Creating Islamophobes..and then Jailing Them...
From the Brussels (Belgium) Journal:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/816
Yet more evidence that Europe is unwilling to defend Western Civilization, and yet more ammo for those who realize that Islam is a mental disorder.
The surprising things are: a) this is a Eurpoean news report that is candid and forthright and, b) someone in Europe is actually beginning to notice.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Rotting From Within...
Regarding the Islamic riots over some Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed (Middle-east's version of Norm from "Cheers") as a bloodthirsty maniac:
If the shoe fits, wear it. Unless you're using it to beat a Danish flag or a statue of Hans Christian Anderson.
On a serious note; if there were still people who hadn't gotten the message that Islam is a degenerate, destructive, destabilizing force that will ultimately pull down Western civilization before it is checked, here was a glaring example. Denmark as Great Satan? Cartoons the basis for a global jihad?
Let's face it, there are very few (count 'em on the fingers of both hands) "reasonable" "moderate" Muslims. Anywhere. Perhaps there's one or two in a laboratory somewhere. On the one hand those lab subjects are the focus of medical research on how the West can clone more of them, or in Eastern circles, research into the genetic flaw that makes them that way. Take your pick.
What is totally lost on most people is that these riots in European capitals and American cities, as well, is the total hypocrisy, on one hand, of those who protest that their sensitivities and rights are being violated while they exercise them in the name of "protest", while demanding consideration and respect from those they are not willing to give either to. I'll be sensitive to the Prophet and your religious beliefs when you stop strapping explosives to yourselves and blowing up pizzerias or flying airliners into office buildings. Once we've established that extremely low level of mutual agreement, we can go forward from there.
Western civilization has taken yet another blow in the war against uncivil behavior. Tehre has been very little condemnation by civil society against the protests which are out of all proportion to the original "slight". Newpapers and media outlets, which all claim to be the champions of the "people's right to know" (see Dick Cheney brouhaha) have refused to show the offending cartoons in the "interests of sensitivity", in which case, how can there be anything approaching rational, reasonable debate on this subject when we don't even know what it's about? That platitude about "sensitivity" is really a code; "we don't dare reproduce them (the cartoons)because we don't want a protest of a bomb in return".
The riots that have more or less "spontaneously" erupted across the Middle East and other Islamic countries is nothing of the sort. The cartoons in question are over four months old and no one in the Middle East even knew they existed before they were publicized by an imam with an axe to grind and a thirst for publicity.
This yet one more example of how the West is failing to come to grips with unchecked Muslim immigration (in Europe) and the out-of-proportion regard for political correctness in this country. The question has been asked "Is an Islamic society capable of democracy?" The laboratory for this experiment is Iraq, and we'll know the answer in time. However, when we see the reaction to a bunch of cartooons in a very minor Danish newspaper, one starts to have his doubts. When one sees the retaliation by the Muslim press (publishing anti-semetic cartoons) one starts to wonder just how far removed from reality Muslims are; what does a Danish newspaper have to do with Jews?
And even that is interesting, in a way. Here we have a European, secular newspaper publishing "unflattering" material, and the first people to get blamed for it is the Jews. There's a seriously obsessive pre....ummm...occupaion (no pun inteneded) with the Jews. It's insanity and it seems to be genetic; there's no possible way that kind of hatred and mental disconnect can be taught. It simply must be an inherited trait.
Many times on this page I have advocated, as a solution to the problem of the Islamic Hordes, genocide ona scale never before seen. I have chided myself that writing and thinking such things is an infantile response to a serious problem and have often relented. After, once again, seeing how seriously demented the Islamic world is, I'm chiding myself for having second-guessed.
Regarding the Islamic riots over some Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed (Middle-east's version of Norm from "Cheers") as a bloodthirsty maniac:
If the shoe fits, wear it. Unless you're using it to beat a Danish flag or a statue of Hans Christian Anderson.
On a serious note; if there were still people who hadn't gotten the message that Islam is a degenerate, destructive, destabilizing force that will ultimately pull down Western civilization before it is checked, here was a glaring example. Denmark as Great Satan? Cartoons the basis for a global jihad?
Let's face it, there are very few (count 'em on the fingers of both hands) "reasonable" "moderate" Muslims. Anywhere. Perhaps there's one or two in a laboratory somewhere. On the one hand those lab subjects are the focus of medical research on how the West can clone more of them, or in Eastern circles, research into the genetic flaw that makes them that way. Take your pick.
What is totally lost on most people is that these riots in European capitals and American cities, as well, is the total hypocrisy, on one hand, of those who protest that their sensitivities and rights are being violated while they exercise them in the name of "protest", while demanding consideration and respect from those they are not willing to give either to. I'll be sensitive to the Prophet and your religious beliefs when you stop strapping explosives to yourselves and blowing up pizzerias or flying airliners into office buildings. Once we've established that extremely low level of mutual agreement, we can go forward from there.
Western civilization has taken yet another blow in the war against uncivil behavior. Tehre has been very little condemnation by civil society against the protests which are out of all proportion to the original "slight". Newpapers and media outlets, which all claim to be the champions of the "people's right to know" (see Dick Cheney brouhaha) have refused to show the offending cartoons in the "interests of sensitivity", in which case, how can there be anything approaching rational, reasonable debate on this subject when we don't even know what it's about? That platitude about "sensitivity" is really a code; "we don't dare reproduce them (the cartoons)because we don't want a protest of a bomb in return".
The riots that have more or less "spontaneously" erupted across the Middle East and other Islamic countries is nothing of the sort. The cartoons in question are over four months old and no one in the Middle East even knew they existed before they were publicized by an imam with an axe to grind and a thirst for publicity.
This yet one more example of how the West is failing to come to grips with unchecked Muslim immigration (in Europe) and the out-of-proportion regard for political correctness in this country. The question has been asked "Is an Islamic society capable of democracy?" The laboratory for this experiment is Iraq, and we'll know the answer in time. However, when we see the reaction to a bunch of cartooons in a very minor Danish newspaper, one starts to have his doubts. When one sees the retaliation by the Muslim press (publishing anti-semetic cartoons) one starts to wonder just how far removed from reality Muslims are; what does a Danish newspaper have to do with Jews?
And even that is interesting, in a way. Here we have a European, secular newspaper publishing "unflattering" material, and the first people to get blamed for it is the Jews. There's a seriously obsessive pre....ummm...occupaion (no pun inteneded) with the Jews. It's insanity and it seems to be genetic; there's no possible way that kind of hatred and mental disconnect can be taught. It simply must be an inherited trait.
Many times on this page I have advocated, as a solution to the problem of the Islamic Hordes, genocide ona scale never before seen. I have chided myself that writing and thinking such things is an infantile response to a serious problem and have often relented. After, once again, seeing how seriously demented the Islamic world is, I'm chiding myself for having second-guessed.
Dick Cheney: Homicidal Maniac...
Concerning the White House Press Corps collective apoplexy and panty-bunching over the Cheney hunting accident;
1. This is Dick Cheney, not Charles Manson. You're repeated attempts to charicature Cheney as a "loose cannon", operating behind a screen of secrecy like Dr. No only serve to reinforce the public's notion that it is YOU who are divorced from reality, not the Viced President nor the general public.
2. The loci of this hissy fit seems to revolve not about the shooting itself, but rather the manner in which it was made public. That is, the White Hosue or the Vice President's Office did not follow the established protocol of issuing a press release through the customary channels, giving the preening yapping rectums of the Press Corps an opportunity to hammer Cheney for an entire weekend.
3. The real reason the press is interested in the minutest details of this case have more to do with the media jihad against anything Bush, republican or conservative than it does with the actual job of creating an informed populace.
4. As of today, preliminary investigations have cleared Cheney of any wrongdoing. In effect, ti was an accident. The same press that harps on Cheney's (thankfully to this point) non-lethal shooting mishap had no problem with giving Janet Reno a free pass when it came to incinerating 80 Christians in a Texas religious compund after a 51 day siege. Get your priorities straight.
5. If in fact Cheney is guilty of anything (beyond negligence), let's wait until that is difinitively proven before we start the feeding frenzy. But, once again, the issue is not the promulgation of the truth, it is about the oppportunity to mould and shape opinion into whatever form the press wants to.
6. A Vice President involved in a shooting is good for ratings. It's a scenario right out of "Law and Order". The longer the press can continue to generate a tempest in a teacup, the more the more money the networks generate.
7. I find it interesting that when Cheney did speak publicly, he did so through Fox News. The MSM will tell that is because Fox is a "conservative" network ready to take anythign the VP says as Bible truth. I say it's because Cheney knew that in the post-interview analysis he would get a fair shake. Take the fucking hint, David Gregory.
8. It's been said before, but bears repeating: I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving with Ted Kennedy. There still has not been a satisfactory answer as to what Ted did, when he did it and how the public was informed about it. How about you clean out your own attic before you jump on Cheney for his.
9. The democratic (small 'd' intentional) party is so desperate for anything negative to hang on the Bush Adminstration that is only a matter of time before Cheney's accidental stepping on Harry Reid's foot becomes part of a sinister assassination plot.
10. If the media were all that concerned about truth, it would be telling some of it as regards the war on terror and the rebuilding of Iraq, despite the obvious problems we'd all expect there to be. Of course, that would require leaving the security of the Green Zone in Baghdad and getting out into the streets where you might get killed!
Concerning the White House Press Corps collective apoplexy and panty-bunching over the Cheney hunting accident;
1. This is Dick Cheney, not Charles Manson. You're repeated attempts to charicature Cheney as a "loose cannon", operating behind a screen of secrecy like Dr. No only serve to reinforce the public's notion that it is YOU who are divorced from reality, not the Viced President nor the general public.
2. The loci of this hissy fit seems to revolve not about the shooting itself, but rather the manner in which it was made public. That is, the White Hosue or the Vice President's Office did not follow the established protocol of issuing a press release through the customary channels, giving the preening yapping rectums of the Press Corps an opportunity to hammer Cheney for an entire weekend.
3. The real reason the press is interested in the minutest details of this case have more to do with the media jihad against anything Bush, republican or conservative than it does with the actual job of creating an informed populace.
4. As of today, preliminary investigations have cleared Cheney of any wrongdoing. In effect, ti was an accident. The same press that harps on Cheney's (thankfully to this point) non-lethal shooting mishap had no problem with giving Janet Reno a free pass when it came to incinerating 80 Christians in a Texas religious compund after a 51 day siege. Get your priorities straight.
5. If in fact Cheney is guilty of anything (beyond negligence), let's wait until that is difinitively proven before we start the feeding frenzy. But, once again, the issue is not the promulgation of the truth, it is about the oppportunity to mould and shape opinion into whatever form the press wants to.
6. A Vice President involved in a shooting is good for ratings. It's a scenario right out of "Law and Order". The longer the press can continue to generate a tempest in a teacup, the more the more money the networks generate.
7. I find it interesting that when Cheney did speak publicly, he did so through Fox News. The MSM will tell that is because Fox is a "conservative" network ready to take anythign the VP says as Bible truth. I say it's because Cheney knew that in the post-interview analysis he would get a fair shake. Take the fucking hint, David Gregory.
8. It's been said before, but bears repeating: I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving with Ted Kennedy. There still has not been a satisfactory answer as to what Ted did, when he did it and how the public was informed about it. How about you clean out your own attic before you jump on Cheney for his.
9. The democratic (small 'd' intentional) party is so desperate for anything negative to hang on the Bush Adminstration that is only a matter of time before Cheney's accidental stepping on Harry Reid's foot becomes part of a sinister assassination plot.
10. If the media were all that concerned about truth, it would be telling some of it as regards the war on terror and the rebuilding of Iraq, despite the obvious problems we'd all expect there to be. Of course, that would require leaving the security of the Green Zone in Baghdad and getting out into the streets where you might get killed!
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
The Police State and Who Owns It...
Vis-a-vis all this leftist catterwauling over the "abuse of Executive power"; get over it. You would do the same thing, if you could, only I would question your motives long before I would consider questioning those of President Bush and Company.
The Left somehow manages to operate under the contradictory premises that while civil rights are ultimately the most important of fundamental rights, that the exercise of ever-incresing and overreaching governmental power is also required in order to bring about a progresive Utopia. To a democrat, the use of wiretapping in order to uncover terrorist plots is not a worthy use of governmental power, however, using the same witretapping process to thwart an attack on an abortion clinic would be responsible use of governmental authority.
The argument boils down, basically, to this:
1. Democrats (and the even nuttier fellow-travelers on the Left) believe that republicans (and especially THIS CURRENT batch of republicans) cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, have the interests of the common man at heart. Republicans are greedy, avaricious, heartless moneygrubbers who seek only to create the conditions under which Haliburton and Enron-style mega-opolies, Wall Street and the Old-Money Rich can prosper, typically by infringing on the rights of the Common Man and exploiting him, for profit. Profit is the key word. A republican is a combination of Simon LaGree, the Marquis de Sade, King Croesus and Sauron (of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy), who is motivated only by the acquisition of wealth and power for his/her own selfish ends. The use of NSA wiretaps in order to mine information on terrorist activities is merely the wedge by which the door is kept open, simply to gather information which can be used for personal profit by the Dick Cheney's and Ken Lay's of this world.
2. Democrats, being conspiracy theorists by nature, believe that if the current government is listening to and for terrorists now, that perhaps one day it might attempt to expand the terrorist label to what they consider non-terrorist groups. There are many on the left who believe that Al Queda, Hamas, et. al., are not terrorists groups at all, but more akin to legitimate representatives of "oppressed" people who have legitimate gripes. Sort of like the local Lion's club or something. The only difference between Usama Bin Hidin' and Rigobetrta Pichu, for example, is that one chose to write a piece of fiction adopted as wholesale truth in order to advance a political agenda. The other merely advances his political agenda by way of explosives and airliners. In other words, Al Queda is engaging in "legitimate political discourse" (hence all the "America deserved 9/11" talk from the left). It follows that if the US government can listen in on the telephone conversations of a legitimate group, and label them "terrorists" for merely having the audacity to "protest" in a more creative, albeit violent, way, then the government can label any group with which it disagrees as "terrorist". Pro-abortion groups, Pro-gay groups, Labor Unions, and a whole laundry list of left-leaning organizations, foundations and such might simply be labelled "terrorist" or "terrorist-supported", and thus, be ripe for eavesdropping. Leftisit really DO think this way.
3. Democrats worry not so much about the government finding out about terror attacks as much as they worry about what else might be found out in the process. For example, if an NSA wiretap seeking terrorists instead found evidence of child pornography ring or a major drug deal, does the government have the right to act upon that evidence? If the statute or whatever authorizing the NSA to search for terrorists uncovers unrelated criminal activity, and acts upon it, is that a function of good government or an example of the abuse of Executive power? This is the unresolved question that frightens democrats (and leftists) the most. It is also the question left curiously unanswered.
4. Finally, democrats are up in arms over the "abuse" of federal authority not beacuse they have genuine concerns about national security, but rather, because they don't have control over it. The arguments being put forward today over NSA wiretaps are the same arguments being made about the Patriot Act. They are not arguments over legal principle (although they will be framed that way) but over WHO has the power and authority. In the old days of the Patriot Act, it was John Ashcroft, considerd by the left to be the rerincarnation of Mussolini. Since Ashcroft is gone and has been replaced by a Hispanic --- minorities are notoriously taboo for criticism in leftist circles --unless they're church-going-Uber-conservatives) --- they can no longer make the argument based upon appearances and personalities.
When you come right down to it, the argument reveals far more about the democrats and how they think than it does President Bush and his efforts to protect the country. What he dimwits are telling you, simply, is not what this Administration plans to do with all that wiretapping data, but what the DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES would do with it.
Vis-a-vis all this leftist catterwauling over the "abuse of Executive power"; get over it. You would do the same thing, if you could, only I would question your motives long before I would consider questioning those of President Bush and Company.
The Left somehow manages to operate under the contradictory premises that while civil rights are ultimately the most important of fundamental rights, that the exercise of ever-incresing and overreaching governmental power is also required in order to bring about a progresive Utopia. To a democrat, the use of wiretapping in order to uncover terrorist plots is not a worthy use of governmental power, however, using the same witretapping process to thwart an attack on an abortion clinic would be responsible use of governmental authority.
The argument boils down, basically, to this:
1. Democrats (and the even nuttier fellow-travelers on the Left) believe that republicans (and especially THIS CURRENT batch of republicans) cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, have the interests of the common man at heart. Republicans are greedy, avaricious, heartless moneygrubbers who seek only to create the conditions under which Haliburton and Enron-style mega-opolies, Wall Street and the Old-Money Rich can prosper, typically by infringing on the rights of the Common Man and exploiting him, for profit. Profit is the key word. A republican is a combination of Simon LaGree, the Marquis de Sade, King Croesus and Sauron (of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy), who is motivated only by the acquisition of wealth and power for his/her own selfish ends. The use of NSA wiretaps in order to mine information on terrorist activities is merely the wedge by which the door is kept open, simply to gather information which can be used for personal profit by the Dick Cheney's and Ken Lay's of this world.
2. Democrats, being conspiracy theorists by nature, believe that if the current government is listening to and for terrorists now, that perhaps one day it might attempt to expand the terrorist label to what they consider non-terrorist groups. There are many on the left who believe that Al Queda, Hamas, et. al., are not terrorists groups at all, but more akin to legitimate representatives of "oppressed" people who have legitimate gripes. Sort of like the local Lion's club or something. The only difference between Usama Bin Hidin' and Rigobetrta Pichu, for example, is that one chose to write a piece of fiction adopted as wholesale truth in order to advance a political agenda. The other merely advances his political agenda by way of explosives and airliners. In other words, Al Queda is engaging in "legitimate political discourse" (hence all the "America deserved 9/11" talk from the left). It follows that if the US government can listen in on the telephone conversations of a legitimate group, and label them "terrorists" for merely having the audacity to "protest" in a more creative, albeit violent, way, then the government can label any group with which it disagrees as "terrorist". Pro-abortion groups, Pro-gay groups, Labor Unions, and a whole laundry list of left-leaning organizations, foundations and such might simply be labelled "terrorist" or "terrorist-supported", and thus, be ripe for eavesdropping. Leftisit really DO think this way.
3. Democrats worry not so much about the government finding out about terror attacks as much as they worry about what else might be found out in the process. For example, if an NSA wiretap seeking terrorists instead found evidence of child pornography ring or a major drug deal, does the government have the right to act upon that evidence? If the statute or whatever authorizing the NSA to search for terrorists uncovers unrelated criminal activity, and acts upon it, is that a function of good government or an example of the abuse of Executive power? This is the unresolved question that frightens democrats (and leftists) the most. It is also the question left curiously unanswered.
4. Finally, democrats are up in arms over the "abuse" of federal authority not beacuse they have genuine concerns about national security, but rather, because they don't have control over it. The arguments being put forward today over NSA wiretaps are the same arguments being made about the Patriot Act. They are not arguments over legal principle (although they will be framed that way) but over WHO has the power and authority. In the old days of the Patriot Act, it was John Ashcroft, considerd by the left to be the rerincarnation of Mussolini. Since Ashcroft is gone and has been replaced by a Hispanic --- minorities are notoriously taboo for criticism in leftist circles --unless they're church-going-Uber-conservatives) --- they can no longer make the argument based upon appearances and personalities.
When you come right down to it, the argument reveals far more about the democrats and how they think than it does President Bush and his efforts to protect the country. What he dimwits are telling you, simply, is not what this Administration plans to do with all that wiretapping data, but what the DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES would do with it.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
The State of The Union...
Re; president Bush's speech the other night.
I give him high marks for once again embarrasing democrats, although, truth to tell, this is not all that difficult. Democrats do a better job of inserting ye old foot in ye old pie hole on their own than any republican could ever hope to do. Just remember that little Standing-O the dimwits gave themselves for blocking "Social Security Reform" --- you'll be seeing a lot of that footage in the near future. Paging Karl Rove...
There was an interesting Presidential morsel dropped during the speech that has not gone unnoticed --- the President's soon-to-be-famous "America-is-addicted-to-foreign-oil" blurb is already leaving skidmarks.
Apparently, the Saudis are quite pissed over that remark. It would seem to indicate that their primary customer (and defender) will be feverishly working to remove itself from the Saudi Oil Kingdom teat. And the Saudis, unlike most other Islamics, know that when Americans are challenged to do something, they usually achieve it (see; Atomic bomb, Cold War, Space Race, etc). What this forecasts for the future of the Saudi Kingdom is easy to divine: they're cooked if we succeed. No more Kingdom, no more Princes in the thousands, no more money to prop up a regime that is, at it's core, rotten. Oil prices on international markets fell the very next day.
Now energy independance is all well and fine. It's long overdue, if you ask me. But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. The only feasible option at the moment is nuclear power, and that faces an uphill battle with the Mother-Gaia-latte-sipping-tie-died crowd. Of course, since they no longer have their hands on the levers of power, this is merely a lot of noise being made to soothe their own savage breasts. Sort of like a nosebleed --- it's annoying, it might even be inconvenient, but after a while, it stops. And then you're onto the next thing.
I'm all for a Presidential initiative challenging American science and industry to overcome what is a seemingly insurmountable problem. Now I expect that this Presidential Prod is more than window dressing and that Mr. Bush steps up to the podium every Goddamned Day to continue to pound away at the issue.
Re; president Bush's speech the other night.
I give him high marks for once again embarrasing democrats, although, truth to tell, this is not all that difficult. Democrats do a better job of inserting ye old foot in ye old pie hole on their own than any republican could ever hope to do. Just remember that little Standing-O the dimwits gave themselves for blocking "Social Security Reform" --- you'll be seeing a lot of that footage in the near future. Paging Karl Rove...
There was an interesting Presidential morsel dropped during the speech that has not gone unnoticed --- the President's soon-to-be-famous "America-is-addicted-to-foreign-oil" blurb is already leaving skidmarks.
Apparently, the Saudis are quite pissed over that remark. It would seem to indicate that their primary customer (and defender) will be feverishly working to remove itself from the Saudi Oil Kingdom teat. And the Saudis, unlike most other Islamics, know that when Americans are challenged to do something, they usually achieve it (see; Atomic bomb, Cold War, Space Race, etc). What this forecasts for the future of the Saudi Kingdom is easy to divine: they're cooked if we succeed. No more Kingdom, no more Princes in the thousands, no more money to prop up a regime that is, at it's core, rotten. Oil prices on international markets fell the very next day.
Now energy independance is all well and fine. It's long overdue, if you ask me. But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. The only feasible option at the moment is nuclear power, and that faces an uphill battle with the Mother-Gaia-latte-sipping-tie-died crowd. Of course, since they no longer have their hands on the levers of power, this is merely a lot of noise being made to soothe their own savage breasts. Sort of like a nosebleed --- it's annoying, it might even be inconvenient, but after a while, it stops. And then you're onto the next thing.
I'm all for a Presidential initiative challenging American science and industry to overcome what is a seemingly insurmountable problem. Now I expect that this Presidential Prod is more than window dressing and that Mr. Bush steps up to the podium every Goddamned Day to continue to pound away at the issue.
Nostradamus, Call your Office...
Today is Groundhog Day, a unique slice of Americana, the origins of which I know not, nor do I care to delve into them. Normally, whether or not a small, furry ground mammal sees it's shadow wouldn't interest me in the slightest, except for the nagging little itch at the back of my tiny mind that sometimes provokes me to something resembling thought.
The purpose of Groundhog Day, so I've been told, is to divine whether or not winter will last past a certain date, irrrespective of the actual Spring Solstice. In this bizarre ritual, a Groundhog is released from his burrow or cage or other contrivance, and if said groundhog "sees" his shadow, this somehow translates into another "six weeks of winter" or maybe it doesn't. I don't know the mechanics of groundhog vision, but I would assume all animals see their shadows, in one way or another, maybe just subconsciously taking note of a contrast in light and shadow. Who knows? Who Cares?
Apparently, a lot of people.
Watching the news this morning, one of the leading stories was the continuing saga of Punxsutawney Phil, a perennial staple of February 2nd newscasts. Phil (and let's face it; I don't know exactly how long a groundhog is expected to live, but this certainly can't be the original Punxsutawney Phil. My guess is that were on the umpteenth generation of shadow-spotting groundhogs) apparently saw his shadow, and so we are told, divined that winter weather will hang around for another 6 weeks or so. Some people swear by this method of forecasting the weather, but I'm not convinced. Totally. I mean, I could be, but it might be wrong. Or right. Who knows?
Staten Island Chuck, Phil's rival in prognostication, and local favorite, didn't see his shadow, or maybe he did but just couldn't find the words to convey that thought, and thus, we are assured that winter weather will not be hanging around that much longer.
What makes this slightly interesting is the crowds this sort of event draws. Here we are in the 21st century, and there are those of us still convinced that a rodent has better weather-predicting capabilities than Al Roker, he of the vast array of radars, technological crystal balls, and satellites. Why Al is so technologically advanced that, on the average day, he's probably 90% correct. That Al doesn't necessarily go out and take measurements of temperatures, atmospheric pressure, precipitation, et. al., matter not (he actually gets these figures from the National Weather Service. You know, the people who collect this information and run the satellites and radars. Considering that the figures and forecasts the Service generates are generally more correct than not, this may be the only arm of the government that is actually worth the expenditure).
Yet somehow, people all over America are apparently fascinated by this ritual of groundhog watching, granting it the slight favor of paganism, and imbuing it with some sort of legitimacy. They must enjoy it; they keep showing up every year.
It's just an intersting tidbit that makes you stop and think for a second or two; superstition and follore are not completely dead. Which, in a backhanded way, is a bit of a relief. I would hate to think that every aspect of our lives was ruled by some hard-and-fast rule developed in the antisceptic realm of the laboratory, or regulated by some black-magic device turned out in the millions in factories. Progress is nice, but it's also pretty cool to know that old traditions, no matter how stupid, always seem to survive.
Perhaps there's a muskrat out there somewhere who can tell us the results of the 2008 elections, or a beaver who can forecast gold futures.
Today is Groundhog Day, a unique slice of Americana, the origins of which I know not, nor do I care to delve into them. Normally, whether or not a small, furry ground mammal sees it's shadow wouldn't interest me in the slightest, except for the nagging little itch at the back of my tiny mind that sometimes provokes me to something resembling thought.
The purpose of Groundhog Day, so I've been told, is to divine whether or not winter will last past a certain date, irrrespective of the actual Spring Solstice. In this bizarre ritual, a Groundhog is released from his burrow or cage or other contrivance, and if said groundhog "sees" his shadow, this somehow translates into another "six weeks of winter" or maybe it doesn't. I don't know the mechanics of groundhog vision, but I would assume all animals see their shadows, in one way or another, maybe just subconsciously taking note of a contrast in light and shadow. Who knows? Who Cares?
Apparently, a lot of people.
Watching the news this morning, one of the leading stories was the continuing saga of Punxsutawney Phil, a perennial staple of February 2nd newscasts. Phil (and let's face it; I don't know exactly how long a groundhog is expected to live, but this certainly can't be the original Punxsutawney Phil. My guess is that were on the umpteenth generation of shadow-spotting groundhogs) apparently saw his shadow, and so we are told, divined that winter weather will hang around for another 6 weeks or so. Some people swear by this method of forecasting the weather, but I'm not convinced. Totally. I mean, I could be, but it might be wrong. Or right. Who knows?
Staten Island Chuck, Phil's rival in prognostication, and local favorite, didn't see his shadow, or maybe he did but just couldn't find the words to convey that thought, and thus, we are assured that winter weather will not be hanging around that much longer.
What makes this slightly interesting is the crowds this sort of event draws. Here we are in the 21st century, and there are those of us still convinced that a rodent has better weather-predicting capabilities than Al Roker, he of the vast array of radars, technological crystal balls, and satellites. Why Al is so technologically advanced that, on the average day, he's probably 90% correct. That Al doesn't necessarily go out and take measurements of temperatures, atmospheric pressure, precipitation, et. al., matter not (he actually gets these figures from the National Weather Service. You know, the people who collect this information and run the satellites and radars. Considering that the figures and forecasts the Service generates are generally more correct than not, this may be the only arm of the government that is actually worth the expenditure).
Yet somehow, people all over America are apparently fascinated by this ritual of groundhog watching, granting it the slight favor of paganism, and imbuing it with some sort of legitimacy. They must enjoy it; they keep showing up every year.
It's just an intersting tidbit that makes you stop and think for a second or two; superstition and follore are not completely dead. Which, in a backhanded way, is a bit of a relief. I would hate to think that every aspect of our lives was ruled by some hard-and-fast rule developed in the antisceptic realm of the laboratory, or regulated by some black-magic device turned out in the millions in factories. Progress is nice, but it's also pretty cool to know that old traditions, no matter how stupid, always seem to survive.
Perhaps there's a muskrat out there somewhere who can tell us the results of the 2008 elections, or a beaver who can forecast gold futures.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Of Boomerangs and Roosting Chickens...
Well, despite my worst fears, I find that the Staten Island Advance actually went ahead an printed my Letter to the Editor concerning a whining crybaby upset that he could not see Brokeback Mountain in local theatres.
What was even more shocking was the vitriolic response by someone who signed his letter "Jim Smith", in which I was described as a "hater" and a "self-loathing, closet-homosexual" (How he arrived at this conclusion is beyond me; according to a gay guy, I guess, anyone who disagrees with a gay is simply fighting a losing battle against his own gay impulses. Go figure!). Simply because I disagreed with him.
Isn't that wonderful?
Lesson learned: reasonable discourse in America is dead. It has been since the 1970's and only now are we realizing it. Write a letter to the editor pointing out that local theatres are under no obligation to show a film that they either find unprofitable or not worth the trouble of showing (because of the controversy and because they run counter to community standards) and get tarred with the epithet "hater".
I find it amazing that the Advance, in the same week that I wrote my letter, wrote a story on just why local theatres did not show this film. The short answer (which occupied half a page of newsprint): we can't make a dime on it. So, I was vindicated.
However, there are those of us out there in the great unwashed public who will cling to our preconcieved notions now matter how ridiculous and infantile. "Mr. Smith" and others of his ilk, just can't believe it. They believe that since a movie has been graced with the Golden Globe or mentioned in Academy Award blurbs, that such distinctions should override common sense. If I was a theatre owner and a movie that had been nominated for either of these awards still managed to make less money than your typical panhandler, I'd start to wonder whether or not such awards acually reflect public acclaim. I'd start to wonder if they were merely the rantings of a closed segment of society who live in a different dimension than regular folks.
So, "Mr. Smith", you can call me all the names you wish. You can castigate me in the most vile language in your limited, politically-correct vocabulary, and I will not care. You can impugn anti-homosexual conspiracies to the most mundane of everyday situations, and still, I wouldn't give a tinker's cuss. Because at the end of the day, I know that I'm right, and that you're just a pathetic, sick individual.
But what's more important tham Me and Mr. Smith is the premise that disagreement doesn't have to descend into the sewer. Unfortunately those who claim to practice "tolerance" and "fairness", and who claim to be "intellectuals" have very little idea of what those words mean.
It becomes apparent after you logically, and civally, rebuke their arguments. Instead of conceding the point or perhaps acknowledging that they were wrong, they instead launch into a stream of invective. Invective that is usually delivered in a spittle-flying, foaming-at-the-nouth, inteded-to-be-as-viscious-as I-can-hurt-you-on-a-personal-level vitriol. Once you crack the thin veneer of their civility and even thinner crust of their intelligence, they have no weapons left in the arsenal except name-calling and stereotyping.
And the phenomenon has permeated every level of American society. It exists in politics, academia, business, athletics, media, and if you stuck around long enough to listen for it, probably in your grandmother's nursing home.
In the case of "Mr. Smith" and his ilk, there's hope; they engage in behavior which will not result in procreation. That's a small blessing. For the rest of it, it will require a concentrated effort by those civally0minded to let our politicians, newspaper editors, teachers, et. al., that such behavior is not acceptible, nor will we continue to pay for it.
Well, despite my worst fears, I find that the Staten Island Advance actually went ahead an printed my Letter to the Editor concerning a whining crybaby upset that he could not see Brokeback Mountain in local theatres.
What was even more shocking was the vitriolic response by someone who signed his letter "Jim Smith", in which I was described as a "hater" and a "self-loathing, closet-homosexual" (How he arrived at this conclusion is beyond me; according to a gay guy, I guess, anyone who disagrees with a gay is simply fighting a losing battle against his own gay impulses. Go figure!). Simply because I disagreed with him.
Isn't that wonderful?
Lesson learned: reasonable discourse in America is dead. It has been since the 1970's and only now are we realizing it. Write a letter to the editor pointing out that local theatres are under no obligation to show a film that they either find unprofitable or not worth the trouble of showing (because of the controversy and because they run counter to community standards) and get tarred with the epithet "hater".
I find it amazing that the Advance, in the same week that I wrote my letter, wrote a story on just why local theatres did not show this film. The short answer (which occupied half a page of newsprint): we can't make a dime on it. So, I was vindicated.
However, there are those of us out there in the great unwashed public who will cling to our preconcieved notions now matter how ridiculous and infantile. "Mr. Smith" and others of his ilk, just can't believe it. They believe that since a movie has been graced with the Golden Globe or mentioned in Academy Award blurbs, that such distinctions should override common sense. If I was a theatre owner and a movie that had been nominated for either of these awards still managed to make less money than your typical panhandler, I'd start to wonder whether or not such awards acually reflect public acclaim. I'd start to wonder if they were merely the rantings of a closed segment of society who live in a different dimension than regular folks.
So, "Mr. Smith", you can call me all the names you wish. You can castigate me in the most vile language in your limited, politically-correct vocabulary, and I will not care. You can impugn anti-homosexual conspiracies to the most mundane of everyday situations, and still, I wouldn't give a tinker's cuss. Because at the end of the day, I know that I'm right, and that you're just a pathetic, sick individual.
But what's more important tham Me and Mr. Smith is the premise that disagreement doesn't have to descend into the sewer. Unfortunately those who claim to practice "tolerance" and "fairness", and who claim to be "intellectuals" have very little idea of what those words mean.
It becomes apparent after you logically, and civally, rebuke their arguments. Instead of conceding the point or perhaps acknowledging that they were wrong, they instead launch into a stream of invective. Invective that is usually delivered in a spittle-flying, foaming-at-the-nouth, inteded-to-be-as-viscious-as I-can-hurt-you-on-a-personal-level vitriol. Once you crack the thin veneer of their civility and even thinner crust of their intelligence, they have no weapons left in the arsenal except name-calling and stereotyping.
And the phenomenon has permeated every level of American society. It exists in politics, academia, business, athletics, media, and if you stuck around long enough to listen for it, probably in your grandmother's nursing home.
In the case of "Mr. Smith" and his ilk, there's hope; they engage in behavior which will not result in procreation. That's a small blessing. For the rest of it, it will require a concentrated effort by those civally0minded to let our politicians, newspaper editors, teachers, et. al., that such behavior is not acceptible, nor will we continue to pay for it.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Al Gore: Defender of Law and Order...
Regareding the ex-Vice President/Current mental patient's comments on Preident Bush "knowingly and repeatedly violating the law" with regards to NSA wiretaps, I say, Al should know illegal behavior when he sees it. He was surrounded by it as Vice (and "vice" is the operative word) President and even indulged in a bit of it himself.
Al Gore was witness to, or should have known about:
Bill Clinton's littany of "allegations" about rape, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, misuse of campaign funds, accepting bribes from foreign governments or agents thereof. There are the controversies surrounding something like 54 "Arkancides" (i.e. the surprising number of people who have turned up dead after being involved with the Clintons in one way or another), the allegationsof murder and tampering with evidence in the cases of Ron Brown and Vince Foster. There is also the use of the FBI, IRS and a ton of other government-type alphabet soup agencies against political opponents.
Hilary's record of alleged crimes is somewhat tame in comparison, but include withholding evidence, destroying evidence, securities fraud, real estate fraud, misappropriation of campaign funds, filing false documents with the SEC and FEC. How about 900 FBI files int he hands of an ex-bar bouncer that no one remembers hiring, files on Republicans and other potential political rivals/enemies, by the way. Wonder how much those files revealed about the opposition and how it was used against them (particularly when impeachment time rolled around).
Let's also not forget Janet Reno who has the deaths of 80 people in a conflagration shown on national television after an abortive assault upon a church, complete with dead ATF agents, tanks, helicopters and the belated admission of the use of pyrotechnic devices after 5 years of denials. Let's throw in the use of Federal agents to facilitate the kidnapping of a 7 year old child (again, shown on national television) in order to placate a certain Carribean dictator.
How about Jamie Gorelick (which is both her name and an intimation of what her role was in the government, perhaps) and her repeated efforts to stonewall the 9/11 Commission, to destroy or hide evidence before the Commission and her role in the creation of the policies that helped lead to the events of 9/11.
Let's not forget Sandy Berger, he of the stuffed pants, who destroyed, stole,and doctored government documents that were supposed to be given to the 9/11 Commission.
There is a long list of minor, but important, co-conspirators in all of this: Web Hubble, Susan MacDougal, MacDougal's husband (whose name eludes me for thje moment) Craig Livingstone (who has disappeared as conveniently as he was hired), a host of private investigators, etc.
Let's not forget Al's little dalliances with activities that didn't pass the smell test, like calling for a recount in areas where he was sure there were more votes, and not just in the whole state of Florida. How about taking his election loss into the law courts (which delayed the implementation of the Bush Administration and which may have contributed to the multi-agency confusion implicated in the 9/11 attack).
Yes, AL Gore certainly knows lawbreaking when he sees it. What he doesn't see is hypocrisy. But then again, narcissism is a serious mental illness that blinds one to his own shortcomings.
Tipper, honey, please get him some help. And keep him away from the TV cameras.
Regareding the ex-Vice President/Current mental patient's comments on Preident Bush "knowingly and repeatedly violating the law" with regards to NSA wiretaps, I say, Al should know illegal behavior when he sees it. He was surrounded by it as Vice (and "vice" is the operative word) President and even indulged in a bit of it himself.
Al Gore was witness to, or should have known about:
Bill Clinton's littany of "allegations" about rape, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, misuse of campaign funds, accepting bribes from foreign governments or agents thereof. There are the controversies surrounding something like 54 "Arkancides" (i.e. the surprising number of people who have turned up dead after being involved with the Clintons in one way or another), the allegationsof murder and tampering with evidence in the cases of Ron Brown and Vince Foster. There is also the use of the FBI, IRS and a ton of other government-type alphabet soup agencies against political opponents.
Hilary's record of alleged crimes is somewhat tame in comparison, but include withholding evidence, destroying evidence, securities fraud, real estate fraud, misappropriation of campaign funds, filing false documents with the SEC and FEC. How about 900 FBI files int he hands of an ex-bar bouncer that no one remembers hiring, files on Republicans and other potential political rivals/enemies, by the way. Wonder how much those files revealed about the opposition and how it was used against them (particularly when impeachment time rolled around).
Let's also not forget Janet Reno who has the deaths of 80 people in a conflagration shown on national television after an abortive assault upon a church, complete with dead ATF agents, tanks, helicopters and the belated admission of the use of pyrotechnic devices after 5 years of denials. Let's throw in the use of Federal agents to facilitate the kidnapping of a 7 year old child (again, shown on national television) in order to placate a certain Carribean dictator.
How about Jamie Gorelick (which is both her name and an intimation of what her role was in the government, perhaps) and her repeated efforts to stonewall the 9/11 Commission, to destroy or hide evidence before the Commission and her role in the creation of the policies that helped lead to the events of 9/11.
Let's not forget Sandy Berger, he of the stuffed pants, who destroyed, stole,and doctored government documents that were supposed to be given to the 9/11 Commission.
There is a long list of minor, but important, co-conspirators in all of this: Web Hubble, Susan MacDougal, MacDougal's husband (whose name eludes me for thje moment) Craig Livingstone (who has disappeared as conveniently as he was hired), a host of private investigators, etc.
Let's not forget Al's little dalliances with activities that didn't pass the smell test, like calling for a recount in areas where he was sure there were more votes, and not just in the whole state of Florida. How about taking his election loss into the law courts (which delayed the implementation of the Bush Administration and which may have contributed to the multi-agency confusion implicated in the 9/11 attack).
Yes, AL Gore certainly knows lawbreaking when he sees it. What he doesn't see is hypocrisy. But then again, narcissism is a serious mental illness that blinds one to his own shortcomings.
Tipper, honey, please get him some help. And keep him away from the TV cameras.
Ben Franklin's View of Insanity...
Appropos of yesterday being Benjamin Franklin's 300th birthday (I think it was yesterday), I was reminded of one of the old geezer's most famous remarks about futility. Paraphrasing Ben Americana, the quote goes something along the lines of "Insanity is repeating the same action and expecting different results".
Which brings me to a speech made two days ago by Michael Chertoff, the director of the so-called Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Chertoff, in response to complaints from people who regulalry traverse US borders with Canada and Mexico, unveiled a plan to speed up the annoying routine of actually having your travel permits, papers, etc. checked at border crossings. Apparently, complying with US law upon entering the United States is a tad difficult for some folks, akin to the necessary evil of having a cavity drilled.
The new plan to speed up "security checks" at US Border Crossings is to implement what Mr. Chertoff calls a "Trusted Traveler" program, where people who routinely and rugularly cross into the US from Canada and Mexico will be given an identification card. Possession of this card, from what I can tell, helps travellers avoid the process of removing their shoes at the airport or actually having to carry their passports.
Which is where Franklin's description of insanity comes into play.
If we learned anything from 9/11 it is that the process of obtaining identification papers in the United States is extremely easy. The hijackers had 60 state driver's licenses between them, for example. Social Security cards wind up in the hands of illegal immigrants all the time, especially the fake kind. Counterfeiting of identification documents is rampant. Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in the world, made easier by the fact that Americans are so free and easy with revealing their personal information. Just ask any telemarketer how many credit card numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, etc., they collect on the average day while selling timeshares in Florida. Just ask your insurance company, bank or doctor how much information thay have on you. Just think of how many of you may be reading this right now from a computer on which you have ordered something from Amazon, via credit or debit card, and which is still not protected by a firewall, security software, anti-virus software, etc.
Check the garbage pail in your local mall establishment for all those carbons that get thrown away, or sometimes, lifted by employees. Ask yourself how it is that 2 year olds get called for jury duty, or that dead people and housecats have credit cards issued in their names.
Ask Microsoft how much they know about you. They pretty much check on your computer all the time to see if you're stealing software.
So, there's an awful lot of information floating around on pretty much everyone. Much of it just laying around for the taking. Since our lives are pretty much resigned to a database somewhere which can be hacked (or more likely, your bank or the magazine you subscribe to will sell your information to an interested buyer), lost, pilfered, etc., it kinda sorta waters down the value of any form of personal identification.
So why, oh why, when we know that such devices are easily forged or counterfeited, that with the easy access to people's personal information brought about by the computer revolution, is our government issuing a "Trusted Traveller Card" that is barely worth the plastic it's made of?
Because the Department of Homeland Security (and the government in general) have to be seen as "doing something" in the face of all the rancor and debate about securing the borders. If the argument is "We don't know who is crossing our borders at any given time" the government response can be "Sure we do, we gave them ID cards, see?".
It is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. But that's government, especially the American government, for you: when confronted by a serious issue, do something ineffective and open to fraud, but symbolic of your "commitment" to "safe and secure" borders.
This is merely an extention of previous government boondoggles on border security which used to fall under the euphamism of "guest worker program".
Appropos of yesterday being Benjamin Franklin's 300th birthday (I think it was yesterday), I was reminded of one of the old geezer's most famous remarks about futility. Paraphrasing Ben Americana, the quote goes something along the lines of "Insanity is repeating the same action and expecting different results".
Which brings me to a speech made two days ago by Michael Chertoff, the director of the so-called Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Chertoff, in response to complaints from people who regulalry traverse US borders with Canada and Mexico, unveiled a plan to speed up the annoying routine of actually having your travel permits, papers, etc. checked at border crossings. Apparently, complying with US law upon entering the United States is a tad difficult for some folks, akin to the necessary evil of having a cavity drilled.
The new plan to speed up "security checks" at US Border Crossings is to implement what Mr. Chertoff calls a "Trusted Traveler" program, where people who routinely and rugularly cross into the US from Canada and Mexico will be given an identification card. Possession of this card, from what I can tell, helps travellers avoid the process of removing their shoes at the airport or actually having to carry their passports.
Which is where Franklin's description of insanity comes into play.
If we learned anything from 9/11 it is that the process of obtaining identification papers in the United States is extremely easy. The hijackers had 60 state driver's licenses between them, for example. Social Security cards wind up in the hands of illegal immigrants all the time, especially the fake kind. Counterfeiting of identification documents is rampant. Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in the world, made easier by the fact that Americans are so free and easy with revealing their personal information. Just ask any telemarketer how many credit card numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, etc., they collect on the average day while selling timeshares in Florida. Just ask your insurance company, bank or doctor how much information thay have on you. Just think of how many of you may be reading this right now from a computer on which you have ordered something from Amazon, via credit or debit card, and which is still not protected by a firewall, security software, anti-virus software, etc.
Check the garbage pail in your local mall establishment for all those carbons that get thrown away, or sometimes, lifted by employees. Ask yourself how it is that 2 year olds get called for jury duty, or that dead people and housecats have credit cards issued in their names.
Ask Microsoft how much they know about you. They pretty much check on your computer all the time to see if you're stealing software.
So, there's an awful lot of information floating around on pretty much everyone. Much of it just laying around for the taking. Since our lives are pretty much resigned to a database somewhere which can be hacked (or more likely, your bank or the magazine you subscribe to will sell your information to an interested buyer), lost, pilfered, etc., it kinda sorta waters down the value of any form of personal identification.
So why, oh why, when we know that such devices are easily forged or counterfeited, that with the easy access to people's personal information brought about by the computer revolution, is our government issuing a "Trusted Traveller Card" that is barely worth the plastic it's made of?
Because the Department of Homeland Security (and the government in general) have to be seen as "doing something" in the face of all the rancor and debate about securing the borders. If the argument is "We don't know who is crossing our borders at any given time" the government response can be "Sure we do, we gave them ID cards, see?".
It is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. But that's government, especially the American government, for you: when confronted by a serious issue, do something ineffective and open to fraud, but symbolic of your "commitment" to "safe and secure" borders.
This is merely an extention of previous government boondoggles on border security which used to fall under the euphamism of "guest worker program".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)