Saturday, February 17, 2007









Maverick
News
Media





I am now posting at a new blog called Maverick News Media.

Pamela, from Atlas Shrugs, started it, and we're kicking around some big ideas. You ought to check it out. It is a work in progress. Eventually, it is going to be a multi-media news and entertainment network.



Watch out, NBC, we gunning for you next.



:)

General George S. Patton


This is a speech from General George S. Patton. (Thanks to R. Davis)


General Patton arose and strode swiftly to the microphone. The men snapped to their feet and stood silently. Patton surveyed the sea of brown with a grim look. "Be seated", he said. The words were not a request, but a command. The General's voice rose high and clear.

"Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons.

First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones.

Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else.

Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner.

Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."

The General paused and looked over the crowd. "You are not all going to die," he said slowly. "Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men.

Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are.

The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared.

Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood.

Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men.

Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen."

"All through your Army careers, you men have bitched about what you call "chicken shit drilling". That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier.

I don't give a fuck for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-an-asshole-bitch is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of shit!" The men roared in agreement.

Patton's grim expression did not change. "There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily", he roared into the microphone, "All because one man went to sleep on the job". He paused and the men grew silent.

"But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did".

The General clutched the microphone tightly, his jaw out-thrust, and he continued,
"An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking!"


The men slapped their legs and rolled in glee. This was Patton as the men had imagined him to be, and in rare form, too. He hadn't let them down. He was all that he was cracked up to be, and more. He had IT!

"We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world", Patton bellowed. He lowered his head and shook it pensively.

Suddenly he snapped erect, faced the men belligerently and thundered, "Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do". The men clapped and howled delightedly. There would be many a barracks tale about the "Old Man's" choice phrases. They would become part and parcel of Third Army's history and they would become the bible of their slang.

"My men don't surrender", Patton continued, "I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull shit either.

The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man!"

Patton stopped and the crowd waited. He continued more quietly, "All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role.

Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it.

Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, "Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands".

But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like?

No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal.

Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. Shits'."

Patton paused, took a deep breath, and continued, "Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him.

We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men.

One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, "Fixing the wire, Sir". I asked, "Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?"

He answered, "Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed". I asked, "Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?" And he answered, "No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!"

Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds.

And you should have seen those trucks on the rode to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time.

We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it.

They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable."

The General paused and stared challengingly over the silent ocean of men. One could have heard a pin drop anywhere on that vast hillside. The only sound was the stirring of the breeze in the leaves of the bordering trees and the busy chirping of the birds in the branches of the trees at the General's left.

"Don't forget," Patton barked, "you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England.

Let the first bastards to find out be the Goddamned Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-fucking-bitch Patton'."

"We want to get the hell over there", Patton continued, "The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit."

The men roared approval and cheered delightedly. This statement had real significance behind it. Much more than met the eye and the men instinctively sensed the fact. They knew that they themselves were going to play a very great part in the making of world history.

Patton continued quietly, "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it.

The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin", he yelled, "I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"

"When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive.

Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have.

We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.

We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!"

"I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing.

Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time.

Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!"

"From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good Goddamn about such complaints.

I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood.

The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that."

The General paused. His eagle like eyes swept over the hillside. He said with pride, "There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again.

You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, "Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana."

No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, "Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!"

Words Just Get In The Way


A song by Richard Ashcroft.


Lucky Man


A song by the Verve. I don't know if anyone will understand this, but this is my praise song to my God. Read the lyrics closely and think on them. I praise God with these words. Especially when I am depressed.





Happiness
More or less
It's just a change in me
Something in my liberty
Oh, my, my
Happiness
Coming and going
I watch you look at me
Watch my fever growing
I know just where I am

But how many corners do I have to turn?
How many times do I have to learn
All the love I have is in my mind?

Well, I'm a lucky man
With fire in my hands

Happiness
Something in my own place
I'm standing naked
Smiling, I feel no disgrace
With who I am

Happiness
Coming and going
I watch you look at me
Watch my fever growing
I know just who I am

But how many corners do I have to turn?
How many times do I have to learn
All the love I have is in my mind?

I hope you understand
I hope you understand

Gotta love that'll never die

Happiness
More or less
It's just a change in me
Something in my liberty
Happiness
Coming and going
I watch you look at me
Watch my fever growing
I know
Oh, my, my
Oh, my, my
Oh, my, my
Oh, my, my

Gotta love that'll never die
Gotta love that'll never die
No, no
I'm a lucky man

It's just a change in me
Something in my liberty
It's just a change in me
Something in my liberty
It's just a change in me
Something in my liberty
Oh, my, my
Oh, my, my
It's just a change in me
Something in my liberty
Oh, my, my
Oh, my, my



I believe that we humans are involved in a creative project, an endeavor, a collaboration which is a wrestling with God. We work with God to create our lives and to help others in their lives.

The only thing I would change in this song is to say that, rather than being a "Lucky Man," I am a "Blessed Man."

Praise you, my God.

The Drugs Don't Work


A song by the Verve.


Thursday, February 15, 2007

I Wish You Were Here


A song by Incubus.


A Complex Post
About The Issues
Surrounding
Tim Hardaway's
Anti-Gay Statements


UPDATED AT BOTTOM OF POST

There are a few things I want to point out about the Tim Hardaway issue. First, kudos to the NBA for banishing Hardaway from all league functions. Hardaway's statement went way beyond expressing a personal dislike for homosexuals. Instead he said, "I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

So, you know, what does he propose? That we kill them all, or ship them off to an island?

Tim Hardaway is a fascist. In my recent post, I called him a "Faggot," and I did so for a very specific reason, because I honestly doubt that the man would even know the definition of fascist, and I'd rather call him a name which pisses him off, then to be specific in language, because he is so far beyond the pale that his words do not even merit serious and nuanced consideration.

Furthermore, let me say this, when Poland killed all their Jews, they also killed their culture. Poland had a thriving arts culture in the years before WWII. But, it was primarily inspired by the Jews. The Polish Nobel Prize winner for Literature, Isaac Bashevis Singer, is just one example of a great many Polish artists who contributed to Polish culture in the early part of the 20th century.

But, Poland killed its Jews, and its arts community disappeared.

Similarly, for all my fellow Christians, and other Infidels, if we got rid of gay people, we would destroy much of our arts culture.

I am a rock n' roll musician, and a writer. I'm telling you, you can't be in the arts without knowing a lot of gay people. My direct experience with gay people has led me to believe that their contributions are important to our way of life.

I once pointed out to one of my Pastors that an awful lot of the best male singers and dancers we have at our church never end up getting married. I asked my Pastor why she thought that was. The answer ought to obvious. They are gay. And, they go to church. My church is not pro-gay. But, these men go anyway, because they believe that Christ was the Messiah, and that he died for their sins, and they are thankful for that fact.

And, so they go to church and contribute to our worship services, and their contributions are beautiful and appreciated.

I also want to point out about this whole Tim Hardaway controversy is that it came up because former NBA player John Amaechi had come out of the closet. This is what provoked Tim Hardaway's ignorant comments.

Look, what Amaechi has to say about the effect that Hardaway's comments are having on his life:


Beyond mere issues of locker room trust and bonds among teammates, Amaechi said Hardaway's words of anger and intimidation show why gay people worry about making their sexual orientation public.

"It now allows people to take off those rose-colored glasses and understand that homophobia is a problem not only in sports but society," Amaechi told sports TV network ESPN, publishers of his book.

"Spewing vitriol isn't something we should give credit to (for sparking discussion). Society is not for that. One man has made hundreds of thousands of people now feel uncomfortable, unsafe, feel they should hide and run.

"What he has done has made life more difficult, perhaps more dangerous, for people in society, not just in sports. His views embolden those who hold the same views.

"When he depersonalizes it, it's not just a foolish comment. It's a foolish comment that echoes around the country.

"People will feel under pressure, like they are under attack. They will feel anxious. They will know there's a face and a voice for all those people out there who hate them.

"I don't know how that can be conducive to any kind of society at all."

Amaechi, who is black, rejects the idea of mere tolerance for gays, saying "I have no interest in being tolerated" as a black or gay person.

Amaechi said that while response to his revelation has been overwhelmingly positive, Hardaway's comments touched of a wave of threatening anti-gay messages beyond what he had been receiving.

"Every comment that (Hardaway) made is labeled with hate," Amaechi said. "The percentage of e-mails I've received overnight that are going to have to go into a little box somewhere just in case I end up dead are unbelievable.


People who denigrate homosexuals, and say they deserve to go to hell, and that they are sick, degenerate, or whatever adjectives, or names, they choose to use, do not seem to recognize that their words have real world consequences for innocent gay people.

Now, here's another interesting thing about this story. Guess who came out in support of John Amaechi?

Shaquille O'Neal:


Writers and NBA personalities, including Heat center Shaquille O'Neal and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, have widely praised Amaechi's revelation.


Now, the reason this is so interesting to note is that it is a little known fact that Shaquille O'Neal is a Muslim and a member of the Nation of Islam. He counts Louis Farrakhan as a personal family friend.

Shaquille O'Neal never ceases to impress me for his ability to go his own way without concerning himself with what those around him think. He is truly his own man. Farrakhan makes no secret of the fact that he hates gay people, or that Muslims ought to hate gay people. Yet, Shaquille O'Neal chooses to not fall into that trap.

I also want to remind everyone that Shaquille O'Neal is a tremendously charitable individual who personally packed trucks full of food and supplies and drove them down to New Orleans to help out the victims of Hurricaine Katrina.

O'Neal clearly does not limit his charitable giving to only those who are members of the Ummah.
Good for him. He's a truly good man.

UPDATE:

JB writes in:


pastorius writes: Farrakhan makes no secret of the fact that he hates gay people, or that Muslims ought to hate gay people.

That is one bold faced lie.

I've heard plenty of Farrakhan speechs and read many columns, many of which are online and have not seen anything like what you are lying about.

This is Farrakhan's take:

I cannot fault a Christian pastor for standing on his platform to preach what he believes, nor a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or a member of any religious or political party. All of us must be true to what we earnestly believe. I cannot fault a gay or lesbian person who stands on their platform to preach what they believe of self and how the world should view them. Although what we say on our platform may, in some way, be offensive to others, we must not allow painful utterances of the past or present, based on sincere belief, or based on our ignorance, or based on our ideology or philosophy to cripple a movement that deserves and needs all of us—and, when I say all, I mean all of us. We must begin to work together to lift our people out of the miserable and wretched condition in which we find ourselves.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2984.shtml


I, Pastorius, say I am sorry. I stand corrected.

I find that I am not quite accurate, but I also do not think it is quite accurate of you to say what I have said is a "bald-faced lie."

Here are some quotes from Farrakhan on gays:

"And the Christian right, with your blindness to that wicked state of Israel…can that be the holy land, and you have gay parades, and want to permit to have a gay parade in Jerusalem when no prophet ever sanctioned that behavior. HOW CAN THAT BE THE ISRAEL, how can that be Jerusalem with secular people running the holy land when it should be the holy people running the holy land. That land is gonna be cleansed with BLOOD!"
Saviours' Day, Chicago, Illinois, 2/26/06

“I call them the so-called Jews because to be a Jew you have to adhere to the statutes and laws that create the special relationship. How can you be a Jew and promote homosexual marriage?” National Black Agenda Convention, Boston, 3/18/04

"But all of a sudden in the night clubs, they started having transvestite shows, drag queens… Scripture say no liar, no adulterer, no effeminate will get in the Kingdom."
Saviours' Day Speech, Chicago, 2/23/03


But overall, I will say, you are right. I stand corrected, and, as I said, I apologize.

What Do Chicks Want?


Churches are often percieved by non-Christians as the home of the pious. Instead, I see them as being like families. You do not choose your family. Instead, you are born into it. And, you find yourself "yoked" with people with whom you can not believe you must be forced to deal with.

The consequence of this is you find yourself dealing with human beings and all their attendant problems and misfortunes. Among these are divorce, adultery, and abuse.

When you do find yourself confronted with these problems, and they are being perpetrated by your fellow Christians, you do not abandon them. Instead, you make an attempt to help them come to see the error of their ways.

The Bible does tell us that we are to confront a person in their sin, and if that doesn't work, then we are to confront him, or her, in the presence of two or three fellow Christians. And then, if that doesn't work, we are to ostracisize the person.

Ostracization is a very difficult decision, but sometimes it is inevitable, and necessary. In my opinion, men must stick by their families. They must honor their wives, love their wives, and love and honor their children. When they don't, they need to be held to strict account, and sometimes that includes ostracization. (By the way, obviously, women must also be held to account. I, as a man, tend to deal with this issue more directly with men.)

It seems to me this is an important post from Dymphna:


Protein Wisdom linked to a study in the UK on what women find attractive in men. It’s not a rigorous accounting by any means, but it certainly shows the intuitive mating selection process for women.

High-flying men are not as attractive to women looking for love as those with an average job, scientists say.Perhaps unsurprisingly, the University of Central Lancashire research found the 186 female students asked preferred good-looking men.

But within that group, those without top careers were deemed most suitable, the Personality and Individual Differences journal reported.

The team said women seemed to feel high-flyers would not be good fathers.[…]

“We suggest that females see physically attractive, high status males as being more likely to pursue a mating strategy rather than a parenting strategy.”

There is more information at the site, with looks being weighed against men’s professions.

When I first saw this at post at Protein Wisdom and read the comments, I noticed there were only men on the thread. So I had to put my two cents in. And as I thought about it, I remembered the many groups I’d facilitated with battered women as they struggled to figure out how they’d ended up being in a nightmare relationship. Was there a way to gauge which men were safe and if there was some way to tell ahead of time, what was it? So often they’d say sadly, “but he was so nice…Over the course of several years, with the input of hundreds - if not thousands - of women, we came up with some basic guidelines. I was surprised, as I commented on PW’s post, that I remembered most of the criteria for “safe” men. But then, we did work on this subject for several years, and it was a pressing one for each member of the group.

Obviously, I internalized their ideas.

What follows is not necessarily in order of importance. In fact, I don’t recall that we ever ordered the criteria that way. It seemed more important to simply understand the details that went into making a safe choice where men were concerned.

It’s important to remember that this is after-the-fact reasoning. Each woman was bringing to the conversation what she needed and what had been sorely missing in her relationship with the man she’d trusted, the man who ended up beating her.

“Scientific” it’s not. But heart-felt is definitely the foundation of this list. Such sadness and loss went into describing a safe man - but also great hope.

The study that Protein Wisdom linked to discussed whether wealthy men would be considered most attractive. That was one issue we talked about since some of the women came from upper class backgrounds. And physical attractiveness was another. Some physically abusive men are quite handsome…

Here’s my comment at Protein Wisdom, with some editing for this post:

When I used to do crisis counseling with battered women the idea of a “safe” man was a recurrent theme, hashed over again and again as women struggled to figure out why they hadn’t seen it coming...Handsome isn’t necessarily safe — very often, having gotten by on his looks since he was two, Handsome may tend toward narcissism. tend — obviously they’re not all like that, except for those in Hollywood. Narcissism flourishes there.

Very wealthy men are of two categories: inherited and earned. The former do tend to make strategic alliances, though some of these partnerships are disastrous. See Ethel Kennedy’s family tree.

The latter, with their earned wealth, have a different sense of entitlement. Usually they’re looking for drop-dead beautiful as a further proof of their success. Again, just a tendency, not an absolute. There is a high rate of divorce in this category due to the driven nature of many high earners. Just ask any bitter ex-wife of some doctor. She ended up raising the children by herself only to have him trade her in after thirty years for a newer model. Strangely, the new one often looks like the old one, just twenty or thirty years younger.

Anyway, that said, here’s the “safe” list my battered women evolved over the years:


1. He gets on well with his family, particularly his mother or sisters. Family members don’t do dramas or cut off relationships —e.g., his momma gets on with her own family and her in-laws (as best she can).

2. He works steadily at a job he really likes. Never leaves one job without having lined up another. Isn’t a work-a-holic.

3. He has an avocation that really engages him — fishing, reading, motorcycles...whatever. But not so absorbing he’s never home or unavailable for extended periods.

4. He has some interest in the larger world and gives some of his time to a community group or someone in need. Like maybe he mows the yard for the old people next door.

5. His moods are reliable. Not happy-sappy, just predictable— e.g., you know for certain how he feels and what he will say and how loud he’ll say it if — again — you borrow his tools and don’t put them back. A corollary: the person he is in public is the same person he is at home. No Jekylls/Hydes need apply.

6. His times and routines are predictable. He’s never three days late for dinner.

7. He has a sense of humor and thinks you’re funny, too. You share secret jokes.

8. He’s sensible about money and reasonable. You don’t have to account for every penny, nor do you have to worry he’ll buy a $500.00 whats-is instead of paying the rent or the mortgage or the children’s dental bills.

9. He enjoys children to some extent, especially his own. He sees them as people.

10. He’s trustworthy. Keeps his word.

It’s been a few years, so that’s the list as I remember it —though maybe there were twelve qualities, not ten. I think one was “no substance abuse of any kind” since that was a frequent problem, and physical abuse is often accompanied by substance abuse. However, battering a woman when you’re stone cold sober is far more frightening an indicator that you’re a dangerous person. Those are the women I preferred to send out of town to another shelter.

And I believe they decided that a “loner” was a danger signal since it meant you couldn’t have friends, either. It also meant he didn’t have good people skills, another warning signal.By the way, this phenomenon really does cut across socio-economic lines — and political ones, too. Though politics didn’t enter the equation much if the abuse was severe. No room to think about who’s running for office when you’re busy running from someone who swears they love you.

That was then. I wonder what it’s like now for Muslim women here in the US. That problem never came up on my innocent pre-9/11 horizon.

Tim Hardaway Is A Faggot


From Fox Sports:


One week after retired NBA player John Amaechi publically identified himself as gay, retired Heat guard Tim Hardaway said on a Miami radio show that he would not want to play with a gay man.

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known," Hardaway said Wednesday, according to a transcript on the Miami Herald Web site. "I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

Hardaway was a guest on the show and was asked at the end of the interview how he would handle having a gay teammate.


''First of all, I wouldn't want him on my team,'' Hardaway answered. "And second of all, if he was on my team, I would really distance myself from him because I don't think that is right.

Hardaway doesn't think he's alone in that view, either.

''Something has to give,'' he said. "And I think the majority of players would ask for him to be traded or they would want to be traded...If you have 12 other ballplayers in your locker room that are upset and can't concentrate and always worried about him in the locker room or on the court it's going to be hard for your teammates to win and accept him as a teammate.''

He later apologized for the remarks during a telephone interview with FOX affiliate WSVN in Miami.

"Yes, I regret it. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said I hate gay people or anything like that," he said. "That was my mistake."


I understand the idea that the warrior has to be in the foxhole with men. I understand that you are not going to convince men that "homos" are going to have their back. But, this kind of attitude among athletes and warriors is disgusting nonetheless.

It is fine for Tim Hardaway to have his own personal opinions, but it is not ok for him to expect us to agree with him. And, honestly, as much as I am opposed to Political Correctness, it is not fine for the world's media to give Mr. Hardaway's opinions without the context of judgement.

We, here in America, are free to be who we are, as long as we do not hurt others physically with our behavior.

Tim Hardaway is a fascist. He says, "This is not acceptable in America." He is a bad human being. And, the media (Fox Sports) published that without any context or judgement.

Fine, he apologized later. We can surmise that he is lying for the sake of political correctness and keeping his contract intact.

I am an American, and a Christian. I believe in Freedom first, morality second. As an American, and a Christian, I believe that we are free to make our choices to be who we are, as long as we are not hurting others physically.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Stop The Atomic Ayatollahs


Michael Freund, THE JERUSALEM POST
Feb. 13, 2007

Less than 1,000 miles east of Tel Aviv a new Auschwitz is being prepared, as the world looks on and does virtually nothing to stop it. Instead of the gas chambers being fired up, centrifuges are being installed. In place of Zyklon-B gas, the agent of choice is now uranium.

And while the language spoken by its architects may be different, the threat to the future of the Jewish people, and that of the entire Western world, is no less grave than it was six decades ago in Europe.

Indeed, with each passing day the would-be Hitler of Persia draws perilously closer to his goal of obtaining a nuclear arsenal, threatening everyone, and everything, that all of us hold dear. The press loves to mock the Iranian president, portraying him as a nut, a kook, and a fanatic. But I take him at his word. He has made quite clear what his objective is, telling us over and over again that he plans to eliminate Israel and destroy the West.

Like it or not, we are all in his crosshairs, and we ignore him at our peril. And that is why it is time to show a little more courage and a lot more determination, and to tackle this threat head-on.

It is time for Israel or the US to bomb Iran now. Not next week, next month, or next summer, but now. As quickly and as hard and as painfully as possible.

THE ALARM bells are ringing, and the danger signs are near. In recent days it was reported that Teheran has installed at least the first two sets of 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium at its underground nuclear facility in Natanz, part of its plan to fit nearly 3,000 in all.

You don't have to be a nuclear scientist to understand that the large-scale use of centrifuges means a country can produce more enriched uranium in a shorter period of time. And that is exactly what the Iranian leadership is vowing to do. In a speech on Sunday in Teheran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised his audience an "April surprise."

"From now until April 9," he said, "you will hear frequently about the great progress of the Iranian people and the unique developments in the fields of industry, agriculture, and especially nuclear energy."

"This is the nuclear celebration," Ahmadinejad promised the crowd. His idea of a "celebration," of course, is our idea of a funeral.

According to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, once the 3,000 centrifuges are operational it will take possibly as little as nine months for Iranian scientists to produce enough highly-enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb.

And so, by the end of this year, the atomic ayatollahs could very well have their hands on the ultimate weapon of mass terror and destruction. This cannot and must not be allowed to come to pass. And the only way to stop it is with military action.

DIPLOMACY has run its course. Its only effect has been to give the Iranians still more time to progress toward achieving their surreptitious and malicious aims. After the UN Security Council passed a resolution in December insisting that Iran end its uranium-enrichment program, Ahmadinejad dismissed it as "a piece of torn paper" and vowed to expand his country's nuclear program; which is precisely what he proceeded to do.

For more than a decade Iran hid its nuclear program from the international community. It has interfered with inspections of its nuclear facilities and repeatedly defied demands to cease and desist from its dangerous actions. Does anyone really think another UN resolution is going to do the trick?

The effects of the world's inaction have already begun to be felt, as other Arab countries in the region now speak openly of pursuing their own nuclear capability.

On Sunday, the secretary-general of the Gulf Cooperation Council announced that six Gulf Arab states are moving ahead with plans to build their own nuclear power plants. These same countries have oil coming out of their ears, so there is hardly a pressing need for them to develop nuclear energy resources. But they are undoubtedly looking on with alarm at their Iranian neighbor to the north, nervous at the prospect that he will be allowed to succeed in his quest to obtain nuclear weapons.

So now, thanks to the failure to shut down the Iranian nuclear program, we have the beginnings of a good, old-fashioned Middle Eastern arms race on our hands. Furthermore, the Iranians have grown so emboldened that they now feel comfortable enough to start sharing their nuclear know-how with other rogue regimes. As the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported last week, "Iran's ambassador to Belarus on Friday expressed Teheran's readiness to explore cooperation in construction of a nuclear plant in the country."

And according to reports last month in the British press, Iran is cooperating with North Korea on nuclear research and ballistic missile technology.

THE FACT is that Iran is out to assert its power and dominance, and to sow instability for the US and its interests far and wide. Last summer, Teheran orchestrated the war in Lebanon through its proxy group, Hizbullah, and it is now waging war against the West by sending arms for use against US and coalition troops in Iraq.

At the same time, the ayatollahs are busy expanding their military arsenal so they can create an ever-greater arc of terror and fear. Back in November, Iran test-fired dozens of missiles, including the Shihab-3, which is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and can hit targets up to 1,200 miles away - meaning that all of Israel is now within reach.

And lest anyone still doubts Ahmadinejad's intentions, he made them abundantly clear at the Holocaust denial conference he hosted in Teheran back in December. In his closing speech, the would-be Persian executioner gleefully declared that "The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall... The Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated."

And once he dispenses with the Jews, as we know, it is the West that will be next. So this is not just Israel's battle, it is everyone's war, and it is time for the decision-makers in Washington and Jerusalem to act.

Sure, the thought of striking Iran is scary, particularly in light of the trouble America is having next door in Iraq. But as frightening as the idea might seem, it pales in comparison with the ayatollahs having their finger on the button and being able to threaten the world with nuclear blackmail and destruction.

So like it or not, time is of the essence, and there is not a moment to lose. The US or Israel should bomb Iran now, before it proves too late.


Cute Cute Cute



I'm not usually into cute stuff, but this is so cute it even warms the cockles of my cold heart.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Diane Sawyer Is An Infidel Whore


Diane Sawyer wears an Islamic headress to interview Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is so important to her to get the interview, and promote her career, that she is willing to submit herself to Sharia.

She is an infidel whore, and she disgusts me.


Poetry Man


This is just what I need tonight. My friend Olivia sent me this video of one of my favorite songs in the whole world.

Thanks, Olivia.


HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS RESPOND TO MIDEAST CRISES?


This weekend -- amidst rapidly rising tensions with Iran and riots on the Temple Mount -- I had the privilege of speaking to the 12,000 people who attend the four church services at Calvary Chapel of Albuquerque. When I was there last fall, I spoke on Ezekiel 38-39 and Matthew 24 and the question of "Are we living in the last days?" This time, I spoke on Matthew 25, and the question of "how shall we live in the last days?" I explained the details of The Joshua Fund's new strategy to bless Israel and her neighbors with humanitarian relief supplies and shared how people can get involved in a global movement of evangelical Christians to touch the lives of the people in the epicenter with the love of Jesus. The sermons were broadcast on radio on stations throughout New Mexico and nationwide, and webcast worldwide. I hope you'll find it encouraging. The God of the Bible is on the move, and He offers good news amidst all the bad news coming out of the Mideast right now.

To watch the webcast, please click here.

Note: the webcast begins with music and worship (it's not me singing). It's great stuff, but if you want to go right to the introduction and my sermon, you can fast forward to the 20:10 minute mark.
posted by Joel C. Rosenberg


"TOO LATE" TO STOP IRAN'S NUCLEAR WEAPON? THE FIGHT FOR JERUSALEM

Breaking news this morning: a new study compiled by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana says it may be too late to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons.

"At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme," says the paper, dated February 7 and circulated to the EU's 27 national governments ahead of a foreign ministers meeting yesterday, according to the Financial Times. "In practice . . . the Iranians have pursued their programme at their own pace, the limiting factor being technical difficulties rather than resolutions by the UN or the International Atomic Energy Agency....The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone."

The Financial Times story concludes: "The EU document is embarrassing for advocates of negotiations with Iran, since last year it was Mr Solana and his staff who spearheaded talks with Tehran on behalf of both the EU and the permanent members of the UN Security Council."

Embarrassing? That's quite an understatement. Solana and his Western diplomatic colleagues have blown it. They've wasted precious time and proved that to misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it. Now, rather than support the type of decisive military action necessary to prevent Iran from using the bombs it is making, they are advocating just learning to live with a nuclear Iran. Will that the policy of our White House and Congress as well? Can they not see the threat that is building?

Last month in Jerusalem, I spent several hours with a diplomat who does get it, thank God. Dore Gold was a senior advisor to various Israeli Prime Ministers and once served as Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations. I interviewed Dore for the Epicenter documentary we're currently producing. It was a great time catching up with an old friend. It was also a sobering time, hearing Dore's latest analysis of the urgent and growing threats in the region, an analysis which forms the basis of his new powerful and provocative book, The Fight For Jerusalem: Radical Islam, The West, and The Future of the Holy City.

The Epicenter documentary will be released nationwide on June 1st, and Dore's insights form a key part of the film. But don't wait until then. Dore's book was just released, and on Sunday will hit #3 on the Washington Post bestseller list and #17 on the New York Times list. No wonder. The Fight For Jerusalem should be required reading for the President and every Member of Congress and the Cabinet. It is the best researched, most informative, and most important book on the threat of radical Islam by an Israeli author in this decade.

Dore, an observant Orthodox Jew who was born in the U.S. and emigrated to Israel, knows his stuff. He's negotiated with Middle Eastern and other world leaders at the highest levels. He's had behind-the-scenes relationships with Arab and Islamic officials and scholars for decades. He currently runs the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a highly respected think tank. Unlike most senior Western diplomats, he has come to the accurate conclusion that secular Arab nationalism is no longer driving events in the Middle East as it did in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Today, it's Islamic eschatology -- or end times theology -- that is inspiring a deadly new effort to hasten the destruction of both Israel and Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it. What's more, Dore understands that this requires an entirely different Western strategy than past conflicts, beginning with the realization that you can't successfully negotiate with or deter extremists who believe it is their God-given mission to annhilate the world.

One chapter I found particularly detailed and chilling: Chapter 8, "Jerusalem as an Apocalyptic Trigger For Radical Islam." Allow me to quote a few passages:

* "For [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, the destruction of Israel is one of the key global developments that will trigger the appearance of the Mahdi [Islamic Messiah]. It was on Iran's annual 'Jerusalem Day' on October 26, 2005, that Ahmadinejad made his famous reference to the need to 'wipe Israel off the map.'....Ahmadinejad shows all the signs of not only using apocalyptic language, but also believing that he has a personal role in bringing the end of times about." (p. 232)

* "[W]hat was the connection between Jerusalem and Ahmadinejad's planned final battle? Dr. Bilal Na'im served as an assistant to the head of the Executive Council of Hizbullah, the Iranian-controlled Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization. In an essay discussing the details of how the Mahdi is supposed to appear before the world, according to Shiite doctrine, he states that initially the Mahdi reveals himself in Mecca 'and he will lean on the Ka'abah and view the arrival of his supporters from around the world.' From Mecca the Mahdi next moves to Karbala in Iraq. But his most important destination, in Na'im's description, is clearly Jerusalem. It is in Jerusalem from where the launching of the Mahdi's world conquest is declared. He explains, 'The liberation of Jerusalem is the preface for liberating the world and establishing the state of justice and values on earth.' In short, Jerusalem serves as the launching pad for the Mahdi's global jihad at the end of days." (p. 233)

* "[I]t has been clear for more than a decade that Jerusalem has become a focal point for apocalyptic authors whose works have become relatively popular across the Arab world during these years. Their books are not just part of a theoretical discourse, but rather their language is reiterated by some of the most violent terrorist groups operating in the Middle East." (p. 251)

* "Diplomats and intelligence agencies don't normally pore over obscure religious texts about the end of days. But considering their widespread popularity and their practical impact on the issue of Jerusalem, that could be a colossal error. If one day Israel succumbed to the constant barrage of pressures from EU diplomats -- backed by certain quarters in the U.S. foreign policy establishment as well -- to redivide Jerusalem by relinquishing its holy sites, it might well unleash a new wave of jihadism emboldened by a sense that the traditions of radical Islamists about final battles at the end of history are about to come true. Western diplomats pursuing such a course of action may well believe they are lowering the flames of radical Islamic rage, but in fact they will only be turning up those flames to heights that have not been seen before." (p. 254)

Bottom line: Dore Gold's book could not be better written or better timed. I doubt Javier Solana will read it. But I am and you should.
posted by Joel C. Rosenberg @ 6:25 AM 7 comments

Monday, February 12, 2007

Tool - Sober


A tremendously surreal video from the band Tool. Be careful with this one, it may give you nightmares.



Quantum Leap:

Computer To

'Make Computer History'



From ABC News:



"Quantum Computing." It's one of those things that bring a sparkle to the eyes of propellerheads — and make the rest of us just scratch our heads.


But it's been a holy grail in the arcane world of supercomputers — and a Canadian firm claims it will be unveiling one on Tuesday. Nevermind that most engineers thought quantum computers were decades away.


D-Wave Systems, Inc., based near Vancouver, is the company that's been working on the project. Its machine is described as a computer that can perform 64,000 calculations at once.
Following the odd laws of quantum mechanics, the digital "bits" that race through its circuits will be able to stand for 0 or 1 at the same time, allowing the machine, eventually, to do work that is orders of magnitude more complex than what today's computers can do.


"There are certain classes of problems that can't be solved with digital computers," said Herb Martin, the firm's CEO, over a decidedly-noisy digital cell phone. "Digital computers are good at running programs; quantum computers are good at handling massive sets of variables."
Coming Soon to a Store Near You?


So will you or I be able to have one soon? Will it come as a laptop?


The answers, for now, are no, and no. The current prototype, says Martin, is as big as a good-sized freezer, and a lot colder. It uses superconducting circuits that have to be refrigerated, close to absolute zero. That's the kind of temperature at which electrical resistance fades nearly to nothing (think of the heat generated by a conventional laptop), so that massive calculations can be done.


What sorts? Martin says, for instance, that a quantum computer could be used to design genetically based drugs (remember that the DNA in every human cell has 3 billion "base pairs," or "rungs" on that famous helical ladder).


Or it could be used by companies to manage their supply chains. "Think," says Martin, "of a company that has 40 factories and makes a million different parts. That's a lot to keep track of."




President of Czech Republic
Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' -
Questions Gore's Sanity



The President of the Czech Republic is my new hero. He is not a politician. He is a leader.


Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.•

Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.•

Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.•

Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.•

It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.•

That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]

The ADL Discovers Leftist Hate


By Don FederFrontPageMagazine.com February 12, 2007

Among the many groups for whom I feel absolutely no sympathy is the Jewish Left – which has lately been agonizing over the prevalence of Jew-hatred at antiwar rallies.

Signs comparing Israelis to Nazis and identifying Jews as the enemies of humanity have become de rigueur at (you should pardon the expression) peace rallies.

Jewish leftists – at least those who still feel a connection to the Jewish people – are dismayed.
An article in the January 27 Contra Costa (California) Times calls our attention to the San Francisco Anti-Defamation League’s first conference on how progressives “can protect themselves against anti-Semitism – from the liberal Left.”

Among other examples of tolerance and brotherhood cited by the Times, at one San-Fran demonstration last year, Arabs chanted “Jews are our dogs.”

According to the article, many on the lox-and-cream-cheese Left is upset with former President Pinhead’s latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid – which condones suicide bombings. (Carter calls on peaceful Palestinians to stop terrorist attacks if Israel begins “respecting international law” – rolling over and playing dead. )

Jewish progressives wonder why the movement seems to single out Israel for hysterical denunciations, and if their comrades haven’t replaced “Israel” for “Jew” in the old anti-Semitic formulation. (Try to imagine Carter writing a book called Saudi Arabia: Equality Not Misogyny or Iran: Democracy Not Theocracy.)

Regarding the group-therapy for Jewish leftists, Jonathan Bernstein, director of the ADL’s San Francisco regional office, says, “We have heard from so many people who feel ostracized and alone and don’t really know what to do with this problem.” Bernstein complains that said good people shouldn’t “have to pick between being Jewish and whatever worthwhile cause.”

That some Jewish leftists are uncomfortable with the movement’s uglier antics is surely one of humanity’s great tragedies – ranking right up there with the heartbreak of psoriasis.

According to organizers, the conference (which was held the following weekend) would include a discussion of “coping strategies,” “having a rally within a rally,” and “on the spot responses to hurtful language.” Wow, “on the spot responses to hurtful language” – talk about getting tough with anti-Semitism.

I’m reminded of a Woody Allen movie where the comedian is at a cocktail party and some of his Upper East Side friends start discussing how to respond to the Nazis marching in New Jersey. One suggests putting on a satirical play parodying the brown shirts. An agitated Allen says that – harsh as that may be – instead, perhaps they should consider getting rocks and clubs and beating the Nazis to a bloody pulp.

Now that’s a coping strategy I can relate to.

Leftist anti-Semitism is as old as the Left. Since the French Revolution, polemicists have cast Israelites as the quintessential capitalist exploiters – never mind the prevalence of Jews in various socialist movements. (Voltaire charged that the Jews were “born with a raging fanaticism in their hearts.”)

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (the father of modern socialism and anarchism) – who coined the expression “Property is theft” – explained:

“The Jew is by temperament an anti-producer. He is an intermediary, always fraudulent and parasitical, who operates, in trade and in philosophy, by means of falsification, counterfeiting, and horse-trading.”

What then should be done with this irredeemably anti-social element? “The Jew is the enemy of mankind,” Proudhon advised. “It is necessary to send this race back to Asia, or exterminate it…By fire or fusion, or by expulsion, the Jew must disappear.” Said genocidal raving predated the Holocaust by a century.

Karl Marx, old Uncle Fuzzy-Whiskers (the scion of a German-Jewish family that had converted to Christianity for social position) explained the Jewish problem this way: “What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.”

No wonder Hitler and Stalin got on famously, until that unfortunate incident of June of 1940.
After the fall of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union became the worldwide nexus of anti-Semitism.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, anti-Semitism’s Mecca shifted to – well, Mecca. In the Moslem world, Mein Kampf, and “The Protocols of Zion” are best-sellers and rabid Jew-hatred is standard fare in political, religious and cultural discourse. So, naturally, Islam has become the Left’s pet religion and Islamacism its principal ally.

Besides an unremitting animus toward the Jewish state, the antiwar Left has embraced many of the old anti-Semitic stereotypes of its revolutionary forebears. Feminist author Phyllis Chesler observes: “The Jews and the Jewish state have become the symbol of Satanic America, capitalism, imperialism, colonialism.”

Consider Noam Chomsky – Hugo Chavez’s favorite philosopher. Sure he wants to see Israel destroyed, and trusts in the good will of Hamas and Fatah for the safety of those Jews left in Palestine. Sure he associates with Holocaust-deniers. And sure he admires Iran’s version of Jack The Ripper. But is the Jewish-born Chomsky an anti-Semite?

In a 2002 interview with a Palestinian solidarity group, Chomsky declared, “By now, Jews in the U.S. are the most privileged and influential part of the population.”

When a Marxist says someone’s “privileged” it means they’re getting something they didn’t earn and don’t deserve.

Chomsky hates American society. Thus the avatar of the New Left and leading intellectual light of the antiwar movement is saying that Jews have risen to the top of a rotten, corrupt culture that spreads war, famine and misery across the globe. Did they attain that favored status by dint of their virtues?

For today’s Left, the Jew is the corporate executive, exploiting his workers, raping the environment and reaping obscene profits. He’s the globalist, pushing a world economy run by multinationals. He’s the neo-con manipulating the White House and Congress to engineer a war with Iran – to enhance Israel’s security. He’s the quintessence whatever the left despises at any particular point in time.

And not just the loony Left, not just the fringy Left – but the establishment Left.

Toward the middle of last month, in an online posting at Arianna Huffington’s website, retired general and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark was asked why he thought America would attack Iran.

Clark replied: “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”

Why the Israeli press, and not the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, or Fox News? And, in case you haven’t guessed it, “the New York money people” isn’t code for Episcopalians.

In his 2004 campaign, Howard Dean urged that regarding Israel and the Palestinians, the United States should adopt an “even-handed” approach. This is another way of saying that between an historic ally and a people who invariably side with our enemies and never miss a chance to tell us how much they hate our guts, America should be strictly impartial.

Any objections from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to Carter’s vile comparison of Israel to South Africa’s former white supremacist regime? Not that I’m aware of.

Is the Democratic Party anti-Semitic or merely soft on anti-Semitism? Nothing could be more damning than the party of Old Joe Kennedy’s embrace of Al Sharpton – the man who sparked a full-scale pogrom in Crown Heights in 1991 and a massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart in 1995. (Instead of “New York money people,” Sharpton prefers “diamond merchants with blood on their hands” and “interlopers.”)

During the 2000 campaign, Al Gore obediently appeared at a Sharpton-organized debate at Harlem’s Apollo Theater – which would be comparable to George Bush carrying the torch at a cross-burning.

Anywhere you look on the Left, you’ll find spiritual descendants of the Cossacks and storm troopers – anti-Semites or those who condone anti-Semitism.

Peace and justice don’t grow in a cesspool. Instead of kvetching about “hurtful language” and devising “coping strategies,” Jewish leftists – those who are more Jewish than leftist – should reconsider their “whatever worthwhile cause.” ...Which may not be that worthwhile after all.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Associated Press Recognizes
The Fact That Barack Obama
Is An Islamic Apostate


From Little Green Footballs:


For the first time, the Associated Press actually admits that Barack Obama was a Muslim in his childhood: Obama Says Voters Curious on His Faith.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Sunday he does not think voters have a litmus test on religion, whether evangelical Christianity or his childhood years in the Muslim faith.

“If your name is Barack Hussein Obama, you can expect it, some of that. I think the majority of voters know that I’m a member of the United Church of Christ, and that I take my faith seriously,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Now that the Associated Press has given this fact their blessing, it does raise a rather uncomfortable question for a man who wants to be the commander in chief of the United States. The penalty under well-established shari’a law for apostasy—leaving Islam—is death. How would the world’s 249 gazillion Muslims react to having an American president who is also a Muslim apostate?

Iran: Nuclear Surprise Coming In April


From Little Green Footballs:


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) — Iran’s controversial president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday his country will make an announcement in April about new nuclear achievements.

Reports surfaced last fall that Tehran was trying to produce 3,000 centrifuges and expected to meet the goal by March of this year. The report was published by the Iranian Student News Agency and quoted a member of parliament. Last month, an official with Iran’s nuclear agency denied Iran was building 3,000 centrifuges. ...

The production of 3,000 centrifuges would allow Iran to begin industrial scale production of nuclear fuel — a move that has raised international concern that the country might ultimately produce nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad said Iran will not come to the negotiating table with Western nations if suspension of Tehran’s nuclear program is a precondition for talks.

“If you seek negotiation why do you insist on suspension? If we suspend, what do we want to talk about?” he asked, as a crowd dressed mostly in black — some holding signs reading “Down with America” — looked on. “How come your factories and reactors are working day and night while you’re asking our factories and centers to stop its facilities? Our nation will never accept such conditions.”

The president warned the Western nations that Tehran will not permit any of its “rights” to be taken away, by word or by action. “The world must know that if they try to deny that right to us they will be the most hated nation,” he said. Applause rippled through the crowd.

Sodade


The singer is Cesaria Evora.


Dazed And Confused


Kashmir