Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Getting Monotonous

Via the Augusta Chronicle.

More cartoons ridiculing morons who respond to cartoons with violence.

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Relatively Irrational

A rational critique of the irrational but ever so chic blame-the-West worldview.

The Adversary Culture
The perverse anti-Westernism of the cultural elite
Keith Windschuttle
Address to: Summer Sounds Symposium
Punga Cove, New Zealand
February 11 2006
Something is obviously going terribly wrong here. The logic of relativism is taking Western academics into dark waters. They are now prepared to countenance practices that are obviously cruel, unnatural and life-denying, that is, practices that offend against all they claim to stand for.

To see how decadent these assumptions have become, compare today's relativism to the attitude that prevailed when the culture of the British people was in its ascendancy. Sir Charles Napier, the British Commander-in-chief in India from 1849 to 1851, signed an agreement with local Hindu leaders that he would respect all their customs, except for the practice of suttee. The Hindu leaders protested but Napier was unmoved:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

The moral rationale of cultural relativism is a plea for tolerance and respect of other cultures, no matter how uncomfortable we might be with their beliefs and practices. However, there is one culture conspicuous by its absence from all this. The plea for acceptance and open-mindedness does not extend to Western culture itself, whose history is regarded as little more than a crime against the rest of humanity. The West cannot judge other cultures but must condemn its own.

Since the 1960s, academic historians on the left have worked to generate a widespread cynicism about the nature of Western democracies, with the aim of questioning their legitimacy and undermining their ability to command loyalty. Let me demonstrate some of the ways in which national and imperial histories are being used to denigrate Western culture and society and give the nations of the West, especially those descended from Britain, an historical identity of which they can only be ashamed.
Via ¡No Pasarán!

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Can Arabs Be Trusted to Operate US Ports

Can Arabs be trusted period? After years of immersion in multiculturalist kumbaya and stifling political correctness it's amazing anyone can still have such thoughts, much less openly express them. How refreshing.

Congressmen threaten probe of U.S. seaports deal
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES February 20, 2006
"I think we've got to look into this company. I think we've got to ensure ourselves that the American people's national-security interests are going to be protected," said Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat. "And frankly, I think the threshold ought to be a little higher for a foreign firm. There can't be a choice between profits and protecting the American people."
Any company overseeing civilization's critical infrastructure deserves scrutiny, not just US infrastructure and not just companies owned by Arabs. "We've got to look into this company"? Who is "we"? Homeland Security has already looked into it. Should the NSA tap their phones? If the press wasn't so busy covering hunting accidents they might have broken the story sooner. Now that they smell another way to hurt Bush I'm sure we can trust them to "look into" it posthaste.
Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press yesterday that the takeover terms are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration.

"I'm aware of the conditions, and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Mr. King said.

"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al Qaeda or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?" Mr. King said.
Well that's the rub isn't it? How do we guard any company against infiltration by al Qaeda? US law prevents hiring based on a person's race or creed. Being blind to such things is considered a virtue, remember? Arabs aren't even supposed to get special scrutiny when they board an airplane. Al Gore says the Bush administration isn't letting Arabs into the US easily enough. Not nearly as easily as his administration.

What's ridiculous about this sideshow is that it boils down to some Washington grandstanders trying to queer the plans of some Dubai fat cats to buy port operation rights from some London fat cats. Are the Londoners Arabs? Does it matter? Neither Republicans nor Democrats have taken any serious action to stop illegal traffic across US borders. There is no need for Al Qaeda to infiltrate anything. They can safely walk themselves and their weapons right across the US-Mexico border. Which is not to say we shouldn't secure our ports. But with the front door wide open there's not much sense arguing about locking the back door.
Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, cited Mr. Chertoff's remarks as proof that the administration "just does not get it."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, agreed, calling the secrecy "ridiculous" and saying she will support legislation "to say no more, no way" to foreign ownership of U.S. ports.

"We have to have American companies running our own ports. Our ports are soft targets," Mrs. Boxer said. "Al Qaeda has said if they attack, that's one of the places they're looking."

"I don't think we're being overly paranoid. It's very simple to say that our infrastructure has to be protected and let's have American companies do that or the government itself," Mrs. Boxer said.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, yesterday called on President Bush personally to "override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter." He was joined at a press conference by some family members of September 11 victims.
What caused Boxer and Schumer to suddenly morph into Global War on Terror hawks? Leftists don't believe we're at war, now they do? What might be motivating them? That the new port operators are rich Arabs? Class warfare, that's fine, but the racism - how unseemly. These recent converts to nationalism want to protect us from another 9/11? Leftists criticize Republicans for their jingoist slogans and exploitation of 9/11. Now it's OK? Is this the kind of awkward out-of-character posing we can expect in response to Hillary's call for Democrats to take "a backseat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism"? It's OK for Democrats to play the "fear card" now? Apparently so.

It makes far more sense to assume their motives haven't changed. That Boxer wants to expand government and Schumer is pandering to longshoremen. That and the usual "thwart Bush" strategy. Mystery solved.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Moonbat Hero: Al Gore

Gore Decries Treatment of Arabs Post 9-11
By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer Mon Feb 13, 7:10 AM ET
Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."
First he built the internet, then he won the 2000 Presidential election, and now he's the champion of terrorist rights in America. Well, one out of three ain't bad.

To describe in such terms the situation Arabs faced in the US in the dark days just after 9/11 demonstrates that Gore has little or no knowledge of Arab history, or history in general. Countless times over the 1400 years since Mohammed first came to power and his armies rolled out of Arabia the non-Muslim non-Arabic victims of the never-ending jihad have been indiscriminately rounded up and terribly abused. Those who adhere most closely to Mohammed's example, including the Wahabbis who bought Gore's mouth for a day, wish precisely to revive the glory when the good dhimmis paid their jizya in humiliation and the bad ones were "terribly abused" before being put to the sword.

So now Arabs in the US have been mistreated? Since when? Didn't Michael Moore make a pile of money claiming they got special treatment in the wake of 9/11? Try and take a bible or crucifix to Saudia Arabia. Try and be homosexual, female, or kafir in any of the lands the Arabs took by force. They'll show you "special treatment" Arabian style. Al Gore presumes to compare the US to this?

Should we prosecute sedition?
Ben Shapiro, Posted: February 16, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
These are outrageous statements. And the silence from the left is deafening. The Democratic National Committee told me they had not released a statement regarding Gore's speech and had no plans to do so. The New York Times editorial board, the official outlet of the American left, wrote nary a word about the speech.

It is now considered bad form to criticize those who commit seditious acts against the United States. Challenging the patriotism of a traitor draws more ire than engaging in treasonable activities. Calling out those who undermine our nation creates more of a backlash than actually undermining our nation.
Yes, if there was anything to the snivelling leftist Chicken Little rhetoric about the Gitmo Gulag and Bush police state that is the real threat to the world Gore would already have been slapped in irons and tortured to death, wouldn't he? And joining him would be several dozen Hollywood and media morons who love to bash the US in front of foreign crowds. Oh brave patriots all. Fact is they suffer no ill treatment for their misguided opinions. Nor should they. The wonderful thing about free speech is that you're free to make a fool of yourself. Free to root for those who would snuff you and your freedoms out even as you undermine the system that has enriched you.

Cheney's hunting accident apparently deserves a week of media frenzy, but Al Gore's deliberate and unfair accusations against the US get virtually no press. It may be because everyone in the US realizes Gore is looney, unfortunately we cannot assume the Arab world realizes it. As for the silence of the left...

Fact-Checking the Right Wing’s Attack on Al Gore
Earlier this week, in an attempt to shift attention away from Vice President Cheney’s hunting accident, the right wing attacked former Vice President Al Gore for calling attention to the round-up of Arabs and Muslims that occurred in the days after 9/11. Labeling him “seditious,” Michelle Malkin said Gore “slandered” America for stating that Arabs had been “indiscriminately rounded up” after 9/11.
While the right has been quick to politicize Gore’s remarks, they haven’t had the time to do a fact-check. Gore was merely stating what has been reported and well-documented over the past few years:
Of course to simply quote a leftist is to "attack" him, and in this case the "fact check" only confirms that Gore exaggerated. There apparently was some talk by some people about rounding up Arabs and Muslims in the wake of 9/11. They never did, but a bunch of illegal aliens were deported. Oh my.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Double Standard Illustrated

Insensitive provocation
Insensitive provocation.

Free speech
Free speech.

Insensitive provocation
Insensitive provocation.

Free speech
Free speech.

Insensitive provocation
Insensitive provocation.

Free speech
Free speech.

Insensitive provocation (if the man is an infidel) or free speech (if he's a Muslim).


Sunday, February 05, 2006

Cartoon Piffle From the Left

The leftist response to the latest furor in the Muslim world is in danger of being drowned out by crickets. Unfortunately the story has become too large to ignore, so Atrios explains:
I'm not too sympathetic with the notion that anything under the cover of religion is automatically entitled to deference. On the other hand, "don't be an asshole" about peoples' religious beliefs when they aren't trying to impose them on you seems to be reasonably good etiquette. The cartoons weren't funny and the visual portrayal of Mohammed was done just to "be an asshole" without any larger point to it. It's like parading around in blackface just for the hell of it. There's no point other than "I'm doing this to see who I can piss off." I certainly defend the right to piss people off, though not always the decision to do so.
Strange, isn't it, that a habitually potty-mouthed leftist should be so concerned with etiquette.

The larger point of the cartoons, for Atrios and anyone else too technologically challenged to use a search engine, can be found at
Jyllands-Posten called for and printed the cartoons by various Danish illustrators, after reports that artists were refusing to illustrate works about Islam, out of fear of fundamendalist retribution. The newspaper said it printed the cartoons as a test of whether Muslim fundamentalists had begun affecting the freedom of expression in Denmark.
So the response to this test demonstrates that there are indeed some assholes out there trying to impose their religious beliefs. And no, unfortunately for the left, it has nothing to do with Chimpy W. McHalliburton and the Far Right Wing's attempts to pack the Supreme Court with "extremists". Which goes a long way toward explaining the left's lack of interest.

Most of the rest of the pro-anti crowd has nothing less inconsistent to say than Artrios, they're just smart enough not to blurt it out.

Not that that would be Kos' excuse. After a weekend of headlines about the violence the tag "muslim cartoons" at the left's most popular site rates exactly one story. Kos himself hasn't said anything about the cartoons yet, and if he never does we can safely assume it's because "it's pretty obvious -- we don't love terrorists". Republicans "hate the terrorists because they're Muslim" but at the same time love the American Taliban with whom they have so much in common.

This is the kind of ill-informed and self-contradictory piffle that passes for logic in the fever swamps of the traitorous left.

Religion of Peace Declares War

Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad
The kuffar in their sustained crusade against Islam and Muslims have yet again displayed their hatred towards us this time by attacking the honour of our beloved Messenger Muhammad (saw). In September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 10 cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad (saw) which were later republished by a Norwegian paper Magazinet. Until now both governments have refused to denounce the drawings and to condemn the publication of them.

Via Little Green Footballs. Image via ¡No Pasarán!

Danish consulate in Beirut ablaze in cartoon row
Sun Feb 5, 2006 1:12 PM ET
As peaceful demonstrations turned to ransacking Danish diplomatic offices and burning them in Syria and Lebanon, world leaders as well as prominent moderate Muslims appealed for calm.

"This has nothing to do with Islam at all," Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told Future television. "Destabilizing security and vandalism give a wrong image of Islam. Prophet Mohammad cannot be defended this way."
In Britain, politicians and mainstream Muslims called for the police to deal with Moslem militants after a protest in London featured placards saying "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 will come" and "Butcher those who mock Islam".
Via Drudge.

Anyone who maintains "this has nothing to do with Islam" is living in a fantasy world. We hear nary a peep from Muslims regarding the cold-blooded deliberate murders perpetrated daily by Islamists around the world. But Allah forbid a Koran is soiled or his Prophet is lampooned. Somehow that motivates the Islamic world community to turn out and demonstrate their "peaceful" and "tolerant" feelings.

When will the civilized world wake up to the threat such petulance portends? How long will we heed the Islamic apologists who want us to disbelieve our own eyes and ears? How long will we tolerate the threats and intimidation aimed at anyone who is critical of Islam? Hateful and malignant ideologies have been identified and vanquished before. It's looking like it's getting to be that time again.

Steyn contrasts politically correct "sensitivity" and Sharia. Is anyone listening?