Monday, 17 October 2005
Toledo Riot
The riot broke out Saturday when protesters confronted members of a group calling itself "America's Nazi Party," who had gathered at a city park. Members of the group didn't stick around long.
But rioters threw baseball-sized rocks at police, vandalized vehicles and stores, and set fire to a neighborhood bar, authorities said. More than 100 people were arrested and one officer was seriously injured. Anyone else lock onto what jumped out at me?
First let me state for the record that I think Neo-Nazis are scum. It's that simple.
That said, marchers travel on foot?
The news says.
, "vandalized vehicles and stores, and set fire to a neighborhood bar"--"this rally had taken place at a neutral site or in a downtown courthouse square," Navarre said, "I don't think we would have had the problems that we did. But because the rally occurred in a neighborhood that is really what the neighbor residents and the gang members took great exception to.
He said there hasn't been a problem in the neighborhood since the four-hour disturbance.
"And it was really confined to one small geographical area,"
Say what? They flipped out over the Neo-Nazis marching through their neighborhood so they-- trashed some local cars, stores and set fire to a local bar?
While--" Members of the group didn't stick around long"
Oh that is really great, The Neo-Nazis don't have to get their hands dirty.
All they have to do, is march into a neighborhood arouse the locals and then let the people who LIVE there tear the place up, while they leave.
Really brilliant.
Hard to decide who is more disgusting.
Most of the violence happened when residents, who had pelted the Nazi marchers with bottles and rocks, took out their anger on police, said Brian Jagodzinski, chief news photographer for CNN affiliate WTVG.
Video showed crowds at around 2:25 p.m. using bats to bring down a wooden fence as looters broke into a small grocery store.
"The crowd was very ... extremely agitated at the police ... for doing this [making arrests in] the community when they should be doing this to the Nazis," Jagodzinski said.
Around 3 p.m., crowds of young men pelted the outside of a two-story residence with rocks, smashed out the windows with wooden crates, ran inside and threw out the furniture and lamps from the upper-level windows to the sidewalk below. No police were on the scene.
About 10 minutes later, the building's second story was in flames as a crowd of people watched.
Turns out the Neo-Nazis were not the only outsiders who turned up.
"About 20 members from both the International Socialists Organization and One People's Project showed up, and some handed eggs to African-American residents to throw at the Nazi marchers, White said."
Let us revisit one statement a second time.
"The crowd was very ... extremely agitated at the police ... for doing this [making arrests in] the community when they should be doing this to the Nazis," Jagodzinski said.
WELL? When the violence broke out, the Nazi marchers returned to their headquarters and who was it again, looting stores, setting fire to residences?
White separatist demonstration ends in violence, arrests
Just about everybody in the Polish Village neighborhood on the north side of Toledo knows the owner of Jim & Lou's Sportsman Club simply as Uncle Lou.
For 54 years, Louis Ratajski ran the pub that was a political hot spot for most budding politicians mulling a run for city office.
He planned to open Saturday afternoon so patrons could watch the Notre Dame football game.
Instead, he watched on television at his nephew's house a few miles away from the bar, where he lived, as a gang-fueled mob, sparked by the presence of a white supremacist group, looted and burned his beloved bar early Saturday afternoon after hundreds of people rioted, forcing the mayor to declare a state of emergency.
"It was just a plain little place, no frills," Ratajski, 86, said Sunday while his nephews and other family members picked through charred wood and carried out anything left after the blaze. "It will sink in later. The customers were more devastated."
Residents of north Toledo were trying to return to normal Sunday, but the destruction left by Saturday's riot was obvious -- from the boarded-up windows at a convenience mart to the extra police cars patrolling the streets.
Cox and Forkum has turned their usual genius to this event in Synergetic Racism
There really is not anything new here, for during the Watts Riot of 1992
Although rioters deliberately smashed and plundered Korean-owned businesses and spared some that said "black owner," many a black man's business was torched for the fun of seeing things burn. A building owned by a 10-year-old service organization called 100 Black Men was reduced to ashes. The Aquarian, which had just celebrated its 50th year, making it the oldest continuously operated black book store in the country, went up in flames. So did Broadway Federal Savings, a bank that had been owned and operated by three generations of the same black family. The blaze that gutted the bank also destroyed the office of Maxine Waters, a black congressional representative. The African Refugee Center and the Ethiopian Community Center were also put to the torch, [Edward Boyer, Black-owned businesses pay a heavy price, Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1992, p. A1.] as were two branches of the Los Angeles public library. [Amy Wallace, Mobs spared most of city's cultural centers during rampage, Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1992, p. B3.]
One would have to say that in the '92 Watts Riot of all the Black owned landmarks that were destroyed the
burning of the Broadway Federal Savings was the most tragic. For generations the only institution willing to loan money to members of that community gone, gone not as a protest of injustice, not as a reaction to police brutality, but merely an example of mindless wanton destruction.
That is not Social Protest not Politcal Action, just gangs, pillaging and plundering.
|
McCain's Private Comments
The full title of the email I got from NewsMax.com was really NewsMax.com but what caught my eye was something that had nothing to do with the US Supreme Court.
And in a conversation about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, the former POW said as a result of the abuse revelations he'd "hate to be the next American captured by the enemy."Is there anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence that
really believes that what did or did not happen at Abu Ghraib has
any bearing whatsoever as to how our troops would fare should they God Forbid fall into Terrorist hands?
I mean did the world at large and the forces arrayed against us pay
to the conditions there before we took Iraq? Did they care at all?
This is from the same cloth as the outrage over suspected mistreatment of theQuran in Gitmo. Those who shrieked the loudest about that were totally silent when in Saudi Arabia, demonstrators held up Qurans for futile protection and were run down by Security Forces and the Qurans trampled under foot.
This is like the outcry in the Media and other venues when the Uzbek authorities fired upon demonstrators, The US had a base there so our faces became blackened , Not much was reported in the Major Media when after the incident created tensions between the US and that government we were asked and agreed to remove our base.
You see folks it is NOT about the things we have done are purported to have done, or have been done by those associated with us have done.
It is about us. the US , no matter what we do or do not do something can always be found to rabble rouse in the MidEast and Europe and in the Political Left in this county> You can take that to the Bank.
If it were really about Abu Ghraib then there would be some consideration to perspective such as that presented by Christopher Hitchens in A War to Be Proud Of
From the September 5 / September 12, 2005 issue: The case for overthrowing Saddam was unimpeachable. Why, then, is the administration tongue-tied?
by Christopher Hitchens
09/05/2005, Volume 010, Issue 47
LET ME BEGIN WITH A simple sentence that, even as I write it, appears less than Swiftian in the modesty of its proposal: "Prison conditions at Abu Ghraib have improved markedly and dramatically since the arrival of Coalition troops in Baghdad."
I could undertake to defend that statement against any member of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, and I know in advance that none of them could challenge it, let alone negate it. Before March 2003, Abu Ghraib was an abattoir, a torture chamber, and a concentration camp. Now, and not without reason, it is an international byword for Yankee imperialism and sadism. Yet the improvement is still, unarguably, the difference between night and day. How is it possible that the advocates of a post-Saddam Iraq have been placed on the defensive in this manner? And where should one begin?
Oh you see a lot of solemn head shaking somber words of condemnation, but on the reality, on the alternatives to our actions of going into Iraq? Silence, the silence of the ashamed and the spleen of the rhetoric is in part more bitter because we are succeeding despite the constant repetition that we are failing and that is the one thing that galls the Left the worst. That is the reason they have abandoned their moral stance of generations and are vehemently supporting Fascistic Fanatic Thugs.
The world has changed that much. The same voices that used to be raised against the Right for supporting Fascistic Dictatorships and Oppression are now raised in support of the same and against those who have deposed them. Michael Moore calls Minutemen those who walk into a crowd of children getting candy from American GIs and blow them into scraps of bloody dead meat. Who would have thought during the great upheaval of the 60s that the same political forces would one day stoop to such venality?
If I could have stood before Senator McCain when uttered those words, he'd "hate to be the next American captured by the enemy I would have liked to ask him where he got the idea that anything we do or do not do would affect how they treat us or anyone else for that matter?
I mean, if we are speaking about conditions mandated by the Geneva Convention? Civilians are supposed to be Protected Persons what manner of protection has the Geneva Convention given to Iraqi Civilians, Women and Children?
For that matter, what level of protection has the Geneva Convention ever given to our own troops?
Did it protect them from the Nazis?
Did it protect them from the Japanese?
Did it protect them from the Koreans?
Did it protect the Senator himself from the Vietnamese?
Who has ever honored that Convention?
Aside from the UK and the US?
It did not protect the captured German troop from the Soviets did it? Nor did it protect the captured Polish Army officers and Cadets from the Soviets in the Katyn Forest Massacre
Someone please if you can source when and where the Geneva Conventions were honored by other powers besides the US and the UK please leave the information in the comments section.
To my mind Abu Ghraib has no bearing whatsoever on how our troops will be treated if captured and the Geneva Convention is a meaningless piece of paper ignored by everyone except us and some of our allies.
It is a set of rules that no one plays by but us and we are held strictly to account devoid of any rational logic.
Abu Ghraibs happen in War, and we PUNISH those that do so if they are our own, NOT because the Geneva Convention says so, but because OUR Law says so.
Because there are some thing AMERICANS do not do.
I will have to admit making murdering scum stand with underwear on their heads, or terrifying them is not what I think of as torture. Feeding a young athlete into a woodchopper for losing an International Contest? Police Stations with meathooks in the ceiling for questioning prisoners? Those are the things I think of. Those are some of the things we put an end to. Those are some of the things that would have continued has the Political Forces arrayed against our Intervention prevailed.
THAT is the real truth of Iraq.
And Senator McCain's statement?
It is a fatuous political cheapshot.
OR I wrong him and his statement is a sincere expression of his true convictions.
In which case in my opinion the man has a blind spot of the reality of the world so broad as to make him completely unfit for the Presidency.
|
Thursday, 13 October 2005
They hate us because we are free.
The Dhimming of the West?
This all smacks of Dubya's fatuous insistence that "they hate us because we are free."
We have heard these words before and we have experienced that attitude. President Bush is continually accused of being too simplistic and then a series of arguments and rationals follow which in some cases purport that they hate us because we deserve to be hated and everything is our fault.
But is that also simplistic and could it even be false?
Islamist way or no way
The word peace, for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or House of Islam -- to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought. Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or House of Peace."
That's why they blew up Bali in 2002, and last weekend, and why they'll keep blowing it up. It's not about Bush or Blair or Iraq or Palestine. It's about a world where everything other than Islamism lies in ruins.
Democracy a lie
We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker in the 35-minute message.
"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God"
Those are the words of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and it matters not whether you or I believe what he believes. He is quite willing to kill any and everyone who stands in the way of his goal. Total submission of the globe to Islam. His particular version of Islam, not some Mickey Mouse version that allows others to live their lives beside Muslims in Peace.
He really does Hate Democracy. He really does hate us because we are Free. We are not supposed to be Free, we are supposed to SUBMIT.
Islam divides the world into two portions.
Dar Al Islam which translates as the House of Peace
Dar Al Harb which translates as the House of War.
Now our Culture and their are both quite clear on what the Concept War means.
Where we differ is on the concept of Peace.
To us Peace means harmonious and nonviolent mutual acceptance.
That is not always the case with other Cultures and Languages.
Islam is commonly translated into English as Peace we get thereby Dar Al Islam, House of Peace and Religion of Peace.
But take a moment to look up the root words.
Islam [Arabic ?islm, submission, from ?aslama, to surrender, resign oneself, from Syriac ?alem, to make peace, surrender, derived stem of lem, to be complete. See lm in Semitic Roots.]
So while Dar Al Harb, the House of War is clear and apparent, what it really is, is that portion of the World which has yet to, submit, surrender, and resign to be complete, loose translation become Muslim and there is NOTHING in between.
Now Bali has been "blown up" another time!
Why? Do they support America? Not that I have noticed. Do they support the War in Iraq? I don't think so. Do they support Israel? You must be jesting Indonesia is 88% Muslim. I seriously doubt it.
So why bomb Bali? The US has been attacked in this decade by terrorist ONCE, as has London and Madrid.
Well actually while INDONESIA is predominately Muslim BALI is Hindu and of course Indonesia is not following strict Islamic Religous Law, that makes them Apostates, which is worse than being Infidels. You see professing Islam is not enough if you also dabble in that nasty concept called Democracy.
"We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker in the 35-minute message.
"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God"
So we look at the world, up to 3 million Dead in Southern Sudan, at the hands of Jihadist Fanatics.
hundreds of thousands of Sufi Sunnis butchered in Dafur, at the hands of Jihadist Fanatics, hundreds more thousands slaughtered in the recent era in Algeria, at the hands of Jihadist Fanatics, a generation ago, up to 3 million Hindus butchered in Bangladesh at the hands of the Fathers of the present day butchers.
We see all this horror across the globe, 5 to 10 million dead, on the order of 50 million displaced. and we read
"This all smacks of Dubya's fatuous insistence that "they hate us because we are free." Radical Islamists stand far less of a chance of bringing down Western freedoms (such as they are) than these anti-Muslim jihadists; we're doing it for them. In general, we in the West have much more to fear from anti-Muslim totalitarianism than the ugly spectre of the Muslim kind these writers depict."
One wonders what level of megadeath genocide it takes before some people will accept that we are in the midst of a Global Conflict with an implacable foe who will only accept Victory or Death.
The spectre we depict? Is painted upon the face of the Earth with the blood of innocents butchered in the millions.
And THEY think "we in the West have much more to fear from anti-Muslim totalitarianism than the ugly spectre of the Muslim kind these writers depict"
They really DO hate us because we are Free and they are making generational plans to remedy this.
One of the Greates Threats to their plans is what will be happening in Iraq this weekend, Free People VOTING. Choosing their own Laws and Government.
|
Wednesday, 12 October 2005
This is just WRONG
I can see no other way to describe it.
This issue is not world reaching, it has no bearing on what I usually post on, no effect on the World War against Genocidal Jihad. It has no bearing on the composition of the Supreme Court for the next generation, nor on the elections next year or those two years later.
It only concerns one little boy. But WE as a Society are SUPPOSED to PROTECT children from abuse and if what is reported takes place, WE all of us will have failed in our duty,
And that is WRONG.
LESBIAN MOM WANTS TO GIVE BABY BOY SEX CHANGE
by MARSH LARIMORE
LESBIAN mom Kim Marshall wants doctors to turn her adopted baby boy into a baby girl with a full-blown sex change -- now!
And if somebody, somewhere, doesn't bring pressure to bear on the woman's plans, toddling 2-year-old Tommy Marshall will soon be toddling "Tammy."
"Looking back on it, I never should have adopted a boy, but he was all that was available and I took what I could get because I was desperate," says Marshall, whose significant other, Rosemary Johnson, says she "hasn't been real happy with a boy," either.
"It's not that Tommy isn't a sweet kid -- he's so kind and gentle that when we put him in his little sun dress, people actually think he's a girl.
"But the more I got to thinking about it, the more I could see trouble on the horizon.
"Little boys don't stay little boys forever. They grow up to be men. And if there's one thing I don't need in my life, it's a man," she fumes. "That's why I'm a lesbian. Duh."
It goes without saying that anti-gay groups such as the Christian Militia Against Forni- cation in Marshall's hometown of Atlanta, Ga., are none too pleased with the woman's plan to change the sex of her adopted baby.
"We've warned against allowing gays to adopt babies for years, and this is why," says Duff Carter, a founding member of the militia. "We all know why she wants a little girl anyway -- and that's to teach her to be a lesbian, too.
"We'll do everything in our power to stop this sex change. We've already raised $1,700 to pay our lawyers."
Sex-change surgeon Dr. Linda Chervil, who, it is rumored, may be a flaming lesbian herself, says she has no intentions of getting involved in the politics of the operation that's scheduled for April 15.
"I'm a physician, not a lawyer or a social critic," she told Weekly World News exclusively. "All I can tell you is that I have a patient who is in desperate need of a sex change, and I fully intend to put him under the knife."
The youngest child ever to undergo sex-change surgery was Nicholas Gray of London, England. Born a hermaphrodite with both male and female sex organs in 1999, his gay father decided to do away with the female plumbing when he was just 6 months old.
Back in Atlanta, a spokesman for the agency that helped Marshall adopt the baby boy professes to be "appalled" by the turn of events.
"I have nothing against gay people, but I've got to tell you, publicity like this doesn't help their cause," says Marcus Hughes.
"The last thing the great majority of Americans wants to hear is that gay parents are dickering around with their children's sex. It's like their worst nightmare come true."
Published on: 10/06/2005
That little boy needs to be TAKEN out of that sick situation and placed with parents who will love and care for HIM because HE is what they want in their life.
He needs to be protected from anyone who wants to carve him into something they find acceptable.
I realise that all parents try to mold their children into what they wish them to grow up into, but not with scapels and not to this extent.
You know something? I actually feel no matter WHAT a persons sexual orientation is, zalmost ALL will be appalled by this story, heterosexuals and homosexuals as well.
Little boys can grow up to be men? Now isn't THAT a revelation?
Update Weekly World News is a strange appearing publication. Free Republic lists the same story with Weekly World News as the source as does Yahoo of the three, all use Weekly World News as the primary source I would expect Yahoo, however to verify that it is indeed an actual, news story rather than fiction.
During some searching for more information I have stumbled upon Mensactivism.org who also had the story, but now has a retraction.
All,
MANN received good information that the article regarding the adoptive mother who wanted a sex change operation for her son was, as many of you suspected, incorrect. All I can say is: Sorry! It was posted and defended in good faith (hey, even major media sources print bad stories from time to time). So, the story has been removed from MANN and sorry again for accidentally publicizing what appears now to be a false story.
-- Matt
But no information on how it was determined the story was a hoax. I signed up and asked for clarification. Were it not for the story still being on a Yahoo webpage. I would go ahead and retract, but I will instead wait for more information.
|
Tuesday, 11 October 2005
Where my readers are from.
create your own visited countries map
or vertaling Duits Nederlands
Very interesting website, it is designed so you can create a map off all the countries you have visited.
In this instance I used it to create one showing all the countries that have visited my blog here. ;-)
There is one qualification, it included Hong Kong as part of China, so I had to either discard Hong Kong or add China. Adding China made the map look SO more Cosmopolitan! LOL
So a sincere thank-you to each and every visitor here, please come again and I DO welcome comments!
|
Monday, 10 October 2005
BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEO-BOLSHEVIK
Topic: Out of Flyover Land
Darn and I was JUST getting used to Neo-Con.
EURASIA INSIGHT
ARCH-CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS IN RUSSIA CHARACTERIZE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AS "NEO-Bolshevik"
Igor Torbakov 9/28/05
Editor's Note: Updated to clarify State Department official's comments on the Active Response Corp.
As Moscow and Washington wrestle for influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus, some of the more conservative political analysts in Russia have generated controversy by citing parallels in the methods and geopolitical goals of the Bush administration and none other than Lenin’s Bolsheviks.
The consensus view in Moscow remains that the Bush administration is the ideological force behind the so-called "color-revolution" phenomenon, in which popular protests led to regime change in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Washington has adamantly denied direct involvement in the revolutionary events, and US officials’ democratization rhetoric has noticeably cooled since the Andijan massacre rocked Uzbekistan in May. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Even so, many Russian policy-makers suspect that Washington is biding its time before trying to foment regime-change elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. Attention is currently focused on Azerbaijan, which will hold parliamentary elections on November 6. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Arch-conservative Moscow pundits perceive the Bush administration as guided by an idealistic notion of leading a global democratic revolution. Such aggressive idealism reminds the analysts of the Bolsheviks, who, shortly after staging their coup in 1917, vigorously pursued their fantasy of engineering a global communist revolution. Though polar opposites ideologically, the Bush administration and the Bolsheviks seem to share a zealously held belief in the righteousness of their cause, the Moscow analysts contend.
"The leader of the biggest world power [Bush] has actually turned himself into a champion of the world revolution," political scientist Boris Mezhuyev wrote in a commentary posted recently on the APN.ru website
So Bush is the Champion of Democratization of the Newly emerging Nations who have thrown off the shackles of oppression? Cool, it will be a challenge to paint him with this brush and then defame him. But the supporters of Fascistic Regimes are experts at Double-Think. Most of it by omission.
Notice how Uzbekistan is mentioned? "the Andijan massacre rocked Uzbekistan in May", Now in IRAN they gun demonstrators done regularly, sometimes they even drag the bodies behind jeeps around the City Streets, but you don't find much mention of those outrages outside the Free Iran networks.
This was a strange article to read. I had gotten used to being called Neo-Con and Neo-Fascist but Neo-Bolshevik? That's going to be a stretch. ;-)
After thought This is to a great extent consistent with the Past.
Taliban gone, GOOD Bush did it, BAD.
Saddam gone, GOOD Bush did it, BAD.
There is another consideration, in some circles Democracy is an ideal that should be practiced in "moderation". There were EU political figures that thought the EU Constitution to be "too important" to leave to a referendum. The masses need to be led by an intellectual elite you see?
What if Europeans started getting the idea that they should be voting on more things, instead of leaving decisions up to the bureaucracy and the intelligentsia? Not GOOD!
But the one thing that strikes me is that maybe someone should point out that Lenin did not INVENT Revolutionary movements? We here in America had a History of such things going back to Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin and Washington to name a few, who did not invent the concept either.
But I guess Neo-Jeffersonian does not have the same Ring as Neo-Bolshevik? ;-)
|
The Wonderful World Wide Web
Topic: Out of Flyover Land
Just recently Tarek Heggy, a man for whom I have the deepest admiration and who I consider one of the Great Minds of our Age posted an Article in
Winds of Change Tarek Heggy: Announcement & Archivesby Tarek Heggy at October 9, 2005 03:49 AM
I have thoroughly enjoyed writing to this wonderful site "WINDS-OF-CHANGE". However, I will not be posting much during the current academic year, as which I will be (most of the time) on the move.
I have already started by my visit to Erasmus university in the Netherlands where I lectured (on September 24th) at the 1995-2005 MBA & Ph.D Alumni reunion at The Rotterdam School of Management. Next week, I will be in Austria to lecture at The Hayek Institute and Vienna university. After Austria I have a full program that includes 16 lectures at the universities that I have been lecturing at for many years (Princeton, California-Berkely, Columbia, Oxford and King's College of London university). Furthermore, I will be participating in numerous conferences. For instance, on November 17th I will arrive to Jacksonville/Florida on an invitation from the USA former secretary of defense William Cohen to participate in the world future leaders project of The Cohen Group.
WINDS-OF-CHANGE readers who might be interested to follow-up with my past archive of writings etc. should go to:
1. http://www.heggy.org posts 250 of my essays in English, French, Arabic, Hebrew & Russian). It also has
my personal CV
“Tarek Heggy is one of the most creative and prolific writers in the Arab world. His writings probe the political and social limits and present a refreshing message of self-reliance that challenges the prevailing sense that regional ills are largely made abroad”.
(Professor Shibley Telhami, Head of Al-Sadat Chair, Maryland University , USA).
.
2. Winds of Change.NET has a topic archive for my columns.
3. This Yahoo search results page.
With my best wishes to this great site and its readers, and to my friend Joe Katzman....
Tarek
I along with others expressed my regrets and well wishes.
#2 from Dan Kauffman on October 9, 2005 06:35 AM
You will be missed, but I have had your website
bookmarked for sometime and will have to be content with perusing the archives.
So one might understand how I felt when I received this email
Dear Dan,
I am sincerely thankful to you for your nice words.
If you want me to provide you with all my future writings, personally, grateful you e-mail to me the address to which I should send my new material.
With my best wishes,
Tarek Heggy
Me the Grandson of a Western Kentucky Sharecropper and the Son of a man who was a 50 cent a day field hand before he joined the Navy.
Only in America and only on the World Wide Web could such a thing happen.
I am in awe of the internet. I have access to the Greatest minds of the Ages at my very fingertips, typing on my keyboard and SOME of them who are alive today even read what I write and write back to ME!
How COOL it that? So again one might NOT be surprised at my reaction to the same Organization that brought us.
Rwanda, The Food For Oil Scandal, the Pedophile Rings in the Congo,
deciding that IT should gain control of this Bastion of Freedom of Information, Freedom of Thought , Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Communication.
I agree with Protein Wisdom in his
Sunday riddle
Q: What do you get when you cross the UN and Kofi Annan with the internet?*
A: A 404 page that loves the Cognac and hates the Zionists.
Oh. And a pissed off Roger Simon, to boot.
Given what I am doing, I am barely off line these days (except when I sleep, and even then my dreams are sometimes wired), so I have been feeling on "en vacance" this weekend in the Santa Ynez Valley, only able to get online in spare moments when I can slip off to the WiFi at the Roasted Bean in beautiful downtown Santa Ynez (two blocks).
But.. cooled down or not... steam came out of my ears this morning when I read (via Glenn) The World Wide Web (of Bureaucrats) in the WSJ. My only quarrel with this excellent and important (to all of us, especially) oped, which opposes proposed United Nations control of the Internet, is that it is understated. "Bureaucrats"? How about "Criminals" - because that is just what many of them are! Can you imagine the conglomeration of vicious corrupt slime who gave us Oil-for-Food governing the Internet? We might as well turn in our laptops. It would be over. I couldn't agree more with the oped's conclusion:
Now it appears some of the prime movers are China and Iran.
While WSIS conferees have agreed to retain language enshrining free speech (despite the disapproval of countries that clearly oppose it) this is not a battle we've comfortably won. Some of the countries clamoring for regulation under the auspices of the U.N.--such as China and Iran--are among the most egregious violators of human rights.
Egregious violators of human rights = running demonstrators down with tanks or shooting them down in the street and dragging their bodies behind jeeps through the City to terrorize the populace.
I say NO. I say we do NOT turn over control of something so vital to the Freedom and Liberty of the World to those who would make decisions on OUR Liberties by means of Powerbroker Deals between Beijing, Brussels and the Persian Gulf.
To paraphrase
When you pry my cold dead fingers off my mouse!
|
Friday, 7 October 2005
The Lemming Left
Topic: Out of Flyover Land
The Democratic Party seems to be bound and determined to run off the edge of a cliff.
Howard Dean, Moveon.org and other assorted irrational Bush haters, rather than trying to avoid this,seem to be petulantly complaining they are not stampeding fast enough.
Over in Captain's Quarters today there was a post titled,
Extremism Will Not Win Elections, it stirred up some thoughts I have been mulling over for some time.
Captain Ed said,
"Two leading Democratic analysts conclude that the Howard Dean approach to national politics will prove damaging to Democrats over the long term, and that a return to centrism provides the only realistic way for the opposition to compete for power. The two former Clinton aides claim that celebrating the base may mean more funding, but it alienates the mass numbers from the center needed to defeat Republicans:"I find myself in agreement here, no matter how pleasant the catharsis is when a Democratic Party Flack, "Gives it to Bush and the Republicans" the
manner in which it is being done has been as effective, in my opinion as Br'er Rabbits blows on the Tar Baby. ;-)
"In other words, the DNC picked the worst possible national figure for its chair that they possibly could select. The creation of Mad How and his International ANSWER minions as the Democratic Poster Boy may go down as one of the most inept blunders made by a major party. His vile smears and reckless rhetoric repels the very segment the Democrats sorely need to return to power, and every day he has the DNC as his pulpit, he makes it that much harder for Democrats to win elections.
This report did not make the front page of the Post. One wonders if the DNC will ever bother to read it."
One wonders if the Democratic Party even bothered to read a Poll THEY themselves had done which indicates that while the endless hysterical mudslinging HAS affected the President's approval rating, it has had even MORE effect on the Democratic PARTY'S approval rating! ;-)
Democrats' own mood poll scares them
Jun. 29, 2005 at 10:48AM
A poll on the political mood in the United States conducted by the Democratic Party has alarmed the party at its own loss of popularity.
Conducted by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.
"Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more," said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton's pollster.
Greenberg told the Christian Science Monitor he attributes the slippage to voters' perceptions that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view."
Fellow strategist James Carville said the war in Iraq and rising fuel prices are affecting party loyalty as well.
"The country is just in a foul mood," Carville said. He noted within the same poll, 56 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
The poll was conducted June 20-26 and queried 1,078 likely voters. The margin of error was pegged at 3 point
Sometimes I hear talk about how the Country has moved to the right and I wonder , has it really?
Or has the Democratic Party just gone off the Left Deep End so far they had no place to go but to the Republican Party?
Third Party runs recently have only elected someone the splinter group LEAST wanted to win.
My dream is that the Democrats go so far to the Left they cease to be a viable political alternative,
At which time the internal tensions of the Republican Tent may cause a split and the formation of a viable Centralist Libertarian based Party.
In some manner replicating the split that created the present Democratic and Republican Parties when the Whigs fell into the black hole of History.
One of the commenter's on CQ had some valid thoughts
scott
Perhaps ideally, the country could support three parties; a Left party, a Religious Conservative party, and a Centrist Moderate party. Everything seems to break down into those groups. Unfortunately, our political system is not really workable with more than two parties, which is why, I think, our parties periodically lurch from liberal to conservative while trying to grab hold of the centrist voter."
That is the way I see it too. Third Parties tend to be nonviable except in the Short Term, they can prevent a major Party from achieving it's goals but ONLY by drawing voters away from the Party that is CLOSEST to them in philosophy. Which can result in frustrating outcomes. Nadirites elect Bush and Perot followers elect Clinton.
But what is ALSO true is that Political Parties are not always forever.
This Website has a concise picture of the Political History of our Republic.
Copernicus Election Watch
Let me give here a quick and sloppy synopsis as I see it.
First came Republican versus Federalist Parties
Then the Federalist Party faded from view while,
Economic growth and rapid territorial expansion caused the Republican faction to change from Jefferson's agrarian ideal. Many Republicans began to adhere to Federalist principles. By 1828, the Republican faction had split into two, fully formed political parties.
They're baaack!
Then we had:
"The Democratic Republican Party, led by Andrew Jackson, was formed. Supporters favored a limited national government and were opposed to an economic aristocracy. Eventually, this party changed its name to the Democratic Party, which is now the oldest political party in the United States."
And
The National Republican Party, led by John Quincy Adams, was formed. Supporters favored strong economic nationalism, much like the former Federalists.
Who faded and morphed into:
As the National Republican Party dissolved, the Whig Party emerged. Led by Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, the Whigs supported an expanded national government, increased commercial development, and cautious westward expansion
Notice how Centralized Big Government Politics keeps rearing it's ugly head despite repeated defeats?
In time the Whigs declined and
The Whigs and Free-Soilers joined to form the Republican Party, which strongly supported the abolition of slavery.
One interesting facet of the Whig Party was the it's main reason to be was to oppose an American President, it's major failing was that it tried to be all things to all people who were united solely on their mutual hatred of Andrew Jackson.
Sound familiar? ;-)
Now the Republican Party was
opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories, the Party is not to be confused with the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson or the National Republican Party of Henry Clay. In fact, the ideology of the reborn Republican party is seen by some as the successor to the Federalist Party (United States) of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. However, during Jefferson's presidency, he was called a "Republican", but the reference was to the party now known as the Democratic-Republican Party. That party later split into the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. The latter was formed in the winter of 1833-1834 but was defunct by the time of the American Civil War.
The first convention of the U.S. Republican Party was held on July 6, 1854, in Jackson, Michigan. Many of its initial policies were inspired by the Whig Party, which by then was in decline. Many of the early members of the Republican Party came from the Whigs, the Free Soil Party, and American Party. Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party
I find it interesting that the two paradigms in American Politics seems to be Centralized Big Government and Less Government no matter where a Party starts out it will polarize into one of those two modes, depending largely on the position of its opposition.
That seems to be too simple, but even simple things can have their own validity,
It also seems that the longer a Party maintains dominance the more it tends to support Centralized Big Government no matte where it started from philosophically.
What is one of the main complaints of the Republicans today? That they are acting like Tax and Spend Democrats.
Which presents some of us with a frustrating choice.
Support a Tax and Spend Party or a BIGGER Tax and Spend Party, and if we spin off too soon ENSURE that the Bigger Tax and Spend Party comes into power.
Our only hope is that the DNC drives its Party off the edge of the Political Cliff, THEN a New Second Party can spit off from the Present Republican Party.
Something like this has happened twice before in our Nation's History. There is no reason why it cannot happen again.
|
Thursday, 6 October 2005
It's Not Just Piglet and Lassie
Topic: Islamic Jihad
It's us too!
Hat tip Dhimmi Watch
Islamic Laws
These are the Islamic Laws according to the Fatawa of Ayatullah al Uzama Syed Ali al-Husaini Seestani. This is the English Version of Taudhihul Masae'l, translated by the World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities, P.O. Box 60, Stanmore, U.K. HA7 4LQ.
Note: The * sign after a number denotes that there is a total or partial variation from the fatwa of Marhum Ayatullah Al Uzama Syed Abul Qasim El Khui. These laws are also available online at Al-Islam.org.
Islamic Laws of Ayatullah Khoei
by
Ayatullah Sayyid Abulqasim al-Khoei
Impure Things
84. The following ten things are originally impure:
(i) Urine (ii) Faeces (iii) Semen (iv) Dead body (v) Blood
(vi) Dog (vii) Pig (viii) Infidel
(ix) Wine (x) Barley wine (Beer).
Dogs and Pigs
106. The dogs and pigs which live on land are impure and even hair, bones, paws and nails and every liquid substance of their body is impure. However, aquatic dogs and pigs are pure.
Infidel
107. An infidel i.e. a person who denies Allah or the Day of judgement, or associates anyone else with Allah, is impure. Similarly Ghulat (i.e. those who believe one of the holy twelve Imams to be God or say that God has penetrated into him) and khawarij and Nawasib (i.e. those who are enemies of the holy Imams) are also impure. And similar is the case with one who denies Prophethood or one of the necessities of religion i,e. a thing like prayers, and fasting, which are considered by the Muslims to be a part of the religion of Islam when he knows at thing is a necessity of religion. As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of the last of the Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they, too, are impure according to well-known narrations and this remark is as a precautionary measure. Hence, it is necessary to avoid them also.
108. The entire body of an infidel and even his hair and nails and all liquid substances of his body are impure.
109. If the mother, father, paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather of a minor child are all infidels that child is also impure, except that he should be conscious of professing Islam. In case, however, even one person out of his parents or grandparents is a Muslim the child is pure.
110. A person about whom it is not known whether he is a Muslim or not is pure. However, he does not enjoy other orders applicable to the Muslims, for example he cannot marry a Muslim woman and should not be buried in the graveyard of the Muslims.
111. Any person, who abuses any of the twelve holy Imams on account of enmity, is impure
Here's another little handy site that will tell you the same things,
WWW.SISTANI.ORG
Under Islamic Laws select for Najis things.
So we can see there is a serious problem for those who find the very sight of pigs to be offensive because they are Najis (Unclean) according to their religion. Our world seems to be FULL of the Unclean, such as Pigs, Dogs and Most of Us.
Now the solution to me is quite simple. They need to go somewhere, that has an absence of Unclean animals such as Pigs, Dogs and Most of Us.
Or they can eliminate the unclean contamination and make their surroundings Pak (Pure) and free of the contamination of Pigs, Dogs and MOST OF US.
I don't think so.
I prefer Door Number One.
Dar Al Harb THIS Bubba
It don't get no better than this.
A plate of perfect pulled pork.
|
Piglet's Big Brother
Topic: Islamic Jihad
Someone told Harley,
his baby brother piglet
was geting leaned on.
He is not real happy.
There might be quite a few
other brothers
not real happy too.
And when Harley
and his brothers
are unhappy??
Folks tend to get scarce
in a hurry.
Or they get REAL Unhappy!
That's MISTER Hawg
to you Goodbuddy.
Some one give me a
YEEEE HAAAAAAAAWWW!!!!!!!
|
Newer | Latest | Older
