Popular Mechanics debunks some of the persistant 9/11 conspiracy theories and myths. And here is another site that lists articles that disprove many of the lunatic theories.
The term "paranoia" refers to both a specific diagnosis (Paranoia or Delusional Disorder) as well as to a personality style and trait, characterized by guardedness, hypersensitivity, isolation , and suspiciousness. The individual or group exhibiting paranoia also tends to use the psychological mechanism of "projection", were they exhibit a pattern of disowning uncomfortable feelings and attributing them to others.
People or groups with paranoid disorders often have a variety of conspiracy theories, and these theories are always culturally and era-dependent. When I was first starting out as a resident in psychiatry, Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Front (SLF) and most of the paranoid patients I saw had delusions related to that event. Noone has them anymore, however. Nor do they have complex delusions about George Washington or Thomas Jefferson (although, in those president's days I'm sure there were many who incorporated these powerful and famous individuals into their particular theories).
9/11 has also become a focal point historically for many conspiracy theories. Other recent conspiracy sitings involve President Bush (who is either an evil genius, or a complete idiot controlled by others--like Cheney, or Big Oil etc.); Haliburton; AIDS (a disease deliberately developed to wipe out Blacks and/or homosexuals--depending on the particular paranoid); Israel (an always popular favorite--you wouldn't believe all the power they have over the world!)and of course, the vast Right Wing Conspiracy to denude the environment, destroy the weak and powerless, and undermine the foundations of science and truth.
Of course, there are always the dependable "standbys" for conspiracy theorists: the US Government in general; the CIA; Aliens (extremely popular during the run of "The X-Files" on TV) and the infamous "Trilateral Commission"--or some other secret association that is out to control the world (e.g., the Jews and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion).
Believe me, I've heard them all.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Institutionalized Misogyny
Recently Saudi Arabia held their first ever municipal elections--what some say was their first step toward democracy. Women were not allowed to participate. From MEMRI we have the reported justification for this position:
Some also claimed that women's participation in the elections goes against the principles of Shari'a. Sheikh Dr. 'Abdallah Faqih stated: "All the ulema have agreed that the imam must be a man, because the Prophet said 'A nation ruled by a woman will not succeed,' and this was related by Muhammad Ibn Isma'il Al-Bukhari [in his collections of reliable Hadiths]. [This ban] is because this post is a heavy burden that demands great capabilities – which the woman usually does not possess…
"No texts appear to contradict this Hadith in either the Koran or the Sunna. Furthermore, there are texts that support this ruling, such as the words [of Allah in the Koran], 'Men are superior to women' [34:4] and the words, 'Bring two witnesses from among your men, and if there are not two men, bring a man and two women' [82:2].
"A woman is prohibited from holding high office, because doing so requires mingling with men, and being alone with them. Also, she must bear a heavy burden, which is not suitable for the character of the woman. [However,] the woman can bear and direct small positions, such as directing a hospital or a school, since Omar ibn Al-Khattab appointed Al-Shifaa bint 'Abdallah Al-'Adawiyya superintendent of weights and measures in the Al-Madina marketplace, and this is mentioned by Al-Hafez ibn Hajar in the biography of Al-Shifaa. But this is on condition that there is no prohibited mingling or being alone [with men]." [8]
Misogyny is defined as an exaggerated pathological aversion towards women. The institutionalized misogyny of Islam is doctrinal and --as you can see from the example-- is strongly supported by a Islam's founding documents and articles of faith.
Try as they might, the women who defend Islam as a religion keep running into a brick wall of those documents: the Qur'an, the Hadith, and Sunna (which also form the basis of Shar'ia, or Islamic Law).
Islam is not historically alone in its misogyny. Here are several doctrinal passages from Judaism and Christianity that testify to their original anti-female attitudes (the source of these quotes is here).
Judaism:
On the one hand, the Hebrew Bible does not directly revile women, and has few such direct and blunt anti-feminine statements compared to its descendants and sister religions.[5] On the other hand, through its treatment of women as chattel, it legitimizes the subsequent development of blatant misogyny....
The road from here to the institutionalized, daily deprecation of women in the Jewish morning prayer is a short one: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a woman"
Christianity:
The Church's anti-feminism has not been fed by ancient creation myths alone. The New Testament itself is a rich source for such an attitude, mostly coming from St. Paul:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor 14: 34, 35).
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (I Tim. 2: 11-14; probably pseudo-Pauline).
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife..." (Ephesians 5: 22-23).
These often quoted verses (see also I Cor. 11: 2-16) have all served, generation after generation, as documents authorizing the putting down of women.
Ursala King in her 1987 article in Comparative Education: "World Religions, Women and Education" states very clearly that women "were always excluded from formal education once sacred knowledge became transmitted in an institutional manner".
Her point is an important one, because it also contains the cure for "institutionalized" misogyny, and this is how Western Civilization managed to extricate itself from their religiously misogynistic origins. The solution: Separation of Church and State.
The Separation of Church and State principle is a part of the United State's historical, legal and political heritage. It simultaneously preserves and protects our religious liberty; while preventing the doctinal aspects of any particular religions from impinging on the individual freedom of both women and men. By separating the Church and State, men and women are free to participate in religion or not, according to their pleasure. If a religion, freely practiced, promotes the subjugation of women, for example, women and men are free to leave it since there is no "state-sponsored" religion they MUST belong to.
This "flip-side" to religious freedom (the freedom to NOT be religious) was a critical concept that advanced the legal, political and economic emancipation of women.
When it comes to misogyny, the trouble with Islam is the attempt to make Islamic Law (better known as Shar'ia) not only the law of the religion, but also the law of the land. It does not allow the possibility of dissent and choice within the larger context of the society or culture.
This is why Canada's recent decision to permit Islamic Law to exist and be applied within their country is so profoundly retrogressive and misogynistic. It was clearly a serious blow for women who hope, by means of exposing their religion to the modern world, that the religion would be able to adapt and change to reality.
This inability to tolerate dissent and debate new ideas(think Martin Luther nailing his ideas to a church door)combined with a fanatic resistance to any change or questioning of their religious tracts, have caused Islam to remain mired in the hopeless primitivism of the middle ages; while Christianity, Judaism have evolved and remained relevant to living in the world of reality.
Allah has become a third-rate deity, presiding over a barbarous and primitive theology that may have worked for a military leader in the 7th century, but it is not a ideology that will bring happiness and prosperity to very many in the 21st.
Some also claimed that women's participation in the elections goes against the principles of Shari'a. Sheikh Dr. 'Abdallah Faqih stated: "All the ulema have agreed that the imam must be a man, because the Prophet said 'A nation ruled by a woman will not succeed,' and this was related by Muhammad Ibn Isma'il Al-Bukhari [in his collections of reliable Hadiths]. [This ban] is because this post is a heavy burden that demands great capabilities – which the woman usually does not possess…
"No texts appear to contradict this Hadith in either the Koran or the Sunna. Furthermore, there are texts that support this ruling, such as the words [of Allah in the Koran], 'Men are superior to women' [34:4] and the words, 'Bring two witnesses from among your men, and if there are not two men, bring a man and two women' [82:2].
"A woman is prohibited from holding high office, because doing so requires mingling with men, and being alone with them. Also, she must bear a heavy burden, which is not suitable for the character of the woman. [However,] the woman can bear and direct small positions, such as directing a hospital or a school, since Omar ibn Al-Khattab appointed Al-Shifaa bint 'Abdallah Al-'Adawiyya superintendent of weights and measures in the Al-Madina marketplace, and this is mentioned by Al-Hafez ibn Hajar in the biography of Al-Shifaa. But this is on condition that there is no prohibited mingling or being alone [with men]." [8]
Misogyny is defined as an exaggerated pathological aversion towards women. The institutionalized misogyny of Islam is doctrinal and --as you can see from the example-- is strongly supported by a Islam's founding documents and articles of faith.
Try as they might, the women who defend Islam as a religion keep running into a brick wall of those documents: the Qur'an, the Hadith, and Sunna (which also form the basis of Shar'ia, or Islamic Law).
Islam is not historically alone in its misogyny. Here are several doctrinal passages from Judaism and Christianity that testify to their original anti-female attitudes (the source of these quotes is here).
Judaism:
On the one hand, the Hebrew Bible does not directly revile women, and has few such direct and blunt anti-feminine statements compared to its descendants and sister religions.[5] On the other hand, through its treatment of women as chattel, it legitimizes the subsequent development of blatant misogyny....
The road from here to the institutionalized, daily deprecation of women in the Jewish morning prayer is a short one: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a woman"
Christianity:
The Church's anti-feminism has not been fed by ancient creation myths alone. The New Testament itself is a rich source for such an attitude, mostly coming from St. Paul:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor 14: 34, 35).
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (I Tim. 2: 11-14; probably pseudo-Pauline).
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife..." (Ephesians 5: 22-23).
These often quoted verses (see also I Cor. 11: 2-16) have all served, generation after generation, as documents authorizing the putting down of women.
Ursala King in her 1987 article in Comparative Education: "World Religions, Women and Education" states very clearly that women "were always excluded from formal education once sacred knowledge became transmitted in an institutional manner".
Her point is an important one, because it also contains the cure for "institutionalized" misogyny, and this is how Western Civilization managed to extricate itself from their religiously misogynistic origins. The solution: Separation of Church and State.
The Separation of Church and State principle is a part of the United State's historical, legal and political heritage. It simultaneously preserves and protects our religious liberty; while preventing the doctinal aspects of any particular religions from impinging on the individual freedom of both women and men. By separating the Church and State, men and women are free to participate in religion or not, according to their pleasure. If a religion, freely practiced, promotes the subjugation of women, for example, women and men are free to leave it since there is no "state-sponsored" religion they MUST belong to.
This "flip-side" to religious freedom (the freedom to NOT be religious) was a critical concept that advanced the legal, political and economic emancipation of women.
When it comes to misogyny, the trouble with Islam is the attempt to make Islamic Law (better known as Shar'ia) not only the law of the religion, but also the law of the land. It does not allow the possibility of dissent and choice within the larger context of the society or culture.
This is why Canada's recent decision to permit Islamic Law to exist and be applied within their country is so profoundly retrogressive and misogynistic. It was clearly a serious blow for women who hope, by means of exposing their religion to the modern world, that the religion would be able to adapt and change to reality.
This inability to tolerate dissent and debate new ideas(think Martin Luther nailing his ideas to a church door)combined with a fanatic resistance to any change or questioning of their religious tracts, have caused Islam to remain mired in the hopeless primitivism of the middle ages; while Christianity, Judaism have evolved and remained relevant to living in the world of reality.
Allah has become a third-rate deity, presiding over a barbarous and primitive theology that may have worked for a military leader in the 7th century, but it is not a ideology that will bring happiness and prosperity to very many in the 21st.
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Lynne Stewart?
Lynne Stewart reminds me of a song from The Sound of Music-"How do you solve a problem like Maria? A fliberty gibbet a will-o-the wisp...." Andrew McCarthy asks himself this question, too and he grapples with Lynne Stewart, the PERSON, versus Lynne Stewart, the Lefty Kook, recently convicted of aiding and abetting terrorism. He knew her, worked with her and had a very real sense of her decency. Yet, he was able to say:
There is something wrong with Lynne's brain. Obviously, she loves being a darling of the loony Left — a Left so loony it now makes common cause with theocratic, homo-phobic, misogynistic psycho-killers, since, after all, they too hate America. Nestled among this element, her humanity synapse disengages, such that she can spout about faraway terrorist kidnapping victims and other unknown civilians as legitimate targets with all the contemplative depth of a dinner companion asking you to pass the salt.
But she is not without humanity. What has happened to her here is very far from a tragedy — a tragedy is when someone unwittingly crosses the path of Abdel Rahman's ilk and is ruthlessly murdered for the great offense of being an American, or a Jew, or a Christian, or anything other than an Islamic militant. This is what Lynne Stewart promoted, and for that she must pay dearly.
So, what is it that is "wrong with Lynne's brain"? If we could figure it out, perhaps we could understand all those others on the Left who "make common cause with theocratic, homo-phobic, misogynistic psycho-killers". Is it just because they are anti-American, anti-Capitalists? Or is being anti-American, anti-Captitalists another symptom of the brain disorder?
I think it is the latter. Let me explain. In a previous post, I discussed how one goes about enabling terror. Now I propose to explain why someone would do that, and why. Some of this I touched on when I described a classic case of hysteria .
As in a case of hysteria, or a conversion disorder--where the symptoms are not intentionally produced, but are the result of unintentional--or unconscious-- motives, the Lynne Stewarts of the Left are not deliberately being obtuse. They aren't even deliberately evil. They truly don't see anything wrong with being a nice person and kindly grandmother, and simultaneously thinking that a terrorist attack in Indonesia where children might be killed is a wonderful thing. This kind of cognitive dissonance is the result of a psychological defense mechanism called "repression". Repression is necessary in the expression of a conversion disorder where some physical symptom (blindness, paralysis, pain) becomes the focal point; so that the individual is able to avoid the unacceptable thought or feeling. For that to occur, the unacceptable thought or feeling must be ruthlessly stashed away from awareness, or repressed.
But symbolic physical symptoms like blindness are not the only way that repression can be manifested. Another, and much more frequent psychological strategy to rid one's self of the unacceptable thought or feeling is to display a contradictory and often unbelievable (to an outside observer, anyway) dissassociation, or disconnect, between a person's thoughts and feelings on the one hand; and behavior on another.
This is why so often the Lynne Stewarts present an unsolvable puzzle to an outside observer. How can they argue for Peace and behave violently? How can they demand Free Speech but simultaneously suppress it in others? How can they be for Diversity and squelch any dissenting opinions? How can they claim to be for freedom and democracy, and make common cause with those who would destroy it? The catalog of paradoxes goes on and on.
The key is to focus on what the Lynne Stewarts DO, not on what they SAY. On BEHAVIOR, rather than SPEECH. They can yell slogans of LOVE, PEACE, and FREEDOM; but if their actions are HATE-FILLED, VIOLENT, and support OPPRESIVE REGIMES, they are using repression to hide the true feelings that underly their actual behavior.
Often, repression requires stronger and stronger psychological defenses be erected as time goes by and reality keeps up its steady knocking on their door. So, repression often leads to projection and denial. (see here for a discussion of all the psychological defense mechanisms).
When confronted with irrefutable proof of their own actions and consequences, such people must eventually resort to a complete denial of reality. Or, alternatively, they will project the blame for their behavior onto another person or group ("It is the fault of the Israelis" or the "Jews", or the "Blacks"--and more recently, of "Bush", "Haliburton" and so on ad nauseum) . Or, they may utilize both mechanisms.
The level of self-awareness or insight into themselves is abysmally low. All available psychological defenses are rallied to prevent the acceptance of the fact that they did something bad or wrong. It MUST be (in Lynne Stewart's case, for example) the government, the U.S., Capitalism or President Bush, that is to blame!
How do you solve a problem like Lynne Stewart? Therapy won't help. She is too far gone to spend any time accepting that her own behavior has led to her current situation. Her self-identity is not likely to be shaken by events in the real world. Those events can and will be twisted so that it only confirms her world view. Her sense of herself must be preserved at all costs. Even if it means the death of thousands.
Just send her to jail where she can't do any more harm. And stop feeling sorry for her. She's made her choice.
There is something wrong with Lynne's brain. Obviously, she loves being a darling of the loony Left — a Left so loony it now makes common cause with theocratic, homo-phobic, misogynistic psycho-killers, since, after all, they too hate America. Nestled among this element, her humanity synapse disengages, such that she can spout about faraway terrorist kidnapping victims and other unknown civilians as legitimate targets with all the contemplative depth of a dinner companion asking you to pass the salt.
But she is not without humanity. What has happened to her here is very far from a tragedy — a tragedy is when someone unwittingly crosses the path of Abdel Rahman's ilk and is ruthlessly murdered for the great offense of being an American, or a Jew, or a Christian, or anything other than an Islamic militant. This is what Lynne Stewart promoted, and for that she must pay dearly.
So, what is it that is "wrong with Lynne's brain"? If we could figure it out, perhaps we could understand all those others on the Left who "make common cause with theocratic, homo-phobic, misogynistic psycho-killers". Is it just because they are anti-American, anti-Capitalists? Or is being anti-American, anti-Captitalists another symptom of the brain disorder?
I think it is the latter. Let me explain. In a previous post, I discussed how one goes about enabling terror. Now I propose to explain why someone would do that, and why. Some of this I touched on when I described a classic case of hysteria .
As in a case of hysteria, or a conversion disorder--where the symptoms are not intentionally produced, but are the result of unintentional--or unconscious-- motives, the Lynne Stewarts of the Left are not deliberately being obtuse. They aren't even deliberately evil. They truly don't see anything wrong with being a nice person and kindly grandmother, and simultaneously thinking that a terrorist attack in Indonesia where children might be killed is a wonderful thing. This kind of cognitive dissonance is the result of a psychological defense mechanism called "repression". Repression is necessary in the expression of a conversion disorder where some physical symptom (blindness, paralysis, pain) becomes the focal point; so that the individual is able to avoid the unacceptable thought or feeling. For that to occur, the unacceptable thought or feeling must be ruthlessly stashed away from awareness, or repressed.
But symbolic physical symptoms like blindness are not the only way that repression can be manifested. Another, and much more frequent psychological strategy to rid one's self of the unacceptable thought or feeling is to display a contradictory and often unbelievable (to an outside observer, anyway) dissassociation, or disconnect, between a person's thoughts and feelings on the one hand; and behavior on another.
This is why so often the Lynne Stewarts present an unsolvable puzzle to an outside observer. How can they argue for Peace and behave violently? How can they demand Free Speech but simultaneously suppress it in others? How can they be for Diversity and squelch any dissenting opinions? How can they claim to be for freedom and democracy, and make common cause with those who would destroy it? The catalog of paradoxes goes on and on.
The key is to focus on what the Lynne Stewarts DO, not on what they SAY. On BEHAVIOR, rather than SPEECH. They can yell slogans of LOVE, PEACE, and FREEDOM; but if their actions are HATE-FILLED, VIOLENT, and support OPPRESIVE REGIMES, they are using repression to hide the true feelings that underly their actual behavior.
Often, repression requires stronger and stronger psychological defenses be erected as time goes by and reality keeps up its steady knocking on their door. So, repression often leads to projection and denial. (see here for a discussion of all the psychological defense mechanisms).
When confronted with irrefutable proof of their own actions and consequences, such people must eventually resort to a complete denial of reality. Or, alternatively, they will project the blame for their behavior onto another person or group ("It is the fault of the Israelis" or the "Jews", or the "Blacks"--and more recently, of "Bush", "Haliburton" and so on ad nauseum) . Or, they may utilize both mechanisms.
The level of self-awareness or insight into themselves is abysmally low. All available psychological defenses are rallied to prevent the acceptance of the fact that they did something bad or wrong. It MUST be (in Lynne Stewart's case, for example) the government, the U.S., Capitalism or President Bush, that is to blame!
How do you solve a problem like Lynne Stewart? Therapy won't help. She is too far gone to spend any time accepting that her own behavior has led to her current situation. Her self-identity is not likely to be shaken by events in the real world. Those events can and will be twisted so that it only confirms her world view. Her sense of herself must be preserved at all costs. Even if it means the death of thousands.
Just send her to jail where she can't do any more harm. And stop feeling sorry for her. She's made her choice.
Upping the Terrorist's Ante
Dymphna over at the Gates of Vienna has an extremely interesting post up about "The Muslim Boys" --a ruthless gang in Great Britain that embraces Islam:
The emnity of other criminals doesn't deter them. Nor does police action. One thing which does anger them-mortally so for their victims-are peers who fail to convert to their way of thinking, or who backslide. They are dealt with summarily and without mercy. Forced conversions are a new twist on an old terror; for the bruvs, it's all a part of loyal family feeling. David Cohen, a journalist from The Evening Standard, reports this conversation with "Winston," a Muslim Boy who agreed to be interviewed:
Here's how gang member Winston describes "conversion". "You got to be Muslim to be in our group," he tells me. "If you not down [cool] with Muslim, we visit your home, maybe strip you naked in front of your f***ing mother, we put a gun in your mouth. We give you three days [to change your mind], then, if you not down with it, we f***ing blow...
She makes an extremely provocative comparison of Catholicism in Haiti and its transformation when it came into contact with the Haitian's belief system:
Islam is learning a bitter lesson in underclass Britain. It is a lesson the Catholic Church learned in Haiti, when the African population subverted Christain saints to their own native religious needs. Try as they might, the Catholic missionaries never prevailed; voodoo and Catholic saints were intertwined in a complicated but completely Haitian worldview. It worked for the Haitians; it subverted the Church. Now, in Britain, the Poverty Driven Children are re-imagining Islam for their own needs.
Unfortunately for the terrorists in Islam, a new generation of jihadists just upped the ante.
Read the entire post. I especially like the Haiti analogy and the image of one belief system modifying another when the two come into contact. I wonder if that concept is something that we could consciously use to deal with the Jihadis...? It reminds me how the threat of the "Africanized Kiler Bees" (an extremely aggressive bee that began to take over in the southern U.S.) was somewhat neutralized by mating them with the more docile indigent bees. The resulting hybrid was not particularly dangerous.
"The Muslim Boys" story illustrates one resultant variant of the Jihad mindset when mixed with an even more virulent belief system; but wouldn't it also be possible to dilute that mindset in the same manner by "mixing" it with something else? Maybe aggressive democratization and individual freedom? Just asking....
The emnity of other criminals doesn't deter them. Nor does police action. One thing which does anger them-mortally so for their victims-are peers who fail to convert to their way of thinking, or who backslide. They are dealt with summarily and without mercy. Forced conversions are a new twist on an old terror; for the bruvs, it's all a part of loyal family feeling. David Cohen, a journalist from The Evening Standard, reports this conversation with "Winston," a Muslim Boy who agreed to be interviewed:
Here's how gang member Winston describes "conversion". "You got to be Muslim to be in our group," he tells me. "If you not down [cool] with Muslim, we visit your home, maybe strip you naked in front of your f***ing mother, we put a gun in your mouth. We give you three days [to change your mind], then, if you not down with it, we f***ing blow...
She makes an extremely provocative comparison of Catholicism in Haiti and its transformation when it came into contact with the Haitian's belief system:
Islam is learning a bitter lesson in underclass Britain. It is a lesson the Catholic Church learned in Haiti, when the African population subverted Christain saints to their own native religious needs. Try as they might, the Catholic missionaries never prevailed; voodoo and Catholic saints were intertwined in a complicated but completely Haitian worldview. It worked for the Haitians; it subverted the Church. Now, in Britain, the Poverty Driven Children are re-imagining Islam for their own needs.
Unfortunately for the terrorists in Islam, a new generation of jihadists just upped the ante.
Read the entire post. I especially like the Haiti analogy and the image of one belief system modifying another when the two come into contact. I wonder if that concept is something that we could consciously use to deal with the Jihadis...? It reminds me how the threat of the "Africanized Kiler Bees" (an extremely aggressive bee that began to take over in the southern U.S.) was somewhat neutralized by mating them with the more docile indigent bees. The resulting hybrid was not particularly dangerous.
"The Muslim Boys" story illustrates one resultant variant of the Jihad mindset when mixed with an even more virulent belief system; but wouldn't it also be possible to dilute that mindset in the same manner by "mixing" it with something else? Maybe aggressive democratization and individual freedom? Just asking....
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Global Hot Air Day
Today, February 16, 2005 , the Kyoto Treaty officially goes into effect. JunkScience has put up a clock that measures the amount of money that the Kyoto Treaty is costing as it supposedly leads to decreasing global warming. (hat tip: Tim Blair):
JunkScience.com is announcing real-time counters that display the costs of the treaty and the changes in temperature allegedly due to its greenhouse gas emission caps.
Now you can check on the treaty’s “progress” everytime you visit JunkScience.com
You can go here to find out more about the reality (or lack thereof) of the global warming menace, but for fun, I recommend you consider reading Michael Crichton's new novel, STATE OF FEAR, which has an incredible amount of science documentation in it. It will open your eyes about some of the propaganda of the Environmental movement.
For my review and to order the book, you can go here. Or not.
JunkScience.com is announcing real-time counters that display the costs of the treaty and the changes in temperature allegedly due to its greenhouse gas emission caps.
Now you can check on the treaty’s “progress” everytime you visit JunkScience.com
You can go here to find out more about the reality (or lack thereof) of the global warming menace, but for fun, I recommend you consider reading Michael Crichton's new novel, STATE OF FEAR, which has an incredible amount of science documentation in it. It will open your eyes about some of the propaganda of the Environmental movement.
For my review and to order the book, you can go here. Or not.
Report From the Academic Front
The American Enterprise Institute recently held a symposium on political bias on college campuses. A reader at The Corner sums it up ,but here is a sample of some of the arguments of the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) as reported by the reader:
1. It is no surprise that most faculty in social sciences are liberals, since those fields traditionally have been about questioning identity, writing "progressive" history, and other causes.
2. Among liberals, there is a tremendous range of opinion, and critics such as Klein are simplifying their ranks.
3. Outsiders haven't the "expertise" to police the faculty. Professors have undergone rigorous training that makes us trust their judgment more than that of journalists and the public.
4. Folks such as David Horowitz are mounting an intimidation campaign. (Bowen recalled his own experience having his class visited in the early 80s by rabble-rousers at Accuracy in Academia).
5. Conservatives prefer going into business, while liberals have a stronger social bent.
6. Most students come into college with too many conservative prejudices and they need to be shaken up.
7. He has never heard of a hiring committee that asked a candidate about political affiliation.
8. Finally, he said, "So the faculty is Democrat. So what?"
Yes, he actually argued these points. David French, of FIRE, took him to task for many of them. French said, " So what? Here's what: diversity orientation seminars that are manipulative and coercive; speech codes; star chambers; religious organizations asked to strip themselves of their religion; etc." He noted that if a discipline comes to define itself by an agenda (such as questioning the government), it's no longer a discipline.. Or rather, it's an agenda passing itself off as a discipline.
There has been a considerable amount written about the liberal bias of university campuses. The FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) person on this symposium brings up some of the consequences of the lack of academic diversity on campus (as opposed to the politically correct type of "diversity"), but all you have to do is go to their site to see instance after instance of how free speech is CONSTANTLY stifled on campus. And the stifling is being done by the same people who are demanding freedom of speech for people like Ward Churchill.
Clearly this person speaking on campus was not allowed to speak freely. He had his papers torn up, was verbally threatened; and bottles were thrown at him. Police escorted HIM and not the protesters away from the campus. As Kos presents it, it was a clear victory of some sort--but hardly for free speech. And it perfectly exemplifies the" freedom of speech" granted to anyone deemed as politically incorrect by the campus Left (If you want more examples, go to the FIRE site).
For a video of the AEI conference and some transcripts of papers, you can go here.
1. It is no surprise that most faculty in social sciences are liberals, since those fields traditionally have been about questioning identity, writing "progressive" history, and other causes.
2. Among liberals, there is a tremendous range of opinion, and critics such as Klein are simplifying their ranks.
3. Outsiders haven't the "expertise" to police the faculty. Professors have undergone rigorous training that makes us trust their judgment more than that of journalists and the public.
4. Folks such as David Horowitz are mounting an intimidation campaign. (Bowen recalled his own experience having his class visited in the early 80s by rabble-rousers at Accuracy in Academia).
5. Conservatives prefer going into business, while liberals have a stronger social bent.
6. Most students come into college with too many conservative prejudices and they need to be shaken up.
7. He has never heard of a hiring committee that asked a candidate about political affiliation.
8. Finally, he said, "So the faculty is Democrat. So what?"
Yes, he actually argued these points. David French, of FIRE, took him to task for many of them. French said, " So what? Here's what: diversity orientation seminars that are manipulative and coercive; speech codes; star chambers; religious organizations asked to strip themselves of their religion; etc." He noted that if a discipline comes to define itself by an agenda (such as questioning the government), it's no longer a discipline.. Or rather, it's an agenda passing itself off as a discipline.
There has been a considerable amount written about the liberal bias of university campuses. The FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) person on this symposium brings up some of the consequences of the lack of academic diversity on campus (as opposed to the politically correct type of "diversity"), but all you have to do is go to their site to see instance after instance of how free speech is CONSTANTLY stifled on campus. And the stifling is being done by the same people who are demanding freedom of speech for people like Ward Churchill.
Clearly this person speaking on campus was not allowed to speak freely. He had his papers torn up, was verbally threatened; and bottles were thrown at him. Police escorted HIM and not the protesters away from the campus. As Kos presents it, it was a clear victory of some sort--but hardly for free speech. And it perfectly exemplifies the" freedom of speech" granted to anyone deemed as politically incorrect by the campus Left (If you want more examples, go to the FIRE site).
For a video of the AEI conference and some transcripts of papers, you can go here.
I'm With Roger
Roger Simon calls on bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum to get behind a national referendum in Iran:
I think the blogosphere should devote itself to this, make the call for a democratic referendum in Iran one of our top priorities. We have been accused of late (falsely, I believe) of being a destructive force, of tearing things down like a mob. Surely, the call for a referendum in Iran is not that. It is the promotion of democracy at its purest. Bloggers on all sides of our political spectrum should be able to get behind that. I'm in.
Read the entire post, which quotes Michael Ledeen. Down with the Mullahs! Down with Shar'ia!
I'm definitely in.
I think the blogosphere should devote itself to this, make the call for a democratic referendum in Iran one of our top priorities. We have been accused of late (falsely, I believe) of being a destructive force, of tearing things down like a mob. Surely, the call for a referendum in Iran is not that. It is the promotion of democracy at its purest. Bloggers on all sides of our political spectrum should be able to get behind that. I'm in.
Read the entire post, which quotes Michael Ledeen. Down with the Mullahs! Down with Shar'ia!
I'm definitely in.
Death By Chocolate Cake (without WMDs!)
Well, I've had a number of emails requesting the infamous recipe for my "Death-By-Chocolate Cake" (Click here for the original post), so I decided to share it. It's very simple to make and my family really likes it. I've been making it for several years now and probably originally got the recipe from some magazine, which one I've long forgotten (otherwise, I'd mention it). I prefer to eat it either unadorned, or with a high quality vanilla ice cream, but if you are a purist, you are free to use chocolate ice cream instead.
Death-By-Chocolate Cake
1/4 c. oil
2 eggs
1 1/3 c. water
1 chocolate cake mix (get your favorite--I like devil's food chocolate cake)
Mix the above ingredients by hand (do not use electric mixer). Pour into greased 9x11 inch pan. Sprinkle 12 ounces Semi-Sweet Chocolate Chips on top (I like Hershey's). Bake at 350 degrees for 30-35 minutes.
Cool about 5 minutes. Poke holes in cake (it should still be warm) and spread with 1 large jar of Smuckers Hot Fudge Topping.
Enjoy!
Death-By-Chocolate Cake
1/4 c. oil
2 eggs
1 1/3 c. water
1 chocolate cake mix (get your favorite--I like devil's food chocolate cake)
Mix the above ingredients by hand (do not use electric mixer). Pour into greased 9x11 inch pan. Sprinkle 12 ounces Semi-Sweet Chocolate Chips on top (I like Hershey's). Bake at 350 degrees for 30-35 minutes.
Cool about 5 minutes. Poke holes in cake (it should still be warm) and spread with 1 large jar of Smuckers Hot Fudge Topping.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Book Recommendation - State of Fear
Yesterday's news photo above, showing protestors demonstrating outside the White House demanding that Bush sign the Kyoto Treaty, reminded me that I wanted to tell you about a good book I just finished reading.
The book is Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and it is a provocative and informative thriller--among the best of Crichton's novels (and he's had some good ones!) Crichton has always impressed me for his thoughtful, scientific outlook (read this speech Crichton gave at Cal Tech in 2003, for example).
The author has taken a controversial subject (global warming and the environment) and infused a fast-paced, absorbing, and thrilling plot with real facts and details from environmental science.
The entire environmental movement has become, IMHO, more of a propaganda machine than a real discussion of the scientific data and their implications for our planet. Environmentalism is now a big organization bringing in huge donations and famous spokespeople to plug its themes. And they have surrepticiously infiltrated many aspects of our lives. For example, one of my own pet peeves is how this same environmental movement thrusts "pop" environmentalism down the throats of kids in K-12 schools, thus ensuring an army of environmental drones for the years to come.
We think we know a lot about what is wrong with our environment, but Crichton shows us that we may be very mistaken in the many unsubstantiated beliefs that people accept uncritically. In fact, part of the interest of the book is that many of those beliefs are myths.
For that fact alone, I'm certain that many people will absolutely HATE this wonderful story. But the facts and reasoning that are used in the plot; as well as the copious use of footnotes from scientific papers, only enhanced my enjoyment of the story.
I guiltily admit I thoroughly enjoyed the part where one of the self-righteous hollywood pro-environment types was literally eaten-- in a rather guesome passage-- by cannibals in the jungle primeval. Poetic justice of the highest degree. You will also discover why signing the Kyoto Treaty is really a prime example of the idiocy of the entire movement(especially in the form espoused by the protesters in the above picture). I highly recommend the book for your reading pleasure!
Piece of Cake
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch is excited. It seems that a certain Dr. Badawi, an economics professor and Muslim scholar, has offered $1 Million to anyone who could find Qur'anic references condoning a religious war, or jihad. Well, it was a piece of cake for Spencer. Here are just a few (and he's willing to provide more if Badawi is not satisfied:
And this, which identifies the enemies of the Muslims as disbelievers and friends of Satan:
Here the religious warriors, or the angels who protect them, are to behead those who do not believe:
Cf. this verse, which also makes clear the religious character of the fight:
So, congratulations to Jihad Watch--and when you get the million from Dr. Badawi, feel free send a few bucks this way!
Of course, I won't be holding my breath....
And this, which identifies the enemies of the Muslims as disbelievers and friends of Satan:
Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!" Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. (4:74-76)
Here the religious warriors, or the angels who protect them, are to behead those who do not believe:
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (8:12)
Cf. this verse, which also makes clear the religious character of the fight:
Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. (47:4)
So, congratulations to Jihad Watch--and when you get the million from Dr. Badawi, feel free send a few bucks this way!
Of course, I won't be holding my breath....
Breaking News - Zoloft is Innocent
Chris Pittman, the teen who murdered his grandparents, burned down their house, and freely admitted to his crime but blamed the fact that he was taking the antidepressant Zoloft for his actions--has been found Guilty by the jury. I'm just glad that the antidepressant isn't once again taking the rap for someone's behavior.
The Truth Is Out There
Here's an interesting story that didn't get reported (hat tip: Polipundit):
Before we move back from Iraq, a word about the resignation/firing of CNN's chief news guy Eason Jordan for having suggested, in remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that journalists have been killed by coalition forces in Iraq on purpose.
Let me related this short story: About a year ago, two CNN journalists were killed in an ambush on the road between Hillah and Baghdad.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt - the military briefer - asked for a meeting of the bureau chiefs of the major western media. At that meeting he expressed his sorrow over the murder - by terrorists - of the CNN crew and asked the bureau chiefs to take down his personal cell phone number.
He told them that if any of their reporters or crews got into trouble - any time of the day or night - to call him. "Don't worry about protocol," he said. "Get to me as quickly as you can, and we'll try to get help to your people as quickly as we can."
That meeting was never, to my knowledge, reported.
In light of the the Eason Jordan Kerfuffle, it would sure be nice to understand what criteria the mainstream media use to determine what is newsworthy and what is not. The fact that someone is making arbitrary decisions about what to print has become a real issue in the conflict between the MSM and the blogsphere.
"All the news that's fit to print" is a good motto if you really are printing ALL the news; but determining what is "fit" is the issue here. I would like to suggest that one way the mainstream media could do better is to be up front about the criteria that each uses to make their determination of what is "fit" to print.
In other words, why not tell us, the readers, how they make their decisions each day? What matters most to them in deciding if a story should be printed; and what determines where it will be printed in the paper?
One of the truly wonderful things about the blogsphere is that there are an almost infinite number of stories out there and because we are so many, we --unlike the MSM--can print them all. And no matter how remote, uninteresting, wildly inaccurate, or sensational, they are out there for anyone who wants to look.
In the blogsphere at least, ALL the news--and the truth--is out there, and each of us readers get to determine, using our own rational faculties (or not) what is important and relevant and true. NOT an editor with his/her particular agenda; but hundreds of thousands, each with their own particular agenda. And we get to pick and choose; not someone else on our behalf. And not someone else pretending to be "objective" and "neutral".
Personally, I find I like it better that way.
Before we move back from Iraq, a word about the resignation/firing of CNN's chief news guy Eason Jordan for having suggested, in remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that journalists have been killed by coalition forces in Iraq on purpose.
Let me related this short story: About a year ago, two CNN journalists were killed in an ambush on the road between Hillah and Baghdad.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt - the military briefer - asked for a meeting of the bureau chiefs of the major western media. At that meeting he expressed his sorrow over the murder - by terrorists - of the CNN crew and asked the bureau chiefs to take down his personal cell phone number.
He told them that if any of their reporters or crews got into trouble - any time of the day or night - to call him. "Don't worry about protocol," he said. "Get to me as quickly as you can, and we'll try to get help to your people as quickly as we can."
That meeting was never, to my knowledge, reported.
In light of the the Eason Jordan Kerfuffle, it would sure be nice to understand what criteria the mainstream media use to determine what is newsworthy and what is not. The fact that someone is making arbitrary decisions about what to print has become a real issue in the conflict between the MSM and the blogsphere.
"All the news that's fit to print" is a good motto if you really are printing ALL the news; but determining what is "fit" is the issue here. I would like to suggest that one way the mainstream media could do better is to be up front about the criteria that each uses to make their determination of what is "fit" to print.
In other words, why not tell us, the readers, how they make their decisions each day? What matters most to them in deciding if a story should be printed; and what determines where it will be printed in the paper?
One of the truly wonderful things about the blogsphere is that there are an almost infinite number of stories out there and because we are so many, we --unlike the MSM--can print them all. And no matter how remote, uninteresting, wildly inaccurate, or sensational, they are out there for anyone who wants to look.
In the blogsphere at least, ALL the news--and the truth--is out there, and each of us readers get to determine, using our own rational faculties (or not) what is important and relevant and true. NOT an editor with his/her particular agenda; but hundreds of thousands, each with their own particular agenda. And we get to pick and choose; not someone else on our behalf. And not someone else pretending to be "objective" and "neutral".
Personally, I find I like it better that way.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Scientific Progress Goes Boink!
Here is an example of Islamic science (hat tip: Jim O):
Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World
The following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Abd Al-Baset Al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Center. Al-Majd TV aired this interview on January 16, 2005
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: The centrality [of Mecca] has been proven scientifically. How? When they traveled to outer space and took pictures of the earth, they saw that it is a dark, hanging sphere. The man said, "Earth is a dark hanging sphere – who hung it?"
Interviewer: Who said that?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: [Neil] Armstrong. Armstrong was basically trying to say: Allah is the one who hung it. They discovered that Earth emits radiation, and they wrote about this on the web. They left the item there for 21 days, and then they made it disappear.
Interviewer: Why did they make it disappear?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: There was intent there…
Interviewer: So it may be said that this suppression of information was significant.
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was very significant, since…the Ka'ba [in Mecca]… They said it emits radiation. This radiation is short-wave.
When they discovered this radiation, they started to zoom in, and they found that it emanates from Mecca – and, to be precise, from the Ka'ba.
Interviewer: My God!!
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was said…
Interviewer: Does this radiation have an effect?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: They found that this radiation is infinite. When they reached Mars and began to take pictures, they found that the radiation continues beyond. They said that the wavelength known to us… or rather the shortness of the wavelength known to us… This radiation had a special characteristic: It is infinite, and I believe that the reason is that this radiation connects the [earthly] Ka'ba with the celestial Ka'ba.
Imagine that you are the North Pole and I am the South Pole – in the middle there's what is called the magnetic equilibrium zone. If you place a compass there, the needle won't move.
Interviewer: You mean that the pull is equal from both sides?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, and that's why it's called zero-magnetism zone, since the magnetic force has no effect there. That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier, and is less affected by Earth's gravity. That's why when you circle the Ka'ba, you get charged with energy.
Interviewer: Allah be praised.
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, this is a fact.
This is a scientific fact…
Interviewer: Because you are distant from…
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Earth's magnetic fields have no effect on you in this case.
There's a study that proves that the black basalt rocks in Mecca are the oldest rocks in the world. This is the truth.
Interviewer: The oldest rocks? Yes. Has this been proved scientifically?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It's been scientifically proven, and the study has been published.
Interviewer: They took basalt rocks from Mecca…
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: …Basalt rocks from Mecca, and investigated the places where they were formed.
In the British Museum there are three pieces of the black stone [from the Ka'ba] …and they said that this rock didn't come from our solar system.
Astonishing, indeed.
Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World
The following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Abd Al-Baset Al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Center. Al-Majd TV aired this interview on January 16, 2005
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: The centrality [of Mecca] has been proven scientifically. How? When they traveled to outer space and took pictures of the earth, they saw that it is a dark, hanging sphere. The man said, "Earth is a dark hanging sphere – who hung it?"
Interviewer: Who said that?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: [Neil] Armstrong. Armstrong was basically trying to say: Allah is the one who hung it. They discovered that Earth emits radiation, and they wrote about this on the web. They left the item there for 21 days, and then they made it disappear.
Interviewer: Why did they make it disappear?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: There was intent there…
Interviewer: So it may be said that this suppression of information was significant.
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was very significant, since…the Ka'ba [in Mecca]… They said it emits radiation. This radiation is short-wave.
When they discovered this radiation, they started to zoom in, and they found that it emanates from Mecca – and, to be precise, from the Ka'ba.
Interviewer: My God!!
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was said…
Interviewer: Does this radiation have an effect?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: They found that this radiation is infinite. When they reached Mars and began to take pictures, they found that the radiation continues beyond. They said that the wavelength known to us… or rather the shortness of the wavelength known to us… This radiation had a special characteristic: It is infinite, and I believe that the reason is that this radiation connects the [earthly] Ka'ba with the celestial Ka'ba.
Imagine that you are the North Pole and I am the South Pole – in the middle there's what is called the magnetic equilibrium zone. If you place a compass there, the needle won't move.
Interviewer: You mean that the pull is equal from both sides?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, and that's why it's called zero-magnetism zone, since the magnetic force has no effect there. That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier, and is less affected by Earth's gravity. That's why when you circle the Ka'ba, you get charged with energy.
Interviewer: Allah be praised.
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, this is a fact.
This is a scientific fact…
Interviewer: Because you are distant from…
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Earth's magnetic fields have no effect on you in this case.
There's a study that proves that the black basalt rocks in Mecca are the oldest rocks in the world. This is the truth.
Interviewer: The oldest rocks? Yes. Has this been proved scientifically?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It's been scientifically proven, and the study has been published.
Interviewer: They took basalt rocks from Mecca…
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: …Basalt rocks from Mecca, and investigated the places where they were formed.
In the British Museum there are three pieces of the black stone [from the Ka'ba] …and they said that this rock didn't come from our solar system.
Astonishing, indeed.
Is It Too Much To Ask For The Truth?
Apparently so. Check out comments here, here, and here to get a flavor of the mainstream media's reaction to Eason Jordan's resignation. They appear upset that a group of bloggers (shudder theatrically) tried to bring down someone important like CNN's Eason Jordan. Their attitude can be summed up by: "Who the hell do you bloggers think you are?!?!"
Well, who do we have to be? I was under the impression that this is a free country and that people can say what they please (perfect example: Michael Moore and his loyal followers have been saying not very nice things about Bush for several years now, but I don't see the MSM calling them a "lynch mob". Perhaps the difference is that he does not have..oh, what's the word...TRUTH on his side??)
What I saw in the blogsphere was outrage at the reports of what Jordan said at Davos; tempered by a desire on the part of most bloggers (not all) to see the actual videotape of the comments to support their conclusion that Jordan spoken inappropriately. After all, it was two DEMOCRATS that first expressed outrage (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) and they were present when the remarks were made. Was it any wonder that the blogsphere leaped to the conclusion that if Frank and Dodd thought the remarks were outrageous, then they must be well beyond the pale?
Reporting Frank's and Dodd's reactions, along with a number of other very appropriate journalistic follow-ups (e.g., getting Gergen's and other eyewitnesses to comment) on the part of the blogsphere led to the perfectly reasonable demand that the tapes be made public so as to clear up any discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies. All this was quickly reported and discussed in the blogsphere; but for some mysterious reason was not deemed "news" by the MSM until quite a few days had elapsed.
But no matter, ALL DISCUSSION OF EASON JORDAN WOULD HAVE STOPPED IF THE VIDEOTAPE OF JORDAN'S COMMENTS HAD BEEN RELEASED AND IT HAD BEEN SHOWN THAT HE (1) DID NOT SAY WHAT WAS REPORTED; (2) WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT; (3) IMMEDIATELY RETRACTED OR BACKED OFF FROM THE COMMENTS AS REPORTED. Interestingly, the tapes will never be released. Why, I wonder?? Inquiring minds want to know what precisely was on the tape, wouldn't you think? Wouldn't the truth stop all this blogsphere hysteria of making a mountain out of a molehill?? Or, just maybe it might expose the whole flap for the mountain it is, rather than the molehill that the MSM would like it to be.
And, don't you think it is telling that Jordan resigned without releasing the tape? Bill Roggio succinctly points out:
I am of the belief that the content of this tape is even worse than expected. The accounts of Mr. Jordan's reactions are likely to be correct; but the damning information may be the reaction of the audience. If the audience reaction is as anti-American as Davos attendee Rony Abovitz described, the American public may be quite upset indeed with Eason Jordan, and by default, CNN for knowingly employing a person that recklessly encourages such anti-American sentiment. (emphasis mine)
Yes. I am of the same opinion.
Well, who do we have to be? I was under the impression that this is a free country and that people can say what they please (perfect example: Michael Moore and his loyal followers have been saying not very nice things about Bush for several years now, but I don't see the MSM calling them a "lynch mob". Perhaps the difference is that he does not have..oh, what's the word...TRUTH on his side??)
What I saw in the blogsphere was outrage at the reports of what Jordan said at Davos; tempered by a desire on the part of most bloggers (not all) to see the actual videotape of the comments to support their conclusion that Jordan spoken inappropriately. After all, it was two DEMOCRATS that first expressed outrage (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) and they were present when the remarks were made. Was it any wonder that the blogsphere leaped to the conclusion that if Frank and Dodd thought the remarks were outrageous, then they must be well beyond the pale?
Reporting Frank's and Dodd's reactions, along with a number of other very appropriate journalistic follow-ups (e.g., getting Gergen's and other eyewitnesses to comment) on the part of the blogsphere led to the perfectly reasonable demand that the tapes be made public so as to clear up any discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies. All this was quickly reported and discussed in the blogsphere; but for some mysterious reason was not deemed "news" by the MSM until quite a few days had elapsed.
But no matter, ALL DISCUSSION OF EASON JORDAN WOULD HAVE STOPPED IF THE VIDEOTAPE OF JORDAN'S COMMENTS HAD BEEN RELEASED AND IT HAD BEEN SHOWN THAT HE (1) DID NOT SAY WHAT WAS REPORTED; (2) WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT; (3) IMMEDIATELY RETRACTED OR BACKED OFF FROM THE COMMENTS AS REPORTED. Interestingly, the tapes will never be released. Why, I wonder?? Inquiring minds want to know what precisely was on the tape, wouldn't you think? Wouldn't the truth stop all this blogsphere hysteria of making a mountain out of a molehill?? Or, just maybe it might expose the whole flap for the mountain it is, rather than the molehill that the MSM would like it to be.
And, don't you think it is telling that Jordan resigned without releasing the tape? Bill Roggio succinctly points out:
I am of the belief that the content of this tape is even worse than expected. The accounts of Mr. Jordan's reactions are likely to be correct; but the damning information may be the reaction of the audience. If the audience reaction is as anti-American as Davos attendee Rony Abovitz described, the American public may be quite upset indeed with Eason Jordan, and by default, CNN for knowingly employing a person that recklessly encourages such anti-American sentiment. (emphasis mine)
Yes. I am of the same opinion.
Nothing But Forgotton
Mohammed at Iraq the Model has an exuberant post about the election results from Iraq yesterday. He talks about his own candidacy and his pride in the election process, even though he didn't win. It is well worth your time to read. Mohammed concludes:
Generally speaking, all politicians realize the role of the United States and the coalition forces in protecting the new born democracy and most of the major players realize the necessity of a strategic partnership with the United States for the good of Iraq and for the success of the war on terror.
The event of elections in Iraq was a huge turning point in the history of the region and Iraqis and their political parties have proved-despite the lack of experience-that they can do well and show high performance in a process of change that represents the first signs of a bright future for this country and the Middle east.
No one will stop the train of democracy and those who stand against the change will soon be nothing but forgotten.
And in this country, let us also forget the Kerry's, Kennedy's, Boxers and so many on the political Left who stood firmly against democracy and who even as the Iraqi people risked their lives to vote--minimized, downplayed and underhyped the process so that they could proceed with their own aggrandizement.
And even if they don't permit us to forget them, we can rest assured that they will be forgotten by history.
Generally speaking, all politicians realize the role of the United States and the coalition forces in protecting the new born democracy and most of the major players realize the necessity of a strategic partnership with the United States for the good of Iraq and for the success of the war on terror.
The event of elections in Iraq was a huge turning point in the history of the region and Iraqis and their political parties have proved-despite the lack of experience-that they can do well and show high performance in a process of change that represents the first signs of a bright future for this country and the Middle east.
No one will stop the train of democracy and those who stand against the change will soon be nothing but forgotten.
And in this country, let us also forget the Kerry's, Kennedy's, Boxers and so many on the political Left who stood firmly against democracy and who even as the Iraqi people risked their lives to vote--minimized, downplayed and underhyped the process so that they could proceed with their own aggrandizement.
And even if they don't permit us to forget them, we can rest assured that they will be forgotten by history.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Happy Valentine's Day
The History Channel has a good summary of the history of Valentine's Day, and its mysterious origins. It has always been one of my favorite holidays.
The oldest known valentine still in existence today was a poem written by Charles, Duke of Orleans to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following his capture at the Battle of Agincourt. The greeting, which was written in 1415, is part of the manuscript collection of the British Library in London, England. Several years later, it is believed that King Henry V hired a writer named John Lydgate to compose a valentine note to Catherine of Valois.
And here is an interesting piece on the science of love and attraction.
And even on this day that has come to celebrate love, one can count on some religious morons to find a way to nix any normal expression of love or happiness. What is it with these guys? They put women in shapeless, sexless, identity-less burkhas because they are afraid of women's sexual appetites; and they even ban flowers that are colored red. These guys have very serious problems with their masculinity.
Well, my husband bought me a dozen roses (pink and red); some chocolate-dipped strawberries; and is taking me out to a fancy-schmancy place for dinner tonight to celebrate. Just about anything might happen next...so see ya tomorrow!
HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!
The oldest known valentine still in existence today was a poem written by Charles, Duke of Orleans to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following his capture at the Battle of Agincourt. The greeting, which was written in 1415, is part of the manuscript collection of the British Library in London, England. Several years later, it is believed that King Henry V hired a writer named John Lydgate to compose a valentine note to Catherine of Valois.
And here is an interesting piece on the science of love and attraction.
And even on this day that has come to celebrate love, one can count on some religious morons to find a way to nix any normal expression of love or happiness. What is it with these guys? They put women in shapeless, sexless, identity-less burkhas because they are afraid of women's sexual appetites; and they even ban flowers that are colored red. These guys have very serious problems with their masculinity.
Well, my husband bought me a dozen roses (pink and red); some chocolate-dipped strawberries; and is taking me out to a fancy-schmancy place for dinner tonight to celebrate. Just about anything might happen next...so see ya tomorrow!
HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!
Dancing with Lady Liberty
More analysis of why the Left has abandoned all its former principles (if they ever had any besides the acquisition of power) and chosen to embrace tyranny and support anti-Americanism wherever they find it. Ross Terril in the Boston Globe proposes that they have switched dancing partners and are no longer dancing with Lady Liberty: (hat tip: Instapundit)
DEMOCRACY IS FRIEND to the common man and authoritarianism is a crutch for millionaires with a villa in Italy -- right? Maybe no longer. Lady Liberty has acquired a new dancing partner. Politics in both Europe and the United States have unhitched the left from its trusted partner, democracy. American liberals now often spurn blue collar opinion that is democracy's fuel. They mostly reject global idealism that is liberty's post-communism vocation. This has allowed a Republican president to make democracy his cause. On the dance floor of the 21st century, the right embraces Lady Liberty.
A very interesting piece that I urge you to read. Someone in an email asked me why I am spending/wasting so much time dissecting the Left. It's a good question, and here's my answer.
I believe that the greatest threat in the world today is rampant Islamofascism and the terrorism they use to achieve their goal--worldwide tyranny in the name of religion. Those on the Left have allied themselves with the Islamofascists--some deliberately and consciously, understanding that the goals of the two movements have been similar all along; some unconsciously because they are unwilling to believe that their original premises ALWAYS enabled Evil and Tyranny.
Either way--deliberately or not--the Left is actively working to further the Islamofascist's agenda. The genius of George W. Bush is that his policies have made this obvious to the average American for the first time since the 60's. Instead of mere rhetoric about Freedom, Bush has acted andactually freed millions--he has taken the Left's "talking points"and shield away from them and exposed them for the hypocrites they have always been.
The Left has never taken responsibility for the millions of people killed and enslaved in the name of Communism and Socialism in the last century. They have hardly blinked an eye at the misery their theories have caused. They actually still believe that their ideas support the common man and enhance freedom. They see no moral difference between defending against terrorism and the terrorism itself. They are morally, intellectually, and spiritually bankrupt and have decided that an alliance with the terrorists is their last best way to achieve the power they have always desired and which has always been at the root of their theories. They have made a strategic mistake in their new alliance, because the superior nihlism of the Islamofascists will devour them when and if they succede in their plans for humanity--but that point is neither here nor there.
Although they are weakened by historical events over the last 20 years, the Left still has considerable power in the U.S. and other Western countries. By exposing their motives and their tactics, I like to think that I am doing my small share in the War on Terror.
To those who innocently embrace the Left and mistakenly believe that the U.S. is the greatest threat to Freedom in the world: WAKE UP AND SEE WHAT YOUR SIDE IS REALLY SUPPORTING. STOP ENABLING TERROR AND TYRANNY. STOP BEING A USEFUL IDIOT IN THIS NEW CENTURY.
In the name of the best within you, change partners and dance with Lady Liberty.
DEMOCRACY IS FRIEND to the common man and authoritarianism is a crutch for millionaires with a villa in Italy -- right? Maybe no longer. Lady Liberty has acquired a new dancing partner. Politics in both Europe and the United States have unhitched the left from its trusted partner, democracy. American liberals now often spurn blue collar opinion that is democracy's fuel. They mostly reject global idealism that is liberty's post-communism vocation. This has allowed a Republican president to make democracy his cause. On the dance floor of the 21st century, the right embraces Lady Liberty.
A very interesting piece that I urge you to read. Someone in an email asked me why I am spending/wasting so much time dissecting the Left. It's a good question, and here's my answer.
I believe that the greatest threat in the world today is rampant Islamofascism and the terrorism they use to achieve their goal--worldwide tyranny in the name of religion. Those on the Left have allied themselves with the Islamofascists--some deliberately and consciously, understanding that the goals of the two movements have been similar all along; some unconsciously because they are unwilling to believe that their original premises ALWAYS enabled Evil and Tyranny.
Either way--deliberately or not--the Left is actively working to further the Islamofascist's agenda. The genius of George W. Bush is that his policies have made this obvious to the average American for the first time since the 60's. Instead of mere rhetoric about Freedom, Bush has acted andactually freed millions--he has taken the Left's "talking points"and shield away from them and exposed them for the hypocrites they have always been.
The Left has never taken responsibility for the millions of people killed and enslaved in the name of Communism and Socialism in the last century. They have hardly blinked an eye at the misery their theories have caused. They actually still believe that their ideas support the common man and enhance freedom. They see no moral difference between defending against terrorism and the terrorism itself. They are morally, intellectually, and spiritually bankrupt and have decided that an alliance with the terrorists is their last best way to achieve the power they have always desired and which has always been at the root of their theories. They have made a strategic mistake in their new alliance, because the superior nihlism of the Islamofascists will devour them when and if they succede in their plans for humanity--but that point is neither here nor there.
Although they are weakened by historical events over the last 20 years, the Left still has considerable power in the U.S. and other Western countries. By exposing their motives and their tactics, I like to think that I am doing my small share in the War on Terror.
To those who innocently embrace the Left and mistakenly believe that the U.S. is the greatest threat to Freedom in the world: WAKE UP AND SEE WHAT YOUR SIDE IS REALLY SUPPORTING. STOP ENABLING TERROR AND TYRANNY. STOP BEING A USEFUL IDIOT IN THIS NEW CENTURY.
In the name of the best within you, change partners and dance with Lady Liberty.
Weekly Insanity Update
Another Sunday, another roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the moronic and the otherwise unbelievable! Not a comprehensive list by any means this week, but I decided to leave a certain CU Professor, a CNN executive, and a nobody (or is he well-known?) gay/rightwing/porno-connected journalist off the list; so that naturally limited what was available! If you have any items to submit, feel free to email them to me.
1. And the winner in Iraq is....
2. YIKES!
3. I'll bet the human rights people are extremely upset about this!
4. An example of letting the inmates run the asylum?
5. This is a human...errrr...animal tragedy!
6. So what's next? Illegal bellybutton exposure?
7. Don't you hate when you forget to pay a doctor's bill and this happens to you?
8. YAWN.
9. With any luck, this is just someone's idea of a joke.
10. And we should listen to Kofi because....? (Is Iraq safe enough for the UNers? I didn't know.)
11. Bin Laden's Valentine's Day greeting! (hat tip: Betsy's Page)
1. And the winner in Iraq is....
2. YIKES!
3. I'll bet the human rights people are extremely upset about this!
4. An example of letting the inmates run the asylum?
5. This is a human...errrr...animal tragedy!
6. So what's next? Illegal bellybutton exposure?
7. Don't you hate when you forget to pay a doctor's bill and this happens to you?
8. YAWN.
9. With any luck, this is just someone's idea of a joke.
10. And we should listen to Kofi because....? (Is Iraq safe enough for the UNers? I didn't know.)
11. Bin Laden's Valentine's Day greeting! (hat tip: Betsy's Page)
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Gannon Has His Say
If anyone is interested, here's what Mr. Gannon has to say for himself. There seems to be a lot of Lefty outrage at his behavior, which so far seems a lot less problematic than Eason Jordan's.
I'd still like to see the Jordan videotape. If he was misquoted, I'd like to see for myself.
I'd still like to see the Jordan videotape. If he was misquoted, I'd like to see for myself.
Mars Doesn't Need Women
Unlike the movie , it appears that "Mars Doesn't Need Women"--at least according to the Russians.
This week, the director of Russia’s top space medical institute told students that only men should be allowed on the first mission to the Red Planet, because women are too weak to endure the flight's rigors. His comments once again exposed the internal contradictions of a country that put the first woman into space while having the reputation of being the last European bastion of male chauvinism.
How sad that in the 21st century there are so many morons of the male persuasion. I know many men who are "too weak to endure the flight's rigors"; and many women who would be far superior choices for a Mars Mission.
Women pioneers have existed throughout history. Think of Elizabeth Gunn, who with her four children braved the grueling 6 month trip around Cape Horn to California in 1851. Or you could go here, to read the profiles of the many other pioneer women, who--along with men every stage of the way--braved the new frontier of the American West.
Or, how about my own grandmother--Margaret Rizzi--who stowed away at the turn of the last century at the age of 16, and came to New York City, where, knowing not one soul, she established a business of her own and made her way in a new world.
Or you could look no further than Dr. Shannon Lucid, an American Shuttle astronaut since 1979 who served as a Board Engineer 2 on Russia’s Space Station Mir (launching March 22, 1996 aboard STS-76 and returning September 26, 1996 aboard STS-79). Dr. Lucid holds an international record for the most flight hours in orbit by any non-Russian, and holds the record for the most flight hours in orbit by any woman in the world. From February 2002 until September 2003, Dr. Lucid served as NASA’s Chief Scientist stationed at NASA Headquarters, Washington D.C., with responsibility for developing and communicating the agency’s science and research objectives to the outside world.
But hey, why spoil these male fantasies that women are weak and helpless? They make men feel so big and strong and virile and potent--especially when the men are really such pathetic wimps otherwise.
I remember a man pointing out to me that women weren't "cut out to be doctors"; and that "femininity is just the absence of masculinity" (I think he was referring to the fact that men have a "Y" Chromosome and women do not; or maybe he was referring to the somewhat overrated male appendage that is frequently called on to demonstrate some sort of superiority and is magically able to make men as a group better doctors, pilots, and probably garbage collectors and bloggers, too!).
I found it interesting (and hilarious) during my astronaut selection research, that the Russians, who used a stolen copy of the MMPI psychological test (which is proprietary) in their selection process; felt it necessary to change the names of some of the scales of the test. In particular, the "MALE / FEMALE" scale became the "COURAGE / DEPENDENCE" scale. No wonder Russian men feel so superior to women--they just defined it that way. More convenient for them probably.
Isn't it time we stopped this nonsense? Male or female; black or white; whatever. When it comes to space exploration or any other dangerous human endeavor -- only the BEST will survive. I believe there are inherent biological differences between men and women. Just as there are biological differences among individual women and individual men. So what? What counts is that we encourage equal opportunity for the most talented among us in every field--whether they be women or men.
Being the BEST doesn't depend on gender, race, religion, or creed. The factors it does depend on, I submit, women have in the same measure as men.
This week, the director of Russia’s top space medical institute told students that only men should be allowed on the first mission to the Red Planet, because women are too weak to endure the flight's rigors. His comments once again exposed the internal contradictions of a country that put the first woman into space while having the reputation of being the last European bastion of male chauvinism.
How sad that in the 21st century there are so many morons of the male persuasion. I know many men who are "too weak to endure the flight's rigors"; and many women who would be far superior choices for a Mars Mission.
Women pioneers have existed throughout history. Think of Elizabeth Gunn, who with her four children braved the grueling 6 month trip around Cape Horn to California in 1851. Or you could go here, to read the profiles of the many other pioneer women, who--along with men every stage of the way--braved the new frontier of the American West.
Or, how about my own grandmother--Margaret Rizzi--who stowed away at the turn of the last century at the age of 16, and came to New York City, where, knowing not one soul, she established a business of her own and made her way in a new world.
Or you could look no further than Dr. Shannon Lucid, an American Shuttle astronaut since 1979 who served as a Board Engineer 2 on Russia’s Space Station Mir (launching March 22, 1996 aboard STS-76 and returning September 26, 1996 aboard STS-79). Dr. Lucid holds an international record for the most flight hours in orbit by any non-Russian, and holds the record for the most flight hours in orbit by any woman in the world. From February 2002 until September 2003, Dr. Lucid served as NASA’s Chief Scientist stationed at NASA Headquarters, Washington D.C., with responsibility for developing and communicating the agency’s science and research objectives to the outside world.
But hey, why spoil these male fantasies that women are weak and helpless? They make men feel so big and strong and virile and potent--especially when the men are really such pathetic wimps otherwise.
I remember a man pointing out to me that women weren't "cut out to be doctors"; and that "femininity is just the absence of masculinity" (I think he was referring to the fact that men have a "Y" Chromosome and women do not; or maybe he was referring to the somewhat overrated male appendage that is frequently called on to demonstrate some sort of superiority and is magically able to make men as a group better doctors, pilots, and probably garbage collectors and bloggers, too!).
I found it interesting (and hilarious) during my astronaut selection research, that the Russians, who used a stolen copy of the MMPI psychological test (which is proprietary) in their selection process; felt it necessary to change the names of some of the scales of the test. In particular, the "MALE / FEMALE" scale became the "COURAGE / DEPENDENCE" scale. No wonder Russian men feel so superior to women--they just defined it that way. More convenient for them probably.
Isn't it time we stopped this nonsense? Male or female; black or white; whatever. When it comes to space exploration or any other dangerous human endeavor -- only the BEST will survive. I believe there are inherent biological differences between men and women. Just as there are biological differences among individual women and individual men. So what? What counts is that we encourage equal opportunity for the most talented among us in every field--whether they be women or men.
Being the BEST doesn't depend on gender, race, religion, or creed. The factors it does depend on, I submit, women have in the same measure as men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)