The Naked Emperor

25 September 2007

Fail Columbia!!

I used to have a good impression of the Ivy League schools.

Personally, I hold a bachelor's in Animal Science from Southeastern Louisiana University. So not only are I a redneck, I have a diploma in redneck.

I also have my Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine from Louisiana State University.

As I said, I held elite schools like Columbia in high esteem. But no more.

When I heard about Columbia's invitation to Iranian President Ahmedinejad to speak, questions flooded my wee redneck brain.

What was Columbia president Lee Bollinger thinking?

Did he have so much hubris that he thought a few questions from his students would change Ahmedinejad's mind? Or that a sharp rebuke would cause the Iranian leader to change his policies?

The Iranian theocracy began by kidnapping Americans. Since, they have executed homosexuals, supported terrorism through Hezbollah, and are currently actively killing American servicemen, and pursuing a "peaceful" nuclear program. The theocracy also wants to erase Israel, presumably perpetrating another holocaust in the process.

Did Bollinger think all that would change just because of a couple of questions from some sophomores?

One stated reason was for "free speech". So you let a tyrant prattle on, who slaughters homosexuals, but won't let ROTC speak on campus because they follow the federally mandated "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Could Bollinger and Columbia be that intellectually dishonest? Are you granting free speech to a regime that suppresses that freedom routinely?

There is a third possibility. It may not be hubris or intellectual dishonesty at all.

It may well be that Bollinger and Columbia are just that damn stupid.

And what is the result of this brainless act?

Columbia has severely angered it's alumni and benefactors. I strongly suspect that donations will be significantly be curtailed as long as Bollinger is president.

It has also angered a LOT of America. Personally, I'll be upset if Columbia gets ever one dollar of federal funds. EVER.

And has your "free speech" affected anything in Iran? Well, this is how Iran's state run media covered it. I dare you to find truth there. Standing O my rosy red arse.

To do such harm to a revered institution, to coddle enemies of freedom, all for no gain? And handing that tyrant a propaganda victory at home into the bargain?

Again, just damn stupid.

So, evermore, we hereby change the tried and true "Hail Columbia" to the above title.

I may have graduated from a regional university and a state university. But compared to Columbia grads, I feel pretty damn smart.

The Naked Emperor

23 September 2007

Everything Old is New

As of this moment, Iranian President Ahmadinejad is in the US, and will be speaking at Columbia university tomorrow night.

Now, being the age I am, I recall well my first real knowledge of Iran, back in '79.

And back then, New Orleans had a great local band, Vince Vance and the Valiants. The leader of the band, Vance Degeneres, had an unknown kid sister back then. Her name is Ellen.

Well folks, Ahmadinejad's visit has put this Mr. Peabody into his Way Back Machine, and I thought I'd take all you Shermans along.

Back at that time in history, we were actually shocked that fundamentalist muslims would attack us. Even normally left of center types like musicians were so outraged that they made parody songs that took what seems rather harsh, but appropriate positions.

Vince Vance did the best song for that moment in history. A young lady named Vickie Arroyo I knew back then, who's brother or some such was connected to Vince Vance managed to get me a copy of this precious 45. Unfortunately, is was lost to time in my parent's house in the flood.

Through the wonders of technology, I have an mp3 of the song. But , unfortunately, dear ones of readers, I can't figure how to upload it to blogger for your entertainment pleasure. Google provided me with an answer.

President Ahmadinejad will speak tomorrow. But Vince Vance spoke for me twenty nine years ago, and still does.

Without further adieu, I give you, the original and only,

Bomb Iran

The Naked Emperor

21 September 2007

The Big Top comes to Jena

Yesterday, one ring of the media circus rolled gaily into Jena, LA.

Normally there are three rings to any circus, and the media circus is no different. One ring is permanently based in Washington, DC, leaving two to travel the country. If only Brittany had been in residence, my fair state could have provided even more entertainment to the world.

But why did they roll into the sleepy little town of Jena?

Well, it seems there are allegations of "racism" there in the town.

Just so we are all on the same page, we will use definitions from Webster's online dictionary.

Racism : Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

I choose definition 1 as number 2 is more specifically addressed below.

Bigot: Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb

Prejudice: Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
synonym see PREDILECTION

There, now we all know what we mean.

Now in this incident there is much talk about nooses being hung, then black outrage over that incident causing the assault on a white student.

In this case, I'm handicapped by not having been there in years, and being at a distance, although less than most of the nation. In short, I'm in the same boat as the media and the protesters.

But I hate being so ignorant, and decided to go looking for facts to make up my mind. I came across this, from the The Town Talk out of Alexandria, the largest paper in the area. It's a time line to the events.

What I find interesting is that the "nooses" incident happened on Sept. 1, 2006. And the assault happened on Dec. 4 2006. Pardon me but that makes any subsequent assault seem less like an act of passion or outrage. If the two were truly connected, it seems much more likely to be premeditation.

Another key feature is that the victim of the assault, Justin Barker, had no connection to the noose incident. Isn't assault on a person, just because of the color of their skin, the very definition of a hate crime?

As to the nooses, I have no clue. According to the top comment for the timeline, the nooses were for a football game, the local team was playing the "Cowboys". It is stated it was something to the effect of "hang 'em high" directed at the other team, not anything racial.

If so, it was poorly chosen. If, on the other hand, it WAS a racial message, it would be reprehensible. Not racist, according to the definition, but bigoted. And it is not, and should not be a crime.

We here in America have a little known law called the First Amendment. It gives us the right to speak freely. It does not grant us the ability to speak wisely. And this is just the sort of speech it was designed to protect. Popular speech hardly needs protecting, everybody likes it. But our founders saw fit, and rightly so, to protect UNpopular speech.

Was charging the alleged assailants racist? I find no evidence of it. If a victim chooses to press charges, and there is sufficient evidence to support those charges, it is the duty of the District Attorney to file said charges. That is a matter of law.

At one point, the alleged assailants were charged with attempted murder. Even a cursatory glance at the situation shows those charges to be unwarranted, and they were not pressed. But there does seem to be enough evidence to bring the current charges.

And are the alleged assailants guilty? I have no clue. That's a matter of fact, not law, for a jury to decide.

And while we are on the subject of the jury, one of the assailants has already been tried. Much has been made of the fact that the jury was all white. But of the 150 people receiving jury summons, only 50 showed up, and there were no blacks in that number. Sorry, but lack of performance of civic duty is not the DA's fault.

So on to the circus we go.

LOTS of people were in Jena yesterday. Why? Because they were concerned about......?

Well, if it's racism, the above definitions solve that one. Even if every allegation of the speakers and protesters is true, it's NOT racism. If so, it could be called bigotry and/or prejudice 2(1) or 2(2)c.

If they're so concerned about bigotry and prejudice, doesn't an assault on an innocent person of just because of the color of his skin count? If one is truly concerned about such things, the color of skin of perpetrator and assailant matter not.

If they were there because they care about black people, this is a bad test case.

Just a few miles down the road, in New Orleans, nearly 150 blacks have been murdered so far this year. Slaughtered. And none of these protesters or speakers say a peep. One of the attendees of the march was New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin. His concern about slaughtered blacks in his city is so deep that he considers it part of the New Orleans Brand.

And this is not a new problem. Last year, over 160 were murdered, with only 1 or 3 of the cases solved. Yet the Mayor, or Rev. Jackson, or Rev. Sharpton say nothing. Could this be because the perpetrators were also black? As is the Police Chief? As is the Mayor? As is the DA?

Perhaps this agnostic could give the reverends a refresher course in biblical studies. Something about sin and stones?

Let's assume, for a moment, that we give in to the popular protest.

As I've said before in Dam Racism, I abhor racial epithets. If we give the protesters their way, would I be allowed to beat someone of another race because a different person of that race used an epithet? Does free speech mean free battery?

So if the organizers weren't serious, why did all this happen? No clue. Media time maybe. Or power or donations.

Now I will freely admit I witnessed as little of the media coverage as I possibly could. But what I did hear and see covered the popular "truths", not mentioning the three month delay or that the beating victim was unconnected with the noose incident. And if I, as a tenth rate blogger with little time could find out these things, where is our integrity in journalism?

It seems that the writers of the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" had the media pegged way back in 1962.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend"

until later,


UPDATE 13:22 CDT 23 Sept.: Several blogs have linked here (Thanks, "Classical Values", "Astuteblogger" and "Red Stick Rant"!!), but with some misinformation. No, I'm not from Jena. I grew up in Lakeview, New Orleans, and call Tangipahoa Parish home now. I did get to spend considerable time in the greater Alexandria area in college 25 years ago.

19 September 2007

News Alzheimer's

I'm on duty this week, and don't have much time to comment on the news.

Also, I'm beginning to show some signs of early onset Alzheimer's

Just this week, I've been having to ask people what year it is.

Just look at the news.

Hillary Clinton's health care plan. The O.J. trial. Another Clinton fundraising scandal.

I know we can't just be doing the same things as 1994 or 1995 all over again. So it must be Alzheimer's.

Either my mind isn't working right or the world has gone from being warped to totally bent.

With confusion,


13 September 2007

The Bard and Betrayal

Admit me, Chorus to this history;
Who, prologue-like, your humble patience pray,
Gently to hear, kindly to judge, our.....Blog?

To compensate for the aches and pains of advancing middle age, there are a few benefits too. One of these is an increasing love and appreciation for the Bard.

William Shakespeare's words are music when done well. Lately I have been indulging, perhaps a bit too much.

Henry V is my favorite, and I've just re-read it, and also seen the film. Kenneth Brannagh's 1989 production of Henry V is excellent, and loses but little dialogue. Try it sometime.

But I offer this warning: Do not mix the Bard with news if you write. It give you ideas.

Recently, published a full page ad in the NY Times insinuating treason on the part of Gen. David Petreus. The General is literally the man who wrote the book on counter-insurgency warfare, and under whose command the coalition forces have made quite substantial progress. The charge is blatantly false.

After all, no Democrat senators, including their Presidential candidates found reason to vote against him just a few months ago.

We have been told that we can't question the patriotism of such accusers. Bullshit. I question it.

What is interesting is that none of the Democrat candidates for President have said a peep about such scurrilous allegations. One could assume, reasonably, that they don't disagree.

The Bard had something to say about all this:

You have conspir'd against our royal person,
Join'd with an an enemy proclaim'd, and from his coffers,
Receiv'd the golden earnest of our death;
wherein you would have sold your king to slaughter,
His princes and peers to servitude,
His subjects to oppression and contempt,
And his whole kingdom into desolation.

(Henry V Act II Scene II)

There is no doubt as to the oppression, contempt, and desolation awaiting the enemies of radical Islam. That means us westerners, folks. You and me.

So why would the candidates of one party actively desire our surrender to such forces?

I know their leading candidate's political past includes shady international dealings. But is this Trie-son? Would she sell out American interests for foreign cash? I hope I'm Huang, but if the Hsu fits... I don't know if I'm Riady to see all this come to pass.

That candidate is also rather lax with her ideas of national security.

And if they're not selling us out for cash, then why?

Could they be so filled with self-hatred that they would subject us to oppression and contempt? Or is the lust for power so strong that they desire to be a Quisling rather that a Von Stauffenberg?

I don't know, but it frightens me. For I feel they think America, "being ours, We'll bend it to our awe, Or break it all to pieces."

While I'm on this Henry V kick, while this has little connection other than the source, I just can't resist putting this modified quote in:

thou hast me, if thou hast me, at the worst;
and thou shalt read me, if thou read me, better and better:-
and therefore tell me, most fair reader, will you have me?

until later,


08 September 2007

2007 Bin Laden Transcript and Commentary

"All praise is due to Allah, who built the heavens and earth in justice, and created man as a favor and grace from Him. And from His ways is that the days rotate between the people, and from His Law is retaliation in kind: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the killer is killed. And all praise is due to Allah, who awakened His slaves' desire for the Garden, and all of them will enter it except those who refuse. And whoever obeys Him alone in all of his affairs will enter the Garden, and whoever disobeys Him will have refused."

Flowery rhetoric here with two exceptions: First Allah's law of retaliation. He mentions Jesus as a prophet later on. What happened to love thy neighbor and turning the other cheek? Apparently, he and his followers only believe the parts of their prophet's teachings that are convenient and fit in with their political agenda. And two, we are God's SLAVES? I thought religion taught we were his children. Big difference to me.

"As for what comes after: Peace be upon he who follows the Guidance. People of America: I shall be speaking to you on important topics which concern you, so lend me your ears. I begin by discussing the war which is between us and some of its repercussions for us and you."

"To preface, I say: despite America being the greatest economic power and possessing the most powerful and up-to-date military arsenal as well; and despite it spending on this war and is army more than the entire world spends on its armies; and despite it being the being the major state influencing the policies of the world, as if it has a monopoly on the unjust right of veto; despite all of this, 19 young men were able - by the grace of Allah, the Most High- to change the direction of its compass. And in fact, the subject of the Mujahideen has become an inseparable part of the speech of your leader, and the effects and signs of that are not hidden."

We got noticed, we got noticed, We're big time now. I'm sure he's proud.

"Since the 11th, many of America's policies have come under the influence of the Mujahideen, and that is by the grace of Allah, the Most High. And as a result, the people discovered the truth about it, its reputation worsened, its prestige was broken globally and it was bled dry economically, even if our interests overlap with the interests of the major corporations and also with those of the neoconservatives, despite the differing intentions."

"And for your information media, during the first years of the war, lost its credibility and manifested itself as a tool of the colonialist empires, and its condition has often been worse than the condition of the media of the dictatorial regimes which march in the caravan of the single leader."

Look, our media may have been pretty bad. But it is a hell of a lot better that Al Jazeera or Kim Jong Il's or the Iranian mouthpieces. Remember "Baghdad Bob"?

"Then Bush talks about his working with al-Maliki and his government to spread freedom in Iraq but he in fact is working with the leaders of one sect against another sect, in the belief that this will quickly decide the war in his favor."

Wrong. The Malaki government is primarily Shia. And the Anbar Awakening is primarily Sunni. We've also been working very well with the Kurds

"And thus, what is called the civil war came into being and matters worsened at his hands before getting out of his control and him becoming like the one who plows and sows the sea: he harvests nothing but failure."

There is no civil war. No Shia army, no Sunni army, no Kurd army. What has happened is that a bunch of outside controllers, like AQ and the Iranians are trying to spark sectarian differences into a civil war. So far they've failed.

"So these are some of the results of the freedom about whose spreading he is talking to you. And then the backtracking of Bush on his insistence on not giving the United Nations expanded jurisdiction in Iraq is an implicit admission of his loss and defeat there. "

"And among the most important items contained in Bush�s speeches since the events of the 11th is that the Americans have no option but to continue the war. This tone is in fact an echoing of the words of neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Richard Pearle, the latter having said previously that the Americans have no choice in front of them other than to continue the war or face a holocaust."

True. One doesn't make nice with murderers so they can kill again. You hunt them down. You corner them. You try them and execute them under rule 5.56 or rule 7.62.

"I say, refuting this unjust statement, that the morality and culture of the holocaust is your culture, not our culture. In fact, burning living beings is forbidden in our religion, even if they be small like the ant, so what of man?! The holocaust of the Jews was carried out by your brethren in the middle of Europe, but had it been closer to our countries, most of the Jews would have been saved by taking refuge with us. And my proof for that is in what your brothers, the Spanish, did when they set up the horrible courts of the Inquisition to try Muslims and Jews, when the Jews only found safe shelter by taking refuge in our countries. And that is why the Jewish community in Morocco today is one of the largest communities in the world. They are alive with us and we have not incinerated them, but we are a people who don't sleep under oppression and reject humiliation and disgrace, and we take revenge on the people of tyranny and aggression, and the blood of the Muslims will not be spilled with impunity, and the morrow is nigh for he who awaits."

Partially true. Yes it was non-muslims who perpetrated the Holocaust. Is Bin Laden disputing the Iranian leader's assertion that it didn't happen?

And isn't your peaceful religion the same one that targeted rockets on an Israeli day care on the first day of school last week? The same peace loving bunch that shot schoolkids in the back at Beslan? Oh, and how about Darfur? Peace through annihilation?

"Also, your Christian brothers have been living among us for 14 centuries: in Egypt alone, there are millions of Christians whom we have not incinerated and shall not incinerate. But the fact is, there is a continuing and biased campaign being waged against us for a long time now by your politicians and many of your writers by way of your media, especially Hollywood, for the purpose of misrepresenting Islam and its adherents to drive you away from the true religion. The genocide of peoples and their holocausts took place at your hands: only a few specimens of Red Indians were spared, and just a few days ago, the Japanese observed the 62nd anniversary of the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by your nuclear weapons."

Sure, we trust you. How many churches burned in Muslim Kosovo, that we saved from being wiped out?

And as far as being misrepresented, You, sir, have spent the last two decades trying to make the west fear Islam. And now that your peacful religion of wanton slaughter is seen as a credible threat, you cry foul. You, sir, are a child who has bashed a toy repeatedly against a wall, against adult advice. Now that you have broken it, you cry like the pampered brat you have always been. How many muslims would be better off now if you'd used one tenth of your capital to help them instead of financing the murder of innocents?

"And among the things which catch the eye of the one who considers the repercussions of your unjust war against Iraq is the failure of your democratic system, despite it raising of the slogans of justice, liberty, equality and humanitarianism. It has not only failed to achieve these things, it has actually destroyed these and other concepts with its weapons - especially in Iraq and Afghanistan- in a brazen fashion, to replace them with fear, destruction, killing, hunger, illness, displacement and more than a million orphans in Baghdad alone, not to mention hundreds of thousands of widows. Americans statistics speak of the killing of more than 650,000 of the people of Iraq as a result of the war and its repercussions."

First, your data is highly skewed and dead wrong. Second, the majority of Iraqis would rather be free, with all it's problems, than to live under a a far more murderous tyrany like Saddam or yourself.

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment."

No, sir, we want it over, not stopped. The majority of us want victory, and soon. The democrats rode a wave of anti-war sentiment and republican broken promises into office. And you expected Democrats to keep their word? BWAHAHAHA

"And here is the gist of the matter, so one should pause, think and reflect: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?"

Because they don't truly believe the swill they're peddling. If they did, they could have voted to cut off funding on day one. But it seems they're even more cowardly than you. They either lack true convictions or the courage to take a stand for their convictions. They aren't lacking in indictments though. If the Hsu fits....

"I will come back to reply to this question after raising another question, which is:"

"Why are the leaders of the White House keen to start wars and wage them around the world, and make use of every possible opportunity through which they can reach this purpose, occasionally even creating justifications based on deception and blatant lies, as you saw Iraq?"

Sorry, we're so keen to start wars, that it took twenty years of you murdering Americans before we did anything about it. Two decades is hardly a rush to war.

"In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation."

Wrong again. Kennedy was the first one to send in advisers to RSV. He never deviated from that.

"And so Kennedy was killed, and al-Qaida wasn�t present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade. But after it became clear to you that it was an unjust and unnecessary war, you made one of your greatest mistakes, in that you neither brought to account nor punished those who waged this war, not even the most violent of its murderers, Rumsfeld. And even more incredible than that is that Bush picked him as secretary of defense in his first term after picking Cheney as his vice president, Powell as secretary of state and Armitage as Powell's deputy, despite their horrific and blood history of murdering humans. So that was clear signal that his administration - the administration of the generals- didn't have as its main concern the serving of humanity, but rather, was interested in bringing about new massacres. Yet in spite of that, you permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you - with your full knowledge and consent- to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Rumsfeld was responsible for Vietnam?? Maybe you'd better consult with one of those new hi tech devices called a CALENDAR.

Cheney I'm not sure about, but Powell served in country as a Captain and Major. Hardly enough rank to dictate national policy. Cheney and Armitage and Rumsfeld are Republicans, hardly likely to have had the ear of Johnson, a Democrat President. And certainly not senior enough. That pesky calendar thing again.

And yes, we chose Bush again because he is willing to fight you, sir.

"Then you claim to be innocent! This innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th - were I to claim such a thing. But it is impossible for me to humor any of you in the arrogance and indifference you show for the lives of humans outside America, or for me to humor your leaders in their lying, as the entire world knows they have the lion's share of that. These morals aren't our morals. What I want to emphasize here is that not taking past war criminals to account led to them repeating that crime of killing humanity without right and waging this unjust war in Mesopotamia, and as a result, here are the oppressed ones today continuing to take their right from you."

First line makes sense. You attacked us first sir. And I fail to see how secretaries and stockbrokers and fireman bear responsibility for national policy.

And you also score again when you say that ours morals are not yours. We do not intentionally slaughter the innocent, a moral that Islam has no problems with.

But the last is nonsense. Should we have imprisoned or killed the men in the above paragraph for something they had nothing to do with, merely to appease you? And if your problem was with them, why did you start killing Americans more than a decade before they were even in office? Are you that prescient? If so, give me the winners of the next five Kentucky Derbies and I'll consider Islam.

"This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified to by your own reports. And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice. The entire world came out in unprecedented demonstrations to warn against waging the war and describe its true nature in eloquent terms like "no to spilling red blood for black oil," yet he paid them no heed. It is time for humankind to know that talk of the rights of man and freedom are lies produced by the White House and its allies in Europe to deceive humans, take control of their destinies and subjugate them. "

The war is against terror, and is global. Iraq is merely another theater in that war. And after our people have been repeatedly slaughtered and mutilated.

I haven't read Chomsky, so I can't comment intelligently on it.

As an American, I assure you that my rights and freedoms are NOT illlusions or lies. I am free to speak my mind, to worship how I choose, to listen to whom I choose. I can legally bear arms, and if I don't like my leaders, I can throw them out in the next election. How many Muslim nations can say that?

"So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats' failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war. Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment - and there isn't any- in the Democrats' failure to stop the war. And you're the ones who have the saying which goes, "Money talks." And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war."

Not much argument here. Only all the star power and most of the money now are on the Democrats side. But on a positive note, look at the major support the immigration bill had. And the people stopped it cold.

"However, there are two solutions for stopping it. The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out, and I ask Allah to grant them resolve and victory. And the second solution is from your side. It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations."

You list two solutions. Total defeat, or abject surrender. You my not like democracy sir. But only alternative is some form of autoritarian rule. It could be military, with a dictator, religious, with a pope or bishop or rabbi or mullah, or geneological, witha king. You have anybody you want to nominate for these roles in mind, perhaps?

But you forget a third and very real solution. We kick your ass.

"And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives."

Ooohhh, now we get good. Your first reason to commit murder I forget. Then it was that the Saudi's had invited us in to prevent Saddam from overrunning them. Than it was our troops still in Saudi after the '91 phase of the Iraq war. Then it was because of the 2003-07 phase of the iraq war. Not you want to kill us to stop global warming? Such a changing rationale destroys your crediblilty, sir. Will there ever be a time when you see no reason to kill me and my countrymen, except when we're already dead?

"And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown- still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings. So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system."

Ok, now it's capitalism's fault. Silly us. We're sorry. Now if we can divvy up the land, appoint some nobles, we'll all go back to being good serfs. And if we eschew capitalism, shouldn't we get rid of all of it? Like the SUV's you ride in. And the Casio watches that make such good detonators. Oh, and the medicines that keep you alive.

I forgot, we'll need a king to watch over us dumb serfs. I think you have someone in mind....

"If you were to ponder it well, you would find that in the end, it is a system harsher and fiercer than your systems in the Middle Ages. The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of "globalization" in order to protect democracy."

Bring back the plague. Bring back the plague. (With deep apologies to Monty Python.) We're worse off than the middle ages? You're kidding, right?

"And Iraq and Afghanistan and their tragedies; and the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes; and the abject poverty and tragic hunger in Africa: all of this is but one side of the grim face of this global system."

You're right. In Islam, there is no usury, ie no mortgages. Ergo, no mortgage crisis. Of course you'll have to pony up the balance due on your home. Now.

"So it is imperative that you free yourselves from all of that and search for an alternative, upright methodology in which it is not the business of any class of humanity to lay down its own laws to its own advantage at the expense of the other classes as is the case with you, since the essence of man-made positive laws is that they serve the interests of those with the capital and thus make the rich richer and the poor poorer."

Yep, sometimes we make bad laws here. But we usually reverse them. It's why my wife hasn't worn a burqah in years. And as far as the old saw, "poor get poorer", perhaps you missed the data released last week. See the number of our poor who have color TV's cars, own their homes, etc. Our poor would be called middle class everywhere else in the world. Perhaps you didn' understand this since there is such a small middle class in arabia, and a multimillionaire like you would never have noticed them.

"The infallible methodology is the methodology of Allah, the Most High, who created the heavens and earth and created the Creation and is the Most Kind and All-Informed and the Knower of the souls of His slaves and the methodology that best suits them."

Now we come to the gist of it. All of the specious arguments lead here. Basically, convert. But coming from someone with your history, the implication is clear: convert or die.

"You believe with absolute certainty that you believe in Allah, and you are full of conviction of this belief, so much so that you have written this belief of yours on your dollar."

"But the truth is that you are mistake in this belief of yours. The impartial judge knows that belief in Allah requires straightness in the following of His methodology, and accordingly, total obedience must be to the orders and prohibitions of Allah Alone in all aspects of life."

So is that why some of your beloved 19 murderers were out with strippers on the night of Sept 10, 2001, drinking alcohol heavily? Isn't that a sin is Islam?

"So how about you when you associate others with Him in your beliefs and separate state from religion, then claim that you are believers?!"

So separation of church and state is wrong. LIBERALS, PAY ATTENTION HERE. So we need a state religion, which is, of course, Bin Laden's flavor of Islam. Only burqahs. Only "Muslim approved" haircuts. Death to homosexuals. Adulterous wives can be killed with impunity. Women can't drive, vote, and are, by law, only worth on half the same as a man. Total subserviance to men. Women can't work outside the home. Agnosticism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddism, etc. are outlawed by the state. Are these the things liberals want? If not, be advised, they won't be negotiated out of this. It's kill or be killed. Should we kill these bastards, or should you be measured for your burqah of coffin soon?

"What you have done is clear loss and manifest polytheism, And I will give you a parable of polytheism, as parables summarize and clarify speech."

"I tell you: its parable is the parable of a man who owns a shop and hires a worker and tells him, "Sell and give me the money," but he makes sales and give the money to someone other than the owner. So who of you would approve of that?"

"You believe that Allah is your Lord and your Creator and the Creator of this earth and that it is His property, then you work on His earth and property without His orders and without obeying Him, and you legislate in contradiction to His Law and methodology."

OK, we're all supposed to believe in one god. But here it's my choice. My religious training says that a god gave us free will. You say different. We'll talk about your religious scholarship in a moment.

"This work of yours is the greatest form of polytheism and is rebellion against obedience to Allah with which the believer becomes an unbeliever, even if he obeys Allah in some of His other orders. Allah, the Most High, sent down His orders in His Sacred Books like the Torah and Evangel and sent with them the Messengers (Allah's prayers and peace be upon them) as bearers of good news to the people."

So you belive that god made the torah and the bible, and their corresponding prophets.

"And everyone who believes in them and complies with them is a believer from the people of the Garden. Then when the men of knowledge altered the words of Allah, the Most High, and sold them for a paltry price, as the rabbis did with the Torah and the monks with the Evangel, Allah sent down His final Book, the magnificent Quran, and safeguarded it from being added to or subtracted from by the hands of men, and in it is a complete methodology for the lives of all people."

So okay, we believe in the same god and prophets until Mohammed came. So you say we got it wrong. If so, when did god repeal the ten commandments? What part of "thou shal't not kill" don't you get? Or did god make a mistake? And if the torah and bible were contaminated by man, what impertinance is it to claim that none of your fellow muslims might have been in error?

"And our holding firm to this magnificent Book is the secret of our strength and winning of the war against you despite the fewness of our numbers and materiel. And if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard."

We're strong, you're weak , you're doomed. WRONG!

"Don't be turned away from Islam by the terrible situation of the Muslims today, for our rulers in general abandoned Islam many decades ago, but our forefathers were the leaders and pioneers of the world for many centuries, when they held firmly to Islam."

Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. We're not the murderous savages we appear to be. And just because every muslim run country sucks in comparison to yours, it's just bad lighting.

"And before concluding, I tell you: there has been an increase in the thinkers who study events and happenings, and on the basis of their study, they have declared the approach of the collapse of the American Empire."

We're Doomed!! The prophet of death has declared it. Let me put on my boots, so I can begin shaking.

"Among them is the European thinker who anticipated the fall of the Soviet Union, which indeed fell. And it would benefit you to read what he wrote about what comes after the empire in regard to the United States of America. I also want to bring your attention that among the greatest reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was their being afflicted with their leader Brezhnev, who was overtaken by pride and arrogance and refused to look at the facts on the ground. From the first year of the Afghanistan invasion, reports indicated that the Russians were losing the war, but he refused to acknowledge this, lest it go down in his personal history as a defeat, even though refusal to acknowledge defeat not only doesn't do anything to change the facts for thinking people, but also exacerbates the problem and increases the losses. And how similar is your position today to their position approximately two decades ago. The mistakes of Brezhnev are being repeated by Bush, who - when asked about the date of his withdrawing of forces from Iraq - said in effect that the withdrawal will not be during his reign, but rather, during the reign of the one who succeeds him. And the significance of these words is not hidden."

The Soviet's Afghanistan is not ours. We're doing a lot better.

"And here I say: it would benefit you to listen to the poignant messages of your soldiers in Iraq, who are paying - with their blood, nerves and scattered limbs - the price for these sorts of irresponsible statements. Among them is the eloquent message of Joshua which he sent by way of the media, in which he wipes the tears from his eyes and describes American politicians in harsh terms and invites them to join him there for a few days. Perhaps his message will find in you an attentive ear so you can rescue him and more than 150,000 of your sons there who are tasting the two bitterest things: "

I've listened to the troops. They want to be given the tools to finish the job. I support the troops, so I support the victory they so desire.

"If they leave their barracks, the mines devour them, and if they refuse to leave, rulings are passed against them. Thus, the only options left in front of them are to commit suicide or cry, both of which are from the severest of afflictions. So is there anything more men can do after crying and killing themselves to make you respond to them? They are doing that out of the severity of the humiliation, fear and terror which they are suffering. It is severer than what the slaves used to suffer at your hands centuries ago, and it is as if some of them have gone from one slavery to another slavery more severe and harmful, even if it be in the fancy dress of the Defense Department's financial enticements."

If this is so, why does a free Iraqi flag fly over Ramadi, AQI's self declared capitol? And why is it so safe there that the President dropped in just last week. If your guys can't even hold their own capitol, the above statement is totally false.

"So do you feel the greatness of their sufferings?"

"To conclude, I invite you to embrace Islam, for the greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while not surrendering to Allah, the Most High, in all aspects of one's life - ie., to die outside of Islam. And Islam means gain for you in this first life and the next, final life. The true religion is a mercy for people in their lives, filling their hearts with serenity and calm."

Don't die without Allah!

T"here is a message for you in the Mujahideen: the entire world is in pursuit of them, yet their hearts, by the grace of Allah, are satisfied and tranquil. The true religion also puts peoples' lives in order with its laws; protects their needs and interests; refines their morals; protects them from evils; and guarantees for them entrance into Paradise in the hereafter through their obedience to Allah and sincere worship of Him Alone."

Ok, you guys who know the truth, take heart. It won't suck so bad after you're dead.

"And it will also achieve your desire to stop the war as a consequence, because as soon as the warmongering owners of the major corporations realize that you have lost confidence in your democratic system and begun to search for an alternative, and that this alternative is Islam, they will run after you to please you and achieve what you want to steer you away from Islam. So your true compliance with Islam will deprive them of the opportunity to defraud the peoples and take their money under numerous pretexts, like arms deals and so on. "

Nothing like bringing back the 12th century for what ails you. Just re-establish the Caliphate, so the big boys will suck up to us.

"There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling only 2.5%. So beware of the deception of those with the capital. And with your earnest reading about Islam from its pristine sources, you will arrive at an important truth, which is that the religion of all of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them) is one, and that its essence is submission to the orders of Allah Alone in all aspects of life, even if their Shari'ahs [Laws] differ."

This one could be a problem for liberals. Lower taxes. But think about it. The women's movement is substantially liberal. but once they are no longer allowed a voice in public or domestic or even household affairs, they can't complain. The gay movement? They'll all be killed, again, no complaints. Blacks? Darfur suggests you won't be able to complain either. Even if you're alive, you'll have no freedom to speak, it's against the will of merciful Allah.

"And did you know that the name of the Prophet of Allah Jesus and his mother (peace and blessings of Allah be on them both) are mentioned in the Noble Quran dozens of times, and that in the Quran there is a chapter whose name is "Maryam," i.e. Mary, daughter of 'Imran and mother of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them both)? It tells the story of her becoming pregnant with the Prophet of Allah Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them both), and in its confirmation of her chastity and purity, in contrast to the fabrications of the Jews against her. Whoever wishes to find that out for himself must listen to the verse of this magnificent chapter: one of the just kings of the Christians - the Negus - listened to some of its verses and his eyes welled up with tears and he said something which should be reflected on for a long time by those sincere in their search for the truth."

Jesus is a prophet to him too. Or so he says. But that little bit about he who is without sin and some stones apparently missed him.

"He said, "verily, this and what Jesus brought come from one lantern": i.e., that the magnificent Quran and the Evangel are both from Allah, the Most High; and every just and intelligent one of you who reflects on the Quran will definitely arrive at this truth. It also must be noted that Allah has preserved the Quran from the alterations of men. And reading in order to become acquainted with Islam only requires a little effort, and those of you who are guided will profit greatly. And peace be upon he who follows the Guidance."

September 7, 2007 06:30 PM

This last bit is almost funny. I can just hear it on TV at 3AM. Just call this toll free number now to get your free copy of the Koran. See how it will change the lives around you.

And if you can get into a radical mosque, the indoctrination will be faster. The quicker that happens, the quicker the Caliphate takes over the world, and the sooner we can all start bowing down before King Bin Laden the Murderous.

Actually this is one of the more lucid pieces I've read from Bin Laden. He lays out his reasons and follows them to a conclusion.

But the problem is that he uses specious if not totally wrong facts. Then add in some flawed logic, and misguided religious scholarship, and you come up with a bad conclusion. Here in the west, we call this GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Even with that conclusion, I have another way of looking at things and people and causes.

I like to see how they treat those who they have no reason to please. How does a man treat a cashier at a convenience store. How does a cause treat people who's cause isn't politically popular? Are they consistent?

In bin Laden's case, he is very consistent. But also very evil. Anyone who stands in his way of what he wants is to be killed. Don't give in, you die. It's that simple.

The question here is to western liberals. Do you care enough about your cause to fight for it when the choice is to fight or surrender? Are you in favor of women's rights? Black rights? Gay rights? Free speech? Freedom of religion? If so, then you need to attend to the fact that this man will stop at nothing to subjugate your chosen cause. If you don't convert, you are marked for death. And so are those you allegedly care about.

This is a fight that will take more than placards and slogans and "we shall overcome". If you truly care, let the fight be on. Let the warriors loose. We need not the high pitched yips of restrained poodles of war. Slip the leash from the hounds of war.

Good Hunting,


05 September 2007

G of A Update II

I don't have much time tonight. And there is so much that deserves attention.

Running Hsu's. Non-guilty guilty pleas and non-retiring retiring Senators who play footsie. Fred is officially in. But these take more than the available time if I'm to do any justice to them.

And all those events happen a world away from me.

Today, the good news is that my Add-a-Rails and GripPod arrived.

They're almost installed. Okay, I'll have to redo the screws with Locktite next week. But I was able to gather first impressions.

The rail is secure and holds the grip very well.

The GripPod itself seems to be a winner. A forward handgrip lets me point on target somewhat faster, or so it seems. The bipod deploys very rapidly and the trigger is easy to use but not overly sensitive. And once on the bipod, the rifle sure seems rock steady.

Remember that these are early impressions. I'll be able to field trial the system next week and get a picture or two for your entertainment pleasure.

And no, I haven't stood on top of the rifle with the bipod out like they advertise. It's OK in an advert, but I have to pay for this thing.

until later,


03 September 2007

The President's Iraq Publicity Stunt

Today, the President made a surprise visit to Iraq, spending a number of hours on the ground at Al Asad airbase in Anbar.

Already, some are calling this a publicity stunt. And I couldn't agree more, but for totally different reasons.

First, we must remember that all warfare is psychological.

It is rare for one side to kill ALL of the opposition in a war, almost as rare in a battle. I can't think of an exception to the war rule, and the only two battles that pop into my weak mind are Masada and the Alamo. Also notice that those victories were pyrrhic at best, highly motivating to the "losing" side. Israel is reborn, the Roman empire is dust. And the Alamo is still Texan.

So if not all the opposition is killed, what happens to them? Well, they either surrender or retreat in a battle, or their nation or cause surrenders or just quits fighting.

But why? Because the victor has created conditions in the mind of the loser that those are the only choices: surrender, yield or die.

Before we get to the President's stunt, I find it's always beneficial to look at a war from the enemies point of view.

Al Qaeda, and it's subsidiary, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) have a major problem. Soldier to soldier, tank to tank (oops, they don't have any), plane for plane (must have forgotten to get those), and ship to ship (Damn, where did that shopping list go?), they have hot been able to beat Coalition forces.

So how can they force us to surrender, yield or die, if they have not much threat of death there? Easy, they use terror. They make the possibility of death retail instead of wholesale. They can't say, "we're going to wipe out the infidel's army, go to their homeland left undefended by that defeated army, and impose our will".

So they make the possibility of death retail. Personal. YOUR death. We'll come over there, plant bombs, and kill YOU. Or your spouse, or child, or your dog if he doesn't bark in Farsi or whatever.

And for them it's working.

Notice that major newspapers won't run the latest "Opus" cartoon, out of fear of offending Muslims.

But how does this work? How do they get their message out? Do they have a reality show we all must watch like "The Jihad World"? Or maybe a sexy Muslim show named "Burqah Watch" with lots of sand and......lots more sand? Or maybe they do a direct mailing to everyone in the non Muslim world? Can you imagine the postage?

No, they do it through the ever present eye of the news media. Just have your group detonate a bomb killing a lot of people and scattering a lot of body parts and the newsies will be there like flies on carrion. And a lot faster than the flies, too.

Col. Jack Warden has it right with our present media, "every bomb is a political bomb". Our enemies know this much better than the average news viewer, and they use it to their advantage.

Now that I've said all the above, let me back up and tell you my point of view. I'm an American in general, southern red-neck Doctor gun toting American specifically. And no, I'm not just a knee jerk American. I want America to win because I love freedom. Want to worship your way, or my way, or no way? Fine. your choice. Want to be straight, gay, bisexual, trisexual, or any other sexual with other consenting adults? Again, you choice. Want to be left, right, center, or upper third picoquadrant? Have at it.

Our enemies don't feel the same way about freedom. If it's Yaweh, you pay. Ladies, you won't have to worry about the latest fashions any more. Black burqahs, in style for over a thousand years. Sharia, the wife beater's dream. (And wife killer's)

So I want us to win. But how do we fight this?

If we kill people, the news media ignores the RPG lying in the masked corpse's hand and calls them "an innocent civilian". Any alleged misdeeds of our troops will be trumpeted by Jack Murtha, or made into feature films by Brian De Palma, bankrolled by Mark Cuban.

So our fine troops do the tedious job of rebuilding a nation into a functioning, cohesive unit. Person by person, block by block, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, town by town, province by province.

But the news media says "if it bleeds it leads". There's no dramatic video of a shopkeeper installing windows since he's confident they won't get blown out or shot up. So they don't show it.

How do we attract a news media seemingly only interested in sensation and blood? Well, the media also follows major politicians around, especially Presidents. Cool, that might help.

Traditionally in war, the sign of the beginning of the end is the capture and securing of the enemy's capitol. Well AQI declared a few years ago that Ramadi, in Anbar province was their capitol. It was the heart of the AQI attacks, and where AQI had the most luck in attempting to incite civil war. Just a year ago, Anbar was given up for lost.

Just a little geography lesson. Al Asad is right near Ramadi, Haditha, Hit, and Fallujah, all in Anbar. These are places made infamous for terrorism, fierce insurgency, and sectarian violence.

But a lot has changed. We have seen the Anbar Awakening. The local tribal chiefs, including many former insurgents, switched sides. The restraint of the Coalition, and the naked brutality and barbarism of AQI convinced them. They have done a stellar job in helping Coalition forces hunt down many of their AQI former comrades. And they've been very successful hunting on their own, thank you very much.

Anbar is now substantially pacified and quiet. We're winning there, and in most of Iraq.

Just about now is a good time to drag some of those White House reporters to see what is really happening in Iraq, not just what they want to hear at the news desk a continent or two away, or in the lobby of a luxury hotel in the Green Zone. Maybe we should tell the world how many lives, especially muslim lives, have been taken by our murderous foes. Maybe we should tell Al Jazeera and the New York Times that all that blood spilled has been wasted. Instead of gaining ground, they are losing it, rapidly. Hell, we took their capitol away, and it's now controlled by locals with coalition help, not by some bearded cave dwelling murderer. It's safe enough for the President to visit there. And we and the locals will not permit them to come back. EVER.

So was the President's trip a publicity stunt? To say we're winning? HELL YEAH, and IT"S ABOUT FRIGGIN" TIME!!



02 September 2007

A Poor Solution

Ladies and Gentlemen, I've done it!! I've solved a problem that even Jesus couldn't.

He is quoted as saying "The poor will be with you always".

But I, your humble correspondent, have solved the problem of poverty here in America.

According to the latest government statistics, family of four with two children making less than $20,445 is poor.

By now you know I like to do the math to see a solution.

First, we must make a logical assumption. Since two of the members of the family are children, it stands to reason that the other two are work age adults. Let's assume these adults are not physically infirm and have enough IQ to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions are on the heel.

So let's give our notational adults jobs.

They didn't graduate high school, so let's make them burger flippers at WenDonaldKing.

Let's pay our fictional adults $8/ hour, with a net of $6/hour.

If our adults just work 40 hours a week, no overtime, that gives our fictional family a net income of $480 per week. ($6x40x2=$480)

Now, we don't want to deprive our family of stress relief, we'll have them take two weeks off per year.

So, if they work 50 weeks per year, their net income is $24,000 each year. ($480x50=$24,000)

Notice that I'm using net figures, not gross. I don't know if the census bureau was talking about using net or gross, so I decided to err on the side of caution.

And also notice that If the parents just work full time at a very low paying job, that family is no longer in poverty. ($24,000>$20,445)

IE if you don't want to be poor, GET A JOB!!

If we add in all the benefits that are given, that family is now rapidly approaching middle class.

If you choose to just take the benefits, and not work full time, then YOUR POVERTY IS YOUR FAULT, NOT MINE.

I chose to get an education, and I choose to provide well for my family. I average not 40 hours per week, but 60. And my tax bill shows that I paid more than enough to totally support out fictional family. Add in thenakedempress's compulsory cash, and the two of us are supporting 5 or 6 people by ourselves.

I don't mind being generous, it's just that when it's forced on you it's hardly sincere. And being a southerner and old fashioned, I do expect some manners. Why couldn't the people I support send a thank you note? Or come by and wash a dish?

To sum up. If you just work at a menial job, you won't be in poverty. And it's your life, not mine. I've made my decisions. Go to work, and you won't be poor. Keep being a leech on the arse of good people, and you'll be poor. It's up to you.

Logically, I've now found the solution for poverty here in America. Yes, I know that it may be blasphemous to claim to have done what the Christ said couldn't. And I know that there are a few ways my solution will go wrong. As they say, God is in the details. Maybe I'll have to get religion after all, once the comments start.

Until later,