extremists," also bore some responsibility for the division of the island.

He argued that it was time to rewrite the history books, which still describe the Turkish Cypriots who live in the northern part of the island as "barbarians," who bear sole responsibility for the partition of the island. This is a marked contrast to the books used in the Turkish Cypriot schools, which were rewritten back in 2004 to rid them of any anti-Greek chauvinism.

Dimitriou has faced a backlash from members of the Greek community for his plans to change the school books, with nationalists, teachers and even an Archbishop defending the old stereotypes of the Turkish enemies.

The attempt at the curriculum reform comes at a sensitive time. Ever since Cypriot President Dimitris Christofias took office last year there have been hopes that the United Nations reunification plan, which Greek Cypriots rejected in 2004, could be revived. Christofias has spent the last six months in negotions with the Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat, and there has reportedly been a "very positive mood" at each of their many meetings.

However, last Friday the UN Cyprus envoy Alexander Downer said that there was no point in rushing negotiations if the deal could unravel. He said an agreement must be reached that "will hold in place for the duration."

He urged patience because of the complexity of the issues. "When you're dealing with complex issues you're of course dealing with problems that go back decades. It's not surprising it's a painstaking process."

The parties, who were meeting again on Tuesday in the city of Nicosia, have still not agreed on the details of a power-sharing arrangement or what to do about the issue of compensation for the 200,000 Cypriots who were displaced by the conflict. Talat has said that talks need to be concluded by early 2010, when he is expected to stand for reelection.

Cyprus was divided into a breakaway Turkish Cypriot north and an internationally recognized Greek Cypriot south in 1974 when Turkey invaded the island in response to a coup by Athens-backed supporters of a union with Greece.

The resolution of the decades-old dispute is hindered by the fact that Turkey still does not officially recognize the Republic of Cyprus, which is a member of the European Union. This has in turn undermined Ankara's attempt to join the bloc. If Turkey does not agree to allow Cypriot planes and vessels to use it ports by the end of the year then Brussels could break off accession talks for good.

The left must stand up to anti-Semitism

2009-03-18T06:09:00.000-05:00

From Spiked Online:

Frank Furedi’s article is a sobering reflection on the connections between anti-Israeli sentiment and anti-Semitism (see After Gaza: what is behind 21st-century anti-Semitism?). The central issues he raises have to do, firstly, with the role that sections of the left have played in legitimising anti-Semitism and, secondly, with how interpretations of the Holocaust are being distorted and abused. These issues, I would suggest, may be still more closely connected than Furedi suggests.

There are a number of ways in which much of the left now refuses to engage seriously with anti-Semitism but rather helps to legitimate it. The first takes the form of explaining anti-Semitism in a way that effectively justifies it. This occurs when, for example, suicide bombing (that is, the deliberate killing of Jewish civilians) is explained in a pseudo-materialist mode as simply a product of desperation. That many people have found themselves desperate without resorting to such actions and such hatred is ignored, as is the obvious fact that they are planned by people who are certainly anti-Semitic but not by any stretch of the imagination hopeless or without considerable material resources.

The second form is collusion – the effective toleration of anti-Semitic language, chants and slogans on demonstrations against Israel. I say ‘effective’ because this is a repeated and growing phenomenon, known in advance. It does not require an occasional well-meaning reproof but the recognition that joint participation in, and organisation of, such demonstrations provides a forum for anti-Semites to express their hatred of Jews without fear or anxiety. (It is in this respect a direct reversal of the old socialist programme of ‘no platform for fascists’.)

The third way in which the left helps to legitimise anti-Semitism, and this often accompanies the first two, has to do with the downplaying of evidence of anti-Semitism itself: the claim that anti-Semitic incidents are over-reported or misinterpreted and that, in any case, they are far less significant than other forms of hatred.

How new is all this? Perhaps it is not quite as new as we might wish, especially if we think about the left’s response to Nazi anti-Semitism. There is a certain ‘conceit’ on the left (one I confess I shared myself for a long time) that they were the most principled, committed opponents of Nazi anti-Semitism. This is highly arguable. In Germany in the 1930s, many left-wing intellectuals took an entirely reductive view of Nazi anti-Semitism. As late as 1939, for example, Max Horkheimer claimed that what was really going on was that ‘the Jews are being supplanted as agents of circulation, for the modern economic structure eliminates the entire sphere of commerce’.

In 1942 (just as the Final Solution was under way) Franz Neumann published his major study of Nazism in which he argued that they would ‘never allow a complete extermination of the Jews’. What the left did oppose was fascism, for which they had a much more sophisticated explanation, and which was a priority. For on the ground, too, mobilising against anti-Semitism as a central issue was repeatedly rejected - by both social democrats and communists. To raise this issue, leaders of both parties agreed, was pointless and counter-productive. It would not win support but would further isolate their militants. And there was more than a hidden suggestion that the Jews had somehow brought this upon themselves, that they had been too visible, too prominent, or worse.

Ignorant efforts to equate what happened to the Jews during Nazi rule with what Israel is doing to the Palestinians may be thought about, to some extent, against this background of incomprehension and avoidance. It is true that what happened then remains hard to comprehend even today. The idea that the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews everywhere is hard to hold in the mind, as (even more) is the creation of extermination camps; factories designed not to produce goods or commodities but corpses and ashes, factories of death.

But if there is little history of thinking seriously about anti-Semitism and confronting it directly when it was at its most dangerous, it may not be so surprising that there has been such a weak response to the latest outbreak of this mutating virus. It was easier then to turn away, to deny the full import of anti-Semitism in its most radical form; it is easier now not to think about anti-Semitism at all.

Philip J Spencer is associate dean of the faculty of arts and social sciences at Kingston University, where he teaches courses on the Holocaust, the Politics of Mass Murder, and Human Rights. He has also written on Marxism and the Holocaust and is currently working on a study of the left, the Holocaust and subsequent genocides.

Waiting Period Loophole

2009-03-17T16:25:00.000-05:00

It's Not So bad

2009-03-17T13:34:00.001-05:00

Six Opinions: Were the 9/11 Terrorists Cowards or Courageous?

2009-03-17T04:00:00.001-05:00

In Character:

Ruth R. Wisse:

“Courage and cowardice are culturally determined, and God cannot help the society that confuses its values with those of its rivals.”

We attribute courage to men and women who defend our values in the face of adversity. Facing adversity in itself may be either bold or reckless; upholding values may be noble in some cases and effortless in others. It’s the combination of the two — upholding values and facing adversity — that earns the tribute of “courage.” America sets great store by its freedoms, its constitutional culture and integrity as a nation. We call courageous those who protect and advance these when they come under attack.

I understand the IC symposium to be asking whether multiculturalism has taken us to the point of no longer having the confidence to distinguish our values from those of our assailants. Undoubtedly, some of my university colleagues have reached that tipping point...

James Bowman:

“It is this now almost-vanished honor culture which is speaking when terrorists are called ‘cowardly.’ In its view, they are cowardly because they are sneaky.”

If it doesn’t take courage to immolate oneself along with a crowd of strangers by flying an airplane into the side of a building, then what does it take? Surely it must be something that resembles courage, as we ordinarily understand the term, so closely as to be indistinguishable from it. Former president Bush and others sometimes referred to this and similar terrorist acts as “cowardly” because, I think, of the social class to which they belong...

Paul McHugh:

“[W]e do not find courage with Atta and his team who sought death but with Beamer, Glick, Green, and others on Flight 93 who fought for life.”

...Atta, along with several knife-wielding, muscular accomplices, implemented a studied and practiced plan of deception that took advantage of the trust of airline personnel to slip disguised as innocent travelers onto aircraft filled with men, women, and children. Soon into the flight they sprang upon these defenseless people, commandeered the aircraft by cutting the throats of stewardesses and pilots, and then deceived those remaining into believing that a non-deadly plan was in place. This was so that without interference they could pilot them all to their deaths by plowing the planes into buildings also filled with unsuspecting people going about their morning business.

What I’ll call the Beamer group, on the other hand, had that day no thought of needing their skills and energies for any purpose other than to travel quietly to their destinations. The events they confronted were thrust upon them with little information other than cell phone communications informing them of the likely deadly aims of their captors. With little time to think, with no more weaponry than their own physical endowments, and with the realization that their chances of living through the efforts were small, these men fought their armed captors for the control of the aircraft and brought it crashing down in an empty field rather than into a populated city building...

Irshad Manji:

“Is it an act of moral courage to promote violent jihad against those whom you consider the enemy? As a reform-minded Muslim, I find myself on the front lines of such questions.”

A generation ago, Robert F. Kennedy introduced students to the concept of moral courage. “Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society,” he declared at the University of Cape Town. “Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.”

...Recently, a young man named Amin wrote to me with a challenge. He spoke of a European Muslim woman who blogs about Islam’s “duty” to destroy the West, through arms if need be. This woman operates within the law of her country, Belgium, and proudly accepts public disapproval for what she believes. “She is speaking truth to power for a greater good,” Amin intoned.

Thus his challenge to me: is the female jihadi an agent of moral courage?

Robert Royal:

“From the ancient world until the reductive views of human beings that started to become dominant in the eighteenth century, courage, like every other virtue, had certain intrinsic characteristics, but was also related to other virtues without which its good qualities might quite literally go bad.”

...Of course, you can debase the meaning of the term courage by equating it with merely braving physical dangers that most people could not. But that is a colloquial way of speaking that has never been part of any serious thinking about the virtue of courage. It’s a bit like telling someone, “At least you’re honest,” when he has casually admitted to some deeply shameful act. Yes, he may have just told the truth, but unless he’s repenting or asking for pardon, it would be difficult to say there’s anything much good about it. In some circumstances, quite the opposite may be true...

...There’s nothing noble about walking into a pizza parlor in Israel and blowing up yourself and a bunch of civilians. There’s nothing elevating in shooting up a Mumbai hotel, attacking Westerners, and dying in the process. And even in the marriage of Heaven and Hell, to which the modern world sometimes desperately seeks to aspire, it takes great credulity to believe that there was anything in the September 11 murderers worthy of the exalted name of courage.

Late Night Laugh: Auto Confession

2009-03-16T22:47:00.001-05:00

PC And Religion

2009-03-16T19:38:00.001-05:00

'My imam father came after me with an axe'

2009-03-16T11:13:00.001-05:00

From The Times:

We are all too familiar with the persecution of Christians in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yet sitting in front of me is a British woman whose life has been threatened in this country solely because she is a Christian. Indeed, so real is the threat that the book she has written about her experiences has had to appear under an assumed name.

The book is called The Imam’s Daughter because “Hannah Shah” is just that: the daughter of an imam in one of the tight-knit Deobandi Muslim Pakistani communities in the north of England. Her father emigrated to this country from rural Pakistan some time in the 1960s and is, apparently, a highly respected local figure.

He is also an incestuous child abuser, repeatedly raping his daughter from the age of five until she was 15, ostensibly as part of her punishment for being “disobedient”. At the age of 16 she fled her family to avoid the forced marriage they had planned for her in Pakistan. A much, much greater affront to “honour” in her family’s eyes, however, was the fact that she then became a Christian – an apostate. The Koran is explicit that apostasy is punishable by death; thus it was that her father the imam led a 40-strong gang – in the middle of a British city – to find and kill her.

Hannah Shah says her story is not unique – that there are many other girls in British Muslim families who are oppressed and married off against their will, or who have secretly become Christians but are too afraid to speak out. She wants their voices to be heard and for Britain, the land of her birth, to realise the hidden misery of these women.

Hannah’s own voice is quiet and emerges from a tiny frame. She is clearly nervous about talking to a journalist and the stress she has been under is betrayed by a bald patch on the left side of her head. Yet she has a lovely natural smile, especially when she reveals that she got married a year ago; her husband works in the Church of England, “though not as a vicar”.

I tell Hannah that the passages in her memoir about her sexual abuse are almost impossible to read – but I also found it hard to understand why, now that she is in her early thirties, independent and married, she has not reported her father’s horrific assaults on her to the police.

“What has stopped me is that if my dad went to prison, the shame that would be brought upon the rest of the family would be horrific. My mum would not be able to . . . I mean, it’s bad enough having a daughter who’s left, is not agreeing to her marriage and is now a Christian. Then to have my dad in prison would be the end for her.”

I tell Hannah, perhaps a little cruelly, that in her use of the word “shame” she is echoing the sort of arguments that her own family had used against her.

“I understand that, but what I’m saying is that if I do that, then there will never be a door open to me to have contact with my family ever again. I’m still hoping that there will be some opportunity for that.” Of course, by writing this book, albeit under an assumed name and with all the places and characters disguised, there is a chance that her family and community will identify themselves in it. What does she think they would do, then?

“To be honest, I don’t even want to think about that. Either they will decide between them that they are not going to say anything because it will bring shame on all the community, or they will decide that they want to take action. Then my life will become even more difficult, because they’ll all be looking for me.”

Hannah’s description in the book of the moment when her “community” discovered the “safe” home where she had fled after becoming an apostate is terrifying. A mob with her father at its head pounded and hammered at the door as she cowered upstairs hoping she could not be seen or heard. She heard her father shout through the letter box: “Filthy traitor! Betrayer of your faith! Cursed traitor! We’re going to rip your throat out! We’ll burn you alive!”

Does she still believe they would have killed her? “Yes, without a doubt. They had hammers and knives and axes.”

Why didn’t you call the police after-wards? “First, I didn’t think the police would believe me. That sort of thing just doesn’t happen in this country – or that’s what they’d think. Second, I didn’t believe I would get help or protection from the authorities.”

Hannah had good reason for this doubt. When, at school, she had finally summoned the courage to tell a teacher that her father had been beating her (she couldn’t bring herself to reveal the sexual abuse), the social services sent out a social worker from her own community. He chose not to believe Hannah and, in effect, shopped her to her father, who gave her the most brutal beating of her life. When she later confronted the social worker, he said: “It’s not right to betray your community.”

Hannah blames what is sometimes called political correctness for this debacle: “My teachers had thought they were doing the right thing, they thought it showed ‘cultural sensitivity’ by bringing in someone from my own community to ‘help’, but it was the worst thing they could have done to me. This happens a lot.

“When I’ve been working with girls who were trying to get out of an arranged marriage, or want to convert to Christianity, and they have contacted social services as they need to get out of their homes, the reaction has been ‘we’ll send someone from your community to talk to your parents’. I know why they are doing this, they are trying to be understanding, but it’s the last thing that the authorities should do in such situations.”

This is the sort of cultural sensitivity displayed by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, last year when he suggested that problems within the British Muslim community such as financial or marital disputes could be dealt with under sharia, Islamic law, rather than British civil law. What did Hannah, now an Anglican, think on hearing these remarks?

“I was horrified.” If you could speak to him now, what would you say to the archbishop? “I would say: have you actually spoken to any ordinary Muslim women about the situation that they live in, in their communities? By putting in place these Muslim arbitration tribunals, where a woman’s witness is half that of a man, you are silencing women even more.”

She believes the British government is making exactly the same mistake as Rowan Williams: “It says it talks to the Muslim community, but it’s not speaking to the women. I mean, you are always hearing Muslim men speaking out, the representatives of the big federations, but the government is not listening to Muslim women. With the sharia law situation and the Muslim arbitration tribunals, have they thought about what effect these tribunals have on Muslim women? I don’t think so.”

It’s fair to say that Hannah Shah is an evangelical Christian, who clearly feels a duty to spread her new faith to Muslims– something with which the Church of England’s eternally emollient establishment is very uncomfortable and the government even more so. She points out that even within this notionally Christian country, people are “persecuted” for evangelism of even the mildest sort. She cites the recent cases of the nurse who was suspended for offering to pray for a patient and the foster parents who were struck off after a Muslim girl in their care converted to Christianity.

“Such people – I’m not talking about apostates like me – have been persecuted or ostracised in this country simply because they want to share their faith with others. People call this political correctness but I actually think it is based on a fear of Muslims, what they might do if provoked.”

Shah’s conversion seems to have its origins in the fact that the family who put her up after she ran away from the prospect of an arranged marriage in rural Pakistan were themselves regular church attenders. She began to go with them and, to put it at its most banal, she liked what she heard.

“It was the emphasis on love.

The Islam that I grew up knowing and reading about doesn’t offer me love. That’s the biggest thing that Christianity can and does offer. I sense that I belong and am accepted as I am – even when I do wrong there is forgiveness, a forgiveness which Islam does not offer.”

So does Hannah offer Christian forgiveness to the father who raped and abused her and who, by her own account, was even prepared to murder her?

“It’s taken a long time and it’s only in the past few years that I’ve got to that. It’s very hard to get there and it’s taken a lot of shouting and screaming behind closed doors, and praying, to get me to the point of being able to say: I forgive. I have to, partly because otherwise I would be a very bitter and angry person and I don’t want to livea life that’s full of anger.”

I can’t help asking how she would react if a future child of hers decided she wanted to abandon the Christian faith of the family home and become a Muslim. “It would be very hard for me, obviously.”

Would she try to discourage it? “No. I’d bring them up as Christians, take them to church, but I’d also want them to know about, well, my culture, about Islam. Because being Christian should be a choice, not what you’re born to. But yes, it would be hard if they chose Islam.”

Somehow, though, I think Hannah Shah would cope.

The Dance Of The Broken Mirrors

2009-03-16T07:24:00.001-05:00

So Hamas and the PA are still in 'unity talks' and the US is determined to help the 'moderates.' While everyone is focused on Hamas, it bears recalling just who the PA are and what they say in Arabic.

From the Jerusalem Post:

PA President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday said that he does not rule out returning to the path of armed "resistance" against Israel and took pride in the fact that he had been the first to fire on Israel and that his organization had trained Hizbullah.

In an interview with the Jordanian daily al-Dustur, Abbas said that he was opposed to an armed struggle against Israel - for the time being.

"At this present juncture, I am opposed to armed struggle because we cannot succeed in it, but maybe in the future things will be different," he said.

"I had the honor of firing the first shot in 1965 and of being the one who taught resistance to many in the region and around the world; what it's like; when it is effective and when it isn't effective; its uses, and what serious, authentic and influential resistance is," Abbas said.

"It is common knowledge when and how resistance is detrimental and when it is well timed," he added. "We (Fatah) had the honor of leading the resistance and we taught resistance to everyone, including Hizbullah, who trained in our military camps."

Matthias Kunzel:

How can a group determined to destroy Israel be a partner in the peace process?

A particular lack of attention is paid to the question as to why this group wants to obliterate Israel. People ignore the Nazi-style antisemitism which is the underpinning of Hamas’ policies. Yet all one needs to do is take a look at the Hamas Charter, which considers “the Jews” responsible for all the evil and misfortune in the world. According to this Charter, Jews “stir revolutions”, “destroy societies” and “colonize and exploit countries”. “They stood behind World War I…, they also stood behind World War II…, they inspired the United Nations and the Security Council … in order to rule the world. … There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it.” (3)

We should take every one of these assertions seriously. Anyone who accepts this monstrous image of Jews as the villains of the world must wish to kill them and must wish to see Israel – the “command centre” in antisemitic jargon – obliterated. For them a Palestinian state next to Israel can only be seen as a tool for achieving an Islamic state instead of Israel. Hamas can never be a peace partner as long as it holds on to this Charter...

The powerful effect of this ideology is underestimated in the West. Many either react as if hating Jews were a feature of the Oriental world, like hookahs or mosques. Or antisemitism among Muslims is glossed over as a kind of “anti-imperialism of fools”, and rationalised as an alleged response to the Middle East conflict. From this stems the hope that, with the solution of the Palestine conflict, hatred of Jews will have vanished as well.

This hope, however, won’t stand up to scrutiny. Anyone who is aware of the history of the Middle East will recognise that the escalation of the conflict has not been the cause of the antisemitic hatred. Rather, this antisemitic hatred, imported from Europe, has played a decisive role in the escalation...

Of course, not all Arabs were a part of the history Kunzel addresses.

Still, during the first decades of the 20th century, not a few Arabs considered these modernising effects of Zionist immigration in a favourable light. For example, the editor the Egypt’s daily al-Ahram wrote in 1913: “The Zionists are necessary for this region. The money they will bring in, their intelligence and the diligence which is one of their characteristics will, without doubt, bring new life to the country.” (10) During the 1920’s, prominent leaders in Egypt believed “that the progress of Zionism might help to secure the development of a new Eastern civilisation,” as Mr. Kisch who was at that time Chairman of the Palestine Zionist Executive noted in his diary after visiting Cairo in 1924. (11) In 1924, the modernising model of Kemal Atatürk had replaced the caliphate in Turkey and beginning in 1925, the Shah of Iran, Resa Khan, had embarked on the secularisation of his country...

And now, full circle and Mahmoud Abbas:

Hamas denies that Mahmud Abbas represents the will of the Palestinian people and has seen its position strengthened by the victory in the Gaza local elections at the end of January 2005. (15) It refuses to cease production of more Qassem rockets, let alone hand over its weapons. For the time being, it is not using those weapons, but only because in a counter-move Mahmud Abbas “has agreed to unfreeze Hamas funds held in a number of Palestinian banks.” (16) Last but not least, it is receiving massive support from Iran and its puppet, Hizbullah. On January 30, 2005 Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah, head of Hizbullah, and his Hamas counterpart Khaled Mashal issued a joint declaration pledging coordination of their military efforts. As Mashal put it, “we are partners in the march against Israel, the common enemy. We hope that the same path which led to the liberation of southern Lebanon will lead to that of the whole of Palestine”. (17) Hizbullah’s involvement has since reached such a level “that even the PA leadership is sounding the alarm and begging the world to help it cut off those throwing oil on flames that it is trying to douse.” (18)

From the Wall Street Journal on Abbas:

...His outright refusal to confront and disarm terrorists, in violation of the Road Map, hardly registers anymore in the Western media and where it does, it is usually excused and attributed to his relative political weakness. However, the media also give very little idea of the extent to which the Palestinian Authority continues to glorify terrorists...

...if Americans and Europeans are genuinely interested in promoting Palestinian-Israeli peace, it is time for them to take a realistic look at his record...

His outright refusal to confront and disarm terrorists, in violation of the Road Map, hardly registers anymore in the Western media and where it does, it is usually excused and attributed to his relative political weakness. However, the media also give very little idea of the extent to which the Palestinian Authority continues to glorify terrorists... Then there is the soccer tournament named in honor of the terrorist who murdered 30 people at a Passover celebration in Netanya, or the girls' high school named by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education after a female terrorist who murdered 36 Israeli civilians and an American nature photographer. (The school was recently renovated with money from USAID, channeled through the American Near East Refugee Aid.)

Examples could easily be multiplied. A poetry collection published by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Culture, for instance, is named in honor of a suicide terrorist (dubbed "the Rose of Palestine" in one of the poems) who killed 21 at a restaurant in Haifa. (The collection was distributed this August as a special supplement in the daily Al-Ayyam. Most of Al-Ayyam's editors are appointed by Mr. Abbas.)...

The Palestinian Authority sometimes goes so far as to stamp out even the most symbolic gestures of coexistence with Israel. Consider last month's soccer match, organized by the Shimon Peres Center for Peace, in which Israeli and Palestinian soccer stars played together in a joint "Peace Team" against Barcelona. They played well, losing only 2-1 at Barcelona's famous Nou Camp stadium in front of 31,820 spectators, including many dignitaries. Yet on the Palestinian Authority's orders, the Palestinian Football Association announced that it would punish the Palestinian players for daring to participate in such a match...

Bring Your Kid To Work Day

2009-03-14T21:36:00.000-05:00

The American Dream

2009-03-14T12:22:00.000-05:00

No Place Safe For Terrorists

2009-03-14T08:58:00.001-05:00

This video was taken inside the cockpit of an A-10 by the pilot. It was a night view. What you see is from 9700 feet away (almost two miles). Four terrorists are walking along a street with no clue that someone is watching them…….. from almost 2 miles away. The A-10 fired a 30 mm cannon WITHOUT injuring the dog nearby who escaped unharmed.

You can see the gun camera shake a bit as the pilot fires; then count about 4 seconds for the rounds to travel 2 miles. Every tenth round is a tracer, so the bullets you actually see are every tenth; they are getting hit with hundreds of rounds, but the dog (in the upper right hand portion of your screen) is unscathed, in fact, you’ll noticed he senses the incoming before the terrorists even knew what hit them.

Muzzle velocity on the 30mm cannon is 2430 feet per second. The result is that four fewer guys won’t be blowing up women and children anymore!

You can run but you can’t hide.

Harvard MBA: The Scarlet Letters Of The Financial Meltdown

2009-03-13T12:44:00.000-05:00

The Times:

If Robespierre were to ascend from hell and seek out today’s guillotine fodder, he might start with a list of those with three incriminating initials beside their names: MBA. The Masters of Business Administration, that swollen class of jargon-spewing, value-destroying financiers and consultants have done more than any other group of people to create the economic misery we find ourselves in.

From Royal Bank of Scotland to Merrill Lynch, from HBOS to Leh-man Brothers, the Masters of Disaster have their fingerprints on every recent financial fiasco.

I write as the holder of an MBA from Harvard Business School – once regarded as a golden ticket to riches, but these days more like scarlet letters of shame. We MBAs are haunted by the thought that the tag really stands for Mediocre But Arrogant, Mighty Big Attitude, Me Before Anyone and Management By Accident. For today’s purposes, perhaps it should be Masters of the Business Apocalypse.

Harvard Business School alumni include Stan O’Neal and John Thain, the last two heads of Merrill Lynch, plus Andy Hornby, former chief executive of HBOS, who graduated top of his class. And then of course, there’s George W Bush, Hank Paul-son, the former US Treasury secretary, and Christopher Cox, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a remarkable trinity who more than fulfilled the mission of their alma mater: “To educate leaders who make a difference in the world.”

It just wasn’t the difference the school had hoped for.

Business schools have shown a remarkable ability to miss the economic catastrophes unfolding before their eyes.

In the late 1990s, their faculties rushed to write paeans to Enron, the firm of the future, the new economic paradigm. The admiration was mutual: Enron was stuffed with Harvard Business School alumni, from Jeff Skilling, the chief executive, down. When Enron, rotten to the core, collapsed, the old case studies were thrust in a closet and removed from the syllabus, and new ones were promptly written about the ethical and accounting issues posed by Enron’s misadventures.

Much the same appears to have happened with Royal Bank of Scotland.

When I was a student at Harvard Business School, between 2004 and 2006, I recall a distinguished professor of organisational behaviour, Joel Podolny, telling us proudly of his work with Fred Goodwin at RBS. At the time, RBS looked like a corporate supermodel and Podolny was keen to trumpet his role in its transformation. A Harvard Business School case study of the firm entitled The Royal Bank of Scotland: Masters of Integration, written in 2003, began with a quote from the man we now know as Fred the Shred or the World’s Worst Banker: “Hard work, focus, discipline and concentrating on what our customers need. It’s quite a simple formula really, but we’ve just been very, very consistent with it.”

The authors of the case, two Harvard Business School professors, described the “new architecture” formed by RBS after its acquisition of NatWest, the clusters of customer-facing units, the successful “buy-in” by employees. Goodwin came across as a management master, saying: “A leader’s job is to create the conditions that enable people to believe, in their hearts and minds, in the value of what they are doing.”

Then just last December, Harvard Business School revised and republished another homage to RBS – The Royal Bank of Scotland Group: The Human Capital Strategy.

It is tragic to read now of all the effort put in by those under Goodwin, from “pulse surveys” to track employee performance to “the big thank you”, a website where managers could recognise individual excellence in customer service.

Every trendy business school idea was being implemented, it seemed, while what really mattered – the bank’s risk assessment, cash flow and capital structure – was going to hell. To be fair, neither Podolny nor the authors of the case studies were finance professors, but it’s still pretty shocking that a school that purports to teach general management should fail to see the gaping problems at a firm they studied in such depth.

Is there a pattern here? Go back to the 1980s, and you find that Harvard MBAs played a big enough role in the insider trading scandals that washed through Wall Street for a former chairman of the SEC to consider it a good move to donate millions of dollars for the teaching of ethics at the school.

Time after time, and scandal after scandal, it seems that a school that graduates just 900 students a year finds itself in the thick of it. Yet there is remarkably little contrition.

Last October, Harvard Business School celebrated its 100th birthday with a global summit in Boston. While Wall Street and Washington descended into an economic inferno, Jay Light, the dean of the school and a board member at the Black-stone private equity group, opened the festivities by shrugging off any responsibility.

“We all failed to understand how much [the financial system] had changed in the past 15 years or so, and how fragile it might be because of increased leverage, decreased transparency and decreased liquidity: three of the crucial things in the world of financial markets,” he said.

“We all failed to understand how that fragility could evidence itself in a frozen short-term credit system, something that hadn’t really happened since 1907. We also probably overestimated the ability of the political process to deal with the realities of what could happen if real trouble developed.

“What we have witnessed is a stunning and sobering failure of financial safeguards, of financial markets, of financial institutions and mostly of leadership at many levels. We will leave the talk of fixing the blame to others. That is not very interesting. But we must be involved in fact in fixing the problem.”

You would think after failing on so many levels, the school that provides more business leaders than any other might feel some remorse. Not in the least. It’s onwards and upwards, with the very people who blew apart the world’s financial plumbing now demanding to fix the leak.

You can draw up a list of the greatest entrepreneurs of recent history, from Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google and Bill Gates of Microsoft, to Michael Dell, Richard Branson, Lak-shmi Mittal – and there’s not an MBA between them.

Yet the MBA industry continues to grow, and business schools provide vital income to academic institutions: 500,000 people around the world now graduate each year with an MBA, 150,000 of those in the United States, creating their own management class within global business.

Given the present chaos, should-n’t we be asking if business education is not just a waste of time, but actually damaging to our economic health?

If doctors or lawyers wreaked such havoc in their own professions, we would certainly reconsider what is being taught at medical and law schools.

During my time at the school, 50 students were chosen to participate in a detailed survey of their development. Scott Snook, the professor who ran it, reported that about a third of students were inclined to define right and wrong simply in terms of what everyone else was doing.

“They can’t really step back and take a critical view,” he said. “They’re totally defined by others and by the outcomes of what they’re doing.”

A group of people unable to see their actions in the broader context of the society they inhabit have no business being self-regulating. Yet in the financial services industry this is pretty much what they demanded and to a large extent got – with catastrophic consequences.

The happiest in my cohort, which graduated into the rosy economic conditions of 2006, are now certainly those who went off to do the unfashionable jobs: a friend who spurned Wall Street to join a Mid-western industrial firm, and now finds himself running the agricultural division of an Indian conglomerate; one who joined a foundation promoting entrepreneurship; one who went into Boston city government, another who moved to Russia to run a cinema chain.

However, these were the rarities: 42% of my class went into financial services and another 21% into consulting, both wretched sectors to be in today and for the foreseeable future.

Applications to business schools in America and Europe are broadly up, as people search for a safe haven from the recession. What are they thinking? Many MBA jobs will not be coming back. Students who stump up more than £60,000 for a two-year MBA can expect a long wait to make that back.

For those about to graduate from business school, these are grim times. Financial and consulting firms, which used to soak up two-thirds of the MBAs from top schools, have all but vanished from campuses. Suddenly jobs in government and at nonprofit organisations are in hot demand from students who used to consider them laughably underpaid.

A dose of modesty among MBAs and business schools is long overdue. But it’s not going to come from Harvard. Light, told his audience in October: “The need for leadership in the world today is at least as great as it has ever been. The need for what we do is at least as great as it has ever been.”

A bold claim to which many might say: please, spare us.

UberBama And The Ubercrats

2009-03-13T01:11:00.001-05:00

One of the great legacies of the Nazi’s Third Reich was the idea that modern, educated man, could create an ubermensch, a kind of best man or superman. That baton was picked up by the Soviets and later, by many western leftists.

The creation of the ubermensch is always predicated on being representative of the best of man’s ideals. The Nazis believed that the Aryan ubermensch would serve as an example to those lesser untermenschen, freeing them from degenerate art, music and values. The Aryan ubermenschen were to be the world’s leaders for one thousand years. They and they alone, knew what was best for mankind, and they would reshape the world and mankind with their values- and woe unto anyone or group that saw things differently or provided even a perceived threat. The comparisons to our times are inevitable and unmistakable.

There are a few truths shared by many of today's Ubercrats and the Nazis, Soviets and others that seek to create the ubermensch. There is an unassailable truth; to create an ubermensch, you have to first have to embrace the notion of the totalitarian state, where behavior and thoughts are controlled by the state. In an authoritarian state, it is only behaviors are subject to state control. That may seem harsh but, when the Ubercrats derisively refer to Republicans as belonging to a 'culture of corruption' or disparage anyone who finds themselves at odds with their ideas and agenda, the conclusions are inescapable. They want you to think in a certain way.

Like the Nazis and Soviets before them, many of today’s Ubercrats understand the credibility of an academic imprimatur. That seal of approval is an important foundation stone of a totalitarian state. The Nazis and the Soviets each denied reality and truth in their academic institutions. As an example, the Germans created a kind of ubermensch, a phony science of racialism taught and endorsed by scientists. They attempted to bestow upon astrology and the occult a legitimate scientific status. Al Gore would feel right at home- 'Disagree with me and my science and you are irrelevant and immoral.' Gore is the high priest of environmental hypocrisy- and the Ubercrats dance on.

The Soviets embraced the ‘truth’ of the happy worker, toiling away for the betterment of the State- even if they had to ignore reality and kill tens of millions to propagate that ‘truth.’ Today's Ubercrats embrace the phony truth of multiculaturalism and moral relativism, as if their world were a Sesame Street Utopia. The leftists ignore reality. They embrace and apologize for terrorist butchers and tyrants, blind to the blood pooling at their feet and the millions of hopeless lives they willingly abandon.

The art (read: approved) of the day depicting the happy and healthy worker toiling on the collective farm, was a myth codified and sanctified by Soviet ‘economists,’ all touting the failures of the latest Five Year Plan as successes. Ubercrat economists, like their leftist predecessors tout bailout and stimulus failure as success, much in the way Hamas declared 'victory' over Israel in the recent Gaza confrontation.

There are no images of the Soviet gulag. That reality could no more be made to disappear than Nazi concentration camps. That kind of ugliness was no more real art than Alicia Shvarts and her 'abortion art' efforts, hailed by progressives as 'important'.

Many leftists and Ubercrats now desperately seek the credibility of an academic imprimatur, before their biases and lies are realized. Universities are filled with leftist ubermensch professors for whom ideology is more important than truth. Like their German and Soviet predecessors, leftist and Ubercrat ideologues do little to hide their agenda, or contempt for those who still embrace reality and truth. Leftist ideologues embrace moral relativism, equating all moralities. Leftist ideologues are threatened by religion, because religion might mean a lessened loyalty to their cause- or whatever cause du jour they espouse at a particular time. Leftist ideologues are threatened by any standard of measurement- because they fear they might be measured and found wanting. That too, is why leftists embrace the illusion of multiculturalism- that all cultures are equal, with none better than the other. The fear of measurement and comparison is real.

Leftist ideologues fear and despise capitalism because capitalism allows for the freedom and self expression of each individual, ideas anathema to leftist ideologues. Like the Nazis and Soviet communists before them, it is their vision and their vision only that is acceptable. Deviate even a bit and you become an ‘enemy of the state.’ Just ask anyone who questioned President Obama's bailout package- a bill that was expected to be supported prior to anyone even reading it.

The Nazis, Soviets, leftists and Ubercrats share a common trait. In their goal to create an ubermensch and an ubermensch society, they had to become untermenschen, adopting racist, repressive tactics so as to promote and steamroll their agendas. The Ubercrats talk about integrity and responsibility even as they wallow in porkonomics.

The leftists and Ubercrats do not see themselves as inheritors of the evil ugliness that was the Nazi and Soviet ubermenschen. They wrap themselves in the words of documents of higher calling and the most noble of causes. That said, what they do not see or acknowledge are the repercussions of their support for failed ideologies, beautiful documents and proclaimed statements notwithstanding. The legacy of German and Soviet ideologies are the unmarked graves of the tens of millions of the forgotten dead. Killed because they were in the way as the caring ‘progressives’ marched on. There are tens of millions more, still suffering under the boot of ‘progressive’ oppression- and that is of little concern to the Ubercrats- but only as long as they vote for the Ubercrats.

The Soviets were to create a worker’s paradise, where the bounty was plentiful and the society Utopian. Today’s leftists and Ubercrats want to destroy the evils of capitalism and American and democratic successes- and they don't give a damn about who will get hurt in the process.

Dr Sanity notes in Come For The Egalitarianism, Stay For The Bestiality And Tyranny,

So, many times in politics, programs that originate with the “best of intentions” end up doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. Yet, the political left is so ideologically committed to the utopian ideal of egalitarianism which, in the real world simply makes everyone equally poor and miserable (except for the lucky elites who control the social system) that they reflexly keep pouring money into programs that can be shown to actively harm the people they are meant to help; and reinforce the stereotypes they are meant to end.

The politically correct left heaps scorn on business, capitalism, free trade, and globalization; and instead glorify and praise the most primitive and barbaric of cultures and cultural practices. As Bob suggests, they come for the egalitarianism, but stay for the bestiality and tyranny they unleash with their “progressive” ways.

If they really cared about helping the poor; if they really cared about social “justice”–then they would shut the hell up and get out of the way of those evil, greedy capitalistic bastards, who, while pursuing their own selfish, profit-making agendas, in the long run effortlessly manage to increase the standard of living and improve the lives of everyone around them.

If the left really cared about the ‘victims’ of oppression, they would position themselves as human shields in Darfur. They are content to be ‘human shields’ in Gaza or the West Bank because they know the Israelis will not deliberately target them, unlike the murderous and barbaric janjaweed in Darfur, who don’t really give a damn. If the left and the Ubercrats really cared about the well being of oppressed people, they would actively engage in efforts to empower them, rather than just talk about them as they spent their money promoting their porkonomics, political agendas and ideologies.

It is an unequivocal truth that Utopias cannot be created without imposing tyranny- and that seems to bother President Uberbama not in the least.

Imaginary Islamist Think-Tanks

2009-03-12T21:10:00.000-05:00

From Standpoint, a look at how Islamists game the system:

Despite what the pessimists say, there is one industry that is still flourishing in the UK. It consists of Islamists establishing their own think-tanks and pressure groups. They serve little purpose other than to bestow legitimacy upon ill-informed, extremist Muslim speakers, who can then attend conferences and get media access under the façade of expertise.

This is a surprisingly easy bandwagon to jump on. Come up with an intellectual-sounding name for your organisation, buy a website domain and give yourself an impressive-sounding job title. This was the route taken by Hamas cheerleader Azzam Tamimi. He recently addressed the prestigious UK Defence Academy, is a regular contributor to the Guardian website, and once told the BBC that suicide bombing in Palestine "is the straight way to pleasing my God and I would do it if I had the opportunity". He describes himself as Director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought (IIPT). The domain registered to the IIPT says it has a website "coming soon" (it has been coming since 2007), but meanwhile offers you the chance to download Tamimi's CV. What exactly it is that he is meant to be directing remains unclear. What is beyond doubt is that Tamimi uses the IIPT to try to couch his views in an aura of academic respectability.

Then there is Anjem Choudary, former leader of the banned extremist group Al-Muhajiroun, who according to CNN called the 9/11 terrorist attacks "magnificent" and boasted that "the black flag of Shariah will fly over Downing Street". Choudary was a regular on the BBC in the wake of 7/7, last year spoke at the National Liberal Club on the need for Sharia in the UK, and calls himself a Principal Lecturer at the London School of Shariah. This consists of Choudary driving around east London trying to find people to preach his version of Sharia to. It is probably the first, and only, school in the world to be based in the back of a van.
However, the group which has probably obtained a credibility most disproportionate to its worth is the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK). Describing itself as a "unique empowerment system" with a "non-violent focus on Jihad", MPACUK has propelled its founder Asghar Bukhari into a position of some prominence. He is regularly consulted on Muslim issues by Sky and the BBC, who once even labelled him a "moderate". MPACUK regularly launches diatribes against the pervasive influence of the insidious "Israel lobby" in Britain and the US. Bukhari himself recently accused "Zionists" of murdering "little children for sport", adding that "any Muslim who fights against Israel and dies is a martyr and will be granted paradise".

These groups are taking advantage of a desire to "engage" with the extremist fringe in the spirit of "increased dialogue". Yet for such extremists, belligerence alone is no longer enough to get their voices heard. It must now be complemented with claims of academic respectability and of representing the Muslim community. No matter how tenuous these claims may be, it is an effective tactic. Increasingly, their views are not being placed under scrutiny; they are being put on a pedestal.

Moses Obama

2009-03-12T19:07:00.001-05:00

What Set Bernie Madoff Apart?

2009-03-12T16:57:00.001-05:00

The Moderates

2009-03-12T14:58:00.001-05:00

Don't Write Off America

2009-03-12T13:58:00.001-05:00

Is America really in decline? Many say yes but it just may not be the time to bet the farm on that outcome. A world without America would be a very different place.

Standpoint:

The decline of America has been long predicted, though rarely with such enthusiasm as in recent times. The election of a president seen as embodying hope, not just for America but the West, should moderate the declinists' fervour, although I doubt if it will. Their will to see America go down is too great, and they can comfort themselves with the hope that the US may be too far gone economically and the rising powers too well advanced for Barack Obama to make too much difference...
What most declinists want is for America to stop being American and for its citizens to transform themselves into full-blown Europeans, with a socialist economy, a pacifist foreign policy and the rest. In other words, the US should recognise itself as a botched enterprise and come home, spiritually speaking, to what the former Secretary for Defence Donald Rumsfeld called "old Europe". To some, the Obama election will seem a first step in that homebound journey, with his closure of Guantánamo, his readiness to talk to Iran, his nuclear disarmament offer to the Russians, his banning of "water-boarding" and encouragement of stem-cell research. I suspect they are wrong. Culturally, politically and psychologically Obama does not strike as me a European manqué - no one from Chicago ever has.
There is something neurotic in Europe's view of the US, something perpetually out of kilter. Think of the crush on Bill Clinton felt by many women, the demonising of Bush and now Obamamania. We seem unable to get a cool, factual grip on the country, one that is free of fashion, inchoate historical resentments or delusions of superiority. Neurotic too - in the sense of arbitrary and unstable - is our view of American culture and society. It is possible to say anything and its opposite about the US and still command instant agreement. They are pinched Puritans and simultaneously sexually depraved, religious maniacs sold out to hedonism and materialism. America is a country of individualist greed and self-seeking, a place where egotism has reached the point where philanthropists publicly vie with one another to throw billions at museums, the arts, medical research, charities and international aid. Its popular culture is crass and degenerate except when it is black or radical. And its tendency towards obesity is as imbecilic as its dedication to the gym...
The excesses of America's home-bred Americanophobes, such as Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal, are almost rational by comparison, in the sense that a revulsion against the self is a natural phenomenon, a sort of legitimate point of view especially in a guilt-ridden Puritanical psychology...
The attempt to write off democracy in America, one of the greatest achievements of humankind (what other country is capable of mounting an election campaign like the one we have just witnessed?) as a self-evident failure, in contrast to the vibrant new protectionist Europe to come, and to obliterate American successes in science and technology, could be dismissed as so extreme as to be irrelevant to the debate...
For a sane view of the USA you have to look to Americans themselves, just as you look to them for the best science, the best orchestras, novelists, architects, art historians and (so I am told) classicists...
Do America's critics actively want to see Russia and China pulling more strings in the world, and America fewer?
...In the Middle East, it may be right to talk more to Iran or Syria, although with all due scepticism and caution. After all, Europe's "wiser-than-thou" diplomacy in the area does not appear to have made a whit of difference to Iran's nuclear development, apart from buying her time for a bit more uranium enrichment. And while our press runs political glamour pieces on President Bashar al-Assad, he remains hand-in-glove with Hizbollah and shows few signs of reforming an odious regime. How safe would you feel in a multipolar world underpinned in the Middle East by a country avid for a nuclear weapon and whose president has religious visions while addressing the United Nations?

Read it all.

Obama, Even In Private

2009-03-12T12:32:00.000-05:00

The PC Cartoonists

2009-03-12T12:02:00.000-05:00

One Tired Marine

2009-03-12T11:16:00.000-05:00

From Robert A Hall, Marine veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate.

I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years.. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired -very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them-with their own money.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won't multiculturalism be beautiful?

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor;" of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin." I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, Colon Powell or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fund raising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, Were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure.

Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years-and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal.

I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian.

Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers-bums are bi-partisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63.. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making.

I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

21st Century Philosophy

2009-03-12T09:32:00.000-05:00

Poli Sci 101 For Obama: Why Democracy Works And Socialism Fails

2009-03-11T23:53:00.002-05:00

Why isn't there a single example of a successful 'People's Paradise'? How is it that the best of intentioned revolutionaries was never able to produce a functional society? Why is it that societies that espouse economic equality and predicated on well meaning ideals, either secular or religious, have proved to be abject failures?

Socialists mistakenly believe that a collective 'unity' of belief, thought and ideology empower a society. Their strength, they believe, are in the numbers of those who share their ideologies. Socialists believe that they have every right to design a society based on what they believe is in the best interest of that society. They also believe that an unwillingness to conform to their ideals, poses a threat and quite possibly, a danger.

For today’s liberal elites and their Democrat hangers on, it is about ‘the color of one’s skin’ and not the ‘content of character. It is about image and not substance. The deliberate obfuscation continues and the blurring of reality continues. Mr Obama indicts America as self absorbed and drunk with materialistic inclinations. President Obama wants Americans to believe that if only they would unite under his banner, all would be well with America and the world.

The Obama message, right out of the socialist playbook, is populist and intoxicating to leftists everywhere. Why? Because the promise of equal opportunity pales in comparison to the promise of the equal distribution of wealth.

The Socialist state takes a dim view of anyone or group that might demand lower taxes, or changes in the state welfare benefits. Just recently, millions of Frenchmen turned out to protest an employers right to fire them from their jobs- even if their job performance was sub par.

The Socialists naturally see themselves as 'progressive.' They believe their way of viewing the world is an improvement over the 'old way'- hard work for greater personal gain, for example (it is interesting to note how 'progressives' have aligned themselves with Hollywood- the most narcissistic and self centered group of people on the planet. They are also among the most removed from the real world, believing themselves to be a kind of aristocracy, entitled to material things others would have to pay for. There is much truth to the old saying. 'You are known by the company you keep.' The 'progressives' have made clear their attachment to the phony aristocracy of Hollywood trumps the relationship they might have with the rest of us, 'the little people.'

Of course, the 'progressives' cannot argue that the greatest philosophers and thinkers were free to think and present their cases. It is they, the progressives, who want to present their own versions of history, religion and ideologies. Disagree with them and the wrath of the State will come down on you.

In reality, the 'progressives' are actually regressive. It is because of the single minded, lockstep thinking that we find ourselves in the messes we are in. They believe in the 'My way or the highway' kind of thinking. Disagree with them and the world is coming to an end. The vitriol and visceral hatred of the current administration is a good example. No difference of opinion will be tolerated. Disagree and the well oiled machine of personal destruction comes out. The Democrat controlled House and Senate spectacularly shower themselves with selfish pork barrel politics in these tough economic times, caring little for the shame they heap upon the nation in the eyes of the world.

Tens, if not hundreds of millions have died because of 'My way or the highway' ideologies. Disagree with the powers that be or want to be, and there are calls of “Death to…”. Disagree loud enough and you are marked for death. We all got a taste of that as the cartoon riots unfolded. It was 'My way or the highway' ideologies unleashed on democratic societies.

'My way or the highway' is a nothing more than a regression to a more barbaric time, when disputes, disagreements and different ideas were settled only when blood was spilled. That is a derivative of 'My way or the highway.' Mankind evolved and advanced when societies came to tolerate those with different ideas and beliefs. We advanced because we allowed each of us the freedom the opportunity to achieve whatever it was we were capable of in any endeavor we chose. No one told us what to do, what to think or what to invent. The Soviets produced engineers by the millions. They built the world's largest hotel, the Rossiya, in Moscow, meant to be showcase of Soviet superiority. There are walls that are crooked and floors that are uneven. It is true the Russians led early on in the space race. It is also true that many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, died over the years because money that was spent on the space race was diverted from providing food to Soviet citizens. That malaise infected Communist eastern Europe. Once a net exporter of grain, Poland reached a point where she could barely feed herself. To put that in perspective, at one time, Poland grew more grain than France or Canada.

Western democracies have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that living in a free and tolerant society creates a culture of progress and the free exchange of idea thoughts and ideas- realities that frighten the dysfunctional leaders of the region. Socialist states are nothing more than a monument to failure. Replacing democracy in favor of a socialist agenda is a deliberate choice to embrace failure. Those who choose that kind of fate are not the empathetic figures they want you to believe they are.

the entire raison d’etre of the left is wrapped up in identity alone. This is anathema to citizens of a real democracy, people who define themselves by their efforts, work and achievement- and the freedom to have independent and differing opinions and views.

Free societies evolved and political expression advanced when those societies came to tolerate those with different ideas and beliefs. We advanced because we allowed each of us the freedom the opportunity to achieve whatever it was we were capable of in any endeavor we chose. No one told us what to do, what to think or what to invent. In free societies, possibilities were open to all, irrespective of their political persuasion.

The Left leaning administration and Congress of today take a dim view of anyone or group who might question the distribution of stimulus money, demand lower taxes or demands for any kind of accountability. Leftists today wants to saddle the citizen with a bigger load and a more intrusive government. Why? Because a lesser burden on the individual and less control of the individual by the state empower the individual. In the Leftist state any kind of individualism and real self expression, empowered or otherwise, represents a threat to the state.

The western Judeo-Christian democracies understand why free democracies succeed over socialist states. We have accepted freedom and democracy as a way of life and as a result our societies prosper and progress and the market place of free thoughts and ideas flourish. Socialists see freedom and democracy for what they are, societies that value independent thinking and creativity. They rightly understand that to be a threat to their power structure and thus insist on uniformity of thought and state approved belief structures.

Mr President, is this what you really want for America?

A Million Ways In, Only One Way Out: Where Women Secretly Go Online

2009-03-11T21:39:00.001-05:00

'Since time immemorial, when men have messed up, they've been sent here.'

Beware of the doghouse.

Bird Brained Stimulus

2009-03-11T14:57:00.007-05:00

Obama’s Favorite Candy Bar

2009-03-11T12:47:00.000-05:00

Extra Strength Obama

2009-03-11T11:58:00.001-05:00

Confusion And A Crumbling Nation

2009-03-11T05:23:00.000-05:00

America and Americans are confused.

Since our inception as a nation, we and our allies have been confronted by adversaries and antagonists, all easily identified by perverted agendas designed to thwart democratic values or ideas that would subjugate millions. There was a time when our nation had great clarity. Now, we are confused. It seems we cannot identify those ideas and leaders that ought to be repulsive and immediately rejected.

Our adversaries take offense when we point out blatant examples of outrageous, repressive, oppressive and murderous behavior. We back away, chastising our own ‘insensitivity.’ We are told that we are hated for our very existence- and we cannot or wil not refute those absurdities. The good we have done, the gifts we have brought forth mean nothing.

When we are taken to task by brutish and cruel leaders of failed nation-states, we are ashamed. We are laughed at because of our confusion and how easily we can be manipulated.

In a way, this confusion is a part of the human condition. We defy our realities so that we might be something we cannot be, someone other than ourselves. We will deny truth, logic and even our own collective nature in that pursuit. We live in the here and now, dealing with our realities and our lives. All the while, we want to be elsewhere or to be someone else in a place and time, where and when our ‘inner greatness’ is immediately recognized and appreciated. All that is missing is the road map, the American Idol competition that might recognize our magnificence. Many will fight with great ferocity to defend our ambiguity and refusal to take a stand and many care little who gets hurt in the process.

The struggle with the tentative ‘would have, should have,’ that so aptly defines a cultural malaise is played out every day. Those who sure of themselves and their beliefs or take comfort in them, are suspect outsiders. What is wrong with them?

Rather than seek real solutions to real problems that affect real people that can be addressed and solved with hard work, there is a collective lemming-like drive to find ‘inner peace.’ Myopic New Age religions, Yoga, mystical expressions of faith have all supplanted the need for good works. Anything that does not demand commitment and accountability is good. Any expression of faith that requires accountability and real commitment is bad. We do not need to answer to God. It his He/She/It that needs to answer to us. God, the Master Of The Universe And Creator has no business making demands on us.

The only clarity is that we must be tolerant and forgiving of those who say God told them to kill us (See We’re The Problem And Other Fantasies for the absurdity of such thinking).

Free societies and civilizations are distinguished by how they see the world and in how they problem solve. They value life, knowledge and morality, in that order.

Life is understood in the finite and infinite expression. When we encounter death in our lives, we realize that our infinite existence is not a possibility. Intellectually, we know this to be an absolute truth. With greater knowledge, our understanding of our finite selves is increased. Nevertheless, we seek immortality. We look for ways to extend our physical existence and we are willing to do just about anything to find that elusive fountain of youth.

Our quest for that fountain does not really represent a quest for longevity. Despite our intellectual awareness and an ever increasing body of knowledge, what we really seek is immortality. We want to defy and deny the truth about ourselves and about the finite creatures we are. Even as our longevity has increased, so has our obsession with immortality. Medicine and lifestyle can indeed give us a few more years and cosmetic surgery can create all kinds of illusions. Still, no matter all our efforts, we cannot defy nature. We are not meant for immortality.

How tragically confused one must be to believe that longevity is the mark of a quality life.Western nations measure the quality of life in terms of age and lifespan. There is no measure of the meaningfulness of life.

In addition to the pursuit of life, western man seeks knowledge. In addition to immortality, he wants to be in possession of all the mysteries of the universe.

Next to life itself, man seeks infinity in the field of knowledge. He wants not only to be immortal, but to have boundless knowledge. It is true we have made great strides in our knowledge base, but we are barely scratching the surface of the secrets of the cosmos. Those for whom longevity and the obsessive search for knowledge are paramount, will be long forgotten.

The final human endeavor in which man seeks to leave a mark is in his expression of morality. It is in this arena that our failures are greatest.

The incongruity of our efforts are almost comical. On the one hand, we seek immortality. On the other hand, some seek to terminate the lives of those they feel have no quality of life. The same people who speak of moral and cultural relativism are often the very same people who believe that those who are a burden to them may be removed. They will go to great lengths to accommodate and make room for others, yet they will not tolerate those near and dear who might be a ‘burden.’

If man put as much effort into seeking a moral immortality as he does in seeking a physical immortality, the world would be a much better place.

Mankind can essentially be divided into two camps: One camp (western society) has come to see no morality other than the kind that serves the self. The other camp sees morality in imposing one set of beliefs over another, be they religious or political at any and all costs and force if necessary. That is why Communism and religious fundamentalism are so appealing to many: They require self discipline and commitment, two very human desires. The western pursuit of pleasure is counter intuitive (we want immortality and uber morality but we aren’t willing to rid ourselves of the pleasurable behaviors and adopt the necessary discipline and commitment to achieve that immortality and morality. Then, we blame others for our weaknesses and bad behavior). ‘We are doomed to fail’ is a mantra instilled in children today.

America’s participation in the first World War was predicated on the belief that we were making the world safe for democracy. In the second World War, we saw our participation as necessary to save the world from real slavery and oppression. As we and our allies pushed the Nazi forces back, we were seen by those we liberated as saviors. There was no moral ambiguity whatsoever. The Cold War was not fought for sovereignty of Siberia, but rather, to maintain the sovereignty over our beliefs.

Today, America is not so sure of herself. When faced by oppressive and repressive regimes that are no different than those evil regimes of the past, we falter and hesitate.

We are in a word, confused.

There was a time when China was understood to be among the most oppressive regimes in the world. Today we trade with China and break bread with them as if they were our moral equals. Political oppression is still rampant, tens of thousands of state sanctioned murders occur every year, prisoners are shot so that their organs might be harvested and Chinese miners are not given safety equipment because the regime has done the math. Replacing coal miners is cheaper than keeping them alive.

There was a time when African Americans were invisible in this nation. Now, universities have entire programs that dwell on ‘blackness.’ We went from fighting to include minorities into our nation to fighting to exclude minorities from our melting pot. The pendulum swings are extreme.

The American nation has much to be proud of and very little to be confused about.

Our greatest moments as a nation and people have always been the result of not caring about our personal longevity, not caring about what the books said what and wasn’t possible and about not caring about a morality that was self centered.

We built a nation with wretched refuse that made this country their home (see Culture Character And Cheese and Democracies Don’t Care). They may have come from elsewhere, but America was the place millions wanted to make home. They saw this nations certainty and commitment to freedom as another kind of Rock of Ages. They saw a nation that while not perfect, was a nation ‘whose best days were yet to come.’

Immigrants came- and still come- with the express desire to participate, to have his opr her voice heard. Immigrants can be active participants in whatever political party or organization they desire. They are free to passionately argue their beliefs with neighbors who speak their language and other neighbors who don’t, free of the fear of retribution. Immigrants are not confused about what America stands for and for whom she will stand up. America is not a terrible place as the lines for residency visas attest. No one in those lines really sees what America stands for as ambiguous or confused.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to symbolize America to the world. He was a not perfect and certainly flawed. Nevertheless, when the Nazi threat to Europe was at it’s darkest, Roosevelt behaved in a way that was quintessentially American. At great personal risk to his political career, he lied to Congress outright so that Europe might be saved from Nazi tyranny. He cared little about his physical limitation. He cared less about what his diplomats (including Joe Kennedy) said about not getting involved and he cared least of all about the self serving isolationist morality that enveloped the nation.

FDR represented American moral certainty to a fearful world. Had the American president been Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover- two fine men- the swastika would have flown over the capitals of the Continent and Europeans would have been enslaved.

World War Two was FDR’s second victory. He stemmed the tide of Communism on these shores during the depression by feeding the poor and hungry. He tied the nation together with roads, electricity and national parks. demonstrated in front of the White House, but their pleas fell on empty ears. The secret answer was that the Jewish situation should not be brought to prominence because it would hinder the war effort, and a conference between Roosevelt and Eisenhower rejected the plan to bomb the concentration camps. Thus, the Jewish confidence in people was shattered.

Confusion can be helpful when it inspires a cathartic experience. We can find meaning, clarity and direction. Those liberating results come about only when we seek a higher purpose. We have to seek not more confusion, but less so that our lives however long or short have meaning. We have to seek knowledge that enhances our meaning and existence and we have to seek a morality that elevates ourselves and others at the same time. We cannot allow a pretend morality to immobilize us. We have to be sure of ourselves, of we are, in what we stand for and in what direction we must forge ahead.

America is not a perfect place, of course. That said, it is incumbent on us to make it better. That is the real legacy of the ‘wretched refuse.’

We wrote

Of the almost 7 billion people on this planet, only 300 million are Americans. To put that in perspective, less than 5% of the population of this planet are Americans- and yet, the world is obsessed with our existence and what we represent. In the course of just over 200 years, we have provided the world with ideas, contributions and realities that are in the consciousness of every human being on the planet. Given our numbers and short history, we should not have had this profound influence on history and mankind- and yet, we have. The secret to our our successes and influence can be attributed to one powerful word: Freedom.

That is a truth we ought never be confused about.

For a terrific- and related- look at the America we have become, see Dr Sanity’s superb Beyond Parody.

Bad News For The 9/11 Troofers: ‘We are terrorists to the bone’

2009-03-10T18:22:00.001-05:00

Bad news for the 9/11 troofers. The terrorists just won't cooperate.

Associated Press:

The self-professed mastermind and four other men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks declared they are "terrorists to the bone" in a statement that mocked the U.S. failure to prevent the killings and predicted America will fall like "the towers on the blessed 9/11 day."

In a rambling response to the government's case, the men also sought to justify the attacks, citing a violent interpretation of Islam and a series of grievances against the U.S., including support for Israel, the Iraq war and abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and in Guantanamo.

"To us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride," the men wrote in the six-page document, which was released Tuesday by a military judge over the objections of the Pentagon-appointed lawyers for two of the men.

"So, you are the first class war criminals," they added, "and the whole world witnesses this."

The five, who are among 245 prisoners held at the U.S. military lockup on Cuba, include Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the professed architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, and Ramzi Binalshibh, allegedly one of his key lieutenants in al-Qaida.

Both men previously said they were proud of their role in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon — and all five had said they wanted to plead guilty. But this is their most detailed statement to date.

The men do not go into details of their roles in the plot, but they call the charge of conspiracy "laughable" and mock U.S. authorities for being unable to prevent the attacks. "Blame yourselves and your failed intelligence apparatus."

They also predict defeat for the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan and the overall collapse of America. "Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day."

The five, who could face the death penalty if convicted on charges that include murder and terrorism, were at a pretrial hearing in Guantanamo when President Barack Obama abruptly suspended all war-crimes proceedings pending a review of the much-criticized system for prosecuting terrorists created by Congress and the Bush administration.

They will still be tried, but under what type of system has not yet been determined. The proceedings, however, will probably not be at Guantanamo since Obama has ordered the detention center closed within a year.

Three of the defendants have been acting as their own lawyers but two of the men, Binalshibh and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, still have Pentagon-appointed military attorneys pending a court ruling on whether they are mentally competent to represent themselves.

Their lawyers, Army Maj. Jon Jackson and Navy Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, said they had not met with their clients to discuss the document and cannot say what may have motivated the men to sign it — or even vouch for its authenticity. They said the judge should not have released it.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon called the filing "merely another attempt by these detainees to garner publicity."

Others said the statement provide some insight into the defendants.

"We must never be complacent about this hateful, hateful group of individuals who are out to harm us," said Maureen Santora, whose New York City firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center. "They are unrelenting in their mission to destroy America."

Brian Jenkins, a senior adviser on terrorism at the RAND Corp., said the statement appears to be aimed at attracting support and recruits abroad by portraying the men as Muslim warriors defending a religion under siege.

"You have to continue to campaign even while you are in captivity, and the way to do that is to broadcast your beliefs so you will inspire others," Jenkins said.

Flagg Miller, a professor of religious studies at the University of California, Davis, said he was struck by the language of the Sept. 11 defendants, who write more harshly than the top al-Qaida leaders seeking to portray themselves in a more diplomatic light as defenders of world justice.

Miller said he was struck by such phrases as "We are terrorists to the bone," which suggests a dramatic attempt to shock the public and sow fear.

"It's saying 'If this is where the roller coaster is going, then we're going to ride it to the end," said Miller, who has been analyzing thousands of hours of tapes of Osama bin Laden. "This is a performance, and they are good at it."

Freeman: China Ties Revealed

2009-03-10T16:49:00.001-05:00

From IBD:

National Security: It seems the foreign conflicts of interest to the man President Obama wants to oversee his eyes-only intelligence are worse than first reported. It's time for full disclosure.

We recently argued (The Wrong Man For The Job) that National Intelligence Council appointee Chas Freeman's cozy ties with China and Saudi Arabia should disqualify him from heading the group that prepares the U.S. intelligence community's most sensitive reports.

Freeman will have access to America's closest guarded secrets and draft the consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies regarding foreign threats to U.S. security.

Now we learn that, in addition to co-chairing the pro-China lobby's U.S. China Policy Foundation, he sits on the international advisory board of the Beijing-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corp.

CNOOC has invested in Sudan, Iran and other terror states, and for these and other security reasons, it was blocked from buying U.S. energy giant Unocal in 2004.

Obama during the presidential campaign scolded a McCain adviser for lobbying work he did for CNOOC.

As we previously noted, Freeman also heads the Saudi-backed Middle East Policy Council, which paid him close to $90,000 in 2006 and received at last $1 million from a Saudi prince, as well as heavy funding from the bin Laden family.

Freeman at the same time runs a consulting firm, Projects International Inc., which did Mideast deals with the bin Ladens even after 9/11. Another client, Gulf Catering Co., was accused of offering a $50,000 bribe to an Army officer in Iraq to win a U.S. military contract there.

These financial ties may explain why Freeman has steadfastly apologized for China and bashed Israel. He has said Beijing was too slow to crush the pro-democracy rebellion in Tiananmen, and has called a Chinese mainland takeover of Taiwan "very beneficial."

"As I understand it," he added, buying into Politburo propaganda, "the Chinese proposal would allow Taiwan to continue to choose its own leaders through elections, and would not assign any government personnel to the island from the mainland. Taiwan's newly democratized political system would not be affected by reunification."

Freeman, another Clinton retread, also apologized for Beijing's clumsy influence-buying during the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign, arguing China was simply trying to compete with the Taiwan lobby.

Freeman's Mideast policy views align conveniently with Riyadh's. Parroting the official Saudi line, Freeman has warned the U.S. will remain a terror target if it continues to support Israel's "brutal oppression of the Palestinians."

According to the Washington Times, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., and other members of Congress have asked an inspector general to look into Freeman's foreign ties.

While this is welcome news, it's already plain Freeman's foreign conflicts have affected his judgment.

He simply does not possess the objectivity that this high-level intelligence job demands.

Gaza: The "Right" To Development?

2009-03-10T02:59:00.000-05:00

The American Spectator:

"....description of Gaza's relative normalcy resembles my own experience. Some 30 years ago, I was a student, studying Arabic in Egypt. I first saw Gaza as we drove to Israel, a trip made possible by the recently-signed peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. As we arrived in Gaza, I was shocked: This is the fabled poverty of the Palestinians? Large parts of Cairo were more crowded, more impoverished."

In the early 1980s, the Strasbourg-based European Parliament held a conference on the "Right to Development," and I was the Reagan Administration's representative. Peter Berger, our regular delegate to these meetings, couldn't attend because, if memory serves, he was attending a torture conference. I suppose the reason I was chosen to replace him was because, as Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams' speechwriter in the State Department's Human Rights Bureau, I helped prepare some of the material critical of the Right to Development. (Another reason for my selection may have been the fact that this was not a very high-profile conference, so even if I made a fool of myself, not many would notice.)

The Right to Development was an attempt by such knavish Third World dictatorships as Cuba, Algeria and Libya to create a new, internationally recognized human right -- the right of all nations to full economic development -- equal in status to such well-established civil and political rights as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. The basic idea was that even if a regime systematically violated these rights, it still enjoyed an inalienable Right to Development.

Before going to Strasbourg, I promised myself that I wouldn't be an "Ugly American" throwing my weight around and dominating the proceedings, but would sit back and let the Europeans hash out their differences by themselves. This, I assumed, was what the Europeans themselves wanted -- but I was dead-wrong. After the French expert delivered an impassioned opening statement in support of the Right to Development, the Conference's Chairman -- a distinguished-looking Luxembourger --declared that it was now time to hear the American viewpoint, and looked expectantly at me.

When I am nervous, I tend to speak quickly, and I must have been very nervous that morning in Strasbourg, because the Chairman actually interrupted me at one point and asked me to slow down -- the translators were having trouble keeping up with my verbal torrent. In any event, the argument I made (more or less well) was that recognizing a human right also meant recognizing a corresponding obligation to enforce that right. For example, if I have a right to worship freely, and someone interferes with that right, then the government is obliged to step in and help me exercise my right. Similarly, if Cuba has a right to development, but remains sadly impoverished thanks to what enlightened opinion the world over recognizes as dastardly imperialist machinations, then the international community has an obligation to step in and help Cuba. That, I stressed, was the logic of the Right to Development. But did we really want to go down this road -- funding the world's worst dictatorships in the name of a newly concocted human right?

Although all of the other participants (with the surprising exception of the Swedish expert, who argued that human rights only belonged to individuals, and not to states) disagreed with me and strongly backed the Right to Development, we adjourned without achieving any sort of consensus. In that very limited sense, I suppose, my one and only foray into international diplomacy ended successfully.

But while the "Right to Development" has stalled, the Right to Development in Gaza has apparently won universal recognition. On March 2, the Egyptian government hosted an "International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Economy for the Reconstruction of Gaza." The Conference, attended by delegates from 71 states, raised $4.5 billion. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged $900 million.

Why is the international community so seized with the plight of Gaza? The conventional answer, that the people of Gaza are living in a virtual rubbish heap because of Israeli attacks, is false. As a recent visitor to Gaza, Yvonne Green, reported in the March 3 Jerusalem Post, "The Gaza I saw was societally intact. There were no homeless, walking wounded, hungry or undressed people. The streets were busy, shops were hung with embroidered dresses and gigantic cooking pots, the markets were full of fresh meat and beautiful produce…Mothers accompanied by a 13-year-old boy told me they were bored of leaving home to sit on rubble all day to tell the press how they'd survived…"

But even if Gazans were living in a rubble heap, why are Western nations obliged to help them out? After all, the Palestinians are part of the Arab world, Arab states are not exactly cash-poor and (so they never tire of telling us) are obsessed by Palestinian suffering. So why not let them pick up the tab for Gaza reconstruction, while we attend to our own needs?

But even if the Arabs were cash poor, why must we begin the Gaza reconstruction process now -- even before a ceasefire has been reached, and while Palestinian rockets continue to rain down on Israeli towns and villages? And why lift a finger to support the main beneficiary of the world's largesse -- the Hamas government of Gaza, a totalitarian regime that cynically uses its captive population as "human shields," while relentlessly seeking Israel's destruction?

Evidently, the world has bought into the logic of the Right to Development --not as a universal right for all (Darfurians and Tibetans, for example, need not apply) -- but as a right that applies solely to Palestinians. The reasoning goes like this: Palestinians have an inalienable right to development; Israeli aggression is preventing the Palestinians from exercising that right; Israel was foisted on the Arab world by the West -- therefore the West is indirectly responsible for Palestinian underdevelopment; hence, it must pay…and pay… and pay.

The only way out of this trap is for the West to tell the Arab states that it is their refusal to come to terms with Israel that is responsible for the Palestinian plight, and that it is therefore their responsibility, not ours, to fund Palestinian reconstruction. But no Western statesman (or stateswoman) has ever summoned up the courage to say anything so bold, and it is unlikely that anyone ever will.

Overfeeding Isn't The Cure

2009-03-09T19:07:00.002-05:00

Finally, Good Economic News

2009-03-09T17:20:00.000-05:00

What Obama Hasn't Changed

2009-03-09T15:20:00.000-05:00

Why People Go Vegetarian

2009-03-09T13:04:00.000-05:00

Obama Foreign Policy: "There’s nothing special about Britain"

2009-03-09T11:19:00.001-05:00

From The National Review Online:

Asked about the underwhelming reception given to Gordon Brown when he visited the White House last week, the “furious” unnamed official, who was involved in the planning of the meeting, declared:

There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.

It would be good to know who this official is, and whether the Secretary of State agrees with this insulting portrayal of the Anglo-American alliance — especially at a time when thousands of British soldiers are putting their lives on the line alongside their American allies in Afghanistan, while most of Europe sits on the sidelines. If the State Department doesn’t support the views expressed, it should disown them immediately.

Words matter when it comes to international diplomacy, and statements like this will only serve to raise major questions about the new administration’s commitment to maintaining a strong relationship with America’s closest ally.

Islam and the West: Lines of Demarcation

2009-03-08T23:26:00.000-05:00

From AzureOnline, a superb article on understanding ourselves, our culture and society and how and why we must defend our Judeo-Christian identity.

What it is about our civilization that causes such resentment, and why we must defend it.
The West today is involved in a protracted and violent struggle with the forces of radical Islam. This conflict is intensely difficult, both because of our enemy’s dedication to his cause, and also, perhaps most of all, because of the enormous cultural shift that has occurred in Europe and America since the end of the Vietnam War. Put simply, the citizens of Western states have lost their appetite for foreign wars; they have lost the hope of scoring any but temporary victories; and they have lost confidence in their way of life. Indeed, they are no longer sure what that way of life requires of them.

At the same time, they have been confronted with a new opponent, one who believes that the Western way of life is profoundly flawed, and perhaps even an offense against God. In a “fit of absence of mind,” Western societies have allowed this opponent to gather in their midst; sometimes, as in France, Britain, and the Netherlands, in ghettos which bear only tenuous and largely antagonistic relations to the surrounding political order. And in both America and Europe there has been a growing desire for appeasement: a habit of public contrition; an acceptance, though with heavy heart, of the censorious edicts of the mullahs; and a further escalation in the official repudiation of our cultural and religious inheritance. Twenty years ago, it would have been inconceivable that the archbishop of Canterbury would give a public lecture advocating the incorporation of Islamic religious law (shari’ah) into the English legal system. Today, however, many people consider this to be an arguable point, and perhaps the next step on the way to peaceful compromise.

All this suggests that we in the West stand on the edge of a dangerous period of concession, in which the legitimate claims of our own culture and inheritance will be ignored or downplayed in an attempt to prove our peaceful intentions. It will be some time before the truth will be allowed to play its all-important role of rectifying our current mistakes and preparing the way for the next ones. This means that it is more necessary than ever for us to rehearse the truth and come to a clear and objective understanding of what is at stake. I will, therefore, spell out in what follows some of the critical features of the Western inheritance which must be understood and defended in our current confrontation. Each of these features marks a point of contrast, and possibly of conflict, with the traditional Islamic vision of society, and each has played a vital part in creating the modern world. Islamist belligerence stems from having found no secure place in that world, and from turning for refuge to precepts and values that are at odds with the Western way of life. This does not mean that we should renounce or repudiate the distinguishing features of our civilization, as many would have us do. On the contrary, it means that we must be all the more vigilant in their defense…

No political order can achieve stability if it cannot call upon a shared loyalty, a “first-person plural” that distinguishes those who share the benefits and burdens of citizenship from those who are outside the fold. In times of war, the need for this shared loyalty is self-evident, but it is as necessary in times of peace, if people really are to treat their citizenship as defining their public obligations. National loyalty marginalizes loyalties to family, tribe, and faith, and places before the citizen, as the focus of his patriotic feeling, not a person or a group, but a country. This country is defined by a territory, and by the history, culture, and law that have made that territory ours. Nationality is composed of land, together with the narrative of its possession.

It is this form of territorial loyalty that has enabled people in Western democracies to exist side by side, respecting each other’s rights as citizens despite radical differences in faith and absent any bonds of family, kinship, or long-term local custom to sustain the solidarity between them. Such national loyalty is not known everywhere in the world, and certainly not in the places where Islamists are rooted. People sometimes refer to Somalia, for example, as a “failed state,” since it has no central government capable of making decisions on behalf of the people as a whole, or of imposing any kind of legal order. The real trouble with Somalia, however, is not that it is a failed state, but that it is a failed nation. It has never developed the kind of secular, territorial, and law-minded loyalty that makes it possible for a country to shape itself into a nation-state, and not simply an assembly of competing tribes and families.

The third central feature of Western civilization is Christianity. I have no doubt that it is the long centuries of Christian dominance in Europe which laid the foundations of national loyalty as a type above those of faith and family, and on which a secular jurisdiction and an order of citizenship could be founded. It may sound paradoxical to identify a religion as the major force behind the development of secular government. But we should remember the peculiar circumstances in which Christianity entered the world. The Jews of first-century Judea were a closed community, bound by a tight web of religious legalisms but nonetheless governed from Rome by a law which made no reference to any God, and which offered an ideal of citizenship to which every free subject of the empire might aspire…

Christianity is sometimes described as a synthesis of Jewish metaphysics and Greek ideas of political freedom. No doubt there is truth in this, given the historical context of its inception. And it is, perhaps, the Greek input into Christianity which is responsible for the fourth of the central features that I believe worthy of emphasis when addressing the Western confrontation with Islam: that of irony. There is already a developing streak of irony in the Hebrew Bible, one that is amplified by the Talmud. But there is a new kind of irony in Jesus’ judgments and parables, one which looks at the spectacle of human folly and wryly shows us how to live with it. A telling example of this is Jesus’ verdict in the case of the woman taken in adultery. “Let he who is without fault,” he says, “cast the first stone.” In other words, “Come off it. Haven’t you wanted to do what she did, and already done it in your hearts?” It has been suggested that this story is a late interpolation—one of many culled by early Christians from the store of inherited wisdom attributed to Jesus after his death. Even if that is true, however, it merely confirms the view that the Christian religion has made irony central to its message. This irony is shared by the great Sufi poets, especially Rumi and Hafiz, but it seems to be largely unknown in the schools of Islam that shape the souls of the Islamists. Theirs is a religion which refuses to see itself from the outside, and which cannot bear to be criticized, still less to be laughed at—something we have abundantly witnessed in recent times.

Indeed, this is nowhere more apparent than in the matter that called forth Jesus’ ironical judgment. Death by stoning is still officially endorsed in many parts of the Muslim world as a punishment for adultery, and in many Islamic communities women are treated as prostitutes as soon as they step out of the lines drawn for them by men. The subject of sex, which cannot be usefully discussed without a measure of irony, has therefore become a painful topic among Muslims, especially when confronted, as they inevitably are, by the lax morals and libidinous confusion of Western societies. The mullahs find themselves unable to think about women as sexual beings, and unable to think for very long about anything else. As a result, an enormous tension has developed in the Muslim communities of Western cities, with the young men enjoying the surrounding freedoms and the young women hidden away and often terrorized lest they do the same…

We in the West, and the English-speaking peoples preeminently, are heirs to a longstanding habit of free association, in which we join together in clubs, businesses, pressure groups, and educational foundations. This associative genius was particularly remarked upon by Tocqueville in his journeys through America, and it is facilitated by the unique branch of the English common law—equity and the law of trusts—which enables people to set up funds in common and to administer them without asking permission from any higher authority…

Association takes a very different form in traditional Islamic societies, however. Clubs and societies of strangers are rare, and the primary social unit is not the free association, but the family. Companies do not enjoy a developed legal framework under Islamic law, and it has been argued by Malise Ruthven and others that the concept of the corporate person has no equivalent in shares‘…

…how should we defend the West from Islamist terrorism? I shall suggest a brief answer to that question. First, we should be clear about what it is that we are and are not defending. We are not defending, for example, our wealth or our territory; these things are not at stake. Rather, we are defending our political and cultural inheritance, embodied in the seven features which I have singled out here for attention. Second, we should be clear that you cannot overcome resentment by feeling guilty or by conceding fault. Weakness provokes, since it alerts your enemy to the possibility of destroying you. We should therefore be prepared to affirm what we have, and to express our determination to hold on to it. That said, we must recognize that it is not envy but resentment that animates the terrorist. Envy is the desire to possess what the other has; resentment is the desire to destroy it. How do you deal with resentment? This is the great question that so few leaders of mankind have been able to answer…

Read it all.

Calling In To Work

2009-03-08T18:43:00.001-05:00

Calling In To Work

2009-03-08T18:43:00.000-05:00

PC Dining Decor

2009-03-07T22:52:00.000-05:00

Post Modern PC

2009-03-07T20:33:00.001-05:00

Preferred Stocks

2009-03-07T17:16:00.001-05:00

"You're Too Late"

2009-03-07T14:27:00.002-05:00

The J Shaped Recession

2009-03-07T10:00:00.000-05:00

You Can't Fix Stupid

2009-03-06T22:13:00.001-05:00

How The Meltdown Started

2009-03-06T18:26:00.002-05:00

PC Dining

2009-03-06T17:10:00.003-05:00

Politics and power: The Muslim factor in European politics

2009-03-06T14:03:00.000-05:00

JTA:

Viviane Teitelbaum was a new member of Brussels' regional legislature when she sponsored a bill in 2005 to renew the region's scientific and industrial research agreement with Israel.

Legislators had frozen the cooperation pact three years earlier to protest what they said was the Jewish state's inhumane response to the second Palestinian intifada. But when Teitelbaum's proposal came up for discussion at a committee meeting, she says she was shouted down by Socialist Party opponents.

"The only lawmakers who showed up to the meeting were Muslim," recalled Teitelbaum, a Jewish member of the Liberal Party. "They screamed insults at me, saying, 'Israel is a fascist country. You will never get this passed.' "

Later, at the actual vote, Teitelbaum again was shouted down. Her proposal was defeated.

Ten minutes later, she said, "We voted for an agreement between Libya and the Brussels region, and everyone supported it. It was very painful for me."

Although rarely discussed in Europe, the political impact and influence of the continent's growing Muslim population is playing an increasingly significant role in European politics. In some cases, politicians are catering to Muslim interests and concerns with an eye toward winning votes. In others, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant political parties are capitalizing on a backlash against Muslims to expand their power base.

With Muslims now roughly 5 percent of Europe's population and demographers predicting their proportion to double over the next 20 years due to birthrate disparities, their rising political awareness and ever-growing constituent base is likely to make them a factor in Europe's political constellation for decades to come.

Eventually that may translate into a tougher stance toward Israel, says Robin Shepherd, a senior research fellow at the London-based think tank Chatham House.

"As Muslims become more electorally significant, the obvious casualty is Israel," he said.

Many European politicians, particularly those from socialist parties, long have been strong critics of Israel's dealings with the Palestinians without any prodding from European Muslims.

When the streets of Europe exploded in January during Israel's 22-day operation against Hamas in Gaza, top European political figures were among those who participated in protests against the Israeli operation.

In Stockholm, the head of Sweden's Socialist Party and the country's former foreign minister joined 8,000 protesters Jan. 10 in a mostly Muslim demonstration full of anti-Israel slogans. In Spain, representatives of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero attended a rally in which some participants called for jihad, praised Hezbollah and cursed Israel. After the protest, which drew 100,000 people, the vast majority of them non-Muslims, the Israeli Embassy in Madrid took the rare step of openly chastising the prime minister for fueling anti-Israel anger.

Some analysts believe Europe's Muslims will exert further pressure on political leaders when it comes to Mideast policy.

"Muslim-related issues will be a growing focus and shaper of the European political scene," the U.S. National Intelligence Council noted in its forward-looking 2025 global trends report. "Ongoing societal and political tension over integration of Muslims is likely to make European policymakers increasingly sensitive to the potential domestic repercussions of any foreign policies for the Middle East, including aligning with the U.S. on policies seen as pro-Israeli."

Yet despite their rapid growth rate, Muslims will not be able to dictate foreign or domestic policy in Europe anytime soon, the report said.

For one thing, in some European countries up to 50 percent of Muslims do not have citizenship or national voting rights, according to some estimates.

Among Muslims in Europe generally, there is no hard data on what percentage are citizens with national voting rights, since European countries do not collect citizenship or immigration data by religion. Experts interviewed by JTA estimated that only about half of Europe's Muslims are citizens; those who are not include recent immigrants, those whose home countries prohibit dual citizenship and immigrants unable to meet stringent citizenship requirements. The proportions of Muslims who are citizens are higher in France and Britain, countries with long histories of Muslim immigration, and lower in Germany, where until 2000 the children of immigrants born in the country were not automatically granted citizenship.

The vast majority of Muslim immigrants to the continent hold legal residency permits, akin to green cards, which give them the right to vote in local elections but not national elections. In recent years, as concerns over the cultural integration of Europe's Muslim population have risen, some countries have made their citizenship tests much harder. In the Netherlands, applicants must demonstrate a certain level of financial independence and approval of Dutch values, such as affirmation of gender equality and tolerance of homosexuality.

Another factor limiting Muslim influence on European foreign policy is that the primary concerns of Muslims in Europe, who tend to be poorer than average, are economic, not religious issues, according to a 2006 Pew Research Center survey.

Rather than forming political parties of their own, Muslim voters have helped strengthen socialist and other left-leaning parties that cater to disadvantaged populations.

Nowhere is Muslim political influence in Europe more evident than in Belgium, where fully one-third of the residents of the capital city, Brussels, are Muslim. This is more than in any other major European city except for Marseilles, France, which has roughly the same proportion of Muslims. In some of Brussels' local municipalities, Muslims account for 80 percent of the population.

Following the last election of the Brussels regional legislature, in 2004, half the 26 legislators from the Socialist Party were of Muslim background, a record high for that legislature. Some Belgians attribute the strong showing by the Socialists in that election to the party's outreach to Muslim immigrants and the record number of candidates with Muslim names on the ticket.

Ermeline Gosselin, a spokeswoman for the Socialist Party in Belgium, insists that no one in her party looks at religion or ethnicity when selecting candidates.

"We are proud to represent Belgians of all backgrounds," she said.

The mere discussion of Muslim political influence is taboo in some corners of Europe. Several European academics interviewed by JTA refused to consider the issue, arguing that it is misguided and possibly racist because it addresses the religious rather than economic or cultural concerns of Muslim immigrants.

Susanne Nies, head of the French Institute of International Relations in Brussels, said religion plays no role in Europe's secular politics.

"If you want to talk about being critical of Israel, that is a feeling among many Europeans, so how can you characterize that as Muslim?" she said. "There is no such thing as a Muslim issue in Europe or growing Muslim influence on politicians."

To be sure, many European politicians have their biases against Israel. On Jan. 23, the minister of culture, youth and sport in the Flemish government in Belgium, Bert Anciaux, compared a deadly attack that day by a deranged gunman on a nursery school near Brussels to Israel's recent operation in Gaza. The Belgian Foreign Ministry later distanced itself from the remark.

Shepherd says the 2008 mayoral campaign in London is a revealing example of Muslim influence in European politics.

In 2005, London Mayor Ken Livingstone accused Israel of ethnic cleansing and called then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a war criminal. His criticism of Israel helped win him the support of Azzam Tamimi, the director of the London-based Institute of Islamic Political Thought and a public supporter of Hamas and Palestinian suicide bombers.

Tamimi mobilized British Muslims to support the mayor in his re-election bid last May, forming a group called Muslims 4 Ken that lambasted Livingstone's opponent for supporting Israel. Ultimately, however, Livingstone failed to win a third term, losing to Boris Johnson.

"Livingstone definitely sought Muslim support by slamming Israel," Shepherd said.

European governments increasingly are afraid of offending Muslims, Shepherd said, leading them to refrain from criticizing Islamic attitudes toward women or even toward terrorism.

"This is a potentially volatile constituency, as we saw with the Danish cartoon controversy," Shepherd said, referring to the widespread Muslim rioting in 2005 that followed publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. Government leaders made sure to criticize publication of the cartoons even as they defended free speech, Shepherd noted.

Jana Hybaskova, head of the Israel committee in the European Parliament, says that despite the hostility of many European Muslim organizations toward the Jewish state, they rarely petition lawmakers on Israel-related issues.

Presuming that Muslims share all the same political goals is a mistake, she added.

"To see Muslim as common denominator is like seeing Christians as all the same," Hybaskova said. "I don't see any common denominator on policy."

One major obstacle to Muslim political power is the absence of any significant pan-European Muslim political organization. Muslims even have trouble organizing politically within their own countries in Europe. In France, the French Council of the Muslim Faith, a Muslim umbrella organization created in 2002 at the behest of then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, has been virtually paralyzed by a rivalry between its Algerian and Moroccan factions.

The level of political activism among Muslims varies from country to country. In Britain, Muslims vote in higher proportions than non-Muslims, whereas in Belgium the Muslim vote is below average.

Another major obstacle, according to Riva Kastoryano, director of research at Sciences Politique in Paris and an author of several books on Islam in Europe, is the relative poverty of Muslims.

Muslims are not "in an economic position in Europe to make a big impact in politics," she said.

Muslim organizations often are completely in the dark about how to lobby government officials for their most pressing needs, Kastoryano observed. In some cases, Muslim groups have even sought the help of Jewish groups.

"In Germany a few years back, when there was a wave of anti-Muslim violence, Muslim clerics turned to Jewish leaders to ask how to get government support," she said.

In France and several other countries, Muslims have turned to Jewish organizations for help in acquiring overnment permission to continue to use halal meat -- kosher for Muslims -- when the method of Muslim slaughter risked violating local ordinances.

As for the few politicians in Europe of Muslim backgrounds, they tend to care more about loyalty to party, not Islamic ideology. On the national level, they're also all secular.

"I am a socialist first, then Dutch, then someone with a Turkish-Kurdish background," said Sadet Karabulut, a Dutch member of Parliament whose parents are from eastern Turkey.

Asked whether her religion affects her political choices, Karabulut said, "My parents are Muslims and it is my background, but I am not. It's not important for me."

Last October, Rotterdam became the first major city in Europe to elect a Muslim mayor, Ahmed Aboutaleb. Aboutaleb, who holds dual Dutch and Moroccan citizenship, has a reputation as a bridge builder between minority and majority groups. In 2004, after the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by an Islamic extremist, Aboutaleb told an audience at an Amsterdam mosque that Muslims who do not like Dutch values should leave the country.

That is little comfort to politicians like Teitelbaum, who points out that socialist politicians who used to condemn Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide now stay silent for fear of offending Belgium's large Turkish community.

Teitelbaum sees it as further evidence of pandering to an increasingly influential political constituency.

When, in 2005, Teitelbaum sponsored a bill condemning a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Belgium, the bill could not pass until she generalized the bill, adding condemnation of "racism and xenophobia." She was even urged by some colleagues to remove the word "anti-Semitism" from the bill.

She refused.

Depression Era Cooking: "Potatoes Were A Dollar A Bag. That Was A Lot Of Money"

2009-03-06T11:23:00.000-05:00

Ninety one year old Clara recalls the Depression and cooks meals that saw them through the hard times.

SIR Ted Kennedy? Brits Don't Think So

2009-03-06T07:34:00.001-05:00

The Telegraph:

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when Gordon Brown popped in to see Her Majesty to drop the bombshell that he wanted her to confer an honorary knighthood on his old chum, Senator Edward Kennedy.

It’s not enough that this Government knighted Sir Fred Goodwin for “services” to banking – before he went on to destroy the Royal Bank of Scotland. Or even that Brown made his great chum James Crosby a Sir – quite an honour for the man who went on to bring HBOS to its knees and was at the Financial Services Authority when it was exercising nothing of the sort.

Not satisfied with these demonstrations of gratitude, Brown has secured another: for Kennedy in recognition of his services to the Northern Ireland peace process. Excuse me? Wasn’t it Kennedy who cosied up to Gerry Adams at the height of the IRA’s murderous campaign? Kennedy, that champion of nationalism, who declared in 1971 that the Protestants of Ulster “should be given a decent opportunity to go back to Britain”?

We will never know the Queen’s view about this honour. Or what the Prince of Wales thinks. We do know that the Prince was distraught at the death of his great-uncle Lord Mountbatten, who was murdered by the IRA. Nicholas Knatchbull, 14, the Prince’s godson, was one of the other victims when Mountbatten’s boat was blown up in 1979. This is what the Prince said on the 25th anniversary: “I was almost struck dumb, absolutely devastated, when I heard about this terrible disaster…”

Sadly, Gerry Adams was not struck dumb and said at the time: “He [Mountbatten] knew the danger involved in coming to this country. In my opinion, the IRA achieved its objective: people started paying attention to what was happening in Ireland.” Yet Kennedy continued to fete Adams in New York, helping the US fund-raisers who contributed to the republican cause. This is a man who has never covered himself in glory. He was inextricably involved in the drowning in 1969 of Mary Jo Kopechne. One night in Chappaquiddick, he accidentally drove the car they were in off a bridge. Kennedy swam to safety; the young woman was left trapped in the car. He returned to his hotel, went to bed and reported the accident the next day – by which time she had suffocated. Had he called for help she might have lived.

Brown must surely think that his honouring Kennedy, whose backing for Barack Obama electrified the Democratic race, will cement his special relationship with the White House. But back in Britain, people will ask how the son of the manse, who played up his religious upbringing in his Congress speech, could possibly give a knighthood to a man whose contribution to the peace process was to demand British withdrawal from Northern Ireland and who, 30 years on, is still refusing to answer questions about the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

Only 85 American citizens have received the honour since the Queen came to the throne and these include Rudy Giuliani, Bob Hope and Henry Kissinger. Kennedy has no business being the 86th.

I’m sure Mr Brown must have felt great relief as the first of his 19 standing ovations rippled across Congress. I imagine Iain Duncan Smith felt the same when his party conference speech in 2003 was punctuated by 18 ovations. Three weeks later, he was ousted as leader of the Conservative Party.

As the Prince of Wales would say: oh, the wonder of the wireless. This week, I finished my stint as a judge in the Sony Radio Awards, the industry’s Oscars. I can’t yet tell you who the winners are in my category, but what fun it was. While TV lurches from one crisis to the next, ditching talent and cutting back on drama, radio remains full of voices worth listening to.

As the Prince of Wales would say: oh the wonder of the wireless. This week I finished my stint as a judge in the Sony Radio Awards, the industry’s Oscars. I can’t yet tell you who the winners are in my category (you try judging between John Humphrys and Terry Wogan) but what fun it was. While TV lurches from one crisis to the next, ditching talent, and cutting back on new drama, radio remains full of voices worth listening to.

Cooking: The Killer App

2009-03-06T04:57:00.001-05:00

The Economist:

The evolutionary role of cookery

YOU are what you eat, or so the saying goes. But Richard Wrangham, of Harvard University, believes that this is true in a more profound sense than the one implied by the old proverb. It is not just you who are what you eat, but the entire human species. And with Homo sapiens, what makes the species unique in Dr Wrangham’s opinion is that its food is so often cooked.

Cooking is a human universal. No society is without it. No one other than a few faddists tries to survive on raw food alone. And the consumption of a cooked meal in the evening, usually in the company of family and friends, is normal in every known society. Moreover, without cooking, the human brain (which consumes 20-25% of the body’s energy) could not keep running. Dr Wrangham thus believes that cooking and humanity are coeval.

In fact, as he outlined to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in Chicago, he thinks that cooking and other forms of preparing food are humanity’s “killer app”: the evolutionary change that underpins all of the other—and subsequent—changes that have made people such unusual animals.
Humans became human, as it were, with the emergence 1.8m years ago of a species called Homo erectus. This had a skeleton much like modern man’s—a big, brain-filled skull and a narrow pelvis and rib cage, which imply a small abdomen and thus a small gut. Hitherto, the explanation for this shift from the smaller skulls and wider pelvises of man’s apelike ancestors has been a shift from a vegetable-based diet to a meat-based one. Meat has more calories than plant matter, the theory went. A smaller gut could therefore support a larger brain.

Dr Wrangham disagrees. When you do the sums, he argues, raw meat is still insufficient to bridge the gap. He points out that even modern “raw foodists”, members of a town-dwelling, back-to-nature social movement, struggle to maintain their weight—and they have access to animals and plants that have been bred for the table. Pre-agricultural man confined to raw food would have starved.

Firelight
Start cooking, however, and things change radically. Cooking alters food in three important ways. It breaks starch molecules into more digestible fragments. It “denatures” protein molecules, so that their amino-acid chains unfold and digestive enzymes can attack them more easily. And heat physically softens food. That makes it easier to digest, so even though the stuff is no more calorific, the body uses fewer calories dealing with it.

In support of his thesis, Dr Wrangham, who is an anthropologist, has ransacked other fields and come up with an impressive array of material. Cooking increases the share of food digested in the stomach and small intestine, where it can be absorbed, from 50% to 95% according to work done on people fitted for medical reasons with collection bags at the ends of their small intestines. Previous studies had suggested raw food was digested equally well as cooked food because they looked at faeces as being the end product. These, however, have been exposed to the digestive mercies of bacteria in the large intestine, and any residual goodies have been removed from them that way.

Another telling experiment, conducted on rats, did not rely on cooking. Rather the experimenters ground up food pellets and then recompacted them to make them softer. Rats fed on the softer pellets weighed 30% more after 26 weeks than those fed the same weight of standard pellets. The difference was because of the lower cost of digestion. Indeed, Dr Wrangham suspects the main cause of the modern epidemic of obesity is not overeating (which the evidence suggests—in America, at least—is a myth) but the rise of processed foods. These are softer, because that is what people prefer. Indeed, the nerves from the taste buds meet in a part of the brain called the amygdala with nerves that convey information on the softness of food. It is only after these two qualities have been compared that the brain assesses how pleasant a mouthful actually is.

The archaeological evidence for ancient cookery is equivocal. Digs show that both modern humans and Neanderthals controlled fire in a way that almost certainly means they could cook, and did so at least 200,000 years ago. Since the last common ancestor of the two species lived more than 400,000 years ago (see following story) fire-control is probably at least as old as that, for they lived in different parts of the world, and so could not have copied each other.Older alleged sites of human fires are more susceptible to other interpretations, but they do exist, including ones that go back to the beginning of Homo erectus. And traces of fire are easily wiped out, so the lack of direct evidence for them is no surprise. Instead, Dr Wrangham is relying on a compelling chain of logic. And in doing so he may have cast light not only on what made humanity, but on one of the threats it faces today.

Organic Cavemen

2009-03-05T23:11:00.000-05:00

More On Evolution

2009-03-05T22:55:00.000-05:00

Teach Creationism Too?

2009-03-05T21:55:00.003-05:00

Madoff Cuts A Deal

2009-03-05T17:25:00.000-05:00

Obama Just Won't Quit

2009-03-05T15:55:00.000-05:00

Fairness Doctrine

2009-03-05T13:59:00.001-05:00

The Community Of Unity

2009-03-05T10:45:00.001-05:00

Elizabeth Scalia, author of The Anchoress has written an essay, Paranoia, Pride and Prejudice in First Things magazine. In it, she addresses Sister Sandra M Schneiders, a woman who has vowed a kind of religious obedience who is not pleased with the recent announcement of a study of religious communities to be undertaken by the Vatican. Scalia quotes from a letter written by Schneiders:

I am not inclined to get into too much of a panic about this investigation—which is what it is . . . I do not put any credence at all in the claim that this is friendly, transparent, aimed to be helpful, etc. It is a hostile move and the conclusions are already in. It is meant to be intimidating. But I think if we believe in what we are doing (and I definitely do) we just have to be peacefully about our business, which is announcing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, fostering the Reign of God in this world. We cannot, of course, keep them from investigating. But we can receive them, politely and kindly, for what they are, uninvited guests who should be received in the parlor, not given the run of the house. When people ask questions they shouldn’t ask, the questions should be answered accordingly.

In this age of victimhood, Schneider sees herself as another Christian martyr and and she appears to be reveling in the very idea. She is so very special you see, so very aware of her place and role in God's eternal plan. She has the temerity to 'reluctantly' note that

I have come to the conclusion that Congregations like ours [the kind represented by the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) in this country] have, in fact, birthed a new form of Religious Life.

Scalia sees more earthly motivations:

Sister and her associates seem to have birthed a form of Religious Life that no longer receives “everyone as Christ” but parcels out the hospitality like upper-crust dames who will nod at the social climbers (and even condescend to having them to tea, if it will dispense with an obligation) but who will have the place fumigated once the undeserving have finally been shown the door. Sounds like she’ll count the teaspoons, too.

While Elizabeth Scalia may be right to a degree, the posture adopted by Sister Schneiders motivations are darker. She has enveloped herself in a kind of multi layered tragic nobility. She is the victim of an oppressive authority she doesn't like and she is demanding a kind of annointment as a most innocent victim. She is a still small voice, she believes, an innocent claiming to be 'occupied' and subject to endless humiliations to herself an her faith by a ruthless and inherently evil force. It is not the Church, she says, but rather only those who are positions of authority. Sound familiar?

What Schneiders deliberately forgets is that the monastic life is not independent of what is a Christian life. She may want to rewrite theology but in the end she is no more than a minor religious devotee issuing always silly and sometimes dangerous fatwas.

As the Israelites waited at Mount Sinai for the revelation of God's word, the language of the Bible is most clear. From Exodus 19:

So Moses came, summoned the elders of the people, and set before them all these words that the Lord had commanded him; The people all answered as one: ‘Everything that the Lord has spoken we will do.’ Moses reported the words of the people to the Lord.

A community of God must speak as one. Real faith unites believers and does not divide them. Real faith binds together a community. Different standards of faith have always been destructive and have always caused great anguish in the community. That there is a climate where disunity is so easily accommodated is a sad blow to the community of believers who see faith as a common bond. There may be different job descriptions but in the end we face God as equals and as mere mortals, separate and distinct from our place on the ladder. The humblest of servants are often the most earnest of servants. Schneiders loyalty to her order and way of life are admirable, but not superior. She is a part of a larger community, one far more important.

Schneiders wishes to portray herself and her ideas as (perfect) victims, but in truth she only highlights her imperfections.

There is no such thing as perfection as individuals or in belief- and in the faith community, that imperfection is what ties us together. It is incumbent upon us to work together and not to undermine or divide our communities.

The obsession with perfection and 'perfect faith' obscures a certain reality, one that is quite clear.

There is no such thing in nature as perfection. God did not create us as perfect creations nore does he demand or even desire us to be perfect.

In fact, more often than not, it is our own imperfections that God is attracted to and the imperfections in our understanding of God that attract us to Him. We seek to understand those things that are hidden. A community of faith, led by clergy, works togetherto make ourselves and our faith better. That is our lot- not to be perfect but to be better in an imperfect world.

Each of us is unique. We each are blessed with certain character strengths and there are parts of our personality that are magnetic and can bring out the best in others- but only when we work together. Sadly, because of the obsession with perfection ('My way/our way is better than yours'), we have been conditioned not to see that best part of ourselves and sometimes, we are so blind to those traits, we cannot even see them in ourselves. We can and do see them in others ('If only I were more like him/her/them, I'd be perfect'), but we seem unable or unwilling to see those best parts of we are, in ourselves.

Sister Shneiders sees victimhood as perfection, no surprise in this day and age. Perhaps she ought to look closer to home.

Mother Teresa comes to mind. The examples of her life- and struggles- serve the community and unity of believers well. Her habit was a uniform, a reminder of who she worked for. Her labors, those things and way of life that we can all aspire to were her legacy.That is the great lesson. She neither led the troops nor claimed special status. Her habit only denoted that she was attached to a different regiment. She fought the same battles as the rest of and led by example. She taught us that if we reach within we can find the very best of ourselves and the very best of our community and do great things.

We will each be remembered for the inner self that was expressed in our outer selves, that part of us that relates to others. Our achievements might be recognized of course, but in the end, what will come to define us all are the small things, the ‘inner self’ that was manifested outwardly within our community.

Mother Teresa was a very unlike Sister Shneiders who pits herself against the authority of her church- the very church, while imperfect, manages to feed millions every day and underwrite countless good works. Whatever disagreements she may have with Rome, Shneiders will not be able to redefine the leadership of a community of faith. If she really wanted to stake out a moral position, she would have done what Mother Teresa did- live an elevated life and teach an entire community by example, in an imperfect world and struggle with all those things the rest of us have to deal with. Real sanctity is always inclusive.

Here's a message for Sister Schneider: Spiritual transcendence is real because our connections to each other and other imperfect realities, are real. Within each of us is a bond with each other, that if left to each us and not to those with agendas and ideologies, we value and cherish. Actualizing that ‘inner good’ strengthens that bond- and gives the ‘leaders’ Sister Schneiders is so concerned with, less of a grip on us.

All our agendas and ideologies have a limited life span, because they are valid and fueled only as long as there are those that need to fuel those ideas and agendas. Those things that are transcendent, like community and the struggle to reach ever higher need to no fuel and will endure forever.

Mother Teresa will be remembered.

Coming Clean: Another Reason To Be Suspect Of Socialized Medicine And Grandad

2009-03-04T23:18:00.002-05:00

As President Obama readies the nation for health care reform, there is ample evidence that socialized medicine won't work. Even the much admired Canadian health care program loses some of it's luster under close scrutiny.

Why? One word: SOAP.

And now, a few words from your grandfather. Really.

Slow down and take a few minutes.

Health Care Reform

2009-03-04T22:11:00.002-05:00

Hillary: Hamas Must Recognize Israel, Renounce Violence Or US Walks Away

2009-03-04T15:24:00.001-05:00

From AFP:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that Washington would not work with a Palestinian unity cabinet that includes Hamas unless the Islamists recognise Israel and renounce violence.

"If there is to be a unity government that includes Hamas, then we would expect that Hamas would comply with the principles as set forth by the Quartet," Clinton told CNN, referring to a group consisting of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia.

"(Those principles) are the same: that Hamas must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and agree to abide by prior PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) commitments," she added.

"In the absence of Hamas agreeing to the principles that have been adopted by such a broad range of international actors, I don?t see that we or they, anyone, could deal with Hamas."

When pressed, Clinton said Hamas would have to make a formal announcement recognising Israel and giving up armed struggle, as the PLO -- which includes most Palestinian factions but not Hamas -- did in 1988.

"The principles are clear. They have been adopted. And we would expect any unity government to abide by those," she said.

Clinton made the remarks on her first visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories since being appointed secretary of state, a two-day tour during which she met senior Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

US President Barack Obama has vowed vigorously to pursue the peace process between Israel and the Western-backed Palestinian Authority of president Mahmud Abbas, but has ruled out any negotiations with Hamas.

The Islamist movement -- which is sworn to Israel's destruction and blacklisted as a terrorist organisation by Israel and the West -- seized power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007 after routing forces loyal to Abbas.

Left Out Of The Constitution

2009-03-04T14:16:00.001-05:00

Mission Accomplished?

2009-03-04T11:29:00.002-05:00

‘Moderate’ Iranian Leader Calls Israel A Cancer, Denies Holocaust

2009-03-04T07:10:00.000-05:00

Yet another regime Barack Obama wants to engage has learned from his recent attempt at engaging the Russians: Challenge this administration and they'll be sure to back down.

We'd like to think of the Obama foreign policy as 'walking softly and beating ourselves with a big stick'

Fox News:

Iran's leader said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama is pursuing the same "wrong path" as his predecessor George W. Bush in supporting Israel and described the Jewish state as a "cancerous tumor."
The comments by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are likely to frustrate the new U.S. administration which has been seeking to engage Iran but has called on Tehran to "unclench its fist."
"Even the new president of America, who has come to power with slogans about changing Bush's policies, is defending state terrorism by talking about unconditional commitment to Israel's security," Reuters reported Khamenei said at a conference on the Palestinian issue in Tehran.
"Another big mistake is to say that the only way to save the Palestinian nation is by negotiations," Khamenei said.
"Negotiations with whom? With an occupying and bullying regime, who does not believe in any other principle other than force? ... Or negotiations with America and Britain who committed the biggest sin in creating and supporting this cancerous tumor ... ?" he added.
"The way to salvation [for Palestinians] is standing firm and resisting," the supreme leader said.
Khamenei also said the Holocaust was used to "usurp" Palestinian land and said the West and Israel showed the weakness of their cause by not allowing anyone to question the Holocaust.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who previously drew fury from the West by saying the Holocaust was a "myth," told the conference: "The story of the Holocaust, a nation without a homeland and a homeland without a nation ... are the big lies of our era."
"The continuation of the Zionist regime even on one inch of the land of Palestine, because of the nature of that regime, means the continuation of crime, occupation, threat and insult to the nations," Reuters reported Ahmadinejad as saying.
The remarks came after the U.S. on Tuesday joined other major world powers in urging Iran to curb its nuclear program, in a statement notable for its moderate language and for its commitment to diplomacy to defuse the atomic standoff.
Diplomats at the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board meeting said they could not remember such a joint statement from Washington, Moscow, Beijing and the three big European powers in Vienna. The statement urged Tehran to heed U.N. Security Council demands to limit its nuclear activities and thereby reduce fears it was trying to make atomic arms.

A New Era Of Responsibility

2009-03-03T19:12:00.002-05:00

Obama Engineering And Construction

2009-03-03T15:40:00.003-05:00

Mount Rush It Through

2009-03-03T12:45:00.001-05:00

German Car Company Seeking Bailout 'used hair from Auschwitz'

2009-03-03T07:27:00.000-05:00

The Independent:

One of the pillars of German industry, the giant but debt-crippled Schaeffler car parts supplier, was accused yesterday of using hair shorn from at least 40,000 Auschwitz death camp prisoners to make textiles at its factories in Nazi-occupied Poland during the Second World War.

The highly disturbing allegations were contained in new evidence unearthed by Polish historians at the Auschwitz museum, who said they had found rolls of fabric made from camp inmates' hair at a former Schaeffler factory in Poland's southern region of Silesia.

The discovery was the latest in a series of damaging blows for the ailing Schaeffler concern, which employs 200,000 people worldwide. The company is currently saddled with debts totalling €14bn (£12.6bn) and faces the prospect of bankruptcy.

Last month, Maria-Elisabeth Schaeffler, the concern's flamboyant and usually fur-coated millionaire owner, appeared at a trade union rally and wept openly as she appealed to the government of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, for a state-funded bailout. In an attempt to clear up rumours about the company's wartime role, Mrs Schaeffler recently admitted to using slave labourers at its factories during the Second World War. However, the company's officially published history still only begins in 1946.

The company's own historian dismissed the allegations yesterday and said there was no evidence to support the theory that Schaeffler processed death camp inmates' hair industrially during the Second World War.

But Dr Jacek Lachendro, a historian at the Auschwitz museum, told Germany's Der Spiegel television channel that 1.95 tonnes of cloth made from inmates' hair had been discovered at a former Schaeffler textile and army tank parts factory in the town of Kiertz (formerly Katscher) after the Germans withdrew at the end of the war.

The amount of cloth, which was pictured on Spiegel television as rolls of closely-woven brownish fabric, was said to have derived from the hair shorn from some 40,000 Auschwitz prisoners. Dr Lachendro said that subsequent analysis of the hair showed that some of it contained traces of the Zyklon B gas used by the Nazis to murder millions in the death camps.

Former workers at the factory in Kiertz who were interviewed on the programme said that they remembered two wagon-loads of human hair being delivered to the company in 1943. Kiertz is three hours' drive away from the Auschwitz camp.

Hair was routinely shorn from prisoners, usually on arrival, at the death camps. The Nazi war machine used it to make army blankets and socks for U-boat crews. The Auschwitz museum on the site of the former death camp displays a store filled to the roof with inmates' hair originally intended for so-called "human recycling".

The Kiertz textile factory where the hair is alleged to have been processed formerly belonged to the Jewish-owned Davistan AG concern on which the Schaeffler empire was founded after it was taken over by the brothers Wilhelm and Georg Schaeffler. Their company made armaments for the Nazi war machine, but after the Second World War it re-emerged as one of Germany's main suppliers of parts to the car industry, specialising in needle roller bearings.

However, the devastating impact of the credit crunch coupled with Schaeffler's misjudged hostile takeover of the tyre giant Continental have since plunged the concern into its worst crisis since the war.

"Beauty is only a light switch away."

2009-03-02T21:09:00.000-05:00

No matter how good she looks,
some other guy is sick and tired
of putting up with her shit.
Men's Room
Linda's Bar and Grill, Chapel Hill , NC

Beauty is only a light switch away.
Perkins Library, Duke University , Durham , NC

If voting could really change things,
it would be illegal.
Revolution Books
New York , New York .

Express Lane:
Five beers or less
Sign over one of the urinals
Ed Deb evic's, Phoenix , AZ

Relief From The Uncomfortable Side Effects Of Progressive Governance

2009-03-02T18:31:00.001-05:00

Denny's To Honor OctoMom Nadya Suleman

2009-03-02T14:06:00.001-05:00

In honor of the mother of the octuplets, Denny's is offering a new breakfast meal called the Suleman:

You get eight eggs, no sausage,and the guy next to you has to pay for it.

The Arabization Of American Politics

2009-03-02T04:40:00.005-05:00

The latest American election has brought into full view what has been heretofore been hidden, unrecognized and deliberately unacknowledged.

We are witnessing the Arabization of American politics.

The leadership of the Democrat Party has fashioned itself after the Palestinian authority, dispensing money, patronage and outright bribery in an effort to maintain control of their Congressional agenda. The amount of money being dispensed by the White House and Congress is staggering- all in the name of what by all standards of measurement are failed economic ideologies and policies. The why is clear: Democrats want to create another huge entitlement class and they don't care how much debt our children will have to bear.

The American leftist political milieu don't hide the reality that they have adopted Arab and Palestinian style politics for themselves. Of course, American voters do not share the same ideals and values as various the Arab and Palestinian political entities. That said, it is clear that many Americans are comfortable with a kind of politics that has become something other than the free expression of ideas and beliefs. For them, the direction a country takes is second to the 'what's in it for me' kind of thinking (that kind of populism is exactly what leftism counts on. Take care of us, redistribute wealth and we won't care about the rest).

For many on the left, politics has become the vehicle from which power, agendas and ideologies are imposed on the nation- and damn what is good for the country and her citizens. As in the Arab world, the citizenry are kept in the dark and has less and less of a say in how the nation conducts businessaned even less of a say holding our government accountable. We noted yesterday that the Obama administration has set into motion a legal framework that would them the authority to block and/or impede all Inspectors General investigations into how stimulus money is being spent and who has oversight.

As in the Arab world, our political system for some has for some become mere window dressing. Those that have the power will do anything to keep the power, even if it means subverting democratic principles.

This kind of Arabization of a political system is not new. Canada has experienced a similar effort and has to deal with the disastrous results.

Leftist elements of the Liberal Party in Canada have largely succeeded in the 'Arabization' of in some parts of the country, especially Ontario and Quebec, the most populous provinces. For over a decade, Ottawa, under the Liberals, has ignored Western Canada entirely, save for aboriginals. The Liberals, in tried and true fashion, have bought and paid for aboriginal votes, dispensing enormous sums of money (the promised dole the last election go around was been 5 billion dollars). Dispensing large amounts of money, above and below the table, the Liberals have managed to create a phony agenda they refer to as 'Canadian values.' These 'values' are whatever is needed to maintain power and at the same time, avoid dealing with what really ails Canada- a failing health system, below par schools and what is in reality an emasculated military, pretending to be equal in stature with everyone else.

Like the Palestinian Authority, the Liberals want to take the real and difficult issues off the table. They provide all the trappings of a caring government- schools, health care and the requisite bogeyman (America). By objective standards, the Liberal governments weren't very good. As far as the Liberal Party was concerned, their governments were good enough for Canadians (just ask Mark Steyn about Canadian government priorities).

Instead of recognizing the real problems Canadians must deal with, coming up with ideas and proposing solutions for those real issues, Canada's Liberals ran around in frenzy, screaming that gay marriage will be annulled under a Conservative government and Conservative Party leader Stepehen Harper would cozy up to George W Bush.

As in the Arab world, as surprisingly large number of Canadians believe Americans are 'evil' and America has no redeeming qualities other than the greenback (American and the west have poured billion into the West Bank and Gaza, building hospitals, schools and infrastructure and they are hated for it. The beastly Saddam Hussein is revered).

Relations between the United States and Canada have deteriorated badly in recent years and every American engaged with Canada knows it. There have been no fundamental changes in the relationship, save for the Liberal shrill anti Americanism. The US has not blockaded Canadian trade (our trans-border trade with Canada exceeds a billion and half dollars a day), the US has not closed it's borders to Canadians and there are a marked lack of checkpoints that Canadians must endure. Nevertheless, the anti American rhetoric in Canada is as common as ice hockey.

For decades and under successive Liberal Party leaders, Americans have been vilified and reviled with an almost religious ferocity. Political anti Americanism has spilled over into ideological antiAmercanism. Polls show that 40% of Canadian teens think Americans are evil (not the the American government, but Americans in general!) American schools are no less fertile soil for anti Americanism. A look at school textbooks today confirms that reality.

Is it any wonder that America has lost much of her luster? Democrat party politicians don't really talk Americans- they speak at them. Question Democrat party policy and you become a target, with ugly exchanges, insults and threats.

You know, just like in Gaza.

Like the Palestinians under Arafat, years of self delusion by Democrats have blinded Americans to reality. We don't need a welfare state- our history of successes are proof of that. We do not need to hate ourselves- our history of liberating oppressed people speaks to that. We do not need to hate our own greatness as a nation and aspire to be equal to other nations- our long history of helping others in need istestimoney to that. No other nation in history has done more for other individual or nations in need.

America has earned the right to sit at the head of the table of great and free nations. America does not need to lower herself by equating this nation with failed, bigoted and oppresive nations. They are not are equals.

The Democrats are playing with fire by insisting this nation be responsive to their kind of government. We are Americans and we cannot be recast into something we are not. The Democrats want to cast America and Americans into anything not American.

Americans must come to recognize that excusing and engaging in massive Democrat corruption (make no mistake- that is what these bailouts and stimulus packages are all about) is no way to run a country and no way to gain legitimacy or self respect. That may work for the Palestinians or the Cubans but it won't work here. The leftists and the Democrats they buy say they want us to be like everyone else, but that is really no more that poor camouflage. They don't like America and they revile what she has accomplished and she stands for. Sadly, too many Democrats have decided to share their bed.

Anti Americanism is like every anti-ism. Antisemitism says more about the antisemite than it does about Jews. Racial bigotry says more about the bigot than it does about the object of his rage.

The same is true of anti Americanism, be it from afar or at home. When American politics starts to look like and sound like Arab or Palestinian politics, there is a problem that must be addressed.

See Dr Sanity's new post, The Democrat Party As A Shame Culture? for a look at today's 'Arabized' Democrats:

They lie, they deceive, they distort. They take kickbacks and are self-righteous about how innocent they are. They vow to eliminate pork, but think all they have to do is take their name off the bill they support and they are in the clear. They wonder what the meaning of "is" is. They insist they" did not have intercourse with that woman" because rhetorical maneuvers are a key postmodern method to avoid having to deal with shame and oral sex isn't really sex anyway. They deny deny deny, and they pretend that they are innocent victims of vast rightwing conspiracies or, as in the case with ex-Governor Blagojevich, they emphasize what "champions" of the little guy they are. They ignore facts and when that doesn't work, they are prepared to ignore the whole of reality itself. Because the cost to their fragile self-esteem if they are discovered is far too catastrophic.

Behind The Bailout

2009-03-01T20:50:00.001-05:00

4 Wheel ABS, Satellite Radio, 352 HP, Seven Per 100 KM...

2009-03-01T13:12:00.002-05:00

Obama Administration Sets Legal Framework To Foil Investigator General

2009-03-01T10:49:00.001-05:00

From AOL News:

A little publicized provision in the recently passed $787 billion stimulus bill would give the Obama Administration the power to thwart independent inspectors general's investigations into how stimulus monies are being spent. The White House reportedly insisted that the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, an oversight panel to be headed by a presidential appointee, have the power to request an investigation as well as request a halt to an ongoing investigation.

The provision has caused even some of the Administration's own inspectors general to question the Obama Administration's intent in reserving the right to call off their investigations. Russell George, Inspector General in the Treasury Department, said that his office would be looking closely at how the provision is implemented.

"We want to ensure that the independence of IGs is not encroached upon in any way, and that's why concerns have been raised about this legislation. It's still very early in the process, but we are going to look very closely to see how the legislation is going to be interpreted."

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) called the provision troubling. "This is a dangerous provision that will hamper oversight, restrict transparency, and damage the independence of inspectors general," he said. But, the Administration denied the provision was intended to prevent any investigations. "There is nothing in this legislation meant to limit any inspector general," White House spokesman Thomas E. Gavin said.

The stimulus bill allows inspectors general to refuse the board's request to shelve an investigation. But they would have to file a report justifying the decision to the board within 30 days of the board's request. That would effectively stall the investigation while the report is prepared, as well as take valuable resources away from the investigation. Furthermore, a request from the White House could intimidate some inspectors general into complying or deciding not to initiate investigations that are likely to draw White House scrutiny. President Obama promised the nation that his Administration would make sure that not one dollar of the record-large stimulus bill would be wasted. In insisting that it have the right to essentially dictate when investigations can take place, however, the Administration has signaled that it may not be as interested in transparency as it is in control.

Light Beer, Tap Dancers, Assaulted Peanut

2009-02-28T15:07:00.004-05:00

Light Beer

Tap Dancers

Assaulted Peanut

Standing With The Jews

2009-02-28T12:34:00.001-05:00

Ken Coates the National Post:

There is a grave and serious sadness among Jewish people in Canada and abroad. The mounting criticism of Israel, much of unjustified and often leaning toward anti-Semitic attacks, focuses on Gaza and the bitter conflict between Israel and Hamas. While this struggle certainly warrants careful consideration, it masks a broader and very worrisome development. Far too little attention is being paid to the disquieting growth of anti-Semitic comments and attacks around the world. There is even less awareness of the increasing sense of vulnerability among the Jews.

Over thirty years ago, as an undergraduate at the University of British Columbia, I stumbled into a course on Nazi Germany. Expecting a class on military tactics and warfare, I got instead an eye-opening introduction to European anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. A follow-up class on the founding of Israel and the roots of the Palestinian crisis connected the history of anti-Jewish feeling to struggles in the Middle East. One cannot study the history of the Jewish people without developing a strong understanding of their nervousness about the world, their passion for the state of Israel and the uncertainty of support from their neighbours.

Non-Jewish people, like and including me, have left it up to Jews to defend Israel and themselves. I see this happening again. Full page newspaper ads, signed largely but not exclusively by Jewish Canadians, recently declared support for Israel. Media commentaries on current events routinely turn to commentators from Jewish organizations and the Jewish community to explain Israel’s action and to respond to growing signs of anti-Semitism in Canada and around the world. Hardly surprisingly, support for Israel runs very strongly in the Canadian Jewish community.

Jews are good at defending Jews. Jews in Canada have done it in the past and they will do it in the future. Political and philanthropic support, targeted at Israel and Jews in other countries, is truly impressive, as is their support for general and non-Jewish causes. Their organizations move decisively to correct public misapprehensions and to provide a Jewish perspective on contemporary events. In this regard, the Jewish community in Canada is among the best organized, assertive and self-protective of any ethnic or religious group.

Jewish activism, however, masks another reality of our times – the relative silence of non-Jewish people on matters related to Israel and the Jewish community. Far too often Jews and Jewish Canadians stand alone. Most of the rest of us remain silent, perhaps nodding in quiet assent when a Jewish leader or organization speaks out, maybe disagreeing with Israel’s specific actions but worrying about the general situation facing Jews in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Canadian government has been consistent and forthright in defending Jewish and Israeli interests, and for that they are to be applauded. But this is more than an issue for states, national governments and special interest groups.

Even the most cursory review of the history of the Jewish people reveals periods of acceptance and integration followed by bursts of hostility. We are starting to see some of this now, with conspiratorial anti-Jewish nonsense rearing its ugly head, with Israel being held to a different standard than other countries, and with a growing number of attacks on synagogues, anti-Semitic commentary and the like. It is easy to stand beside one’s Jewish friends, colleagues and fellow citizens when times are good and conflicts are few. It is harder, but more important, to do so when the tide appears to be turning.

Jewish religion and culture are historically rich, both rooted in a deep understanding for and concern about the past. Jewish communities around the world have long lived warily, not knowing when circumstances will change, not sure when and if anti-Semitic outbursts will again become commonplace, not sure who, if anyone, will stand up with them. They live, it seems, scanning the world in three directions: to history for lessons, to the present for immediate threats, and to the future for signs of opportunity and peace.

Standing with the Jewish people of Canada does not assume unquestioning support for Israel or the actions of the current government. Standing with the Jewish people in this country means something much more basic. It means that we respect and embrace them as Canadians, that we reject the gathering rumble of anti-Semitism, that we recognize and celebrate their presence among us and that we appreciate their contributions to Canada and the world. Jews alone cannot and should not be expected to answer for the rise of anti-Jewish feeling and anti-Israeli sentiment.

The world needs to know that, in Canada and elsewhere, there are many thousands of others who stand with the Jewish people. We must make it clear, before hostile words turn into aggressive actions, that the Jews will never again stand alone.

Promises, Promises

2009-02-27T22:35:00.000-05:00

Obama's Confident Consumers

2009-02-27T18:05:00.001-05:00

Where The Bailout Money Goes

2009-02-27T15:43:00.002-05:00

Details Pending

2009-02-27T14:16:00.000-05:00

Next Up: Progressive Educational Policies

2009-02-27T11:42:00.000-05:00

President Obama has said education will be a top priority for his administration. Given how he has 'progressively' handled the economy with number tinkering and sleight of hand, it isn't a stretch to assume his educational policies will be equally 'progressive.'

What does progressive educational policy look like?

From Dr Sanity, in The Evolution From Education To Indoctrination:

If you can convince children that objective reality is an illusion; that A does not equal A; that black is white; and that good is bad; if you can make them accept that everything is subjective and relative; then you have successfully breathed new life into doctrines that by all objective measures and standards led to the death and misery of millions of people. Through the careful manipulation of language, everything can be distorted, without the messy need to resort to facts, logic, or reason.

For the children of postmodernism, what matters is not truth or falsity--only the effectiveness of the language used. Lies, distortions, ad hominem attacks; attempts to silence opposing views--all are strategies that are perfectly satisfactory if they achieve the desired effect--i.e., furthering the collectivist agenda. Ideas and reason make way for reification of feelings; and freedom is replaced by thought control and preservation of "self-esteem" at all costs....

Even 5-year olds and younger children are not too young for collectivist propaganda to be inculcated. Destroy free will; inoculate them with political correctness; treat the "insanity" of their attachment to parents, the Judeo-Christian tradition; or their country--i.e., all traditional Western values that brought civilization, individual freedom and economic progress; achieve a "higher order" of thought by showing them there is no right or wrong; good or evil...

One very harmful result of this sorry educational situation is that there are few people--even among those who stalwartly defend the free market, who understand and appreciate the essential morality of capitalism. Certainly our children, taught by ideological purists like the ones above who are leftover from the 20th century debacle of socialist/communist tyranny--never even have a chance to rationally consider any ideas not approved by their aggressively collectivist teachers, so intent at quashing those aspects of human nature they don't like.

This is child abuse, pure and simple. It is indoctrination. It is the willful manipulation of young minds which cannot never be allowed to develop even the capability of thinking for themselves. And these perverts call it "social justice."

In fact there is nothing that is "just" about it. It represents the worse kind of oppression with the goal of enslaving the human mind. And enslavement is exactly what is required to establish their socialist utopia, since it refuses to acknowledge the reality of human nature...

Children propagandized by dogmatic tyrants like the ones above have had not only their capacity to think for themselves abrogated; they have had their capacity to make moral choices taken from them...

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

If one's actions are coerced by the state or religion, or both; if human activity is indoctrinated, legislated, regulated and ordained down to the last minute detail--particularly to the degree we see in other countries of the world (e.g., Cuba, China, most Middle Eastern countries, North Korea, and now in Venezuela--then how can it possibly be argued that one's actions are moral? Human behavior under such systems is not voluntarily chosen, but actively coerced.
Morality, though, must always be a matter of choice, not mandate...

Taking the mind of a child and feeding it exclusively on your ideological pablum is not only the most cruel and abusive of behaviors; it also ensures that such a mind becomes cognitively stunted and morally impaired (much like the minds of the teachers who so proudly perform such oppressive acts).

There is a reason so many 'progressives' appear to be welcoming a 'natural' Armageddon. If the world is indeed destroyed, the record of leftist perfidy and treasonous behavior will be lost forever. If we survive, they and their legacy will be reviled by the generations they have poisoned.

Here are a few more 'progressive' ideas and quotes. Ask yourself if any of them sound as if they came from Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln.

"…humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith."

"Traditional moral codes… fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow…"

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas..."

Teaching school children to read was a "perversion" and high literacy rate bred "the sustaining force behind individualism."

"We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood."

"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order."

"Those of us who work in this field see a developing potential for nearly a total control of human emotional status, mental functioning, and will to act. These human phenomena can be started, stopped or eliminated by the use of various types of chemical substances. What we can produce with our science now will affect the entire society." A "utopia" could be found – providing "a sense of stability and certainty, whether realistic or not."

"If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility"

"...the pretense is made, as it has been made in relation to the finding of any extension of truth, that to do away with right and wrong would produce uncivilized people, immorality, lawlessness and social chaos. The fact is that most psychiatrists and psychologists and other respected people have escaped from moral chains and are able to think freely."

"The re-interpretation and eventually (sic) eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith… are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy. The fact is, that most psychiatrists and psychologists and other respectable people have escaped from these moral chains and are able to observe and think freely."

"The family is now one of the major obstacles to improved mental health, and hence should be weakened, if possible, so as to free individuals and especially children from the coercion of family life."

From Margaret Sanger, first goddess of feminism: "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

Myra Bradwell wasn't evil or ugly enough in character to a role model for leftist oriented feminism. She never took her clothes off, she never put politics ahead of helping women and she never wanted attention for herself.

No wonder she is rejected and forgotten by feminists today. She was everything they'll never be.

Obama Does Annie

2009-02-26T22:27:00.003-05:00

What Women Want

2009-02-26T22:20:00.001-05:00

There's The Talk And There's The Walk

2009-02-26T15:37:00.000-05:00

Jewish Progressives And Another Generation In Denial

2009-02-26T12:41:00.001-05:00

One of the most tragic Holocaust era phenomena was the manipulation of some Jews by the Nazis, who were recruited as collaborators with the Reich. Community elders were called upon to form a Judenrat (Jewish Council). There were many prominent Jews who refused to participate in the sham. They saw the ‘writing on the wall’ and they refused to take part in the deceit (Not all members of the Judenrat were ‘collaberators.’ Some believed that by cooperating with the Nazi authorities, they would be in a position to help their brethren. Sadly, those efforts were to prove futile).The Judenrat in turn, formed a ‘Jewish Police’ force to maintain order in the ghettos. In the concentration camps, there were enforcers, kapos, many of whom were Jewish. These enforcers were given special privileges and status by the Nazis. It was their function to keep their co-religionists in line and docile, so as to facilitate the Nazi agenda.

The Jews who chose to participate in the Judenrat were told by the Nazis that as ‘prominent,’ ‘enlightened’ or ‘intellectual’ Jews, they would be spared the fate of those ‘lesser’ Jews. Eager to save themselves- and to distance and distinguish themselves from their ‘lesser’ cousins, members of the Judenrat and the ghetto police gave the Nazis everything they asked for, and then some. Many believed that by cooperating with the Nazis, they could ‘prove’ their worth and prove to the Nazis that Jews were really no threat to German Reich or volk.

The Nazis did not dispel those Jews of that notion. All too often Judenrat members were told that the anti Jewish measures were the result of ‘politics.’ They were told that talk about a ‘final solution’ was just that- talk. The Germans were an educated and enlightened people, they were told. Germans would never engage in such barbaric behavior. When the war was over, all this ‘Jewish’ talk would be forgotten. It was regrettable that it had begun, but war is war and politics is politics.

Members of the Judenrat were always happy to hear what they wanted to hear. They went on their way, redoubled in their belief that if they could fill the trains that came to provide ‘labor’ to the German war efforts and do so with the minimum amount of disruption in the ghettos, it would all work out in the end. They believed that resisting the Nazis and fighting against them was wrong. They believed that if they appeased the Nazis, they and their co-religionists would be spared.

Judenrat-type organizations and ‘police forces’ managed large numbers of people and keep them docile. Millions ended up marching to their deaths. Only as the end approached did they abandon their belief that evil, when cloaked as ‘reasonableness,’ is somehow less than evil and can be dealt with, reasonably.

The denial was complete. Even as members of the Judenrat were hauled off themselves, they continued to believe that they would be spared if they only were to prove to ‘useful’ to the Nazis.

Today, it is the progressives that have authored the newest version of totalitatianism. So notes Tobias Jones of the Guardian:

There’s an aspiring totalitarianism in Britain which is brilliantly disguised. It’s disguised because the would-be dictators - and there are many of them - all pretend to be more tolerant than thou. They hide alongside the anti-racists, the anti-homophobes and anti-sexists. But what they are really against is something very different. They - call them secular fundamentalists - are anti-God, and what they really want is the eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth.

We wish to talk about ‘religious progressives,’ that group of people who claim to be adherents of particular faith and at the same time adopt the kind of radical progressive agenda alluded to by Tobias Jones. We are in no way implying that all religious progressives are cut from the same cloth and share the same ideologies.

Having said that, to be a radical ‘religious progressive’ that adopts the radical leftist agenda, faith has to be dispensed with. A believer who wants to espouse progressive ideology must accept that his religious beliefs and values are worth less than progressive beliefs and values. Believers must find a way to rewrite faith to accommodate progressive ideology, even if that means upending the very beliefs, values and principles of the faith they profess to be a part of.

In the end, all radical ‘religious progressives’ are the Judenrat and kapos of their respective faiths and of our time.

By accepting and ascribing to beliefs and ideologies of Leftism, ‘religious progressives’ have made a deal with the very devil that would destroy them. Disagree with a ‘religious progressive,’ and like their progressive masters, tolerance goes out the window because dissent cannot be tolerated- because the ‘emperor has no clothes.’

The Left has gone from supporting liberal ideologies that were inclusive and universal, to supporting ideologies that are fascist. There is no way any observer can come to any other conclusion. A lot of the moral capital earned by Liberalism, has been squandered by Leftists in the support of causes that are clearly bankrupt and by ignoring causes that go begging.

The Left watched as Rwanda paid with the blood of over a million men, women and children. The Left stands idly by as Darfur unfolds, in slow motion, as testimony to the cruelest nature of man. In Algeria, the GIA raped and dismembered children as the left watched. The list goes on and on, as atrocities from Sierra Leone to East Timor to the oppression and repression dispensed by Middle East despots and religious zealots are ignored.

Radical and not so radical progressives, religious and otherwise, barely pay lip service to FGM that has impacted over 100 million women, according to UN figures. Honor killings, acid attacks, the harvesting of human organs for profit and a litany of other horrors go on. With the regularity of the New Moon, new atrocities by regimes and ideologies supported by the left surface each month. Those stand up to the tyranny in opposition to the regimes that have a boot at their neck. put themselves at risk as they demand more freedom and human rights. Predicatably, the progressives are found supporting the regimes and tyrants that persecute those who stand up.

The radical ‘religious progressives’ always remain silent in the face of true evil, focusing their attention on America or Israel, always forces for good, no matter how flawed they might be.

Any ideology that demands truth be abandoned is an ideology that God be abandoned. ‘Religious progressives’ have traded away God for false piety and a new religion of narcissitic selflessness.

When it comes to hatred of Israel, radical ‘religious progressives’ say that the Jews have “brought it upon themselves.” They ignore the truth that Israel is not a slave to a particular ideology or state sponsored hate. They ignore the truth that Israel is acting in response to dysfunctional regimes that for decades have made the cry of ‘ITBACH AL YAHUDI!‘ (SLAUGHTER THE JEW!) as an acceptable form of religious and political ideology. To the progressives, Jews defending themselves is an outrage. This of course, is not new.

A diary entry by Joseph Goebbels, as he took note of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, wrote (h/t Seraphic Secret):

“This is what happens when Jews get hold of guns.”

To the radical ‘religious progressives’ the world would be right if Jews weren’t so Jewish, or insisted on defending themselves and just allowed the themselves to be ‘blessed’ victims. Religious progressives must somehow distinguish themselves from their anti semitic secular brothers, you see.

In the same way the Judenrat believed the Germans were a ‘civilized’ nation, many ‘religious progressives’ have deluded themselves. In the end they believe, their secular progressive brothers in arms are ‘enlightened’ and ‘intellectual.’

Of course there is never good news when it comes to human and religious rights in nations ruled by despots and identified as the left’s ‘comrades in arms’. The enthusiastic support for dysfunctional and repressive Islamic and Middle Eastern regimes, is perhaps the most disturbing- and another truth that cannot be denied. These regimes make no excuse for their politics or their support for terror, nor do they even attempt to hide their hate and bigotry, broadcast in media, taught in schools and preached from the pulpit.

That these regimes have used religion as justification for their barbarism is cynically exploited by the left. One the one hand, says the Left, ‘we must respect their religion and their politics,’ and on the other hand, they point to religion and say, ‘This is the evil religion represents. We must separate ourselves and our politics from religion.’

All the while the erstwhile kapos of the left, the ‘religious progressives,’ remain silent.

Despite witnessing the out of control and barbaric behaviors of whole societies, the radical ‘religious progressives’ have turned a the blind eye to evil. They have come to accept and tolerate the most evil kind of behavior and remain silent. They and their secular brothers have aligned themselves with some of the most evil and dysfunctional tyrannies on the face of this earth.

They refuse to condemn the atrocities and hate and they will not condemn others who support the evil. Like the Judenrat before them, ‘religious progressives’ have come to believe the script. They openly encourage and even demand dysfunctional and self destructive behaviors that will inevitably lead to destruction, all in the name of healing and enlightenment. The ‘religious progressives,’ more than anyone, have embarked on the newest crusade. Join us they say, do it our way, or you will be destroyed. Plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme.

Dr Sanity noted in When Karl Met Sigmund that

Simply put, totalitarian systems–whether from the left or the right… whether religious or secular… actively promote the most negative, primitive, and immature aspects of human nature. In fact, they give a societal/institutional blessing to such behavior; and thrive on the resulting projection, paranoia, distortion, and denial of reality.

There are no ‘religious progressive’ voices on FGM, or religious persecution in China and other nations. There are no ‘religious progressive’ voices outspoken against the orchestrated and visceral hatred directed at Jews in most Arab countries. Instead, the ‘religious progressives’ save their vitriol for America, Israel and western democracies- nations that have at their center, religious freedoms.

When free and democratic states overcome tyranny, the result is the establishment of a free and democratic state. Enemies become friends.When tyranny overcomes freedom, that tyranny remains hated.

It is also true that no amount of ‘love’ can cure the dysfunctions that result in evil. Love of any kind, without a moral foundation fixes nothing. That knd of love is fickle, temporary and easily abandoned when the next object of infatuation or desire comes along.

If the left hated the atrocities and slaughter directed at innocents with as much hatred as they have for real freedom, America and Israel, there would be no more slaughters and there would be no more atrocities. Instead, the left and ‘religious progressives,’ choose the kind of perverted love that results in death over the kind of love that results in life.

Real faith is not measured by standing still and staying quiet as freedom and lives are taken. Real faith is measured by bringing freedom to others and saving lives.One can no more claim to be a radical ‘religious progressive’ anymore than than one can claim to be a ‘Christian Nazi.’

Shrill leftists speak of Israel, America and the Holocaust (”and as a Jew I have some personal interest in this myself obviously”) as if somehow, being Jewish gave their words added credibility. The fact that most Jews do not share those kind of politics is of little concern. They are kapso, better than those other kinds of Jews. They would Jew into the crematoria if they were asked to. They are after all, ‘progressives,’ for whom there are no moral absolutes.

Like other ‘progressives,’ they is compelled to sacrifice the truth on the altar of deceit.

Modern progressives deceive with ease. Like the accursed kapo they know the truth- and deliberately refuse to warn others. They focus on the secret activities of some pre war American and British banks, as if those conspiracy theories fertilized the Nazi evil. What they will not acknowledge that some few scant years after the Holocaust, the Arab mantra of ‘We’ll finish what Hitler started’ became part and parcel of what passes for Arab world media, educational and religious priorities.

The progressives minimize the participation of many Muslims during the Holocaust. Amin Husseini, mufti of Jerusalem, met with Hitler and offered his enthusiastic support for the ‘final solution.’ In fact, Husseni was to complain that Jews weren’t being killed fast enough. Husseini’s support wasn’t only rhetorical- he raised an army of Bosnian volunteers that directly supported and participated in the Nazi war efforts from an office provided for him in Berlin by the Nazis.

As far as the progressives are concerned, that part of history is of no import. The Arab world has legitimized the hate- and for them, that is enough. 'We'll finish what Hitler started' is a perfectly acceptable form of expression.

Today's progressives are nothing more than a modern day equivalent of member of the Judenrat or kapo, perfectly willing to help the leftists sell out Israel so that they might maintain their ‘progressive’ bona fides. They aren't like those ‘other Jews.’ They are ‘enlightened’ and ‘intellectual’ Jews. They are part of an elite- or so they believe.

Progressives speak of ‘neocon’ conspiracies to invade Iran and make other outrageous claims. To them, sources and credibility matters little. It is the agenda only that matters. They are of the belief that government is answerable to them and their agenda.

Nowhere do the radical ‘religious progressives’ state the obvious truth: If the Arab world were to recognize Israel’s right to exist and abandon their stated desire to slaughter Jews, peace would be a Middle East reality in days.

Of course, not everyone sees it that way. Amotz Asa-El, in the Jerusalem Post, sees through the radical ‘religious progressives’:

SOME AMERICAN Jews - many in fact - no longer care about their own Jewishness and Israel’s vulnerability. To them, we calmly wave goodbye as they sail into the sunset; they have made a conscious choice and, much as we lament it, we must also respect it. Our plea goes to those who do care.

A destroyed Israel and the corpses of Jews will not be the mountain that the radical ‘religious progressives’ will stand upon, any more than corpses and Auschwitz are monuments to the kapos and the Judenrat.

The progressives want to wave their hands and make the truth disappear. They want their opinions and beliefs to be accepted as truths, simply because of who they are. Just like the Judenrat.

Of course, simply walking upright and having an opinion does not make that opinion valid or equal to other opinions. Holocaust denial, for example, is not a valid or equal belief because Mahmoud Ahmadenijad says it is. The beliefs (and silence) of radical ‘religious progressives’ are not universal truths, no matter how much they would like that to be.

One of the accepted hallmarks of civilized society is an accepted code of moral behavior. No matter one’s prejudices, biases or beliefs, we are all expected to behave in a certain way. We are all expected to treat others, regardless of their religion, lack of religion, culture or creed, in the same way we ourselves expect to be treated. If that accepted code of moral behavior is not present in a particular society, that society cannot be counted as civilized.

When the internal behavior of a society or segments of a society cannot be clearly categorized as civilized, it is safe to say that society or segment of that society, will not behave in a civilized way toward other nations or groups.

The silence of the radical ‘religious progressives’ brings to mind the words of the words of Martin Neimoller:

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,

because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left

to speak up for me.

Living In The 10th Century

2009-02-26T07:30:00.000-05:00

From a very interesting blog, The Real of R, comes this dry and wry commentary:

When you attack without being provoked, you are a resistance movement. When you sacrifice a country for your agenda, you are righteous.

Tribal Mentality:

So, you cross into a sovereign nation, kill some of their soldiers and kidnap others. Of course you’re justified, they’re soldiers. That’s what they’re there for. What, the nation wants retribution? Murderers! Imperialists! Zionists! Leave me alone, I don’t want to play anymore. Wait, how about I trade you my soldiers for yours? That’s fair? No? Maaaaaaaa! The big bad zionist doesn’t want to let me play… Maaaaaa!

Retribution:

So, you want your soldiers back? Why? They’re cowards? Aren’t they? I mean… no, they’re not cowards. They’re willing to die. Right? No? Jihaaaad! (oops, sorry), no let’s talk. This is a fun game, I sneak in and hurt you every once in a while, then you say ok let’s negotiate. No? You want to hurt me back? You’re invading? Maaaaaa! Invador!!!! You’re not allowed…. I am, of course… I’m still a baby.

Logic:

What is tworisem? What is an ehkonomi? What is a cuntry? Who is nay-sean? What is a low?

Sense:

Syria? Oh, they have prisoners as well? No. We can’t fight Syria. They’re not dirty Jews. They’re Muslims. That’s haram. The Lebanese prisoners there? Oh, it’s not important, they’re Christians.

Politics:

You can’t criticize me, I’m a religious figure. Kaboom. We are fighters, we are politicians. What? Don’t criticize me, I’m a religious figure. If you express an opinion different from mine, you’re a traitor Zionist dog. What? Shush, I’m a religious figure. I will cut your arms and gouge your eyes. Because I’m a religious figure. I’m a religious figure, yes i’m the real religious figure. What? Eminem? Shut up, I’m a religious figure. whatever.

Analysis:

Let’s be blind-sighted, selective and subjective for a minute here. What’s wrong with you people? So we invaded israel first and kidnapped soldiers. That’s history. Let’s forget about that and start analysing WHY they’re fighting back. Come on, let’s say that we didn’t kidnap anyone. Ok? Israel might have still attacked for some other reason. It’s possible? Can you deny it completely? No. See!? Haha, I win! Maaaaa… I won! Let’s assume that we didn’t do anything, and that they attacked for no reason. It’s more fun to come up excuses and crazy theories than to be evolved creatures for a minute.

(And now, Ahmad, for the grand finale….) Why?

1- Hizbullah reduces the pressure on the Palestinians, allowing them to blow up more busses.

2- Hizbullah captures the world’s attention, diverting the pressure from Iran and it’s continued terrorist attempts at obtaining nuclear weapons.

3- Hizbullah acts on Syrian orders to destabilize Lebanon, to pay Lebanon back for kicking Syria out, and to promote the idea that Lebanon is unable to govern itself.

4- Little baby Assaad was frightened by the planes buzzing his summer crib. The saddest thing: Idiots who try to justify or condone this.

Portions of this post were previously piblished.

Banker's Idol

2009-02-25T22:56:00.001-05:00

Stimulus Creepiness

2009-02-25T15:18:00.000-05:00

European Anti Semitism: "In Britain, Jewish schoolchildren have been castigated for belonging to a people with ‘blood on their hands’.

2009-02-25T13:47:00.003-05:00

From Spiked Online:

First of all, contemporary Western culture continually encourages groups that perceive themselves as victims to inflate the wrongs perpetuated against them. As a result, we are always being told that racism is more prevalent than ever before, or that homophobia and Islamophobia are rising, or that sexual discrimination is more powerful than in the past. It is unthinkable today for advocacy groups to concede that prejudice and discrimination against their members have decreased, and that the status of their community or people has improved. Such groups are acutely sensitive to how they are represented in the media, and to the language in which they are discussed and described. And this identity-based sensitivity is shared by Jewish organisations, too, which in recent decades have often been all-too-willing to interpret what are in fact confused and ambiguous references to their people as expressions of anti-Semitism...

...the defenders of Zionism have developed the unfortunate habit of labelling criticisms of Israel as a form of anti-Semitism. The aim of these rhetorical attacks is to devalue the moral standing of Israel’s critics, and thus avoid having to deal with their often difficult, persuasive arguments. The cumulative impact of this very defensive response to criticism of Israel is to undermine the moral weight of charges of anti-Semitism. Those who are anti-Zionist are often able to accuse Israeli politicians and their supporters of ‘hiding behind’ the charge of anti-Semitism. Worse still, the pro-Israel movement’s propagandistic association of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism has encouraged others to erode the conceptual distinction between Zionism and Jews.

The third complication comes with the sanctification of the Holocaust. In Europe, the Holocaust has in recent years been institutionalised as a moral absolute. In education, culture and public life, the Holocaust has been turned into a marker of evil. Many countries in the European Union have instituted laws against Holocaust denial. Sanctifying the Holocaust in this way has allowed European officialdom to claim moral authority on matters of good and evil, right and wrong, in relation to the present and the past...
Because in contemporary Europe there are many and various obstacles to the expression of anti-Semitic sentiments in their traditional form, prejudice towards Jews is now likely to be expressed indirectly, through other issues. Although criticism of Israel can and should be conceptually distinguished from prejudice towards Jewish people, in recent years there has been a significant erosion of the distinction between these two phenomena. As a result, some people have embraced the anti-Israeli cause as a way of making a statement about their attitude towards Jews. As a sociologist, I am well aware of the danger of attributing a sentiment to a statement that is not explicitly stated – which is why this discussion needs to be handled with care, and why such interpretative statements about today’s anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic outlook need to be clearly justified...
There is considerable evidence that in recent years anti-Semitism has acquired greater visibility and force in Europe. Over the past decade, and especially since the eruption of the conflict in Gaza, anti-Israeli sentiments have often mutated into anti-Jewish ones. Recent events indicate that in Europe the traditional distinction between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish sentiment has become confusing and blurred.
So recently, during a demonstration against Israel’s actions in Gaza, the Dutch Socialist Party MP Harry Van Bommel called for a new intifada against Israel. Of course he has every right to express this political viewpoint. However, he became an accomplice of anti-Semites when he chose to do nothing upon hearing chants of ‘Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas’ and similar anti-Jewish slogans. Many people who should know better now keep quiet when they hear slogans like ‘Kill the Jews’ or ‘Jews to the oven’ on anti-Israel demonstrations. At a recent protest in London, such chants provoked little reaction from individuals who otherwise regard themselves as progressive anti-racists – and nor did they appear to be embarrassed by the sight of a man dressed as a racist Jewish caricature, wearing a ‘Jew mask’ with a crooked nose while pretending to eat bloodied babies...

Increasingly, protesters are targeting Jews for being Jews. They have agitated for the boycott and even harassment of certain shops, and in practice this has translated into boycotting and harassing Jewish-owned shops, such as Marks & Spencer (some of whose stores have been barricaded by anti-Israel protesters) and Starbucks (a number of whose coffee shops have been attacked in London and elsewhere). Giancarlo Desiderati, spokesman for the trade union Flaica-Cub, has explicitly called for a boycott of Jewish businesses in Rome. A leaflet issued by his union informed Romans that anything they purchase in Jewish-owned shops will be ‘tainted by blood’.
Here, there is an almost effortless conceptual leap from criticising Israel to targeting Jews. Desiderati pointed out that his organisation had already called for a boycott of Israeli goods before taking the logical next step of demanding a boycott of Jewish shops. He said that his union was drawing up a list of Jewish shops, ‘though it might be better to publish a list of streets in which a majority of the shops are Jewish and ask people to avoid those streets when shopping’ (2).

Anti-Semitism in Europe is not simply a rhetorical pastime of Islamists or pro-Palestinian protesters. In Britain, Jewish schoolchildren have been castigated for belonging to a people with ‘blood on their hands’. Their elders sometimes face intimidation and regularly report being subjected to verbal abuse. What is most disturbing about these developments is the reluctance of European society to acknowledge and confront acts of anti-Semitism. Take the riots that broke out in Paris on 3 January. If you relied upon mainstream media reports, you would never have known that groups of youngsters were shouting ‘death to the Jews’ while throwing stones at the police. In this instance, expressions of anti-Semitism were not even properly reported, much less confronted and challenged in public debate...

Read it all.

Jump Starting The Economy

2009-02-25T08:00:00.000-05:00

Survivor, Texas-Style

2009-02-24T21:28:00.001-05:00

Due to the popularity of the "Survivor" shows, Texas is planning to do one entitled, "Survivor, Texas-Style."

The contestants will all start in Dallas, then drive to Waco, Austin, San Antonio, over to Houston and down to Brownsville. They will then proceed up to Del Rio, El Paso, Midland, Odessa, Lubbock and Amarillo. From there they will go on to Abilene, Fort Worth and finally back to Dallas.

Each contestant will be driving a pink Volvo with bumper stickers that read:

"I'm gay"
"I Love the Dixie Chicks"
"Boycott Beef"
"I Voted for Obama"
"George Strait Sucks"
"Hillary in 2012"
"I'm here to confiscate your guns."

The first one to make it back to Dallas alive, wins.