The family of an IRA man who died during a security force operation at a County Armagh police station in 1987 is to meet Chief Constable Hugh Orde. Patrick Kelly was one of eight IRA men killed when troops opened fire during an attack on Loughgall police station. Erm, I believe this was the SAS..
His sister Mairead, who represents the relatives of those killed, said they were still trying to find out what happened. "We did have a successful judgement in 2001 that the men's right to life had been violated, under Article 2 of the European Convention," she said.
[snip.]
His sister Mairead, who represents the relatives of those killed, said they were still trying to find out what happened. What happened was your Feinian scum of a relative was shot to mincemeat whilst trying to kill policemen. The men's right to life had been violated - I think they forfeited that right when they picked up an AK47 and decided to use it.. Grrr.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 5:09:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Haven't the Tories been mooting the notion of scrapping the European Convention of Human Rights in the UK, if they get elected? About time, if you ask me. What a load of crap.
#2
I think we should send the SAS back to shoot the family.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 6:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Howard - here's an article about the Tories' new proposals.
"Tories target compensation claims
New restrictions to combat the "compensation culture" and restrict people's ability to sue for damages are being proposed by the Conservatives. Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said public bodies such as hospitals and schools pay out billions a year in unjustified claims. On Monday he is expected to set out plans for limits on liabilities for directors and organisations. He also wants to scrap parts of the sex and race discrimination laws. Mr Davis said the laws positively encourage people to sue. The increase in claims for compensation is the result of a greater emphasis on people's rights as opposed to their own responsibilities, he said.
...
The European Convention on Human Rights was adopted into UK law in 1998 under the Human Rights Act. It meant that citizens no longer had to take their case to Europe to enforce rights contained in the convention but could make challenges in the British courts. It meant that citizens no longer had to take their case to Europe to enforce rights contained in the convention but could make challenges in the British courts."
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 7:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Bill the families for the bullets.
Posted by: ed ||
08/23/2004 8:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We did have a successful judgement
I take it that the UK has some terrorists friendlies sitting the bench like we do.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/23/2004 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Armagh used to be known as bandit country. I travelled through there in the 80s and early 90s. My NI friends used to tell me not to travel through there at night, for fear of carjacking. IIRC, the Provos even possessed some anti-aircraft shoulder fired missiles, which concerned the Brit forces.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/23/2004 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I think it's time for a convention on human responsibilities, or is that too radical?
#9
"We did have a successful judgement in 2001 that the menâs right to life had been violated, under Article 2 of the European Convention," she said, "but we couldn't get anybody to really give a shit since he was an IRA thug engaged in the commission of a violent attack on duly-constituted Peace Officers at the time."
via Wash Times
Any comments from our cousins? Is the IPPR "think tank" an ISM front?
August 23, 2004
A think thank said Sunday Britain's super-rich should be hit with a 50 percent inheritance tax to allow cuts for the middle classes. The Institute for Public Policy Research said the chancellor could raise $267,731,277 a year and cut death duty for up to 90 percent of people, the BBC reported. It institute said estates of more than $1,471,611 could be taxed under a banded system. The organization said Gordon Brown should use the overflow to help Britain's poorest children through the Child Trust Fund. A new inheritance tax structure would allow the amount invested on behalf of every child to be raised. Between 1991 and 2001 wealth held by Britain's wealthy increased from 47 percent to 56 percent and a third of Britain's riches are owned by 2 percent of the population, according to the IPPR. And UK Socialism Marches Forward...
Posted by: .com ||
08/23/2004 1:42:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Great Olde Idea: squeeze the sh*t out of the golden goose to get more eggs. The rich brits will just start taking their money elswere, the golden geese will leave a dump on the lawn and the UK socialists will just have a big pile of sh*t on their front yards. Bunch of maroons.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/23/2004 3:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) is a left-wing think thank propaganda machine. It has lost its influence with the Blairites and has now turned to supporting his overthrow from within the more radical leftist interests of Labour.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
08/23/2004 4:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
We have room for more rich people in Indiana. We don't change tehm much because they tend to bring jobs with them.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/23/2004 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Chase "the wealthy" into tax exile again, as happened in the 70's. Boffo idea. Not.
#5
There's a problem with people who have absolutely no pattern recognition: "Ow! My hand hurts! I wonder what happens when I hit myself on the hand with a hammer? Ow! My hand hurts! I wonder what happens when I hit myself on the hand with a hammer? Ow!, etc.
The same applies to the Left and economics.
#6
...In one of his books, Rush Limbaugh tells a story about a congressman, who, as an excercise, asked the CBO to figure out exactly how much money would be raised if the US Government simply confiscated every dime we made. The CBO crunched some numbers, came back and said: "In fiscal OX, we'd get whatever. In fiscal OY, it would go up by so much percent to..."
In other words, they were working on the assumptions that either A): we'd sit here and let them do it, B): we wouldn't all move somewhere else, or C):We wouldn't rise up and tear the whole thing down. Sounds like these guys now work in the UK.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/23/2004 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I also worry about a growing elite class that never earned their wealth and power but instead married it or inherited it. I doubt that growing up super rich instills values and experience that help the US. Consider Teresa Heinz or look at the 527 donors.
I donât know how to deal with the problem. High taxes will drive the wealth to other countries. The super rich can also afford the tax lawyers and accountants and have the political power to avoid most taxation.
So far too much wealth in the hands of the super rich hasnât been a major problem in the US because new created wealth continues to be spread through out most of society.
The super rich are a problem in Latin and South American countries.
via Wash Times - EFL
By Bill Gertz - August 23, 2004
A Chinese company recently supplied missile-related technology to Iran in violation of Beijing's promises to curb arms-proliferation activities, U.S. intelligence officials say. The transfers took place within the past six months and represent a continuation of past Chinese covert arms transfers to countries such as Iran and Pakistan. No details of the missile technology or the companies involved were disclosed by the officials. However, the activities were confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies, said officials familiar with intelligence reports. China could face sanctions under U.S. laws against arms proliferation, as has occurred four times in the recent past, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. ...more...
Future Feature Match: More Science HS vs Golden Dragon HS. Proxy warmups coming soon to a venue near you.
Posted by: .com ||
08/23/2004 1:32:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Chinese arms auctioneer: Tell me, what do I hear?
Buyer: F&%k you man! What is this existential bullsh!t? How can I tell you what you hear?
#2
An elderly Chinese lady who was my neighbor in Berkeley in the 60s who escaped from the Chicoms told me to remember that the Chinese Communists never keep their promises, despite what all the LLL and radicals will say. She was 100% right.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/23/2004 3:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Anybody care to rethink the idea that we won the Cold War? Russia and China, our two Cold War enemies, are still supporting proxies against us. The Chinese are as mad as any mullah, with their irrational obsession with a tiny island off their coast called Taiwan.
#4
Maybe the mullah's would be better served to purchase some joists for the housing construction industry in Bam.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/23/2004 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Anybody care to rethink the idea that we won the Cold War? Russia and China, our two Cold War enemies, are still supporting proxies against us. The Chinese are as mad as any mullah, with their irrational obsession with a tiny island off their coast called Taiwan.
Absolutely worth repeating, virginian. A valid comparison and an altogether outstanding observation. This is not, as some have speculated, World War IV, but merely the end game of World War III, the Cold War. Like a chameleon, communism has adopted various protective colorations, but its intent remains unaltered. Domination at any cost, even if all that's to be gained is smoking ruins. I say, let them see ruination first.
My only dispute with your analogy is that China's kleptocracy has every reason to lust after Taiwan. Raping that peaceful economic powerhouse fits perfectly with all other aspects of their corrupt dictatorship.
via ft.com (h/t Lucianne) - EFL
By James Kynge in Beijing - updated: August 22 2004 21:57
China has become a net importer of farm produce, raising concerns at the highest levels of government about the security of the food supply for 1.3bn people as land and water shortages put pressure on domestic grain production. Hu Jintao, China's president, has commissioned urgent studies on food security after evidence in 2003 and this year that China's grain output was dwindling as demand rises in the long term, officials and academics said. China's growing dependence on western imports comes as trade in agriculture has become one of the most bitterly fought-over aspects of the Doha global trade round. The three biggest exporters to China were the US, Canada and Australia. "The leadership is very concerned about food security. They were all young men during the famine of the late 1950s and 1960s. It is not only a strategic issue of dependence on foreign markets for them, it is also a very personal issue of food self-sufficiency," said one academic who advises the government on food security issues. ...more...
Uh, oh. Y'know, between their 120 male / 100 female birth ratio, the Three Gorges Dam, flight to the cities resulting in having to import food and growing unemployment, and numerous other bogglers, I'd say the Commie Leadership is kicking ass, wouldn't you? Can you say implosion?
Posted by: .com ||
08/23/2004 1:04:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This means mining China's harbors in a conflict over Taiwan is going to put a crimp in China's food supplies. Good...
#2
The three biggest exporters to China were the US, Canada and Australia.
Two out of three ain't bad. Time to cut some of those links in the food chain for president Hu Ta'GypNow. Their "scientifically planned economy" is about to go through a "scientifically unplanned meltdown."
#3
The other fly in the ointment for the Chicoms is the large amount of capital flight into offshore banks like Bermuda. The Chicoms are trying to stem the flow. The smart comrades are getting out.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/23/2004 3:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Of course the famine of the 50's and 60's had nothing to do with the"Cultural Revolution".Nope not at all.
#5
Actually, that was the "Great Leap Forward" that took China back to the pre-agricultural era. The Cultural Revolution just took care of the past 2,000 years of civilization.
Posted by: mary ||
08/23/2004 9:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Maybe this article has it all figured out. The Chinese will soon need American food stuffs to stay alive and send us all those Pier One imports.
#8
You would have thought that the Clintons would have thrown in the plans for genetically altered grain when the chicoms were shopping the SAM's club of secret information during the 90's.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/23/2004 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
#9
and with all their food import problems, the PRC is the main supplier of food to NKor.
#11
I dunno about "implosion." A huge oversupply of men with no prospects for domesticity sounds like a recipe for war. The government is probably smart enough to point armies outwards. Look for propoganda campaigns demonizing one or more of their neighbors, or maybe for "recovering" Taiwan. If the central govt isn't on the ball, then look for regional friction.
Posted by: James ||
08/23/2004 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#12
1.3 billion people? Not enough food?
Nah, I wouldn't worry about it, Hu....
THE public will have the chance to say goodbye to one of Australia's longest-surviving World War I veterans, Marcel Caux, after his family today accepted the offer of a state funeral. Born on March 1, 1899, he was just 16 when in September 1915 he lied about his age to enlist in the Australian Imperial Force in Sydney, to eventually fight with the 17th and 20th battalions on the Somme. NSW Premier Bob Carr last night offered Mr Caux's family a state funeral to honour his life and contributions to battle in Egypt, France and on the Western Front, where he was wounded three times.
Posted by: Pappy ||
08/23/2004 1:36:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...And let me take a moment to say thank you to Mr. Carr and his family.
Hopefully there will be an OFFICIAL US presence there.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/23/2004 14:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I read somewhere that Australian forces in WWI and WWII had an estimated 20% underage personnel. They just couldn't catch 'em all. Aussies rock! Of course, the guy who wrote the article was some sort of Psychologist and speculated that it was a kind of "island fever"... claimed it had dissipated since WWII with the dramatic rise of air travel - and better documentation. Yet, they still field some of the best fighters - with that same "go get em" spirit.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/23/2004 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Wow.
Thanks, Mr. Caux. We'll do our damndest to be worthy of your service and your sacrifice.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/23/2004 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
My hat off to you, Mr. Caux, for your dedication. We, who reap the bounty of your sacrifices, will remember you as one of those who made it possible for us to be free and prosper. So many men died there in the Somme. So many good men that never got a chance to enjoy life, raise a family, and live to a ripe old age. So many.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/23/2004 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Too bad there aren't more like him! Milosz is among the few Nobel laureates for literature who is also a great and lasting writer. [snicker]
The Captive Mind, published in English in 1953, after his defection from Communist-ruled Poland, is among the few 20th-century books with the power to change a person's political outlook, to accommodate truth instead of lies.
snip
Milosz wrestles with the Enlightenment tradition of the West -- and its project to reduce irreducible verities to the void of pure rationalism. To this revolt against God, he opposes the individualist visions of poets and theologians, from Swedenborg and Blake to his own remarkable uncle, the symbolist Oscar Lubicz-Milosz.
Replying to Karl Marx's old saw that religion is the "opium of the people", Milosz once said: "A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death -- the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged."
#2
Milosz once said: "A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death -- the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged."
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
WITH "Fahrenheit 9/11" still riding high at the box office and a new book titled "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" soaring to the best-seller lists, Michael Moore continues to be at the center of public debate. (So much the worse for public debate.) While many agree that Moore traffics in one-sided, nasty agitprop and factually shaky innuendo, quite a few people are willing to recognize him as a scrappy David battling the Goliath of the Bush propaganda machine, a hero who may bend or stretch a few facts but is right about the larger truths. New York Times film critic A.O. Scott even called him "a credit to the Republic."
So who, exactly, is this populist hero? Moore isn't just antiwar and anti-Bush; he is also virulently anti-American. That's a label some right-wing pundits tend to slap on anyone critical of the war and of President Bush. In Moore's case, however, the label fits.
Moore, the 50-year-old filmmaker and author of several books, has made a career of traveling round the world talking about how stupid, brainwashed, selfish, greedy, and otherwise rotten Americans are. He regales British audiences with tales of a National Geographic survey which found that many young Americans cannot find Iraq or England on the map -- neglecting to mention that the survey results for British youth were quite woeful as well. Inviting an audience at Cambridge University to share some packs of Doritos, he comments, according to an account in The New Yorker, "It's still your way, right, to share? You don't want to turn into us -- a society where the ethic is me me me me me me me, [expletive] you."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
08/23/2004 10:48:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can someone remind me why MM was seated next to jimmy carter during the democrats convention?
#4
Can someone remind me why MM was seated next to jimmy carter during the democrats convention?
Because Moore represents the party.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/23/2004 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Iâm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."
That's a handy encapsulation of your sickness; thanks for the quote, Mikey. Apparently lots and lots more Americans have to die for Michael Moore's hearty appetite for American shame and masochism to be quenched. Wonder what that number of dead Americans would have to be; today we're at mid-900s; anyone think he'd be happy with a mere 1000? More like 100,000.
#7
What Michael Moore hates most is himself. I think he suffers from a deep psychological problem, one that seems to be prevalent amongst members of the LLL.
Posted by: remote man ||
08/23/2004 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
My rational hate of this moron is such that if he were ever to get with in 10 feet of me I am quite willing to do the time for my crime. His body guards will be of no use to him.
Oh yes and a question I keep asking. How does that fat bastard wipe his ass because he sure as heck can't reach it. The thought is as disgusting has Moore is.
#9
SPo'Doom - I bet he's got a bidet - either one of those Islamic-style toilets with a little sink sprayer attached - or one of those pedal-operated sprayers. Otherwise, he'd be a walking pile of shit. Oh, wait...
I can't believe he did this.
Bush said ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a 527 group named after its status in the tax code, should be pulled. The call from Bush could open him up to charges that the Bush-Cheney campaign is coordinating with an unregulated political organization. But here's the money shot:
On Monday, Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said Bush should call for the group to remove the ad. He called Bush's decision to do so a "test of character" for the president. After Bush's comments, Edwards expressed disappointment. "The moment of truth came and went, and the President still couldn't bring himself to do the right thing," he said. Bush did the thing requested, but now Edwards wanted the other "right thing." Classic Son-of-Flipper. I wonder when sKerry and Smegwards will rein in Soros...
#5
I disagree that the headline is misleading Chuck: "That means that ad and every other ad."
You know prior to that statement some *cough* "journalist" *cough* shouted out "What about the swiftboat ads"?
#8
I saw the mini pressconference.The "reporters" were demanding Pres.Bush stop SwiftVet ads because the ads were claimed to be smears by his campaign.Bush said to same question asked 3 times,he has called for in past and is calling for now stop of ALL 527 ads.He also said he asked Sen.Kerry to join him in his call for stop of all 527 ads.After conference over,the first words out of FOX anchors' mouth were"The headline will be Pres.Bush calls for end of the SwiftVets ads."(Quoting from memory,the headline will be is accurate-I had it seared-seared-in my memory.And there are those who say FOX is shill for Bush campaign.)
Posted by: Stephen ||
08/23/2004 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#9
BTW,Pres.Bush spoke of Kerry serving honorably.George Bush is a class act.
Posted by: Stephen ||
08/23/2004 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I see the moron chimp idiot (did I miss anything?) President is sticking it to the Dems again. Yes, by God, let's stop them all. (Like the Left will go along that that.)
For someone the Dim-o-Rats claim is so stupid, he sure does some smart stuff. The Dem Seethe-O-Meter⢠just went off the charts again.
Heh. :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/23/2004 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"moron chimp idiot evil mastermind", Barb
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/23/2004 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Shouldn't that be "moron chimp evil mastermind idiot Hitler" ?
Gotta have Hitler in there.
And you call yourself a brownshirt.
tsk tsk
#13
Just watched one of the dems from the Kerry camp on Fox on the issue. When the news reader could get a question in edge wise. He responded by attacking Bush and the vetrans and not answering the question. Again calling for Bush to renounce the advertisments and linking Bush directly to the Swift Boat Vets. He then refuised to account for or condem any of the 527 ads put out by kerry supporters. It's a broken record. It appears the Dems can't loath the military enough even though it is they who cloaked Kerry in the flag as a "hero." His poll ratings with vet's according to Fox has dropped 9 points.
#14
Sock, That has been the Kerry camp reaction all along. Dont address the issue, blame bush, Blame Bush, BLAME BUSH! I saw that all last week.
Yesterday the Kerry-ite refused to even discuss moveon.org or any of the other DemocRAT 527 when asked if Kerry would denounce them or the obvious connections (Soros for example).
Bush can't stop the SwiftVets ads because he really doesn't have any control over them.
#16
Actually it doesn't matter. The Swift Vets have their own agenda. Contributions are coming in from the average Joe now. This won't stop anyhting. BTW send them what you can. $250 and you get on the honorable 527 list I think.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
08/23/2004 20:00 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Democratic leaning 527s have spent over $60 million while Republican leaning 527s have spent $2.5 million. There is no way the Dems will shut down their 527s.
Posted by: ed ||
08/23/2004 20:08 Comments ||
Top||
#18
The Swiftees may have gotten their start-up and seed money from a Rich Texas Republican. Though the majority of their recent bucks and heavy lifting have come from Donations.
You'd be surprised just how many Web-sites and Blogs have posted Swiftee articles with links to their homepage (http://www.swiftboatveterans.com)
I made a sizeable donation yesterday.
Posted by: Jack Deth ||
08/23/2004 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I sit corrected, Frank G and Crikey. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/23/2004 22:48 Comments ||
Top||
Please note that Texas is the only state with a legal right to secede from the Union (please refer to the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848).
We Texans love y'all, but we'll have to take action if Kerry wins President over Bush. We'll miss you, too.
Texas has given all those complainers plenty of time to get used to the results. After seeing the whiners along the campaign route, the folks from Texas are considering taking matters into our own hands.
#6
Texas is like a whole 'nuther country. Every word in the post is true. The also have the right to split into 5 states - req's a 2/3 vote in Senate, IIRC. Texas owns it's public lands (NO Fed Land except Armed Forces / Def Dept facilities) and all natural resources -- including offshore. Unique deal in many ways.
I have it on *no* authority that there is a *secret* plan for the Texas Nat'l Guards to mount an expedition to liberate NM, AZ, NV, and CA. They need access to the avocado groves - or no guacamole. There was some loose talk about turning East and liberating LA, too, but it was quickly dismissed. It turned out to be some guy who loves blackened redfish and dirty rice. Everyone agreed the Cajuns would just be too much trouble - no one can understand more 'n half of what they say and they eat shit most folks can't even identify and, besides, they'll deliver that redfish and bread pudding -- and they promised to teach us how to make roux.
#8
My Dad's from San Antonio. All the immediate family's dead, but I'm sure I could find some cousins to put me up until I could find a place when I move down from Virginia.
Which I will as soon as Texas becomes a sovereign nation again. :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/23/2004 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Actually this got settled in that 1861-1865 thang...
But... Texas can subdivide into 5 states adding 8 (R) Senators and a few (R) House reps... think about it
#13
Z - They'd welcome you - all ya gotta do is say yall (not the dreaded you-all) and awl (aka oil) and not honk at people with filled gunracks. Lol! Oh, and you hafta swag a few longnecks... and if you already know what I'm talking about - you're there, bubba!
TGA - What sort of provisions are in the German Constitution regards secession? Anything? I wonder if anyone has ever thought such a thing there - if not, there might not be any provision against it, lol!
#15
But... Texas can subdivide into 5 states adding 8 (R) Senators and a few (R) House reps... think about it
LOL! Florida is allowed by Spanished Common Law to divided into 11teen prefectures each one having a wholesome mayor, we also get Cuba and the Isles Atlantic.
And since we have the space port Texas will be sucking earth air for eons!
#18
This is all sounding like a Pogo comic strip, but it COULD happen. So what happens to Alaska? Do we seceed from the US, go back to Mother Russia (ha!) or join with the Yukon Territory and go it alone? We had some independent bear kickers, but we are suffering a LLL infestation in Anchorage, which has weakened the body politic.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/23/2004 17:24 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Ship - You'll hafta edumacate me - does that mean you're a Cane? Lol! If it's a tribal thing, well, I only know there weren't enough of my boyz left alive to get a reservation. Might've had something to do with the "no survivors" policy that was generally applied in the Quashadi faction's warfare, but I can't be certain, heh.
#23
PLEEEEEASE, The Feds will change the rules on ya ask what happened to the the 10th amendment, the States Have No More Rights
the war for Southern Independence decided that one. wish i could Decide what my state thought was important.....
#26
.com, secession of Bavaria is technically possible but a 2/3 majority in both houses of German Parliament need to ratify this.
So it won't happen.
The CSU government of Bavaria once did a semi-secret study whether Bavaria could survive on its own. It could, of course. But it would probably join Texas :-)
#27
well im happy ur fore fathers had the forethought to keep your future safe but im afraid that each state has no more legitimy in raising its own defenses againt the onslaught of islam .The fed will always counteract any decision not in alighn with their own. Btw GWB is a man who stands for what he says and never wavers... cuch a man reminds me of a patriot....
#28
TGA - I see a loose confederation of non-idiotarian states emerging from the fog of PC lunacy, lol! May Bavaria and Texas be the beginning of a brighter future!
As for that pesky detail of 2/3 - who could stop them? That's not an insignificant population or area - and they're not know for passivity! Aren't they outdoorsmen, hunters, self-reliant people? Shit, the Texans would love 'em!
#30
Do we seceed from the US, go back to Mother Russia (ha!) or join with the Yukon Territory and go it alone?
Alaska Paul, I have a mostly true story about your home state for you. After the USSR dissolved, the new Russian Federation economy tanked and they ran into a serious cash crunch. So they brainstormed some solutions, and sent a message to the U.S. Gov't that Alaska had been improperly acquiredfraudulently annexed stolen from them, and would we please hand over the title and the keys forthwith? The US said "Sure, no problem, we just need to go check our records." They went off to the National Archives, pulled out the shoebox marked "A", called the Russkies back, and said, "Looky here, we got us a original bill-of-sale, duly signed by the head honcho. No dice!"
#31
Can you Texans get Colorado to go along, and split Oklahoma between the two of ya in order to connect the 2? Give the tribes their land, just be sure to get an easement.
#32
OS - Ever hear of the Colo - Texas green tomato war? From what I've heard, they meet somewhere in NM and have a game of "dodge ball", divided by a creek, and use hard green tomatoes, heh. The guy that told me isn't exactly what I'd call 100% reliable, but he swore they do this. He said that the year Roger Clemens was a Sr at Univ Texas that he was the last man standing. I'd sure hate to get creamed with a hard green tomato by a 22 yr old Clemens! If this story is true, I don't forsee a Colo-Tex cooperation!
#35
Well, don't wish for it too much..lol... Historically when Bavaria was still independent, it had a tendency to side with the French... losing with them all the way of course :-)
#39
You know, we have LOTS of people here in Texas of German descent and towns like Fredericksburg (that even had goose-stepping Nazis during WWII) and New Braunfels in the Hill Country that were settled by Germans.
TGA would feel right at home--and the Octoberfest in New Braunfels is pretty great!
Side story: When my dad, who was tall and blonde, went with the U.S. Army to Germany in the war, the Germans he met wanted to claim him as a fellow German, although his Texas drawl must have driven them crazy!
#40
Jen I'd probably start an import company for Augustiner Beer there..lol
.com, I don't see Bush losing. Kerry had his moment, but I think it's downhill for him now. The Republican Convention will give Bush a big boost (a chance he must not blow like Kerry who was lame), and Kerry will spend his time explaining why he was such a great Vietnam hero while his fellows massacred Vietnamese children.
The best-selling author said that while [publisher] Regnery declined to stop printing "Unfit [for Command]," it offered to republish Kerry's 1971 book, "The New Soldier," which chronicles the top Democrat's anti-war protests with a group bankrolled by Jane Fonda.
Sweet! How does that work for you, Kerry?
Posted by: Dar ||
08/23/2004 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
O'Neill invokes the CLINT EASTWOOD invitation system. . .adapted for legal briefs rather than firearms.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/23/2004 12:33 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Generally I don't care for lawyers of any stripe but there is something very gratifing watching O'Neill f**k Kerry with a dick so big an elephant would feel it.
#8
It's really been fun watching the MSM report on Kerry "fighting back" while fastidiously trying to avoid any specific description of the charges he is fighting back against. "Some people have said some things about JFK that we're way too refined to report here, but here's a clip of Edwards saying those guys are liars."
Posted by: Matt ||
08/23/2004 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It's really been fun watching the MSM report on Kerry "fighting back" while fastidiously trying to avoid any specific description of the charges he is fighting back against.
so true. It's been equally fun watching them flush the remaining shreds of dignity they once had down the toilet for Kerry, a man they don't even like.
This is the 21st Century. The old anchor's are oh, so.. 20th. The net drives the news now. People interested in news flock to real reporters, not talking heads that spew party line with a straight face. This whole Cambodia/Swift Votes thing is just hastening their inevitable demise.
Posted by: B ||
08/23/2004 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Kerry has declined to have "The New Soldier" republished over the years and reportedly bought up most of the available copies in 1972, after his opponent in a congressional race used it to paint him as anti-American.
He bought up all the copies? Well, I s'pose nobody can say anything bad about the guy's book if it can't be had, right? :)
#11
I find it hard to believe he managed to buy ALL the copies. He probably just bought the unsold ones from the publisher, and possibly from bookstores. Assuming he sold any in the first place, there must be some around in attics or libraries somewhere.
Everybody start looking! :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/23/2004 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#1
I know the Swifties, being a 527, don't have a whole lot of time before they have, by law, to take their ads off the air, but _somebody_ ought to be blaring this from the housetops. It's as devastating as Swiftie ad #2, or even more, on three grounds: 1) the author of the piece (Sydney Schanberg) can't possibly be accused of being a VRWC'er; 2) it covers things that took place during the relatively recent past in Kerry's career, so the complaint that "it was in another country, and besides the wench is dead" doesn't hold water here, and 3) it touches on one of _the_ third-rail issues in this country - P.O.W.'s and M.I.A.'s. I can't tell you how many places - including post offices - still fly P.O.W.-M.I.A. flags.
Posted by: Joe ||
08/23/2004 5:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yeah, except it's one of the few things on which Kerry's right, and the military families are wrong. POW-MIA belief is a type of pseudo-religious mania similar to global-warming hysteria or creationism. Yeah, you can patch together assertions in such a fashion as to approximate the appearance of facts, but it all falls to flinders if examined with any objectivity.
I respect the fervor of the POW-MIA families, and I can understand why they hate Kerry - he's an ass who's maligned their lost relatives as war-criminals. But some things are true, even if John Kerry believes them.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
08/23/2004 9:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In 1969, for a short while I was a poorly trained machine gunner stationed on river boats in the Mekong Delta. We didn't see any swifties. Under a mortar attack one night, I scrambled out of my hootch headed toward the bunker. I slipped and fell in the mud near a road. Scrapped the hell out of my hands and one knee. Needed a bit of corpman's attention afterwards. Should I have applied for a Purple Heart too? It sounds as if Sen. Kerry earned one purple heart, the one involving real shrapnel, not three. Why "three" is a majic number is that three PH's got you out of Nam early.
#4
Is the left turning on Kerry? This is from the Village Voice!!!
Its a good detailed account on how McCain and Kerry sold out the POW/MIA that were left behind in Vietnam, sold them out for political gain.
This is somethign I've been waiting to show up. And this will get very ugely for Kerry very quickly if the MSM does its job of reporting ALL the facts surrounding Kerry.
Here is the final quote from the article:
"Kerry's resolution passed, by a vote of 62 to 38. Sadly for him, the passage of ten thousand resolutions cannot make up for wants in a man's character."
Posted by: B ||
08/23/2004 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mitch H.: POW's"a type of pseudo-religious mania similar to global warming hysteria or creationism?" !!! You are miserably uninformed, are an idiot, or you have another agenda. I'm too young to know anybody from the 'Nam era still over there, but the offical (shredded, classified, buried) records, as well as many private investigations, have clearly shown that there were/are guys over there--lots of guys over there--that have been abandoned in favor of other political aims.
I think it's disgusting that you are attempting to disparage those who refuse to accept the party line ("POW's? What POW's?") by linking them with silly global-warming nut-jobs or religious fanatics. And even that's disengenuous of you, because there is a global warming issue (not always correctly attributed) and many scientists ascribe to a view of the origination of the universe that is similar to the one outlined in the religious texts. And neither is the information in the Village Voice about what Kerry and others did to bury the POW issue once and for all, to be discounted simply because the editors of the paper favored Howard Dean at the time, as Zhang Fei asserts. The information about Kerry and McCain's misdeeds regarding POW's was there a long time before that--the two of then are just pretty smooth about covering it up, is all, and the fact of Kerry's candidacy brought the issue up (same as SwiftVets).
Oh, uh, BTW--as I said, I have never known any POW's or MIA's, so if you're planning to demonize me with the rest of the concerned relatives, friends, and fellow-soldiers of the POW's MIA's, forget it. Now, go do your homework. Both Kerry and McCain stand to benefit financially and politically if the POW/MIA thing is quashed and relations with Vietnam "normalized."
#8
I think this may have more to do with laziness and lack of intelligence by Kerry/McCain than it does with a lack of courage.
Kerry/McCain probably saw a half dozen or a dozen cases of reported MIA sightings which, upon detailed investigation, were obviously a false report. They may have then come to the conclusion that all such cases were similar.
#10
By the way, .com, I was being snarky to the max on my comment to that article yesterday. In retrospect, not a good article to be funnin' on.
Posted by: Matt ||
08/23/2004 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Matt - I cottoned to it with the followup comment (don't recall who hit me with the ClueBat, but it was well-deserved!). I was just so unbelievably mad after reading that article that I was having trouble focusing... Sorry for being so dense, bro!
#12
.com - no, I saw it when it first made the rounds last winter. I thought it was sad then, and my opinion hasn't changed in the interim.
Look, I understand that this is a hot-button issue for those who lost family. It's a hard thing, letting go. Some folks have turned not-letting-go into a sort of ancestor-worship. I can't argue with religion. But if you insistâ¦.
1) There were POWs. John McCain was one of them. They were returned, slowly and grudgingly, over the course of nearly a decade. It was an outrage. It was over before I even developed political awareness.
2) Vietnam and the rest of Indochina is a mess, search-wise. While the American military always tries to recover remains, in too many cases, it wasn't possible in Vietnam. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that at the end of the war, we no longer controlled the territory in which they were lost. We lost a lot of pilots over that country, often in areas where we had no control.
3) In the late 80s and early 90s, after the implosion of global Communism, Vietnam and the rest of Indochina discovered that a great deal of money could be made from these loose threads. A massive cottage industry sprung up around the notion of MIAs and secret POWs, and a great many criminals, scam artists, and people with financial interests had and have every motivation in the world to continue to manufacture, enhance, and propagate myths, rumors, and "facts" about MIA in the boonies, or in dank cellars, or whatever. Anything to keep the POW/MIA family money flowing. The relics merchant always keep someone in the back creating saints' knuckle-bones from pigs' bones.
4) I wouldn't trust Kerry further than I could throw Ted Kennedy, but John McCain was an actual POW. He actually has authority on the subject. I'm willing to take his word over the allegations of wild-eyed, frothing representatives of a group of people known for assaulting those who disagree with them.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
08/23/2004 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Ok - for you. Referring to those who don't hold your POV as "wild-eyed, frothing" doesn't strike me as either fair or balanced. You know what you know - and guess at the rest - just like everyone else. That reference and choice of words sounds much like Skeery, too.
As for McCain, well, my opinion about him has, let's say, evolved over the last 2 years. He's a natural politician and self-serving asshole with a what's-in-it-for-me and how-can-I-profit attitude. He now portrays himself as the moral arbiter of honor - and that chafes. I know a little about honor and I'm sure he's a lousy example of it. He (and his self-righteous ilk) give me a feeling probably akin to yours for the POW families. Such is life, I guess.
#14
What, are you telling me that Ted Sampley and his cohort don't merit the description "wild-eyed, frothing"? My mistake, I'm sure.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
08/23/2004 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#15
And no, I don't take McCain's word as bible truth on John Kerry's record. He wasn't there, he has no special knowledge on the subject, and he's inherently biased due to the bruising South Carolina fight.
There's a hell of a big difference between sleazeballs push-polling South Carolina primary voters with racist trash about McCain's adopted daughter and paranoid lunacy about "Manchurian Candidate" programming, and Kerry's peers and superiors opining in above-the-board public testimony about their opinions about his fitness for the office.
I think McCain's sore on the subject, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his irrationality about negative ads. The same way I try to give the POW-MIA folks on their blind spots.
But lord, lord, it is hard.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
08/23/2004 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Ah, the tarred brush approach. Ted may not be a sterling example of decorum, but to paint ALL who might share an issue with whatever disdain you hold for him is simply disingenuous and cowardly.
Y'know, I don't have a problem with differing opinions when the topic is truly unknown. Apparently you do. You didn't refute diddley-squat regards either article's assertions. They did a lot of homework, it's obvious. You rely upon McCain's word. Which is more convincing or intriguing?
Your grand swipe at these people, simply by association, and desire to put it to rest because you believe McCain is less than convincing. Must be some fire behind your smoke.
Oh well. Another day, another wild-eyed frothing opinion.
via Wash Times - EFL
By Audrey Hudson - August 23, 2004 [REAL] World War II hero Bob Dole yesterday questioned whether presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry deserved the Purple Hearts he was awarded during the Vietnam War and said the issue could lead to the Democrat's defeat.
Mr. Dole's comments came in response to the book "Unfit for Command" by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi and to television ads criticizing Mr. Kerry's behavior during and after the war by members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Mr. Dole, a former Republican presidential nominee and Kansas senator, said he has a "quarrel" with Mr. Kerry for receiving three Purple Hearts while serving only four months in battle.
"I said John Kerry's a hero. But what I will always quarrel about are the Purple Hearts. I mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart — he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you're out," Mr. Dole told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
"But three Purple Hearts and never bled, that I know of? I mean, they're all superficial wounds," said Mr. Dole of the military decoration for troops wounded in battle. "And as far as I know, he's never spent one day in the hospital. I don't think he draws any disability pay. He doesn't have any disability — and boasting about three Purple Hearts, when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam," Mr. Dole said. ...more...
Uh oh - the Mean Old Man has his teeth in Skeery's scrawny patrician neck. The hurtin' shall now commence.
Posted by: .com ||
08/23/2004 1:25:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dole actually earned his purple heart andf has a heck of alot more class than Kerry will ever have.
#2
The pro-Kerry media love referring to his "five medals" or "five decorations" without mentioning that three of those were purple hearts obtained by his own request after minor superficial wounds. That sort of spin is a gift to the opposition because when the truth is exposed it does so much to discredit the man in the public opinion that the two other decorations are almost irrelevant by association. This leaves the man's heroic credibility is in tatters, whilst Bush - who's always been modest as regards his own service, gains in stature by default.
#3
Bulldog on to something here with all the PHs coming at the request of Kerry and not through the normal way (from his Commander). I know it was 'not against regulations' but funny that none of the Purple Nerples were requested by someone other than the recepient. Bob Dole should know something about this because he was serverly wounded in WWII and got A Purple Heart. The Kerry Kamp will think long and hard before they start to diparage Senator Dole.
#4
Cyber Sarge, I've already seen the usual suspects at places like polipundit disparaging Senator Dole; hop on over if you've got a strong stomach.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/23/2004 8:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
This just in: John Kerry has won the annual Islamic Pseudo-man Look Alike Contest!
Way to go, Senator! You are also the newest poster child for the International Weenie Man Parade! (featuring other totalitariansterrorists contenders from around the globe!) The festivities start in Boston. John's wife, Teresa, will be supervising the serving of (beef) hotdogs with ketcup, tail-gate style, from their several SUV's. Other booths will be featuring the traditional foods served in the training camps of Afghanistan and Sudan. A 30,000 Purple Heart Balloon release (10,000 purple heart-shaped baloons--one for each of the three purple hearts Kerry was able to weasel out of the military received, and mock celebratory Islamic-type machine-gun fire will kick off the event. ) BE THERE!!!
Reminder: so as not to be offensive to Senator Kerry and others in attendance who support his political priorities, no American flags will be allowed at this event. Protestors carrying posters, shouting slogans, handing out pamphlets or singing chants, will be promptly arrested for disorderly conduct, harrassment, and criminal mischief. The wearing of brown shirts by all attendees is encouraged. Thank you for your cooperation.
#6
I tossed my "undecided until I got in the voting booth" presidential vote his way mostly because I felt he was a stand up guy in life.
He also accepted his defeat with grace (Al Gore, take note).
I am glad you spoke up yesterday, Bob.
#7
I just love getting up in the morning and finding articles like this. It makes my day. I am glad that SOMEONE is speaking on behalf of the Swift Boat Vets besides themselves. Thank you Mr Dole for saying aloud what every one has been thinking..
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
08/23/2004 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Dole talking to Hannity RIGHT NOW!
Kerry called Dole. Sounds as though Dole stands up to him, and Kerry squirms. . .
Kerry says that he is "disappointed" in Dole. That's a laugh.
Islamic leaders and scholars have rejected a proposal by the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) pressing for husbands to be charged with rape if they force their wives to have sex with them. The critics of the proposal say it is against Islam and could ruin marriage as an institution in Muslim-majority Malaysia. More than 70 women complain every year that they have been raped by their husbands, while others are believed to suffer sexual abuse in silence. The authorities cannot do anything about these complaints as marital rape is not a crime in Malaysia. It should be an offence, said Suhakam chairman Abu Talib Othman, who argues that sex without a wife's consent violates basic human rights. In a paper submitted to a parliamentary select committee, Suhakam said a husband who does not support his wife financially but insists on having sex with her contravenes her rights. Malaysia is a signatory to the United Nations convention o the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. The convention stresses equal rights for married couples and states that a wife must not be enslaved by her husband. It also describes the sexual abuse of a wife by a husband as being no different from the same act committed by an unknown man on a woman.
Suhakam's proposal is backed by several women's groups, but the Mufti, or religious leader, of Perak, Datuk Seri Dr Harussani Zakaria, said that in Islam, a husband forcing a wife to have sex cannot be accused of rape. Accusing Suhakam of being influenced by Westerners lobbying for more rights for women, he said: 'In Islam, sexual relations between husband and wife are governed by certain rules and limitations. 'For example, a husband is not allowed to demand sex while his wife is menstruating. A husband has the right to be intimate with his wife and the wife must obey. If the wife refuses, the rule of nusyus (recalcitrance) can be applied and the husband will no longer be responsible to provide for his wife.' Syariah Lawyers Association deputy president Zainal Rijal Abu Bakar said: 'Introducing the term 'rape' in a marriage contradicts syariah laws because one of the objectives of marriage is to legitimise sex between a couple.'
The Prime Minister's Religious Adviser, Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Othman, is also against what he describes as criminalising marital rape. Muslim wives abused by their spouses, he said, can go to the Syariah Court and divorce their partners. Social activists believe there are many wives being sexually abused by their husbands who are either too afraid or ashamed to complain to the authorities. 'Such men give husbands a bad name,' said Women's Aid Organisation executive director Ivy Josiah.'Husbands have the right to have sex with their wives, but we want to remove the protection given to husbands who physically and sexually abuse their wives,' she said.
#1
This kind of law is common, if sadly recent, in the west. Why isn't it common in the Muslim world?
The critics of the proposal say it is against Islam
Oh, that's why.
If the wife refuses, the rule of nusyus (recalcitrance) can be applied and the husband will no longer be responsible to provide for his wife.â
AKA "put out or get out". Never mind if she's feeling ill, or spent the day chasing the rug rats and doesn't have the energy...
âIntroducing the term ârapeâ in a marriage contradicts syariah laws because one of the objectives of marriage is to legitimise sex between a couple.â
There's that shariah, again. Funny how often it justifies bigotry, violence, and cruelty.
âHusbands have the right to have sex with their wives, but we want to remove the protection given to husbands who physically and sexually abuse their wives,â she said.
Protection that comes from... SHARIAH!!!
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/23/2004 22:33 Comments ||
Top||
By MARILYN AUGUST, Associated Press Mon Aug 23, 7:44 AM ET PEMUTERAN, North Bali - As the late-afternoon sun bathes the beach with a soft warmth, gentle waves lap quietly at the shore — and strollers occasionally stumble over a thick wad of white cables embedded in the fine, black sand. The cables seem to disappear into the sea, where large blue plastic balls bob in the waves. And they seem to come out of nowhere, sprouting like a nasty growth on the face of this stretch of tropical paradise on Bali's northwestern coast. The wires are part of highly original and ambitious underwater experiment: the use of low-voltage electrical current to stimulate regrowth in a badly damaged coral reef. Conceived by coral expert Tom Goreau of the United States and German architecture professor Wolf Hilbertz, the project began four years ago and has already achieved remarkable results.
Covering a total length of nearly 1,000 feet, the Karang Lestari Project — "coral preservation" in Indonesian — is the world's largest coral nursery ever built using this technology. "You can really see the difference in the reef in just a short time," said Chris Brown, owner of Reef Seen Aquatics Dive Center, which co-sponsors the project along with local hotels and shops committed to preserving the reef. The technique is also being used experimentally in other tropical locations, such as Mauritius in the Indian Ocean, but the project in Bali is the largest and most ambitious of its kind. Indonesia is home to 581 of the world's 793 known coral reef-building species, and most thrive in Pemuteran Bay. The area has long been a favorite among scuba divers, who will go elsewhere, affecting tourism, if the reef dies.
On the sandy ocean floor 9 to 21 feet down are dozens of grids made from welded construction bars. Seen from above, they look like some underwater playground equipped with jungle gyms, monkey bars, upside-down cone and other climbing apparatus for kids. One looks like the ribcage of a whale. Wires carrying the electrical current are secured to the bars and are plugged into onshore charging stations. Brown estimates the amount of electricity used in a week is equal to burning a single 60-watt bulb for a month. Non-swimmers can follow the reef's renewal thanks to color photographs displayed at Taman Sari Bali Cottages, a sponsor that injected some $15,000 in seed money to get the project started in 2000.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Concerned citizens like Brown and Naryana have long supported community programs to educate the locals about the long-term consequences of the reefâs worst enemy: fishing with explosives.
Old Punchline: Do you want to talk? Or do you want to fish?
#3
My personal WTF moment in an otherwise absorbing article:
"Naryana, who was born Randall Dodge in Nebraska"
Posted by: Carl in N.H ||
08/23/2004 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Er, I read that article through twice. I see nothing about control sets. How certain are they that the presence of metal grates for a matrix isn't providing their effect? I seem to remember that people use things like decommissioned cruisers and piles of Patton tanks for this exact reason...
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
08/23/2004 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I think we should build nuclear generating plants on the shore next to all reefs and do this. After all, the reefs are far more important than the fact that elelctricity has to be generated.
While not a proper control group, this effect has already been determined to exist for simple accretion, so acceleration of polyp growth is not a huge leap. The current induced convection may indeed "sweep" nutrients towards those polyps already attached to the charged substrate.
The grids were then seeded with small fragments of live coral, which begin to grow "between five and 10 times faster than normal, with much brighter colors and more resilience to hot weather and pollution," said a co-owner of the Taman Sari Cottages, an American who goes by the single name Naryana ... Grids that suffered power failures saw less vigorous development and duller colors.
#5I think we should build nuclear generating plants on the shore next to all reefs and do this. After all, the reefs are far more important than the fact that elelctricity has to be generated.
Nice try, Chuck.
Brown estimates the amount of electricity used in a week is equal to burning a single 60-watt bulb for a month.
You don't need nuclear reactors to power a flashlight. And you had better bet that enhancing reef growth is of equal or greater importance than increasing the production of nuclear power. The degree of reliance that marine life has upon coral reef structures may well exceed even that of krill and is probably exceeded only by the importance of plankton when it comes to sustaining natatorial life. Reefs promote sheltered environments for piscine nurseries and additionally represent huge food factories that also act as breakwaters to promote substantially greater populations than open ocean water ever could. Atoll formations increase wildlife diversity and therefore expand the food chain in ways that a nuclear reactor just isn't capable of doing.
Oh Gentle.....
Hat tip to Dhimmiwatch
who tips, in turn, Allah in the house
Iran's judiciary ordered a man to be released after he killed his unfaithful wife in the courtroom, because the woman's immediate forebears are not alive to claim retaliation, press reports said Thursday.
Oh. Well. That explains it.
According to the newspaper Shargh, the man, identified as Mahmoud, had filed a complaint against his wife and her lover when he had found out that she was cheating on him. When she appeared in court in Shahr Ray city in Tehran province in 2003 he lost control and stabbed her to death. But a court sentenced him Wednesday only to pay compensatory "blood money" to the "parents of the blood", who are in fact himself and their three children, because the parents of the murdered woman, Fatemeh, 29, are dead, Iran newspaper said.
That's logic, Islamist-style...
The court followed an order by the head of Iran's hardline judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi. The children would have lost their only breadwinner if the murderer had been put in jail, Iran. The woman's lover, charged with illegitimate relations, was sentenced to be lashed and the verdict will be executed soon, Shargh said. "I asked the court for the ultimate punishment for her. But I thought they would not punish her," Shargh quoted the husband as saying, "so I left the court building, hid a knife in my clothes to escape the body search at the court entrance, then I stabbed her in the courtroom in presence of the court staff."
He didn't lose control - he premeditated the murder by going home to get a knife and concealing it from the obviously lax inspection and executed her. They let him off per Shari'an "Law". End of story.
I recognize that one crime or one court decision doesn't and shouldn't condemn an entire society. But Islam is the motherphreakin' exception for all time. And we only see the tip of the 'berg.
It is beyond the pale... And very swiftly, given the lethality of weapons today and the frantic efforts by Islamists to acquire them, becoming an ideology beyond redemption.
This is where the rubber meets the road. Who will lead us to fight this foe? Bush or Kerry? It's intuitively obvious to the casual observer that Bush can and will.
Will Kerry? Proof that he's anything but a socialist and multiculti appeaser? Proof that he's got ANY balls left? Proof that he even gets it?
#6
Somehow I don't a woman would go free if she killed her husband in front of the court for marital infidelity, parents dead or not. She could claim he had a smart mouth, since that seems enough to justify murder in Iran.
Posted by: ed ||
08/24/2004 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:
"There is no such concept in Islam that is called "honor killing". Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice, because doing so will be leading to chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, based on this, Islam does not permit such killings.
First of all, in order to sanction killing, it must be through a binding verdict issued by an authoritative law court. Individuals themselves have no authority either to judge cases or pass judgments. Therefore, a Muslim should not sanction such killing because doing so will be leading to the rule of the law of the jungle. A civilized society cannot be run by such laws."
Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:
"Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, "Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom." (An-Nisa': 93)
The so-called "honor killing" is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments.
It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it's the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society."
Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti, member of the North American Fiqh Council, adds:
"In Islam, there is no place for unjustifiable killing. Even in case of capital punishment, only the government can apply the law through the judicial procedures. No one has the authority to execute the law other than the officers who are in charge.
Honor killing is a wrong cultural tradition. It is unjust and inhumane action. The murderer of that type deserves punishment."
Now then, Gentle: if this is what Islam says, then why are there so many 'honor killings' in Islamic countries? And what would you do, as a good Muslim woman, to bring these killings to an end?
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/23/2004 0:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
It's too bad that Islamic scholars in Canada exert so little influence on the countries that are populated by Moslems.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
08/23/2004 0:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification...No one has the authority to execute the law other than the officers who are in charge.
Hence the report from Iran of a judge who personally placed the noose around the neck of a 16-year old defendent. After a trial of course, where the family could not find a lawyer willing to defend her...
#5
Um, guys ... where's the contradiction here? She says right there in plain Arabic English, "Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification". You know, like:
Being non-Muslim
Leaving Islam
Exercising free will, or, most heinous of all,
Exacerbating any of the above offenses (as young Ateqeh Sahaleh recently did) by brazenly having a foul tunnel to eternal damnation vagina.
Gentle, I'm asking you this in all sincerity ... Look at "normal culture" in the Mideast: madrassahs, clitoridectomies, veiled women, public stonings, persecution of non- and ex-Muslims, mad mullahs, Wahhabi necrophilia, and yes, honor killings -- all having nothing to do with Israel. Do these things truly leave you feeling less outraged than dot-com's titty pics or my rambling tirades? Is the urge to "enlighten" us from half a world away truly more passionate than the need to improve your own culture from within?
Only when you quit typing, stand up, go outside and DO SOMETHING ... then and ONLY THEN can you chastise us as ignorant Zionist bigots.
I'm sure you're a Western troll having fun, but if perchance you are whom you say you are, then yours is the basest form of slavery: you're a Muslim woman defending Islam. For that alone, I won't tell you to go to hell; you're already there.
Posted by: Another Dan ||
08/23/2004 2:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I suppose anger won't work, thgough it is what you deserve for not seeing the plain truth that is just staring you in the face.
Here, in the Emirates, while you think that I am diffrent than other girls in being more free of our "traditions" you are mistaken.
I am diffrent, you see, they think that I am painfully conservative.
Do you understand?
They think that my values are too strict.
And you think that I am the "Liberal" part of the arab world.
Think again. Think again.
#7
So is the murder of sisters, wives and cousins - now prevalent in Muslim ghettoes in Britain - just a 'cultural' phenomenon and nothing to do with Islam. What, exactly, are you trying to say m'dear?
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 4:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Gentle, let me free you from the bonds of your conservatism. Come live with me in Las Vegas -- yes, Sin City. Your friends will be positively green with envy. You'll love it here. It's desert-like, hot, and sinful beyond your wildest dreams. Such decadence you cannot imagine. Come. Come see it for yourself. Live your dreams. Live your fantasies. Sodom & Gomorrah, pfeh - child's play.
#9
Yes Howerd. That is exactly what I am trying to say. The point is not that they are muslims, but that they come from a country that has a practice which Islam ended centuries ago.
What if Brits commited honor killings, under another name of course, what would that make them?
I think you call them passion crimes, right?
#10
Yes, crimes of passion - but we have a small muslim population who commit a disproportionately large number of these crimes themselves - I had the unfortunate pleasure of working on a recent case from a medical angle. A muslim girl at my school who was 'spirited' simply disappeared and was never seen nor heard of again. Islam may not be the cause, but the subjugation of women that it imposes cannot help to irradicate such barbarity.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 4:55 Comments ||
Top||
#11
There is no subjugation of women in Islam.
Give an example.
I know, you'll say you don't even know where to start, being on this site, but try.
Please do.
#12
From my own experiences of Muslims in the UK - there may be no wearing of burkas or genital mutilation (thankfully) - the subjugation of women is achieved by a patriarchal culture that seemingly stifles their opportunities. There are two types of muslim in the UK - those who live according to western mores and those who abide by the cultural mores of their forefathers. The womenfolk of the latter bearly make it out of the kitchen, receive little education, are poisoned by their religion, are forced to marry against their will and are often the victims of domestic violence. I have worked in secondary schools in London and have seen this at first hand.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 5:23 Comments ||
Top||
#13
You said it:
Cultural!
Islam demands that both women and men receive education from cradle to Grave.
No women, or man, is to be married against his or her will. If it does happen, the marriege is not valid.
No women should be subjected to violance, no matter from who.
The most the prophet allowed was for the women to be hit by her huband was with a short (4-5 inches) little thin soft peice of wood.
#14
Yes, when I say 'culture' dipshit, it tends to encompass religion, not exclude it.. A religion that advocates the beating of women has no place on this earth nor do its followers.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 5:37 Comments ||
Top||
#15
But it does not!
It forbids it.
Does your religion do that?
does it FORBID it?
#16
The most the prophet allowed was for the women to be hit by her huband was with a short (4-5 inches) little thin soft peice [sic] of wood.
Damn. I'm converted. That did it.
I rest my case. Gentle, for your reward, your loving hubby will now paddle your bizazeek with a popsicle stick for the Almighty while I sleep. Goodnight.
Posted by: Another Dan ||
08/23/2004 5:48 Comments ||
Top||
#17
OK - so it's ok to use a little bit of wood but that doesn't constitute a beating. That's still violence against women. I haven't read a bible in years so couldn't possibly answer that question - some of us thrive on our own moral values - not those of a thousand+ year old book.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 6:06 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Ever thought for yourself, Gentle? Or are you going to live your whole life a slave to your particular religion?
#19
Does that mean that christians and Brits:
A) Do not read the bible except once in a blue moon.
B) Think they know better than their own religion.
c) Are not much informed.
(The Quran is more than 1400 years old)
D) Like to insult other religions.
E) Think that their religion has no moral values.
Am I correct?
Or should I realize that:
A) You might not be a representative of all christians.
B) I might have misunderstood some of what you said.
C) One of us is just looking for a fight.
???
That is what you people do when it comes to muslims.
#22
There appear two types of muslim in the UK - those that have left the stone age mentality behind and those that haven't. Those that haven't are more likely to be the ones murdering female relatives. How much this is due to culture (excluding religion) or religion itself is difficult to say. However, a religion that advocates the use of violence against women is re-inforcing a culture of violence. My solution - close down the mosques.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 6:25 Comments ||
Top||
#23
And, Gentle, you've never had to explain to a teenage female Muslim student terrified of going home to an abusive father, that there is nothing you can do except contact social services. Neither have you seen the bruises on female muslim students - nor have you had female muslim students simply 'disappear' into thin air. These are presumably the actions of male muslims who haven't strayed too far from the mainstream - look at the Taliban if you want an extreme example of misogyny.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 6:33 Comments ||
Top||
#24
I thought this was more a culture thing, Paki and Indian folks go in for this "honor killing" mostly and plenty of the Indains are Hindu. Not that I make any excuse for the way Muslims I have be around treat their women. However I know plenty of "white guys" that treat their spouses and kids like property/dirt and as bad. Folks that act like that are generally are pretty weak.
I am making no apoligies for Islam. I consider Islam to be a form of satanic death worship.
#25
But do the Sikh / Hindu religions advocate the beating of women? Sure, they treat them like shit in the same way, but I'm not sure their women are intimidated to the same degree or are the focus of the same level of violence as muslim women. Certainly, there's not much in it.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/23/2004 6:49 Comments ||
Top||
#26
People involved in so much hate as the satanic death cult of Islam are more pathological. So I can see them beating and killing their women and thinking it's fine and is accepted even under their hate filled satanic faith.
#27
From Ibn Sa`d's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, page 31.
SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her (i.e. No one will care). This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).
I guess it all depends on what your definition of "short little thin soft peice of wood" is. "No one has the authority to execute the law other than the officers who are in charge", unless it personally benefits Mohammed, and therefore Islam.
Posted by: ed ||
08/23/2004 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#28
*yawns* Get back to me,Gentle, when such speeches issue from the Mosques and Universities of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Until then, for all I know, this is all "Tell them what they want to hear until we're strong enough to shove it down their throats" talk as far as I am concerned.
Sh*t. Why do Kerry and the Muslims talk and lie and flip alike?
#31
There is no subjugation of women in Islam.
Give an example.
Under Shariah, it takes the testimony of two women to match the testimony of one man.
Under Shariah, a man can divorce a woman with a simple statement, and she has no recourse to property.
When Jordan attempted to outlaw "honor killings", the bill was struck down amidst cries that it was an "insult to Islam".
As for claiming that somehow the "honor killings" are distinct from Islam, what, besides Islam, is the common culture between Jordan, Pakistan, Malaysia, Afghanistan, and Iran?
Gentle, your ignorance of Islam is stunning. Or is it that you're lying to try to convince us of something?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/23/2004 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Here's where the rubber meets the road (cut and pasted from original article. Note below that he references killing of BELIEVERS only! Therefore, if you're an infidel (and who isn't these days?), it's o.k. to kill you!
Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:
âLike all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, âWhoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.â (An-Nisaâ: 93)
Posted by: BA ||
08/23/2004 9:32 Comments ||
Top||
#33
To "Another Dan" who wrote about the custom of wife beating with only a small sized stick, and who takes issue with the Islamic reference to it, somehow you have forgotten that the phrase "rule of thumb" was meant to measure the size of stick by which an American could beat his wife with. This venerable tradition of English common law, adopted in many states in the 18th and 19th century, was not inspired by Islamic law. Ours is a Judeao-Chrsitian heritage.
#34
Okay, Gentle, that's two days in a row that you've subdued us with your gentle theory. As I said yesterday, we have to deal with the reality. How do you propose that your "religion of peace" will deal with its folks who brought us 9/11. etc. Flower power is not going to do it.
And wasn't it an Iranian Islamic "judicial administrator" who executed a sassy 16-year-old-girl in the story yesterday that set you off? Why do you rant about honor killing so much when that's not the main issue? Do you fear your own family? Who are you trying to convince? I have a 14-year-old daughter who makes me crazy, but I've never considered killing her for it. Who are you trying to convince?
Posted by: Tom ||
08/23/2004 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#35
the phrase "rule of thumb" was meant to measure the size of stick by which an American could beat his wife with.
Another problem is that
the phrase 'rule of thumb' is never found in connection with the
beating practice until the 1970s. Finally, there is no semantic
link [... from what was presumably a very specific distinction to
the current sense 'rough guideline']. The precise origin of 'rule
of thumb' is not certain, but it seems likely to refer to the thumb
as a rough measuring device ('rule' meaning 'ruler' rather than
'regulation'), which is a common practice. The linkage of the
phrase to the wife-beating rule appears to be based on a
misinterpretation of a 1976 National Organization of Women report,
which mentioned the phrase and the practice but did not imply a
connection. There is more information about this, with citations
from relevant sources, at the Urban Legends Archive."
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/23/2004 9:47 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Sorry, Fred, to be lengthy, but this one merits it:
Gentle-If you would, please answer these questions:
1.) What transgressions would fall under the legal justification for killing?
Apostasy? Belonging to another religion in a Muslim country?
Adultery?
Physical assault/abuse?
Something else?
How does the quote above tie into Sharia? What do you think â...Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose..." means?
2.) Also, please address the question of clitoridectomies/infibulations...Do you think these procedures fall under "proper treatment and respect of women"? Who should decide whether these antiquated procedures can be performed upon a person? Must the person herself decide at an age of consent, or is it ok for a father/mother/village to decide for her when she is 3, 4, 5 years old?
For those who don't know, clitoridectomy is the removal of the clitoris; infibulation is the removal of the clitoris and inner and outer labia. (Both procedures are intended to have the result of proving purity; both have the result of eliminating sexual pleasure for women.) This is often done without anesthesia, when a girl child is 3-5 years of age. Women kinfolk hold down the screaming, struggling girl as she is cut up. The remaining tissue is sutured/thorned together so that only one small opening is left for urine/menstrual blood. Subsequent to many of these procedures, women must be cut open for sex, childbirth. The procedure causes ghastly pain and horrific infections, not to mention abnormal gynecological states.
While some procedures have taken place in Christian areas (Egyptian Copts have performed clitorectomies, for example), these procedures overwhelmingly take place in Islamic societies. Clitoridectomies are widespread throughout the Middle East, northern and eastern Africa, and parts of southern Asia. Infibulation is common to the Horn of Africa (Eritrea, Somalia, etc) but also occurs in other areas where Islam is king.
#38
Gentle: First, I know what you're doing. You are a warrior for Islam, no? Second, I don't believe you are female. Third, unless you will, here and now, publicly denounce all of the activities of the Islamic Taliban against the Moslem women, children and men of Afghanistan, publicly denounce the Islamic practice of Female Genital Mutilation, publicly denounce the widely practiced phenomenon of "honor" killings, publicly denounce the terrorist killings in the US, UK, Spain, Pakistan, Indonesia, Palestine/Israel for starters, publicly denounce the brutal slave pratices prevalent in Islamic Saudi Arabia, publicly denounce the raping and boys and girls in Sudan by Moslems, and the destruction of Christian towns, and publicly denounce the plans for Islamic takeover of the West, no one at Rantburg will take you seriously. No one.
Since you won't denounce these things, I tell you to STOP trying to spread Islam by proselytizing on this site. We know that's what you're doing.
Finally, I also expect you will not respond to Howard's, jules, or Robert's points, or this post. You are a fake, and are anything but "gentle." So go back to your imam, and tell him that you did your part today to bring about a world-wide Islamic State--(not that you were at all successful, but you did try, so I don't think you'll be in too much trouble).
P.S. Howard UK: FGM does occur in the UK, and it's a growing problem. Thought you might want to know.
#41
No one has the authority to execute the law other than the officers who are in charge.
Seeing as how everyone who is able to wind their turban tight enough to cut off circulation to the brain can qualify as "officers who are in charge," there's not that many excluded from honor killing murdering whomever they want to.
#42
It doesn't matter whether it's Islam or culture that cause these murders. Regardless of whether it existed before or after Mohammed came up with his book, it is still around today, and clearly in the intervening 1,400 years Islam has failed to banish it. Religion and culture, especially in the Middle East, are intertwined, and if it wasn't part of Islam at one time, it damn sure is now. Just like, as much as I hate to admit it, burning heretics at the stake was once part of Christianity, but isn't now.
You've never answered any of the questions regarding facts we've thrown at you, Gentle. At the most, you've asked for proof, then ignored our responses. Other times you just seem to slink away, and we spend the rest of the thread asking questions and making comments on the material that poke even more holes in the arguments you present. Islam is more concerned about telling us what it isn't than in showing us what it is - because as long as we're paying attention to those "scholars" who tell us it isn't a bloodthirsty cult we won't notice the killing and brutality and violations that are going on around us. Islam is demanding more rights, demanding to be accorded victim status, demanding to be recognized as its own separate entity - and devouring those who come under its sway.
Way I see it, there are two possibilities: Either Islam puts itself through a major overhaul, or there's gonna be an awful lot of fighting ahead. And I don't know which will win. But I won't hesitate to say what I see, and your Islamic sensibilities can go f**k themselves if you don't like what I say. Islam wants to control the world? There are a lot of people you're going to have to kill if you want to silence the questioning of your religion. I'm no soldier, and wouldn't make it in the military, but am willing to defend in any way I can a system that respects human rights, that grows and changes and evolves and makes peace with its past demons, and allows for free thought and criticism.
End of excessively long speech.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
08/23/2004 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#43
Since you won't denounce these things, I tell you to STOP trying to spread Islam by proselytizing on this site. We know that's what you're doing.
"Gentle" should be left alone do whatever it wants to do, as its proselytizing is more than countered by a lot of the articles posted and referenced to by this site. Judging from what comes out of the Middle East on just about a daily basis, one would be hard-pressed to actually believe that Islam is really a "Religion of Peace"â¢.
By Naomi Aoki, Globe Staff | August 23, 2004
When it comes to correcting papers and grading tests, purple is emerging as the new red. "If you see a whole paper of red, it looks pretty frightening," said Sharon Carlson, a health and physical education teacher at John F. Kennedy Middle School in Northampton. "Purple stands out, but it doesn't look as scary as red."
Yeah. I once saw something red and came down all over with the vapors. It was awful. Stank to high heaven.
That's the cue pen makers and office supply superstores say they have gotten from teachers as the $15 billion back-to-school retail season kicks off. They say focus groups and conversations with teachers have led them to conclude that a growing number of the nation's educators are switching to purple, a color they perceive as "friendlier" than red.
Wouldn't want to rough up the little darlings' self-esteem...
As a result, Paper Mate introduced purple to its assortment of blue, red, and green X-Tend pens and increased distribution of existing purple pens this school year. Barry Calpino, Paper Mate's vice president and general manager, estimated that the Bellwood, Ill., company boosted production of purple pens by at least 10 percent. He said purple will now be a standard color in all its new product lines.
... and school lunches will also include warm milk.
#1
Just a question: once upon a time red was thought to be a pretty colour. How did it happen to acquire the connotation of harshness, and how can we prevent the same thing from happening to purple (Hint: don't use it for correcting students' work, you silly people!).
Honestly, in these troubled times, you'd think they had something better to think about.
#2
I knew a sneaky teacher who used an "anti-curve" on his students--and they never caught on. The A's and B's he graded correctly, but with low C's, D's, and F's, he made it a point to miss a wrong question. That is, he would mark an incorrect question correct, intentionally. His logic was that they would spot the "gimmee" and not complain, thinking they were "getting over". And he was always very generous to the rare honest student, letting them keep the point since it was "his fault." Students remembered him fondly.
#3
"If you see a whole paper of red, it looks pretty frightening,"
Maybe that's because it means you're dumber than a sack full of hammers. Being that stupid should frighten anybody.
Just a question: once upon a time red was thought to be a pretty colour. How did it happen to acquire the connotation of harshness ...
Probably a result of how underedumahcated criminals have learned to dislike the color of those annoying strobe lights on their black and white taxis. Other people may connect this wave of "crimsophobia" with the overall dumbing down of society by "social promotion" of dipstick idiots who should have been held back in kindergarten until they reached drinking age. Personally, I blame "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy.
#4
rather than dedicate herself to educating the students to the point that they don't make errors - she changes colors so as to not offend them with their errors...I feel so sensitive and in touch with feelings after reading that...fire her
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/23/2004 20:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
McCarthy? McCarthy?
A moron to the right of Atila the Hun? Lol! That's an incredible pile of bullshit, heh.
It's the LLL PC Agenda. The same one that applauded Stanford when they decided to drop 'Failed' and convert it to 'Incomplete'. And in a tidal wave of PCism a large chunk of the LLL's viral immune host, the Edumacation System, jumped on the bandwagon.
It's a brilliant ploy to get more money, in the form of tuition for those re-taking a class. If only the effect stopped there. It doesn't. This inanity is an abdication of responsibility and a raw betrayal that undermines and devalues the efforts of all who do work and study to actually *learn*.
How long will it be until all of these institutions of socialism adopt a Pass / Incomplete system?
#10
TGA - Amen. I got "licks" (whacked with a paddle) at school (I held the record in my schools for the 4th and 7th Grades, lol!) when I misbehaved or fooled around. And then, to add insult to injury, bringing home bad marks earned a belt.
Eventually, I figured it out, heh. I kept misbehaving at school - cuz the girls thought I was a tough guy for taking the licks and I got a lot of good attention to go along with the bad. But I started getting straight A's because there was no positive stimulus at home - just serious grief!
#12
Be advised, .com, the "underedumahcated" and "black and white taxis" references should have cued you up for incoming humor. I don't use emoticons or netspeak. As to "your LLL buddies," that looks a lot like the "baiting" that you supposedly eschew. Nice going there, duly noted.
#13
"McCarthy? McCarthy? A moron to the right of Atila the Hun? Lol! That's an incredible pile of bullshit, heh. It's the LLL PC Agenda."
Yeah, it's the LLL PC Agenda, alright; but in my opinion it was Joe McCarthy's excesses that resulted in the moral disarmament which allowed the LLL PC Agenda to insinuate itself into our institutions-- like the schools-- over the last half-century. Hell, you can't even raise the subject of communism in America with most people even today, fifty years later, without getting called a McCarthyite-- either in ridicule or in alarm.
I don't know whether that was Zenster's point; but I can tell you that I myself mainly blame Joe McCarthy for our present inability to counter the LLL. That stupid sonofabitch unwittingly did far more to advance the cause of communism in America than Gus Hall ever did.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/23/2004 21:20 Comments ||
Top||
#14
They're not your buddies?
Let's ask a simple question: Why don't you post on the political threads?
I know. Because you are a ABB screecher. Just because you recognize the dangers posed by the Islamists, Mad Mullahs, and Chinese Commies doesn't make you an ally. That only indicates you're not consciously suicidal.
The WoT threats must be faced. Who will face them, Zenster? Let's hear some straight talk. Don't write a book and leave the pneumatic prose aside, be clear and concise, for a change.
#15
Dave D - So you're saying the excesses on the Right gave the Left the high road to their own excesses? I can handle some of that - you have a good point.
But Zenster is something else, Dave. He's a very smart stealth screecher. I have the links and quotes to prove the point. Let's see if he's got the balls to "out" himself. Being snarky sometimes does not pay off, eh Zen?
Ever consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, politicians of every stripe make me f&%king puke? Dave D.'s point about McCarthy is quite well made. My reference to Tailgunner Joe was strictly in the form of humor, which was entirely lost on you, .com and I could give a royal sh!t about being your ally.
#18
The only thing that frightens me is how America remains so totally blind to the way that both sides of the aisle are selling this nation down the river. Whether it's multiculti horseshit or how the White House "loves commerce more than it loathes communism," I'm disgusted. Live with it.
#19
Disgusting is closer. Someone who can't even accept that President Bush is, indeed, the President of the United States is more than a little off the mark.
#23
You're a laugh riot, .com. You, a self-proclaimed atheist, have no problem supporting a family whose scion has openly declared, "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots."
Feed the hand that slaps you ... speaking of fraud and cowardice.
#24
I'm a Roman Catholic, Zen, and I'd feel more comfortable with PD's relaxed "morals"/strong principles guiding my offspring than th e alternative. My boys and girl have to hold their tongues for fear of alienating the grading professoriate
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/23/2004 22:22 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Geo41 doesn't frighten me - I believe in the constitution. I believe he fucked up rather big-time, in fact.
That's diversion. You're the dishonest and frightened asshat here.
Whatever belief system helps people sleep at night, gives them peace of mind, and is not imposed upon others is fine by me and the constitution.
C'mon, man, who is the President of the US?
What have you to fear? That people will find out you're one helluvalot like rex?
#27
Thank you, Frank. That's about the highest compliment I could possibly receive, IMO. I had more fun, and took more seriously, being a Dad than anything else I've ever done. Awesome fun! And awesome responsibility, too.
#28
Whatever belief system helps people sleep at night, gives them peace of mind, and is not imposed upon others is fine by me and the constitution.
.com, your willing blindness towards how the current administration has done more to blur America's separation of church and state than any other in recent history seriously degrades your credibility.
I know you have a bucket-load of DU Talking points - which ring true in your dysfunctional mind - regards all of the dangerous (Oooo!) and sneaky things the Evil Bush Dynasty has done / is doing.
You stated: "Jen, only when and if he is ever properly elected will I then be grudgingly obliged to address him as you wish I would. His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me.
Thank goodness we live in a country where we can disagree on this matter. Please know that you indeed have the privilege to dislike me for what I say, that is entirely your right. Understand one thing though, I don't do this to intentionally anger or offend you or anybody else.
As a proud American I cannot abide the White House's ham-fisted tampering with both the duties of executive office or our beloved constitution. Whatever proper intransigence might be shown for terrorism (as is demanded of all worthy commander in chiefs) still in no way confers any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law, especially not in a nation wholly founded upon secular ideals. This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office. Hence my scorn."
You're fucked up, son. I don't know if professional help is called for - I don't much care. I just know you're a fraud here on RB. People do not realize just how fucked up you are.
#30
yw PD - I detect a principled bedrock and that (for all my flaws) is what I've been driven to provide to my 3. From all reports (and contrary to my ex's expectations) - I've done that. May not have always known how I succeeded (otherwise I'd be the new Dr Phil) but I did
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/23/2004 22:56 Comments ||
Top||
#31
"... sneaky things the Evil Bush Dynasty has done / is doing."
List them (whatever they are), since you have all the links.
If you equate a detestation of theocracy with the democratic underground, it's your moral compass that is demagnetized.
#32
Frank - As a practial matter, I just copied the main tenets that I saw in how my grandfather dealt with me. Boiled down, it was a 2-part approach that made sense to me.
1) Be predictable / consistent - never arbitrary. The "line" was always in the same place, no matter what my mood or the perceived transgression.
2) The default answer was "yes". If I decided it should be "no" then I'd martial my reasoning, explain it until she got it - and brook no argument.
That was it, really, heh. Made me take a deep breath, slow down, think it through, then speak calmly and without talking down. It worked. She "got it" and never did or asked to do anything that put her in serious harm's way (the real nightmare of parenting) or made her think she could put something over on others - without blowback.
It worked. I was a lucky SOB, I guess! She's a pretty awesome person, practical, honest, not full of herself or someone else's hot air, thinks for herself, and no one can push her buttons.
My personal theory is they start out, as a norm, perfect. It takes fucked up adults to teach them to be fucked up. But there isn't anything terribly practical in that, in terms of do this & don't do that, so I followed the example of the guy I respected most.
One of the cool things is that my daughter has told me many times how sorry she is that she never met him. She said, after I told her the above, that I was a mere copy - she wanted to meet the Real Deal, lol!
#34
Zen - I don't have your DU links, dumbass, you do. You posted buckets of shit when I tried to find common ground and collaborate on what to do about Iran. I gave up - you're a fraud.
Moral compass? WTF are you talking about Mr Ethicality?
Shit. This is like a Lie Detector session. Let's establish what your squiggles look like when telling the truth so we'll know when you're lying:
#37
TGA, under American federal law, discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is a legal violation. The Defense of Marriage Amendment seeks to exclude a portion of US citizens from having the same rights, in terms of designating who may make medical decisions about their partners or receiving medical benefits under workplace regulations for married couples.
This is a naked attempt to inject religious interpretation into a secular nation's constitution and is nothing less than than theocracy by any other name. Numerous religions that are legally practiced in America have no such restrictions upon their own definition of marriage. How is it that this one particular Christian bit of doctrine should be enshrined as law when so many other religions' articles are specifically excluded? This relates directly to many of the arguments here at Rantburg about Canada and other nations eroding their own legal systems by adoption of part or all of Sharia law. There is no difference.
#38
Zenster, I wouldn't exclude some religious motivation but the idea that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is not a religious concept, let alone one that the Christians invented. The examples of discriminations you quote do not require marriage, they can easily be eliminated by certain laws.
We're talking "marriage" here, not "legal unions or partnerships".
Monogamy is more closely associated with the Christian idea of partnership and marriage. Do you think Muslims should legally be allowed to marry up to 4 women in the U.S.? Would you protest if there was a constitutional amendmend about marriage being between two persons (and not three or four?).
#39
TGA, thank you for responding. The only reason why marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman is due to millenia of those who did not conform to this social more being killed. There are other cultures on the face of this earth that have always recognized same sex partnerships without the hysteria and phobia that is seen to surround America's current uproar about this. Mind you, I do not advocate all of this "I have two mommies" educational exposure at the kindergarten level, but there certainly has to be some acceptance of partnerships that in no way violate the law.
Monogamy is more closely associated with the Christian idea of partnership and marriage.
I dispute this. Monogamistic partnerships have extisted down through the ages. Christianity does not have a lock on marital fidelity. The only reason it seems to be so is because of its predominance within western cultures. So long as America is a secular nation, Christianity's own interpretations of how to define marriage belong in the Bible and not in our constitution.
Would you protest if there was a constitutional amendmend about marriage being between two persons (and not three or four?).
I congratulate you upon asking a truly relevant question. Because of the Judeo-Christian bias in my own upbringing, I have an intrinsic dislike for polygamy. My preferences in no way invalidate its practice or moral propriety. Numerous people circumvent the legal prohibitions on polygamy by merely have unofficial multiple marriages to suit their tastes.
Because of the incredible abuses seen in, for instance, American Mormon polygamy and Islamic polygamous marriage, I have a disinclination towards approving of it, but that is my own personal bias and I have the courage to admit it.
From a strictly legalistic standpoint, polygamy opens up a Pandora's box of extremely thorny civil and judicial issues per estates, inheritance and many other readily disputed precedents. For the sake of simplicity alone, there may be merits to defining marriage as being strictly between two people. As I said, because of my own personal preferences, I am inclined to agree with such legal recognition of fidelitously paired couples.
I wouldn't exclude some religious motivation
Then I trust you see how this can readily be viewed as entirely inappropriate in terms of being incorporated into constitutional law. This is where I have intensely strong opposition.
There are other quasi-theocratic issues at stake besides the DOMA. Hiring practices by religious organizations which receive federal funding is another vital question. Again, new inroads are being attempted at permitting such hiring to discriminate against prospective employees based upon their religious affiliation.
Can religious organizations choose to hire only people who share their beliefs? The issue is heating up again. Last December, President Bush issued an executive order allowing such discretion to faith-based organizations receiving federal funds. Similar provisions are being added to legislation including Head Start and the Workforce Investment Act. And the rhetoric is rising.
Some opponents claim that allowing faith-based organizations to use religious criteria in hiring is "government-sponsored bigotry" or a "roll-back on civil rights protections." Proponents answer that those who oppose it are trying "to torpedo funding for thousands of faith-based organizations." Neither is the case. The first step toward a solution is to identify the real questions.
This is an issue where deeply held values come into conflict and must be balanced. There are three important principles at stake. First, faith-based partnerships have an important role in finding new solutions to overcoming poverty. Second, the ability of faith-based organizations to maintain their religious identity and the freedom to hire people who share their religious mission, especially at leadership levels, is often vital to their effectiveness and integrity. Third, civil rights and anti-discrimination laws in the United States are fundamentally important. Any resolution must take all three principles seriously.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition on employment discrimination allowed religious organizations to use religious criteria in hiring "ministerial" employees. That exemption was expanded in 1972 to include all employees of a faith-based organization. Since then, the issue has been raised in a variety of litigationâall of which upheld the exemption. It's not a new issue.
The new question is whether the exemption applies when a religious organization receives federal funding. That has not been addressed by the Supreme Court, and that is what the new executive order and legislation attempt to answer.
It is precisely issues like the above that I find so repulsive. America's greatness stems directly from its secular foundations. I believe that the White House is eroding this vital aspect of our nation and find it tantamount to treason. I would relish hearing your own observations regarding this, TGA. I can only expect that you have had adequate exposure to European state sanctioned religion to have formed an opinion regarding this. I do not feel it is necessary for me to detail the enormous outrages perpetrated in the name of state sanctioned religion. It is this that I am railing against.
#40
Zenster, first of all, as a German, I don't feel qualified to make recommendation about what should be in the U.S. constitution and what not. I do believe that marriage (marriage in the way our society has seen it for millenia) is between a man and a woman. I don't find it necessary to have a Constitutional amendment for that but as I said, that's up to the Americans to decide. I would not favor an inclusion in the German Basic Law. Regular civil law will do for me.
I simply don't believe that marriage and partnership are exactly the same thing. I have no problem with two men (or women) stating their intent of living together in a legally protected partnership, with all the consequences. But for me, at least, the primary intent of marriage was not so much the mutual protection of the partners, but of the children. Christianity has of course no monopole on monogamy but I think I'm right when I say monogamy is closer associated with the (Judeo)Christian faith than with others. But in the end, marriage and monogamy are both defined by social consensus. This consensus can change. Homosexuality was widespread, tolerated and even encouraged in Ancient Greece, but yet there was no concept of a "homosexual marriage". You may dig up some remote tribes where this is the case but neither Western nor Eastern civilisations have had that concept. Homosexual love (often brutally suppressed) yes, homosexual partnership, yes... but marriage in the sense that society has defined it for centuries if not millenia? Only in recent decades has this become an issue. In a free society homosexual partners can expect to be tolerated, not discriminated, accepted by society, but they can not expect to force a different concept of marriage, which a few years ago didn't exist, onto the overwhelming majority. Historically (heterosexual) polygamy had more social acceptance than homosexual marriage, yet here you don't want to open Pandora's box. Why is it so much easier with a monogamous homosexual "marriage"? Germany calls homosexual unions "registered partnership", and most gays seem happy with it. Only the "fundamentalists" want to have "marriage" instead. Maybe our societies evolve so much that they change the concept, who knows. American society is obviously not ready for it.
When it comes to polygamy, you don't seem to follow through your own reasoning. It is not about YOUR personal inclination. So you just want monogamy because it's legally less complicated? Sharia seems to do just "fine" with polygamy.
As for the rest. Germany is a secular state. Yet every Catholic and Protestant has to pay church taxes levied by the State, and religious organisations can indeed chose only to hire persons who share the same faith (also they often only do that when faith plays an important role in what kind of work they do). I don't understand what it has to do with treason when the State funds a religious organisation without forcing it to accept to hire a person that does not share the beliefs and goals of that organization.
You wouldn't force a hospital to hire a nurse who states: "I find sick persons disgusting" either. Why should a Methodist church be forced to hire an Islamist just to keep federal funding?
And as long as the U.S. is a nation "under God", it simply isn't an entirely secular state. "God" may not be defined by a special religion but he certainly leaves atheists, who believe that there is no God, out in the cold.
In the end, I think we should see things a bit more relaxed. I once read that in a small U.S. town Jewish citizen protested against the public funding of a Christmas tree, because that went against the separation of church and state. That's where the whole issue starts to get ridiculous.
#41
Polygamy had been historically accepted in the way that it was historically accept for a master to have many slaves -- but a slave could not belong to more than one households. Likewise a man could have many wives, but a woman could not have many husbands. Or to put it differently, a woman entered her husband's household, but no person was allowed to be part of more than one household.
The *households*, the family units, still had to remain strictly discrete.
This wasn't "polygamy" on a gender-equal basis -- nor could it become such. If they allowed a man to have many women and *each* of the women to have many men, then marriage would no longer create a unit in society but rather a chain. With all the benefits, rights, and obligations that currently the state bestows on a married couple becoming hopelessly intermingled. Next-of-kin would no longer exist for example (unless perhaps you were to also implement the old concept of the "chief wife" that also existed in traditional polygamy, adding now that of the "chief husband"). Automatic transfer of children's custody to your spouse upon death could likewise not exist. (in historical polygamy this wasn't an issue, because a woman could not be simultaneously married to two men).
The nature and different concepts of polyamorous relationships make it practically impossible to define one *specific* set of appropriate rights/benefits to grant by the state to married partners. Sure, I'd have no problem with the partners themselves creating an elaborate contract that would bind them and grant each other rights and obligations, including a specific description of how divorce would work -- but that would by definition no longer be *state*-defined and state-sanctioned marriage, would it now? It would be a private contract.
Allowing same-sex marriages doesn't create any of the above problems because it's still only two people that deal with each other. But at the same time same-sex marriages could only be created in societies that consider the wedded partners to be equal -- *unlike* polygamy which can only function (it seems to me), in a society where the genders are *unequal*.
#42
How in the hell did this post on teachers grading papers turn into another episode of "How the Confused Liberals Turn," our favorite soap opera here at Rantburg?
Oh, wait! I know! Zenster and Katsaris showed up!
And Zenster, honey, you're gonna have a hell of a time voting this November!
It's clear that you hate President "Shrub" (as you and Molly Evil call him) because he's a Christian, yet neither sKeery nor Nader will go after radical Moooslims hammer and tongs like you'd like them to either.
Decisions, decisions...
sKerry doesn't care whom you marry as long as he's got Teresa and her billions sewed up for himself, so GO FOR IT--vote for Hanoi John!
What happens when regular civil law does not confer equal protection and, in fact, is discriminatory? To date, people have been unwilling to remedy this by eliminating the "marriage clause" from work benefits allocation or changing the definition of a "spouse" who is empowered to make medical decisions for a partner. Neither of these are small issues and result in a lot of harm being done.
#40I simply don't believe that marriage and partnership are exactly the same thing.
Neither do I, nor do American law or commercial business regulations. This is, in part, a core of my arguments regarding the discriminatory aspects of the DOMA.
#40Homosexuality was widespread, tolerated and even encouraged in Ancient Greece, but yet there was no concept of a "homosexual marriage".
This is entirely incorrect. Whatever current lack of existing tradition can be attributed to proscriptions by those institutions which commandeered the ritual of marriage and placed the definition of it within their purview.
Among the evidence Boswell presents are Greek texts of the ceremonies, along with their English translations. The texts are clear. There is no doubt that the ceremonies sanction a union between two people of the same sex. Even before Boswell, historians who knew of the existence of the texts admitted as much. The accompanying prayers invoke the example of paired Christian saints of the same sex - in particular, the martyred Roman soldiers, Serge and Bacchus, who were the most famous and revered paired saints in early Christianity.
#40Historically (heterosexual) polygamy had more social acceptance than homosexual marriage ...
This is comparing apples to oranges, unless you are specifically mentioning polygamous marriage as compared to homosexual marriage. I will need you to clarify about that. Otherwise, it is quite possible that homosexual marriage was far more common. While polygamous familial groupings most certainly predated monogamous marriage, be they heterosexual or homosexual, the case is much less substantial for stating that polygamous marriage was more frequent than homosexual unions of the same sort.
#40You may dig up some remote tribes where this is the case but neither Western nor Eastern civilisations have had that concept.
Yale historian John Boswell researched the history of homosexual marriage and contended that such unions were legally sanctioned and religiously upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures.
Same-sex relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, according to Boswell, when religious orders labeled them immoral.
#40Only in recent decades has this become an issue.
Again, this is totally incorrect.
#40Historically (heterosexual) polygamy had more social acceptance than homosexual marriage, yet here you don't want to open Pandora's box. Why is it so much easier with a monogamous homosexual "marriage"?
This is due to such legal considerations as I mentioned before. Much of modern law relies upon patrilineal designation and primogeniture related status in determining inheritance and other issues of child custody and the like. Attempting to introduce polygamous marriage as a social norm would create gigantic gray areas, as noted by Aris.
#40Maybe our societies evolve so much that they change the concept, who knows. American society is obviously not ready for it.
As can be seen from prior evidence, societal concepts have indeed evolved from an original acceptance of homosexual marriage to a more Puritanical definition of late. How is American society's inability to recognize homosexual marriage the fault of homosexuals? That would be blaming the victim and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
#40When it comes to polygamy, you don't seem to follow through your own reasoning. It is not about YOUR personal inclination. So you just want monogamy because it's legally less complicated? Sharia seems to do just "fine" with polygamy.
The only reason "Sharia seems to do just 'fine' with polygamy" is because of that system's brutal oppression of women. Do you honestly think that the majority of Arabic women heartily endorse Muslim polygamy? If so, please introduce statistics to prove it. I have already admitted that my own personal inclinations have nothing to do with legal reasoning behind the prohibition of polygamy. There are substantial arguments in favor of banning polygamy solely because of the confusion of childrens rights that would result from its legalization. The potential for child abuse increases profoundly if numerous "parents" can legally administer corporal punishment to a child not of their own blood. This alone may well constitute sufficient reason to ban polygamy.
#40Yet every Catholic and Protestant has to pay church taxes levied by the State, and religious organisations can indeed chose only to hire persons who share the same faith (also they often only do that when faith plays an important role in what kind of work they do). I don't understand what it has to do with treason when the State funds a religious organisation without forcing it to accept to hire a person that does not share the beliefs and goals of that organization.
It is amazing that the complications of such arrangements are not clear to you. Federal funding or sanction of any religion is prohibited by America's constitution and rightfully so. If one religion is promoted, so must all of them, from Shintoism to the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The DOMA seeks to enshrine the doctrine of a specific religion without allowing the marriage rituals of all religions to enjoy equal protection. Be it tyranny of the many or tyranny of the few, it remains tyranny and naught else.
If "marriage" is supposedly the sole province of Christian unions, what possible place could it have in a secular nation's constitution? If marriage is not categorized as a specific religious interpretation then it is open to all modes of interpretation and thereby becomes equally unfit for admission into constitutional law. Neither avenue warrants enactment as legal measure.
That religious organizations receive any federal funding is clearly a violation of the separation of church and state. Equal arguments may be made against public taxes being used to fund art and even the existence of public television. Even if government funding of a religious organization can somehow be justified (which it cannot), they would still have to conform to federally mandated hiring guidelines as regards discrimination. This is not happening with respect to programs being administered by the office of faith based giving and it is a direct violation of the American constitution.
#40Why should a Methodist church be forced to hire an Islamist just to keep federal funding?
Just as justice must be blind, so must there be equal opportunity for all people regardless of religion, skin color or sexual orientation, among other delimitations, as mandated by federal law. I do not see what cogent arguments can be put forth in oppositon to this. It is for this exact reason that any and all governemnt support of religious organizations is a direct contravention of constitutional law.
#40 And as long as the U.S. is a nation "under God", it simply isn't an entirely secular state. "God" may not be defined by a special religion but he certainly leaves atheists, who believe that there is no God, out in the cold.
Precisely, and this is why such notions as the office of faith based giving are an outrage. They represent government sanctioned discrimination against atheists and agnostics, not to mention animists, Janists, Zen monks and a host of other practices.
#40I once read that in a small U.S. town Jewish citizen protested against the public funding of a Christmas tree, because that went against the separation of church and state. That's where the whole issue starts to get ridiculous.
And when is it not "ridiculous?" When government funds are used to post the decalogue inside public courts of law or outside government buildings? It is far better to exclude all tax based funding of any religion than to turn a blind eye towards even seemingly small infractions.
Undermining the separation of church and state is to erode America's constitution. This is a form of sedition and must be opposed. How would Christians feel if Muslims were in the majority and sought to put in place Sharia law? Can you imagine the outcry? Consider for one moment the declaration of Ramadan as a national holiday. That Christmas is a national holiday and not Chanukah represents a similar violation. These practices, like heterosexual marriage, are not empowered by legal justification. They are entrenched by tradition without due consideration of their implications with respect to constitutional law.
Public school textbooks no longer refer to historical dates as BC (Before Christ). It is entirely unfair to expect that Buddhists, Hindus and other American citizens of alternate religions should pay their taxes to specifically promote sanctioned mention of a figure from one particular faith, yet not give equal time to all of them. This is why public schools should only have comparative religions courses. Recent public school classes dealing with one specific religion (i.e., Islam) are profoundly in violation of the law. It is a willingness to countenance the supremacy of one particular religion and import it into legal proceedings, like American Christianity, that then breeds up insanity like the Islamic sensitivity classes in public schools.
There are myriad faiths and deities. What possible justification is there for declaring one of them ascendant? Especially using government money to do so, even if it is only to show partiality to a few of these numerous faiths, it is still favoritism. Such an act merely empowers those who would declare otherwise. Islamist terrorism in pursuit of global Sharia law should serve as a glaring object lesson of how foolhardy such a notion is.
Dera Ghazi Khan Deputy Inspector General of Police Hamayun Raza Shafi on Saturday ordered Muzaffargarh District Police Officer Ahsan Mehboob to immediately arrest all men accused of raping two sisters and submit a report. The girls' father said in his complaint that seven men barged into his house last week at 11:30pm and tied up the family at gunpoint. Later they allegedly raped his two daughters in front of the family. The accused then made off with gold ornaments, Rs 50,000 and other valuables, he said. Police had arrested four of the alleged rapists who were identified as Muhammad Qasim, Riaz Ahmed, Fida Hussain and Khadim Hussain. Other three accused, including Allah Bachaya, Muhammad Shafiq, were still at large and threatening the girls' family of dire consequences.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/23/2004 2:34:11 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Two brothers beheaded their sister on suspicion of illicit relation with their cousin in Punjaywala, 55 kilometres west of Multan, on Saturday.
Nasir Khan and Alamdar Khan believed that their sister Nadia, 16, had an affair with Salman, relatives told Daily Times. Nadia was talking to Salman on Thursday evening when her brothers saw them and started beating Salman. However Salman was saved by the intervention of his parents. The brothers then sent Nadia to their relatives in another village. On Friday both Nasir and Alamdar went to their relatives and chopped off Nadia's head with a knife and fled. The girl's body was taken to the Muzaffargarh District Hospital for autopsy and later handed over to her family. The police have registered a case.
Posted by: tipper ||
08/23/2004 10:51:34 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
but didn't the famous Canadian, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, show ( in http://rantburg.com/page2.asp?D=8/23/2004#41312 )that this couldn't possibly have happened.
#7
Yeah, where is "gentle" on this one? Can't wait to see what they do when they find their sis doing more than just talking to the guy! I guess this constitutes an official gov't action in the case (remember gov't officials are the only ones allowed to mete out justice):
Nasir Khan and Alamdar Khan believed that their sister Nadia, 16, had an affair with Salman, relatives told Daily Times. Nadia was talking to Salman on Thursday evening when her brothers saw them and started beating Salman. However Salman was saved by the intervention of his parents. The brothers then sent Nadia to their relatives in another village. On Friday both Nasir and Alamdar went to their relatives and chopped off Nadiaâs head with a knife and fled. The girlâs body was taken to the Muzaffargarh District Hospital for autopsy and later handed over to her family. The police have registered a case.
Posted by: BA ||
08/23/2004 13:23 Comments ||
Top||
#8
GREAT WAHRKS! That's über-evil! HANG the murderers!
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
08/23/2004 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Of course Nasir and Alamdar cut off her head. Nadia wasn't giving it to them.
Posted by: ed ||
08/23/2004 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#10
You got it, Ed. Since anything involving sex for these Neands is shameful and repressive, they are no longer able to differentiate between talking to people and having sex with them, or loving a sister and loving a sister.
#11
My, my, how fortuitous to have such a post on the SAME DAY that Gentle decides to defend the Muslim culture from this very accusation. On the other hand, I'd have wanted Nadia alive and not had this as living counterproof.
#12
I may have been wrong. Perhaps this is a form of worship for members of this satanic death cult.
When they are found they should have body parts removed slowly untill they die.
Those who don't respect and protect women are no better than pigs or dogs. Any religion that fosters and protects this type of act should be wiped out.
The software giant has seen its products banned in some of the biggest markets on earth--and it's all because of eight wrongly colored pixels, a dodgy choice of music and a bad English-to-Spanish dictionary. Speaking at the International Geographical Union congress in Glasgow on Wednesday, Microsoft's top man in its geopolitical strategy team, Tom Edwards, revealed how one of the biggest companies in the world managed to offend one of the biggest countries in the world with a software slip-up.
When coloring in 800,000 pixels on a map of India, Microsoft colored eight of them a different shade of green to represent the disputed Kashmiri territory. The difference in greens meant Kashmir was shown as non-Indian, and the product was promptly banned in India. Microsoft was left to recall all 200,000 copies of the offending Windows 95 operating system software to try and heal the diplomatic wounds. "It cost millions," Edwards said... I got a good laugh.
Posted by: Ptah ||
08/23/2004 10:04:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I was interning at MSFT the summer that Win95 was released and remember talking with the graphic artist/programmer who had made that map. A user used to be able to select what time zone he was in by clicking on the map and having it highlighted. The Indian government didn't like that Kashmir wasn't highlighted when you clicked on (western) India! He and the programmers had spent many hours on it and had used what he called a "UN-approved" world map as their guide, and they were very shocked and disappointed to hear of India's resulting boycott. The map is still there (double-click on the time display in your taskbar and select the "Time Zone" tab), but instead of clicking on your region to highlight the time zone you now must select it from a dropdown. And I doubt that will change any time in the near future.
Posted by: Dar ||
08/23/2004 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Some of our employees, however bright they may be, have only a hazy idea about the rest of the world," he said"
Or, many of your employees, brought up in a comfortably liberal democratic republic, where taking offense at cultural slights is considered uncool, puritan, or worse and therefore such slights are to be shrugged off at all costs, are simply unprepared for the level of rancor other cultures are willing to rise to over perceived slights.
Posted by: Carl in N.H ||
08/23/2004 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
While the India-Kashmir debacle represents "eggshell ego" levels of diplomatic hauteur, the Spanish SNAFU is far more egregious:
Microsoft has also managed to upset women and entire countries. A Spanish-language version of Windows XP, destined for Latin American markets, asked users to select their gender between "not specified," "male" or "bitch," because of an incredibly stupid lack of editing unfortunate error in translation.
IndyMedia has taken down the site which included a link to the list of 1600 RNC delagates, but some intredid engineer mailed me the page so it is here
I did manage to download the list before it was taken down.
Posted by: badanov ||
08/23/2004 12:21:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just freeking wonderful. I imagine that it would not be to hard to track down who had access to this list and find the nerdy little anarco-liberal that got it through course of their employment. This is what is known as an employment limiting move. I am pretty sure it's also criminal to disseminate it even under the color of jonuralism. I doubt if very much that it was obtained from a hacked site. However some people insist on using MicroSoft proudcts instead of hiring people with Unix/Linux skills and setting up proper secure servers.
#2
Some anarchist script kiddies compromised the Protest Warrior mailing lists today. I (and most everyone who has signed up with PW) received a long email on Sunday thru the PW servers announcing the End Of The World As We Know It.
Long screed on RNC raping NY and cyber-saber rattling:
Right-wing extremists are modern-day brown shirts who abuse and harass activists who are fighting for social justice while claiming to be in the moral right. By infiltrating and crashing legal, peaceful assemblies, the ProtestWarriors are fighting against the democratic process while claiming to uphold the 'core values of this country'. It is unpatriotic to blindly accept and obey the dogma of the ruling classes, and to lash out at peace activists who are trying to build a better world is intolerable. We're shutting you down.
They posted the list of PW-subscribed emails (including mine) on Indymedia NYC and made threats against LGF, InstaPundit, and the rest of the usual suspects. Let's hope Ratburg flies under the radar or Fred will have to batten down the server hatches (again).
#3
I tried to post one of those links earlier, Em, but nothing happened.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/23/2004 1:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
However some people insist on using MicroSoft proudcts instead of hiring people with Unix/Linux skills and setting up proper secure servers.
Netcraft sez they were running Apache/Linux. from what I have heard hackers used a php expoit of some sort maybe? I dunno. But it is clear MS or open source, it doesn't matter if you can't lock it down which product you use.
#5
Hmmm, could have been a PHP exploit another service. If it really was hacked and not an inside job. If you are co-located or hosted an "employee" could own you anytime you would never know it. If it was a Linux box it's got a root kit installed now for sure. I had a site owned by some kiddies and they used a known exploit in PHPBB to deface my front page. I had the my Host wipe my partition. I think it was hacked from inside. That host runs BSD. I have ssh access with a shell and the kind of passwording I use is not easily cracked. But it just flat sucks.
Expect more of this as we move toward the election. I am expecting more attacks from the "inside" from hosting service employees and ISP employees as we move towards November. The LLL see the internet as their property and has no problems trying to control content and thought on it. They refer to silencing those they disagree with as "moderation." I consider it the first shots in a comming civil war. I am not encouraged, I am however well armed. Seeing how most of them are totally ignorant of anything martial they will lose but it wont be pretty.
#6
These little authoritarians could not be more obvious in their contempt for free speech and participatory democracy. A leftist is a thief, seeking to take not just your property but your freedom and, ultimately, your will and your identity. They have now reached the point where they openly demand censorship on the grounds that the targeted dissidents are "fascists", and they do this without the slightest hint of irony.
Does anyone remember any Republican activists making similar threats about the DNC convention?
Why should these devils, these arrogant murder-apologists, be allowed the protection of the law when they will not allow such protection for others?
Civil war is coming, be ready.
#8
I've decided to add a Horton Hunter Max 175# titanium alloy crossbow to my little collection. Silent is good. 4 x 32 scope and 345 fps. Good for the intermediate ranges, methinks. I like my odd-ish little armory.
#9
Improvised and unregulated devices of all kinds will have a significant role to play in the coming conflict.
Archery is an excellent skill, wish I had it.
The traditional sling is an even less traceable weapon and quite lethal with enough practice.
The well known ingredients of ANFO may become unavailable, depending on just how much power the eco-wacky left alliance can gain, but there are alternatives.
Spectacular actions to make a point will be useless, since the enemy will control the media (already does in fact) and the media cannot be manipulated against their will. The media will obviously choose not to cooperate in publicizing the "message"(in direct contrast to their treatment of islamonazi terrorism, interstingly enough).
The enemy does have an infrastructure and this should be studied with a view toward identifying crucial nodes and other points of vulnerability.
#10
Hmmm, could have been a PHP exploit another service. If it really was hacked and not an inside job. If you are co-located or hosted an "employee" could own you anytime you would never know it. If it was a Linux box it's got a root kit installed now for sure. I had a site owned by some kiddies and they used a known exploit in PHPBB to deface my front page.
I am moving slowly to FreeBSD 4.9, now running a home server, trying to put together a couple of DNS servers and a mail/ftp server. I love it. The firewall support is just awesome and as easy as John Kerry fondling wimminses at a rich widowers convention to enable and run. I find though I still need Linux, which I use as a database server, and a backup server, and my trusty rusty Win98 box for rapid editing jobs, accessing the BSD machine via Samba behind a private network.
#11
I just went to nycindymedia and it runs like it's on dial up in someones basement. (it could be getting DDOSed too) It will be interesting to see how the ramifications of this play out. It could very well mean the indymedia sites that posted or allowed to be posted that info are shut down by the actual people who own the IP. I doubt very much if they are all self hosted and it they are their upstream providers will be quickly persuaded that keeping them as customers is more legal and $$$ problems that it's worth. I am also sure that the MSM and MSM computer press will try and bury the story under a rock. Kerry's wifes tides foundation give indymedia money from what I read. Go figure.
#12
#8 "I've decided to add a Horton Hunter Max 175# titanium alloy crossbow to my little collection."
Should you decide to use this on a perp, you need to make damn sure that Open Hunting Season has been declared and that hostilities are in full swing. The legal/Court system and juries go absolutely bug-nuts in cases involving bows & crossbows.
Don't know why...dead is dead, but they freak when you whack someone with a bow of any type.
#9 "Archery is an excellent skill, wish I had it."
Archery can be a very rewarding past time. It isn't even all that expensive to get started. It does take a great deal of commitment in the early stages. Practise, practise, practise! Did I mention practise?
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.
