#1
But its hard to resist the gathering suspicion that, whether he is healthy or not, Beckhams arrival on the American scene may represent the single largest piece of hubristic hype since Icarus dismissively waved away the factor-45 sunblock.
Winning plaudits from the Labour Left and the Brussels bureaucracy by sniffing noisily at Bush foreign policy is easy politics but not a substitute for serious decision-making.
All this and Monty Python allusions as well. What's not to like?
#2
The comments section contains a note from one of the sane living in the UK regarding the need the rest of the world still has for the good ol' US of A.
In the end, rational states will go by that.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/10/2007 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
. . . After some commentators and soldiers raised questions about the plausibility of these tales, both the Army and The New Republic investigated. The Army issued a statement saying flatly that the stories were false. The New Republic claims that it had corroboration from unnamed soldiers. The Weekly Standard quoted an anonymous military source as saying that Beauchamp himself signed a statement recanting what he had written.
Amid these conflicting claims, one issue is not in dispute. When The New Republic did its initial investigation, it admitted that Beauchamp had erred on one significant detail. The disfigured woman incident happened not in Iraq, but in Kuwait.
That means it all happened before Beauchamp arrived in Iraq. But the whole point of that story was to demonstrate how the war had turned an otherwise sensitive soul into a monster. Indeed, in the precious, highly self-conscious literary style of an aspiring writer trying out for a New Yorker gig, Beauchamp follows the terrible tale of his cruelty to the disfigured woman by asking, Am I a monster? And answering with satisfaction that the very fact that he could ask this question after (the reader has been led to believe) having been so hardened and brutalized by war, shows that there is a kernel of humanity left in him.
But oh, how much was lost. In the past, you see, he was a sensitive soul with compassion for those with disabilities. In a particularly treacly passage, he tells us he once worked in a summer camp with disabled children and in college helped a colleague with cerebral palsy. Then this delicate compassionate youth is transformed into an unfeeling animal by war.
Except that it is now revealed that the mess hall incident happened before he even got to the war. On which point, the whole story and the whole morality tale it was meant to suggest collapses.
And it makes the rest of the narrative banal and uninteresting. Its the story of a disgusting human being, a mocker of the disfigured, who then goes to Iraq, and, as such human beings are wont to do, finds the company of other such human beings who kill dogs for sport, wear the bones of dead children on their heads, and find amusement in mocking the disfigured.
We will soon learn if there actually was a dog killer or a bone wearer. But The New Republic seems not to have understood how the Kuwait detail undermines everything. After all, what made the purported story interesting enough to publish? Why did The New Republic run it?
Because it fits perfectly into the most virulent narrative of the antiwar Left. The Iraq war George Bushs war, as even Hillary Clinton, along with countless others who had actually endorsed the war, now calls it has not only caused the sorrow and destruction that we read about every day. It has, most perniciously, caused invisible damage now made visible by the soul-searching of one brave and gifted private: It has perverted and corrupted the young soldiers who went to Iraq, and now return morally ruined. Young soldiers like Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
We already knew from all of Americas armed conflicts including Iraq what war can make men do. The only thing we learn from Scott Thomas Beauchamp is what literary ambition can make men say.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/10/2007 08:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
So Hammer says the war did not make him a sicko, which suggests this dude was already a serious sicko before he went to war - well, either that, or an aspiring writer for the New York Times. Or both.
So then, is the war bad because it attracted him? But that would make it good, becasue it served as 'flypaper' for him, and other sickos, who might have otherwise acted out their fantasies on our own folks.
Maybe The New Republic should do a feature on how blind ambition ruined an otherwise promising literary career?
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/10/2007 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Or they could be hanged for sedition. Just sending that one up as a trial balloon.
Just in case you missed this from Hotair.com --- it's short!
When he wasnt busy over the past year or so arguing that we ought to fight al Qaeda in Iraq from our bases in Okinawa and Diego Garcia, Rep. Jack Abscam Murtha has been busy stuffing his face with pork, behaving questionably over appropriations and smearing US Marines. Now that three of the Marines Murtha prejudged to be guilty of cold-blooded murder have been cleared of all charges, Murtha ought to answer for what he has been saying about them.
Today, I called up his office in DC to see if he was planning on issuing any statements. For some reason, his staff is less than forthcoming on that point.
#2
I wonder if the affected Marines can sue Murtha for slander?
Posted by: ed ||
08/10/2007 15:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
prob not ed since congressmen and women seem too be above the law. like their offices or houses can't be searched even with a search warrant like the rest of us
#4
On the floor of the House or Senate they have a "Debate Clause" that keeps them from lawsuits.
I believe the "Honorable" Jack "ABSCAM: At this time" Murtha made his comments on television. Strictly speaking, I don't think they are protected. Interesting Constitutional question, that.
#6
He has an out so far in that not all those charged in the Haditha incident have had charges dropped yet. It looks from this that the odds are good that they will be - that will be the time to chase down Murtha.
#7
Murtha is a slovenly, lying, self-serving, ABSCAMing, ear-marking, piss porr excuse for a man let alone a Marine. I hope they go after him and the millions he has funneled to his brother like they are going after Senator Ted.
LOGO, the sponsor and organizer of last night's Democratic debate focusing on gay issues, has spoken: "Dennis Kucinich Is Fantabulous!"
You would think I was making fun of them, but I'm not. That's the actual headline.
On the post-debate coverage on the channel, comic Alec Mapa - they had a comedian doing ? - described Kucinich as "magical... He led our own little gay church revival! Hurrah!"
Posted by: Mike ||
08/10/2007 11:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11136 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Kucinich juggernaut rolls on.
All he has to do now is marry Liza Minnelli...
Presidential aspirant Mike Gravel recently opined on the advantages of having gays in the military: ...the Spartans trained their people to be homosexuals because they were better fighters.
Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.
We knew who the enemy was then.
We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.
Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working, if we are "safer" now, whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls, whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams," whether those plotting alleged attacks on Fort Dix or Kennedy airport are serious threats or amateur bumblers. We bicker over the trees while the forest is ablaze.
America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.
Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.
#1
This is a truly sad indictment of American apathy. Even sadder is that it's most likely true. If America cannot summon forth leadership with the vision to successfully pre-empt Islam's avowed goal of world domination, we will definitely suffer another 9-11 type atrocity. Most probably, the coming terrorist catastrophe will make 9-11 look like a walk in the park. Time is running out for us to read Islam the riot act. Without an unmistakable demonstration of what awaits further terrorist attacks upon American soil, only the risk that Islam poses to itself exceeds our own danger.
We owe it to ourselves and this world's Muslim populationin that orderto make vividly clear the sort of wholesale destruction that even a single new attack will bring down upon Islam's collective brow.
#2
The problem Zen is that Americans have a problem with that "collective brow" thing.
The one BIG mistake that Bush made was in not ramping up the propaganda machine 24/7 on 9/12 to target all Muslims that supported or cheered Al Q. He made it way to easy for the enemy and Muslims to turn it around so that we were attacked by this little bitty org that really had no tie to Islam.
He needed to define the "collective brow" and not let up. He should have directed the efforts against all the Salafist and radical Shiia groups/countries/mosques here there and eveywhere.
But, he got stuck in that stupid PC ROP cesspool and let the other define him and us.
#3
Bush did the best he could under the circumstances. On 9/12 the country and the rest of the world was not going to sign up for a war on all the Muslims who really supported OBL, because that was a large majority of Muslims and would have been a religious war.
But things will be different after the February 2009 attack. 9/11 will then be seen as the Reuben James is now to Pearl Harbor. We will then go to full war footing and be much more aggressive on more fronts. And don't be surprised if the other side is composed of more than Muslims.
What is amazing to me is that anyone in the MSM would write and could get published such an article.
#4
I doubt even a new 9/11 would unite the country. The republicans would blame Bush for not running a better war, the dhimocrats will blame Bush for planning the 9/11. Not even a very large nuclear attack would unite us again I'm afraid.
#5
1. The West was NEVER united after 9/11. Most of Europe and all of the left here in the U.S. was either happy that harm had come to capitalist Americans (weak protestations of a few Euro politicians nothwithstanding) or leaping to say that while they didn't like the violence, the U.S. brought it all on themselves.
2. Zenster is spot on with his analysis. Much as George HW Bush completely blew it by not using the bully pulpit and American funding to give all forms of collectivism a massive PR blast (in the manner of all forms of fascism being branded evil after WWII, or piracy being vilified in the 18th century, or slavery in the 19th) and bury it forever after the fall of the Berlin Wall, so too did W not use the moment to rally the West against Islamofascism/stalinism.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/10/2007 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The one BIG mistake that Bush made was in not ramping up the propaganda machine 24/7 on 9/12 to target all Muslims that supported or cheered Al Q. He made it way to easy for the enemy and Muslims to turn it around so that we were attacked by this little bitty org that really had no tie to Islam.
While history has yet to adjudge whether Bush's Mid-East strategy is pure genius or total folly, his abject failure to activate America's immense propaganda resources is already a given. VOA should have gone into overdrive with a vigorous campaign of identifying both violent Koranic doctrine and shari'a law as the core components of our enemy's beliefs.
This would have forced the Muslim world to either openly embrace militant jihad directly in the face of bin Laden's 9-11 atrocity or begin a process of rejecting it as un-Islamic. Either way, it would have caused an important polarization both within Islam and inside our borders. Such a move would have limned out the nature of this threat we face and ensured clear perception of its origins.
To date, no such thing has happened and instead we have been treated to the abhorent spectacle of leaders around the globeincluding Bushsoft pedaling the violent nature of Islam's central tenets.
But, he got stuck in that stupid PC ROP cesspool and let the other define him and us.
This may be your best point of all, AlanC. By abdicating his sworn duty to defend Americabe it militarily or psychologicallyBush allowed our enemies to gain the tempo and thereby direct the war of words. Remember, in high context Muslim cultures oratory sill and erudite disquisition are essential components of establishing one's position of authority. Bush'snot just laughablebut self-abasing silence forever discredited him in the eyes of our enemy. Far betterfrom the Muslim point of viewthat he had declared war on all Islam than to bite his tongue in the face of such a monumental insult to America.
Bush's silenceagain, in their eyeswas tantamount to an admission of fault and of America somehow deserving the 9-11 atrocity. Only a blunt and unequivocal accusation of or retaliation against Islam would have served our purpose in cleaving away whatever minuscule fraction of Muslims that were servicable to our cause.
This did not happen and our enemies siezed the opportunity to unite their undecided millions against a perceptibly weak foe. By the time any invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq began, the damage was already done. Low context Western mindsets simply could not comprehend how such a belated display of might had already been rendered moot to those who regard only swift and decisive retaliationi.e., Dire Revengeas the only appropriate response.
#8
Hard not to agree with apathy sentiment but another tragedy as a wake-up call is juvenile logic at best. Its like saying a cancer victim in remission that starts to smoke again needs another tumor otherwise he surely will die.
#10
Either way, the USA simply does not need to get "lit up" ever again. All we need is leadership with the spine to promise healthy really unhealthy repercussions for any further Islamic terrorism.
#13
"Bush did the best he could under the circumstances."
Agreed.
"On 9/12 the country and the rest of the world was not going to sign up for a war on all the Muslims who really supported OBL, because that was a large majority of Muslims and would have been a religious war."
If I had a wish for our next great diplomat, it would be that he would figure out how to get China and India to join us at actively dismantling Islamist support structures. 9/11 MADE this a religious war; that the world hasn't had the spine, sense or moral to note it and move against it should awaken us.
#14
9/11 MADE this a religious war; that the world hasn't had the spine, sense or moral to note it and move against it should awaken us.
Sadly, it doesn't and, furthermore, China is all too happy with playing both ends against the middle. Don't bet the farm that Beijing's Mandarins will ever give up that game anytime soon.
#16
Yes, it is a religious war. Never mind how inconvenient that may be, or how utterly foreign religion seems to be to the bulk of the folks in State.
So how do you fight a religious war against a group that outnumbers you, is spread around the globe, controls resources whose lack can kill the global economy dead (and likewise our war machine), and has a large potential fifth column as well?
You don't threaten to glass Mecca. That shifts too many Muhammadans from the "Hurray for a universal caliphate; let me know when its here" camp to the "How can I help fight the infidel" camp.
You try to find a way to (untraceably) spread rumors that that Wahabi splinter group actually did succeed in destroying their sacred stone, and the Saudis have been covering it up for 90 years.
You search the world for scholars who disdain Salafis and channel money to their disciples.
When a battlefield presents itself, you commit yourself to obliterating your avowed enemies, but you make sure that there's room for the non-combatants of the alien faith to disclaim their militant co-religionists. Those that stay neutral you help defend--unless they renege.
You try to keep your eyes on the ball: splitting off the militants from the rest, and defeating them in detail: on the battlefield or by police or however.
You need translators. 100% refund on tuition for courses in an Arabic dialect or Turkish if you pass the gov't test afterwards. Or 150%.
We've a huge propaganda machine, but it is pretty much entirely devoted to stirring up desires for goodies; which doesn't help the cause very much. The average Egyptian can't afford all those goodies, and our vices bother him more than his vices do--he blames us because we're rich and "bad".
We need to find a way to influence their internal debate. Qutb et al say we're decadent materialists. So our propaganda needs to show that we're devout.
They divide the world into the house of war and the house of submission. We need to try to introduce a third catagory: the house of fruit ("by their fruits you shall know them"). They know quite well that not all who say they are Muslim will be accepted at the judgement; they need to be unafraid to judge their fellow Muslims. The Wahabis aren't afraid to...
I don't believe this is going to be a short war. If things start getting bad we'll wind up looking at religion and citizenship.
I'm very leary of trying to ban Muhammadanism as a religion. We might get away with some such violations of the Bill of Rights for a year or two (we've done it before), but its a scary precedent, and I don't trust the political establishment to stay honest for 50 years.(*) Banning Muhammadanism as a political movement is also problematic, for the same reason.
We could possibly exercise oversight on the basis of the fact that Muhammadans owe allegiance to a foreign power: the caliph. True, there isn't one at the moment, but they're working to bring it back. We might wind up considering Muhammadans to have dual citizenship, and deporting those working for sharia etc.
I wish I was confident that we'll keep our eyes on the ball.
(*)Or to become honest, for that matter. You can think of people in power now you'd not trust with authority to ban religions or political speech.
Posted by: James ||
08/10/2007 22:32 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Damn interesting post, James.
it is a religious war. Never mind how inconvenient that may be, or how utterly foreign religion seems to be to the bulk of the folks in State.
This is entirely true. Fewif anyhave the courage to admit it. Good on you to address this simple fact.
You don't threaten to glass Mecca.
T'ain't necessarily so.
You try to find a way to (untraceably) spread rumors that that Wahabi splinter group actually did succeed in destroying their sacred stone, and the Saudis have been covering it up for 90 years.
Waaaay too reliant upon the "conspiracy factor" segment of Islam's otherwise susceptible population.
So our propaganda needs to show that we're devout.
Ain't gonna happen, no way, no how. Please, respectfully, get a clue.
They divide the world into the house of war and the house of submission. We need to try to introduce a third catagory: the house of fruit ("by their fruits you shall know them").
Permit me to quote the Simpsons about your "by their fruits" passage:
Castro's Aide #1: But presidente, America tried to kill you! Fidel Castro: Ah, they're not so bad. They even named a street after me in San Francisco!
[Aide #2 whispers something into his ear] Fidel Castro: It's full of what?
You need translators. 100% refund on tuition for courses in an Arabic dialect or Turkish if you pass the gov't test afterwards. Or 150%.
We've a huge propaganda machine, but it is pretty much entirely devoted to stirring up desires for goodies; which doesn't help the cause very much.
We just might have to trust it.
I'm very leary of trying to ban Muhammadanism as a religion. We might get away with some such violations of the Bill of Rights for a year or two (we've done it before), but its a scary precedent, and I don't trust the political establishment to stay honest for 50 years.
Yes. So am I but Islam is a greater threat.
I'm very leary of trying to ban Muhammadanism as a religion. We might get away with some such violations of the Bill of Rights for a year or two (we've done it before), but its a scary precedent, and I don't trust the political establishment to stay honest for 50 years.(*) Banning Muhammadanism as a political movement is also problematic, for the same reason.
Mebbe so, but it's time to try it.
We could possibly exercise oversight on the basis of the fact that Muhammadans owe allegiance to a foreign power: the caliph.
To quote .com, "le bingo!"
We might wind up considering Muhammadans to have dual citizenship, and deporting those working for sharia etc.
Le bingo, encore.
I wish I was confident that we'll keep our eyes on the ball.
Chances are good that more Americans have heard of Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp than Cpl. Zebulon "Zeb" Webberley. Both are serving in Iraq. Beauchamp is the soldier recently in the news and this column for writing dispatches for The New Republic about depraved behavior among soldiers whose moral moorings may have slipped a few notches.
That is, according to Beauchamp. Whether his accounts are true -- or a little bit true -- or not has been a subject of debate, primarily among journalists and the U.S. Army. TNR stands by Beauchamp's claims; the Army says the writer-soldier's accounts are false. Enough time and ink have been devoted to Beauchamp, who admits to going to war for the sole purpose of writing a book. As a balance to that kind of ambition, now seems a good time to mention Webberley, as well as the man who brought his story to light.
First, a few words from Webberley: "Sir, I will die for this post. I have told all of my Marines that no matter what happens out here, we will hold this position at all costs."
Webberley, who at the ripe age of 23 is commanding a combat outpost, was speaking to W. Thomas Smith Jr., who left last month for his second trip to Iraq. Smith is a former Marine (though all Marines contest that once means always), journalist and author -- and a consistently honest broker of information. When he goes to Iraq, Smith doesn't stay in hotels or confine himself to Baghdad's Green Zone. On his first trip, he was with the British, operating south of Baghdad. This time, he's with the U.S. Marines -- Regimental Combat Team 2 -- operating out west in Anbar, the region where the U.S. troop surge has achieved some success as Sunnis have joined American forces against al-Qaeda.
Posting on a blog called "The Tank" at National Review's Web site, Smith says that Webberley is in the most isolated position he has yet seen. Smith described the view from his own windy perch on a sandbag: "I can see the Euphrates River winding through the desert like a huge snake several miles in front of me. Tiny villages and some greenery run along its banks. A long, endless two-lane highway (the route I took to get here) is behind me. And a vast, rocky, dusty, orange and khaki-colored wasteland extends toward and beyond the river, beyond the highway, and in every other direction as far as I can see."
Webberley's station apparently is as crucial as it is isolated -- a radio-relay post defended by a single squad of Marines. Smith says the position is so vital to Marine communications in the Qaim region that "it cannot be surrendered under any circumstances." As Webberley and Smith strolled the hilltop, the young corporal -- described by Smith as carrying a 9mm pistol and K-Bar fighting knife with a carved wood handle -- uttered the words quoted earlier.
The difference in attitude and purpose between a Beauchamp and a Webberley doesn't require elaboration. Cynics might argue that a 23-year-old doesn't know what he's doing, that he's a brainwashed pawn of a corrupt and ill-fated mission. Some also might mention that Beauchamp, in reporting the dark side of war -- assuming that what he has written is true -- is providing a necessary service far nobler than mere military submission.
They would be wrong about Beauchamp. Reporting truth is a noble mission -- that much is indisputable -- but victory belongs to the Webberleys of the world, not the Beauchamps. No one is insisting that only sanitized, "happy" news be funneled out of Iraq. Nor is anyone who has read history surprised that some troops behave badly in war. Gallows humor, which constitutes the bulk of Beauchamp's missives, is above all a survival mechanism in the midst of horror.
The news isn't that one soldier made fun of a disfigured woman -- or that another danced around with a piece of a child's skull on his head, as Beauchamp reported. The news is that more soldiers don't do far worse. A few have, of course, but the vast majority of servicemen and women in Iraq conform to the kind of can-do attitude, loyalty and commitment articulated by Webberley. Thanks to brave journalists like Smith, we get to hear about them, too.
#2
In the current epoch of growing antagonism between the Islamic and the Western worlds, most Muslims reject such charges with angry indignation.
Most Muslims reject everything but the Koran and goats with angry indignation.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
08/10/2007 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Did they ever get that satellite they were working on up so they could figure out where Mecca was, or where the moon was, or whatever goofy shit they were trying to figure out that all us dumbass infidels figured out a long time ago?
#4
The muzz - making luddites look like sci-fi aficionados since the 7th century...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/10/2007 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
As someone suggested recently, it's not the religion, it's the culture. More precisely, I guess, is the culture that insists on defining the world in 7th Century terms. (Except for the Internet and EFP's and AK-47's, etc.)
So if we are fighting a cult (from the word culture, no doubt?) that allows for the possibility that not all members of the religion belong to the cult.
But as the cult gains power, more and more will be attracted to it. So if we just run away from the cult, let them declare victory in Iraq, then everything will be all rosy? Let's ask San Fran Nan!
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/10/2007 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Science and fundamental islam are words that don't go together. What, did they re-invent fire or the wheel?
#7
"The struggle to usher in science will have to go side-by-side with a much wider campaign to elbow out rigid orthodoxy and bring in modern thought, arts, philosophy, democracy, and pluralism."
Oops. Fatwa time.
"Some scholars calculated the temperature of Hell, others the chemical composition of heavenly djinnis."
Which were? Inquiring minds want to know...
Posted by: James ||
08/10/2007 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#8
As someone suggested recently, it's not the religion, it's the culture.
Though in fairness the religion is also offensive, garbled nonsense.
#9
The author of the article is a muslim teaching at a Pakistani University.
He probably would be executed if he admitted that in the golden age of Science in the Islamic world almost all the scientists were infidels or apostates. He might be executed anyway since he is anti veil.
#10
As someone suggested recently, it's not the religion, it's the culture.
Indeed, there is a case to be made about how Islamas a repressive, retrograde, narrow and manipulative credois the distinct byproduct of traditionally high context Middle Eastern culture. However, it is much like language and consciousness. While consciousness certainly drove the development of high order verbal communication, today it is language that more often shapes consciousness.
So it is with Muslims but without any of the beneficial aspects that language's complex thought structures confer upon its users. Islam has overtakenwhat was once relatively enlightenedMiddle Eastern culture to dominate the intellectual and spiritual footrace. Like fruit of the poisoned tree, the region's fixation upon strong-man style leadership has borne them the ultimate in rigid tyrannous rule. The utter inimicality of Islam and science is merely one of many smaller fissures that radiate from the yawning chasm separating Muslims and reality.
#11
"seek knowledge even if it is in China,"
where do you think THE MOST powerful and advanced civilization existed and had existed for thousands of years prior to Allens appearence.
Posted by: Chiter Dark Lord of the Geats7878 ||
08/10/2007 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Indeed.
You only have to think about how "Insh'allah," or some spelling variant upon the phrase, is ingrained into their speech. "Allah willing this," "Allah willing that." The only room there for free will is occupied by the imams and mullahs who tell everybody else what to think and, more importantly, do.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
08/10/2007 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#13
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let us look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you.", and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."
#15
OS, there are a few other possibilities:
1) Hell is expanding at exactly the rate that souls are entering Hell; thus the temperature and pressure of Hell remain constant
2) Souls have zero volume, so an infinite number could be added without changing the volume of Hell
#20
The campus has three mosques with a fourth one planned, but no bookstore. No Pakistani university, including QAU, allowed Abdus Salam to set foot on its campus, although he had received the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his role in formulating the standard model of particle physics. The Ahmedi sect to which he belonged, and which had earlier been considered to be Muslim, was officially declared heretical in 1974 by the Pakistani government.
After the great scientist was buried in Chenab Nagar, his tombstone said Abdus Salam the First Muslim Nobel Laureate. Needless to say, the police arrived with a magistrate and rubbed off the Muslim part of the katba. Now the tombstone says: Abdus Salam the First Nobel Laureate.
It was a most embarrassing moment for General Zia who had supplemented the Second Amendment to the constitution with further comic disabilities against the Ahmedis. He had to welcome the great scientist and had to be seen with him on TV. Since the clerical part of his government was already bristling, he took care to clip those sections of Dr Salams speech where he had said the kalima or otherwise used an Islamic expression. It was Dr Salams good luck that one of the believers did not go to court under Zias own laws to get the countrys only Nobel laureate sent to prison for six months of rigorous imprisonment.
While visiting India he was treated as a hero. Indira Gandhi was so in awe of him that she refused to sit at the same level as Dr Salam, instead sitting beside him on the floor.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/10/2007 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe
WOOF! LOL! WOOF!
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
08/10/2007 18:40 Comments ||
Top||
#22
No Pakistani university, including QAU, allowed Abdus Salam to set foot on its campus, although he had received the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his role in formulating the standard model of particle physics. The Ahmedi sect to which he belonged, and which had earlier been considered to be Muslim, was officially declared heretical in 1974 by the Pakistani government.
The Ahmedi or Ahmadiyya sect is one of the few benevolent sects of Islam and for that they are declared total apostates. That Abdus Salam's name is cheerfully expungeddespite his having earned the first Muslim Nobel prizeis indicative of just how self-defeating Islam really is.
Leaving his effaced tombstone to read "Abdus Salam the FirstNobel Laureate" in total contradiction of how Wilhelm C. Röntgen was the true recipient of the first Nobel Physics Prize is emblematic of just how self-delusional Islam remains to this very day.
#23
They were still bigoted enough that the Ahmadiyya Jamaat was at the forefront for the creation of Pakistan. They could not tolerate a state where they would be equal. Instead they claimed that Muslims constituted a distinctive, ideological nation - Pakistan "the land of the pure", where they would rule.
Well.... they got their state, but they were not pure enough....
Posted by: john frum ||
08/10/2007 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
#24
STUNNING. Thank you, john frum. If this onesupposedly benevolent sectis of equal malevolence then they need to go the way of the Islamic dodo. I cannot be grateful enough for your having imported so many vital insights, john frum, (or you too, Fred). Thank you so much.
#2
content is there.
His real wife is really scary looking. Really.
In fact... I think he should consider running like hell! She is going to hurt him so so bad...
The woman he's legally wed to is not amused. "It's really devastating," says Sue Hoogestraat, 58, an export agent for a shipping company, who has been married to Mr. Hoogestraat for seven months. "You try to talk to someone or bring them a drink, and they'll be having sex with a cartoon."
Immersing yourself in an online relationship to the exclusion of your wedded spouse is a form of infidelity. It might as well be cyber-sex. Either you love your wife or you don't. End of story.
#4
"Basically, the other person is widowed," she says. "This other life is so wonderful; it's better than real life. Nobody gets fat, nobody gets gray."
. . . the shows launched in the summers in the States are a major signifier for where the zeitgeist will heave next.
The only series Canadians will never see is the runaway best. Army Wives is a surprise hit on Lifetime Television for Women. Not only that: With four million viewers and climbing, it is the top ratings success for that channel. Ever.
No one has mentioned the irony. Lifetime, like our own women's channel, was launched in the '80s, as a fellow traveler for feminism. Its bread and butter, the Woman-in-peril-from-evil-men genre, has kept it afloat for more than 20 years. But the hit that has pushed it into direct competition with HBO and Showtime is something that harks back to the '50s, where men were men, and women kept the campfires burning.
Of course, some of these wives work, but still, on an army base, gender roles are drawn with thick dark pencil lines. There is a female colonel in Army Wives; she is black, and her husband is a psychiatrist who hangs out with the wives and is "there" for everyone. But the bonding is the polar opposite to that of Desperate Housewives. The troubles and fears on the base are real, not inflicted through the narcissism, lust, or greed of Wisteria Lane, but by the willing sacrifice of life, limb, and sanity by their mates and the women themselves.
Army Wives models something new for extra-pampered modernists, which is to say the lives, feelings, and motivations of people who actually stand ready to protect the rest of us. Despite the anti-war, blame Bush and the Americans sentiment in the media, we are all secretly in awe of soldiers because, for the first time in decades, we suspect there's a chance that we are going to need them. We are curious, we want to know who they are. We can hardly believe that there are people who will, despite our scorn, lay down their lives for us.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/10/2007 09:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
And do you suppose that the entertainment media "keepers of the zeitgeist" will notice and make adjustments accordingly, and give us more of this kind of programming?
#2
But with the proliferation of digital TV and the internet, it is getting very hard for the "keepers of the zeitgeist" to stop tiny little things from slipping through and becoming really big hits.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
