November 16, 2009
November 15, 2009
November 14, 2009
Supermarketing
Cedric watched as a woman at his supermarket shopped with a three-year-old girl. As they approached the candy section the little girl asked for some chocolate and her mother told her, 'No' . The little girl immediately began to whine. The mother said softly, 'Now Cindy, our shopping is going well, Don't be upset... we'll soon be out of here.'
Next, they came to the aisle where the ice cream was on sale and the little girl began to ask for an ice cream bar. When told she couldn't have one she began to fuss. The mother said gently, 'There, there, Cindy, don't cry. Only two more aisles to go and then we'll be at the check out'.
When they got to check out the little girl immediately began to demand candy from next to the register. Finally she threw a tantrum when her mother would not let her have any. The mother, calmed her saying, 'Cindy, we'll be through this queue in two minutes and then we can go home and have a glass of sparkling juice and a nap.'
Cedric followed them out to the car park and stopped the woman to compliment her on her child management.
'I couldn't help admiring how patient you were with little Cindy,' Cedric said.
The mother turned and replied, 'Oh, no, I'm Cindy. My little girl's name is Dorothy.
Next, they came to the aisle where the ice cream was on sale and the little girl began to ask for an ice cream bar. When told she couldn't have one she began to fuss. The mother said gently, 'There, there, Cindy, don't cry. Only two more aisles to go and then we'll be at the check out'.
When they got to check out the little girl immediately began to demand candy from next to the register. Finally she threw a tantrum when her mother would not let her have any. The mother, calmed her saying, 'Cindy, we'll be through this queue in two minutes and then we can go home and have a glass of sparkling juice and a nap.'
Cedric followed them out to the car park and stopped the woman to compliment her on her child management.
'I couldn't help admiring how patient you were with little Cindy,' Cedric said.
The mother turned and replied, 'Oh, no, I'm Cindy. My little girl's name is Dorothy.
About law abiding in Massachusetts
Children may smoke, but they may not purchase cigarettes.
Taxi drivers are prohibited from making love in the front seat of their taxi during their shifts.
Looking for more dumb laws? Check out DumbLaws.com!
Affiliation with the Communist party is illegal.
No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.
Bullets may not be used as currency.
Alcoholic drink specials are illegal.
Massachusetts liquor stores can only open on Sundays if they are in Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Middlesex or Worcester counties and are within 10 miles of the Vermont or New Hampshire borders.
It's illegal to drive Texan, Mexican, Cherokee, or Indian cattle on a public road. (MGL Chapter 129 Section 35)
Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder.
Hunting on Sundays is prohibited.
It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath.
At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches.
Public boxing matches are outlawed.
It is unlawful to injure a football goal post, doing so is punishable by a $200 fine.
It's illegal to keep a mule on the second floor of a building not in a city unless there are 2 exits. (MGL Chapter 272 section 86)
It's illegal to sell fewer than 24 ducklings at a time before May 1, or to sell rabbits, chicks, or ducklings that have been painted a different color. (MGL Chapter 272 Section 80D)
It's illegal to allow someone to use stilts while working on the construction of a building. (MGL Chapter 149 Section 129B)
Defacing a milk carton is punishable by a $10 fine.
It is illegal to frighten a pigeon.
An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public.
Quakers and witches are banned.
Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked.
It is illegal to reproach Jesus Christ or the holy ghost. (MGL Chapter 272 section 36)
Boston
No one may take a bath without a prescription.
It is illegal for any citizen to own more than three dogs.
An old law prohibits the taking of baths on Sunday.
Duels to the death permitted on the common on Sundays provided that the Governor is present.
Women may not wear heels over 3 inches in length while on the common.
Anyone may let their sheep and cows graze in the public gardens/commons at any time except Sundays.
No more than two baths may be taken within the confines of the city.
No one may cross the Boston Common without carrying a shotgun in case of bears.
It is illegal to play the fiddle.
Two people may not kiss in front of a church.
It is illegal to eat peanuts in church.
Burlington
You may not walk around with a "drink".
Cambridge
It is illegal to shake carpets in the street, or to throw orange peels on the sidewalk (section 12.16.100).
It costs $50 extra for a permit for hurling, soccer or Gaelic football games in a public park on a Sunday. (section 12.20.030)
Hingham
You may not have colored lights on your house if it can be seen from Main Street. Only white lights may be visible.
If you live on Main Street and want to paint your house, the colors must be approved by the historical society.
Hopkinton
Though horses and cows are allowed on the common, dogs are prohibited.
Longmeadow
It is illegal for two men to carry a bathtub across the town green.
Marlboro
One may not detonate a nuclear device in the city.
Silly string is illegal in the city limits.
It is illegal for any citizen to own more than two dogs.
It is illegal to buy, sell or possess a squirt gun.
Milford
Peeping in the windows of automobiles is forbidden.
Newton
All families must be given a hog from the town's mayor.
Taxi drivers are prohibited from making love in the front seat of their taxi during their shifts.
Looking for more dumb laws? Check out DumbLaws.com!
Affiliation with the Communist party is illegal.
No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.
Bullets may not be used as currency.
Alcoholic drink specials are illegal.
Massachusetts liquor stores can only open on Sundays if they are in Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Middlesex or Worcester counties and are within 10 miles of the Vermont or New Hampshire borders.
It's illegal to drive Texan, Mexican, Cherokee, or Indian cattle on a public road. (MGL Chapter 129 Section 35)
Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder.
Hunting on Sundays is prohibited.
It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath.
At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches.
Public boxing matches are outlawed.
It is unlawful to injure a football goal post, doing so is punishable by a $200 fine.
It's illegal to keep a mule on the second floor of a building not in a city unless there are 2 exits. (MGL Chapter 272 section 86)
It's illegal to sell fewer than 24 ducklings at a time before May 1, or to sell rabbits, chicks, or ducklings that have been painted a different color. (MGL Chapter 272 Section 80D)
It's illegal to allow someone to use stilts while working on the construction of a building. (MGL Chapter 149 Section 129B)
Defacing a milk carton is punishable by a $10 fine.
It is illegal to frighten a pigeon.
An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public.
Quakers and witches are banned.
Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked.
It is illegal to reproach Jesus Christ or the holy ghost. (MGL Chapter 272 section 36)
Boston
No one may take a bath without a prescription.
It is illegal for any citizen to own more than three dogs.
An old law prohibits the taking of baths on Sunday.
Duels to the death permitted on the common on Sundays provided that the Governor is present.
Women may not wear heels over 3 inches in length while on the common.
Anyone may let their sheep and cows graze in the public gardens/commons at any time except Sundays.
No more than two baths may be taken within the confines of the city.
No one may cross the Boston Common without carrying a shotgun in case of bears.
It is illegal to play the fiddle.
Two people may not kiss in front of a church.
It is illegal to eat peanuts in church.
Burlington
You may not walk around with a "drink".
Cambridge
It is illegal to shake carpets in the street, or to throw orange peels on the sidewalk (section 12.16.100).
It costs $50 extra for a permit for hurling, soccer or Gaelic football games in a public park on a Sunday. (section 12.20.030)
Hingham
You may not have colored lights on your house if it can be seen from Main Street. Only white lights may be visible.
If you live on Main Street and want to paint your house, the colors must be approved by the historical society.
Hopkinton
Though horses and cows are allowed on the common, dogs are prohibited.
Longmeadow
It is illegal for two men to carry a bathtub across the town green.
Marlboro
One may not detonate a nuclear device in the city.
Silly string is illegal in the city limits.
It is illegal for any citizen to own more than two dogs.
It is illegal to buy, sell or possess a squirt gun.
Milford
Peeping in the windows of automobiles is forbidden.
Newton
All families must be given a hog from the town's mayor.
November 13, 2009
Catholic bashing (phrase of the day)
Check this out from the Washington Post.
The Archdiocese’s ultimatum
By David Waters
In a surprisingly bold and seemingly unbiblical move, [tuck that word away for the time being] the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is threatening to discontinue its social support for nearly 70,000 people—including a third of Washington’s homeless—because of its opposition to a proposed same-sex marriage bill. [Think about this. The issue in question is not support of the homeless. It is really same-sex marriage, ... which has another name, FWIW.]
Under the proposed bill, according to a story by Post reporters Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein, religious organizations would not be required to perform same-sex weddings, "but they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians." [And therefore…]
Apparently, the archdiocese is concerned that it could be forced, for example, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, open adoptions to same-sex couples, or rent a church hall to gay and lesbian groups. "If the city requires this, we can’t do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem." [Yes, that is a problem. But notice the key part here: "The city is saying that in order to provide…" Get that? "The city is saying…".]
And withdrawing support for the poor and the hungry isn’t a problem? [Ummm… did he slip into Bearded-Spock-Reality? The issue is same-sex marriage.]
It gets complicated anytime church and state work together to provide services for people, especially when a mix of public and private funds and facilities is involved. In this case, for example, the church manages a number of city-owned homeless shelters. [aaaaaaand….? So…. the Archdiocese is ready to continue to help so long as the City doesn’t pressure the the Archdiocese to do morally repugnant things. Is that it?]
The use of public funds and facilities should be governed by secular laws and regulations, including anti-discrimination laws. But churches and other non-profit religious organizations are exempt from many such laws, because of church-state separation.
The Church should have every right to oppose any piece of legislation and to use its funds and facilities as it sees fit. [Except when it interferes with a liberal agenda?] On the other hand, if any church is going to accept government funding for any purpose, shouldn’t it be required to abide by government rules?
But the larger question is this: [Get this….] Is the Church really going to ignore the gospel imperative to feed, clothe, shelter and care for the disadvantaged—in this case 70,000—because it might have to provide better benefits to a few of its own workers? I don’t think that’s what Jesus meant by "going the extra mile." [And the City is going to ignore the prescription by God not to commit sodomy. Is that it?]
As DC council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) put it: "Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?" [How thick is Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3)?]
This seems to be the scenario.
The Archdiocese is presently doing its part to help homeless people.
The City is going to press the Archdiocese to do things which are morally repugnant and contrary both to Scripture and the natural law.
So, standing there with its hands open in both directions, waiting to help the poor, it would actually be the CITY which would cut off funds to help the Archdiocese, because the Archdiocese refuses to condone sodomy.
Get that? The City would suspend the funds.
Therefore the liberals, to pressure the Church to violate the interior logic of Christianity, say that the Church wants to "harm" the poor.
Is that what I just read?
And the writer, Waters, who flashes out the word "unbiblical" might want to review Holy Writ’s comments on sodomy.
(special thanks to Fr. Zuhisdorf)
Sarah Palins best seller experpts
Drudge got a sneak peek of the Former Alaskan Governor and VP Nominees book today:
HER TURN!
Fri Nov 13 2009 07:27:12 ET
Going Rogue: An American Life
by Sarah Palin
Chapter Four; Section 8, pages 255-257
By the third week in September, a “Free Sarah” campaign was under way and the press at large was growing increasingly critical of the McCain camp’s decision to keep me, my family and friends back home, and my governor’s staff all bottled up. Meanwhile, the question of which news outlet would land the first interview was a big deal, as it always is with a major party candidate.
From the beginning, Nicolle [Wallace] pushed for Katie Couric and the CBS Evening News. The campaign’s general strategy involved coming out with a network anchor, someone they felt had treated John well on the trail thus far. My suggestion was that we be consistent with that strategy and start talking to outlets like FOX and the Wall Street Journal. I really didn’t have a say in which press I was going to talk to, but for some reason Nicolle seemed compelled to get me on the Katie bandwagon.
“Katie really likes you,” she said to me one day. “she’s a working mom and admires you as a working mom. She has teenage daughter like you. She just relates to you,” Nicolle said. “believe me, I know her very well. I’ve worked with her.” Nicolle had left her gig at CBS just a few months earlier to hook up with the McCain campaign. I had to trust her experience, as she had dealt with national politics more than I had. But something always struck me as peculiar about the way she recalled her days in the White House, when she was speaking on behalf of President George W. Bush. She didn't have much to say that was positive about her former boss or the job in general. Whenever I wanted to give a shout-out to the White House’s homeland security efforts after 9/11, we were told we couldn’t do it. I didn’t know if that was Nicolle’s call.
Nicolle went on to explain that Katie really needed a career boost. “She just has such low self-esteem,” Nicolle said. She added that Katie was going through a tough time. “She just feels she can’t trust anybody.”
I was thinking, And this has to do with John McCain’s campaign how?
Nicolle said. “She wants you to like her.”
Hearing all that, I almost started to feel sorry for her. Katie had tried to make a bold move from lively morning gal to serious anchor, but the new assignment wasn’t going very well.
“You know what? We’ll schedule a segment with her,” Nicolle said. “If it doesn’t go well, if there’s no chemistry, we won’t do any others.”
Meanwhile, the media blackout continued. It got so bad that a couple of times I had a friend in Anchorage track down phone numbers for me, and then I snuck in calls to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and someone I thought was Larry Kudlow but turned out to be Neil Cavuto’s producer. I had a friend call Bill O’Reilly after I was inundated with supporters in Alaska asking why the campaign was “ignoring” his on-air requests for a McCain campaign interview. I had another friend scrambling to find Mark Levin’s number. Aboard the campaign plane I was within twenty-five feet of reporters for hours on end. Headquarters’ strategy was that I should not go to the back of the aircraft and talk to the press. At first this was subtle, but as the campaign wore on, Tracey or Tucker would call headquarters to request permission, and someone in DC would respond, “No! Absolutely not- block her if she tries to go back.”
Fri Nov 13 2009 07:27:12 ET
Going Rogue: An American Life
by Sarah Palin
Chapter Four; Section 8, pages 255-257
By the third week in September, a “Free Sarah” campaign was under way and the press at large was growing increasingly critical of the McCain camp’s decision to keep me, my family and friends back home, and my governor’s staff all bottled up. Meanwhile, the question of which news outlet would land the first interview was a big deal, as it always is with a major party candidate.
From the beginning, Nicolle [Wallace] pushed for Katie Couric and the CBS Evening News. The campaign’s general strategy involved coming out with a network anchor, someone they felt had treated John well on the trail thus far. My suggestion was that we be consistent with that strategy and start talking to outlets like FOX and the Wall Street Journal. I really didn’t have a say in which press I was going to talk to, but for some reason Nicolle seemed compelled to get me on the Katie bandwagon.
“Katie really likes you,” she said to me one day. “she’s a working mom and admires you as a working mom. She has teenage daughter like you. She just relates to you,” Nicolle said. “believe me, I know her very well. I’ve worked with her.” Nicolle had left her gig at CBS just a few months earlier to hook up with the McCain campaign. I had to trust her experience, as she had dealt with national politics more than I had. But something always struck me as peculiar about the way she recalled her days in the White House, when she was speaking on behalf of President George W. Bush. She didn't have much to say that was positive about her former boss or the job in general. Whenever I wanted to give a shout-out to the White House’s homeland security efforts after 9/11, we were told we couldn’t do it. I didn’t know if that was Nicolle’s call.
Nicolle went on to explain that Katie really needed a career boost. “She just has such low self-esteem,” Nicolle said. She added that Katie was going through a tough time. “She just feels she can’t trust anybody.”
I was thinking, And this has to do with John McCain’s campaign how?
Nicolle said. “She wants you to like her.”
Hearing all that, I almost started to feel sorry for her. Katie had tried to make a bold move from lively morning gal to serious anchor, but the new assignment wasn’t going very well.
“You know what? We’ll schedule a segment with her,” Nicolle said. “If it doesn’t go well, if there’s no chemistry, we won’t do any others.”
Meanwhile, the media blackout continued. It got so bad that a couple of times I had a friend in Anchorage track down phone numbers for me, and then I snuck in calls to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and someone I thought was Larry Kudlow but turned out to be Neil Cavuto’s producer. I had a friend call Bill O’Reilly after I was inundated with supporters in Alaska asking why the campaign was “ignoring” his on-air requests for a McCain campaign interview. I had another friend scrambling to find Mark Levin’s number. Aboard the campaign plane I was within twenty-five feet of reporters for hours on end. Headquarters’ strategy was that I should not go to the back of the aircraft and talk to the press. At first this was subtle, but as the campaign wore on, Tracey or Tucker would call headquarters to request permission, and someone in DC would respond, “No! Absolutely not- block her if she tries to go back.”
November 12, 2009
Fort Hood
As my prayers go out to the friends, family and victims of Fort Hood. I cannot help but feel rage that political correctness has brought about 13 peoples lives, and STILL the MSM feels this is not enough.
While I was getting ready for a good long rant I found a blog entry that really spoke to me as an American and as a person of faith" (warning its long)
One thing you can give our media Chattering Classes: They are utterly consistent. After Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on a roomful of defenseless people in Fort Hood, it was absolutely assured that we would immediately be told that this outrage had nothing to do with his Islamic faith and that it was not an act of terror. Then, as time went on and the bleedin' obvious became bleedin' obvious, we would spend all weekend enduring TV pundits scratching the $200 haircuts on their 88-cent heads and pondering the question of whether there might be some remote connection between Islamic belief and a guy who praises Muslim suicide bombers as heroes and martyrs, sits under the teaching of a Radical Islamic imam who praises his act of slaughter as heroic, uses his authority as a psychiatrist to proselytize vulnerable patients with Islamic agitprop, and dresses in traditional Muslim garb and shouts "Allahu akbar!" as he guns down his prey.
It was a spectacular display of deliberate willed stupidity by a media culture that demonstrates repeatedly it does not want to acknowledge that Islam tends to breed such acts of terror with startling frequency. And it was predictable because it happens every time some Islamic butcher opens up on innocent victims in the name of the Prophet. So, for instance, when a Koran-spouting Egyptian took it upon himself to butcher innocent people for the crime of flying on El Al, the initial twaddle from both the state and the media immediately assured us this was an "isolated incident" and that it had nothing to do with the crazy, bloodthirsty Islamic beliefs of the butcher who did it. Finally, after nearly a year of intensive study of the noses on their own faces, the FBI and CNN finally figured out that the murders were specimens of Islamic terrorism. Same deal with the guy in Seattle, who slaughtered a few Jews in the name of Allah some years back. We got the assurance from the media that this had nothing to do with Islam. Then they eventually tried the novel approach of opening their eyes to see the plain light of day. Good job, Sherlock.
Of course, that same media culture has absolutely no trouble painting Christians as dangerous fanatics (no doubt due to the roving gangs of gun-toting Methodists who shout "Jesus is Lord" as they blast away at defenseless people). We live in a culture where Larry David can piss on Jesus, but we are continually lectured on the need to respect the sensitivities of butchers who get invited to participate in the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute Presidential Transition Task Force and who return the favor by murdering the sons and daughters of the nation that gave him a great education and such high honors.
Meanwhile, the Religion That Can't Grow Up beholds the carnage wrought by another Son of the Prophet and naturally blames . . . somebody else, while feeling sorry for itself:
"When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal," said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. "But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad."
Um, no. When the Muslim calls it jihad, we call it jihad, just as when a Christian used to call it a crusade, we call it a crusade. (And, by the way, when the rare Christian does something heinous in the name of Jesus, Christians condemn the evil act and the one who committed it, not the world for being upset by the evil act.) But in the world of our crazy media, the first response to mass murder by an Islamic killer is moaning that somebody made fun of the shooter. Poor widdle butcher. Boy, I'm sure lucky that nobody in our culture ever mocks us mackerel snappers or says we are the greatest force for evil in the whole wide world. If they did, I guess we'd be perfectly justified in opening fire on innocent human beings.
Indeed, speaking of us mackerel snappers, some particularly ingenious thinkers actually found a way to blame 400-year-old English Catholics for Hasan's crime:
There simply is no information yet about what Hasan's motives were, or whether Hasan is indeed muslim [sic] or not. Of course, that last bit of information is the one that everyone will want to know about the most, even though in a fundamental sense it matters the least. . . .
However, something disquieting about the date . . . . It should be noted (as others like Ali Eteraz already have) that today is Guy Fawkes Day -- the anniversary of a plot by a Catholic dissident to blow up the English Parliament then dominated by Protestants).
If the shootings were motivated by some sense of grievance against US foreign/military policy, then the date is surely significant.
If you are wondering why centuries-dead Catholics are the Prime Suspects for some of our Chattering Classes, Roland Emmerich does a standup job making clear what motivates so much of the willed stupidity from the Won't See the Noses on Their Faces Brigade. It's all about the cowardice:
For "2012," Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there's one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn't: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It's the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.
"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit," the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. "But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, 'I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.' And he was right."
Emmerich went on: "We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have . . . a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it's just something which I kind of didn't [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out."
Note the passive voice. Emmerich doesn't acknowledge that he is a coward afraid of offending Bronze Age Bullies with thin skin. Instead, he blabbers something about "what the state of the world is." By this, he means that Christians have that whole "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" thing that makes us such safe targets to courageously attack. In a word, Rome doesn't issue fatwas.
Now, I'm all for not leaping to conclusions. Merely having a Muslim-sounding name no more makes it an act of Islamic terror than being named Rodriguez makes a shooter a "Roman-Catholic terrorist." But had the shooter in Orlando had a history of praising the IRA murders and bombings, of posting that non-Catholics deserve death, of trying to use his position to pressure subordinates to convert, and of opening fire on rooms full of defenseless people while shouting "Hail Mary!" I think normal people would agree that this guy was a terrorist inspired by a very dark version of the Catholic Faith. What drives me crazy about our media is that they constantly make the preemptive leap to definitively declare that acts of evil committed by Muslims have nothing to do with their Muslim faith, when any fool can see that's exactly what inspired them.
No, that doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists (of course!). Indeed, one of the few sensible people in this entire exasperating farce of idiots in need of Insensitivity Training was Osman Danquah, co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen, who, after listening to Hasan's Radical Islamic nuttery, told him, "There's something wrong with you," and assumed the Army would, you know, take care of an obvious threat to its own troops in its midst. But the Current Thinking among the leadership is that the slaughter of a few troops is to be preferred to upsetting the sensitivities of butchers and those who love them:
Danquah assumed the military's chain of command knew about Hasan's doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates in a graduate military medical program. His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.
That's because, like everybody else in charge in this crazy country, we treat ideas as though they are genetic traits we can't help having and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that ideas have consequences. We regard theological and philosophical profiling with the same horror as racial profiling. But here's the thing: Skin color doesn't kill. Thoughts of the heart, however, are exactly where murder begins. That doesn't mean instituting Thought Police, but it does mean that when somebody (or some particular ideological group) demonstrates a pattern of sympathy for violence, we are idiots to ignore it.
And it means we are absolute idiots to go on ignoring the fact that a) Islam has plenty of room in its body of doctrine for this sort of brutal violence; b) Islam has plenty of people who approve of this kind of violence and are in various stages of readiness to commit it; and c) Radical Islamic ideologues often emit glaring warning signals. We are even greater fools to tiptoe around those Muslims whose first reaction to such crimes is to blame everybody else but their tradition and to demand victimhood for themselves.
We want very much to believe that Violent Islam is a perversion of the Islamic tradition and Wise and Benevolent Islam is the Real Islamic tradition. But the reality is that Islam is an invented human religion that borrows from fragments of Judaism and Christianity, mixes in Mohammed's own delusional (or lying) claims of revelation, and completes it with a dash of conventional wisdom from seventh-century Arab culture. It is not a magisterial faith with some adjudicating body that defines what is and is not the orthodox reading of the Koran. It is whatever its various adherents say it is.
That means that if you are looking for a sanction for violence in the Koran, you can find it, because it's there. So is the wisdom, almsgiving, and peace stuff, if you want that. So Muslims who commit these heinous acts with such frequency are not "betraying Islam" when doing so out of self-described piety. They are, in fact, implementing one possible interpretation of the Muslim tradition (and often slaughtering a great many other Muslims in the process). Westerners who lie to themselves that these monsters are "not real Muslims" are simply self-deluded fools. They are as Muslim as Mohammed, as are their Muslim victims. There is no Islamic Magisterium to excommunicate them. They don't speak for all Muslims, but they most certainly do speak and act for the disturbingly large percentage of Muslims who either applaud them, remain silent, or complain about being victims of suspicion and distrust by the victims of terror instead of complaining about the thugs who commit the terror in the name of Islam.
That said, the reality is that the cure, if it is to come at all, will have to come from within Islam: from Muslims who inculcate in their children a sense of shame for Radical Murderous Islam, just as Christians have successfully inculcated shame in their own ranks for expressions of Christianity that turned a blind eye to slavery, terrorism, oppression of women, and racism. It will not come from the preferred Western dream of a post-religious secular world scrubbed clean of "religion." Such experiments have been attempted in communist countries; they are akin to saying, "We've noticed a correlation between immune systems and disease, so let's get rid of immune systems." Not accidently, the disease of human sin has only prospered in such regimes to the tune of millions slaughtered. Instead of pretending the beast of Radical Islam is not there, the West will sooner or later have to learn how to educate itself about theology again -- or perish. It will also have to profile those who have not a particular skin color but a particular ideological paper trail of ideas and views that makes it obvious they sympathize with Radical Islamic violence, just as we should profile those who sympathize with skinheads, Klansmen, or tales of the Glorious IRA Terrorists.
Most of all, it means we need to get theologically literate again and find a more sophisticated way of understanding things than simply dumping Christianity and Islam into a bucket and calling it all "religion" (which, as we all know, leads to undifferentiated "violence"). The only way to counter an inflamed theology like Islam is with a healthy one, not with the watery delusions of postmodern secularism. And that, sooner or later, means a return to the sanity of the Catholic Faith.
November 11, 2009
Probieren geht über Studieren.
Before the election, I read a lot of Obama's speeches and wondered why his orations were so exulted. I really did not see much in them. Thus, I was chastised by liberal's that reading was not enough, I had to listen to the nuance to really get the greatness of the man. I bing-ed a few and found him stammering and stuttering when off teleprompter. Again, not that motivational.
While he did say some things that I thought would be great to see to fruition, those things too were just hollow. Like most of his speeches now appear to be.
Barack Obama once said to Harry Reid, "Harry, I've got a gift." He was referring to his speeches. The ego of this man is amazing, he thinks that his speeches soar and lift people's souls and inspire them to great actions and deeds!
Speeches are words. Maybe if he revisited what got him elected? *sigh* He's not going to stop making these empty speeches. I can only continue to see how he is not\was not ready to lead.
November 10, 2009
Planet saving diet.
First off I am a vegetarian, I am a registered Republican and practicing Catholic. I believe the amassing evidence that Man Made emissions have little impact on climate change.
However, if you are one of the MMGW zealots and your not a vegan, you are by my definition a hypocrite.
The production of one calorie of animal protein requires more than ten times the fossil fuel input as a calorie of plant protein. This means that ten times the amount of carbon dioxide is emitted as well.
The United States imports roughly 200 million pounds of beef from Central America every year. Aside from the fuel used in transport, grazing land is needed for all of these animals. Where does all that land come from in a densely forested region? The answer: from clear-cutting forests and rainforest
Animal production consumes an amount of water roughly equivalent to all other uses of water in the United States combined. Besides grains, animals need water to survive and grow until they are slaughtered. One pound of beef requires an input of approximately 2500 gallons of water, whereas a pound of soy requires 250 gallons of water and a pound of wheat only 25 gallons.
The most effective way to fight the global warming crisis is to stop eating meat, eggs, and dairy products.
Smithsonian Institution, "Smithsonian Researchers Show Amazonian Deforestation Accelerating," Science Daily Online, 15 Jan. 2002.
David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel, “Sustainability of Meat-Based and Plant-Based Diets and the Environment,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78.3 (2003)
Andrew Pierce, "Global Warming Is Mankind’s Greatest Challenge, Says Prince," The Times 28 Oct. 2005.
H. Steinfeld et al., Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, Livestock, Environment and Development (2006).
David de Rothschild, The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook: 77 Essential Skills to Stop Climate Change (Rodale Books, 2007) 66.
NewScientist.com, "It's Better to Green Your Diet Than Your Car," 17 Dec. 2005.
"Global Warming: Methane," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 8 Mar. 2006.
"Sources and Emissions: Methane," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2 Jun. 2006.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the US Office of Water Program Operations, Water Planning Division. Washington, D.C.
Merritt Frey, et al., Spills and Kills: Manure Pollution and America's Livestock Feedlots, Clean Water Network, Izaak Walton League of America and Natural Resources Defense Council (August 2000)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
