Should have won an Oscar
Friday, July 29, 2005
Myth of Moderate Islam
The Myth of Moderate Islam
Britain’s The Spectator has an article by Patrick Sookhdeo that directly confronts one of the most radioactive issues in a world of political correctness and patronizing multiculturalism: The myth of moderate Islam.
"It is probably true that in every faith ordinary people will pick the parts they like best and practise those, while the scholars will work out an official version. In Islam the scholars had a particularly challenging task, given the mass of contradictory texts within the Koran. To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. For the peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed’s time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed’s own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da’wa (mission).
So the mantra ‘Islam is peace’ is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today’s radical Muslims — just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam — it would be truer to say ‘Islam is war’. One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, ‘Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.’ A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e., a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult. Muslims must stop this self-deception. They must with honesty recognise the violence that has existed in their history in the same way that Christians have had to do, for Christianity has a very dark past. Some Muslims have, with great courage, begun to do this. Secondly, they must look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the Koran, hadith and Sharia, and the reformation of their faith. Mundir Badr Haloum has described this as ‘exorcising’ the terrorism from Islam. Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Koran. He advocated a return to peaceable Meccan Islam, which he argued is applicable to today, whereas the bellicose Medinan teachings should be consigned to history. For taking this position he was tried for apostasy, found guilty and executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Another modernist reformer was the Pakistani Fazlur Rahman, who advocated the ‘double movement’; i.e., understanding Koranic verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Koran to interpret that in a modern, social and moral sense. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, an Egyptian professor who argued similarly that the Koran and hadith should be interpreted according to the context in which they originated, was charged with apostasy, found guilty in June 1995 and ordered to separate from his wife.
The US-based Free Muslims Coalition, which was set up after 9/11 to promote a modern and secular version of Islam, has proposed the following:
1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century, where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances. 2. Separation of religion and state. 3. Democracy as the best form of government. 4. Secularism in all forms of political activity. 5. Equality for women. 6. Religion to be a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to be forced on anyone.
Britain’s The Spectator has an article by Patrick Sookhdeo that directly confronts one of the most radioactive issues in a world of political correctness and patronizing multiculturalism: The myth of moderate Islam.
"It is probably true that in every faith ordinary people will pick the parts they like best and practise those, while the scholars will work out an official version. In Islam the scholars had a particularly challenging task, given the mass of contradictory texts within the Koran. To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. For the peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed’s time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed’s own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da’wa (mission).
So the mantra ‘Islam is peace’ is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today’s radical Muslims — just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam — it would be truer to say ‘Islam is war’. One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, ‘Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.’ A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e., a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult. Muslims must stop this self-deception. They must with honesty recognise the violence that has existed in their history in the same way that Christians have had to do, for Christianity has a very dark past. Some Muslims have, with great courage, begun to do this. Secondly, they must look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the Koran, hadith and Sharia, and the reformation of their faith. Mundir Badr Haloum has described this as ‘exorcising’ the terrorism from Islam. Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Koran. He advocated a return to peaceable Meccan Islam, which he argued is applicable to today, whereas the bellicose Medinan teachings should be consigned to history. For taking this position he was tried for apostasy, found guilty and executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Another modernist reformer was the Pakistani Fazlur Rahman, who advocated the ‘double movement’; i.e., understanding Koranic verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Koran to interpret that in a modern, social and moral sense. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, an Egyptian professor who argued similarly that the Koran and hadith should be interpreted according to the context in which they originated, was charged with apostasy, found guilty in June 1995 and ordered to separate from his wife.
The US-based Free Muslims Coalition, which was set up after 9/11 to promote a modern and secular version of Islam, has proposed the following:
1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century, where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances. 2. Separation of religion and state. 3. Democracy as the best form of government. 4. Secularism in all forms of political activity. 5. Equality for women. 6. Religion to be a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to be forced on anyone.
APPCDC
A Stroke of Genius?
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
Hyperbolic? Well, maybe. But consider Bush's latest master stroke: the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The pact includes the U.S., Japan, Australia, China, India and South Korea; these six countries account for most of the world's carbon emissions. The treaty is, in essence, a technology transfer agreement. The U.S., Japan and Australia will share advanced pollution control technology, and the pact's members will contribute to a fund that will help implement the technologies. The details are still sketchy and more countries may be admitted to the group later on. The pact's stated goal is to cut production of "greenhouse gases" in half by the end of the century.
What distinguishes this plan from the Kyoto protocol is that it will actually lead to a major reduction in carbon emissions! This substitution of practical impact for well-crafted verbiage stunned and infuriated European observers.
I doubt that the pact will make any difference to the earth's climate, which will be determined, as always, by variations in the energy emitted by the sun. But when the real cause of a phenomenon is inaccessible, it makes people feel better to tinker with something that they can control. Unlike Kyoto, this agreement won't devastate the U.S. economy, and, also unlike Kyoto, the agreement will reduce carbon emissions in the countries where they are now rising most rapidly, India and China. Brilliant.
But I don't suppose President Bush is holding his breath, waiting for the crowd to start applauding.
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
Hyperbolic? Well, maybe. But consider Bush's latest master stroke: the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The pact includes the U.S., Japan, Australia, China, India and South Korea; these six countries account for most of the world's carbon emissions. The treaty is, in essence, a technology transfer agreement. The U.S., Japan and Australia will share advanced pollution control technology, and the pact's members will contribute to a fund that will help implement the technologies. The details are still sketchy and more countries may be admitted to the group later on. The pact's stated goal is to cut production of "greenhouse gases" in half by the end of the century.
What distinguishes this plan from the Kyoto protocol is that it will actually lead to a major reduction in carbon emissions! This substitution of practical impact for well-crafted verbiage stunned and infuriated European observers.
I doubt that the pact will make any difference to the earth's climate, which will be determined, as always, by variations in the energy emitted by the sun. But when the real cause of a phenomenon is inaccessible, it makes people feel better to tinker with something that they can control. Unlike Kyoto, this agreement won't devastate the U.S. economy, and, also unlike Kyoto, the agreement will reduce carbon emissions in the countries where they are now rising most rapidly, India and China. Brilliant.
But I don't suppose President Bush is holding his breath, waiting for the crowd to start applauding.
CFR/Europe
New in Foreign Affairs: Robert Leikensays radical Islam is spreading across Europe among descendants of Muslim immigrants. Disenfranchised and disillusioned by the failure of integration, some European Muslims have taken up jihad against the West. They are dangerous and committed -- and can enter the United States without a visa. Full Text of “ Europe’s Angry Muslims”
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Darfur who?
In his latest column, Nicholas Kristof acknowledges that blame for passivity toward the ongoing genocide in Darfur does not lie entirely on Washington's shoulders. In addition to being invisible on the political radar, Kristof says it is also invisible on the media's radar, too often overshadowed by celebrity trials and other more popular stories:
"The real failure has been television's. According to monitoring by the Tyndall Report, ABC News had a total of 18 minutes of the Darfur genocide in its nightly newscasts all last year - and that turns out to be a credit to Peter Jennings. NBC had only 5 minutes of coverage all last year, and CBS only 3 minutes - about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths. In contrast, Martha Stewart received 130 minutes of coverage by the three networks.
If only Michael Jackson's trial had been held in Darfur. Last month, CNN, Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS collectively ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson as they ran about genocide in Darfur ... And, incredibly, mtvU (the MTV channel aimed at universities) has covered Darfur more seriously than any network or cable station."
"The real failure has been television's. According to monitoring by the Tyndall Report, ABC News had a total of 18 minutes of the Darfur genocide in its nightly newscasts all last year - and that turns out to be a credit to Peter Jennings. NBC had only 5 minutes of coverage all last year, and CBS only 3 minutes - about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths. In contrast, Martha Stewart received 130 minutes of coverage by the three networks.
If only Michael Jackson's trial had been held in Darfur. Last month, CNN, Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS collectively ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson as they ran about genocide in Darfur ... And, incredibly, mtvU (the MTV channel aimed at universities) has covered Darfur more seriously than any network or cable station."
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Weak
At a meeting of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, the International Humanist and Ethical Union tried to call for a condemnation of suicide bombing—but their presentation was disrupted by Islamic members of the Sub-Commission who objected to the speech as “an attack on Islam:” Criticism of suicide bombers censored at the UN.
"religionist"
Islamists in Oregon are now seething and whining and demanding retractions over an email from a pesticide-industry lobbyist that contained the J word: ‘Jihad’ reference prompts complaint.
SALEM, Ore. — A Portland Muslim leader is asking a pesticide-industry lobbyist to retract a statement in which she warned that Senate Democrats had declared “jihad” against Republicans over an environmental dispute.
Shahriar Ahmed, president of the Bilal Mosque in Beaverton, said use of the term in an e-mail dealing with a controversy over a pesticide-use reporting program perpetuates negative stereotypes about Muslims. “The term ‘jihad’ here was used intentionally to aggravate the situation,” Ahmed said during a news conference yesterday.
The word has been used by Muslim extremists to describe holy war, but Ahmed said mainstream Muslims use the Arabic word to describe a person’s internal struggle to do good.
Ahmed went to the Capitol to criticize an e-mail sent by lobbyist Paulette Pyle of the pesticide-user group Oregonians for Food and Shelter.
In a July 15 e-mail to about 500 farmers and foresters, Pyle warned that “the Senate Democrats have declared ‘JIHAD’ against the Republicans because they are opposed to [Pesticide Use Reporting System] funding.” Pyle said she meant nothing derogatory about Muslims and only used the term in an e-mail to members and supporters of the pesticide group as a way to highlight the issue.
Airhead victocrat politicians have apparently realized that the term “racist” is absurd when applied to people who criticize Islam—so they’ve coined a new word:
Ahmed was joined at yesterday’s news conference by Sen. Frank Shields, D-Portland, who said it appeared that the word was used in the e-mail in a “racist and religionist” way.
SALEM, Ore. — A Portland Muslim leader is asking a pesticide-industry lobbyist to retract a statement in which she warned that Senate Democrats had declared “jihad” against Republicans over an environmental dispute.
Shahriar Ahmed, president of the Bilal Mosque in Beaverton, said use of the term in an e-mail dealing with a controversy over a pesticide-use reporting program perpetuates negative stereotypes about Muslims. “The term ‘jihad’ here was used intentionally to aggravate the situation,” Ahmed said during a news conference yesterday.
The word has been used by Muslim extremists to describe holy war, but Ahmed said mainstream Muslims use the Arabic word to describe a person’s internal struggle to do good.
Ahmed went to the Capitol to criticize an e-mail sent by lobbyist Paulette Pyle of the pesticide-user group Oregonians for Food and Shelter.
In a July 15 e-mail to about 500 farmers and foresters, Pyle warned that “the Senate Democrats have declared ‘JIHAD’ against the Republicans because they are opposed to [Pesticide Use Reporting System] funding.” Pyle said she meant nothing derogatory about Muslims and only used the term in an e-mail to members and supporters of the pesticide group as a way to highlight the issue.
Airhead victocrat politicians have apparently realized that the term “racist” is absurd when applied to people who criticize Islam—so they’ve coined a new word:
Ahmed was joined at yesterday’s news conference by Sen. Frank Shields, D-Portland, who said it appeared that the word was used in the e-mail in a “racist and religionist” way.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Sambo's
Origins
Let's go back to the year 1957 and the town of Santa Barbara, California. Two recent college graduates, Sam Battistone and Newell "Bo" Bohnett, decided to enter the restaurant business together; their goal was to start a chain of restaurants using some of the techniques developed by Ray Croc, Dave Thomas, and other early fast food chain entrepreneurs and apply them in a manner that was family-friendly.
The pair decided to combine their names and use that as a restaurant name: Sam and Bo's, which was quickly shortened to Sambo's. They opened their first restaurant in 1957 in Santa Barbara, and it was an instant success due to its family-friendly sit-down dining environment and very low prices (one of the distinguishing characteristics of Sambo's). In 1958, Battistone was introduced to the children's story Little Black Sambo, written by Helen Bannerman in 1899. The story told the tale of Sambo, an Indian boy who goes into the jungle and loses his clothing to bullying tigers. But the tigers chase each other around a tree and eventually melt into butter, which Sambo puts on his pancakes and eats. Battistone and Bohnett decided to theme their restaurant around this children's story. They redecorated the restaurant and menus to match the art from the book and made pancakes one of their signature dishes. This choice was a bright idea, but it would come back to haunt the pair.
Rapid Success (1960-1978)
With this retheming, the restaurant chain began to take off. The second and third Sambo's opened in California in 1959, and the chain quickly spread, as it occupied a market niche that was largely unfilled: an inexpensive and relatively speedy family restaurant. By the mid-1970's, the chain was the fourth most-franchised restaurant chain in the United States, with more than 1,400 franchises in the United States and 200 more in Canada by 1977. In fact, the success of the chain was such that other restaurant chains, such as McDonald's, Wendy's, Arby's, and Perkins used Sambo's as a model business during the food franchise wars of the 1970's.
Unfortunately, things were about to go downhill for Sambo's.
The Beginning of the End (1978-1982)
In 1978, the chain received multiple lawsuit threats due to its choice of decor. The "Sambo" character, as portrayed in the children's book, had very dark skin and it was perceived that Sambo was a stereotype of people of African descent. The story itself was also described as being racially insensitive, as Sambo makes some questionable choices in the story; this contributed to the perception of Sambo as a racial stereotype.
The chain attempted to rename and redesign itself to avoid lawsuits (names such as Sam's and Special's were tried in the early 1980s), but the second major problem in the Sambo's chain began to rear its head. In order to spur on rapid expansion of the chain, the business structure of Sambo's was organized as a clever Ponzi scheme. The scheme worked like this: in addition to pay, workers at Sambo's were compensated with "Sambo's Shares." These shares, when accumulated, could be used to purchase a new Sambo's franchise at a reduced price. The goal of this scheme was to encourage forward-thinking Sambo's employees to start their own chains, but the actual result was that people were buying Sambo's franchises without the financial means to truly support the restaurant.
The Downhill Slide (1982-1989)
Between 1982 and 1989, the number of Sambo's restaurants in North America went from roughly 1450 restaurants to just one. With franchises going out of business, since they were unable to afford the costs of redesign and restructuring, the franchise fees for the chain stopped coming in. As a result, the chain was unable to promote itself and thus even well-managed individual restaurants went out of business.
Denny's, another restaurant chain with a similar target niche, made a name for itself in 1984, when it purchased roughly 800 of the Sambo's franchises and rechristened them as Denny's.
By 1989, only the original Sambo's (then called Sam's) in Santa Barbara remained.
The Legacy of Sambo's (1990-date)
The Santa Barbara restaurant reverted to the Sambo's name in 1990 (minus the decor) and is still in business today. Chad Stevens, the grandson of Sam Battistone, now owns the restaurant and has flirted with the idea of expanding with new Sambo's restaurants, but for now, there is only one Sambo's.
Let's go back to the year 1957 and the town of Santa Barbara, California. Two recent college graduates, Sam Battistone and Newell "Bo" Bohnett, decided to enter the restaurant business together; their goal was to start a chain of restaurants using some of the techniques developed by Ray Croc, Dave Thomas, and other early fast food chain entrepreneurs and apply them in a manner that was family-friendly.
The pair decided to combine their names and use that as a restaurant name: Sam and Bo's, which was quickly shortened to Sambo's. They opened their first restaurant in 1957 in Santa Barbara, and it was an instant success due to its family-friendly sit-down dining environment and very low prices (one of the distinguishing characteristics of Sambo's). In 1958, Battistone was introduced to the children's story Little Black Sambo, written by Helen Bannerman in 1899. The story told the tale of Sambo, an Indian boy who goes into the jungle and loses his clothing to bullying tigers. But the tigers chase each other around a tree and eventually melt into butter, which Sambo puts on his pancakes and eats. Battistone and Bohnett decided to theme their restaurant around this children's story. They redecorated the restaurant and menus to match the art from the book and made pancakes one of their signature dishes. This choice was a bright idea, but it would come back to haunt the pair.
Rapid Success (1960-1978)
With this retheming, the restaurant chain began to take off. The second and third Sambo's opened in California in 1959, and the chain quickly spread, as it occupied a market niche that was largely unfilled: an inexpensive and relatively speedy family restaurant. By the mid-1970's, the chain was the fourth most-franchised restaurant chain in the United States, with more than 1,400 franchises in the United States and 200 more in Canada by 1977. In fact, the success of the chain was such that other restaurant chains, such as McDonald's, Wendy's, Arby's, and Perkins used Sambo's as a model business during the food franchise wars of the 1970's.
Unfortunately, things were about to go downhill for Sambo's.
The Beginning of the End (1978-1982)
In 1978, the chain received multiple lawsuit threats due to its choice of decor. The "Sambo" character, as portrayed in the children's book, had very dark skin and it was perceived that Sambo was a stereotype of people of African descent. The story itself was also described as being racially insensitive, as Sambo makes some questionable choices in the story; this contributed to the perception of Sambo as a racial stereotype.
The chain attempted to rename and redesign itself to avoid lawsuits (names such as Sam's and Special's were tried in the early 1980s), but the second major problem in the Sambo's chain began to rear its head. In order to spur on rapid expansion of the chain, the business structure of Sambo's was organized as a clever Ponzi scheme. The scheme worked like this: in addition to pay, workers at Sambo's were compensated with "Sambo's Shares." These shares, when accumulated, could be used to purchase a new Sambo's franchise at a reduced price. The goal of this scheme was to encourage forward-thinking Sambo's employees to start their own chains, but the actual result was that people were buying Sambo's franchises without the financial means to truly support the restaurant.
The Downhill Slide (1982-1989)
Between 1982 and 1989, the number of Sambo's restaurants in North America went from roughly 1450 restaurants to just one. With franchises going out of business, since they were unable to afford the costs of redesign and restructuring, the franchise fees for the chain stopped coming in. As a result, the chain was unable to promote itself and thus even well-managed individual restaurants went out of business.
Denny's, another restaurant chain with a similar target niche, made a name for itself in 1984, when it purchased roughly 800 of the Sambo's franchises and rechristened them as Denny's.
By 1989, only the original Sambo's (then called Sam's) in Santa Barbara remained.
The Legacy of Sambo's (1990-date)
The Santa Barbara restaurant reverted to the Sambo's name in 1990 (minus the decor) and is still in business today. Chad Stevens, the grandson of Sam Battistone, now owns the restaurant and has flirted with the idea of expanding with new Sambo's restaurants, but for now, there is only one Sambo's.
NW connection
London Attack Suspect Is Also Sought by US.
WASHINGTON — A key suspect in the July 7 transit bombings in London has long been wanted by U.S. authorities for prosecution in this country, particularly after federal officials developed evidence three years ago that he was trying to help establish a terrorist training camp on the West Coast to wage war against Americans.
But federal investigators said they did not locate Haroon Rashid Aswat, a British Muslim of Indian descent, even after they agreed to give his alleged collaborator in Seattle a light prison sentence in the hope that the man would lead them to him.
Justice Department officials in Washington said Sunday that the Seattle man, Earnest James Ujaama, had been extremely helpful in putting together an indictment against another London Muslim, Egyptian cleric Abu Hamza al Masri, but that he had not led them directly to Aswat.
Had they found Aswat, officials conceded, it might have prevented the deadly London attacks on three subway trains and a bus that killed 52 people, plus the four suicide bombers. Investigators in Britain believe that Aswat had perhaps as many as 20 cellphone conversations with some of the London suicide bombers.
WASHINGTON — A key suspect in the July 7 transit bombings in London has long been wanted by U.S. authorities for prosecution in this country, particularly after federal officials developed evidence three years ago that he was trying to help establish a terrorist training camp on the West Coast to wage war against Americans.
But federal investigators said they did not locate Haroon Rashid Aswat, a British Muslim of Indian descent, even after they agreed to give his alleged collaborator in Seattle a light prison sentence in the hope that the man would lead them to him.
Justice Department officials in Washington said Sunday that the Seattle man, Earnest James Ujaama, had been extremely helpful in putting together an indictment against another London Muslim, Egyptian cleric Abu Hamza al Masri, but that he had not led them directly to Aswat.
Had they found Aswat, officials conceded, it might have prevented the deadly London attacks on three subway trains and a bus that killed 52 people, plus the four suicide bombers. Investigators in Britain believe that Aswat had perhaps as many as 20 cellphone conversations with some of the London suicide bombers.
Who's Ready?
F A S T.. T R A C K ::
Level: Beginner
Duration: 2 full days
Ok, you know you want to be a kiteboarder. Well, allow us to introduce our legendary FastTrack, the fastest way to kiteboarding proficiency, and our most popular program. By the end of the Fast Track program, you will be ready to confidently assess, launch and ride at your local spots. Spend three hours each day learning with your own instructor, and the other half practicing on our equipment and getting some real milage in. By the end of this multiple day course, you may be getting short rides, on a board, in both directions. Furthermore, you will have the skills and confidence to safely assess conditions, choose kite sizes, set up your equipment, launch, ride, and get back to the beach safely.
Hood River Fast Track rates.... May 15 - Sept 15
Number of students
Price per student
1
$549
2
$414
3
$369
Level: Beginner
Duration: 2 full days
Ok, you know you want to be a kiteboarder. Well, allow us to introduce our legendary FastTrack, the fastest way to kiteboarding proficiency, and our most popular program. By the end of the Fast Track program, you will be ready to confidently assess, launch and ride at your local spots. Spend three hours each day learning with your own instructor, and the other half practicing on our equipment and getting some real milage in. By the end of this multiple day course, you may be getting short rides, on a board, in both directions. Furthermore, you will have the skills and confidence to safely assess conditions, choose kite sizes, set up your equipment, launch, ride, and get back to the beach safely.
Hood River Fast Track rates.... May 15 - Sept 15
Number of students
Price per student
1
$549
2
$414
3
$369
Monday, July 25, 2005
My Fortune Cookie
The Fortune Cookie fortune from today's lunch at Chang's.
Liberty will not descend to a people; a people must raise themselves to liberty.
Liberty will not descend to a people; a people must raise themselves to liberty.
They Bang, They Bang
AMMAN, Jordan -
On his first visit to the Middle East, Ricky Martin declared he will try to change negative perceptions of Arab youth in the West.
"I promise I will become a spokesperson, if you allow me to, a spokesperson on your behalf. I will defend you and try to get rid of any stereotypes," the 33-year-old singer told youngsters from 16 mainly Arab countries at a youth conference on Monday.
The children, ages 14 to 16, expressed concern about being labeled as "terrorists" by the West.
"I have been a victim of stereotypes. I come from Latin America and to some countries, we are considered `losers,' drug traffickers, and that is not fair because that is generalizing," said Martin, who was born in Puerto Rico.
"Those comments are made out of ignorance and we have to sometimes ignore the ignorant, but we also have to educate the ignorant. You have me here as a friend," he said.
Martin, who is a United Nations' Children's Fund goodwill ambassador, said he wanted to get to know the youth and their cultures better.
He said he planned to do a concert tour of the Mideast and North Africa, including Jordan and the Palestinian territories, tentatively scheduled for May 2006.
Martin, whose hits include "She Bangs," "Shake Your Bon-Bon" and "Livin' La Vida Loca," posed for photos with fans, at one point draping over his shoulders a traditional Arab kaffiyeh headscarf with the slogan "Jerusalem Is Ours" written in Arabic on it.
What a useful idiot
On his first visit to the Middle East, Ricky Martin declared he will try to change negative perceptions of Arab youth in the West.
"I promise I will become a spokesperson, if you allow me to, a spokesperson on your behalf. I will defend you and try to get rid of any stereotypes," the 33-year-old singer told youngsters from 16 mainly Arab countries at a youth conference on Monday.
The children, ages 14 to 16, expressed concern about being labeled as "terrorists" by the West.
"I have been a victim of stereotypes. I come from Latin America and to some countries, we are considered `losers,' drug traffickers, and that is not fair because that is generalizing," said Martin, who was born in Puerto Rico.
"Those comments are made out of ignorance and we have to sometimes ignore the ignorant, but we also have to educate the ignorant. You have me here as a friend," he said.
Martin, who is a United Nations' Children's Fund goodwill ambassador, said he wanted to get to know the youth and their cultures better.
He said he planned to do a concert tour of the Mideast and North Africa, including Jordan and the Palestinian territories, tentatively scheduled for May 2006.
Martin, whose hits include "She Bangs," "Shake Your Bon-Bon" and "Livin' La Vida Loca," posed for photos with fans, at one point draping over his shoulders a traditional Arab kaffiyeh headscarf with the slogan "Jerusalem Is Ours" written in Arabic on it.
What a useful idiot
Opinion Polls
The YouGov survey contains many other statistics that should interest, if not shock, Britons and other Westerners
- Muslims who see the 7/7 bombing attacks in London as justified on balance: 6 percent.
Who feel sympathy for the "feelings and motives" of those who carried out the 7/7 attacks: 24 percent. - Understand "why some people behave in that way": 56 percent.
Disagree with Tony Blair's description of the ideology of the London bombers as "perverted and poisonous": 26 percent. - Feel not loyal towards Britain: 16 percent.
- Agree that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end": 32 percent willing to use non-violent means and (as noted above) 1 percent willing to use violence "if necessary." Just 56 percent of Muslims agree with the statement that "Western society may not be perfect but Muslims should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end."
- Agree that "British political leaders don't mean it when they talk about equality. They regard the lives of white British people as more valuable than the lives of British Muslims": 52 percent.
- Dismiss political party leaders as insincere when saying "they respect Islam and want to co-operate with Britain's Muslim communities": 50 percent.
- Doubt that anyone charged with and tried for the 7/7 attacks would receive a fair trial: 44 percent.
- Would not inform on a Muslim religious leader "trying to ‘radicalise' young Muslims by preaching hatred against the West": 10 percent.
- Do not think people have a duty to go to the police if they "see something in the community that makes them feel suspicious": 14 percent.
- Believe other Muslims would be reluctant to go to the police "about anything they see that makes them suspicious": 41 percent.
- Would inform the police if they believed that knew about the possible planning of a terrorist attack: 73 percent. (In this case, the Daily Telegraph did not make available the negative percentage.)
Friday, July 22, 2005
Have any Package readers traveled to Florida lately?
Police are on the lookout for the naked tickler. Investigators said they believe one man could be responsible for a series of bizarre break-ins in which a naked man enters victims' rooms while they are sleeping and tries to tickle their feet.
The naked tickler struck again in New Smyrna Beach over the weekend.
Investigators have been working on five similar, unsolved cases since 2001. Most of the victims are women over age 60, said police Cmdr. Wade Kirby.
Kirby said no arrests have yet been made because they don't have a lot to go on.
New Smyrna Beach is 44 miles northeast of Orlando.
The naked tickler struck again in New Smyrna Beach over the weekend.
Investigators have been working on five similar, unsolved cases since 2001. Most of the victims are women over age 60, said police Cmdr. Wade Kirby.
Kirby said no arrests have yet been made because they don't have a lot to go on.
New Smyrna Beach is 44 miles northeast of Orlando.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Exchange WSJ
The People's Bank of China announces the abandonment of the Chinese renminbi's 11-year-old peg to the U.S. dollar, in the first step towards a floating exchange rate.
Outsiders have always assumed that letting China's currency "float" would mean letting it "rise." China's leadership knows it's not that simple. Indeed, if domestic Chinese get nervous about the safety of their savings and start trying to cash out into dollars or gold, today's decision could yet turn out to be a seriously bad choice that sparks a run on the currency and the banks.
Unless we badly overestimate Beijing, the revaluation that began today (and whose extent is far from clear) was not a concession to foreign pressure, or an attempt to smooth the way for Chinese oil company CNOOC's bid for Unocal, or a bouquet for President Hu Jintao to bring when he visits Washington in the fall.
It was a bet that China's economy is ready to turn toward "intensive," rather than "extensive," development -- moving up the technological and services food chain, relying more on skills and less on drawing uneducated peasants into the job market. It also means devoting more resources to satisfying domestic demand with domestic production. That means China will have to start making better use of domestic savings -- and an important sign to watch for is a greater opening to private and foreign banks than has been allowed so far.
Outsiders have always assumed that letting China's currency "float" would mean letting it "rise." China's leadership knows it's not that simple. Indeed, if domestic Chinese get nervous about the safety of their savings and start trying to cash out into dollars or gold, today's decision could yet turn out to be a seriously bad choice that sparks a run on the currency and the banks.
Unless we badly overestimate Beijing, the revaluation that began today (and whose extent is far from clear) was not a concession to foreign pressure, or an attempt to smooth the way for Chinese oil company CNOOC's bid for Unocal, or a bouquet for President Hu Jintao to bring when he visits Washington in the fall.
It was a bet that China's economy is ready to turn toward "intensive," rather than "extensive," development -- moving up the technological and services food chain, relying more on skills and less on drawing uneducated peasants into the job market. It also means devoting more resources to satisfying domestic demand with domestic production. That means China will have to start making better use of domestic savings -- and an important sign to watch for is a greater opening to private and foreign banks than has been allowed so far.
Steven Wright
This Guy Still Finds the World Baffling. Blame the World.
by Bruce Weber
New York Times, June 18, 2002
Life doesn't seem to be getting any less baffling for the monotonal comedian Steven Wright. His intellect remains dedicated to misreadings of the world's ordinary signals to its citizens, and in his comic persona he seems incapable of sharing commonly accepted tools of communication. Where his mind lives - in the vacant spaces that language creates - confusion, ambiguity, absurdity, irony, and paradox grow like mold.
"What's another word for thesaurus?" he asked, apropos of nothing, during his appearance Thursday night at the Beacon Theatre. And at another moment, as if it had just occurred to him: "Imagine how weird phones would look if your mouth was nowhere near your ears."
Mr. Wright, who said he was 46, has been mining for such random nuggets of nonwisdom for two decades now, and perhaps the most remarkable thing about his comedy is the seeming inexhaustability of the lode. Dressed oblivious to the season, with jeans tucked into black boots and a car coat over a work shirt (he also wore what looked like a lacquered straw fedora), he wandered back and forth across the stage, tripping regularly over comic bafflements:
"Sponges grow in the ocean. That kills me. I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be if that didn't happen."
"I was wondering how my life would have been different if I'd been born one day earlier, and I thought maybe it wouldn't be different at all, except that I'd have asked that question yesterday."
During his 90-minute show, a presentation of the 10th Toyota Comedy Festival, Mr. Wright did offer a handful of set pieces. One was a loopy fantasy involving a pet parrot that talked in its sleep; another, a hilarious, stream-of-consciousness riff on the subject of clothes-dryer lint. In the same oddball vein he also sang a couple of songs, accompanying himself listlessly on the guitar: "She stands standing up/She sleeps lying down/She's a red-headed girl with long black hair."
But the show consisted mostly of brief anecdotes and even briefer asides. He reminisced about his family ("One of my grandfathers died when he was a little boy"), talked about people he knew ("A friend of mine is a pilot, and we were going somewhere in his car, and for no reason at all he waited 45 minutes before pulling out of his driveway") and reported on his own odd behavior, which by his own account frequently makes other people cry with frustration. One was a woman at a tourist information bureau, whom he greeted by saying, "So tell me about some people who were here last year."
Compulsively honest, he even recounted some pillow talk with his girlfriend. She asked him, he said, "If you could know how and when you were going to die, would you want to know?"
"Nope."
"Forget it, then."
It is a signifying element Mr. Wright's stage persona that his remarks seem to arise unbidden, conjured up in an unpredictable sequence that makes it seem as if he is constantly being startled by preposterous revalations. If his unshakably deadpan delivery makes him sound depressively stunned, it's no wonder. After all, with a mind like his, how will he ever fit in with the rest of us?
"I'm a peripheral visionary," he said, not inaccurately. "I can see into the future - just way off to the side."
by Bruce Weber
New York Times, June 18, 2002
Life doesn't seem to be getting any less baffling for the monotonal comedian Steven Wright. His intellect remains dedicated to misreadings of the world's ordinary signals to its citizens, and in his comic persona he seems incapable of sharing commonly accepted tools of communication. Where his mind lives - in the vacant spaces that language creates - confusion, ambiguity, absurdity, irony, and paradox grow like mold.
"What's another word for thesaurus?" he asked, apropos of nothing, during his appearance Thursday night at the Beacon Theatre. And at another moment, as if it had just occurred to him: "Imagine how weird phones would look if your mouth was nowhere near your ears."
Mr. Wright, who said he was 46, has been mining for such random nuggets of nonwisdom for two decades now, and perhaps the most remarkable thing about his comedy is the seeming inexhaustability of the lode. Dressed oblivious to the season, with jeans tucked into black boots and a car coat over a work shirt (he also wore what looked like a lacquered straw fedora), he wandered back and forth across the stage, tripping regularly over comic bafflements:
"Sponges grow in the ocean. That kills me. I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be if that didn't happen."
"I was wondering how my life would have been different if I'd been born one day earlier, and I thought maybe it wouldn't be different at all, except that I'd have asked that question yesterday."
During his 90-minute show, a presentation of the 10th Toyota Comedy Festival, Mr. Wright did offer a handful of set pieces. One was a loopy fantasy involving a pet parrot that talked in its sleep; another, a hilarious, stream-of-consciousness riff on the subject of clothes-dryer lint. In the same oddball vein he also sang a couple of songs, accompanying himself listlessly on the guitar: "She stands standing up/She sleeps lying down/She's a red-headed girl with long black hair."
But the show consisted mostly of brief anecdotes and even briefer asides. He reminisced about his family ("One of my grandfathers died when he was a little boy"), talked about people he knew ("A friend of mine is a pilot, and we were going somewhere in his car, and for no reason at all he waited 45 minutes before pulling out of his driveway") and reported on his own odd behavior, which by his own account frequently makes other people cry with frustration. One was a woman at a tourist information bureau, whom he greeted by saying, "So tell me about some people who were here last year."
Compulsively honest, he even recounted some pillow talk with his girlfriend. She asked him, he said, "If you could know how and when you were going to die, would you want to know?"
"Nope."
"Forget it, then."
It is a signifying element Mr. Wright's stage persona that his remarks seem to arise unbidden, conjured up in an unpredictable sequence that makes it seem as if he is constantly being startled by preposterous revalations. If his unshakably deadpan delivery makes him sound depressively stunned, it's no wonder. After all, with a mind like his, how will he ever fit in with the rest of us?
"I'm a peripheral visionary," he said, not inaccurately. "I can see into the future - just way off to the side."
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
MSM Bias?
Thomas Joscelyn continues his outstanding reporting on the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. In this installment we learn, among other things, that following President Clinton's four-day bombing campaign in Iraq during 1998, Saddam dispatched a trusted operative to Afghanistan where he met with bin Laden and his cohorts. A few days later, bin Laden denounced the attack and called on all Muslims to strike U.S. and British targets, including civilians, around the world. The European media then began reporting details of a relationship (which some described as a "pact") between Saddam and al Qaeda. Corriere Della Sera (Italian) reported that Saddam had offered safehaven to bin Laden. A Paris-based pan-Arab magazine provided details concerning joint Iraqi-al Qaeda cooperation on chemical and biological weapons in Sudan. Several Arab news outlets stated that Iraqi military intelligence officials were in Afghanistan meeting with Taliban elements on the subject of exacting revenge on the U.S. and Britain. They also reported that Arab Afghans were receiving training in southern Iraq. Newsweek and ABC also reported on this apparent terrorist alliance. And the New York Post stated that Saddam was courting both bin Laden and Abu Nidal (now living in Iraq) as part of a plan "to resort to terrorism in revenge for airstrikes his country." Even the leftist Guardian ran articles on the axis of Saddam and bin Laden. The Clinton administration was also concerned about such an axis. Richard Clarke advised Sandy Berger that if bin Laden learned about U.S. operations against him, he "will likely boogie to Baghdad." Previously, Clarke had speculated that the Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-al Qaeda agreement." Joscelyn notes that reports of a relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued until the eve of the war in Iraq. The adminstration's critics and the MSM would like Americans to believe that the assessments of numerous reporters, analysts, and even Clinton administration officials on this subject were unfounded. But do they want this because they have a sound basis for discounting these assessment or because they bitterly oppose President Bush. As Joscelyn says, "it is left for the reader to decide."
Pissed it away
Squandered Sympathy
Support for Osama bin Laden and suicide bombings have fallen sharply in much of the Muslim world, according to a multicountry poll released on Thursday," Reuters reports. The Pew Research Center survey covered Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan and Lebanon, and only in Jordan had sympathy for bin Laden increased since 2003:
In Morocco, 26 percent of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down from 49 percent in a similar poll two years ago.
In Lebanon, where both Muslims and Christians took part in the survey, only 2 percent expressed some confidence in the Saudi-born al Qaeda leader, down from 14 percent in 2003.
In Turkey, bin Laden's support has fallen to 7 percent from 15 percent in the past two years. In Indonesia, it has dropped to 35 percent from 58 percent.
Bin Laden had the sympathy of the world after 9/11, and he squandered it. Just pissed it away in the name of foolish foreign adventures! He must be ruing the day he ever went into Iraq.
Support for Osama bin Laden and suicide bombings have fallen sharply in much of the Muslim world, according to a multicountry poll released on Thursday," Reuters reports. The Pew Research Center survey covered Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan and Lebanon, and only in Jordan had sympathy for bin Laden increased since 2003:
In Morocco, 26 percent of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down from 49 percent in a similar poll two years ago.
In Lebanon, where both Muslims and Christians took part in the survey, only 2 percent expressed some confidence in the Saudi-born al Qaeda leader, down from 14 percent in 2003.
In Turkey, bin Laden's support has fallen to 7 percent from 15 percent in the past two years. In Indonesia, it has dropped to 35 percent from 58 percent.
Bin Laden had the sympathy of the world after 9/11, and he squandered it. Just pissed it away in the name of foolish foreign adventures! He must be ruing the day he ever went into Iraq.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Cheap Vegas
Vegas for the Cheap at Heart
Some people call it the City of Lights. We call it the City of Free Lightbulbs. Folks ask if you can live in Vegas on only one quarter a day and the answer is "absolutely," but you have to win a jackpot with it. Failing that, you can cut corners with the tips and tricks we've learned from years of living low on the hog (like near the teats).
Free Crap - This is where you get the freebies like keychains, photos, mardi gras beads and coffee mugs.
Free Eats - Want some free hot dogs, popcorn, drinks and ice cream sundaes? Well, click here and strap on the feedbag.
Free to See - The casinos will do anything to get you through their doors, including offer all kinds of free entertainment, from pirate battles and water fountains to full-blown stage revues.
Cheap Eats - You might not eat well, but you can certainly eat cheap, from $1 breakfasts to $3 steak dinners.
Gamble Cheap - Penny slots, quarter craps, dime roulette and dollar blackjack. These are the places where you can lose less quickly. Before you spend a dime, be sure to check out our highly "scientific" nickel test.
Sleep Cheap - Rooms for less than $25 on the weekends? It's true and sometimes you don't even share the bed with a rat. This is our list of the most likely places to get a good deal on a room.
Trip Reports - It's almost like you're with us on one of our journeys into the bowels of the city, except that you don't have to get drunk and argue with a lamppost.
The Lucky Ned IncrediSystems Institute - Lucky Ned is the world's foremost research authority on drunken, intuition-based gambling advice. Blackjack, Roulette, Craps, Keno.
Encyclopedia Vegasana - A comprehensive list of Vegas terms we either made up or heard and liked so much we stole. And you can suggest your own.
Old Lady Playing Keno Jokes - 50+ riddles about the female fans of the bouncing balls. Okay, so we went overboard.
Lucky Links - Scan our hand-picked selection of Las Vegas web sites. We weeded out the junk so you wouldn't have to.
Strip Map, Downtown Map and Off-Strip Map - Get your bearings with our colorful, hot-linked maps.
Why not check out the lovely selection in the Las Vegas Library? Las Vegas just isn't as much fun unless you intellectualize the heck out of it.
Some people call it the City of Lights. We call it the City of Free Lightbulbs. Folks ask if you can live in Vegas on only one quarter a day and the answer is "absolutely," but you have to win a jackpot with it. Failing that, you can cut corners with the tips and tricks we've learned from years of living low on the hog (like near the teats).
Free Crap - This is where you get the freebies like keychains, photos, mardi gras beads and coffee mugs.
Free Eats - Want some free hot dogs, popcorn, drinks and ice cream sundaes? Well, click here and strap on the feedbag.
Free to See - The casinos will do anything to get you through their doors, including offer all kinds of free entertainment, from pirate battles and water fountains to full-blown stage revues.
Cheap Eats - You might not eat well, but you can certainly eat cheap, from $1 breakfasts to $3 steak dinners.
Gamble Cheap - Penny slots, quarter craps, dime roulette and dollar blackjack. These are the places where you can lose less quickly. Before you spend a dime, be sure to check out our highly "scientific" nickel test.
Sleep Cheap - Rooms for less than $25 on the weekends? It's true and sometimes you don't even share the bed with a rat. This is our list of the most likely places to get a good deal on a room.
Trip Reports - It's almost like you're with us on one of our journeys into the bowels of the city, except that you don't have to get drunk and argue with a lamppost.
The Lucky Ned IncrediSystems Institute - Lucky Ned is the world's foremost research authority on drunken, intuition-based gambling advice. Blackjack, Roulette, Craps, Keno.
Encyclopedia Vegasana - A comprehensive list of Vegas terms we either made up or heard and liked so much we stole. And you can suggest your own.
Old Lady Playing Keno Jokes - 50+ riddles about the female fans of the bouncing balls. Okay, so we went overboard.
Lucky Links - Scan our hand-picked selection of Las Vegas web sites. We weeded out the junk so you wouldn't have to.
Strip Map, Downtown Map and Off-Strip Map - Get your bearings with our colorful, hot-linked maps.
Why not check out the lovely selection in the Las Vegas Library? Las Vegas just isn't as much fun unless you intellectualize the heck out of it.
Black Bush
I pray to God you don't drop that shit.
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/chappelles_show/videos/season_2/index.jhtml
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/chappelles_show/videos/season_2/index.jhtml
Monday, July 18, 2005
New Foo Fighter's Really Good
Longing for those magical days of unemployment, cigarettes, and Slurpys, and the hot summer nights spent getting injured and drunk at La Luna? Well MF's the new Foo CD will make you wonder why you ever quit. I highly recommend you make disc 1 of this set your summer soundtrack. I have and things have only got better.
Friday, July 15, 2005
VDH
Another great essay from Victor Davis Hanson on the left’s suicidally false “narrative:” Our Wars Over the War.
Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.
Taking back Fallujah from beheaders and terrorists is no different from bombing the London subway since civilians may die in either case. The deliberate rather than accidental targeting of noncombatants makes little difference, especially since the underdog in Fallujah is not to be judged by the same standard as the overdogs in London and New York. A half-dozen roughed up prisoners in Guantanamo are the same as the Nazi death camps or the Gulag.
Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.
The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.
These tenets in various forms are not merely found in the womb of the universities, but filter down into our popular culture, grade schools, and national political discourse — and make it hard to fight a war against stealthy enemies who proclaim constant and shifting grievances. If at times these doctrines are proven bankrupt by the evidence it matters little, because such beliefs are near religious in nature — a secular creed that will brook no empirical challenge.
These articles of faith apparently fill a deep psychological need for millions of Westerners, guilty over their privilege, free to do anything without constraints or repercussions, and convinced that their own culture has made them spectacularly rich and leisured only at the expense of others.
So it is not true to say that Western civilization is at war against Dark Age Islamism. Properly speaking, only about half of the West is involved, the shrinking segment that still sees human nature as unchanging and history as therefore replete with a rich heritage of tragic lessons.
Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.
Taking back Fallujah from beheaders and terrorists is no different from bombing the London subway since civilians may die in either case. The deliberate rather than accidental targeting of noncombatants makes little difference, especially since the underdog in Fallujah is not to be judged by the same standard as the overdogs in London and New York. A half-dozen roughed up prisoners in Guantanamo are the same as the Nazi death camps or the Gulag.
Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.
The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.
These tenets in various forms are not merely found in the womb of the universities, but filter down into our popular culture, grade schools, and national political discourse — and make it hard to fight a war against stealthy enemies who proclaim constant and shifting grievances. If at times these doctrines are proven bankrupt by the evidence it matters little, because such beliefs are near religious in nature — a secular creed that will brook no empirical challenge.
These articles of faith apparently fill a deep psychological need for millions of Westerners, guilty over their privilege, free to do anything without constraints or repercussions, and convinced that their own culture has made them spectacularly rich and leisured only at the expense of others.
So it is not true to say that Western civilization is at war against Dark Age Islamism. Properly speaking, only about half of the West is involved, the shrinking segment that still sees human nature as unchanging and history as therefore replete with a rich heritage of tragic lessons.
You Were Right
you were wrong when you said / everything's gonna be alright / you were right when you said / all that glitters isn't gold / you were right when you said / all we are is dust in the wind / you were right when you said / we are all just bricks in the wall / and when you said manic depression's a frustrating mess / you were right when you said / you can't always get what you want / you were right when you said / it's a hard rain's gonna fall / you were right when you said / we're still running against the wind / life goes on long after the thrill of living is gone / you were right when you said / this is the end
you were wrong when you said / everything's gonna be alright / you were right when you said / all that glitters isn't gold / you were right when you said / all we are is dust in the wind / you were right when you said / we are all just bricks in the wall / and when you said manic depression's a frustrating mess / you were right when you said / you can't always get what you want / you were right when you said / it's a hard rain's gonna fall / you were right when you said / we're still running against the wind / life goes on long after the thrill of living is gone / you were right when you said / this is the end
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Namath
Joseph William Namath (born May 31, 1943) was an American football quarterback for the American Football League's New York Jets in the 1960s. He is best known for predicting his team's unlikely victory in the third AFL-NFL World Championship Game, over Don Shula's NFL Baltimore Colts.
Namath was born in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania and was a star player in football, as well as basketball and baseball, while in high school. When he graduated he received offers from six Major League Baseball teams, but decided instead to avail himself of one of the many offers from college football programs, and attended the University of Alabama, playing under coach Bear Bryant from 1962-65. During this period the Crimson Tide returned to being a national force in college football.
Despite having suffered a serious knee injury in his senior year, Namath was the number-one draft pick in the AFL the year he graduated from Alabama, and signed a contract with the AFL's New York Jets the day after starring in the Orange Bowl. This knee injury, which caused his knees to swell up with fluid and require periodic draining, plagued Namath for the rest of his career. On some occasions, Namath had to have his knee drained at halftime so that he could finish a game. Later in life, long after he left football, he had to have knee replacement surgery on both legs.
In the 1965 college draft, Namath was passed up by the NFL as "too expensive". Signed to the AFL's New York Jets team by Hall of Fame owner Sonny Werblin, Namath was the first pro quarterback to pass for 4,000 yards in a season (1967). He did so in only 14 games, the standard length of the pro football season at the time, a feat which is impressive, even by modern standards. He was a three-time American Football League All-Star, although plagued with knee injuries through much of his career. Still, he produced many exceptional performances, one of which came in the 1968 AFL title game, when he threw three touchdown passes to lead New York to a 27-23 win over the defending American Football League Champion Oakland Raiders. This 1968 season earned him the Hickok Belt as top professional athlete of the year. Namath was an AFL All-Star four times, in 1965, 1967, 1968 and 1969; and a Pro Bowler in 1972. He is a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the Jets' all-time team, the All-Time All-AFL Team and the American Football League Hall of Fame.
The apex of his career was almost certainly his role in the Jets' win over the Colts in the third AFL-NFL World Championship Game, now referred to as Super Bowl III (but not at that time; the designation of Super Bowls by Roman numerals was yet to come). The Colts were touted as "the greatest football team in history". Former NFL star and coach Norm Van Brocklin ridiculed the AFL before the game, saying "This will be Namath's first professional football game." Writers from NFL cities insisted it would take the AFL several more years to be truly competitive with the NFL. Much of the hype surrounding the game was related to how it would either prove or disprove the proposition that the AFL teams were truly worthy of being allowed to merge with the NFL; the first two such games had resulted in blowout victories for the previous NFL champions, the Green Bay Packers, and the Colts were probably even more favored in most circles of "knowledgable" fans, media figures, and handicappers than the Packers had been.
In the actual game, Namath showed that his success against tough American Football League competition had more than prepared him to take on the NFL. The Colts' vaunted defense was unable to contain the Jets' running or passing game, while their ineffective offense gave up four interceptions to the Jets. Namath was the game's MVP, completing eight passes to George Sauer alone, for 133 yards. Namath acquired legendary status for American Football League fans, as the symbol of their league's legitimacy and the patron saint of underdogs. The game marked a change in eras for professional football, which had long been symbolized by the Colts' Johnny Unitas and his crewcut and high-top, antiquated football shoes; the insertion by Shula of Unitas into the game in the second half after his having missed almost the entire season due to injury smacked of desperation and was in any event "too little too late", but the contrast in styles between the staid, conservative Unitas and the flamboyant, long-haired Namath was almost impossible to miss, and seemed to symbolize a change in American culture than ran far deeper than just football.
After the season, along with Boston Patriots receiver Jim Colclough and NHL star Derek Sanderson, Namath opened a popular Upper East Side saloon in New York City called "Bachelors III," which quickly became frequented by social undesirables. To protect the league's reputation, the NFL Commissioner, Pete Rozelle, ordered Namath to divest himself of his interest in the bar. Namath reacted defiantly, retiring from football during a teary news conference. After missing most of training camp, Namath came out of retirement and reported to the then-World Champion Jets. At the same time, he announced that he was selling his interest in "Bachelors III".
In the twilight of his career Namath was traded by the Jets to the Los Angeles Rams. Namath hope to revitalize his by-then flagging career but by this point his effectiveness as a quarterback was greatly reduced by mobility problems related to his numerous knee injuries and the general ravages of a long period of time playing professional football at such a high level, as well as his "hard and fast" lifestyle; he retired from the Rams after a single season and went on to a minor career as an actor in several movies and starred in a brief 1978 television series, The Waverly Wonders. He was also used as a color analyst on broadcasts of NFL games for a while, including the 1985 season of Monday Night Football, but never seemed to be particularly comfortable, or particularly talented, in this role.
Namath's nickname was "Broadway Joe"; he is sometimes called "Joe Willie Namath", a characterization popularized by Howard Cosell. He originated the fad of wearing a full-length fur coat on the sidelines, a habit which was adopted by many players after him. He also appeared in television advertisements both during and after his playing career, most notably for shaving cream (in which he was shaved by Farrah Fawcett) and panty hose; they contributed to his becoming something of a pop-culture icon. He has appeared in advertising as recently as 2003.
In December 2003 he gained new notoriety, apparently after partaking of too much celebratory champagne at the Jets' announcement of their all-time team. During live ESPN coverage, he twice stated he wanted to kiss Suzy Kolber, the female interviewer, appearing to all unbiased observers to be under the influence of alcohol. He has since apologized. Later, he publicly admitted to an alcohol problem, and soon entered into an outpatient alcoholism treatment program.
Namath was born in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania and was a star player in football, as well as basketball and baseball, while in high school. When he graduated he received offers from six Major League Baseball teams, but decided instead to avail himself of one of the many offers from college football programs, and attended the University of Alabama, playing under coach Bear Bryant from 1962-65. During this period the Crimson Tide returned to being a national force in college football.
Despite having suffered a serious knee injury in his senior year, Namath was the number-one draft pick in the AFL the year he graduated from Alabama, and signed a contract with the AFL's New York Jets the day after starring in the Orange Bowl. This knee injury, which caused his knees to swell up with fluid and require periodic draining, plagued Namath for the rest of his career. On some occasions, Namath had to have his knee drained at halftime so that he could finish a game. Later in life, long after he left football, he had to have knee replacement surgery on both legs.
In the 1965 college draft, Namath was passed up by the NFL as "too expensive". Signed to the AFL's New York Jets team by Hall of Fame owner Sonny Werblin, Namath was the first pro quarterback to pass for 4,000 yards in a season (1967). He did so in only 14 games, the standard length of the pro football season at the time, a feat which is impressive, even by modern standards. He was a three-time American Football League All-Star, although plagued with knee injuries through much of his career. Still, he produced many exceptional performances, one of which came in the 1968 AFL title game, when he threw three touchdown passes to lead New York to a 27-23 win over the defending American Football League Champion Oakland Raiders. This 1968 season earned him the Hickok Belt as top professional athlete of the year. Namath was an AFL All-Star four times, in 1965, 1967, 1968 and 1969; and a Pro Bowler in 1972. He is a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the Jets' all-time team, the All-Time All-AFL Team and the American Football League Hall of Fame.
The apex of his career was almost certainly his role in the Jets' win over the Colts in the third AFL-NFL World Championship Game, now referred to as Super Bowl III (but not at that time; the designation of Super Bowls by Roman numerals was yet to come). The Colts were touted as "the greatest football team in history". Former NFL star and coach Norm Van Brocklin ridiculed the AFL before the game, saying "This will be Namath's first professional football game." Writers from NFL cities insisted it would take the AFL several more years to be truly competitive with the NFL. Much of the hype surrounding the game was related to how it would either prove or disprove the proposition that the AFL teams were truly worthy of being allowed to merge with the NFL; the first two such games had resulted in blowout victories for the previous NFL champions, the Green Bay Packers, and the Colts were probably even more favored in most circles of "knowledgable" fans, media figures, and handicappers than the Packers had been.
In the actual game, Namath showed that his success against tough American Football League competition had more than prepared him to take on the NFL. The Colts' vaunted defense was unable to contain the Jets' running or passing game, while their ineffective offense gave up four interceptions to the Jets. Namath was the game's MVP, completing eight passes to George Sauer alone, for 133 yards. Namath acquired legendary status for American Football League fans, as the symbol of their league's legitimacy and the patron saint of underdogs. The game marked a change in eras for professional football, which had long been symbolized by the Colts' Johnny Unitas and his crewcut and high-top, antiquated football shoes; the insertion by Shula of Unitas into the game in the second half after his having missed almost the entire season due to injury smacked of desperation and was in any event "too little too late", but the contrast in styles between the staid, conservative Unitas and the flamboyant, long-haired Namath was almost impossible to miss, and seemed to symbolize a change in American culture than ran far deeper than just football.
After the season, along with Boston Patriots receiver Jim Colclough and NHL star Derek Sanderson, Namath opened a popular Upper East Side saloon in New York City called "Bachelors III," which quickly became frequented by social undesirables. To protect the league's reputation, the NFL Commissioner, Pete Rozelle, ordered Namath to divest himself of his interest in the bar. Namath reacted defiantly, retiring from football during a teary news conference. After missing most of training camp, Namath came out of retirement and reported to the then-World Champion Jets. At the same time, he announced that he was selling his interest in "Bachelors III".
In the twilight of his career Namath was traded by the Jets to the Los Angeles Rams. Namath hope to revitalize his by-then flagging career but by this point his effectiveness as a quarterback was greatly reduced by mobility problems related to his numerous knee injuries and the general ravages of a long period of time playing professional football at such a high level, as well as his "hard and fast" lifestyle; he retired from the Rams after a single season and went on to a minor career as an actor in several movies and starred in a brief 1978 television series, The Waverly Wonders. He was also used as a color analyst on broadcasts of NFL games for a while, including the 1985 season of Monday Night Football, but never seemed to be particularly comfortable, or particularly talented, in this role.
Namath's nickname was "Broadway Joe"; he is sometimes called "Joe Willie Namath", a characterization popularized by Howard Cosell. He originated the fad of wearing a full-length fur coat on the sidelines, a habit which was adopted by many players after him. He also appeared in television advertisements both during and after his playing career, most notably for shaving cream (in which he was shaved by Farrah Fawcett) and panty hose; they contributed to his becoming something of a pop-culture icon. He has appeared in advertising as recently as 2003.
In December 2003 he gained new notoriety, apparently after partaking of too much celebratory champagne at the Jets' announcement of their all-time team. During live ESPN coverage, he twice stated he wanted to kiss Suzy Kolber, the female interviewer, appearing to all unbiased observers to be under the influence of alcohol. He has since apologized. Later, he publicly admitted to an alcohol problem, and soon entered into an outpatient alcoholism treatment program.
Awkward challanges
UK multi-culturalism under spotlight
By Roger Hardy BBC Islamic Affairs analyst
The radicalisation of some younger members of Britain's 1.5 million-strong Muslim community has led to often heated debate. Now questions are being asked about whether British-style multi-culturalism is succeeding or failing. Protests over Rushdie's novel in the 1980s was a turning point -Muslims have lived in Britain for centuries, but only relatively recently have they become the focus of controversy. Three big crises over the last decade and a half have heightened tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims:
The Rushdie affair of the late 1980s
The attacks of 9/11 in the US, and their implications for Britain
And now, potentially most serious of all, this month's London bombings
They pose awkward challenges for British policy-makers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4681615.stm
By Roger Hardy BBC Islamic Affairs analyst
The radicalisation of some younger members of Britain's 1.5 million-strong Muslim community has led to often heated debate. Now questions are being asked about whether British-style multi-culturalism is succeeding or failing. Protests over Rushdie's novel in the 1980s was a turning point -Muslims have lived in Britain for centuries, but only relatively recently have they become the focus of controversy. Three big crises over the last decade and a half have heightened tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims:
The Rushdie affair of the late 1980s
The attacks of 9/11 in the US, and their implications for Britain
And now, potentially most serious of all, this month's London bombings
They pose awkward challenges for British policy-makers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4681615.stm
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Sassy
'Sassy' Suicide Bombers
Today's Guardian gives space to Dilpazier Aslam, a "Guardian trainee journalist" who suggests that one shouldn't be shocked by Thursday's suicide bombings - such a reaction would be inappropriate because, among other reasons:
"Shocked would be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of our own."
Yes, ladies and gentlemen - we bear responsibility for the murderous actions of maniacal members of a religious cult. An apology is certainly called for - the queue forms to the right.
Needless to say, there are other reasons why shock is inappropriate. Mr. Aslam explains:
"Shocked would be to say that we don't understand how, in the green hills of Yorkshire, a group of men given all the liberties they could have wished for could do this."
Fortunately for those who still don't quite follow, Mr. Aslam provides an explanation immediately, in the very next paragraph - which reads, in its entirety:
"The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not."
Suicide bombing .... sassy!
Mr. Aslam makes much of pointing out that he, like the terrorists, is "a Yorkshire lad, born and bred," and is careful to preempt accusations of support for terror by saying that indiscriminate killing is "sad," and "not the way to express your political anger."
Although the Guardian article unaccountably omits the fact (presumably for reasons of space), Mr. Aslam is on record as supporting a world-dominant Islamic state, notably in his writings for London based site khilafah.com ("Khilafa" translates as "Caliphate". The site's tagline expresses its aim: "then there will be khilafah rashida [a righteous Caliphate] on the method of Prophethood [i.e., sharia]"). As he puts it, in an article he co-authored there:
"... we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically"
As the establishment of the state that he hopes to help run seems unlikely without the implementation of violent measures such as those we've seen, and also considering the fact that the Caliphate that Mr. Aslam so keenly anticipates is the stated goal of many such terrorists, readers can't help but question the sincerity of his thinly-voiced disapproval of inappropriate "sass."
In fact, his stated fear of "being labelled a terrorist-lover" seems particularly justified, in light of another of his khilafah.com articles - in which he specifically calls for violence:
"The establishment of Khilafah is our only solution, to fight fire with fire, the state of Israel versus the Khilafah State"
Incidentally, it should be pointed out that there's no question whatever about this "Yorkshire lad's" loyalty to Britain. He has made it quite clear that:
"Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah, not to a football team or nation state."
Neither should there be any questions concerning the Guardian's use of columnists who advocate "fighting fire with fire" to bring about the establishment of a sharia-based Caliphate. After all, it's not the first time they've done so.
Today's Guardian gives space to Dilpazier Aslam, a "Guardian trainee journalist" who suggests that one shouldn't be shocked by Thursday's suicide bombings - such a reaction would be inappropriate because, among other reasons:
"Shocked would be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of our own."
Yes, ladies and gentlemen - we bear responsibility for the murderous actions of maniacal members of a religious cult. An apology is certainly called for - the queue forms to the right.
Needless to say, there are other reasons why shock is inappropriate. Mr. Aslam explains:
"Shocked would be to say that we don't understand how, in the green hills of Yorkshire, a group of men given all the liberties they could have wished for could do this."
Fortunately for those who still don't quite follow, Mr. Aslam provides an explanation immediately, in the very next paragraph - which reads, in its entirety:
"The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not."
Suicide bombing .... sassy!
Mr. Aslam makes much of pointing out that he, like the terrorists, is "a Yorkshire lad, born and bred," and is careful to preempt accusations of support for terror by saying that indiscriminate killing is "sad," and "not the way to express your political anger."
Although the Guardian article unaccountably omits the fact (presumably for reasons of space), Mr. Aslam is on record as supporting a world-dominant Islamic state, notably in his writings for London based site khilafah.com ("Khilafa" translates as "Caliphate". The site's tagline expresses its aim: "then there will be khilafah rashida [a righteous Caliphate] on the method of Prophethood [i.e., sharia]"). As he puts it, in an article he co-authored there:
"... we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically"
As the establishment of the state that he hopes to help run seems unlikely without the implementation of violent measures such as those we've seen, and also considering the fact that the Caliphate that Mr. Aslam so keenly anticipates is the stated goal of many such terrorists, readers can't help but question the sincerity of his thinly-voiced disapproval of inappropriate "sass."
In fact, his stated fear of "being labelled a terrorist-lover" seems particularly justified, in light of another of his khilafah.com articles - in which he specifically calls for violence:
"The establishment of Khilafah is our only solution, to fight fire with fire, the state of Israel versus the Khilafah State"
Incidentally, it should be pointed out that there's no question whatever about this "Yorkshire lad's" loyalty to Britain. He has made it quite clear that:
"Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah, not to a football team or nation state."
Neither should there be any questions concerning the Guardian's use of columnists who advocate "fighting fire with fire" to bring about the establishment of a sharia-based Caliphate. After all, it's not the first time they've done so.
I love the WSJ
In its editorial "Karl Rove, whistle-blower," the Wall Street Journal reiterates in milder tones the points we've made here repeatedly over the past year regarding Joseph Wilson and his bald-faced politics of fraud:
"Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.
For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.
Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.
On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.
"While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.
The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.
Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.
But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.
The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.
About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."
In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.
If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue. As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth."
"Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.
For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.
Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.
On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.
"While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.
The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.
Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.
But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.
The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.
About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."
In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.
If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue. As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth."
Powerline on the Plame Leak
Is Hypocrisy Still Considered A Vice?
We rarely read the New York Times' editorials except for their occasional humor value; today's editorial on the Valerie Plame affair is a case in point. To begin with, the Times has a bit of a problem denouncing leaks, as it admits: "Far be it for [sic] us to denounce leaks." No kidding; the Times has carried on a guerrilla war against the Bush administration for the last four and one-half years, relying largely on anti-Bush leaks by Democrats in the CIA and the State Department. But the Plame "leak" is different, somehow:
But it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary.
Yes, we certainly agree with that. That's why our opinion of Joe Wilson is so low. He leaked the contents of his own report to the CIA--in the pages of the New York Times!--only he lied about his own report. He "peddled disinformation," falsely claiming to have found no evidence of an Iraqi effort to buy uranium from Niger, in order to "harm a political adversary," President Bush. The Times didn't mind that particular disinformation, however, since it fit the paper's political agenda. In fact, the Times has never issued a correction of the misstatements in Wilson's op-ed. On the contrary, today's editorial links to Wilson's 2003 piece and repeats its central allegations, without even mentioning that Wilson's op-ed has been found to be fraudulent by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee! The Times continues:
Mr. Rove said the origins of Mr. Wilson's mission were "flawed and suspect" because, according to Mr. Rove, Mr. Wilson had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, who works for the Central Intelligence Agency. To understand why Mr. Rove thought that was a black mark, remember that the White House considers dissenters enemies and that the C.I.A. had cast doubt on the administration's apocalyptic vision of Iraq's weapons programs.
No! Rove "thought that was a black mark" because Wilson had falsely claimed, in the very New York Times op-ed that the editorial linked to this morning, that he had been sent to Niger at the request of Vice-President Cheney's office:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
This was another lie by Wilson, as Cheney pointed out at the time, and as the Senate Intelligence Report confirmed. Contrary to false statements made by Wilson and his wife, it was Valerie Plame who suggested her husband for the Niger venture, and the Vice-President's office had nothing to do with it. This is precisely what Karl Rove told Matt Cooper, but the Times demurely fails to quote Cooper's email to that effect. As usual, the Times's editorial will sound plausible only to the uninformed. But it seems to me that there is a deeper level of malfeasance here. In all of the liberal huffing and puffing over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame--as though she might be in danger as she drove to and from her desk job in Langley, and as though she hadn't posed for a photo shoot in Vanity Fair, dressed up as a spy--I've seen no liberal criticism of a more recent, real outing of a clandestine CIA operation. In this case, those who outed a CIA operation exposed secret agents operating in the field, in circumstances of great personal danger, not a civilian desk employee. The outing of the CIA operation undoubtedly forced the CIA to terminate or change what had been an effective means of protecting the nation's security, and likely did endanger the lives of real covert agents.
I'm referring, of course, to the exposure of a purportedly civilian airline as a CIA operation:
While posing as a private charter outfit - "aircraft rental with pilot" is the listing in Dun and Bradstreet - Aero Contractors is in fact a major domestic hub of the Central Intelligence Agency's secret air service. The company was founded in 1979 by a legendary C.I.A. officer and chief pilot for Air America, the agency's Vietnam-era air company, and it appears to be controlled by the agency, according to former employees.
An analysis of thousands of flight records, aircraft registrations and corporate documents, as well as interviews with former C.I.A. officers and pilots, show that the agency owns at least 26 planes, 10 of them purchased since 2001. The agency has concealed its ownership behind a web of seven shell corporations that appear to have no employees and no function apart from owning the aircraft.
The planes, regularly supplemented by private charters, are operated by real companies controlled by or tied to the agency, including Aero Contractors and two Florida companies, Pegasus Technologies and Tepper Aviation.
Who was it who "outed" these CIA employees, blew their cover and perhaps endangered their lives? The New York Times, of course! In an article that was based largely on leaks by former CIA employees, who were out to embarrass the administration. Ah, but that's the "good" kind of leak--the kind that exposes the Agency's real covert operatives, not the kind that tries to correct lies told by Democratic Party loyalists in the pages of the New York Times.
We rarely read the New York Times' editorials except for their occasional humor value; today's editorial on the Valerie Plame affair is a case in point. To begin with, the Times has a bit of a problem denouncing leaks, as it admits: "Far be it for [sic] us to denounce leaks." No kidding; the Times has carried on a guerrilla war against the Bush administration for the last four and one-half years, relying largely on anti-Bush leaks by Democrats in the CIA and the State Department. But the Plame "leak" is different, somehow:
But it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary.
Yes, we certainly agree with that. That's why our opinion of Joe Wilson is so low. He leaked the contents of his own report to the CIA--in the pages of the New York Times!--only he lied about his own report. He "peddled disinformation," falsely claiming to have found no evidence of an Iraqi effort to buy uranium from Niger, in order to "harm a political adversary," President Bush. The Times didn't mind that particular disinformation, however, since it fit the paper's political agenda. In fact, the Times has never issued a correction of the misstatements in Wilson's op-ed. On the contrary, today's editorial links to Wilson's 2003 piece and repeats its central allegations, without even mentioning that Wilson's op-ed has been found to be fraudulent by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee! The Times continues:
Mr. Rove said the origins of Mr. Wilson's mission were "flawed and suspect" because, according to Mr. Rove, Mr. Wilson had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, who works for the Central Intelligence Agency. To understand why Mr. Rove thought that was a black mark, remember that the White House considers dissenters enemies and that the C.I.A. had cast doubt on the administration's apocalyptic vision of Iraq's weapons programs.
No! Rove "thought that was a black mark" because Wilson had falsely claimed, in the very New York Times op-ed that the editorial linked to this morning, that he had been sent to Niger at the request of Vice-President Cheney's office:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
This was another lie by Wilson, as Cheney pointed out at the time, and as the Senate Intelligence Report confirmed. Contrary to false statements made by Wilson and his wife, it was Valerie Plame who suggested her husband for the Niger venture, and the Vice-President's office had nothing to do with it. This is precisely what Karl Rove told Matt Cooper, but the Times demurely fails to quote Cooper's email to that effect. As usual, the Times's editorial will sound plausible only to the uninformed. But it seems to me that there is a deeper level of malfeasance here. In all of the liberal huffing and puffing over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame--as though she might be in danger as she drove to and from her desk job in Langley, and as though she hadn't posed for a photo shoot in Vanity Fair, dressed up as a spy--I've seen no liberal criticism of a more recent, real outing of a clandestine CIA operation. In this case, those who outed a CIA operation exposed secret agents operating in the field, in circumstances of great personal danger, not a civilian desk employee. The outing of the CIA operation undoubtedly forced the CIA to terminate or change what had been an effective means of protecting the nation's security, and likely did endanger the lives of real covert agents.
I'm referring, of course, to the exposure of a purportedly civilian airline as a CIA operation:
While posing as a private charter outfit - "aircraft rental with pilot" is the listing in Dun and Bradstreet - Aero Contractors is in fact a major domestic hub of the Central Intelligence Agency's secret air service. The company was founded in 1979 by a legendary C.I.A. officer and chief pilot for Air America, the agency's Vietnam-era air company, and it appears to be controlled by the agency, according to former employees.
An analysis of thousands of flight records, aircraft registrations and corporate documents, as well as interviews with former C.I.A. officers and pilots, show that the agency owns at least 26 planes, 10 of them purchased since 2001. The agency has concealed its ownership behind a web of seven shell corporations that appear to have no employees and no function apart from owning the aircraft.
The planes, regularly supplemented by private charters, are operated by real companies controlled by or tied to the agency, including Aero Contractors and two Florida companies, Pegasus Technologies and Tepper Aviation.
Who was it who "outed" these CIA employees, blew their cover and perhaps endangered their lives? The New York Times, of course! In an article that was based largely on leaks by former CIA employees, who were out to embarrass the administration. Ah, but that's the "good" kind of leak--the kind that exposes the Agency's real covert operatives, not the kind that tries to correct lies told by Democratic Party loyalists in the pages of the New York Times.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Fifth Column
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676861.stm
All the bombers in London were British citizens-
Guess what they had in common?
All the bombers in London were British citizens-
Guess what they had in common?
Weak Brits, Tough French
Daniel Pipes
New York SunJuly 12, 2005http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2764
Thanks to the war in Iraq, much of the world sees the British government as resolute and tough and the French one as appeasing and weak. But in another war, the one against terrorism and radical Islam, the reverse is true: France is the most stalwart nation in the West, even more so than America, while Britain is the most hapless.
British-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and America. Many governments - Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American - have protested London's refusal to shut down its Islamist terrorist infrastructure or extradite wanted operatives. In frustration, Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak publicly denounced Britain for "protecting killers." One American security group has called for Britain to be listed as a terrorism-sponsoring state.
Counterterrorism specialists disdain the British. Roger Cressey calls London "easily the most important jihadist hub in Western Europe." Steven Simon dismisses the British capital as "the Star Wars bar scene" of Islamic radicals. More brutally, an intelligence official said of last week's attacks: "The terrorists have come home. It is payback time for … an irresponsible policy."
While London hosts terrorists, Paris hosts a top-secret counterterrorism center, code-named Alliance Base, the existence of which was recently reported by the Washington Post. At Alliance Base, six major Western governments have since 2002 shared intelligence and run counterterrorism operations - the latter makes the operation unique.
More broadly, President Chirac instructed French intelligence agencies just days after September 11, 2001, to share terrorism data with their American counterparts "as if they were your own service." The cooperation is working: A former acting CIA director, John E. McLaughlin, called the bilateral intelligence tie "one of the best in the world." The British may have a "special relationship" with Washington on Iraq, but the French have one with it in the war on terror.
France accords terrorist suspects fewer rights than any other Western state, permitting interrogation without a lawyer, lengthy pre-trial incarcerations, and evidence acquired under dubious circumstances. Were he a terrorism suspect, the author of Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe, Evan Kohlmann, says he "would least like to be held under" the French system.
The myriad French-British differences in treatment of radical Islam can be summarized by the example of what Muslim girls may wear to state-funded schools.
Denbigh High School in Luton, 30 miles northwest of London, has a student population that is about 80% Muslim. Years ago, it accommodated the sartorial needs of their faith and heritage, including a female student uniform made up of the Pakistani shalwar kameez trousers, a jerkin top, and hijab head covering. But when a teenager of Bangladeshi origins, Shabina Begum, insisted in 2004 on wearing a jilbab, which covers the entire body except for the face and hands, Denbigh administrators said no.
The dispute ended up in litigation and the Court of Appeal ultimately decided in Ms. Begum's favor. As a result, by law British schools must now accept the jilbab. Not only that, but Prime Minister Blair's wife, Cherie Booth, was Ms. Begum's lawyer at the appellate level. Ms. Booth called the ruling "a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry."
By contrast, also in 2004, the French government outlawed the hijab, the Muslim headscarf, from public educational institutions, disregarding ferocious opposition both within France and among Islamists worldwide. In Tehran, protesters shouted "Death to France!" and "Death to Chirac the Zionist!" The Palestinian Authority mufti, Ikrima Sa'id Sabri, declared, "French laws banning the hijab constitute a war against Islam as a religion." The Saudi grand mufti, Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, called them a human rights infringement. When the "Islamic Army in Iraq" kidnapped two French journalists, it threatened their execution unless the hijab ban was revoked. Paris stood firm.
What lies behind these contrary responses? The British have seemingly lost interest in their heritage while the French hold on to theirs: As the British ban fox hunting, the French ban hijabs. The former embrace multiculturalism, the latter retain a pride in their historic culture. This contrast in matters of identity makes Britain the Western country most vulnerable to the ravages of radical Islam whereas France, for all its political failings, has held onto a sense of self that may yet see it through.
To comment on this article, please go to http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2764#commentTo see the Daniel Pipes archive, go to http://www.DanielPipes.org
New York SunJuly 12, 2005http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2764
Thanks to the war in Iraq, much of the world sees the British government as resolute and tough and the French one as appeasing and weak. But in another war, the one against terrorism and radical Islam, the reverse is true: France is the most stalwart nation in the West, even more so than America, while Britain is the most hapless.
British-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and America. Many governments - Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American - have protested London's refusal to shut down its Islamist terrorist infrastructure or extradite wanted operatives. In frustration, Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak publicly denounced Britain for "protecting killers." One American security group has called for Britain to be listed as a terrorism-sponsoring state.
Counterterrorism specialists disdain the British. Roger Cressey calls London "easily the most important jihadist hub in Western Europe." Steven Simon dismisses the British capital as "the Star Wars bar scene" of Islamic radicals. More brutally, an intelligence official said of last week's attacks: "The terrorists have come home. It is payback time for … an irresponsible policy."
While London hosts terrorists, Paris hosts a top-secret counterterrorism center, code-named Alliance Base, the existence of which was recently reported by the Washington Post. At Alliance Base, six major Western governments have since 2002 shared intelligence and run counterterrorism operations - the latter makes the operation unique.
More broadly, President Chirac instructed French intelligence agencies just days after September 11, 2001, to share terrorism data with their American counterparts "as if they were your own service." The cooperation is working: A former acting CIA director, John E. McLaughlin, called the bilateral intelligence tie "one of the best in the world." The British may have a "special relationship" with Washington on Iraq, but the French have one with it in the war on terror.
France accords terrorist suspects fewer rights than any other Western state, permitting interrogation without a lawyer, lengthy pre-trial incarcerations, and evidence acquired under dubious circumstances. Were he a terrorism suspect, the author of Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe, Evan Kohlmann, says he "would least like to be held under" the French system.
The myriad French-British differences in treatment of radical Islam can be summarized by the example of what Muslim girls may wear to state-funded schools.
Denbigh High School in Luton, 30 miles northwest of London, has a student population that is about 80% Muslim. Years ago, it accommodated the sartorial needs of their faith and heritage, including a female student uniform made up of the Pakistani shalwar kameez trousers, a jerkin top, and hijab head covering. But when a teenager of Bangladeshi origins, Shabina Begum, insisted in 2004 on wearing a jilbab, which covers the entire body except for the face and hands, Denbigh administrators said no.
The dispute ended up in litigation and the Court of Appeal ultimately decided in Ms. Begum's favor. As a result, by law British schools must now accept the jilbab. Not only that, but Prime Minister Blair's wife, Cherie Booth, was Ms. Begum's lawyer at the appellate level. Ms. Booth called the ruling "a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry."
By contrast, also in 2004, the French government outlawed the hijab, the Muslim headscarf, from public educational institutions, disregarding ferocious opposition both within France and among Islamists worldwide. In Tehran, protesters shouted "Death to France!" and "Death to Chirac the Zionist!" The Palestinian Authority mufti, Ikrima Sa'id Sabri, declared, "French laws banning the hijab constitute a war against Islam as a religion." The Saudi grand mufti, Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, called them a human rights infringement. When the "Islamic Army in Iraq" kidnapped two French journalists, it threatened their execution unless the hijab ban was revoked. Paris stood firm.
What lies behind these contrary responses? The British have seemingly lost interest in their heritage while the French hold on to theirs: As the British ban fox hunting, the French ban hijabs. The former embrace multiculturalism, the latter retain a pride in their historic culture. This contrast in matters of identity makes Britain the Western country most vulnerable to the ravages of radical Islam whereas France, for all its political failings, has held onto a sense of self that may yet see it through.
To comment on this article, please go to http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2764#commentTo see the Daniel Pipes archive, go to http://www.DanielPipes.org
Monday, July 11, 2005
Schools in Crisis! Oops, I mean, NEA Bullshit!
If the Oregonian is shining a light on this, it must be bad-
Benefits eat schools' cash
Sunday, July 10, 2005
BETSY HAMMOND
Oregon lawmakers plan to give schools at least $300 million more over the next two years, but that won't bring relief from big class sizes and program cuts.
Instead, districts will have to spend it on health and pension benefits that dwarf the national average, an analysis by The Oregonian shows.
For each teacher, secretary, principal, janitor and other worker, Oregon schools paid an average of $18,300 for health insurance and retirement pay in 2002-03. That was 55 percent more than schools across the nation.
If Oregon were to match the national rate, schools would save about $500 million next year, money they could use to help reduce class sizes that are among the nation's largest.
"Taxpayers in Oregon are pumping money into the public education system that doesn't benefit the learning environment in classrooms one bit," says Jim Green, senior legislative advocate for the Oregon School Boards Association.
And, starting this month, the price gets higher.
As of July 1, school districts must pay 17 percent on top of salaries for state pension costs, up from 12 percent the past two years.
Average health insurance premiums paid by Oregon school districts are rising an average of 12 percent a year, according to an analysis by the consulting firm ECONorthwest.
With more than 55,000 full-time workers in Oregon schools, the costly employee benefits add up to more than $2 billion over two years.
Read it if you are sick of the hyperbole-
Benefits eat schools' cash
Sunday, July 10, 2005
BETSY HAMMOND
Oregon lawmakers plan to give schools at least $300 million more over the next two years, but that won't bring relief from big class sizes and program cuts.
Instead, districts will have to spend it on health and pension benefits that dwarf the national average, an analysis by The Oregonian shows.
For each teacher, secretary, principal, janitor and other worker, Oregon schools paid an average of $18,300 for health insurance and retirement pay in 2002-03. That was 55 percent more than schools across the nation.
If Oregon were to match the national rate, schools would save about $500 million next year, money they could use to help reduce class sizes that are among the nation's largest.
"Taxpayers in Oregon are pumping money into the public education system that doesn't benefit the learning environment in classrooms one bit," says Jim Green, senior legislative advocate for the Oregon School Boards Association.
And, starting this month, the price gets higher.
As of July 1, school districts must pay 17 percent on top of salaries for state pension costs, up from 12 percent the past two years.
Average health insurance premiums paid by Oregon school districts are rising an average of 12 percent a year, according to an analysis by the consulting firm ECONorthwest.
With more than 55,000 full-time workers in Oregon schools, the costly employee benefits add up to more than $2 billion over two years.
Read it if you are sick of the hyperbole-
No connection?
The Mother of All Connections
From the July 18, 2005 issue: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn 07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41
"In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars." U.S. government "Summary of Evidence" for an Iraqi member of al Qaeda detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
FOR MANY, the debate over the former Iraqi regime's ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network ended a year ago with the release of the 9/11 Commission report. Media outlets seized on a carefully worded summary that the commission had found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" and ran blaring headlines like the one on the June 17, 2004, front page of the New York Times: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."
But this was woefully imprecise. It assumed, not unreasonably, that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was based on a firm foundation of intelligence reporting, that the intelligence community had the type of human intelligence and other reporting that would allow senior-level analysts to draw reasonable conclusions. We know now that was not the case.
From the July 18, 2005 issue: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn 07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41
"In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars." U.S. government "Summary of Evidence" for an Iraqi member of al Qaeda detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
FOR MANY, the debate over the former Iraqi regime's ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network ended a year ago with the release of the 9/11 Commission report. Media outlets seized on a carefully worded summary that the commission had found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" and ran blaring headlines like the one on the June 17, 2004, front page of the New York Times: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."
But this was woefully imprecise. It assumed, not unreasonably, that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was based on a firm foundation of intelligence reporting, that the intelligence community had the type of human intelligence and other reporting that would allow senior-level analysts to draw reasonable conclusions. We know now that was not the case.
Over the Edge
"They've pushed us over the edge"
So says a distraught Democratic loyalist about Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation, in this priceless piece -- "Call Up the Troops, Then Clean the Grill" -- by Hanna Rosin of the Washington Post.
But O'Connor's thoughtlessly provocative act has an up-side -- parties. That's because Moveon.org isn't waiting until President Bush nominates someone to replace O'Connor who might actually push the lefties over the edge (here's hoping). Instead it has told its troops to renew the "meet-ups." Rosin reports on two of them. At one,
Guests get to say why they came. One talks about the nature of liberalism, another about being comfortable with yourself. They are drifting. "Folks, we really want to focus on the Supreme Court," [the host] reminds them for the second time.
But it's hard to focus on the Court, since Bush has yet to nominate anyone. Without a name, the house parties must seem a bit like Hamlet without the Prince. Where does one focus the outrage? On a sentence the nominee wrote in a 1998 opinion about abortion; on an excerpt from a 1995 law review article about the meaning of the Establishment Clause; on the way the nominee looked at her law clerk in 1993? With this much uncertainly, there's little to do other than to call President Bush a fascist, and then move on to the important business of meeting people and talking the real Prince -- oneself.
Rosin gets to the heart of the matter here:
In an election, the broad outlines of the strategy are clear: Knock on doors, make phone calls, getting as many people to vote for your guy as possible. But the judicial nomination process does not welcome the activist style of democracy. Only 100 people get to vote. And President Bush gets to decide whom to nominate, period.
But no matter. For these folks, the "activist style" is an end in itself.
So says a distraught Democratic loyalist about Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation, in this priceless piece -- "Call Up the Troops, Then Clean the Grill" -- by Hanna Rosin of the Washington Post.
But O'Connor's thoughtlessly provocative act has an up-side -- parties. That's because Moveon.org isn't waiting until President Bush nominates someone to replace O'Connor who might actually push the lefties over the edge (here's hoping). Instead it has told its troops to renew the "meet-ups." Rosin reports on two of them. At one,
Guests get to say why they came. One talks about the nature of liberalism, another about being comfortable with yourself. They are drifting. "Folks, we really want to focus on the Supreme Court," [the host] reminds them for the second time.
But it's hard to focus on the Court, since Bush has yet to nominate anyone. Without a name, the house parties must seem a bit like Hamlet without the Prince. Where does one focus the outrage? On a sentence the nominee wrote in a 1998 opinion about abortion; on an excerpt from a 1995 law review article about the meaning of the Establishment Clause; on the way the nominee looked at her law clerk in 1993? With this much uncertainly, there's little to do other than to call President Bush a fascist, and then move on to the important business of meeting people and talking the real Prince -- oneself.
Rosin gets to the heart of the matter here:
In an election, the broad outlines of the strategy are clear: Knock on doors, make phone calls, getting as many people to vote for your guy as possible. But the judicial nomination process does not welcome the activist style of democracy. Only 100 people get to vote. And President Bush gets to decide whom to nominate, period.
But no matter. For these folks, the "activist style" is an end in itself.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Johnny Rock Freestylin'
I've been reading many of the articles and opinions about the reasons we went to war with Iraq. The most common reason given to those opposing our action is we did it for the oil. So I did some looking.
The US imports 17% of its total oil imports from Canada. Saudi Arabia is 2nd at 14% and Mexico is 3rd with 13% of the imports coming from there.
Iraq is the 10th highest producer of oil in the world. The US is 3rd and the UK is 9th. Norway is 6th. Invading Norway would have been easier.
So that is it. Johnny Rock has ended it. He no longer wants to hear that the reason we went to war in Iraq was for oil.
The US imports 17% of its total oil imports from Canada. Saudi Arabia is 2nd at 14% and Mexico is 3rd with 13% of the imports coming from there.
Iraq is the 10th highest producer of oil in the world. The US is 3rd and the UK is 9th. Norway is 6th. Invading Norway would have been easier.
So that is it. Johnny Rock has ended it. He no longer wants to hear that the reason we went to war in Iraq was for oil.
If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution
These paragraphs were taken from an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times written by Thomas Friedman. His piece contains a theme best highlighted in these words.
The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.
The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst.
The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.
The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst.
Man Sues Mass. for Right to Get Drunk
BOSTON - A man arrested when police showed up to break up a New Year's Eve party at a friend's house has filed a lawsuit, arguing he has a constitutional right to get drunk on private property as long as he doesn't cause a public disturbance.
Eric Laverriere, 25, of Portland, Maine, was taken into protective custody by Waltham police and locked in a cell for nine hours until the effects of the alcohol wore off.
Legal experts said his lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Boston, is the first to challenge a state law allowing police to lock up drunk people against their will.
Laverriere argues that the Massachusetts Protective Custody Law was written to combat public drunkenness and that the police had no right to use it to take him from a private residence.
"One thing people should be able to do is drink in their own house," Laverriere told The Boston Globe. "That's the beauty of the land of the free."
Waltham Deputy Police Chief Paul Juliano declined to comment on the suit on the advice of the city's legal department.
Several lawyers said they believe police have the authority to take inebriated people into custody, but they said it was the first time the law has been challenged on the grounds that one has a constitutional right to get drunk on private property.
The Protective Custody Law, enacted in 1971, replaced a Colonial-era law that made public drunkenness a crime. It authorizes police to hold people against their will for up to 12 hours.
Under the law, people must be drunk and a danger to themselves or others to be taken into custody, but does not explicitly say whether it applies to those in public or private settings.
Boston attorney Leonard Kesten, who has defended police departments in civil-rights cases, said if officers are investigating a crime or responding to an incident and discover that someone is drunk and posing a danger, they are obligated to take that person into protective custody.
Police have been sued for failing to take people into protective custody who later died from alcohol poisoning or killed others in drunken-driving accidents.
Laverriere said that he drank several beers, but wasn't drunk, when officers arrived at his friend's duplex saying someone had thrown bottles at a passing police cruiser.
When the partygoers denied throwing bottles, Laverriere said, the officers became angry, prompting him to pick up a friend's camera and start videotaping. Laverriere told the Globe that Officer Jorge Orta ripped the camera from his hands and threw him to the floor, injuring his shoulder.
Laverriere said he told police he had been invited to spend the night at the house, but the officers insisted on taking him into protective custody.
One police report says that Laverriere appeared intoxicated and expressed "displeasure" at being told he had to leave the party because he lived in Maine. He was then taken into custody. The report says he fell to the floor while resisting Orta's efforts to handcuff him.
Eric Laverriere, 25, of Portland, Maine, was taken into protective custody by Waltham police and locked in a cell for nine hours until the effects of the alcohol wore off.
Legal experts said his lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Boston, is the first to challenge a state law allowing police to lock up drunk people against their will.
Laverriere argues that the Massachusetts Protective Custody Law was written to combat public drunkenness and that the police had no right to use it to take him from a private residence.
"One thing people should be able to do is drink in their own house," Laverriere told The Boston Globe. "That's the beauty of the land of the free."
Waltham Deputy Police Chief Paul Juliano declined to comment on the suit on the advice of the city's legal department.
Several lawyers said they believe police have the authority to take inebriated people into custody, but they said it was the first time the law has been challenged on the grounds that one has a constitutional right to get drunk on private property.
The Protective Custody Law, enacted in 1971, replaced a Colonial-era law that made public drunkenness a crime. It authorizes police to hold people against their will for up to 12 hours.
Under the law, people must be drunk and a danger to themselves or others to be taken into custody, but does not explicitly say whether it applies to those in public or private settings.
Boston attorney Leonard Kesten, who has defended police departments in civil-rights cases, said if officers are investigating a crime or responding to an incident and discover that someone is drunk and posing a danger, they are obligated to take that person into protective custody.
Police have been sued for failing to take people into protective custody who later died from alcohol poisoning or killed others in drunken-driving accidents.
Laverriere said that he drank several beers, but wasn't drunk, when officers arrived at his friend's duplex saying someone had thrown bottles at a passing police cruiser.
When the partygoers denied throwing bottles, Laverriere said, the officers became angry, prompting him to pick up a friend's camera and start videotaping. Laverriere told the Globe that Officer Jorge Orta ripped the camera from his hands and threw him to the floor, injuring his shoulder.
Laverriere said he told police he had been invited to spend the night at the house, but the officers insisted on taking him into protective custody.
One police report says that Laverriere appeared intoxicated and expressed "displeasure" at being told he had to leave the party because he lived in Maine. He was then taken into custody. The report says he fell to the floor while resisting Orta's efforts to handcuff him.
Ollie North
Revising history
Oliver North
July 8, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Brian Williams, main character of the dark, prime time NBC satire called "Nightly News," is now a finalist, with Newsweek magazine and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., for the title of "Revisionist Historian of The Year." The honor goes to the creator of the biggest whopper defaming America and/or Americans, for which an apology is required. The judges have to decide whether the recipient created the fiction out of malevolence or ignorance. No extra points are awarded for stupidity. Newsweek had the inside track on the prize until the editors retracted an unsubstantiated charge that Americans had flushed a Quran down a toilet at the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Then, a few weeks later, Durbin claimed the honor by imaginatively comparing members of America's Armed Forces with those of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Cambodia's Pol Pot. He subsequently kind of apologized for giving "some people" a "mistaken impression."
Now, Williams has moved to the fore with a delightful fiction that America's founding fathers are no different than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Islamic radical who was recently selected as the next president of Iran. On June 31st, following a report that Ahmadinejad might have been one of those who sacked our Tehran embassy and seized 52 American hostages in 1979, Williams said, "What would it all matter if proven true? … The first several U.S. Presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called ‘terrorists’ by the British crown." In order to qualify for the award as "Revisionist Historian of the Year," the statement made must be patently untrue, but widely accepted as the truth. In the case of Newsweek's "Quran in the Guantanamo toilet" claim, the charge was thoroughly refuted by reputable investigators -- but widely accepted as fact in the Islamic media. Mr. Durbin's fabrication was mathematically implausible since more than thirty million people perished in Khmer Rouge, Nazi and Soviet detentions, while none have died at Guantanamo. Nonetheless, it continues to be repeated throughout the Islamic world. Judging Williams' creation is a more difficult task, requiring knowledge of both Ahmadinejad's words and deeds -- as well as those of "the first several U.S. Presidents." Since recent polls show that most of Williams' viewers cannot even recite the names of "the first several U.S. Presidents" -- and know even less about the new Iranian president -- awarding Williams the prize is problematic. If he wants the recognition he deserves, Williams should spell out some of the following facts:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new president of Iran, has proudly proclaimed his membership in the Pasdaran -- the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps -- the entity responsible for seizing the U.S. Embassy and holding American diplomats and Marines hostage for 444 days. He now claims that he only supported the embassy seizure because that's what Ayatollah Khomeini wanted. Ahmadinejad insists he did not participate in it, but at least four of the former hostages place the president-"elect" among their captors. Iranian reformers -- who were not allowed to run in the presidential "election" that Ahmadinejad "won" -- claim that in the 1980s, he was with the "Internal Security" department of the IRGC and had responsibility for "interrogations, torture and executions." According to current and former IRGC leaders, during that same time frame, the organization assisted the Hezbollah terrorist organization in kidnapping Americans in Beirut, killing 241 Marines at the barracks near the Beirut airport and twice blowing up the American Embassy in the Lebanese capital. One of Ahmadinejad's most memorable lines: "We did not have a revolution in order to have a democracy." So far, he's yet to condemn the mass murder in London.
Williams doesn't specify, but "the first several U.S. Presidents" must include George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and perhaps Andrew Jackson -- the last U.S. President to have served in the American Revolution.
George Washington commanded the Continental Army -- in uniform, not as a terrorist. The warrant against him by the British crown charged him with rebellion -- not terrorism. There is no record of Washington ever being involved in torture, hostage taking or murder but we know he repatriated British diplomats. One of his most memorable lines: "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison served in civil and/or diplomatic capacities during the Revolution. None was involved in any known acts of terror against the British or their allies. Their most memorable lines are found in the Record of the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
James Monroe served as an officer in the Continental Army and was wounded in the Battle of Trenton. There is no record of any involvement in torturing hostages or committing any acts of terrorism. His most notable lines were contained in the Monroe Doctrine.
John Quincy Adams was a child during the Revolution and committed no known acts of terrorism. He is best remembered for advocating the abolition of slavery during the 17 years he served in the House of Representatives after being president.
Andrew Jackson served in the Continental Army as a teen-aged boy. His face bore the scar of a British officer's saber cut -- a wound inflicted after young Jackson refused to clean his captor's boots. His best lines were in opposing the creation of a government banking system.
Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist
Oliver North
July 8, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Brian Williams, main character of the dark, prime time NBC satire called "Nightly News," is now a finalist, with Newsweek magazine and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., for the title of "Revisionist Historian of The Year." The honor goes to the creator of the biggest whopper defaming America and/or Americans, for which an apology is required. The judges have to decide whether the recipient created the fiction out of malevolence or ignorance. No extra points are awarded for stupidity. Newsweek had the inside track on the prize until the editors retracted an unsubstantiated charge that Americans had flushed a Quran down a toilet at the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Then, a few weeks later, Durbin claimed the honor by imaginatively comparing members of America's Armed Forces with those of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Cambodia's Pol Pot. He subsequently kind of apologized for giving "some people" a "mistaken impression."
Now, Williams has moved to the fore with a delightful fiction that America's founding fathers are no different than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Islamic radical who was recently selected as the next president of Iran. On June 31st, following a report that Ahmadinejad might have been one of those who sacked our Tehran embassy and seized 52 American hostages in 1979, Williams said, "What would it all matter if proven true? … The first several U.S. Presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called ‘terrorists’ by the British crown." In order to qualify for the award as "Revisionist Historian of the Year," the statement made must be patently untrue, but widely accepted as the truth. In the case of Newsweek's "Quran in the Guantanamo toilet" claim, the charge was thoroughly refuted by reputable investigators -- but widely accepted as fact in the Islamic media. Mr. Durbin's fabrication was mathematically implausible since more than thirty million people perished in Khmer Rouge, Nazi and Soviet detentions, while none have died at Guantanamo. Nonetheless, it continues to be repeated throughout the Islamic world. Judging Williams' creation is a more difficult task, requiring knowledge of both Ahmadinejad's words and deeds -- as well as those of "the first several U.S. Presidents." Since recent polls show that most of Williams' viewers cannot even recite the names of "the first several U.S. Presidents" -- and know even less about the new Iranian president -- awarding Williams the prize is problematic. If he wants the recognition he deserves, Williams should spell out some of the following facts:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new president of Iran, has proudly proclaimed his membership in the Pasdaran -- the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps -- the entity responsible for seizing the U.S. Embassy and holding American diplomats and Marines hostage for 444 days. He now claims that he only supported the embassy seizure because that's what Ayatollah Khomeini wanted. Ahmadinejad insists he did not participate in it, but at least four of the former hostages place the president-"elect" among their captors. Iranian reformers -- who were not allowed to run in the presidential "election" that Ahmadinejad "won" -- claim that in the 1980s, he was with the "Internal Security" department of the IRGC and had responsibility for "interrogations, torture and executions." According to current and former IRGC leaders, during that same time frame, the organization assisted the Hezbollah terrorist organization in kidnapping Americans in Beirut, killing 241 Marines at the barracks near the Beirut airport and twice blowing up the American Embassy in the Lebanese capital. One of Ahmadinejad's most memorable lines: "We did not have a revolution in order to have a democracy." So far, he's yet to condemn the mass murder in London.
Williams doesn't specify, but "the first several U.S. Presidents" must include George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and perhaps Andrew Jackson -- the last U.S. President to have served in the American Revolution.
George Washington commanded the Continental Army -- in uniform, not as a terrorist. The warrant against him by the British crown charged him with rebellion -- not terrorism. There is no record of Washington ever being involved in torture, hostage taking or murder but we know he repatriated British diplomats. One of his most memorable lines: "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison served in civil and/or diplomatic capacities during the Revolution. None was involved in any known acts of terror against the British or their allies. Their most memorable lines are found in the Record of the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
James Monroe served as an officer in the Continental Army and was wounded in the Battle of Trenton. There is no record of any involvement in torturing hostages or committing any acts of terrorism. His most notable lines were contained in the Monroe Doctrine.
John Quincy Adams was a child during the Revolution and committed no known acts of terrorism. He is best remembered for advocating the abolition of slavery during the 17 years he served in the House of Representatives after being president.
Andrew Jackson served in the Continental Army as a teen-aged boy. His face bore the scar of a British officer's saber cut -- a wound inflicted after young Jackson refused to clean his captor's boots. His best lines were in opposing the creation of a government banking system.
Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist
Thursday, July 07, 2005
DU
I don't know why I do it to myself, but look at what the extreme left has to say about today's attacks- predictable and disgusting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
I love the speculation that we did it ourselves (us or the Jews) to propagate our oil grab.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
I love the speculation that we did it ourselves (us or the Jews) to propagate our oil grab.
London Calling
Remember, all we have to do to make these attacks stop is:
1. Stop support for Israel, in all it's forms.
2. Convert to Islam!
Either you believe the deliberate targeting/killing of civilians is legitimate expression of political discontent, or you don't.
These Haji fuckwads will not stop. It has nothing to do with "blood for oil" or GW.
Sharpen your teeth fellas.
1. Stop support for Israel, in all it's forms.
2. Convert to Islam!
Either you believe the deliberate targeting/killing of civilians is legitimate expression of political discontent, or you don't.
These Haji fuckwads will not stop. It has nothing to do with "blood for oil" or GW.
Sharpen your teeth fellas.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Guest Commentary
Special Guest Commentary
By Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi
As a holy activist battling infidel crusaders and their heretic lackeys here in Mesopotamia, Allah knows I have to have a thick skin. Still, every once in a while, I’ll run across something that really gets my blood boiling. For instance, after my last opinion piece I got this nastygram from some choad over in Great Satanland:
I am appalled and sickened that anyone would draw a parellel between Al-Zarqawi and the American Left.
Oh, ya think? Well, I got news for you, Moby: I’m not exactly thrilled about any such comparison MYSELF, okay? See, I didn’t spend the last ten years crawling in the sand at jihad training camp, getting my knuckles thwacked by an Imam every time I forgot a Quran verse, and living in a smelly Baghdad safehouse just to get compared to a bunch of trucker-hat AltWeekly motards from Austin and Seattle.
Me, like the American Left? I mean, are you f*cking joking me?
As. F*cking. If.
Oh sure, the infidel progressives like to talk a good game. They’ll call you “freedom fighters” and “the resistance” and “Iraqi Minutemen.” But soon as you need some volunteers to take out a grade school full of collaborators, they’re like, “sorry dude, I’ve got to run off some International ANSWER fliers at Kinkos.”
Next, when you string up some smoldering infidel carcasses from a Fallujah bridge, they’re all like, “f*ck yeah, screw those mercenaries! High five, man! C’mon, man, don’t leave me hangin’ bro!” But where were these guys when there was dismemberment and heavy carcass-lifting to do? Updating the UBB scripts on their f*cking message boards, that’s where.
And please, don’t even get me started about the armchair quarterbacking. They want you to kill crusaders, but only enough that the other ones go home, I guess so they can film the survivors for a weepy poignant Vietnam documentary. Oh yeah, great plan, Field Marshall Von Sundance. I’m right on it, just as soon I FIND A PLACE WHERE I CAN GET TWO F*CKING HOURS OF BOMB-FREE SLEEP.
Holy dung, like I don’t have enough of my own local idiots to put up with. Do you realize how hard it is to find decent jihad recruits when you’re taking fire from infidels and Iraqis? Cripes, you should have seen the collection of numbnuts and droolers on the short bus from Saudi yesterday. Good Allah, I swear the only way we’re ever gonna turn these morons into martyrs is to plant detonation buttons inside their nostrils.
Where was I? Anyway, sorry for the rant, but it’s been a tough couple of months and the last crap I need is to get associated with a bunch of infidel college radio imbeciles totally unclear on the concept. Get insulted by one of Rove’s little satan assholes, and what do they do? Whine and bitch and threaten to “shut their f*cking mouths while I’m pummelling them” and “...me & my brick in a dark alley” and “sharpen your knives” and “just punch the stupid f*cker out” and “they’ll consider the possibility of getting a shot in the teeth,” yada yada yada. Hel-loooo people: how do you expect anybody to take an anti-war movement seriously if its all ‘jibba-jabba’ and no ‘chop-chop’?
Man, I just don’t get it. There are lots of other American groups who are joining us against Bush’s crusade, like David Duke and Fred Phelps and Stormfront. But who do I get automatically lumped in with? East Village Rage Against My Allowance f*ckwits in Fred Perry tracksuits who can’t figure out the controls on an iPod, let alone an international revolution.
It’s not fair, and I swear to Allah the next time somebody tries to link the jihad with these infidel dipsh*ts, I am totally going to snap. And the next time one of you chicken martyrs puts on a keffiya and starts babbling about “solidarity with the resistance,” remember this: just because we are planning to kill you last doesn’t make you our buddy.
By Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi
As a holy activist battling infidel crusaders and their heretic lackeys here in Mesopotamia, Allah knows I have to have a thick skin. Still, every once in a while, I’ll run across something that really gets my blood boiling. For instance, after my last opinion piece I got this nastygram from some choad over in Great Satanland:
I am appalled and sickened that anyone would draw a parellel between Al-Zarqawi and the American Left.
Oh, ya think? Well, I got news for you, Moby: I’m not exactly thrilled about any such comparison MYSELF, okay? See, I didn’t spend the last ten years crawling in the sand at jihad training camp, getting my knuckles thwacked by an Imam every time I forgot a Quran verse, and living in a smelly Baghdad safehouse just to get compared to a bunch of trucker-hat AltWeekly motards from Austin and Seattle.
Me, like the American Left? I mean, are you f*cking joking me?
As. F*cking. If.
Oh sure, the infidel progressives like to talk a good game. They’ll call you “freedom fighters” and “the resistance” and “Iraqi Minutemen.” But soon as you need some volunteers to take out a grade school full of collaborators, they’re like, “sorry dude, I’ve got to run off some International ANSWER fliers at Kinkos.”
Next, when you string up some smoldering infidel carcasses from a Fallujah bridge, they’re all like, “f*ck yeah, screw those mercenaries! High five, man! C’mon, man, don’t leave me hangin’ bro!” But where were these guys when there was dismemberment and heavy carcass-lifting to do? Updating the UBB scripts on their f*cking message boards, that’s where.
And please, don’t even get me started about the armchair quarterbacking. They want you to kill crusaders, but only enough that the other ones go home, I guess so they can film the survivors for a weepy poignant Vietnam documentary. Oh yeah, great plan, Field Marshall Von Sundance. I’m right on it, just as soon I FIND A PLACE WHERE I CAN GET TWO F*CKING HOURS OF BOMB-FREE SLEEP.
Holy dung, like I don’t have enough of my own local idiots to put up with. Do you realize how hard it is to find decent jihad recruits when you’re taking fire from infidels and Iraqis? Cripes, you should have seen the collection of numbnuts and droolers on the short bus from Saudi yesterday. Good Allah, I swear the only way we’re ever gonna turn these morons into martyrs is to plant detonation buttons inside their nostrils.
Where was I? Anyway, sorry for the rant, but it’s been a tough couple of months and the last crap I need is to get associated with a bunch of infidel college radio imbeciles totally unclear on the concept. Get insulted by one of Rove’s little satan assholes, and what do they do? Whine and bitch and threaten to “shut their f*cking mouths while I’m pummelling them” and “...me & my brick in a dark alley” and “sharpen your knives” and “just punch the stupid f*cker out” and “they’ll consider the possibility of getting a shot in the teeth,” yada yada yada. Hel-loooo people: how do you expect anybody to take an anti-war movement seriously if its all ‘jibba-jabba’ and no ‘chop-chop’?
Man, I just don’t get it. There are lots of other American groups who are joining us against Bush’s crusade, like David Duke and Fred Phelps and Stormfront. But who do I get automatically lumped in with? East Village Rage Against My Allowance f*ckwits in Fred Perry tracksuits who can’t figure out the controls on an iPod, let alone an international revolution.
It’s not fair, and I swear to Allah the next time somebody tries to link the jihad with these infidel dipsh*ts, I am totally going to snap. And the next time one of you chicken martyrs puts on a keffiya and starts babbling about “solidarity with the resistance,” remember this: just because we are planning to kill you last doesn’t make you our buddy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
On Francisco Franco
On Francisco Franco written by Charles Few Americans know much about Francisco Franco, leader of the winning side in the Spanish C...
-
Starálfur Blá Nótt Yfir HimininnBlá Nótt Yfir MérHorf-Inn Út Um GluggannMinn Með HendurFaldar Undir KinnHugsum Daginn MinnÍ Dag Og Í GærBlá ...
-
"From our perspective this is an issue between Colombia and Ecuador," he said. "I'm not sure what this has to do with Ven...
-
OK, Grandma ... put your hands in the air ... slowly ... step away from the bingo machine ... put down the knitting needles...