[It is Day 5 in the KOTB contest, and I am the woman who would be king! My opponent has had to resort to having his mother plead his case. Let me say that I will never, if elected King, permit the "Mommy Test" to interfere with the kingdom's national security interests! My opponent calls himself a "warmonger"--just another psychological projection. HAH There is still time to vote if you haven't. Thank you for your support during this campaign. It's been great fun!]
I have been identified as a Pretender for the Crown! Dr. Sanity is up for "King of the Blogs"! Clearly they have a gender identification issue, but nonetheless.... (the person who runs the site is named Queen, so maybe that counts!).
At any rate, it is all meant to be fun, but that doesn't mean I won't use every ruthless and cutthroat maneuver at my disposal to win the crown. So, all of you out there who read my blog can go over and VOTE for me, AND if you have a blog, give a trackback ping to the King of Blogs post announcing this week's pretenders.
And may the best woman win! (that narrows down the field!)
Friday, February 25, 2005
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Bring On The Executioners
How's this for achieving Politically Correct Feminist Nirvana? Swedish government bans any opinion that male and female brains are different. (hat tip: The Corner)
The government considers female and male as social constructions, that means gender patterns are created by upbringing, culture, economical conditions, power structures and political ideology.
Apart from taking a position on this scientific question, the government has deiced to side with the most extreme researchers: gene theoreticians who for ideological reasons state that biology can not have any saying in explaining why male and female behaviour differs.
This reminds me about the Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko. Lysenko was by Stalin proclaimed a scientific genius and his "creative darwinism" was hailed as a huge step forward for genetic research. Lysenko argued that learned traits could be inherited and that by manipulating the environment one could easily cause fundamental changes in plants and animals. Career hungry politicians loved him. Ideology meant everything, experiment and science nothing.
The real scientists, who protested, were cleaned out (and executed). (emphasis mine)
Let me just say this once and get it out of my system: Is the entire world going completely insane?
There. I feel better.
Unfortunately, my feeling better does not change the reality that neurobiological research is now being controlled by the government in a country usually considered "scientifically advanced" by the rest of the world. Well, they won't be for long. From this point on they should be considered just another third world, primitive tribe that forbids anything the witch doctor objects to. I am sure all the "victims" of scientific research --all those evil hypotheses and experiments of scientists who think maybe women and men just might be differnt--also feel much better. For now.
This is the politically correct world of the Left and its logical endpoint. Ideology is everything; truth, science, and reason are nothing. There is nothing to stand in their way now!
Bring on the executioners.
UPDATE: Check out here for some salient points about Political Religion.
The government considers female and male as social constructions, that means gender patterns are created by upbringing, culture, economical conditions, power structures and political ideology.
Apart from taking a position on this scientific question, the government has deiced to side with the most extreme researchers: gene theoreticians who for ideological reasons state that biology can not have any saying in explaining why male and female behaviour differs.
This reminds me about the Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko. Lysenko was by Stalin proclaimed a scientific genius and his "creative darwinism" was hailed as a huge step forward for genetic research. Lysenko argued that learned traits could be inherited and that by manipulating the environment one could easily cause fundamental changes in plants and animals. Career hungry politicians loved him. Ideology meant everything, experiment and science nothing.
The real scientists, who protested, were cleaned out (and executed). (emphasis mine)
Let me just say this once and get it out of my system: Is the entire world going completely insane?
There. I feel better.
Unfortunately, my feeling better does not change the reality that neurobiological research is now being controlled by the government in a country usually considered "scientifically advanced" by the rest of the world. Well, they won't be for long. From this point on they should be considered just another third world, primitive tribe that forbids anything the witch doctor objects to. I am sure all the "victims" of scientific research --all those evil hypotheses and experiments of scientists who think maybe women and men just might be differnt--also feel much better. For now.
This is the politically correct world of the Left and its logical endpoint. Ideology is everything; truth, science, and reason are nothing. There is nothing to stand in their way now!
Bring on the executioners.
UPDATE: Check out here for some salient points about Political Religion.
Messages from Earth
Message 1: Earth calling the Mainstream Media!
Read this article about Abu Ali, recently accused of plotting to assassinate the President of the US.
In 1999, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was the valedictorian for the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA), a K-12 school with campuses in Fairfax and Alexandria, Va., that is directly controlled by the Royal Saudi Embassy in Washington.
ISA is dedicated to teaching Wahhabism, the hate-cult that serves as the de facto Saudi state religion. The curriculum: defiance of the authority of "unbeliever" governments, including ours; repudiation of democracy; cultivation of hatred of non-Muslims as well as Muslims who do not follow the fundamentalist Wahhabi creed.
Last year, the Saudi Institute, a dissident human-rights monitoring agency in Washington (saudiinstitute.org), exposed the use at ISA of a textbook for 6-year-olds titled "Monotheism and Islamic Law," which instructs Muslim children, attending first-grade classes, in hatred of Christianity and Judaism.
The textbook is produced by the Saudi Ministry of Education. Ali Al-Ahmed, head of the Saudi Institute, points out that instructors at the school are Saudi government employees.
The first article I read in the local newspaper concerning this story proclaimed in its headline: "Virgina High School Honor Student Arrested for Plotting to Kill President". It seems a looooong stretch to say "Virginia High School Honor Student" and compare that to what is described in the article above, doesn't it?
I am accustomed to the distortions of the MSM, yet when I read that headline, my first thought was surprisingly NOT of a high school that was run by the Saudis (I didn't even know they had such schools in the U.S., and the article did not explain this either); and it was NOT that the high school was even the teensiest bit religious. In fact, I thought (silly me ) exactly what the writer wanted me to think: that a typical American kid, graduating from a typical American high school, in a typical American state, who was very very smart, was arrested for wanting to kill President Bush.
Do you see why I try not to read the regular newspapers anymore?
Message 2: Earth to Democrats!
Meanwhile, back at Mars Central, we have Charles Rangel saying this:
Top House Democrat Charlie Rangel said Tuesday that it was an act of discrimination to label groups like Hezbollah "Islamic terrorists."Asked about the refusal by some European governments to declare Hezbollah an Islamic terror group, Rangel told WWRL's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter, "To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it's bigoted, it is not the right thing to say."
Rangel even questioned whether, in fact, a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement even existed, saying, "We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries."
Personally, I question whether Charlie Rangel exists.
What planet do these people come from?
Read this article about Abu Ali, recently accused of plotting to assassinate the President of the US.
In 1999, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was the valedictorian for the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA), a K-12 school with campuses in Fairfax and Alexandria, Va., that is directly controlled by the Royal Saudi Embassy in Washington.
ISA is dedicated to teaching Wahhabism, the hate-cult that serves as the de facto Saudi state religion. The curriculum: defiance of the authority of "unbeliever" governments, including ours; repudiation of democracy; cultivation of hatred of non-Muslims as well as Muslims who do not follow the fundamentalist Wahhabi creed.
Last year, the Saudi Institute, a dissident human-rights monitoring agency in Washington (saudiinstitute.org), exposed the use at ISA of a textbook for 6-year-olds titled "Monotheism and Islamic Law," which instructs Muslim children, attending first-grade classes, in hatred of Christianity and Judaism.
The textbook is produced by the Saudi Ministry of Education. Ali Al-Ahmed, head of the Saudi Institute, points out that instructors at the school are Saudi government employees.
The first article I read in the local newspaper concerning this story proclaimed in its headline: "Virgina High School Honor Student Arrested for Plotting to Kill President". It seems a looooong stretch to say "Virginia High School Honor Student" and compare that to what is described in the article above, doesn't it?
I am accustomed to the distortions of the MSM, yet when I read that headline, my first thought was surprisingly NOT of a high school that was run by the Saudis (I didn't even know they had such schools in the U.S., and the article did not explain this either); and it was NOT that the high school was even the teensiest bit religious. In fact, I thought (silly me ) exactly what the writer wanted me to think: that a typical American kid, graduating from a typical American high school, in a typical American state, who was very very smart, was arrested for wanting to kill President Bush.
Do you see why I try not to read the regular newspapers anymore?
Message 2: Earth to Democrats!
Meanwhile, back at Mars Central, we have Charles Rangel saying this:
Top House Democrat Charlie Rangel said Tuesday that it was an act of discrimination to label groups like Hezbollah "Islamic terrorists."Asked about the refusal by some European governments to declare Hezbollah an Islamic terror group, Rangel told WWRL's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter, "To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it's bigoted, it is not the right thing to say."
Rangel even questioned whether, in fact, a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement even existed, saying, "We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries."
Personally, I question whether Charlie Rangel exists.
What planet do these people come from?
The Truth Revealed!
In the spirit of Mo Hinchey (I have learned so much from this guy, I am humbled), I make the following claims:
Jeremy at The American Warmonger is the man who fired that other gun on the grassy knoll in Dallas on November 22, 1963. He is also the person behind the anthrax scare in 2001. A secret advisor to Vladimir Putin's desire to bring communism back to Russia; has had a White House Press Pass for some years (even though he is only a blogger!); and has secretly sent money to support Ward Churchill!! In fact, he was single-handedly responsible for Churchill getting tenure!
This clearly demonstrates how despicable the man is.
While I have not a shred of proof for any of these claims, I KNOW that Jeremy is behind these awful events and I believe that he should be investigated thoroughly and completely. Only then will the TRUTH be known. And until we prove all the above beyond a shadow of a doubt, the TRUTH will not be known! How do I know this? Well, clearly, this guy has a history going back many years. That says it all for those of you who are clear-thinking and intelligent, like me.
It was very, very, very brave of me to make these claims, don't you think?
It is completely irrelevant that I am competing against this MONSTER for King of the Blogs. But surely you will vote for me now that THE TRUTH HAS BEEN REVEALED! (I will be on CNN later today with more documentation, if the producers there get around to calling me).
Jeremy at The American Warmonger is the man who fired that other gun on the grassy knoll in Dallas on November 22, 1963. He is also the person behind the anthrax scare in 2001. A secret advisor to Vladimir Putin's desire to bring communism back to Russia; has had a White House Press Pass for some years (even though he is only a blogger!); and has secretly sent money to support Ward Churchill!! In fact, he was single-handedly responsible for Churchill getting tenure!
This clearly demonstrates how despicable the man is.
While I have not a shred of proof for any of these claims, I KNOW that Jeremy is behind these awful events and I believe that he should be investigated thoroughly and completely. Only then will the TRUTH be known. And until we prove all the above beyond a shadow of a doubt, the TRUTH will not be known! How do I know this? Well, clearly, this guy has a history going back many years. That says it all for those of you who are clear-thinking and intelligent, like me.
It was very, very, very brave of me to make these claims, don't you think?
It is completely irrelevant that I am competing against this MONSTER for King of the Blogs. But surely you will vote for me now that THE TRUTH HAS BEEN REVEALED! (I will be on CNN later today with more documentation, if the producers there get around to calling me).
DARFUR - NO EXCUSE
Read Nicholas Kristof's article.
During past genocides against Armenians, Jews and Cambodians, it was possible to claim that we didn't fully know what was going on. This time, President Bush, Congress and the European Parliament have already declared genocide to be under way. And we have photos.
This time, we have no excuse.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Giving A Press Pass
Neo-neocon, a new blog that I really like (maybe because she's articulate and in the mental health field like myself!) has some interesting thoughts on a "phrase whose time has come" - i.e., "Press Pass" (and no, I don't mean the kind that Jeff Gannon and the White House Press people get). Here is her definition:
the strategic spiking of a story that, if properly investigated, would be likely to reflect poorly on someone the MSM considers a friend or a good guy.
Let's see. How many "press passes" can you identify? Neo-neocon mentions just two:
1. "The NY Times gave a press pass to Eason Jordan for his Davos remarks."
2. "The MSM gave a press pass to John Kerry on his failure to sign a form 180."
Here are a few of mine:
3. "The media gave a press pass to John Kerry on his 'Christmas in Cambodia' story."
4. "The UN Oil-for-Food Scandal has mostly received a press pass by the international media."
5. "All the good news in Iraq gets a press pass in the Mainstream media."
6. "Any news from Afghanistan gets a press pass in the Mainstream media."
I definitely think she's correct--this is a word whose time has come. Any other examples that you can think of, feel free to leave in the comments!
the strategic spiking of a story that, if properly investigated, would be likely to reflect poorly on someone the MSM considers a friend or a good guy.
Let's see. How many "press passes" can you identify? Neo-neocon mentions just two:
1. "The NY Times gave a press pass to Eason Jordan for his Davos remarks."
2. "The MSM gave a press pass to John Kerry on his failure to sign a form 180."
Here are a few of mine:
3. "The media gave a press pass to John Kerry on his 'Christmas in Cambodia' story."
4. "The UN Oil-for-Food Scandal has mostly received a press pass by the international media."
5. "All the good news in Iraq gets a press pass in the Mainstream media."
6. "Any news from Afghanistan gets a press pass in the Mainstream media."
I definitely think she's correct--this is a word whose time has come. Any other examples that you can think of, feel free to leave in the comments!
Domino Theory
The dominos begin to fall:
The leader of this Lebanese intifada [for independence from Syria] is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus...
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it." (emphasis mine)
The new Berlin Wall! This is definitely getting exciting!
The leader of this Lebanese intifada [for independence from Syria] is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus...
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it." (emphasis mine)
The new Berlin Wall! This is definitely getting exciting!
The Ex-Girlfriend
Mark Steyn makes an amazingly accurate assessment of the U.S. relationship with Europe:
But, in the broader sense vis-à-vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there's no substance that can be changed, what's to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you're still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that's never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six – make that 10 – months and do the whole hey-isn't-it-terrific-the-way-we're-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn't care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he's a total loser.
World leaders are always most expansive when there's least at stake: the Queen's Christmas message to the Commonwealth is the ne plus ultra of this basic rule. In Her Majesty's beloved Commonwealth family, talking about enduring ties became a substitute for having them.
That's the salient feature of transatlantic dialogue since 9/11: it's become Commonwealth-esque - all airy assertions about common values, ties of history, all meaningless. Even Donald Rumsfeld is doing it.
This is sad, but true. Although NATO will hang around for a while, Europe is old history now for us. Our external problems with Islamic fundamentalism are its internal problems (as Steyn indicates in the article). They just haven't figured that out yet.
Soon European states will be immersed in an internal battle that even if the U.S. wanted to, it would not be able to help them with--except insofar as our larger strategy to transform the Middle East into an enclave of democracy may ultimately be helpful.
Like the girl who dumped the guy because she felt she had a better deal with someone else; Europe may have to come to terms with its own opportunistic and fairly self-destructive psychology -- a psychology that has brought about a casual acceptance of the welfare state and the unrelenting pursuit of socialist economic and political solutions, despite their catastrophic local history-- before it can have a meaningful relationship with anyone, especially the U.S.
Meanwhile, we can remain "good friends". Let's do lunch.
But, in the broader sense vis-à-vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there's no substance that can be changed, what's to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you're still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that's never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six – make that 10 – months and do the whole hey-isn't-it-terrific-the-way-we're-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn't care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he's a total loser.
World leaders are always most expansive when there's least at stake: the Queen's Christmas message to the Commonwealth is the ne plus ultra of this basic rule. In Her Majesty's beloved Commonwealth family, talking about enduring ties became a substitute for having them.
That's the salient feature of transatlantic dialogue since 9/11: it's become Commonwealth-esque - all airy assertions about common values, ties of history, all meaningless. Even Donald Rumsfeld is doing it.
This is sad, but true. Although NATO will hang around for a while, Europe is old history now for us. Our external problems with Islamic fundamentalism are its internal problems (as Steyn indicates in the article). They just haven't figured that out yet.
Soon European states will be immersed in an internal battle that even if the U.S. wanted to, it would not be able to help them with--except insofar as our larger strategy to transform the Middle East into an enclave of democracy may ultimately be helpful.
Like the girl who dumped the guy because she felt she had a better deal with someone else; Europe may have to come to terms with its own opportunistic and fairly self-destructive psychology -- a psychology that has brought about a casual acceptance of the welfare state and the unrelenting pursuit of socialist economic and political solutions, despite their catastrophic local history-- before it can have a meaningful relationship with anyone, especially the U.S.
Meanwhile, we can remain "good friends". Let's do lunch.
All For Fun, and Fun For All! (BUMP 3)
[BUMP 3: Thanks to all who have gone over to vote for me and for the Trackbacks! It's not too late--GO VOTE!]
I have been identified as a Pretender for the Crown! Dr. Sanity is up for "King of the Blogs"! Clearly they have a gender identification issue, but nonetheless.... (the person who runs the site is named Queen, so maybe that counts!). At any rate, it is all meant to be fun, but that doesn't mean I won't use every ruthless and cutthroat maneuver at my disposal to win the crown.
So, all of you out there who read my blog can go over and VOTE for me, AND if you have a blog, give a trackback ping to the King of Blogs post announcing this week's pretenders.
And may the best woman win! (that narrows down the field!)
I have been identified as a Pretender for the Crown! Dr. Sanity is up for "King of the Blogs"! Clearly they have a gender identification issue, but nonetheless.... (the person who runs the site is named Queen, so maybe that counts!). At any rate, it is all meant to be fun, but that doesn't mean I won't use every ruthless and cutthroat maneuver at my disposal to win the crown.
So, all of you out there who read my blog can go over and VOTE for me, AND if you have a blog, give a trackback ping to the King of Blogs post announcing this week's pretenders.
And may the best woman win! (that narrows down the field!)
King of Blogs Challenge: Mystery Bloggers !
As part of the "King of the Blogs" competition, I have to answer the following challenge question:
"Assemble a group of bloggers to be a Superhero team. Explain their powers, and who they will be fighting, and why."
Have you ever seen the movie Mystery Men ? (It's very funny, even if Janeane Garafolo is in it!) Well, along those lines, my Superhero Team shall be called "The Mystery Bloggers"!
The Therapist
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Psychological Insight is the Therapist - Dr. Sanity , who with her ascerbic wit and trenchant psychological interpretations of their behavior, always leaves her enemies struck dumb with self-awareness and humility(and as a side-effect, the men's auxilliary appendages become withered and impotent). Psychological insight is a powerful weapon and it must be used with the utmost reason and logic against those who would try to destroy the good--whether consciously or unconsciously!
The Voice
Fighting for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves is Songstress7 from News from the Great Beyond! Her voice is her secret weapon, and with it she can break the crystal silence that threatens to engulf the helpless. With her to speak for them, the sick and downtrodden need have no fear from the forces of death and indignity. (She has even been known to watch episodes of ER so that her vocal weapon can be honed to scalpel sharpness).
Ogre
By typing a secret Randian text into a special computer, this mild-mannered guy is instantly transformed into the Hulk of the Blogsphere (with Ragnar Danneskjold overtones!). The Ogre over at Ogre's Politics and Views is as much known for his reasoning abilities as he is for his brute strength and fierecness.He fights looters on his own violent terms! His battle is against the ignorant armies of the night; and he uses his ogre-sense, sharpened by computer know-how, to bring the enemies of civilization into submission!
Underdog
Pietro at The Smarter Cop is Underdog, the defender of the downtrodden, perrenial losers of the world. He singlehandedly was responsible for an amazing victory over a diabolical and ancient evil, slowly devouring the world, that found its home in New York. Underdog's secret weapon is his magic bat, a talisman discovered in the ruins of a house Babe Ruth once lived in. With his magic bat, Underdog is able to champion the American Way and bring hope to even the most hopeless of the wretched!
The Mystery Bloggers will be holding tryouts for their Superhero Team next Saturday. Email The Therapist for an appointment!
"Assemble a group of bloggers to be a Superhero team. Explain their powers, and who they will be fighting, and why."
Have you ever seen the movie Mystery Men ? (It's very funny, even if Janeane Garafolo is in it!) Well, along those lines, my Superhero Team shall be called "The Mystery Bloggers"!
The Therapist
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Psychological Insight is the Therapist - Dr. Sanity , who with her ascerbic wit and trenchant psychological interpretations of their behavior, always leaves her enemies struck dumb with self-awareness and humility(and as a side-effect, the men's auxilliary appendages become withered and impotent). Psychological insight is a powerful weapon and it must be used with the utmost reason and logic against those who would try to destroy the good--whether consciously or unconsciously!
The Voice
Fighting for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves is Songstress7 from News from the Great Beyond! Her voice is her secret weapon, and with it she can break the crystal silence that threatens to engulf the helpless. With her to speak for them, the sick and downtrodden need have no fear from the forces of death and indignity. (She has even been known to watch episodes of ER so that her vocal weapon can be honed to scalpel sharpness).
Ogre
By typing a secret Randian text into a special computer, this mild-mannered guy is instantly transformed into the Hulk of the Blogsphere (with Ragnar Danneskjold overtones!). The Ogre over at Ogre's Politics and Views is as much known for his reasoning abilities as he is for his brute strength and fierecness.He fights looters on his own violent terms! His battle is against the ignorant armies of the night; and he uses his ogre-sense, sharpened by computer know-how, to bring the enemies of civilization into submission!
Underdog
Pietro at The Smarter Cop is Underdog, the defender of the downtrodden, perrenial losers of the world. He singlehandedly was responsible for an amazing victory over a diabolical and ancient evil, slowly devouring the world, that found its home in New York. Underdog's secret weapon is his magic bat, a talisman discovered in the ruins of a house Babe Ruth once lived in. With his magic bat, Underdog is able to champion the American Way and bring hope to even the most hopeless of the wretched!
The Mystery Bloggers will be holding tryouts for their Superhero Team next Saturday. Email The Therapist for an appointment!
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Smart Women, Dumb Behavior
Now the Yale feminists are getting into the act.
In an attempt to pull Yale President Richard Levin into the national debate about women in science, more than 100 female scientists at the University have signed a petition asking Levin to respond publicly to Harvard President Lawrence Summers' recent controversial statements.
The petition, organized by the Graduate Employees and Students Organization, calls for Levin to reject Summers' statement that the small number of female scientists compared to male scientists in academia may be a result of natural differences in aptitude, organizer Rachael Jackman GRD '07 said.
How can so many smart women behave so stupidly? Here is a transcript of Summer's statements. If they can determine from this transcript that Summers said anything of an unscientific or unreasonable nature, I'll be a monkey's uncle (or aunt).
The man was asked to challenge and provoke the thinking of his audience and his remarks were intellectually challenging and well within the bounds of scientific discourse. But I guess that's the point really, isn't it? Having your dogma challenged by scientific hypotheses that might prove it wrong if tested--is very threatening and scary. Better not to allow anyone to even conceive of a hypothetical that could lead in that direction.
Here's a good defense of everything Summers said; and more here if you are so inclined.
Grow up, girls, and stop playing the victim. You a merely offering behavioral case studies for your real detractors to exploit.
The cult of female victimhood (otherwise known as thet today's feminist movement) truly embarasses me.
In an attempt to pull Yale President Richard Levin into the national debate about women in science, more than 100 female scientists at the University have signed a petition asking Levin to respond publicly to Harvard President Lawrence Summers' recent controversial statements.
The petition, organized by the Graduate Employees and Students Organization, calls for Levin to reject Summers' statement that the small number of female scientists compared to male scientists in academia may be a result of natural differences in aptitude, organizer Rachael Jackman GRD '07 said.
How can so many smart women behave so stupidly? Here is a transcript of Summer's statements. If they can determine from this transcript that Summers said anything of an unscientific or unreasonable nature, I'll be a monkey's uncle (or aunt).
The man was asked to challenge and provoke the thinking of his audience and his remarks were intellectually challenging and well within the bounds of scientific discourse. But I guess that's the point really, isn't it? Having your dogma challenged by scientific hypotheses that might prove it wrong if tested--is very threatening and scary. Better not to allow anyone to even conceive of a hypothetical that could lead in that direction.
Here's a good defense of everything Summers said; and more here if you are so inclined.
Grow up, girls, and stop playing the victim. You a merely offering behavioral case studies for your real detractors to exploit.
The cult of female victimhood (otherwise known as thet today's feminist movement) truly embarasses me.
Outsurgents and Other Random Thoughts
As usual, Thomas Sowell has a great "Random Thoughts" column up today:
How can you be an "insurgent" in someone else's country? Yet despite the fact that the wave of terrorism in Iraq is led by an outside terrorist who is murdering Iraqis, our media still calls his terror campaign an "insurgency."
Maybe we should call them "outsurgents", or possibly just "terrorists"? Read all of Sowell's random thoughts--you'll be glad you did!
How can you be an "insurgent" in someone else's country? Yet despite the fact that the wave of terrorism in Iraq is led by an outside terrorist who is murdering Iraqis, our media still calls his terror campaign an "insurgency."
Maybe we should call them "outsurgents", or possibly just "terrorists"? Read all of Sowell's random thoughts--you'll be glad you did!
End of Story
In some circles it is common to blame suicide on forces external to the person who killed themselves. Often the suicidal person will leave a note blaming such and such a person in their life for the fact that they are now choosing to commit suicide. It is, of course, the ultimate revenge. Revenge from beyond death on those who incurred their wrath in life.
So it is with Hunter Thompson, the late gonzo journalist who committed suicide. As a friend of mine comments, "this alcohol-swilling, druggie kills himself, and the papers blame it on Bush."
Indeed.
There is only one person to blame for the loser known as Hunter Thompson--who was in my opinion a second-rater at best; and that person was Hunter Thompson. And that should be the end of the story.
So it is with Hunter Thompson, the late gonzo journalist who committed suicide. As a friend of mine comments, "this alcohol-swilling, druggie kills himself, and the papers blame it on Bush."
Indeed.
There is only one person to blame for the loser known as Hunter Thompson--who was in my opinion a second-rater at best; and that person was Hunter Thompson. And that should be the end of the story.
Free Arash and Mojtaba
Today is Global Blogger Action Day, and all bloggers are being called on to give visibility to the plight of Iranian bloggers Arash Sigarchi and Mojtaba Saminejad, both in prison in Iran because of their blogging.
Blogs are free sites through which people publish thoughts and opinions. Iranian authorities have been clamping down on prominent sites for some time, since they threaten the total control of the repressive regime of the mullahs.
The former Soviet Union found it necessary to squelch the use of computers and the budding internet for the same reason. You cannot have a closed society if people have free access to ideas, thoughts and opinions.
FREE ARASH AND MOJTABA NOW
And here are three Iranian blogs to keep you updated on what is going on inside with those who want a democratic society:
Student Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran
Democracy for Iran
Regime Change Iran
Spread the word.
Blogs are free sites through which people publish thoughts and opinions. Iranian authorities have been clamping down on prominent sites for some time, since they threaten the total control of the repressive regime of the mullahs.
The former Soviet Union found it necessary to squelch the use of computers and the budding internet for the same reason. You cannot have a closed society if people have free access to ideas, thoughts and opinions.
FREE ARASH AND MOJTABA NOW
And here are three Iranian blogs to keep you updated on what is going on inside with those who want a democratic society:
Student Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran
Democracy for Iran
Regime Change Iran
Spread the word.
Monday, February 21, 2005
More Paranoia on the Left
Wow! It's an epidemic! Now we have Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez saying that Bush is out to kill him!(hat tip: Captain's Quarters)
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said he believes the US government is planning to assassinate him.
"If they kill me, the name of the person responsible is [President] George Bush," Mr Chavez said.
Mr Chavez - who offered no evidence to back his claim - said any attempt on his life would backfire and threatened to cut off oil supplies to America.
He was apparently reacting to growing criticism by top US officials of his left-wing government.
As I have said all along, when an individual or group continually uses the psychological defense mechanism of "Projection", it is not unusual for it to completely degenerate into full-blown psychotic paranoia. Chavez, along with Congressman Hinchey, are now just two more datapoints in the compelling evidence trail that proves the Left has completely lost their collective mind.
Sad.
UPDATE: More blatant paranoia here (scroll down to the comments, where he says
I don't think we'll ever have definitive proof about this claim, but there is an ally in Congress should anyone want to keep digging. The more we continue to track down the Gannon stuff, the more that all the other balls of yarn are going to unravel).
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said he believes the US government is planning to assassinate him.
"If they kill me, the name of the person responsible is [President] George Bush," Mr Chavez said.
Mr Chavez - who offered no evidence to back his claim - said any attempt on his life would backfire and threatened to cut off oil supplies to America.
He was apparently reacting to growing criticism by top US officials of his left-wing government.
As I have said all along, when an individual or group continually uses the psychological defense mechanism of "Projection", it is not unusual for it to completely degenerate into full-blown psychotic paranoia. Chavez, along with Congressman Hinchey, are now just two more datapoints in the compelling evidence trail that proves the Left has completely lost their collective mind.
Sad.
UPDATE: More blatant paranoia here (scroll down to the comments, where he says
I don't think we'll ever have definitive proof about this claim, but there is an ally in Congress should anyone want to keep digging. The more we continue to track down the Gannon stuff, the more that all the other balls of yarn are going to unravel).
Spreading Liberty
Here is a pretty impressive speech by President Bush today in Brussels, in which he once agin lays out his vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East as a strategy for long-term peace and security. He talks about Israel and the Palestinians; Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Ukraine and emphasizes the common heritage of liberty that both the U.S. and Europe possess that will continue to make them allies to further freedom:
This strategy is not American strategy, or European strategy, or Western strategy. Spreading liberty for the sake of peace is the cause of all mankind. This approach not only reduces a danger to free peoples; it honors the dignity of all peoples, by placing human rights and human freedom at the center of our agenda. And our alliance has the ability, and the duty, to tip the balance of history in favor of freedom.
We know there are many obstacles, and we know the road is long. Albert Camus said that, "Freedom is a long-distance race." We're in that race for the duration -- and there is reason for optimism. Oppression is not the wave of the future; it is the desperate tactic of a few backward-looking men. Democratic nations grow in strength because they reward and respect the creative gifts of their people. And freedom is the direction of history, because freedom is the permanent hope of humanity.
If you read the entire speech, you will see that Bush is conciliatory to the Europeans, but is not backing down one inch on American policy in any area. Bravo!
UPDATE: An extended discussion of the speech is up at New Sisyphus: "Our Man in Brussels"
This strategy is not American strategy, or European strategy, or Western strategy. Spreading liberty for the sake of peace is the cause of all mankind. This approach not only reduces a danger to free peoples; it honors the dignity of all peoples, by placing human rights and human freedom at the center of our agenda. And our alliance has the ability, and the duty, to tip the balance of history in favor of freedom.
We know there are many obstacles, and we know the road is long. Albert Camus said that, "Freedom is a long-distance race." We're in that race for the duration -- and there is reason for optimism. Oppression is not the wave of the future; it is the desperate tactic of a few backward-looking men. Democratic nations grow in strength because they reward and respect the creative gifts of their people. And freedom is the direction of history, because freedom is the permanent hope of humanity.
If you read the entire speech, you will see that Bush is conciliatory to the Europeans, but is not backing down one inch on American policy in any area. Bravo!
UPDATE: An extended discussion of the speech is up at New Sisyphus: "Our Man in Brussels"
Games Within Games
An interesting game is being played out right now between Iran and the U.S. as documented here. After reading this, it is hard to take any newsreports from the mainstream media seriously, since it is clear that not much can be taken at face value.
There is real intelligence--in every sense of the word--taking place right now. I'm very glad that we seem to be doing something about Iran's nuclear ambitions. I wonder where this activity will lead?
I'll bet the mullahs are wondering, too.
There is real intelligence--in every sense of the word--taking place right now. I'm very glad that we seem to be doing something about Iran's nuclear ambitions. I wonder where this activity will lead?
I'll bet the mullahs are wondering, too.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
He Feels It Is True; Therefore It Is...
LGF has a full transcript (as well as an audiotape)of a rather bizarre rant by a US Congressman at a community meeting, accusing Karl Rove of planting the CBS memo forgeries:
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY): Well, you know, they are manipulating the media, they did it in the very beginning through intimidation. They would intimidate the people in the, uh, in the press conference. And ... they would ask -- they would allow questions to be asked only of people that they knew were going to ask the right kind of questions, from their point of view. And, you know, that has its effect, had, had its effect on people. People have been -- people in the media have been intimidated. The media has changed in the last four years. People have changed in the last four years. They've had a very very direct, aggressive attack on the, on the media, and the way it's handled. Probably the most flagrant example of that is the way they set up Dan Rather. Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened: it originated with Karl Rove, in my belief, in the White House. They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger. They knew that he had run away from his responsibilties in the Air National Guard in Texas, gone out of the state intentionally for a long period of time. They knew that he had no defense for that period in his life. And so what they did was, expecting that that was going to come up, they accentuated it: they produced papers that made it look even worse. And they -- and they distributed those out to elements of the media. And it was only -- what, like was it CBS? Or whatever, whatever which one Rather works for. They -- the people there -- they finally bought into it, and they, and they aired it. And when they did, they had 'em. They didn't care who did it! All they had to do is to get some element of the media to advance that issue. Based upon the false papers that they produced.
Audience Member: Do you have any evidence for that?
Congressman Hinchey: Yes I do. Once they did that --
Audience: [Murmuring]
Congressman Hinchey: ...once they did that, then it undermined everything else about Bush's draft dodging. Once they were able to say, 'This is false! These papers are not accurate, they're, they're, they're false, they've been falsified.' That had the effect of taking the whole issue away.
Audience Member: So you have evidence that the papers came from the Bush administration?
Congressman Hinchey: No. I -- that's my belief.
Audience Member: OK.
There's more, and I should mention that the audience clapped and cheered this deep thinker on. (and by the way, did I mention that he is a US congressman?? Not someone hospitalized for their paranoid delusions?)
This is the Left's new version of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am". In their view, "I feel it, therefore it is", seems to sum up their entire philosophy of life, as well as the nuances of their "thinking". Evidence or facts are entirely unnecessary.
The congressman and others like him are therefore indistinguishable from the sickest paranoid delusional patients I have seen. And, paranoid patients generally don't accept they are sick or that there is something wrong with their thinking either.
UPDATE: Here's a great post from neo-neocon (who is also a therapist) that discusses the Liberal's dilemma of feeling, instead of thinking.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY): Well, you know, they are manipulating the media, they did it in the very beginning through intimidation. They would intimidate the people in the, uh, in the press conference. And ... they would ask -- they would allow questions to be asked only of people that they knew were going to ask the right kind of questions, from their point of view. And, you know, that has its effect, had, had its effect on people. People have been -- people in the media have been intimidated. The media has changed in the last four years. People have changed in the last four years. They've had a very very direct, aggressive attack on the, on the media, and the way it's handled. Probably the most flagrant example of that is the way they set up Dan Rather. Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened: it originated with Karl Rove, in my belief, in the White House. They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger. They knew that he had run away from his responsibilties in the Air National Guard in Texas, gone out of the state intentionally for a long period of time. They knew that he had no defense for that period in his life. And so what they did was, expecting that that was going to come up, they accentuated it: they produced papers that made it look even worse. And they -- and they distributed those out to elements of the media. And it was only -- what, like was it CBS? Or whatever, whatever which one Rather works for. They -- the people there -- they finally bought into it, and they, and they aired it. And when they did, they had 'em. They didn't care who did it! All they had to do is to get some element of the media to advance that issue. Based upon the false papers that they produced.
Audience Member: Do you have any evidence for that?
Congressman Hinchey: Yes I do. Once they did that --
Audience: [Murmuring]
Congressman Hinchey: ...once they did that, then it undermined everything else about Bush's draft dodging. Once they were able to say, 'This is false! These papers are not accurate, they're, they're, they're false, they've been falsified.' That had the effect of taking the whole issue away.
Audience Member: So you have evidence that the papers came from the Bush administration?
Congressman Hinchey: No. I -- that's my belief.
Audience Member: OK.
There's more, and I should mention that the audience clapped and cheered this deep thinker on. (and by the way, did I mention that he is a US congressman?? Not someone hospitalized for their paranoid delusions?)
This is the Left's new version of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am". In their view, "I feel it, therefore it is", seems to sum up their entire philosophy of life, as well as the nuances of their "thinking". Evidence or facts are entirely unnecessary.
The congressman and others like him are therefore indistinguishable from the sickest paranoid delusional patients I have seen. And, paranoid patients generally don't accept they are sick or that there is something wrong with their thinking either.
UPDATE: Here's a great post from neo-neocon (who is also a therapist) that discusses the Liberal's dilemma of feeling, instead of thinking.
Festering Bias
As a voracious reader of both fiction and non-fiction, I found this profoundly disturbing:
In exceptional cases, we find that a lone tale of egregious political correctness opens a window onto the pervasive, often carefully hidden, bias festering in today's academy. Last October, in an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal, I exposed what seemed but a single case of political correctness at Harvard University — the rejection by Harvard University Press of Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher's superb new book, The Case for Marriage. Four months later, it now looks like dislodging one great obscuring rock at Harvard Press allowed the sun to shine in on all manner of squirming, scampering mischief-makers.
When Harvard University Press, under highly unusual circumstances, rejected The Case for Marriage, it claimed that the book wasn't up to scholarly snuff. But the real sin of Waite and Gallagher was to debunk feminist orthodoxy by showing that marriage is not just another lifestyle choice, but the best available family arrangement.
Let me make it very clear that I am not interested one way or another in the particular subject of Kurtz' piece. The so-called "plight" of gays in this society who want to get "married" leaves me unmoved. And that pretty much goes for the rabid anti-gay types, too. In my opinion, the former are just another group of professional victims, and the latter are just another group of legislative thugs.
But the idea of one group or another controlling a university press is appalling. Academia should be the bastion of intellectual inquiry on all sides of a question, whatever that question may be, and no matter how controversial to the Left or the Right. The issue should not be the political correctness of the topic, but the scientific rigor of the discussion. Not the political persuasion of the author, but the intellectual quality of his or her thought.
Kurtz presents a catalog of the thought control exerted by the Harvard University Press editors, who, along with a majority of the Harvard University faculty, have turned what was once a great institution into an intellectual den of second-rate hacks. These guys and gals wouldn't get the point of "free intellectual inquiry" even if it were a baseball bat whacking them on the side of the head. Too bad it isn't.
Read Kurtz' entire dismaying piece. Think about the hundreds (if not thousands) of Ward Churchills on campuses across the US; puzzle over the unbelievable anti-free speech attacks on Larry Summers; consider the current goings-on at Columbia; the campus attacks on military recruiters; the attitudes expressed by academics here; or visit the FIRE website--and you will begin to get an idea of the festering bias that is rotting the intellectual institutions of our country.
Remember, these are the institutions that are supposedly teaching our children to think.
In exceptional cases, we find that a lone tale of egregious political correctness opens a window onto the pervasive, often carefully hidden, bias festering in today's academy. Last October, in an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal, I exposed what seemed but a single case of political correctness at Harvard University — the rejection by Harvard University Press of Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher's superb new book, The Case for Marriage. Four months later, it now looks like dislodging one great obscuring rock at Harvard Press allowed the sun to shine in on all manner of squirming, scampering mischief-makers.
When Harvard University Press, under highly unusual circumstances, rejected The Case for Marriage, it claimed that the book wasn't up to scholarly snuff. But the real sin of Waite and Gallagher was to debunk feminist orthodoxy by showing that marriage is not just another lifestyle choice, but the best available family arrangement.
Let me make it very clear that I am not interested one way or another in the particular subject of Kurtz' piece. The so-called "plight" of gays in this society who want to get "married" leaves me unmoved. And that pretty much goes for the rabid anti-gay types, too. In my opinion, the former are just another group of professional victims, and the latter are just another group of legislative thugs.
But the idea of one group or another controlling a university press is appalling. Academia should be the bastion of intellectual inquiry on all sides of a question, whatever that question may be, and no matter how controversial to the Left or the Right. The issue should not be the political correctness of the topic, but the scientific rigor of the discussion. Not the political persuasion of the author, but the intellectual quality of his or her thought.
Kurtz presents a catalog of the thought control exerted by the Harvard University Press editors, who, along with a majority of the Harvard University faculty, have turned what was once a great institution into an intellectual den of second-rate hacks. These guys and gals wouldn't get the point of "free intellectual inquiry" even if it were a baseball bat whacking them on the side of the head. Too bad it isn't.
Read Kurtz' entire dismaying piece. Think about the hundreds (if not thousands) of Ward Churchills on campuses across the US; puzzle over the unbelievable anti-free speech attacks on Larry Summers; consider the current goings-on at Columbia; the campus attacks on military recruiters; the attitudes expressed by academics here; or visit the FIRE website--and you will begin to get an idea of the festering bias that is rotting the intellectual institutions of our country.
Remember, these are the institutions that are supposedly teaching our children to think.
Weekly Insanity Update
Time for the weekly roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the unbelievable and the downright obnoxious! It is hard to believe, but I don't make these tidbits up--I just collect them. Feel free to send in your favorites! And see if you can figure out which of the above categories each of the stories fit into. I collect, you decide!
1. The drug of choice for those still suffering from the results of Nov. 2!
2. The Curse of the Mommy?
3. No brain, no pain.
4. Death to the tyrant who would deny the peoples the beautiful shoes!
5. Iranian sex change ? What would Allah do?
6. Well, $25 million is an incentive after all....
7. Remember the Beach Boys Song? Maybe if they wish and think and hope and pray it might come true (and then they'd be happy).
8. Sheesh. More shoes! (see #4).
9. And he would stake OUR lives on it, too. I wonder why he's forgotten Beslan?
10. Sentence commuted. A victory of sorts for the anti-death penalty folks?
11. THIS is Free Speech. THIS clearly is not. Ummmmm. I see.
12. It was horrible, Officer! It just attacked and came at me like a wild animal!
1. The drug of choice for those still suffering from the results of Nov. 2!
2. The Curse of the Mommy?
3. No brain, no pain.
4. Death to the tyrant who would deny the peoples the beautiful shoes!
5. Iranian sex change ? What would Allah do?
6. Well, $25 million is an incentive after all....
7. Remember the Beach Boys Song? Maybe if they wish and think and hope and pray it might come true (and then they'd be happy).
8. Sheesh. More shoes! (see #4).
9. And he would stake OUR lives on it, too. I wonder why he's forgotten Beslan?
10. Sentence commuted. A victory of sorts for the anti-death penalty folks?
11. THIS is Free Speech. THIS clearly is not. Ummmmm. I see.
12. It was horrible, Officer! It just attacked and came at me like a wild animal!
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Amazing Stuff
Life on Mars? Maybe not.(hat tip: technudge)
The Web was abuzz this past week when news reports began circulating that a pair of NASA scientists had found possible evidence of life on Mars.
According to a report on Space.com, the scientists told a group of NASA officials that they were preparing a paper on the subject for submission to the journal Nature.
The Space.com report states that what the scientists found "according to several attendees of the private meeting, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity remarkably similar to those recently discovered in caves here on Earth."
But NASA appears to have dashed some cold water on those reports. In a press release issued Friday, the agency states that the published reports are incorrect.
Boy, I would really, really like to see evidence of life on Mars or anywhere else in the galaxy. Can you imagine the impact that definitive proof of this would have on the way people think about life, the universe, and everything?
Remember when the first Apollo mission sent back images of the beautiful blue planet we lived on and stunned the imagination of the world? They say that the environmental movement and the way we think about our planet changed dramatically from that point on. Just imagine the impact of knowing we aren't the only life in the universe? Just imagine if that life were even evolved or sentient.
Amazing stuff.
The Web was abuzz this past week when news reports began circulating that a pair of NASA scientists had found possible evidence of life on Mars.
According to a report on Space.com, the scientists told a group of NASA officials that they were preparing a paper on the subject for submission to the journal Nature.
The Space.com report states that what the scientists found "according to several attendees of the private meeting, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity remarkably similar to those recently discovered in caves here on Earth."
But NASA appears to have dashed some cold water on those reports. In a press release issued Friday, the agency states that the published reports are incorrect.
Boy, I would really, really like to see evidence of life on Mars or anywhere else in the galaxy. Can you imagine the impact that definitive proof of this would have on the way people think about life, the universe, and everything?
Remember when the first Apollo mission sent back images of the beautiful blue planet we lived on and stunned the imagination of the world? They say that the environmental movement and the way we think about our planet changed dramatically from that point on. Just imagine the impact of knowing we aren't the only life in the universe? Just imagine if that life were even evolved or sentient.
Amazing stuff.
Gannonquiddick
Readers might be interested in this article which has the White House press corps' reactions to the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert controversy. (hat tip: Instapundit)
Many on the Left and even a number of commentors on this site have gleefully pointed to Gannon as some sort of example of the inherent evilness of the Bush administration and the failure of his policies. They wish.
For me it is yet another example of the idiocy and cluelessness of the Left and their complete inability to assess what is important and what is not. If it was a security "breach" to have Gannon there, then surely half the White House press corp should be under suspicion. What do we know about their personal lives, for example? And, by extension, what we do know of Ted Kennedy's personal life should automatically disqualify him from being anywhere near the President, right?
But then, the Left isn't really interested in the President's health, now are they?
UPDATE: Power Line is on the case, asking "Have they no shame?" Check out their comments on the situation.
Many on the Left and even a number of commentors on this site have gleefully pointed to Gannon as some sort of example of the inherent evilness of the Bush administration and the failure of his policies. They wish.
For me it is yet another example of the idiocy and cluelessness of the Left and their complete inability to assess what is important and what is not. If it was a security "breach" to have Gannon there, then surely half the White House press corp should be under suspicion. What do we know about their personal lives, for example? And, by extension, what we do know of Ted Kennedy's personal life should automatically disqualify him from being anywhere near the President, right?
But then, the Left isn't really interested in the President's health, now are they?
UPDATE: Power Line is on the case, asking "Have they no shame?" Check out their comments on the situation.
IWO JIMA
60 years ago today, the battle of Iwo Jima began.
...more than 110,000 Americans and 880 ships began their assault on a small volcanic island in the Pacific, in the climactic battle of the last year of World War II. For the next 36 days Iwo Jima would become the most populous 7 1/2 square miles on the planet, as U.S. Marines and Japanese soldiers fought a battle that would test American resolve even more than D-Day or the Battle of the Bulge had, and that still symbolizes a free society's willingness to make the sacrifice necessary to prevail over evil--a sacrifice as relevant today as it was 60 years ago.
The attack on Iwo Jima capped a two-year island-hopping campaign that was as controversial with politicians and the press as any Rumsfeld strategy. Each amphibious assault had been bloodier than the last: at Tarawa, where 3,000 ill-prepared Marines fell taking an island of just three square miles; at Saipan, where Army troops performed so poorly two of their generals had to be fired; and Peleliu, where it took 10 weeks of fighting in 115-degree heat to root out the last Japanese defenders, at the cost of 6,000 soldiers and Marines.
Iwo Jima would be the first island of the Japanese homeland to be attacked. The Japanese had put in miles of tunnels and bunkers, with 361 artillery pieces, 65 heavy mortars, 33 large naval guns, and 21,000 defenders determined to fight to the death. Their motto was, "kill 10 of the enemy before dying." American commanders expected 40% casualties on the first assault. "We have taken such losses before," remarked the Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Holland M. Smith, "and if we have to, we can do it again."
My father fought on Iwo Jima with the Marines and was wounded. I've heard stories about it since I was a small child. Pop is gone now, but the stories he told me remain. Read the entire article and you will see and understand the level of committment, courage, and sacrifice necessary for us to succeed against an even more determined and dug-in enemy today.
Thank you, Marines; thank you so much for preserving my freedom--then and now. Thank you, Pop.
UPDATE: Here's an Iwo Jima web site I have always liked (and with music!)
...more than 110,000 Americans and 880 ships began their assault on a small volcanic island in the Pacific, in the climactic battle of the last year of World War II. For the next 36 days Iwo Jima would become the most populous 7 1/2 square miles on the planet, as U.S. Marines and Japanese soldiers fought a battle that would test American resolve even more than D-Day or the Battle of the Bulge had, and that still symbolizes a free society's willingness to make the sacrifice necessary to prevail over evil--a sacrifice as relevant today as it was 60 years ago.
The attack on Iwo Jima capped a two-year island-hopping campaign that was as controversial with politicians and the press as any Rumsfeld strategy. Each amphibious assault had been bloodier than the last: at Tarawa, where 3,000 ill-prepared Marines fell taking an island of just three square miles; at Saipan, where Army troops performed so poorly two of their generals had to be fired; and Peleliu, where it took 10 weeks of fighting in 115-degree heat to root out the last Japanese defenders, at the cost of 6,000 soldiers and Marines.
Iwo Jima would be the first island of the Japanese homeland to be attacked. The Japanese had put in miles of tunnels and bunkers, with 361 artillery pieces, 65 heavy mortars, 33 large naval guns, and 21,000 defenders determined to fight to the death. Their motto was, "kill 10 of the enemy before dying." American commanders expected 40% casualties on the first assault. "We have taken such losses before," remarked the Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Holland M. Smith, "and if we have to, we can do it again."
My father fought on Iwo Jima with the Marines and was wounded. I've heard stories about it since I was a small child. Pop is gone now, but the stories he told me remain. Read the entire article and you will see and understand the level of committment, courage, and sacrifice necessary for us to succeed against an even more determined and dug-in enemy today.
Thank you, Marines; thank you so much for preserving my freedom--then and now. Thank you, Pop.
UPDATE: Here's an Iwo Jima web site I have always liked (and with music!)
Friday, February 18, 2005
Scapegoats
"Don't Vilify Drug Companies" expresses my own opinion about how the big pharmaceutical companies are all too often the scapegoats of modern medicine.
Drug companies - "Big Pharmas" - are the villains of medicine and health care, at least according to much media, many politicians and lots of polls. The logic of that blame is perverse. I think it also shows a stunning and very American ingratitude.
Our scapegoating of drug companies says much more about us than them. Our childish and unrealistic view of drug makers rests on twin towers of American infantilism. We want something for nothing. And we want to be protected from all risks and compensated when bad things happen, when we become "victims."
The population of Western nations at the start of the 21st century is by far the healthiest population in human history. We take that for granted. We routinely expect what in truth are medical miracles. And we expect these miracles to come for free - and risk-free. Reality, of course, doesn't work that way. And so we affix blame: on insurance companies, on HMOs, on doctors, but mostly, these days, on drug companies.
We expect drug companies to be altruistic, not to be motivated by profits, unless, of course, we have pharmaceuticals in our union pension plan or 401(k). We expect them to invent in just a few years medicines that will be used for decades without side effects. We expect perfect regulation of these companies. And we expect that if anything ever goes wrong, we should be able to sue the pants off the drug companies and get compensated.
Read the entire piece, which is a timely essay as the media and government prepare to scapegoat the drug companies yet again.
Here is an example of the incredible arrogance and insufferable condescention of one FDA bureaucrat:"FDA Scientist: No Need for Pain Drugs"
I find myself (not so) secretly hoping that Dr. David Graham, associate director for science and medicine at the FDA's Office of Drug Safety suffers horribly from osteoarthritis at the least. What a goon.
As I have said in a previous post : publish the risks and let the people decide for themselves whether they "need" these drugs.
UPDATE: In a radical departure from emotion and hype, a FDA panel today has decided that the BENEFITS of these pain medications outweigh the RISKS, and will permit them to remain on the market. Expect an outcry from the Left about the collusion of government with business to kill people.
Drug companies - "Big Pharmas" - are the villains of medicine and health care, at least according to much media, many politicians and lots of polls. The logic of that blame is perverse. I think it also shows a stunning and very American ingratitude.
Our scapegoating of drug companies says much more about us than them. Our childish and unrealistic view of drug makers rests on twin towers of American infantilism. We want something for nothing. And we want to be protected from all risks and compensated when bad things happen, when we become "victims."
The population of Western nations at the start of the 21st century is by far the healthiest population in human history. We take that for granted. We routinely expect what in truth are medical miracles. And we expect these miracles to come for free - and risk-free. Reality, of course, doesn't work that way. And so we affix blame: on insurance companies, on HMOs, on doctors, but mostly, these days, on drug companies.
We expect drug companies to be altruistic, not to be motivated by profits, unless, of course, we have pharmaceuticals in our union pension plan or 401(k). We expect them to invent in just a few years medicines that will be used for decades without side effects. We expect perfect regulation of these companies. And we expect that if anything ever goes wrong, we should be able to sue the pants off the drug companies and get compensated.
Read the entire piece, which is a timely essay as the media and government prepare to scapegoat the drug companies yet again.
Here is an example of the incredible arrogance and insufferable condescention of one FDA bureaucrat:"FDA Scientist: No Need for Pain Drugs"
I find myself (not so) secretly hoping that Dr. David Graham, associate director for science and medicine at the FDA's Office of Drug Safety suffers horribly from osteoarthritis at the least. What a goon.
As I have said in a previous post : publish the risks and let the people decide for themselves whether they "need" these drugs.
UPDATE: In a radical departure from emotion and hype, a FDA panel today has decided that the BENEFITS of these pain medications outweigh the RISKS, and will permit them to remain on the market. Expect an outcry from the Left about the collusion of government with business to kill people.
The Council Has Spoken !
This week's BEST POSTS are up over at the Watcher's site. Here are the winners. Congratulations to them all!
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Kofi to World: Thank Us For Iraq! The Sundries Shack
2. The Complexity of W's Middle Eastern Policy Alpha Patriot
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Red Like Ward = Black Like Me American Digest
2. The End of the Cold War: Testing the Left's Central Thesis New Sisyphus
Check out all the posts nominated here.
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Kofi to World: Thank Us For Iraq! The Sundries Shack
2. The Complexity of W's Middle Eastern Policy Alpha Patriot
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Red Like Ward = Black Like Me American Digest
2. The End of the Cold War: Testing the Left's Central Thesis New Sisyphus
Check out all the posts nominated here.
The Paradigm Shifts
New Sisyphus, a member of the State Department Republican underground has a must-read post that begins with a cry from one of his friends:
"Don't you understand? They hate our guts and everything we stand for! They don't want us there and, believe me, we don't want to be there!"
He then goes on to compare the rise of National Socialism in Germany and the origins of WWII and the current situation with Islamofascism. But here is the crux of his argument:
Many liberal critics (and those of the paleo-right) sneer when speaking of Bush’s strategy, noting that democracy is only likely to produce even-more vehement anti-American regimes.
They miss the point entirely. We, too, understand the sickness. We, too, realize that it will be decades before it recedes. But in the meantime, freer and more democratic Islamic states will open up more domestic opportunity, even if they don’t produce governments that agree with us on many points.
Turkey is the new Middle East’s future. We are likely to be hated for some time to come. But we are hated in Spain and France as well. The hatred, by itself, the opposition to U.S. policies, by itself, is only of minimal import.
A nascent fascism has taken root in the Muslim world. There is no escaping the hate, the anger, the all-important grievances. But what we can escape is the full consequence of that hatred. By opening up a democratic space in the Middle East, we allow other, competing interests—like the interest of bettering one’s lives, of one’s children having a better life—to fight it out with the Grievance Party. By creating a context for the natural give-and-take of democratic politics we increase the likelihood that the hatred will be deflected and minimized until it recedes. (emphasis mine)
And this is the point. Changing the culture of Islam, and bringing democracy to an area flooded with authoritanism and paternalism will not make everything better instantly. But it is in our interest in the long-term to begin the process of change in that cauldron of anger, resentment and oppression known as the Middle East. Those who cannot or will not look at the big picture and like babies, cry and demand that everything be what they want it to be in a magical instant; those who whine that women don't have instant rights in Iraq (like one of my commenters); or that people still (gasp) disagree and kill each other there; or even that America is still not universally loved and admired-- are missing the enormity of the change that has begun.
We have initiated a major paradigm shift. As I emphasized in the quote above, we have given people back their self-interest and the means to pursue their own happiness. And that is completely different from making them happy.
They will have to do that on their own.
"Don't you understand? They hate our guts and everything we stand for! They don't want us there and, believe me, we don't want to be there!"
He then goes on to compare the rise of National Socialism in Germany and the origins of WWII and the current situation with Islamofascism. But here is the crux of his argument:
Many liberal critics (and those of the paleo-right) sneer when speaking of Bush’s strategy, noting that democracy is only likely to produce even-more vehement anti-American regimes.
They miss the point entirely. We, too, understand the sickness. We, too, realize that it will be decades before it recedes. But in the meantime, freer and more democratic Islamic states will open up more domestic opportunity, even if they don’t produce governments that agree with us on many points.
Turkey is the new Middle East’s future. We are likely to be hated for some time to come. But we are hated in Spain and France as well. The hatred, by itself, the opposition to U.S. policies, by itself, is only of minimal import.
A nascent fascism has taken root in the Muslim world. There is no escaping the hate, the anger, the all-important grievances. But what we can escape is the full consequence of that hatred. By opening up a democratic space in the Middle East, we allow other, competing interests—like the interest of bettering one’s lives, of one’s children having a better life—to fight it out with the Grievance Party. By creating a context for the natural give-and-take of democratic politics we increase the likelihood that the hatred will be deflected and minimized until it recedes. (emphasis mine)
And this is the point. Changing the culture of Islam, and bringing democracy to an area flooded with authoritanism and paternalism will not make everything better instantly. But it is in our interest in the long-term to begin the process of change in that cauldron of anger, resentment and oppression known as the Middle East. Those who cannot or will not look at the big picture and like babies, cry and demand that everything be what they want it to be in a magical instant; those who whine that women don't have instant rights in Iraq (like one of my commenters); or that people still (gasp) disagree and kill each other there; or even that America is still not universally loved and admired-- are missing the enormity of the change that has begun.
We have initiated a major paradigm shift. As I emphasized in the quote above, we have given people back their self-interest and the means to pursue their own happiness. And that is completely different from making them happy.
They will have to do that on their own.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
9/11 and Paranoia
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)