Friday, August 11, 2006

Jeff Buckley - Hallelujah

There's a bit of a "shut up and sing" moment at the beginning. But, just work past the first 20-30 seconds of talking, and be stunned by the beauty of this music.

The Anchoress
Is Doing Satire
Without A Target

The Anchoress is calling for moderation in response to the latest thwarted terror plot:

The news is serious…so why is so much that is being written and spewed forth so wretchedly unserious? Why am I getting such a strong sense that - for some, note, I say some on both the left and the right (and in the media) - this event is an excuse for extraordinarily reckless, demented and self-interested excess?

Go to the righty forums and you find a lot of this talk (paraphrased):- When Oh When will Bush take a page from FDR and inter all Muslims and Middle-Easterners into concentration camps, or totally deport them all? All Muslims are evil! This will wake up those idiots who voted out Lieberman, though, maybe! President Bush is captive of the globalist PC one-worlders or he’d be doing the right thing!

- This just proves that we’ve been too soft in Iraq and we need to just bomb the hell out of everyone! The war on terror won’t be won until we make Mecca a wasteland!

- This is why we need sealed borders, even though these terrorists were Brit CITIZENS and the cell phone sellers are US CITIZENS, that doesn’t matter. Close the borders now! Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Go Tancredo!

I have to wonder why the Anchoress bothers reading such crapola writing, much less reporting on it. The opinions she is parodying there are straight out of central casting from the latest Bushitler movie. There are no such people within the credible right-wing.

So, who is she parodying? It isn't satire, if it doesn't have a target.

Of course, there are loonies at blogs who do say such things, but they are not part of the national discourse, whereas the lefty voices she parodies in her post (go to the link and click if you want to see them) are clearly the mainstream of the Democratic party at this moment.

Now, in a comment over at Lumpy's blog, the Anchoress writes:

I do think the murderous fiends of Islam are a too-visible minority who have cowed even the “silent majority” of Muslims who are decent people. I am frankly getting leery of the “all Muslims are evil” mindset and think we should tread around that very carefully.

I love the Anchoress, but with all due respect, all her post, and her comment here is serving to do is to position herself as a moderate, which is a fruitless exercise when one is positioning oneself with regards to Islam. It’s like saying, “Not all of Hitler’s followers were evil.”
So what?

The thing is, the world view put forth by the Koran is evil. The face put forth by Islam in the political arena is evil or filled with deceit. There is no substantial Islamic political voice for moderation. All the major political groups which represent Muslims are radical in nature.

Like the Anchoress, I believe there are huge numbers of what I would call moderate Muslims. These, from my experience are Muslims who follow the good things the Koran says. They wish non-Muslims well. They are interested in giving and receiving love within their families, and within the larger world.

However, these Muslims are like decent Germans under Hitler. They are a completely unrepresented political body. They do not make their voices heard. Therefore, they are insubstantial, and they are ignored by the Islamofascists who control the Islamic voice.

It may not be The Anchoress’ intent to position herself as a moderate out of a sense of self-agrandizement, but the fact is, that as long as she is not dealing with Islam as it presents itself, the only person her words serve is her own self. It makes her look cool, but it doesn’t move the debate forward.

It is important that we say, “We hate the Islam of Jihad, strict-Sharia, and the burqa. If you are not that kind of Muslim, then you are my friend. But, please, for our sake, and for your own sake, stand up and be counted as being against this fascist form of Islam. Because if you don’t, then we are all going to have a big problem come the time when the West is hit really hard by Islamic terrorists.”

Instead of urging moderation in the public discourse about Islam, the Anchoress ought to be urging Muslims to show us their moderation. Muslims must help themselves. Their population is represented by adult human beings. They need to be responsible for what they put out in the public. Thus far, moderate Muslims have not begun to be responsible for themselves.

I think the Anchoress was off target, and it would seem time for a clarification and perhaps an apology to the right-wing she has lampooned.

Let me be clear, I am not a right-winger. I am a lifelong Democrat. (The fact that the Democratic party has become something more akin to the anti-Semitic isolationist right of the 1930's and 1940's does not make me any less of a liberal.) So, my reaction to the Anchoress is not one of personal offense. Instead, I simply think we need less calls for moderation, and more urgent calls for moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted.

The longer we wait to get serious, and the longer moderate Muslims wait to stand up and be counted, the worse the weaponry of the Islamofascist regimes will become.

What The ... ?

Bush is spending his time on his ranch reading The Stranger by Albert Camus:

US President George W. Bush quoted French existential writer Albert Camus to European leaders a year and a half ago, and now he's read one of his most famous works: "The Stranger."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday that Bush, here on his Texas ranch enjoying a 10-day vacation from Washington, had made quick work of the Algerian-born writer's 1946 novel -- in English.

The US president, often spoofed as an intellectual lightweight, quoted Camus in a February 21, 2005 speech in Brussels praising the US-Europe alliance and urging other nations to help Washington spread democracy in the world.

"We know there are many obstacles, and we know the road is long. Albert Camus said that 'freedom is a long-distance race.' We're in that race for the duration," Bush said in those remarks.

Well, Camus' The Stranger is not so much about freedom, as it is about what happens to the human being who can find no purpose, no moral compass by which to live.

Maybe Bush is preparing for a trip to meet European heads of state and he thought he had better brush up.


This article is from Andrew Bostom in Front Page Magazine:

Georges Vajda—in a seminal 1937 essay 1—provides an overall assessment of the portrayal of the Jews in the hadith collections (the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as recorded by pious transmitters), complemented by Koranic verses, and observations from the earliest Muslim biographies [or “sira”] of Muhammad.

Vajda’s research demonstrates how Muslim eschatology emphasizes the Jews supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ—and as per another tradition, the Dajjâl is in fact Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions state that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil.

When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered— everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree. Thus, according to a canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985), if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: “There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!”

As Vajda observes,

Not only are the Jews vanquished in the eschatological war, but they will serve as ransom for the Muslims in the fires of hell. The sins of certain Muslims will weigh on them like mountains, but on the day of resurrection, these sins will be lifted and laid upon the Jews.

But it is the Jews stubborn malevolence, Vajda further notes, that is their defining worldly characteristic:

Jews are represented in the darkest colors [i.e., in the Koran, hadith, and sira]. Convinced by the clear testimony of their books that Mohammed was the true prophet, they refused to convert, out of envy, jealousy and national particularism, even out of private interest. They have falsified their sacred books and do not apply the laws of God; nevertheless, they pursued Mohammed with their raillery and their oaths, and harassed him with questions, an enterprise that turned to their own confusion and merely corroborated the authenticity of the supernatural science of the prophet. From words they moved to action: sorcery, poisoning, assassination held no scruples for them.

Examples of this archetypal Jew hatred from the sacred Islamic texts, sira, and main early Sunni historiographical accounts, include: Koranic verses labeling Jews as malevolent enemies of Islam (5:82), and disobedient slayers of their own prophets who suffered justifiable abasement (2:61), including, for some, transformation into apes and swine (5:60); or the more profoundly hateful narratives (in the hadith, sira, and early histories, for example by Tabari) which maintain that the perfidious Jews fomented sectarian strife in early Islam by promoting heresies—including Shi’ism itself—that threatened the unity of the Muslim community (umma), and the canonical hadith (
Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5431) that the Jews caused Muhammad’s protracted, excruciating death from poisoning (“The Jews discussed about poisons and became united in one poison.

Vajda’s analysis indicates that all these archetypes in turn justify Muslim animus towards the Jews, and the admonition to, at best, “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination”, as dhimmis, treated “with contempt”, under “humiliating arrangements”.

Hizbollah and Hamas have constructed core ideologies based upon this Islamic theology of Jew hatred, which one can glean readily from their foundational documents, and subsequent pronouncements, made ad nauseum. Hamas further demonstrates openly its adherence to a central motif of Jew hatred in Muslim eschatology—Article 7 of the Hamas Charter concludes with a verbatim reiteration of the apocalyptic hadith alluded to earlier:

“The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: `Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him'; but the tree Gharkad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

Demonizing Israel and Jews—via motifs in the Koran and hadith—Hizbollah views the jihad against the “Zionist entity” as an annihilationist war intrinsic to broader conflicts: the struggle between the Islamic world and the non-Muslim world, and the historical struggle between Islam and Judaism. The most senior clerical authority for Hizbollah, Husayn Fadlalah has stated, “We find in the Koran that the Jews are the most aggressive towards the Muslims…because of their aggressive resistance to the unity of the faith.” Fadlallah repeatedly refers to anti-Jewish archetypes in the Koran and the hadith: the corrupt, treacherous and aggressive nature of the Jews; their reputation as killers of prophets, who spread corruption on earth; and the notion that the Jews engaged in conspiratorial efforts against the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Fadlallah argues, ultimately, “Either we destroy Israel or Israel destroys us.”

Hizbollah is viscerally opposed to Judaism and the existence of Israel, stressing the eternal conflict between the Jews and Islam. Eradicating Israel represents an early stage of Hizballah’s Pan-Islamic ambitions, and its jihad against the rest of the non-Muslim world.

Since 1989, historian David Littman has made repeated appeals to the UN Human Rights Commission alerting its members to the dangers inherent in the binding
Hamas Charter (circa 1988). Recently Littman elucidated some of key the motifs of Islamic Jew hatred contained in this document which amount to no less than a “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”, punishable under article 4 of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Article 7 contains the apocalyptic hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985) referred to earlier—reflecting the annihilationist Jew hatred of Islamic eschatology. As Littman observes, Article 8, “…a blueprint for jihadist terrorism”, is the slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its Constitution; Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

Article 28 targets all Jews: “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people: ‘May the cowards never sleep.’” The Charter in its preface quotes Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, as saying: “Israel will exist and continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

Read the rest.

Why Does
The World
Hate The Jews
So Much

Yesterday I featured an article by Michael Medved entitled "Why The World Hates The Jews." Medved hypothesized that the Jews are hated because they are "chosen" and because people are jealous of them.

I stated that I thought Medved's idea was interesting, but I didn't think it explaines the fact that people hate Jews even in places where there are no Jews. And, I noted, most people who hate Jews probably don't even know they are God's Chosen People.

So, what is the reason the world hates Jews so much? Well, here's Christian writer Dave Hunt's opinion (thanks to Olivia for sending this over to me):

... multitudes of people who otherwise have little or no thought of God or Christ, give lip service to the idea that more than 1900 years ago Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and "there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" (Matthew 2:1-2).

Oddly, many Christians who believe Jesus was born "King of the Jews" attach no literal meaning to that title, especially one that has anything to do with Jews. Prophecies concerning Christ ruling the world from David’s throne in Jerusalem are taken as metaphors referring to His present rule from heaven. Jerusalem was founded by King David 3000 years ago. No fewer than forty times the Bible calls Jerusalem "the city of David." There God established David’s throne forever, and on that throne the Messiah, King of the Jews, descended from David, must reign over Israel and the world (II Chronicles 6:6, 33:7; II Samuel 7:16; Psalm 89:3, 4, 20, 21, 29-36, etc.).

Jerusalem is named more than 800 times in the Bible and is central to God’s plans. He has placed His name there forever. Knowing that only the Messiah, descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, can defeat him, Satan has inspired 3000 years of anti-Semitism. Destroying all Jews would have prevented Messiah from being born. Satan lost that round. But if all Jews could be destroyed today, God could not fulfill His promises that Christ would reign as King of the Jews on David’s throne at His second coming. God would be a liar and Satan the winner.

God’s integrity and eternal purposes are linked to Israel’s survival! Roman Catholic doctrine that the nation of Israel has been replaced by that Church is spreading increasingly among evangelicals. This replacement of Israel is a subtle form of anti-Semitism. Instead of sending Jews to ovens, their significance and even their existence is denied: by some twist in history, those now commonly called Jews are supposedly not really Jews — the real Jews are Mormons, or British Israelites, or Catholics or Christians.

The shameful horror of anti-Semitism throughout history provides a shocking exposé of the human heart. Satan found multitudes of partners (many who called themselves Christians) only too eager to malign, persecute, and even kill God’s chosen people. Hitler’s "final solution to the Jewish problem" was known to Roosevelt, Churchill, and other allied leaders, who did nothing. Even neutral Switzerland and Sweden turned escaping Jews back to Hitler’s ovens.

Incredibly, a typical Jordanian textbook equates Zionism with Nazism. Yet Arabs applauded and aided Hitler — and Islam pursues Hitler’s "solution" to this day. Hitlerian threats pour continuously from Muslim religious and political leaders on TV and over radios and loudspeakers in mosque and street. The battle between Yahweh, the God of Israel who loves Jews as His chosen people, and Allah, the god of Islam, who hates them with a passion, is building to an awesome climax. It is every Muslim’s religious duty to exterminate the Jews.

Muslims dream of destroying Israel. They name holidays and streets after murderers of innocent Israeli citizens, and hold celebrations honoring terrorists. Islam’s leaders have called for a spiritual revival as the key to Israel’s destruction — and Islamic fundamentalism, which brazenly employs terrorism worldwide, is now sweeping the world. All Islamic scholars agree it is the sacred duty of every Muslim in every age to wage jihad (holy war) whenever possible to force the entire world to submit to Islam.

There are more than 100 verses in the Koran about fighting and killing in that quest. A Libyan cabinet minister explained, "Violence is the Muslim’s most positive form of prayer." In spite of his rape of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein is beloved by millions of Arabs because his scud missiles heavily damaged Israeli civilian targets and he repeatedly calls for Israel’s destruction. When Kaddafi screams, "The battle with Israel will be such that . . . Israel will cease to exist!" he speaks for every Muslim.

Islam’s founding prophet, Muhammad, declared, "The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them."

Islam’s desire to exterminate Israel is taught from childhood. A Syrian Minister of Education wrote, "The hatred which we indoctrinate into the minds of our children from birth is sacred." A ninth-grade Egyptian textbook declares, "Israel shall not live if the Arabs stand fast in their hatred." And a fifth-grade textbook states, "The Arabs do not cease to act for the extermination of Israel."

It is suicidal for Israel to trade strategic land for "peace" with such enemies — but the world forces her. Muhammad showed Muslims how to make "peace." In A.D. 628 he made a peace treaty with his own Kuraish tribe. Two years later, he suddenly attacked Mecca and slaughtered every male. Arafat has publicly declared, "In the name of Allah . . . I am not considering it [the Israeli-PLO peace accord] more than the agreement signed between our prophet Muhammad and the Kuraish tribe . . . . Peace for us means the destruction of Israel . . . ."

No place for the King of the Jews!

This is Islam — take a close look! Muslim nations are arming themselves with missiles capable of delivering chemical, biological, and nuclear warheads. Syria has manufactured thousands of chemical warheads, has huge stores of biological weapons, and has tripled its military and air power since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The whole world knows these weapons have one purpose: to destroy Israel. But Israel also has nuclear weapons (soon to be deployed in new efficient submarines) and would use them if needed.

Who will bring peace? Christ warned of such incredible destruction that, if He did not intervene to stop it, no flesh would be left alive on earth (Matthew 24:21-22). That remarkable prophecy anticipated today’s modern weapons. No wonder the God of the Bible, who twelve times calls Himself "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," promises repeatedly to defend Israel and Jerusalem in the last days!

Having brought Israel to birth in 1948, God will complete His purpose. He declares, "Shall a nation be born . . . ? Shall I bring to the birth . . . saith the Lord . . .and shut the womb?" (Isaiah 66:8-9). In its mad rebellion against God, the world rejects the "King of the Jews" and His promised rule of international peace from David’s throne in Jerusalem, and makes its own plans.

And, a good portion of the world is currently making plans to do away with Israel. That is seen by many as the "solution" to the problems of the world. The next few years sure are going to be interesting.

Middle Eastern
Men Caught
In Michigan
1000 Disposable
Cell Phones

I'm sure they have a good reason for needing them. Don't worry:

(TV5) — Around 1:00am August 11th three men purchased cell phones from the Wal-Mart store on M-81 near the corner of M-24 in Caro. Wal-Mart places a limit on the number of cell phones that can be purchased at once, that number is three. The three men allegedly bought 80 by purchasing them three at time so that an alert wouldn’t be triggered by the cash register. They also paid cash.

An alert clerk grew suspicious and called Tuscola County central dispatch. The Caro Police Department sent a unit and stopped the rented van on M-81 just east of Caro. The suspects were headed towards Bad Axe on M-81 where there is another Super Wal-Mart.

The three men were described as being of Pakistani descent but live in Texas. Police say the three, ages 19, 22, and 23 appear to be naturalized citizens. One man was driving while the other two were in the back opening the phone packages with box cutters throwing the phones in one box, batteries in another and the packaging and phone charger in another container. The suspects had 1000 other cell phones in the van. There was also a bag of receipts showing that someone was in Wisconsin the day before.

The phones were Nokia Tracfones selling for $20 at Wal-Mart. For your twenty dollars you receive a phone charger and 40 minutes of airtime. The phones do not have to be registered with a name. Also discovered was a laptop with store addresses and store logos.

Yesterday, two Middle Eastern men were caught in Michigan with 600 disposable cell phones.

Something is up.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Music By Portishead


Recently I drove through a landscape which looked like this. I was seized by the thought of what it must have been like to be the first frontiersman travelling through such a place in horse-and-wagon.

Really, it must have been spooky.

How could one travel through such a land and not believe it was inhabited by ghosts, mediated by God?

Here are the words which went through my mind as I drove and drove and drove:

"Bring me men to match my mountains,
Bring me men to match my plains,
Men with empires in their purpose,
And new eras in their brains."

The Left = National Socialists (Nazis)

From my buddy, Jonz, the Drunken Blogger:

This is Hassan Nasrallah - leader of the Shiite Islamic terror group Hezbollah. Recently he has become a pin-up of political 'Left'.

Communist website Leninology unashamedley displays the Hizbollah flag.

"If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli"
- Hassan Nasrallah

"Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history... Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment..."
- Hassan Nasrallah

“If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide.”
- Hassan Nasrallah

The World
Hates The Jews

This is written by Michael Medved, and was published in Front Page Magazine today:

Many of the bitter controversies in every corner of the globe inevitably raise the same ancient question: why does the world hate the Jews?

Whether it’s the angry international reaction to Israel’s efforts to defend itself in Lebanon, or Mel Gibson’s drunken rant in Malibu, the age-old specter of anti-Semitism refuses to disappear. With only 13 million Jews in the world – less than one fourth of one percent of the earth’s population – why does this tiny group inspire such bitter, widespread and often violent animosity?

The answer is obvious to anyone who monitors anti-Semitic propaganda from all its multifarious sources. People who express hatred, resentment or fear regarding the Jews almost always focus on charges of Jewish arrogance, elitism, aggressiveness and lust for power.

According to the logic of anti-Semites everywhere, Jews deserve harsher treatment than anyone else because they work harder than anyone else to enshrine their own superior status. This argument suggests that the only way to answer constant Jewish demands for special treatment and privilege is to impose special limitations and restrictions on their instinctive will to dominate.

According to such logic, the rest of the world must work together to cut Jews down to size; only then will they function on the same plane as everyone else. As Hutton Gibson (Holocaust-denying father of the scandal-tarnished star, Mel) revealingly declared to interviewer Steve Feuerstein: “I don’t know what the Jewish agenda is except that it’s all about control. They’re after one world religion and one world government.”

Read the whole thing. Medved goes on to discuss the idea that, perhaps, the fact that the Jews are the "Chosen People" is offensive to the other inhabitants of our Earth.

Well, that is an interesting idea. But, the thing is, Jew-hatred is all-pervasive. Even people in Malaysia hate the Jews and there are no Jews in Malaysia, and there aren't very many Bibles either.

Honestly, I don't think most of the people who really hate Jews in this world are even aware of the idea that the Jews are the chosen people of God.

So Pastorius, you ask. To what do you attribute this omnipresent hatred of the Jews?

Well, you know what? I will answer that, but first I want to get the opinions of others. Tell me, why do you think people hate Jews?

Wednesday, August 09, 2006


Bush Directs
At Israel

From Associated Press:

CRAWFORD, Texas - The White House said Wednesday neither Israel nor Hezbollah should escalate their month-old war, a pointed comment after Israel decided to widen its ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

Although White House press secretary Tony Snow said the message was for both sides, his remarks came as Israel's Security Cabinet voted to expand the war effort in an attempt to deal further blows to Hezbollah. The criticism was among the administration's strongest concerning longtime ally Israel since the fighting began.

"We are working hard now to bridge differences between the United States position and some of the positions of our allies," Snow told reporters in Texas, where President Bush was vacationing. "We want an end to violence and we do not want escalations."

I don't understand the White House's position here. Israel's stated objective has always been to see to it that Hizbollah is no longer an armed force in Lebanon. The Bush Administration has been supportive of that objective. Hizbollah has not been disarmed. Instead, they have continued to fire massive amounts of rockets at civilians within Israel.

Considering the fact that thus far the relatively mild strategies Israel has employed have not done the job, the only reasonable conclusion is that Israel must step up their offensive.

So, why is the Bush Administration trying to pull in the reigns on them?

Once again, we see that George Bush, strong as he appears to be at times, does not have the courage of his convictions. He has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan because he allowed Sharia law to be enshrined in the constitutions of both countries. Thus we have situations where it is legal to kill those who have converted away from Islam in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Homosexuals are also being killed under cover of the law in both countries. This is George Bush's responsibility. These constitutions were constructed under his watch.

And, now he is attempting to force Israel to change its war plan in the middle of the offensive.

This is pathetic.

Weakness at this juncture will only lead to more, and worse violence in the future.

Do Not
Support Israel
And Yet
Jews Support

Taking into consideration the information that I provided in the post below, Jews ought to be very wary of the Democrattic party:

... the Dems are no longer Israel's best friend; here's an excerpt from MICHAEL BARONE, (he recently commented on a recent poll by the LAT and Bloomberg):

[The poll asked:]Should the United States continue to align itself with Israel, adopt a more neutral posture, or align more with Arab countries?By a 50 to 44 percent margin, respondents said we should stick with Israel rather than take a more neutral posture; only 2 percent want us to side more with Arab countries.

But there's a big difference between respondents of different parties. Here's a table showing the results, including independents.Continue with Israel: Reps 64; Inds 46; Dems 39More neutral posture R-29 ; I-49; D-54We see a similar split on assessments of the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

The poll asked whether Israel's action was justified and not excessively harsh, justified but excessively harsh, or unjustified....A majority, 56 percent, of Democrats think Israel did not act properly, while an even bigger majority, 64 percent, of Republicans think Israel did act properly. That's a pretty sharp difference.

And yet, Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Very sad.

People form values when they are young, and then refuse to change as the times change. The Democratic Party has left the Jews, and it has left me. Unless things change drastically, I will never again vote for a Democrat. Jews would be wise to similarly reassess their affiliations.

The New

Charles at Little Green Footballs has been making fun of what he calls "moonbats" for quite a while now. Moonbats are lefties, posing as Democrats, who are plagued with a genetic anomally which makes them impervious to reason, and susceptible to Bush Derangement Syndrome. They are usually radical Pacifists, meaning they believe that no Western nation has the right to defend itself against attacks from smaller, weaker enemies, no matter how vicious and destructive the attacks are.

Anyway, while I think Charles' poking fun at the Moonbats is generally funny, I never post on the subject myself, because I tend to think of the Moonbats as being a group of people who do such a good job of discrediting themselves that one really need not help.

However, the Moonbats have given birth to a meme which I have been expecting to crop up at this juncture, and I expect it to grow and soon become part of the mainstream discourse in the United States, and particularly Europe.

Read all about it:

In my diary of yesterday, I proposed that our party support the creation of a single secular democracy in the area now controlled by Israel, and I was impressed by the quality of responses. Based on this tiny sample of 100 or so Democrats, I’m thinking that maybe the average Democratic voter might be open to taking a more impartial role in the Middle East - and thus making our country less of an object of hatred by Muslims everywhere.

The most common objections to such a proposal is that the two sides hate each other too much to stop the killing and that outside forces, like the USA, cannot impose a solution.

However, I think that the US, as the prime, and virtually the only, supplier for the Israeli Defense Force for the past many decades has the capacity to force a settlement simply by cutting off that support.

The fact of the matter is, the Palestinian territories are completely free of Jews. This is not because Jews wouldn't want to live there. It is because the Palestinian people insist that no Jews live there.

For instance, when Israel "disengaged" from Gaza last year, not only did they have to bring in the IDF to forcibly remove the Jews who lived in Gaza, but they had to dig up graves and remove the dead Jews as well.

The Palestinian people have elected two parties to lead them both of which are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The Hamas charter explicitly calls for death to "the Jews", not simply Israelis. The people of Palestine elected Hamas knowing this.

That is the will of the Palestinian people.

The only good thing that has come out of Palestinian democracy is clarity. Now, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Palestinians want Jews dead and gone from the land of Israel. Now that the Palestinian people have told us this in no uncertain terms we would do well to heed their warning.

When a group of, presumably, intelligent people calls for a "one-state solution" they either

1) prove they are not intelligent and should not be commenting on politics,


2) prove that they are Jew-haters by the very fact that they are willing to sacrifice the Jews to the dragon of Palestinian hatred.

Let me tell you something else about the Peaceful Land of Palestine. Hamas has imposed Sharia law within the Palestinian territories. So, when people call for a "one-state soltuion" they are also calling for an expansion of the borders of a Sharia-state.

Now, when one considers that under Sharia law the punishment for apostasy, homosexuality, and adultery is death by stoning, one has to wonder how "progressive" members of the left could support such a solution.

Once again, either they are ignorant and should not be commenting, or they are ok with the policies and desires of the people of Palestine.

Thie does not speak very well of the people who support such a solution, does it?

And yet I will tell you right now, watch, as in the coming weeks you will hear more and more political voices calling for the one-state plan. Let us be clear that when we hear such calls we are hearing calls for genocide, ethnic cleansing, and fascism.

That's an awful lot to tolerate even if ones desire is that "making our country less of an object of hatred by Muslims everywhere."

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Is Really
Fuckin' Funny

Oops, I shouldn't have said that. Sorry.

Is Bush Fat?

This story, from ABC News, cracks me up:

Aug. 7, 2006 — Last week President Bush underwent his annual physical. It revealed he was in pretty good health, except for one thing. According to his body mass index, he's overweight.
His BMI was 26, putting him in the lower range of the overweight category.

He weighs 196 pounds, meaning he has gained 5 pounds since last year and his percentage of body fat has increased to 16.8 percent, which is, overall, pretty good for a man who just turned 60. (To calculate your BMI, go here).

Still, the appropriate body weight range is 157 to 192 pounds for a 5-foot, 11-inch man. Is there cause for alarm? Should the president go on a diet?

Possibly, dietitians say.

"When you're 60 and your BMI is 26, it's a risk," says dietitian Cathy Nonas, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. "As you get older, you are more prone to other ailments — diabetes, arthritis and cardiovascular disease. It is helpful to not add another BMI point each year."

The notion that everyone gains weight as they age is not an excuse, say health care professionals.

"I don't know if I would say he's overweight, but if you look at the trend, increasing body weight is not a good pattern," says Leslie Bonci, director of Sports Nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "This weight gain trend is important as we get older."

While some experts have voiced concern over the president's weight, others say he has nothing to worry about. And one leading nutrition researcher believes BMI alone does not provide enough information to make a decision.

"In men, BMI is particularly misleading because of muscle mass. I would like to know the president's waist circumference. It appears the president is pretty healthy. However, if he's beginning a trend of gaining 5 pounds a year, that is not a good thing," says Barbara Rolls, head of nutritional sciences at Penn State University.

And J. Larry Durstine, president of the American College of Sports Medicine, says he believes the president should be recognized as a leader in maintaining good health.

"If 60 percent of Americans had a BMI of 26 or less, we would have a healthier population," he says.

So why is Bush technically overweight?

Body mass index is the ratio of a person's weight to height and is meant to indicate how likely someone will develop an illness, such as heart disease, because of his or her weight. A BMI of less than 25 has a low risk. A BMI between 26 and 29.99 is considered overweight and anything higher than 30 is obese and poses a high risk. An individual with a BMI under 19 may be at risk for osteoporosis and, potentially, malnutrition.

However, there is controversy with using this formula, as it may overestimate risk or inaccurately put someone in an overweight or obese category, especially men.

Although there are more precise ways of determining a person's percentage of body fat, BMI is perhaps the easiest and quickest measurement for the general population. Still, a BMI should always be taken into account with other measurements and tests, experts say.

"BMI cutoffs are not absolute about health risks," says Kelly D. Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

In addition, "BMI is one thing in a constellation of risk factors that should be considered for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and metabolic syndrome," says Barry A. Franklin, director of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Laboratories at William Beaumont Hospital. "I would not be upset by a BMI of 26 and would consider other factors to gauge global health, including fitness, blood pressure, lipids. In this case, the president's values are all stellar."

Bush is not the only one to have a BMI that seems incorrect or perhaps a bit unfair. In his prime, as Mr. Universe, Arnold Schwarzenneger's BMI was 33.

The reason this cracks me up is because it is a perfect example of a science writer writing about a subject he doesn't understand in the least being led astray by experts who are narrowly focused on their fields of study.

Notice the article says a BMI is the ratio of a person's height to weight. Two paragraphs later, the writer says BMI is "perharps the easiest and quickest way" to determine if a person is overweight.

This is not at all true.

Here's the one very important factor which is not discussed in the article at all: Muscle.

Muscle weighs more than fat. And, muscle does not drag on the heart the way fat does. When a person exercises regularly, they build muscle. When they build muscle their whole body builds itself to accomodate that muscle, including one particular muscle called the heart.

On the other hand, when a person adds fat to their body, they do so through overeating. In other words, the body has added weight, but has done so without exercise, meaning they have done nothing to accomodate the added weight. Thus, the added weight is basically dead weight dragging on the person's heart.

Note the article does say that George Bush's body fat percentage is 16.8%. I love how they say that is "overall pretty good for a man who has just turned 60."

Why don't we look at some photos of what men look like at different body fat percentages. All these men are 5'10" tall.

This man weighs 245 pounds and has a body fat percentage in excess of 30%. Yes, that's right, 30% of his body is just fat, which is really not "body" at all, in that it doesn't perform any function except to keep him warm and wheezing.

This man weighs 210 pounds and has a body fat percentage of approximately 14-16%. Now, there are variations in body type which would effect the way one would look, but remember, George Bush is one inch taller than this man, and weighs 14 pounds less. And, George Bush is sixty, whereas this man is probably about 40.

Ok, now, here's an athlete in prime condition. This man weighs 188 pounds and has a body fat percentage of 10%. Also, note the large endowment. That is another, less-discussed, advantage to working out.

Ok, I'm just kidding about that.

But seriously folks, considering George Bush is taller than the guy in the middle, and yet weighs less, it is likely that he looks like something in between that guy and the athlete shown here.

George Bush is a stud. Laura probably can't keep her hands off him. I'm guessing, those two are rockin' the White House.

Anyway, here's another thing which is not discussed. Muscle burns more energy than fat. When a person adds muscle to their body, their metabolism increases. Metabolism is the amount of calories one's body burns per hour.

So, there you go, the greatest benefit to working out is, the more you work out, the more you can eat.

Monday, August 07, 2006

John Coltrane Plays "Naima"

If there would have been a Pastorius Jr., I would have named him Coltrane. Alas, twas not meant to be, so I listen to the music and dream of the son born only in my mind.


In Iraq

Yes, we've done such a great job of bringing a Human Rights-respecting Democracy to Iraq that the traditional Sharia punishment of death is being levied on homosexuals:

Hardline Islamic insurgent groups in Iraq are targeting a new type of victim with the full protection of Iraqi law, The Observer can reveal. The country is seeing a sudden escalation of brutal attacks on what are being called the 'immorals' - homosexual men and children as young as 11 who have been forced into same-sex prostitution.

There is growing evidence that Shia militias have been killing men suspected of being gay and children who have been sold to criminal gangs to be sexually abused. The threat has led to a rapid increase in the numbers of Iraqi homosexuals now seeking asylum in the UK because it has become impossible for them to live safely in their own country. ...

Eleven-year-old Ameer Hasoon al-Hasani was kidnapped by policemen from the front of his house last month. He was known in his district to have been forced into prostitution. His father Hassan told me he searched for his son for three days after his abduction, then found him, shot in the head. A copy of the death certificate confirms the cause of death.

Homosexuality is seen as so immoral that it qualifies as an 'honour killing' to murder someone who is gay - and the perpetrator can escape punishment. Section 111 of Iraq's penal code lays out protections for murder when people are acting against Islam.

We have failed in Iraq. We failed because we did not believe in our own principles enough to insist that they be enforced. We allowed Sharia to be enshrined in the Iraqi constitution as a source of law. We are beginning to reap what we have allowed to be sown.

Here's a question for us to ponder. We would never have allowed such a situation to have developed in a Western country, so why did we allow this to have in a Middle Eastern country?

I have my own answers, but I'd love to hear yours.

To Get
The War

Is this guy a loose cannon, or is he expressing the wishes of Syria:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Syria’s foreign minister offered on Sunday to join Hezbollah and said his country’s army had standing orders to respond immediately to any Israeli attacks.

“If you wish, I’m ready to be a soldier at the disposal of (Hezbollah chief) Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah,” Walid Mouallem told reporters on arrival in Lebanon in a symbolic gesture.

Asked about concerns that the war in Lebanon could spill over into a regional war, Mouallem said: “Most welcome.”

“Syria is readying itself and doesn’t hide its (military) readiness. We will respond to any Israeli aggression immediately,” he added.

Mouallem said later after talks with President Emile Lahoud: “If Israel attacks Syria by any means, on the ground, in the air, our leadership ordered the armed forces to reply immediately.”
Mouallem, the first senior Syrian official to visit Lebanon since Syria ended three decades of military presence in April Last year, criticized a U.S.-French draft of a U.N. Security Council resolution to end the war.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

White Stripes - Wild Orchid

One of my favorite songs, by one of my favorite bands.