Just a quick post
Since the mosques in The West are way more militant than ones in the land of islam, perhaps it is islam that cannot handle the freedom of The West.
And islam gets corrupted while it's adherents are in western lands, so in order to keep those who disrespect islam from disrespecting islam, it is time to send them pacting.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Hey taxing the rich hurts the poor??
Heard this on Rush today.
Derr, taxing the rich really only makes things worse, economicallly.
Tax every one the same % and the rich will always pay more and the poor always pay less. It goes back to those fractions problems we had in elementary school or basic math along the way. Unfortunately some folks thing taxing the rich makes them or the poor feel better.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20080128&ID=8100079&Symbol=TIF
Luxury shoppers' cuts could harm economy
NEW YORK (AP) - It's hard to feel sorry for well-heeled shoppers whose idea of tough economic times is passing on $1,000 Burberry raincoats or that $300 limo ride while the working poor skimp on vegetables and take the bus.
But economists say that recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the economy and deliver even more pain to lower-income workers, who are dependent on their business and fat tips.
Nathan Warren, a limo driver, knows this first hand: He has seen his monthly wages drop by 40 percent to about $1,800 since late last year. His work week at Newport Beach, Calif.-based Classy Ride Limousine Service was reduced to three days from five amid slow business.
"I have to struggle to get by. I am pinching pennies," said Warren, 30, a Costa Mesa, Calif. resident. "I am eating more cereal and am not buying clothing."
Cutbacks by the wealthy have a ripple effect across all consumer spending, said Michael P. Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers. That's because American households in the top 20 percent by income -- those making at least $150,000 a year -- account for about 40 percent of overall consumer spending, which makes up two-thirds of economic activity.
Niemira expects the retail sector, whose growth was fueled in part by strong gains at luxury chains, will struggle to eke out a 1 percentage sales increase in stores opened at least a year during the next few months. That's below the 2.1 percent average for 2007 and 3.7 percent for 2006.
Just look at the cutbacks by Dali Wiederhoft, a 52-year-old marketing executive from Reno, Nev., made skittish by a volatile stock market, a 20 percent decline in her home value and recession fears.
Over the past three months Wiederhoft pared her spending on clothes to $500 per month from about $3,000; that means no more Jimmy Choo shoes and David Yurman jewelry. Her cutbacks also included canceling the services of a cleaning woman and a lawn care company. She also plans to trade in her BMW for a Ford when her lease expires in about a month.
"This is a time to have cash, not to spend. So, I'm cutting wherever I can," she said.
Such reined-in spending seems to be the end of a winning streak for luxury retailers that once appeared immune to the economic slowdown. Tiffany & Co. and Williams-Sonoma Inc. both reduced their earnings outlooks and Burberry PLC said it may miss its 2008 profit forecast. Coach Inc. reported a 1.1 percent decline in same-store sales at its North American stores for the second quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007 and Compagnie Financiere Richemont SA, the Swiss parent of Cartier and Baume & Mercier, reported a slowdown in holiday sales growth.
Soaring home values had made upper-middle class shoppers feel wealthy in recent years, causing them to trade up to $500 Coach handbags and $1,000 espresso makers, but a housing slump has wiped away their paper wealth. The woes are creeping into even the high-end luxury sector, as affluent shoppers are rattled by the turbulence in the financial markets.
American Express Co., whose customers are generally affluent, said it expects slower spending and more missed payments on credit cards throughout 2008.
The economy needs affluent shoppers to spend with enthusiasm. According to the government's latest survey of consumer expenditures, the top 20 percent of households spend about $94,000 annually, almost five times the bottom 20 percent and more per year than the bottom sixty percent combined.
Then there's also the multiplier effect. When shoppers splurge on $1,000 dinners and $300 limousine rides, that means fatter tips for the waiter and the driver. Sales clerks at upscale stores, who typically earn sales commissions, also depend on spending sprees of mink coats and jewelry. But the trickling down is starting to dry up, threatening to hurt a broad base of low-paid workers like Warren, the limo driver.
Classy Ride Limousine Service, which caters to clients with an average household income of $200,000, has suffered a 10 percent dip in business last year, according to general manager Jason Lattier.
"We've been really slow," said Lattier, noting that 12 out of his 20 drivers are now working three days per week. With the average driver earnings $150 a day in tips and wages, that means a weekly shortfall of $300.
In Chicago, Montopoli Custom Clothiers, a tailor to consumers willing to spend $3,000 to $30,000 for a custom-made suit, has also seen business suffer. Sales dropped 10 percent in October and November from the year-ago period, according to president Jeff Landis. He noted that 20 percent of his clients, who include commodity traders and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, delayed buying suits for fall.
"I consider them a leading economic indicator," said Landis. He's taken more aggressive measures like increasing calls to clients to get them in the store, but hasn't laid off anyone.
"I'm not at the point of panic," he said.
Overall, the super wealthy -- consumers with a net worth of more than $10 million -- are still splurging on $1 million boats, $10 million diamond jewelry and other luxuries, according to Milton Pedraza, chief executive of the Luxury Institute, a research institute based in New York.
But this crowd could stop splurging, simply because they're not in the mood. That happened right after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, though luxury spending rebounded soon after.
Jim Taylor, vice chairman of marketing consultancy The Harrison Group, said he's seeing a marked shift in the way people look upon spending.
"There's a real decline in enthusiasm for self-indulgent purchasing," said Taylor.
Orrin Feingold, a New York entrepreneur, decided to get out of his lease on a Volvo XC90 sport utility vehicle because he realized he didn't need to spend $650 a month and another $500 on parking. Feingold, 39, a former chief financial officer of a health care company, said the uncertain financial climate is making him think twice about spending.
"I want to be more practical," he said.
Luxury stores, which have a big presence in New York, are closely monitoring Wall Street. The financial industry accounts for about 20 percent of wages in New York City, according to the state comptroller's office.
Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, a leading executive compensation consultancy, expects bonuses to fall as much as 30 percent this year. But more importantly, massive layoffs on Wall Street could cause the affluent to pull back even more.
Meanwhile, Warren, the California limo driver is focusing on day-to-day survival. Faced with a monthly rent of $1,300, he has no choice but look for a full-time job.
He's had training as a machinist before, but now things are too unsettled.
"There is so much uncertainty in the economy from what I see, so I am not sure where I am going to look," he said.
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012908/content/01125104.guest.html
RUSH: Get this. It's unbelievable, especially from the Associated Press. The slug line on this story is: "Luxury Squeeze -- It's hard to feel sorry for well-heeled shoppers whose idea of tough economic times is passing on $1,000 Burberry raincoats or that $300 limo ride while the working poor skimp on vegetables and take the bus. But economists say that recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the US economy and deliver even more pain to lower-income workers, who are dependent on their business and fat tips. Nathan Warren, a limo driver, knows this firsthand: He has seen his monthly wages drop by 40 percent to about $1,800 since late last year. His work week at Classy Ride Limousine Service was reduced to three days from five amid slow business. 'I have to struggle to get by. I am pinching pennies,' said Warren, 30, a Costa Mesa, Calif. resident. 'I am eating more cereal and am not buying clothing.' Cutbacks by the wealthy have a ripple effect across all consumer spending, said Michael Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers. That's because American households in the top 20 percent by income -- those making at least $150,000 a year -- account for about 40 percent of overall consumer spending, which makes up two-thirds of economic activity." Why? Why? Wait, wait, wait! Ripple effect? You mean when the affluent and wealthy stop buying, it hurts people lower down the scale? Uh, so you got... Follow me on this here, folks. You got the wealthy and you got the affluent up here, and they spend, and when they spend, that spending sort of "trickles down" to others below them. Uh, so there is a trickle-down effect? A trickle-down effect! So when you give tax relief, tax cuts to upper income workers, they spend more, and there's a trickle-down effect? Does this woman who wrote this, Anne Dinnocenzio, want to keep her job? She has just done a story under the guise of feeling sorry for the poor and the middle class that they're having to eat cereal and go without new clothes -- and she just validated Reaganomics, the trickle-down aspect. So, the rich can't win. If they make too much money, it's not fair. If they don't spend what they make, everybody suffers (Women and Minorities Hardest Hit). This needs to be framed and put in the Smithsonian in the Newseum. They got this Newseum. This is incredible. "Recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the economy and deliver even more pain to lower income workers who are dependent on their business. The limo driver is just but one example."
Derr, taxing the rich really only makes things worse, economicallly.
Tax every one the same % and the rich will always pay more and the poor always pay less. It goes back to those fractions problems we had in elementary school or basic math along the way. Unfortunately some folks thing taxing the rich makes them or the poor feel better.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20080128&ID=8100079&Symbol=TIF
Luxury shoppers' cuts could harm economy
NEW YORK (AP) - It's hard to feel sorry for well-heeled shoppers whose idea of tough economic times is passing on $1,000 Burberry raincoats or that $300 limo ride while the working poor skimp on vegetables and take the bus.
But economists say that recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the economy and deliver even more pain to lower-income workers, who are dependent on their business and fat tips.
Nathan Warren, a limo driver, knows this first hand: He has seen his monthly wages drop by 40 percent to about $1,800 since late last year. His work week at Newport Beach, Calif.-based Classy Ride Limousine Service was reduced to three days from five amid slow business.
"I have to struggle to get by. I am pinching pennies," said Warren, 30, a Costa Mesa, Calif. resident. "I am eating more cereal and am not buying clothing."
Cutbacks by the wealthy have a ripple effect across all consumer spending, said Michael P. Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers. That's because American households in the top 20 percent by income -- those making at least $150,000 a year -- account for about 40 percent of overall consumer spending, which makes up two-thirds of economic activity.
Niemira expects the retail sector, whose growth was fueled in part by strong gains at luxury chains, will struggle to eke out a 1 percentage sales increase in stores opened at least a year during the next few months. That's below the 2.1 percent average for 2007 and 3.7 percent for 2006.
Just look at the cutbacks by Dali Wiederhoft, a 52-year-old marketing executive from Reno, Nev., made skittish by a volatile stock market, a 20 percent decline in her home value and recession fears.
Over the past three months Wiederhoft pared her spending on clothes to $500 per month from about $3,000; that means no more Jimmy Choo shoes and David Yurman jewelry. Her cutbacks also included canceling the services of a cleaning woman and a lawn care company. She also plans to trade in her BMW for a Ford when her lease expires in about a month.
"This is a time to have cash, not to spend. So, I'm cutting wherever I can," she said.
Such reined-in spending seems to be the end of a winning streak for luxury retailers that once appeared immune to the economic slowdown. Tiffany & Co. and Williams-Sonoma Inc. both reduced their earnings outlooks and Burberry PLC said it may miss its 2008 profit forecast. Coach Inc. reported a 1.1 percent decline in same-store sales at its North American stores for the second quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007 and Compagnie Financiere Richemont SA, the Swiss parent of Cartier and Baume & Mercier, reported a slowdown in holiday sales growth.
Soaring home values had made upper-middle class shoppers feel wealthy in recent years, causing them to trade up to $500 Coach handbags and $1,000 espresso makers, but a housing slump has wiped away their paper wealth. The woes are creeping into even the high-end luxury sector, as affluent shoppers are rattled by the turbulence in the financial markets.
American Express Co., whose customers are generally affluent, said it expects slower spending and more missed payments on credit cards throughout 2008.
The economy needs affluent shoppers to spend with enthusiasm. According to the government's latest survey of consumer expenditures, the top 20 percent of households spend about $94,000 annually, almost five times the bottom 20 percent and more per year than the bottom sixty percent combined.
Then there's also the multiplier effect. When shoppers splurge on $1,000 dinners and $300 limousine rides, that means fatter tips for the waiter and the driver. Sales clerks at upscale stores, who typically earn sales commissions, also depend on spending sprees of mink coats and jewelry. But the trickling down is starting to dry up, threatening to hurt a broad base of low-paid workers like Warren, the limo driver.
Classy Ride Limousine Service, which caters to clients with an average household income of $200,000, has suffered a 10 percent dip in business last year, according to general manager Jason Lattier.
"We've been really slow," said Lattier, noting that 12 out of his 20 drivers are now working three days per week. With the average driver earnings $150 a day in tips and wages, that means a weekly shortfall of $300.
In Chicago, Montopoli Custom Clothiers, a tailor to consumers willing to spend $3,000 to $30,000 for a custom-made suit, has also seen business suffer. Sales dropped 10 percent in October and November from the year-ago period, according to president Jeff Landis. He noted that 20 percent of his clients, who include commodity traders and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, delayed buying suits for fall.
"I consider them a leading economic indicator," said Landis. He's taken more aggressive measures like increasing calls to clients to get them in the store, but hasn't laid off anyone.
"I'm not at the point of panic," he said.
Overall, the super wealthy -- consumers with a net worth of more than $10 million -- are still splurging on $1 million boats, $10 million diamond jewelry and other luxuries, according to Milton Pedraza, chief executive of the Luxury Institute, a research institute based in New York.
But this crowd could stop splurging, simply because they're not in the mood. That happened right after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, though luxury spending rebounded soon after.
Jim Taylor, vice chairman of marketing consultancy The Harrison Group, said he's seeing a marked shift in the way people look upon spending.
"There's a real decline in enthusiasm for self-indulgent purchasing," said Taylor.
Orrin Feingold, a New York entrepreneur, decided to get out of his lease on a Volvo XC90 sport utility vehicle because he realized he didn't need to spend $650 a month and another $500 on parking. Feingold, 39, a former chief financial officer of a health care company, said the uncertain financial climate is making him think twice about spending.
"I want to be more practical," he said.
Luxury stores, which have a big presence in New York, are closely monitoring Wall Street. The financial industry accounts for about 20 percent of wages in New York City, according to the state comptroller's office.
Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, a leading executive compensation consultancy, expects bonuses to fall as much as 30 percent this year. But more importantly, massive layoffs on Wall Street could cause the affluent to pull back even more.
Meanwhile, Warren, the California limo driver is focusing on day-to-day survival. Faced with a monthly rent of $1,300, he has no choice but look for a full-time job.
He's had training as a machinist before, but now things are too unsettled.
"There is so much uncertainty in the economy from what I see, so I am not sure where I am going to look," he said.
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012908/content/01125104.guest.html
RUSH: Get this. It's unbelievable, especially from the Associated Press. The slug line on this story is: "Luxury Squeeze -- It's hard to feel sorry for well-heeled shoppers whose idea of tough economic times is passing on $1,000 Burberry raincoats or that $300 limo ride while the working poor skimp on vegetables and take the bus. But economists say that recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the US economy and deliver even more pain to lower-income workers, who are dependent on their business and fat tips. Nathan Warren, a limo driver, knows this firsthand: He has seen his monthly wages drop by 40 percent to about $1,800 since late last year. His work week at Classy Ride Limousine Service was reduced to three days from five amid slow business. 'I have to struggle to get by. I am pinching pennies,' said Warren, 30, a Costa Mesa, Calif. resident. 'I am eating more cereal and am not buying clothing.' Cutbacks by the wealthy have a ripple effect across all consumer spending, said Michael Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers. That's because American households in the top 20 percent by income -- those making at least $150,000 a year -- account for about 40 percent of overall consumer spending, which makes up two-thirds of economic activity." Why? Why? Wait, wait, wait! Ripple effect? You mean when the affluent and wealthy stop buying, it hurts people lower down the scale? Uh, so you got... Follow me on this here, folks. You got the wealthy and you got the affluent up here, and they spend, and when they spend, that spending sort of "trickles down" to others below them. Uh, so there is a trickle-down effect? A trickle-down effect! So when you give tax relief, tax cuts to upper income workers, they spend more, and there's a trickle-down effect? Does this woman who wrote this, Anne Dinnocenzio, want to keep her job? She has just done a story under the guise of feeling sorry for the poor and the middle class that they're having to eat cereal and go without new clothes -- and she just validated Reaganomics, the trickle-down aspect. So, the rich can't win. If they make too much money, it's not fair. If they don't spend what they make, everybody suffers (Women and Minorities Hardest Hit). This needs to be framed and put in the Smithsonian in the Newseum. They got this Newseum. This is incredible. "Recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the economy and deliver even more pain to lower income workers who are dependent on their business. The limo driver is just but one example."
Saturday, January 19, 2008
State of the USA
Check this, what a bunch of ass-hats, they banned lightbulbs.
Great, what next? I know lits ban kitchen sinks.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/519kutui.asp
A Nation of Dim Bulbs The nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill. by Andrew Ferguson 12/31/2007, Volume 013, Issue 16
On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't.
Ordinary consumers may be surprised, once they understand what's happened. They probably haven't known that the traditional incandescent light bulb, that happy little globe shining so innocently from the lamp in the corner, has been a scourge of environmentalists for many years. With their stern and unrelenting moralism, the warriors of Greenpeace have even branded lightbulb manufacturers "climate criminals" for making incandescents, which are, they say, a "silent killer." In Europe and in a few individual states in the U.S., professional environmentalists have managed to persuade their colleagues in government to ban the bulbs altogether, on the grounds that incandescents use energy inefficiently.
Ninety percent of the energy a traditional light bulb uses, for example, is thrown off as heat rather than light. This waste contributes to the overproduction of energy from coal-fired power plants, which contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. Professional environmentalists prefer a different kind of bulb, the compact fluorescent light (CFL), which is much more expensive to make and to buy but also much more efficient in its use of energy.
American environmental groups have long called for an outright national ban on the old-fashioned bulbs. But then they came to the realization, as a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council told the New York Times this spring, that such a ban might "anger consumers." "We've given up a sound bite, 'ban the incandescent,'" the spokesman said.
Instead the groups joined with the Bush administration this year in advocating a steady increase in federally mandated efficiency standards for light bulbs. The effect of the tightened standards is to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient incandescent bulb by 2014. So it's not a ban, see. It's just higher standards. Which have the same effect as a ban--a slow-motion ban that's not really a ban. Not surprisingly, in long, self-congratulatory remarks at the bill signing last week, Bush neglected to mention that he and Congress have just done away with the incandescent light bulb. Maybe most of us won't notice until he's back in Crawford.
Some people really like the new bulbs, of course. Not all of them are professional environmentalists, though all of them are cheapskates. CFLs produce the same amount of light (lumens) as an incandescent bulb while using only about a quarter of the watts. With proper care and moderate use, they can last as much as six times longer than a typical incandescent. Even if you consider their higher purchase price--six or seven times the price of a traditional bulb--CFLs can lower your monthly lighting bill by as much as 20 percent. And because they're deemed environmentally sensitive, switching them on can give you the same hard-to-define feeling of exaltation you get shopping for organic vegetables at Whole Foods. Then you can donate the money you've saved on your electric bill to the Natural Resources Defense Council or the George W. Bush Presidential Library.
Other people, however, perhaps a very large number, will prefer the old, pre-Bush bulbs. Their reasons have less to do with the wonderfulness of the incandescent and their disdain for environmentalists than with the inconveniences of the CFL. The new bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of temperature, for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter. CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average incandescent. This makes them unsuitable for all kinds of lighting fixtures--particularly chandeliers and other ceiling lights--which will have to be either discarded or reconfigured, at considerable expense, after the Bush ban goes into effect. You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers. Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers.
The quality of the light given off by CFLs is quite different from what we're used to from incandescents. The old bulb concentrates its light through a small surface area. CFLs don't shine in beams; they glow all the way around, diffusing their illumination. They're terrible reading lights. Many people find fluorescent light itself to be harsh and unpleasant. Moreover--in a variation of the old joke about the restaurant that serves awful food and, even worse, serves it in such small portions--a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow, according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article last week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: "Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life."
Odd, isn't it--an energy-saving device that you're not supposed to turn off? Such complications undermine the extravagant claims made for the CFLs' energy savings. Let's say you're a CFL aficionado and you want to fetch your car keys from your darkened bedroom: You switch on the light, wait a couple minutes, finally find the wallet as the room slowly brightens, and then leave the light on, because you don't want to shorten the life of your expensive CFL. Will you remember to go back and turn it off 15 minutes later? Or will you get in your Prius, drive to Whole Foods, and leave the light burning for several more hours while you absent-mindedly fondle the organics? If you're not a CFL aficionado, by contrast, you turn on the incandescent light, get your car keys, and then switch it off. Who's wasting more energy? I'm sure some green-eye-shade in the depths of the Department of Energy could calculate an answer, and maybe already has. But we're unlikely to hear about it.
Sam Kazman, of the antiregulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs--and electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens.
There are other complications that might give environmentalists pause, if they were the kind of people who paused. When a CFL bulb finally dies--after years and years and years!--it cannot be dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by specially equipped recycling facilities. CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Kazman says, EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And for God's sakes don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison into the air. Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, "the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb."
The mind reels at the joke-like possibilities: How many Bush administration officials does it take to screw in a CFL? As many as it takes to screw American consumers! But the Bushies aren't the half of it. In creating the ban, Bush and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting, which is--you should probably sit down--the world's foremost manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to crowd from the market any troublesome competitors. It's a perfect confluence of interests: the Big Environmental Lobby, Big Business, and Big Government Conservatives.
But back to the screwees--those American consumers, also known, not so long ago, as the citizens of the United States, a free people, rulers of the world's proudest self-governing nation. Will there be protests of some kind, expressions of disgust at least? And what if there aren't? What if, as the ban slowly tightens, we hear nothing, not a howl, not a peep, just a long mellow moo? Then maybe it really will be time to turn out the lights.
Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Great, what next? I know lits ban kitchen sinks.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/519kutui.asp
A Nation of Dim Bulbs The nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill. by Andrew Ferguson 12/31/2007, Volume 013, Issue 16
On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't.
Ordinary consumers may be surprised, once they understand what's happened. They probably haven't known that the traditional incandescent light bulb, that happy little globe shining so innocently from the lamp in the corner, has been a scourge of environmentalists for many years. With their stern and unrelenting moralism, the warriors of Greenpeace have even branded lightbulb manufacturers "climate criminals" for making incandescents, which are, they say, a "silent killer." In Europe and in a few individual states in the U.S., professional environmentalists have managed to persuade their colleagues in government to ban the bulbs altogether, on the grounds that incandescents use energy inefficiently.
Ninety percent of the energy a traditional light bulb uses, for example, is thrown off as heat rather than light. This waste contributes to the overproduction of energy from coal-fired power plants, which contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. Professional environmentalists prefer a different kind of bulb, the compact fluorescent light (CFL), which is much more expensive to make and to buy but also much more efficient in its use of energy.
American environmental groups have long called for an outright national ban on the old-fashioned bulbs. But then they came to the realization, as a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council told the New York Times this spring, that such a ban might "anger consumers." "We've given up a sound bite, 'ban the incandescent,'" the spokesman said.
Instead the groups joined with the Bush administration this year in advocating a steady increase in federally mandated efficiency standards for light bulbs. The effect of the tightened standards is to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient incandescent bulb by 2014. So it's not a ban, see. It's just higher standards. Which have the same effect as a ban--a slow-motion ban that's not really a ban. Not surprisingly, in long, self-congratulatory remarks at the bill signing last week, Bush neglected to mention that he and Congress have just done away with the incandescent light bulb. Maybe most of us won't notice until he's back in Crawford.
Some people really like the new bulbs, of course. Not all of them are professional environmentalists, though all of them are cheapskates. CFLs produce the same amount of light (lumens) as an incandescent bulb while using only about a quarter of the watts. With proper care and moderate use, they can last as much as six times longer than a typical incandescent. Even if you consider their higher purchase price--six or seven times the price of a traditional bulb--CFLs can lower your monthly lighting bill by as much as 20 percent. And because they're deemed environmentally sensitive, switching them on can give you the same hard-to-define feeling of exaltation you get shopping for organic vegetables at Whole Foods. Then you can donate the money you've saved on your electric bill to the Natural Resources Defense Council or the George W. Bush Presidential Library.
Other people, however, perhaps a very large number, will prefer the old, pre-Bush bulbs. Their reasons have less to do with the wonderfulness of the incandescent and their disdain for environmentalists than with the inconveniences of the CFL. The new bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of temperature, for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter. CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average incandescent. This makes them unsuitable for all kinds of lighting fixtures--particularly chandeliers and other ceiling lights--which will have to be either discarded or reconfigured, at considerable expense, after the Bush ban goes into effect. You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers. Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers.
The quality of the light given off by CFLs is quite different from what we're used to from incandescents. The old bulb concentrates its light through a small surface area. CFLs don't shine in beams; they glow all the way around, diffusing their illumination. They're terrible reading lights. Many people find fluorescent light itself to be harsh and unpleasant. Moreover--in a variation of the old joke about the restaurant that serves awful food and, even worse, serves it in such small portions--a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow, according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article last week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: "Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life."
Odd, isn't it--an energy-saving device that you're not supposed to turn off? Such complications undermine the extravagant claims made for the CFLs' energy savings. Let's say you're a CFL aficionado and you want to fetch your car keys from your darkened bedroom: You switch on the light, wait a couple minutes, finally find the wallet as the room slowly brightens, and then leave the light on, because you don't want to shorten the life of your expensive CFL. Will you remember to go back and turn it off 15 minutes later? Or will you get in your Prius, drive to Whole Foods, and leave the light burning for several more hours while you absent-mindedly fondle the organics? If you're not a CFL aficionado, by contrast, you turn on the incandescent light, get your car keys, and then switch it off. Who's wasting more energy? I'm sure some green-eye-shade in the depths of the Department of Energy could calculate an answer, and maybe already has. But we're unlikely to hear about it.
Sam Kazman, of the antiregulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs--and electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens.
There are other complications that might give environmentalists pause, if they were the kind of people who paused. When a CFL bulb finally dies--after years and years and years!--it cannot be dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by specially equipped recycling facilities. CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Kazman says, EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And for God's sakes don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison into the air. Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, "the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb."
The mind reels at the joke-like possibilities: How many Bush administration officials does it take to screw in a CFL? As many as it takes to screw American consumers! But the Bushies aren't the half of it. In creating the ban, Bush and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting, which is--you should probably sit down--the world's foremost manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to crowd from the market any troublesome competitors. It's a perfect confluence of interests: the Big Environmental Lobby, Big Business, and Big Government Conservatives.
But back to the screwees--those American consumers, also known, not so long ago, as the citizens of the United States, a free people, rulers of the world's proudest self-governing nation. Will there be protests of some kind, expressions of disgust at least? And what if there aren't? What if, as the ban slowly tightens, we hear nothing, not a howl, not a peep, just a long mellow moo? Then maybe it really will be time to turn out the lights.
Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
honor killings
so pathetic those a-rabs and their honor.
the sad fact is they have none(honor that is), they kill their women for no reason at all.
can we as westerners start reciprocating on our honor?
I mean never turn your back on a muslim but face to face, westerners win most of the time.....
,
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/islam-killing-o.html
the sad fact is they have none(honor that is), they kill their women for no reason at all.
can we as westerners start reciprocating on our honor?
I mean never turn your back on a muslim but face to face, westerners win most of the time.....
,
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/islam-killing-o.html
2008 Pres cliff notes
On the Conservative side from most Conservative to least
1. Thompson or Hunter ( tough call for me)
2. Nobody comes close, next the damaged Republicans.....
3. Rudy, I don't think he will try to cross the NRA, but...
4. Romney, flip flopper, previous anti gun, MACare.....
5. toss up between ick factor on McCain and the Huckster(one is a lib and the other is a lib, can't tell, Huck would be better on guns but McC is better on National defense, both suck on illegal immigration.
Ron Paul finally has some crossover libertarian but his foreign policy/national defense bites.
On the Liberal side from conservative to NON
1. Richardson, only on his 2Amendment stuff
2. Hill/Bill, Obamma, and the Breck girl are all the same, pick a color or gender.
Kuchnnich, etc. whatever.
1. Thompson or Hunter ( tough call for me)
2. Nobody comes close, next the damaged Republicans.....
3. Rudy, I don't think he will try to cross the NRA, but...
4. Romney, flip flopper, previous anti gun, MACare.....
5. toss up between ick factor on McCain and the Huckster(one is a lib and the other is a lib, can't tell, Huck would be better on guns but McC is better on National defense, both suck on illegal immigration.
Ron Paul finally has some crossover libertarian but his foreign policy/national defense bites.
On the Liberal side from conservative to NON
1. Richardson, only on his 2Amendment stuff
2. Hill/Bill, Obamma, and the Breck girl are all the same, pick a color or gender.
Kuchnnich, etc. whatever.
USA Primaries and Cauci
My question is did more dead people vote for Hillary or Obama in New Hampshire on today's primary??
We all know Democrats have the edge on vote fraud, see the lawsuits to prevent ovter ID all accross the USA)
We all know Democrats have the edge on vote fraud, see the lawsuits to prevent ovter ID all accross the USA)
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Fuck waterboarding
Check this.
The modern liberal bed wetter will not like historical facts.
Leave it to the Derb
Ouch! [John Derbyshire]
Still not yet quittin' time? All right, a little more of Alistair Horne on life in old France. Though you might want to save this one for after dinner. The subject here is François Ravaillac, who on May 14, 1610 assassinated Henri IV while the monarch was stuck in a traffic jam.
On 27 May, still protesting that he had acted as a free agent on a divinely inspired mission, Ravaillac was put to death. Before being drawn and quartered, the lot of the regicide, on the Place de Grève scaffold he was scalded with burning sulphur, molten lead and boiling oil and resin, his flesh then torn by pincers. Then his arms and legs were attached to horses which pulled in opposite directions. One of the horses "foundered," so a zealous chevalier offered his mount; "the animal was full of vigour and pulled away a thigh." After an hour and a half of this horrendous cruelty, Ravaillac died, as the mob tried to prevent him receiving last rites. When he finally expired,
the entire populace, no matter what their rank, hurled themselves on the body with their swords, knives, sticks or anything else to hand and began beating, hacking and tearing at it. They snatched the limbs from the executioner, savagely chopping them up and dragging the pieces through the streets.Children made a bonfire and flung remains of Ravaillac's body on it. According to one witness, Nicholas Pasquier, one woman actually ate some of the flesh. The executioner, supposed to have the body of the regicide reduced to ashes to complete the ritual demanded by the law, could find nothing but his shirt.
Phew! Still, at least he wasn't subjected to water-boarding.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODEyNDYyODE0ZWE2MzUxMzgxYjkxZDAxZTU0ZjNkMmE=
The modern liberal bed wetter will not like historical facts.
Leave it to the Derb
Ouch! [John Derbyshire]
Still not yet quittin' time? All right, a little more of Alistair Horne on life in old France. Though you might want to save this one for after dinner. The subject here is François Ravaillac, who on May 14, 1610 assassinated Henri IV while the monarch was stuck in a traffic jam.
On 27 May, still protesting that he had acted as a free agent on a divinely inspired mission, Ravaillac was put to death. Before being drawn and quartered, the lot of the regicide, on the Place de Grève scaffold he was scalded with burning sulphur, molten lead and boiling oil and resin, his flesh then torn by pincers. Then his arms and legs were attached to horses which pulled in opposite directions. One of the horses "foundered," so a zealous chevalier offered his mount; "the animal was full of vigour and pulled away a thigh." After an hour and a half of this horrendous cruelty, Ravaillac died, as the mob tried to prevent him receiving last rites. When he finally expired,
the entire populace, no matter what their rank, hurled themselves on the body with their swords, knives, sticks or anything else to hand and began beating, hacking and tearing at it. They snatched the limbs from the executioner, savagely chopping them up and dragging the pieces through the streets.Children made a bonfire and flung remains of Ravaillac's body on it. According to one witness, Nicholas Pasquier, one woman actually ate some of the flesh. The executioner, supposed to have the body of the regicide reduced to ashes to complete the ritual demanded by the law, could find nothing but his shirt.
Phew! Still, at least he wasn't subjected to water-boarding.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODEyNDYyODE0ZWE2MzUxMzgxYjkxZDAxZTU0ZjNkMmE=
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Youtube war vids
from WJS Opinion Journal.
ouch!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110010956
THE WESTERN FRONTNot According to Script Hollywood gets shown up by pro-war YouTube videos and a didactic antiwar cat. BY BRENDAN MINITER Friday, December 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
The guns of war have fallen silent for Hollywood. Studio executives, who could once count on Americans filling theaters for just about any war movie they produced, are finding this year's war flicks to be a bunch of duds. "Lions for Lambs," Robert Redford's case against the war in Afghanistan, is a flop. It stars Mr. Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise and may not make back its $35 million price tag. Brian De Palma's "Redacted" played to empty seats. Even "The War," Ken Burns's much-anticipated World War II documentary that aired on PBS in September, met a less-than-explosive reception.
But Americans haven't lost their taste for war footage. They've just found a better place to see the type of war film they actually enjoy watching. Some of the hottest videos on YouTube are of actual battles that have taken place in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is footage that often hasn't made its way onto the nightly news or CNN--although some of it has--but it's largely unadulterated film that shows American soldiers in action, bringing the full weight of American military might to bear against the enemy. And in most of these films, it's clear who the enemy is.
Some of the are amateur productions and others are professionally produced, such as two films that have drawn about 700,000 viewers each: "Insurgent Snipers vs. U.S. Marines," put together by the History Channel, and "Iraq Marine Battle Fallujah." In the latter, U.S. Marines are seen assaulting Fallujah. The film, just 4 1/2 minutes, plays to the tune of Dire Straits' 1985 hit "Brothers in Arms," and is a better tribute to the men who fight the nation's wars that anything Hollywood has put out since John Wayne's 1968 film "The Green Berets."
Another film, this one billing itself as "Iraq War (The Great Footage Ever!)," was posted in February and has already drawn more than 1.3 million viewers. It runs a little less than 10 minutes and features shots of U.S. military attack aircraft and U.S. Marines in Iraq. The Marines, who fill the final half of the film, are shown kicking in doors, burning photographs of Saddam Hussein, and blasting insurgents with seemingly every weapon in the U.S. arsenal. It's raw, upfront military aggression targeted at bad guys, interspersed with lighter moments of kicking soccer balls around with Iraqi children and training Iraqi soldiers. It too is compelling video.
Yet another film winning attention--"Battle on Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq"--was posted nine months ago and has been seen by more than 1.8 million viewers. In nearly three minutes of combat footage, viewers can watch a battle scene play out where American and Iraqi soldiers attack and appear to kill insurgents in urban Baghdad. Another short film--"U.S. Marines in Iraq Real Footage Warning Graphic"--plays to American rock music, runs just five minutes. It is an adrenaline rush all the way through and has been seen by some 1.1 million people.
Not every online film is pro-war. One, available here, is a 23-minute discussion of whether the Iraq war is illegal under international law. Narrated by a talking cat, it has been seen by more than 600,000 people. It's anyone's guess how many of them have actually been swayed by the cat's arguments.
Today cameras are ubiquitous and production software is easy enough to use that nearly any American with an interest in doing so can put together a film and post it online for public viewing. That many of the videos showing up on the Internet are just as or even more compelling to watch than what Tinsel Town throws up on the silver screen is both an indictment of Hollywood as well as an opportunity. It's of little mystery now what kind of war films consumers want to see. Most of them involve the good guys winning.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
ouch!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110010956
THE WESTERN FRONTNot According to Script Hollywood gets shown up by pro-war YouTube videos and a didactic antiwar cat. BY BRENDAN MINITER Friday, December 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
The guns of war have fallen silent for Hollywood. Studio executives, who could once count on Americans filling theaters for just about any war movie they produced, are finding this year's war flicks to be a bunch of duds. "Lions for Lambs," Robert Redford's case against the war in Afghanistan, is a flop. It stars Mr. Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise and may not make back its $35 million price tag. Brian De Palma's "Redacted" played to empty seats. Even "The War," Ken Burns's much-anticipated World War II documentary that aired on PBS in September, met a less-than-explosive reception.
But Americans haven't lost their taste for war footage. They've just found a better place to see the type of war film they actually enjoy watching. Some of the hottest videos on YouTube are of actual battles that have taken place in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is footage that often hasn't made its way onto the nightly news or CNN--although some of it has--but it's largely unadulterated film that shows American soldiers in action, bringing the full weight of American military might to bear against the enemy. And in most of these films, it's clear who the enemy is.
Some of the are amateur productions and others are professionally produced, such as two films that have drawn about 700,000 viewers each: "Insurgent Snipers vs. U.S. Marines," put together by the History Channel, and "Iraq Marine Battle Fallujah." In the latter, U.S. Marines are seen assaulting Fallujah. The film, just 4 1/2 minutes, plays to the tune of Dire Straits' 1985 hit "Brothers in Arms," and is a better tribute to the men who fight the nation's wars that anything Hollywood has put out since John Wayne's 1968 film "The Green Berets."
Another film, this one billing itself as "Iraq War (The Great Footage Ever!)," was posted in February and has already drawn more than 1.3 million viewers. It runs a little less than 10 minutes and features shots of U.S. military attack aircraft and U.S. Marines in Iraq. The Marines, who fill the final half of the film, are shown kicking in doors, burning photographs of Saddam Hussein, and blasting insurgents with seemingly every weapon in the U.S. arsenal. It's raw, upfront military aggression targeted at bad guys, interspersed with lighter moments of kicking soccer balls around with Iraqi children and training Iraqi soldiers. It too is compelling video.
Yet another film winning attention--"Battle on Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq"--was posted nine months ago and has been seen by more than 1.8 million viewers. In nearly three minutes of combat footage, viewers can watch a battle scene play out where American and Iraqi soldiers attack and appear to kill insurgents in urban Baghdad. Another short film--"U.S. Marines in Iraq Real Footage Warning Graphic"--plays to American rock music, runs just five minutes. It is an adrenaline rush all the way through and has been seen by some 1.1 million people.
Not every online film is pro-war. One, available here, is a 23-minute discussion of whether the Iraq war is illegal under international law. Narrated by a talking cat, it has been seen by more than 600,000 people. It's anyone's guess how many of them have actually been swayed by the cat's arguments.
Today cameras are ubiquitous and production software is easy enough to use that nearly any American with an interest in doing so can put together a film and post it online for public viewing. That many of the videos showing up on the Internet are just as or even more compelling to watch than what Tinsel Town throws up on the silver screen is both an indictment of Hollywood as well as an opportunity. It's of little mystery now what kind of war films consumers want to see. Most of them involve the good guys winning.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
isalm/iran again
This is the same group of f*cko's that banned women riding bicycles because of thigh motion or something.............
Very pathetic the supposed feminists of The West, this is a real issue but they would rather in fight with us righties than challenge real inequity.
Of course us righties won't cut off anyone's heads like those islamo guys
from NRO, link at the end
I Wonder if the Spooks Noticed This One [Michael Ledeen]
Yeah, the nuclear issue is important to the mullahs, but not as important as boots. Women's boots, that is. This is probably too delicate an issue for the male chauvinist fluffmeisters over at the Intelligence Community—the guys who wrote their celebrated Estimate on the Iranian nuclear weapons program (NOT), but it turns out that the mullahs, in their relentless efforts to ban fun from Iranian life, are cracking down on women again. Top to bottom, so to speak. Hats aren't good enough, and boots that show the shape of the ankles are verboten.
Tehran, 12 Dec. (AKI) - Women have been banned from wearing boots and on the streets of Tehran.Police chief, General Ahmad Radan, announced the ban on Wednesday saying that boots could only be worn if they were covered by pants."If boots are not covered by pants that fall to the ankles, they show the female shape and that is therefore in contradiction with Islamic dress code," said Radan.Iranian women can no longer leave home with their pants pushed inside their boots and they can no longer wear hats without a veil."A hat is not an adequate substitute for a veil or a hijab," he said. " If someone really wants to wear a hat, they can put it on the veil."
Hey, when the Muslims proclaim their caliphate it's gonna be hell for the fashion business. Maybe that's why the French are getting tougher on Iran?
h/t: Weasel Zippers
12/12 11:12 PM
Very pathetic the supposed feminists of The West, this is a real issue but they would rather in fight with us righties than challenge real inequity.
Of course us righties won't cut off anyone's heads like those islamo guys
from NRO, link at the end
I Wonder if the Spooks Noticed This One [Michael Ledeen]
Yeah, the nuclear issue is important to the mullahs, but not as important as boots. Women's boots, that is. This is probably too delicate an issue for the male chauvinist fluffmeisters over at the Intelligence Community—the guys who wrote their celebrated Estimate on the Iranian nuclear weapons program (NOT), but it turns out that the mullahs, in their relentless efforts to ban fun from Iranian life, are cracking down on women again. Top to bottom, so to speak. Hats aren't good enough, and boots that show the shape of the ankles are verboten.
Tehran, 12 Dec. (AKI) - Women have been banned from wearing boots and on the streets of Tehran.Police chief, General Ahmad Radan, announced the ban on Wednesday saying that boots could only be worn if they were covered by pants."If boots are not covered by pants that fall to the ankles, they show the female shape and that is therefore in contradiction with Islamic dress code," said Radan.Iranian women can no longer leave home with their pants pushed inside their boots and they can no longer wear hats without a veil."A hat is not an adequate substitute for a veil or a hijab," he said. " If someone really wants to wear a hat, they can put it on the veil."
Hey, when the Muslims proclaim their caliphate it's gonna be hell for the fashion business. Maybe that's why the French are getting tougher on Iran?
h/t: Weasel Zippers
12/12 11:12 PM
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Are Journalists really this stupid???
The only thing needed for EVIL to prosper is for good men to stand back and do nothing...... can't remember who that was .
Beats me, Sherlock [Mark Steyn
From Der Spiegel, a report on how Europe's most tolerant city no longer seems quite so tolerant:
With the number of homophobic attacks rising in the Dutch metropolis, Amsterdam officials are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men are targeting the city's gays.
Gee, whiz. That's a toughie. Wonder what the reason could be. But don't worry, the University of Amsterdam is on top of things:
Half of the crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin and researchers believe they felt stigmatized by society and responded by attacking people they felt were lower on the social ladder. Another working theory is that the attackers may be struggling with their own sexual identity.
Bingo! Telling young Moroccan men they're closeted gays seems certain to lessen tensions in the city! While you're at it, a lot of those Turks seem a bit light on their loafers, don't you think?
Any researchers who haven't fully signed on to the "social stigmatization" argument might like to dust off the reports following the stabbing in 2002 of Paris' first openly gay mayor, Bertrand Delanoe, by a Muslim immigrant, Azedine Berkane. Le Monde reported the views of M Berkane's neighbors:
“He was a bit like us,” said one. “We’re all homophobic here, because it’s not natural.”“It’s against Islam,” said another. “Muslim fags don’t exist.”
As I say somewhere in my book: If you think Iraq's Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shia are incompatible, what do you call a jurisdiction split between post-Christian secular gay potheads and anti-whoring anti-sodomite anti-everything-you-dig Islamists? If Kurdistan’s an awkward fit in Iraq, how well will Pornostan fit in the Islamic Republic of Holland?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzllMzVjMmI4MGVkODMzZmU3ZWFkMmY0ZWY1ZDhlNjA=
Beats me, Sherlock [Mark Steyn
From Der Spiegel, a report on how Europe's most tolerant city no longer seems quite so tolerant:
With the number of homophobic attacks rising in the Dutch metropolis, Amsterdam officials are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men are targeting the city's gays.
Gee, whiz. That's a toughie. Wonder what the reason could be. But don't worry, the University of Amsterdam is on top of things:
Half of the crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin and researchers believe they felt stigmatized by society and responded by attacking people they felt were lower on the social ladder. Another working theory is that the attackers may be struggling with their own sexual identity.
Bingo! Telling young Moroccan men they're closeted gays seems certain to lessen tensions in the city! While you're at it, a lot of those Turks seem a bit light on their loafers, don't you think?
Any researchers who haven't fully signed on to the "social stigmatization" argument might like to dust off the reports following the stabbing in 2002 of Paris' first openly gay mayor, Bertrand Delanoe, by a Muslim immigrant, Azedine Berkane. Le Monde reported the views of M Berkane's neighbors:
“He was a bit like us,” said one. “We’re all homophobic here, because it’s not natural.”“It’s against Islam,” said another. “Muslim fags don’t exist.”
As I say somewhere in my book: If you think Iraq's Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shia are incompatible, what do you call a jurisdiction split between post-Christian secular gay potheads and anti-whoring anti-sodomite anti-everything-you-dig Islamists? If Kurdistan’s an awkward fit in Iraq, how well will Pornostan fit in the Islamic Republic of Holland?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzllMzVjMmI4MGVkODMzZmU3ZWFkMmY0ZWY1ZDhlNjA=
Muscular Christianity
I'm an admitted islamo-basher.
I'm not fearful of them(an islamophobe), I despise them and think they are 3rd world f#cks who should mind there manners.
The reason the islamic world is the third world is their culture.
There is no peace without VICTORY
The limp wristed Liberals need to buck up or convert to Islam, then we know who our enemies are.
Taking a stand [Mark Steyn
The Washington Post's "On Faith" section offers some hilariously convoluted prose by Professors John L Esposito and John O Voll on the current scene. Opening sentence:
In a world in which Islamophobes blur the distinction between the barbaric acts of Muslim extremists and terrorists and the religion of Islam, two recent legal decisions in Sudan and Saudi Arabia will reinforce accusations that Islam is an intolerant religion.
As John Hinderaker at Power Line points out, that's "one of those sentences where the second clause takes away what the first clause asserted". The second sentence is almost as good:
After years of civil war and bloodshed and having failed to effectively respond to what some describe as genocide in Darfur, Sudan’s government and judiciary have captured global attention with...
"Having failed to effectively respond to what some describe as..." Think we've got enough weaselly qualifying speed-bumps in there, lads? Shouldn't it be "Having been accused by some of failing to respond as effectively as has been argued they might have done to what some might describe as genocide if they weren't on top of all the nuances as we are..."?
Messrs Esposito and Voll now get down to the meat of their piece: Their main problem with tossing British schoolteachers in the slammer over teddy-bear names and giving 19-year old Saudi women 200 lashes and six months in jail for the crime of getting gang-raped isn't that blameless grade-school teachers are getting imprisoned and rape victims are getting lashed, but that such stories play into the hands of "right-wing extremists" who paint stereotypical portraits of Islam as intolerant. And that's a bad thing - not the lashing and jailing, but the right-wing stereotypes:
At a time when Islam is under siege from Muslim extremists and extremists from the Far Right in Europe and America, the judiciaries of Sudan and Saudi Arabia have managed to reinforce the vilification of Islam...
Fortunately, the professors offer an easy solution. Instead of writing about torturing women, we should all torture our prose style into equivalist mush suggesting Islam is no different from the Buddhists or Episcopalians or any other religion in having its overheated elements:
All our futures depend upon an ability to agree upon a global ethic, based upon mutual understanding and respect, that transcends our religious and cultural differences. Whatever our differences, there can never be an acceptable excuse for injustice and intolerance in the name of our religions.
Who are these guys? As the sign-off explains:
“On Faith” panelist John L. Esposito is professor of religion, international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University. He also is founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
John O. Voll is professor of Islamic history and associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding
Ah. That I understand
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTdiY2IyMTE4ZDM5MmM3MzQxYWI2Y2MyODNlMjcyNzU=
I'm not fearful of them(an islamophobe), I despise them and think they are 3rd world f#cks who should mind there manners.
The reason the islamic world is the third world is their culture.
There is no peace without VICTORY
The limp wristed Liberals need to buck up or convert to Islam, then we know who our enemies are.
Taking a stand [Mark Steyn
The Washington Post's "On Faith" section offers some hilariously convoluted prose by Professors John L Esposito and John O Voll on the current scene. Opening sentence:
In a world in which Islamophobes blur the distinction between the barbaric acts of Muslim extremists and terrorists and the religion of Islam, two recent legal decisions in Sudan and Saudi Arabia will reinforce accusations that Islam is an intolerant religion.
As John Hinderaker at Power Line points out, that's "one of those sentences where the second clause takes away what the first clause asserted". The second sentence is almost as good:
After years of civil war and bloodshed and having failed to effectively respond to what some describe as genocide in Darfur, Sudan’s government and judiciary have captured global attention with...
"Having failed to effectively respond to what some describe as..." Think we've got enough weaselly qualifying speed-bumps in there, lads? Shouldn't it be "Having been accused by some of failing to respond as effectively as has been argued they might have done to what some might describe as genocide if they weren't on top of all the nuances as we are..."?
Messrs Esposito and Voll now get down to the meat of their piece: Their main problem with tossing British schoolteachers in the slammer over teddy-bear names and giving 19-year old Saudi women 200 lashes and six months in jail for the crime of getting gang-raped isn't that blameless grade-school teachers are getting imprisoned and rape victims are getting lashed, but that such stories play into the hands of "right-wing extremists" who paint stereotypical portraits of Islam as intolerant. And that's a bad thing - not the lashing and jailing, but the right-wing stereotypes:
At a time when Islam is under siege from Muslim extremists and extremists from the Far Right in Europe and America, the judiciaries of Sudan and Saudi Arabia have managed to reinforce the vilification of Islam...
Fortunately, the professors offer an easy solution. Instead of writing about torturing women, we should all torture our prose style into equivalist mush suggesting Islam is no different from the Buddhists or Episcopalians or any other religion in having its overheated elements:
All our futures depend upon an ability to agree upon a global ethic, based upon mutual understanding and respect, that transcends our religious and cultural differences. Whatever our differences, there can never be an acceptable excuse for injustice and intolerance in the name of our religions.
Who are these guys? As the sign-off explains:
“On Faith” panelist John L. Esposito is professor of religion, international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University. He also is founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
John O. Voll is professor of Islamic history and associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding
Ah. That I understand
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTdiY2IyMTE4ZDM5MmM3MzQxYWI2Y2MyODNlMjcyNzU=
Sunday, November 4, 2007
I know let's deport them
Let's deport both groups and let them sort it out back where they came from. Not that they are assimilated Norsk'ers or anything
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/11/turks-vs-kurds-in-oslo.html#readfurther
Turks vs. Kurds in Oslo
by Baron Bodissey
The conflict on the border between Iraq and Turkey is not confined to Anatolia and Mesopotamia. According to Aftenposten, violence has broken out between Turks and Kurds in Oslo and other Norwegian cities.I can’t find any stories about this in English, but Tundra Tabloids (which tipped me to the story) has a report on it, and the blog Islam in Europe has posted a digest of the news stories, which is reproduced below:
A brutal fight broke out when counter-demonstrators met up with a legal protest held by the Norwegian Turkey-Committee in Oslo, Saturday afternoon. Twenty-thirty counter-demonstrators suddenly showed up. Some of them had clubs with them, said Finn Belle of the Oslo police. The counter-demonstrators held flags that symbolize Kurdish independence.One man in the demonstration process was attacked by two counter-demonstrators. He was hit in the head by two people with clubs, such that one of the clubs broke.
According to an Aftenposten photographer the men attacked for more than 10 seconds before police managed to separate them from each other.Belle says that an ambulance was summoned but that he does not know how seriously injured the man was.- - - - - - - - -
One of the counter-demonstrators was caught by plain-clothed policemen, while the other disappeared in the crowd. The Norwegian Turkey-Committee demonstrated against PKK terrorists. About 450 people had gotten permission from a police to march in Oslo. The mood was irritable and tense. Some of the Turks were on their way to attack the counter-demonstrators but were held back by police and by fellow demonstrators.Kurds and Turks in Norway demonstrated Saturday in more cities around the country, reports NTB. In Bodø, 250 Kurds demonstrated peacefully, reports Avisa Nordland. They held an appeal in the city square against Turkey’s plans to attack in Kurdish areas in North-Iraq. In Trondheim about 50 people demonstrated against Turkey’s presence in Kurdish areas.The demonstrations were related to Iraq giving permission to Turkey to strike against PKK guerrillas based in Northern Iraq.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/11/turks-vs-kurds-in-oslo.html#readfurther
Turks vs. Kurds in Oslo
by Baron Bodissey
The conflict on the border between Iraq and Turkey is not confined to Anatolia and Mesopotamia. According to Aftenposten, violence has broken out between Turks and Kurds in Oslo and other Norwegian cities.I can’t find any stories about this in English, but Tundra Tabloids (which tipped me to the story) has a report on it, and the blog Islam in Europe has posted a digest of the news stories, which is reproduced below:
A brutal fight broke out when counter-demonstrators met up with a legal protest held by the Norwegian Turkey-Committee in Oslo, Saturday afternoon. Twenty-thirty counter-demonstrators suddenly showed up. Some of them had clubs with them, said Finn Belle of the Oslo police. The counter-demonstrators held flags that symbolize Kurdish independence.One man in the demonstration process was attacked by two counter-demonstrators. He was hit in the head by two people with clubs, such that one of the clubs broke.
According to an Aftenposten photographer the men attacked for more than 10 seconds before police managed to separate them from each other.Belle says that an ambulance was summoned but that he does not know how seriously injured the man was.- - - - - - - - -
One of the counter-demonstrators was caught by plain-clothed policemen, while the other disappeared in the crowd. The Norwegian Turkey-Committee demonstrated against PKK terrorists. About 450 people had gotten permission from a police to march in Oslo. The mood was irritable and tense. Some of the Turks were on their way to attack the counter-demonstrators but were held back by police and by fellow demonstrators.Kurds and Turks in Norway demonstrated Saturday in more cities around the country, reports NTB. In Bodø, 250 Kurds demonstrated peacefully, reports Avisa Nordland. They held an appeal in the city square against Turkey’s plans to attack in Kurdish areas in North-Iraq. In Trondheim about 50 people demonstrated against Turkey’s presence in Kurdish areas.The demonstrations were related to Iraq giving permission to Turkey to strike against PKK guerrillas based in Northern Iraq.
Eight 9-11 hijackers were registered to vote
Absolutely amazing
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmFjYTE3NGJiNTE1M2FlMTA2NzUyNDA5NDIyOGRlOTE=
Eight 9-11 hijackers were registered to vote [Tom Gross
This information has been out there for some time, but mostly right-of-center journalists such as Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe and John Fund at the Wall Street Journal have mentioned it.
There has been remarkably little reference to it in the so-called mainstream media.
“Now, in the context of the current debate over the granting of driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, will there be renewed focus on this chilling reality?” asks Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters.org.
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmFjYTE3NGJiNTE1M2FlMTA2NzUyNDA5NDIyOGRlOTE=
Eight 9-11 hijackers were registered to vote [Tom Gross
This information has been out there for some time, but mostly right-of-center journalists such as Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe and John Fund at the Wall Street Journal have mentioned it.
There has been remarkably little reference to it in the so-called mainstream media.
“Now, in the context of the current debate over the granting of driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, will there be renewed focus on this chilling reality?” asks Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters.org.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Damn Dirty Hajji
Better siad than I could have.
http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTI2ZDcxNTJhMGNmMTJhNzkzOThiM2NlYjgwMDRjNmQ=
Foot Washing Baths Coming to NYU [Carol Iannone
A couple of weeks ago, the New York Post reported that the foot washing basins are coming to New York University.The Muslims also have to wash their arms, ears, nostrils, faces, necks, and heads, so they may still need the sinks.
Here is a description of the washing before prayer from an Islamic website. (I've lost the link but there are numerous websites giving these instructions.) This is done five times a day every day:
— Before Wudu you make your intention. Then start with washing the hands as far as the wrists. You perform this 3 times.
— Rinse out the mouth with water using the right hand. You perform this 3 times.
— Wash the nostrils by sniffing up water and blowing it out. You perform this 3 times.
— Wash the face 3 times .
— Wash each arm up to the elbow. You perform this 3 times.
— Wipe or rub the head with the inside of the fingers. You perform this once.
— Clean the inside of the ears with the index fingers and the back of the ears with the thumbs. You perform this once.
— Wipe the back of the neck. You perform this once.
— Wash the feet up to the ankles. You perform this 3 timesThe website also says that there are special rules for situations where water is not readily available, but the example offered is the desert.
CAIR has published guides for employers, schools, prisons, hospitals, etc., on the special needs of Muslims that they say must be accommodated in these places. These pamphlets appear to be the source for a lot of what we're hearing of Muslim demands. For example, they insist that no Muslim should be expected to serve or sell alcohol. They do not say that Muslims should avoid taking jobs where alcohol is part of the work. On the washing business, they recommend using the sinks in restrooms for the ritual washing. In hospitals and nursing homes, aides should help Muslims who cannot perform the ritual washing by themselves. Students in public schools should be allowed to perform the ablutions and the prayers. In schools or the workplace, Muslims performing the prayers cannot be approached for any reason but an emergency and no one may walk in front of them. In public schools, they want qualified Islamic experts to be brought into the classrooms to explain Islam, and they call it an error to say that Allah is the Muslim God. He must be seen as the same God as of Judaism and Christianity, even though Islam calls Abraham a Muslim and says he nearly sacrificed Ishmael not Isaac, and the Muslim "Jesus" cannot be called the Son of God, did not die on the cross, and was not resurrected, all of which completely negates the entire Christian faith. One wonders how this can be going on in public schools when the Supreme Court has ruled that even voluntary prayer is disallowed, when we have people mounting lawsuits to take "under God" out of the pledge and going into paroxysms of protest at the merest hint of God or Christianity in the public sphere. So much fear is focused on Muslims being violent that this kind of thing is being overlooked. People are grateful that they're just washing their feet instead of becoming suicide bombers. But it is proof that Muslims are not assimilating, that they expect America to accommodate them, and not vice versa, and that it is not just jihad but everyday ordinary Muslim practices that will present problems to America. One recalls how the supporters of mass immigration always insist that new immigrants are assimilating just as immigrants did in the past, and how they call people racists, nativists, and xeonophobes for the mildest demurral. But it is obvious from reading the guides that Muslims are counting on their growing numbers to make more and more demands on society while the rest of us sputter in protest or sheepishly go along. They are not even willing to modify or adapt an intrusive practice that is inconsiderate and discourteous to the majority of people with whom they work and study who must use the resrooms for ordinary purposes. As for the idea of installing special foot basins, it is obviously an unwarranted public accommodation of religion, but because the Muslims' washing their feet in the sinks is so repellant (leading to "wet floors, dirty conditions," and "uncomfortable moments"), and because political correctness and the principle of non-discrimination has gone so far, and because of the practiced nonchalance of today in which everything is supposed to be accepted, no one protests. Not even those who would grow hot with rage at any public display of Christianity.
The CAIR guides also make plentiful use of the concept of "diversity." And Islamic spokesmen have learned to use the language of rights, pluralism, inclusiveness, in their debased multiculturalist meanings, to further their encroachments, such as demanding halal foods in public school lunchrooms. A spokesman on televison seemed to think that this is what America owes Muslims, that this is the promise of inclusiveness, tolerance, pluralism, etc., that there should be this much accommodation of Muslim demands. And of course no one is telling him otherwise. No one is telling him that if they want this level of religious observance, America allows them to create their own religious schools with their own money, not to renovate the public scools to fit their customs. Likewise, when it comes to serving or selling alcohol, no one is telling them that American freedom and prosperity means that Muslims do not have to take jobs that require dealing with alcohol. But it's not just the Left to blame for this state of affairs. The Right with its claims of America as a "universal nation" is also to blame. Theodore Dalrymple writes about how Scotland and Italy are succumbing to sharia laws. Dalrymple lives in Europe so he doesn't see that it is also happening here, despite all the happy talk about Muslims in America assimilating better than in Europe. I believe that Muslims would adapt if they met any resistance, but they see all this diffidence and fatuous servility toward them and so their only thought is to proceed with their sense of entitlement and make more demands. (A Muslim student at NYU did feel uncomfortable, which could be the basis for some kind of change in behavior: "Having other students 'just walking in and seeing us have our feet in the sink - it's awkward,' she added.") The president has unfortunately led the way in this, albeit out of good intentions. He has gone so far into the "universalism" that he has come to believe that America stands for nothing but openness and inclusiveness, has no culture whatsoever, and exists only to accommodate every group that deigns to gift us with their presence in full multicultural fashion. Thus his annual White House iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan. According to one article: "President and Mrs. Bush host an iftar dinner every year because they want people around the world to know how much they respect Islam and the many Muslims living in the U.S. who are free to worship as they want, and are an integral part of our society," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council. Actually it sends the opposite message. Not that they are part of us, but that they are separate and require separate homage to their religion at the White House. Also, the dinner is meant to prove that Bush is not an enemy of Islam, but those who believe that are not going to be put off by the annual dinner. The dinner just encourages them to expect more servility and to look for other ways in which Muslims are not being specifically served or accommodated. It is not really called for that an American president host White House dinners in honor of Islam in order to show Muslims that he respects them. The American Constitution respects them and he is supposed to uphold the Constitution. Actually, believe it or not, time was when we would expect the groups to show that they respect America, not that our president would have to make a display of showing his respect toward them. And of course the WH makes no mention of the fact that Muslims' being "free to worship as they want" is presenting a burden to others and is producing behavior that is entirely out of keeping with American standards of public comportment. Furthermore, the president has accepted the Muslim view of God. Cal Thomas expresses dismay that Bush has professed on Al Arabiya television that the Muslim God is the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus that we know from the Bible. Bush does this explicitly in the name of "universality," indicating that becoming universal means eventually losing what is most dear.
10/18 11:38 AM
http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTI2ZDcxNTJhMGNmMTJhNzkzOThiM2NlYjgwMDRjNmQ=
Foot Washing Baths Coming to NYU [Carol Iannone
A couple of weeks ago, the New York Post reported that the foot washing basins are coming to New York University.The Muslims also have to wash their arms, ears, nostrils, faces, necks, and heads, so they may still need the sinks.
Here is a description of the washing before prayer from an Islamic website. (I've lost the link but there are numerous websites giving these instructions.) This is done five times a day every day:
— Before Wudu you make your intention. Then start with washing the hands as far as the wrists. You perform this 3 times.
— Rinse out the mouth with water using the right hand. You perform this 3 times.
— Wash the nostrils by sniffing up water and blowing it out. You perform this 3 times.
— Wash the face 3 times .
— Wash each arm up to the elbow. You perform this 3 times.
— Wipe or rub the head with the inside of the fingers. You perform this once.
— Clean the inside of the ears with the index fingers and the back of the ears with the thumbs. You perform this once.
— Wipe the back of the neck. You perform this once.
— Wash the feet up to the ankles. You perform this 3 timesThe website also says that there are special rules for situations where water is not readily available, but the example offered is the desert.
CAIR has published guides for employers, schools, prisons, hospitals, etc., on the special needs of Muslims that they say must be accommodated in these places. These pamphlets appear to be the source for a lot of what we're hearing of Muslim demands. For example, they insist that no Muslim should be expected to serve or sell alcohol. They do not say that Muslims should avoid taking jobs where alcohol is part of the work. On the washing business, they recommend using the sinks in restrooms for the ritual washing. In hospitals and nursing homes, aides should help Muslims who cannot perform the ritual washing by themselves. Students in public schools should be allowed to perform the ablutions and the prayers. In schools or the workplace, Muslims performing the prayers cannot be approached for any reason but an emergency and no one may walk in front of them. In public schools, they want qualified Islamic experts to be brought into the classrooms to explain Islam, and they call it an error to say that Allah is the Muslim God. He must be seen as the same God as of Judaism and Christianity, even though Islam calls Abraham a Muslim and says he nearly sacrificed Ishmael not Isaac, and the Muslim "Jesus" cannot be called the Son of God, did not die on the cross, and was not resurrected, all of which completely negates the entire Christian faith. One wonders how this can be going on in public schools when the Supreme Court has ruled that even voluntary prayer is disallowed, when we have people mounting lawsuits to take "under God" out of the pledge and going into paroxysms of protest at the merest hint of God or Christianity in the public sphere. So much fear is focused on Muslims being violent that this kind of thing is being overlooked. People are grateful that they're just washing their feet instead of becoming suicide bombers. But it is proof that Muslims are not assimilating, that they expect America to accommodate them, and not vice versa, and that it is not just jihad but everyday ordinary Muslim practices that will present problems to America. One recalls how the supporters of mass immigration always insist that new immigrants are assimilating just as immigrants did in the past, and how they call people racists, nativists, and xeonophobes for the mildest demurral. But it is obvious from reading the guides that Muslims are counting on their growing numbers to make more and more demands on society while the rest of us sputter in protest or sheepishly go along. They are not even willing to modify or adapt an intrusive practice that is inconsiderate and discourteous to the majority of people with whom they work and study who must use the resrooms for ordinary purposes. As for the idea of installing special foot basins, it is obviously an unwarranted public accommodation of religion, but because the Muslims' washing their feet in the sinks is so repellant (leading to "wet floors, dirty conditions," and "uncomfortable moments"), and because political correctness and the principle of non-discrimination has gone so far, and because of the practiced nonchalance of today in which everything is supposed to be accepted, no one protests. Not even those who would grow hot with rage at any public display of Christianity.
The CAIR guides also make plentiful use of the concept of "diversity." And Islamic spokesmen have learned to use the language of rights, pluralism, inclusiveness, in their debased multiculturalist meanings, to further their encroachments, such as demanding halal foods in public school lunchrooms. A spokesman on televison seemed to think that this is what America owes Muslims, that this is the promise of inclusiveness, tolerance, pluralism, etc., that there should be this much accommodation of Muslim demands. And of course no one is telling him otherwise. No one is telling him that if they want this level of religious observance, America allows them to create their own religious schools with their own money, not to renovate the public scools to fit their customs. Likewise, when it comes to serving or selling alcohol, no one is telling them that American freedom and prosperity means that Muslims do not have to take jobs that require dealing with alcohol. But it's not just the Left to blame for this state of affairs. The Right with its claims of America as a "universal nation" is also to blame. Theodore Dalrymple writes about how Scotland and Italy are succumbing to sharia laws. Dalrymple lives in Europe so he doesn't see that it is also happening here, despite all the happy talk about Muslims in America assimilating better than in Europe. I believe that Muslims would adapt if they met any resistance, but they see all this diffidence and fatuous servility toward them and so their only thought is to proceed with their sense of entitlement and make more demands. (A Muslim student at NYU did feel uncomfortable, which could be the basis for some kind of change in behavior: "Having other students 'just walking in and seeing us have our feet in the sink - it's awkward,' she added.") The president has unfortunately led the way in this, albeit out of good intentions. He has gone so far into the "universalism" that he has come to believe that America stands for nothing but openness and inclusiveness, has no culture whatsoever, and exists only to accommodate every group that deigns to gift us with their presence in full multicultural fashion. Thus his annual White House iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan. According to one article: "President and Mrs. Bush host an iftar dinner every year because they want people around the world to know how much they respect Islam and the many Muslims living in the U.S. who are free to worship as they want, and are an integral part of our society," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council. Actually it sends the opposite message. Not that they are part of us, but that they are separate and require separate homage to their religion at the White House. Also, the dinner is meant to prove that Bush is not an enemy of Islam, but those who believe that are not going to be put off by the annual dinner. The dinner just encourages them to expect more servility and to look for other ways in which Muslims are not being specifically served or accommodated. It is not really called for that an American president host White House dinners in honor of Islam in order to show Muslims that he respects them. The American Constitution respects them and he is supposed to uphold the Constitution. Actually, believe it or not, time was when we would expect the groups to show that they respect America, not that our president would have to make a display of showing his respect toward them. And of course the WH makes no mention of the fact that Muslims' being "free to worship as they want" is presenting a burden to others and is producing behavior that is entirely out of keeping with American standards of public comportment. Furthermore, the president has accepted the Muslim view of God. Cal Thomas expresses dismay that Bush has professed on Al Arabiya television that the Muslim God is the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus that we know from the Bible. Bush does this explicitly in the name of "universality," indicating that becoming universal means eventually losing what is most dear.
10/18 11:38 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)