I Took This Shift Because Of Her --- Politics - Justice - And Wrestling With The Angel
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Everybody should know about Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band, if only so they can protect themselves.
In recent weeks, I have been making the same statement over and over ad nauseum. Here it is:
There is not a single Islamic political organization, media outlet, academic institution, or government, of any appreciable size, anywhere in the world, which is moderate.
Those who read me are probably getting sick of hearing it. Perhaps, wondering if I have lost my edge, my ability to come up with new ideas on a daily basis. Maybe I have, because I confess, I am definately stuck on this idea. It seems to me there is no greater outrage in this world than this one simple truth.
I wonder whether many readers believe me when I write this, so on occasion I challenge those who read me to come up with one example of a moderate Muslim organization. I have yet to have a single commenter even attempt to rise to the challenge. And, if any do, I am extremely confident that I will be able to prove, in short order, that the organization is not at all moderate.
And, if there are any who do not believe me (for it is an extreme statement to make, even if true), well then, here is a Muslim who is saying the same thing as I (from the Toronto Sun):
In a recent column, Michael Coren, my colleague here at the Sun, demanded Muslims apologize for wrongs too numerous to list.
Coren is right. I, as a Muslim, apologize without equivocation or reservation for the terrible crimes -- small and big -- committed by Muslims against non-Muslims and against Muslims, as in Darfur, who are weak and easy prey to those who hold power in the name of Islam.
I imagine, however, Coren is not seeking an apology from a person of Muslim faith such as I, who maintains no rank and cannot speak on behalf of the institutionalized world of Islam.
Like many others who share his frustration and legitimate anger, Coren is asking to hear a contrite voice from within institutionalized Islam -- to repent for Muslim misconduct, past and present, that is indefensible by any standard of civility and decency, and seek forgiveness.
But Coren and others might well wait indefinitely for such an apology from those representatives of institutionalized Islam convinced of their own righteousness, even as they are engineers of a civilization's wreckage and prosper in it by the art of bullying.
Oh, we will not wait indefinately. Of that, I can assure you. The problem for moderates who are Muslim is that we are getting sick of waiting. And the day that we become completely fed up will be a very sad day for all of humanity.
Friday, September 29, 2006
For anyone who has trouble picking sides in the ongoing Middle East Conflict, let's step back from the conflict itself and look at some facts about the two sides. What do the two sides do with their relative resources? (From the Zionist Youngster):
Whatever wealth they have is the result of their good fortune (of having oil under their ground) and not of their efforts. Israel, poor in such natural resources, prospers by the brains and the sweat of its people ... This setting up of industry, science and culture by the Zionists predates the independence of Israel by decades, whereas the invented nation calling themselves “Palestinians” have been engaged in nothing but internecine warfare (of the violent kind), the setting up of terrorist training camps, and the maintenance of a poisonous education system ever since gaining land of their own in 1993.
Such is the difference between Israel and its enemies ...
Yes, but let's look a bit more at the difference. In 2002, the United Nations Development Program released its report on development in the 22 states of the Arab World. Get a load of these statistics:
- No Arab country spends more than 0.2 percent of its gross national product on scientific research, and most of that money goes toward salaries. By contrast, the United States spends more than 10 times that amount.
- Fewer than one in 20 Arab university students pursue scientific disciplines.There are only 18 computers per 1,000 people in the Arab world. The global average is 78 per 1,000.
- No more than 10,000 books were translated into Arabic over the entire past millennium, equivalent to the number translated into Spanish each year.
- Only 370 industrial patents were issued to people in Arab countries between 1980 and 2000. In South Korea during that same period, 16,000 industrial patents were issued.
Is the answer, then, that Jews are smart, and Arabs are stupid? No, the answer lies in Islamic ideology vs. Jewish ideology. Arabs are predominantly Muslim. Islam teaches that the Koran is the final word of Allah, and that all circumstances are Insh'allah (as Allah wills it). And, what's more Allah is beyond his creation and totally incomprehensible.
Judaism, and Christianity by extension, teaches that humans particpate in God's creation in every way, from helping to write the Word of God (The Bible) to maintaining the garden, to naming the animals. And, God is not incomprehensible to man. Instead, man was created in God's Image. Therefore, just as God is rational and creative, we are to be rational and creative.
In the world of Islam, it is blasphemy to think this way. And, that is why Muslims invent almost nothing, and produce little wealth with all the revenue from their oil. Well, they did invent the Buzzing Prayer Rug.
Anyway, the question is, even if you have trouble disentangling the politics of the Middle East Conflict, which side would you rather have increase its influence in this world?
Also see: Observations on Arabs.
Isaac Schrodinger also has some important links on this subject.
If you really thought Al Gore had a point all these years, I think all you need to do is read the following and you will understand that you were mistaken:
GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMINGFri Sep 29 2006 09:04:05 ET
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"
Gore, who was introduced by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said the world faces a "full-scale climate emergency that threatens the future of civilization on earth."Gore showed computer-generated projections of ocean water rushing in to submerge the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, parts of China, India and other nations, should ice shelves in Antarctica or Greenland melt and slip into the sea.
"The planet itself will do nicely, thank you very much what is at risk is human civilization," Gore said. After a series of Q& A with the audience, which had little to do with global warming and more about his political future, Annan bid "adios" to Gore.
Then, Gore had his staff opened a stack of cardboard boxes to begin selling his new book, "An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It," $19.95, to the U.N. diplomats.
The only question is, is Al Gore a lunatic, or a shameless hawker of B.S.?
Is Islam a religion of peace, or a religion of war? Should the Pope be allowed to address the issue in a free society?
From Max Boot in the Los Angeles Times:
EVER SINCE 9/11, a dark view of Islam has been gaining currency on what might be called the Western street. This view holds that, contrary to the protestations of our political leaders — who claim that acts of terrorism are being carried out by a minority of extremists — the real problem lies with Islam itself. In this interpretation, Islam is not a religion of peace but of war, and its 1.2 billion adherents will never rest until all of humanity is either converted, subjugated or simply annihilated. Is the war on terrorism really a "clash of civilizations"? The overreaction to Pope Benedict XVI's relatively innocuous remarks at the University of Regensburg on Sept. 12 would seem to lend weight to this alarming notion.
As part of a plea for combining reason with religion, the pope cited a 14th century Byzantine emperor who condemned Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman" because of "his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The pope subsequently made clear that these were not his own views, but this did not stop an explosion of animosity across the Muslim world. Amid calls from angry clerics to "hunt down" the holy father (a.k.a. "the dog of Rome" and the "worshiper of the cross"), various hotheads have taken to the streets and attacked Christian churches.
This recalls the over-the-top outcry this year after a Danish newspaper dared to print cartoons depicting Muhammad as an instigator of violence. Muslim spokesmen claim that these are unconscionable slurs. Yet, while demanding respect for their own religion, too many Muslims accord too little respect to competing faiths or even to competing brands of their own faith.
Where are the demonstrations in the Muslim street when the president of Iran denies the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel? Or when Palestinian kidnappers force two Western journalists to convert to Islam at gunpoint? Or when Sunni terrorists in Iraq bomb Shiite mosques and slaughter hundreds of worshipers?
All too many Islamic leaders prefer to harp on the supposed sins of the "infidels," however exaggerated or even fictionalized (no, the CIA didn't bomb the World Trade Center to create an excuse for invading Afghanistan), rather than focusing on the problems within their own umma (community). And yet it would be a mistake to conclude that the woes of Islamic society today, serious as they are, are endemic to the religion itself.
It is true that, alone of the world's major faiths, Islam was founded by a prophet who used force to win converts. "I was ordered to fight all men until they say, 'There is no god but Allah,' " Muhammad proclaimed in his farewell address to his followers in AD 632.
Countless Muslims since then have followed the path of jihad — literally, "exertion in the path of Allah" but usually taken as an injunction for waging holy war. But countless Muslims also have been willing to trade with unbelievers, to live peaceably alongside them, to learn from them and even to enter into military alliances with them against Muslim rivals.
Religions are not monolithic. They have no fixed, eternal identity. Until the 18th century, Christianity was a militant faith whose adherents did not hesitate to kill "heathens." Throughout the Middle Ages, Islamic states usually offered greater tolerance to religious minorities and were more open to secular learning than their Christian neighbors.
Even now, most Muslim countries — from Senegal to Indonesia — are far more pluralistic and much less fundamentalist than Iran or Saudi Arabia. And even in the most militant Muslim societies, clerics are able to maintain a rigid orthodoxy only by force. Left to their own devices, the Saudi or Iranian people would opt for a less monastic existence — a danger that the guardians of official morality are keenly aware of.
The real enemy we face is not Islam per se but a violent offshoot known as Islamism, which is rooted, to be sure, in the Koran but which also finds inspiration in such modern Western ideologies as fascism, Nazism and communism. Its most successful exponents — from Hassan Banna and Sayyid Qutb to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden — are hardly orthodox interpreters of Islam. They are power-mad intellectuals in the mold of a Lenin or a Hitler. The problem is that the rest of the Muslim world, by not doing more to curb the radicals — whether out of fear or sympathy — lends credence to the most objectionable caricatures of their faith.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Isn't Just A Myth -
It's Total B.S.
From Reliapundit, the Astute Blogger:
... just by comparing the nations said to be under USA hegemony the last 50 years to the nations under Soviet of Jihadist hegemony.
All the nations under so-called USA hegemony expanded their human rights and their prosperity under USA influence and protection - while those under Soviet or Jihadist hegemony had less and less liberty, and became poorer and poorer - (until the whole shebang collapsed!):
Western Europe was better for people than Eastern Europe; South Korea was better for people than North Korea; Japan and the Philipines and Taiwan and Singapore - and South Vietnam and Thailand - were better for people than China and Cambodia and Laos.
REPEAT: Hong Kong was better than China. Puerto Rico and the DR are better off than Cuba. Even India sucked until - like China - they abandoned Marxism and opened up to economic ties with the "evil greedy capitalistic USA!"
The last 2 decades of trade with the "evil greedy capitalistic " USA has lifted more Chinese out of poverty than the previous 5 decades of Marxist/Maoist idealism. We have exploited them right into the 21st century!
There is not a single solitary country which was under real USSR hegemony which did better than those under so-called "USA hegemony. " The walls were built to keep them in, not us out!
The BOAT PEOPLE were fleeing Vietnam and Cuba, not San Diego or Boston!
And we didn't even EVER conscript their citizens, or tax the people in these "captive client states". In fact, the opposite is quite true: WE PAID EXTRA TAXES TO PROTECT THEM - WITH OUR CONSCRIPTS, OUR SOLDIERS, OUR BLOOD! We sacrificed for their freedom.
That AIN'T "dominance"; that's humanistic heroism!
You really should read the Astute Blogger everyday. He is one of the best bloggers on the net.
Iraqis Back Attacks
On American Troops
From Associated Press:
WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.
The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:
_Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.
_About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.
I worry that the compromises we are willing to make indicate a slow slide into what is called dhimmitude. A dhimmi is a person who lives under Islam with a status of protection. The Koran and Hadith proscribe that Christians and Jews can live in Islamic territory if they agree to pay the Jizya tax, which is a tax levied only on non-Muslims. Additionally, they must remain subservient to all Muslims and what they say counts for little in a court of law, should a Muslim happen to bring suit against them.
Now, I know this sounds crazy. Why would I worry about such a thing? Well, because the first step towards dhimmitude is allowing Sharia law to govern certain sectors of society. We have actually begun to see small movement towards this happening. In Canada, they almost passed a bill which would have allowed Sharia courts to govern domestic issues for Muslims. That's a first step. Additionally, there are neighborhoods in Sweden, the Netherlands, France and England, where the police refuse to go. The residents think of the neighborhoods as Dar al-Islam (territory of Islam). In other words, they believe they have colonized those neighborhoods and as far as they are concerned Sharia rules there, and so the police have no business in their neighborhoods.
Even firemen are afraid to go into these neighborhoods. When there is a fire, residents throw rocks and molotov cocktails at the firemen. Therefore, they need police protection. And, of course, the police don't want to go there.
So, the fire burns.
In England, pre-dhimmitude is so bad that a school system has banned public display of Piglet, because Muslims hate pigs. A chain of banks has done the same thing. They will no longer do their usual promotion of giving out piggy banks to children to teach them to save.
In France, one government official actually proposed creating "millets", which is a French word for neighborhoods governed by separate laws. He did this after having met with Muslims community leaders and determining that they ought to be able to govern themselves by Sharia.
I could go on and on, and I will.
In Dearborn , Michigan they publicly blast the call to prayer for Muslims. This was ok'd by the local city council.
This year will be the largest year for immigration of Saudis EVER in the United States.
In Belgium a writer named Paul Belien is being harrased by the police and threatened with charges of inciting violence and propagating racist ideas because he runs a website (Brussels Journal) which is more moderate than this one.
In Australia a Christian pastor was jailed for calling Islam a religion of the sword (which my Pastor has done openly in our church services) and using verses from the Koran to back up his assertion. In court, he attempted to read the verses and they would not allow him to do so.
In Germany, this week, an opera house decided not to run a production of a Mozart opera (which they had done only two years ago) because it featured a scene where a character pulls Mohammed's severed head from a bag. He also pulls the heads of Jesus and the Buddha from the bag, but that did not sway the German dhimmis.
These things I am telling you only scratch the surface. I write of stuff like this everyday. I am like a policeman who sees too much of the bad side of the world. I worry about myself, but I believe that I have been called to do this.
I'll tell you one thing I have learned, and it is going to sound like an extreme thing to say, but, if you disagree with me, I challenge you to research my assertion and you will find it is true.
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE ISLAMIC POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, MEDIA OUTLET, ACADEMIC INSTITUTION, OR GOVERNMENT, OF ANY APPRECIABLE SIZE, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, WHICH IS MODERATE.
That is a frightening thing to ponder. If you really think about it, that means we have no partner for dialogue or negotiation. There are moderate people who happen to be Muslims, but if the organizations which represent them are to be believed, there is no such thing as moderate Islam.
And, until a sizable group of moderate Muslims organizes themselves in order to represent their viewpoint, we are fools to believe in a moderate Islam.
I think there are many in our government who already know this, but it wouldn't do much good to articulate it publicly. No use riling up the Muslims even further.
However, at this point, I see it as my job to rile up Muslims as much as possible. Because the more they show us their colors, the more Americans and Europeans will see the truth, and stop living in a PC dreamworld where all people and religions are of equal value.
There, that's my opinion.
Let's see, the media says that a pack of vague "youths" are rioting. They are "North African" youths, and it is the third night of Ramadan. I wonder if we can put two and two and two together:
It looks as if immigrants youths want to turn nightly rioting during the Islamic holy month of ramadan into an annual tradition. Around 8:30pm last night violence erupted again in Brussels, the capital of Europe. The riots centered on the Brussels Marollen quarter and the area near the Midi Train Station, where the international trains from London and Paris arrive.
Youths threw stones at passing people and cars, windows of parked cars were smashed, bus shelters were demolished, cars were set ablaze, a youth club was arsoned and a shop was looted. Two molotov cocktails were thrown into St.Peter’s hospital, one of the main hospitals of central Brussels. The fire brigade was able to extinguish the fires at the hospital, but youths managed to steal the keys of the fire engine.
During the month of ramadan Muslims are required to fast during the day and are only allowed to eat after sunset. As Esther pointed out “What should be noticed about the riots is that they start after sunset. Besides the fact that they start after dark, it also gives the rioters enough time to break their fast and enjoy the traditional family meal. Sunset is around 7:30pm.” Tuesday’s and Monday’s riots began around 8:30pm.
Last night the police arrested 45 rioters. One of them will be prosecuted for assaulting the owner of a shop. Philippe Close, the chef de cabinet of the Mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans, said that the authorities would continue their efforts to defuse the situation in a peaceful manner, but he announced that the police will be less complacent in future, “since we cannot tolerate that this [Marollen] neighbourhood falls victim to a problem from outside the neighbourhood.”
The immigrant youths claim that they are upset by the death of Fayçal Chaaban, a 25-year old criminal, in a Brussels prison last Sunday. Yesterday morning the authorities announced they would hold a meeting with the youths to hear their grievances about security in prison, but the meeting, which was due last night, could not take place because of the riots.
The authorities are especially nervous since the Belgian municipal elections are being held on Sunday October 8th. It is likely that the elections will be won by anti-immigrant, “islamophobic” parties. Since ramadan will not be over on October 8th and many immigrants might perceive a victory of the indigenous right (as opposed to their own far-right) as an insult, Muslim indignation over the election results in major cities may spark serious disturbances.
According to a poll published today the Vlaams Belang party is set to win 38.6% of the vote in Antwerp (compared to 33,0% in the previous municipal elections six years ago).
This is the face of modern Europe. The authorities refuse to do anything substantive about the problems in their midst. Instead, they tut tut and castigate those who do try to do something. Authorities are concerned that "Islamophobic" parties will win the election.
Well, of course they will, if the current government refuses to actually put an end to the riots. There are ways to stop such anarchy. Do they have the will to do so, or not?
Last year there were forty-five nights of rioting in Paris. The riots gradually spread to other cities, and eventually, most of the larger cities in France were ablaze.
Will Belgium allow this to happen? Will the Belgian rioting spread to neighboring France?
I'd bet on it.
Pathetically, only one news report has been filed on this in the mainstream media:
The third day of rioting in the Marollen district of Brussels commenced today, events which were sparked by the apparent murder of a Moroccan prisoner in a Brussels prison. What makes this story unusual is that so far, there has only been one report issued across the newswires (by Reuters) covering the events, and even though the rioting is entering its third day, not a single photographer has been dispatched to document the activities of the Muslim mob.
Here are some links to articles on last years wave of "youth" riots across Europe:
A Civil War Underway in Old Europe, 30 October 2005
Riots, How Very American of You, 1 November 2005
Ramadan Rioting in Europe’s No-Go Areas, 2 November 2005
Riots: The Failure of Big Government, 4 November 2005
Why Some Riot and Some Do Not, 4 November 2005
The Fall of France, 5 November 2005
Show Them Who Is the Boss in France, 6 November 2005
Intifada Spreads to Brussels and Berlin, 7 November 2005
Allons Enfants de la Jihad, 8 November 2005
Land of the Lost, 9 November 2005
The Breakdown of the Extended Order, 9 November 2005
Copycat, Copycat, Where Have You Been? 10 November 2005
Censorship as a State Collapses, 11 November 2005
Mosque Attack in France, 12 November 2005
All Quiet on the European Front, 13 November 2005
Religion, Don’t Mention It, 14 November 2005
France “Quasi Normal” After The Jack Chirac Show, 15 November 2005
Too Many Wives Causes Unrest, 16 November 2005
The Writing on the Wall, 18 November 2005
France’s Toll of Destruction, 18 November 2005
Berlin...More self censorship in the West due to fear of Muslim "rage."
An opera company in Berlin has cancelled a Mozart production of his work Idomeneo fearing a scene in which the prophet Mohammed's decapitated head is rolled on stage could trigger an Islamic backlash...
...Mohammed is not the only figure to be decapitated in the opera – the heads of Jesus, the Greek God Poseidon and Buddha are also rolled on to the stage.
But it is the symbol which city officials fear could trigger rioting and bloodshed.
Monday, September 25, 2006
If you don't know what I am referring to by "Purple-Faced Rage", then go check out Pamela's post on Bill Clinton's meltdown on Fox News yesterday.
I don't hate Clinton the way most people on the right do. I liked Clinton as a President. I recognize his problems, but he seemed like the right President for the time.
But that's all the past now.
That being said, I have to say that Clinton was behaving very bizarrely in this interview. My wife and I watched Pamela's vlog together and we both agreed that Clinton is clearly obsessed with this question. One might presume that the bags under his eyes come from sleepless nights tossing and turning on exactly this question.
The question itself set him off, and he became very irrational. At one point he senselessly changed the subject and asserted that Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News) is "for climate change." That is one of the most bizarre assertions I have ever heard a person make. And, I've got some pretty moonbatty friends.
So, I have to wonder what the intelligence was that Clinton rec'd on Bin Laden. It must have been frightening.
Here's the thing, Clinton had good reason not to take out Bin Laden. To do so, he would have had to fire on a country which we were not at war with. Additionally, he would have had to violate American law (signed by Ronald Reagan) which forbids political assassinations.
Clinton could simply fall back on that argument.
But, he doesn't, and that is telling.
What that tells me is that Clinton knew something about Bin Laden that made him very upset. Honestly, it must have been something beyond the Cole, the Khobar towers and all that. Those were grievous acts of terrorism, yes, but they were not worse than the bomging of the Marine barracks in Beirut. And that did not destroy Reagan's reputation.
We know that Clinton was not a President who was obsessed with his responsibility to the country. We know that he WAS a President who was obsessed with how he looked. He was obsessed with his reputation.
Therefore, he must have known something about Bin Laden which might have made him look bad.
I have to wonder if the nuclear threat was more worrying than has been let on.
That is the only thing I can think of that would have made Clinton this upset.
Here's the thing, the whole story in that interview doesn't so much turn on his "purple-faced anger". He actually doesn't look that out of control, until he made that statement about Murdoch being for climate change.
When he said that you know he had completely lost his ability to reason. Clinton has been angry before, but never in my recollection has he lost his his ability to reason. Even his bizarre soliloquiy on the meaning of "is", during his Monicagate testimony, relied on logic.
So, I heard a lot all weekend about the "purple-faced rage," but I didn't become convinced there was something really wrong until I saw that part of the interview. I couldn't figure out what people were making such a big deal out of.
It seems to me that too many people on the Right are simply using this as another excuse to laugh at Clinton and pile on him. I think this is something more significant. Don't just accept his behavior at face value and say "well that's just like Clinton."
Because it isn't.
Clinton has never freaked out like this before. He is a master at remaining calm when he is attacked. He has been attacked in ways which are almost as stupid as the things that have been said about Bush. The whole Clinton Chronicles thing was one of the low points of the Conservative movement IMO.
The only time Clinton ever looked even remotely near this stressed out was during the Lewinsky scandal.
Think about that, he looked ALMOST as stressed out when he was in position to LOSE HIS PRESIDENCY. But, he is more stressed out over this? Think about it.
I have to wonder if something is going to come out soon, maybe. Maybe he knows it. Maybe he thought he was going to be ambushed in that interview.
I don't know. I couldn't know. All I do know is that for all the Clinton haters who are having so much fun with this story (and it is fun) it is just too easy to say, "That's Clinton" even when it just isn't.
There is something more to this. That is exactly why Sandy Berger was willing to steal those documents in such blatant fashion.
It just would have been too easy for Clinton to say "We were not at war with Sudan or Afghanistan and besides there is a law against political assassinations." That is logical.
He is freaking out about something that YOU AND I AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC do not know about.
It is something that is worse than anything we know about.