Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Blogger's block

Time for a new posting.

Trouble is, besides a heavy work schedule and some medical issues, I'm suffering from blogger's block. (No, that is not a medical problem. Probably.)

Fellow bloggers, how many of you will admit to that complaint?

My last posting was boring past belief. If you have not yet read it, be sure not to.

Everything I can think of to say at the moment is obvious, hackneyed, or repeats something I've already written. And while I admit to few principles, my intention is to post only when an idea
visits my brain that might be worth passing onto readers.

That could be days, or it might be later today — I never know when lightning, or at least a 12-volt current, will strike.

Check out the sites on the sidebar. You can always find something interesting there.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

British dhimmitude proceeds on schedule

In an August posting about British law enforcement authorities notifying Muslim leaders of the arrest of the suspects in the the airline bombing plot, I wrote, "I must confess to having misunderstood this news on a quick first reading. I thought that the Muslim leaders had been informed before the arrests. Not this morning. That will probably be the story next time."

I thought I was joking, didn't I? But now, it is announced, British police will brief Muslim leaders in advance of any counterterrorism raid, with the blessing of the Met's commissioner, Sir Ian Blair.

British Police Commission on
Muslim Community Relations

Even if the Muslim leaders given inside information do not tip off their co-religionists, they will have de facto veto power over security forces' actions.

More than a year after the July 7 terrorist bombings in London, the British Establishment is determined to pretend that the continuing threat is essentially a problem in community relations. They imagine that Islamopaths just feel misunderstood, and can be placated by the police giving Muslims confidential information about missions intended to protect the public.

A country whose indigenous population is now all but avowedly atheistic can't grasp that a fair number of its citizens practice a religio-political system that leaves no room for other beliefs and is driven to take over as soon as it has the power. Islam's state of psychological development matches Christianity in its religious wars and persecutions that lasted until the 17th century. Trying to win Muslims over to accepting cultural pluralism by making one concession after another is not just futile, but encourages Muslims to believe they will win the war against Dar al-Harb -- the benighted non-Muslim world -- all the quicker by keeping the pressure up through further demands.

Having called this latest development correctly, I am emboldened to make another prediction. Within five years, British Muslims will insist on the right to ignore parliamentary law in favor of shar'ia (Muslim religious) law for their own people. There will be some resistance, and non-Muslim Brits will dig in their heels for a year or two, but in the end they'll give in. Having made so many accommodations in response to Muslim intimidation, what logical reason can they offer to stop?

Within 20 years, shar'ia will be the law of the land for everyone; non-Muslims will be dhimmis, relegated to second-class status and forced to accept Muslim customs; and after more than a thousand years, British civilization will have come to an end.

There is still barely enough time for indigenous British to come to their senses, acknowledge the cataclysmic error they made in encouraging Muslim immigration, and take back their country. But there is no evidence so far that they are willing to do so. Instead they will pursue a farcical brand of multi-culturalism until there is only one culture that matters in the British Isles, and the Crescent flies above the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Here we go again

Has life been getting dull for you lately? We can fix that.

Feel like living dangerously? What'll it be — death by spinach or a new, all-singing, all-dancing terror attack?

Or if neither of those prospects gets your juices flowing, how about a new round of Islamoriots in honor of his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI? Bad-mouthing the Pope, Martin Luther–style, has been out of fashion for quite some while, but it looks headed up the charts again.


Another outbreak of Muslim hysteria appears to be building up.The Mujahedeen Shura Council, "an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq," said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross," adding that "We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword." I don't think they meant that in a friendly way.

While the Pope hasn't earned that sort of reaction, I have to confess no great sympathy for his plight. If in his now-famous speech he was really only making some general points about the need for religious faith to counteract modern secularism, and that violence is incompatible with the nature of God, well and good; but in that case it was gratuitously insulting to quote Byzantine Emperor Palaeologus saying, "Show me just what Muhammed brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." It doesn't matter that he was quoting and not saying it himself: look, them's fightin' words, no matter what.

On the other hand, if he did intend to call attention to the extreme intolerance of much of the Muslim world — which he had every right to do, in my opinion, and which would have been helpful in opening a serious, unavoidable international dialogue on that subject — he should have stated his theme plainly (although not in a blatantly offensive way). And while the Vatican has a very long memory, it would have been more effective for the Pope to express himself in contemporary terms than to drag in an emperor from the Middle Ages to speak for him, if that's what he intended.

Once the fat hit the fire, the rest was drearily predictable. Benedict XVI said he was "deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims." Sorry for the reactions? Considered offensive? It's not unreasonable to find that evasive. Mind you, I'm not saying that he shouldn't have offended Muslims, just that he should own up to it like a gentleman. As the saying goes, a gentleman never un-intentionally offends anyone.

It's unlikely his semi-apology will satisfy the jihadists. Look for more riots and another attempt to soothe by the Pope. The only question is how far it will go. Will Benedict XVI explain, "I just don't know what came over me"? Will he appear on Oprah, tears in his eyes, to confess that he was abused as a child and that he is checking into a private clinic in the Alban Hills? (Big hug.) That he has joined a 12-step group and acknowledged to himself, to another human being, and Allah that he is powerless except over a billion Roman Catholics?


I regret any offense I may have caused to spinach growers, terrorists, or Roman Catholics. I cannot understand what came over me. I do not even have the excuse of having been abused as a child. But back in those days, now I think on't, the adorable Rita Rothberg in my fifth grade class had no time for me. I have been warped ever since.

Rita, if you're reading these words, where are you now? Why, you must be … uh … about my age. Actually, Rita, I'm sure you'll understand this, but I'd prefer to remember you as you were then.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Warning of an "American Hiroshima"

An interview with Abu Dawood, described as "the newly appointed commander of the al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan," is published in Canada Free Press. Whatever weight to give it is for you to decide. A few highlights:
Final preparations have been made for the American Hiroshima, a major attack on the U. S. Muslims living in the United States should leave the country without further warning. The attack will be commandeered by Adnan el Shukrijumah ("Jaffer Tayyer" or "Jafer the Pilot"), a naturalized American citizen, who was raised in Brooklyn and educated in southern Florida.

The al Qaeda operatives who will launch this attack are awaiting final orders. They remain in place in cities throughout the country. Many are masquerading as Christians and have adopted Christian names.

The interviewer asks Dawood:
Q: What do you mean by another attack in America?

A: Yes a bigger attack than September 11th 2001. Brother Adnan [el Shukrijumah] will lead that attack, Inshallah.

Q:Who is Adnan?

A: He is our old friend. ... He is very well known in Al Qaeda. He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago. We call him "Jaffer al Tayyar" ["Jafer the Pilot"]; he is very brave and intelligent. Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn't want to panic his people.
If this is true, there's another reason: Bush is silent because any evidence that weapons and terrorist operators are being smuggled across the Mexican border would drive a spike through his open borders strategy.
Sheikh Osama bin Laden has completed his cycle of warnings. You know, he is man of his words, he is not a politician; he always does what he says. If he said it many times that Americans will see new attacks, they will definitely see new attacks. He is a real Mujahid. Americans will not win this war, which they have started against Muslims. ...
Q: But if you attack inside America again, then Muslims living in America will face lot of problems, why would you like to create new problems for your brothers and sisters?

A: Muslims should leave America. We cannot stop our attack just because of the American Muslims; they must realize that American forces are killing innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have the right to respond back, in the same manner, in the enemy's homeland. The American Muslims are like a human shield for our enemy; they must leave New York and Washington.

Q: But your fighters are also using the American Muslims as their shield, if there are no Muslims in America, then there would be no Al Qaeda, may be the Americans would feel safer?

A: No, not at all. We have a different plan for the next attack. You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Muhammad Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter.

So, like so many previous warnings, we can't ignore this, but we've got to decide how seriously to take it.

The specifics of Dawood's claims are probably moonshine. To take the most obvious point first, if this plan was really on, why would the leader of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan spill the beans about it, knowing that it would be picked up in the media or at least analyzed by U.S. intelligence services? To warn Muslims to get out of the way? But if they did, that would be even more of a tip-off. As I've often said, Muslimopaths may be insane but they are not stupid, which is what describing their modus operandi in advance would be.

The business about the attackers operating under cover of Western names also sounds like classic disinformation. If our security agencies gave it any credence, the result would be less scrutiny and surveillance of acknowledged Muslims and maybe increased distrust of David, Richard, or Peter -- which would make the enemy's job easier.

Finally, on a purely psychological note, this is the kind of bragging that weak bullies fall into. Being head of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan doesn't come with a lot of job security; extravagantly boasting about clocking the infidels makes Dawood, the Man with the Golden Gums, sound like a big guy to his Qur'anic mob.

Yet, as an expression of the state of mind of Al Qaeda and other Muslim fanatics, we have to take Dawood at his word. This kind of big bang in America is what he and his gang would like to do, and will if they can. It's one more indication, out of many, that we are playing Russian roulette by not sealing off our borders (Canadian as well as Mexican). When he claims to be fighting a war on terrorism but leaves all the doors and windows wide open, George W. Bush is as much of a blowhard as Abu Dawood.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

To the barricades, Swedes! Day care is threatened!

Sweden is about to have an election, and it comes at a time of the state's greatest crisis since Queen Christina decided she preferred the theological and meteorological climate of Rome and went to live there after converting to Catholicism. The Australian's stringer in Stockholm writes, "Many conservatives have begun to wonder whether the Swedish welfare model isn't due for a makeover."
"There aren't enough daycare spots," complains Per-Ola Pettersson, a 35-year-old Stockholmer who says he expects more for his high taxes. "They're constantly making cuts in the healthcare system, and there are long queues at the hospitals. And the welfare state is expensive."
Sweden, which itself resembles a nationwide day care center, is clearly in pre-revolutionary mode when its welfare state is expensive. Benefits are supposed to be free! Every child, even at the age of 35, knows that.

The country also has a few problems with its immigrants, but you can safely assume they have not loomed large in the election rhetoric. For one thing, you can get into serious bother with the law in Sweden if you publicly question official dhimmitude. For another, Swedes' cultural self-defense muscles have atrophied under the welfare paradise to mere reminders of an earlier stage of evolution, like the appendix.

But a leak in day care — now, there's an issue to set blonde on blonde.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Flowers are optional

Nine eleven

Tears are optional.

Prayers are optional.

Flowers are optional.

Whatever you do or don't do to commemorate that day five years ago, know this:

Victory is not optional. It is required of us:

By our ancestors, who fought and died to make us free and keep us free. By our descendants, whose liberty or subjugation depends on what we do now. By the ideas and ideals that are, ultimately, our great strength. By the tragic sense that men and women have always known, except in times when they grew complacent and hedonistic and materialist, that evil exists and must be confronted. Not by trying to wish it out of existence, not by relying on words or negotiation or understanding. But confronted, and if possible defeated.

That is a hard lesson to learn. Let us hope that we do not need another event to learn it, perhaps too late -- an event more horrible than September 11, or watching our institutions designed to protect free minds dismantled by those who fear free minds.

Plant in our souls determination and power and the spiritual illumination to guide us, bravery to carry us through what we must go through.

Then, add flowers if you wish.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

The doctor won't see you now

A model shows off the new AllahMode™
line of hospital couture

Taking a fashion cue from Saudi Arabia, hospitals in northern England will issue gowns such as this to Muslim women patients, AP reports. The burqa-style attire will protect the patients from prying male eyes, such as their doctor's.

The hospitals are run by the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which presumably means they are part of the National Health Service, funded by British taxpayers. It isn't clear from the story who will pay the extra cost for the "full service" gowns.
"I noticed a gap in the market and thought that it would be great if there was a gown that helped to preserve a patient's modesty," said Karen Jacob, linen services manager for the trust, who designed the product.
Hospitals in the United States, and I suspect those in Britain as well, do not seem unduly concerned about preserving the modesty, or at least dignity, of those of us who are not members of the Religion of Peace. Personally, I do not think I look at all my best in one of those l0w-fashion sack-like creations I have been issued on my thankfully infrequent hospital stays.

Meaning no disrespect, the woman in the photo above has quite ravishing eyes. Don't I know her from somewhere? Does she come there often? What's her sign?

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Okay, calm down, everybody. How about "The War on Nuisance"?

On the same day that President Bush said, "Bin laden and his terrorists' allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the chief of strategic planning on the Pentagon's Joint Staff, Colonel Gary Cheek, said that what is needed is to recast terrorists as criminals, UPI reported.
"If we can change the name ... and find the right sequence of events that allows us to do that, that changes the dynamic of the conflict," said Cheek at the Defense Forum Washington, sponsored by the Marine Corps Association and the U.S. Naval Institute.

"It makes sense for us to find another name for the GWOT," said Cheek. "It merits rethinking. I know our European allies are more comfortable articulating issues of terrorism as criminal threats, rather than war ... It ought to be our goal to partner better with the European allies so we can migrate this from a war to something other than a war."

Why, Colonel Cheek, that's not far short of brilliant. The ... er ... criminals may have tens of thousands of volunteers for worldwide jihad, but we have the power of re-branding!
The "war" moniker elevates al-Qaida and other transnational terrorists, giving them legitimacy as an opposition force to the United States. It also tends to alienate Muslim populations in other countries, who see the war as a war on Islam, and feel they need to support al-Qaida as a matter of defending their faith.
On no account must we alienate anyone! In fact, if you'll forgive me for raising this point, Colonel, sir ... don't you think "criminal" is a bit, well, strong? After all, we're only up against a few misguided members of the Religion of Peace. Using the word "criminal" could tend to defame all Muslims, even when the offense is a mere misdemeanor, hardly worth the time it costs the district attorney's office to work out a plea bargain. As the UPI "analyst" who quoted you writes, "If the United States can recast it in the global public eye as what the Pentagon views it as now -- a struggle for the imposition of law and order and the establishment of a democracy -- al-Qaida can be drained of some of its power."

Provided we can disabuse our minds of emotion-laden words like "terrorist" and "attack," we can pass local ordinances against disturbing the establishment of democracy, which, when proven in a court of law, will subject the offender to fines and points against pilot licenses.

I'll feel safer tonight, Colonel, knowing that strategic thinkers like you are migrating this war into something other than a war, which has so upset our allies the Muslims, and that the Pentagon views it the same way now.

The five unwritten rules for blogging success






Friday, September 01, 2006

It takes a village to raise your blood pressure

According to USA Today, the "libertarian Reason Foundation" tells us we can expect gridlock to extend its grip to "smaller communities" with fewer than half a million residents in the next quarter century, with rush hour delays more than doubling in some. Drivers there will "spend up to 150% more time in bumper-to-bumper traffic," the Reason Foundation's study says.
"Moving to small-town America is not going to solve your problem," says David Hartgen, lead author of the study, who is a professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "The growth in congestion is going to be worse there." …

Population growth and commuters' preference for driving are key factors, the study says.
Anyone with common sense might suggest that the first thing we ought to do to counter an epidemic of hypertraffic is to reduce or eliminate population growth. But common sense has nothing to do with it, my dears. The authors of this study are, first, academics — which means they are unable to put together two sets of facts if one is outside their specialty. In this case, our social pathologists have nothing to say about the leading cause of runaway population growth, which is immigration, both legal and illegal. So instead of dealing with causes, they are left gasping for ways to fix effects.

Second, they are libertarians, which means they have only one tool in their workshop — money, or as they prefer to call it, market forces.
The solution? Hartgen and the other authors argue for building or widening roads and increasing traffic-management techniques such as signal timing and toll roads. To relieve congestion and save 7.7 billion driving hours a year by 2030, they say, 104,000 new lane miles will be needed at a cost of about $21 billion a year.
Inevitably, predictions like this study's bring out the public transportation lobbyists. If only people would stop being so selfish and agree to be force-fed into buses and subway cars, rather than insisting on the dignity and flexibility of driving themselves, why, we could cram a few hundred million more immigrants into the country.
Virginia Miller, a spokeswoman for the American Public Transportation Association, calls it "short-sighted" to ignore public transportation such as buses and subway systems. She cited a 2005 report by the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University that said public transportation saved 1.1 billion hours of travel time in 85 urban areas in 2003. "Public transportation has a proven record of helping reduce congestion that should not be ignored," Miller says.
No, Ms. Miller; public transportation does not reduce congestion. It transfers part of the congestion from highways to overburdened buses or some other form of cruel and unusual punishment. You want to see congestion? If you are ever in the mood to step outside your ivory tower, take a ride on the New York or Washington mass transit system during the rush hour. The very term mass transit tells you something, or would if you ever thought beyond your schemes for ridding people of that frightful individualism that is so annoying to social engineers like you.

All these reactive pseudo-solutions to advancing gridlock — building more roads, charging higher tolls to use them at peak hours, packing people into subways, etc. — are ways of avoiding the cause, population growth, while treating the effect. But acknowledging the cause would require confronting the United States's demented "come one, come all" immigration policy.