Sunday, April 30, 2006
In Rage, pounded out in the weeks immediately following 9/11, Ms. Fallaci informs us of the extent to which Europe is giving itself over to Muslim extremism. In Reason, she expands on this theme, citing extensively work already done by Bat Ye'or in Eurabia.
The entire Western world owes Oriana Fallaci a debt of gratitude for her courageous work. With any kind of luck, more people in the West will read these two books and realize just how great a debt.
As reported in The First Post:
...having daughters makes parents more left-wing, as defined by voting for Labour or the Liberal Democrats. Conversely, bearing sons seems to direct parents to the right.The article goes on to speculate why:
The authors argue that having a daughter is likely to make a parent focus more on the position of women in society: they know their daughter will grow up to be mainly responsible for childcare and - very likely - suffer from pay discrimination.Interesting. Let's see...I've got two sons and one daughter, and I have two brothers and one sister.
Oswald and Powdthavee go on to argue that women are "inherently" collectivist, while men are more individualistic.
Yup...I guess they're right!
If you're unfamiliar with the case, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born Dutch immigrant who's living in virtual seclusion after being marked for death by Dutch imams for speaking out against Islam's treatment of women. She worked with the late Theo Van Gogh on the movie Submission, which was highly critical of Islam. Van Gogh (yes, he was related to Vincent) was brutally murdered by a Muslim man who took offense to the film.
Now, Ms. Hirsi Ali has been evicted from her home, if you can believe it, because her neighbors felt inconvenienced by the security measures taken around her home for her protection.
Hot Air has all the details.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Initial speculation at the time that fanatics sympathetic to Al-Qaeda were responsible and that the presence of Israeli tourists was a major factor was soon replaced by allegations laying the blame on local Bedouin said to be resentful of the casual lifestyle and relative opulence in the resorts. Neither theory has been proven.The writer studiously ignores the Muslim Brotherhood, a group actively working to replace Egypt's secular government with an Islamic one, as the most likely suspects. In fact, nowhere in the editorial do the words "Islam" or "Muslim" appear.
The author goes on to say:
Those responsible for these barbarities either have a deep hatred of the tourist resorts and their Westernized ways and make no distinction between foreign tourists and Egyptian ones [emphasis mine --ed.], seeing all as targets. Or this is part of an even more sinister plot, using the same tactics as in Iraq — to cripple the Egyptian tourist industry and with it the nation’s economy, thereby destabilizing the country, making it ungovernable and bringing down the government.Not to put words into the writer's mouth, but is it OK to kill tourists, just as long as they're not Egyptian?
This one editorial speaks volumes about what's wrong within Islam and in Muslim countries. There is complete denial that their religion motivates countless numbers of their co-religionists to perpetrate the most heinous crimes of mass murder, and only sit up and take notice when some of their own fall victim.
Friday, April 21, 2006
From the post:
While many who say this are merely fashion-parroting sheep rather than committed anti-Americans, if someone you believe to be a genuine anti-American says they oppose the Iraq War because "there were no WMDs" or "Bush lied about WMDs", then you can merely ask :
"So if WMDs were found, would you support the war?"
They can either answer "no", to which you can say "So why do you obsess over WMDs if you still would have opposed it anyway? That appears rather phony on your part."
Or they can answer "yes", to which you can ask them "But Iran and North Korea are openly admitting to the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and are threatening to use them. By your logic, invading them is fully justified, is it not?"
They have thus revealed that they merely avoid taking difficult decisions, in order to criticize from hindsight and mask their anti-Americanism in pseudowisdom. Either way, they are trapped. This is so simple, yet very effective. In reality, they oppose any action by the US because they oppose the very ideals of the US. Yet, they are too ashamed to admit it, and so hide behind phony guises.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
In refusing Berlusconi a third term as Prime Minister of Italy, the Italian voters took another lurch to the left by electing instead Romano Prodi. And Nicholas Farrell asserts that portions of the British press share in the blame.
Mr. Farrell says of The Economist, Guardian, Times, Financial Times, Spectator and Daily Telegraph:
Even the ludicrous Romano Prodi, they said, would do a better job. They swallowed hook, line and sinker the false propaganda of the regime that controls not just the media but the culture in Italy - not Berlusconi, but the Left.Interesting read.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Sunday, April 16, 2006
A couple of nights ago, while dumpster-diving over at the far-leftist Daily Kos web site (Google it...I'll not sully these pages with a link to that cesspool), I came across a posting by someone using the handle "73rd virgin". It goes without saying that I was a bit, well, taken aback.
Now, I'm not qualified to go into the psychology of anyone that would call her/himself the "73rd Virgin", but anyone who associates her/himself with the 73rd person standing in line to service a martyred Islamic terrorist in Paradise has got to have some serious issues.
But far be it from me to make any comments on how unhinged the left has become.
Neither the article nor Ms. Hodge come out and say it, but the vast majority of immigrants to Britain are from Muslim countries. We might assume that the "black and ethnic minorit[ies]" discussed here are Muslim immigrants.
Ms. Hodge fears that this key Labour demographic will vote "eight out of 10" for the British National Party, a group characterized as "far right" in the article. She goes on to say:
When I knock on doors I say to people, 'are you tempted to vote BNP?' and many, many, many - eight out of 10 of the white families - say 'yes'. That's something we have never seen before, in all my years. Even when people voted BNP, they used to be ashamed to vote BNP. Now they are not.But this next quote is most revealing, and shows who's really to blame for Labour's problems in this area:
The Labour Party hasn't talked to these people. This is a traditional Labour area but they are not used to engaging with us because all we do is put leaflets through doors. Part of the reason they switch to the BNP is they feel no one else is listening to them.
It's an incredibly serious issue. It's the big issue. We need very much stronger leadership nationally to promote the benefits of the multi-cultural society. [emphasis added --ed.] We have got to do it, the Labour leadership have got to do it. All the political parties have got to do it.Ms. Hodge and the rest of the parties need to realize that forced multi-culturalism is the problem when the immigrant groups not only refuse to integrate and assimilate, but actively preach a doctrine of hatred and attempt to destroy the host society. As long as opposition to unhindered immigration is framed as right-wing extremism, Britain will continue to have disillusioned "white, working class" voters.
The BNP does sound a bit unsavory, as evidenced by this Telegraph article from yesterday. But Labour isn't giving their constituents much of an alternative.
Ms. Hodge complains that nobody but the BNP is listening to their constituents. She's right -- and she's not listening, either. Instead, she's trying to force an unwanted position - her own - down their throats.
Update: at 0945EDT - An editor at The Telegraph seems to agree.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
In the meantime, Hamas will continue their panhandling around Arab countries, which despite their petrobucks suddenly seem destitute when Hamas comes calling.
Bartender! One martini, please...and hold the salt and thyme.
Friday, April 14, 2006
That's not to say I haven't known some fine officers -- I absolutely have. In fact, I've probably been luckier than most in working for some truly good commanders. On the other hand, I've also met an unfortunately high number of conniving, untrustworthy, self-serving careerists.
So the senior NCO inside my head is telling me that, just maybe, these guys weren't toeing the line with Rummy, and were invited to toe that line or retire.
CAIRO, Egypt — Worshippers at three Christian churches came under attack from knife-wielding assailants during Mass on Good Friday, police said.I'm sure the subsequent clashes between Christians and Muslims was completely coincidental, and was instigated by the Christians. Because it couldn't have been Muslims that attacked the Christians, what with Islam being the Religion of Peace™, and all.
Police said one worshipper was killed and more than a dozen wounded in the simultaneous attacks in the northern city of Alexandria.
Police were searching for three men, one in each attack.
Hundreds of Christians gathered outside the Coptic Christian churches to protest the attacks, and witnesses said clashes erupted between Christians and Muslims.
Initial police reports said a total of 17 people were injured: 10 at the Saints Church in downtown Alexandria and three at the nearby Mar Girgis Church. A third attacker wounded four worshippers at a church in Abu Qir, a few miles to the east.
Update: 14 Apr. 2006 1215EDT
Well, I'm glad I snagged the text of the original article when I did. Clicking the link above now gives a completely different account of the attacks, in which the Egyptian police are implying that one man with "psychological disturbances" was responsible for all of the near-simultaneous attacks. I smell bullshit.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
In this strange AP photo, Iranian dancers are seen celebrating their country's nuclear achievement by praising and dancing with samples of enriched uranium.
Tell me again why we're supposed to trust Iran with nuclear technology? Oh, and just in case you forgot, those doves in the background are to remind you that their nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
The Telegraph of London ran a good opinion piece today by Con Coughlin on why the west can't allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. According to Mr. Coughlin:
Aside from the "dedication" of the IAEA's nuclear experts, not much good can be said about the IAEA's handling of the situation.
With each week that passes, Iran's ayatollahs move closer to their goal of building an atom bomb.This is not misinformed propaganda pumped out by trigger-happy yahoos on the wilder fringes of America's Republican Party. [Note how "trigger-happy yahoos" only exist in the American Republican Party --ed.] This is the opinion of the dedicated teams of nuclear experts attached to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, whose task it is to sift through the highly complex science surrounding Iran's nuclear programme and to provide a considered judgment to the UN Security Council on the Iranians' ultimate objectives.
Monday, April 10, 2006
- Any airstrikes would only temporarily delay the program
- Any airstrikes would only serve to accelerate the program
The first assumes that airstrikes would be a one-off event. Why does he assume the US (or any other participants) would destroy a facility only to allow it to be rebuilt without any follow up action?
The second, besides being completely negated by the first, assumes that Iran's program is moving at a leisurely pace and that the mullahs aren't feverishly working to produce a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible. I don't think I'd be so quick to make that assertion.
The left is actively marketing the idea that Iran is at least 10 years away from a viable nuclear weapon. Given that our own Manhattan Project started in 1939 and culminated in mushroom clouds over Japan only six years later, I find that notion highly suspect.
Friday, April 07, 2006
I come here before this body to personally express again my sincere regret about the encounter with the Capitol Hill Police. ... There should not have been any physical contact in this incident.My...that's a far cry from "This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman."
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
He rejected the idea that British Muslims should be allowed to live under sharia law in their communities. "I don't think that's conceivable," he said. "We have one set of laws ... and that's the end of the story. If you want to have laws decided in another way, you have to live somewhere else." [my emphasis]Brilliant!
And published in al Guardian, no less.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
During the interview, he recorded Laban saying "that he had knowledge of someone willing to conduct a suicide bombing."
Said Laban: "If I ever heard a person say that, I would use my fist to knock his teeth out."
For breaching security, no doubt.
Monday, April 03, 2006
My initial reaction, that is "What cowards!", was the same as many others I read on conservative blogs and elsewhere. But then I thought, "What would I do if it was my decision to make?". And I realized, sadly, that I'd probably make the same decision.
Consider that Borders Group is a publicly-traded company, and as such has a responsibility to its shareholders. More importantly, consider that Borders has a responsibility to not knowingly put its employees and customers in danger. Now, consider that Borders is headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, a mere 25 miles as the crow files from Dearborn, home of one of the largest Muslim populations in the United States. Borders also owns and operates stores in every major market in the United States, many of which have their own large Muslim populations. When one takes all this into consideration, one begins to see the scope of the problem.
If just one Jihad-minded Muslim (or group of Muslims) decided that Borders must pay for their disrespect, not only would we be faced with the likely deaths of dozens of Borders customers and employees, but Borders could be found financially liable to the tune of billions in a civil suit. To Borders' credit, their statement didn't make mushy-headed claims of sensitivity and multi-culturalism. They came right out and said their decision was based solely on ensuring the safety of their customers and employees.
Last time I was in a Borders store, I didn't see armed special ops troops providing security for the place, and I don't think it's fair to expect a specialty retailer to put their corporate heads on the chopping block (so to speak) in the defense of free speech.
I see Borders' decision as less an indictment of Borders for caving than I do as an indictment of Islam and its followers for their 7th century ideology and behavior.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Haniyeh is having a tantrum over the US decision to refuse diplomatic contact with any member of the Hamas government, saying "...his people were being punished for electing the militant Islamic group." according to the foxnews.com article.
Uh, yeah...he's right about that. That whole reaping what you sow thing comes to mind. Why the hell should any government in the civilized world have any contact with an organization that persists in not just refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist, but threatening genocide against Israel?
Hamas and Haniyeh can go straight to hell, and take their supporters with them.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
This is the same Cynthia McKinney who took a voter-mandated hiatus from congress in 2002 when she said that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and deliberately did nothing to stop them. She managed to regain her seat by default in 2004.
Members of congress are allowed to by-pass security checkpoints when entering Capitol facilities. But when entering a House office building last Wednesday, she was challenged by a police officer who didn't recognize her. When she ignored a request to stop, she was confronted physically by officer Paul McKenna. Rather than flashing her ID and continuing on her way, she whacked McKenna in the chest with her cell phone.
There were a few factors contributing to the incident:
- Ms. McKinney had just undergone an "extreme makeover" of sorts, and was not immediately recognizable.
- Members of congress are supposed to wear lapel pins identifying themselves as such, which Ms. McKinney was not wearing.
- Ms. McKinney is a supremely arrogant ass who believes herself to be above the rules.
This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman. I deeply regret that this incident occurred and I am certain that after a full review of the facts, I will be exonerated.Her attorney, James Myart, was even more to the point:
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin ... (she was) just a victim of being in Congress while black.But it seems that wasn't her office's first reaction. In a draft of an unreleased statement from Ms. McKinney's minions, Ms. McKinney claims to having been "bodyblocked" by the officer, and goes on to say:
It is ... a shame that while I conduct the country's business, I have to stop and call the police to tell them that I've changed my hairstyle so that I'm not harassed at work.So it appears that some time between Wednesday and Friday, her and her staff decided to switch from a defensive, almost contrite stance to an offensive position. And by that I mean offensive both in terms of attacking her critics and offensive to anyone with a shred of decency.
Update: You just know the security checkpoints at capitol facilities are festooned with video cameras, so we'll have to wait and see just what really happened. But I'm not betting on any video being in Ms. McKinney's favor.