When Is Racism Not Racism?
Apparently when it's black guys, not white guys, getting all the jobs.
Stereohyped writes that black male models are in in the fashion world right now -- in magazines and runway shows:
Not only are they exclusively populating the pages of this month's super-hyped Vogue Italia, Wintour & Co. also begrudgingly gave them some attention. At Milan's Men's Fashion Week, the designers of Dsquared used a group of models, led by Tyson Beckford, made up almost entirely of black men. And rumor has it that Lanvin's show next week has an "all-ethnic lineup."
As I commented at Stereohyped:
Wait...if you complain when only white guys get jobs, why don't you complain when only black guys get jobs?Are you against racism or is that just a nicer sounding way of putting what you actually are for?
Personally, I don't care who designers hire -- what age, what sex, what color the models are. Each designer knows what works best for his or her aesthetic and will choose it, and should. Is this necessarily "racist" or just what works for a particular designer's look?
If a designer's models don't work for you on some level -- too white, too black, too thin, too fat, well, buy some other designer's clothes. Whoops...chances are you can't afford any designer's clothes anyway.
Never fear. Perhaps, if you're one of those complaining about the race of the models you can instead devote yourself to campaigning for "colorblind" casting for TV shows...say, by pressuring a network to cast a black woman to play the person who gave birth to two white, Irish children.
Personally, I'm for judging somebody "by the content of their character," but when's the last time you think anybody chose an actress or model on those terms?
Some Really Wrong-Headed Solidarity
Where are all the African countries that rose up against the white supremicist regime of Ian Smith in Zimbabwe in the 1970s? Nicholas D. Kristof writes in the IHT that, back then, even the white racist South African government demanded change, and threatened to cut off the electricity if they didn't see it:
Yet South African President Thabo Mbeki continues to make excuses for Mugabe - who is more brutal than Ian Smith ever was - out of misplaced deference for a common history in the liberation struggle.Zimbabweans suffered so much for so many decades from white racism that the last thing they need is excuses for Mugabe's brutality because of his skin color.
...If only Mugabe were a white racist! Then the regional powers might stand up to him. For the sake of Zimbabweans, we should be just as resolute in confronting African tyrants who are black as in confronting those who are white.
Teacher Engages Inner City Kids
And is fired for it -- even though parents were fine (with the exception of one kid's parent) with her using the book of stories from other inner city kids with sometimes "graphic" language. The story -- from CNN.
Private Jet Aficionado Laurie David On "Greening Our Airports"
You gotta take a step back in awe at the hubris of a Hollywood soon-to-be-ex-wife who takes private jets and owns a second home in Nantucket and who's begging the rest of us to save energy by unplugging our shavers. Larry David's estranged wife is also worrying in print (on the HuffPo, natch!) about all the empty soda cans the airlines are throwing away, writing:
...An NRDC investigation found that the U.S. airline industry discards enough aluminum cans each year to build 58 Boeing 747 airplanes. In a single year, U.S. airlines also discarded 9,000 tons of plastic and enough newspapers and magazines to fill a football field to a depth of more than 230 feet....Action tips for the week:
Even when they are 'off,' leaving appliances plugged in still uses energy, so remember before you leave home for summer vacation to unplug all electrical appliances and devices to save energy.
...If you plan to drive to your vacation destination, make sure your car is running efficiently. Keeping your tires properly inflated can improve your gas mileage by more than 3 percent. Saving a gallon of gas will keep 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and leave more money in your pocket for those vacation treats!
Gee, thanks, Laure! How many gallons of gas does that private jet use? How many thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide does it put into the atmosphere? So...you luvvvv the environment ("Here, Bambi!...Here, Bambi!") -- just not enough to stoop to flying first class.
In fact, it seems you take a private jet to the darnest places! Here, in the Texas A&M student newspaper, The Batt, a student says he saw you arrive in one for one of your global warming lectures:
Laurie David, the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" and global warming activist, told Texas A&M students to change their "individual behavior" in order to consume fewer resources and to help battle global warming. As an employee of Easterwood Airport, I would like to point out that Mrs. David flew to our campus in a luxurious private jet, which could be seen from 10 miles away due to the thick plume of smog it left in its wake. I am neither denying nor confirming the epidemic of global warming, I am simply pointing out that hypocrites such as Mrs. David don't care about the environment, only their own political agendas. This is proven time and again by these celebrities' and lobbyist's "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.Richard Pawlik
Class of 2007
Ever wonder why I never blog about climate change or global warming or whatever we're supposed to call it? It's because I study evolutionary psychology pretty seriously but I really don't know a rat's ass about physics or climatology. (Doesn't seem to stop Laurie!) Meanwhile, I've been meaning to put up a piece by reason's Ron Bailey on the subject, as he's someone I trust to be impartial judge of the science.
And here's another guy who's likely to have a wee bit more acumen in stats than the average Hollywood soon-to-be-ex. That would be Professor David J.C. MacKay of the Cambridge University Department of Physics, who holds a PhD in computation and neural systems from Cal Tech and a "starred first in Physics," whatever that is. But, as Lewis Page puts it in the Register/UK, chances are, "he knows his numbers":
And, as he points out, numbers are typically lacking in current discussion around carbon emissions and energy use.MacKay tells The Reg that he was first drawn into this field by the constant suggestion -- from the Beeb, parts of the government etc -- that we can seriously impact our personal energy consumption by doing such things as turning our TVs off standby or unplugging our mobile-phone chargers.
Anyone with even a slight grasp of energy units should know that this is madness. Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off standby for over six months. People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics; it's insignificant compared to the other things.
Most of us don't see basic hygiene, decent food and warm houses as sinful luxuries, but as things we can reasonably expect to have. This means that society as a whole needs a lot of energy, which led MacKay to consider how this might realistically be supplied in a low-carbon fashion. He's coming at the issues from a green/ecological viewpoint, but climate-change sceptics who are nonetheless concerned about Blighty becoming dependent on Russian gas and Saudi oil -- as the North Sea starts to play out -- will also find his analysis interesting. Eliminating carbon largely equates to eliminating gas and oil use.
"I don't really mind too much what your plan is," MacKay told The Reg this week. "But it's got to add up."
He says he's largely letting his machine-learning lab at Cambridge run itself these days, and is personally spending most of his time on trying out different energy scenarios.
MacKay sets out his calculations in a book, Sustainable Energy -- Without the hot air. You can download it here (http://www.withouthotair.com/). As he says:
The one thing I am sure of is that the answers to our sustainable energy questions will involve numbers; any sane discussion of sustainable energy requires numbers. This book's got 'em, and it shows how to handle them.He emphasises that the book isn't quite finished yet, and says he's always glad to hear from someone who has something to add or has spotted a mistake.
That's science for you. It's a beautiful thing. More people should try incorporating some into their self-serving P.R. campaigns for the environment.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, if you read the whole piece, you'll see that MacKay finds nukes -- and innovations in nuclear energy -- to be our best bet for the future.
Register link via aldaily
"The Impact Of The Sacred Feminine"
I sometimes get these e-mail messages from people that really make me hurl. But, especially when an author writes me, I write back to let them know when they're wasting their time pursuing me -- but in a most polite way.
Usually, I don't hear back from them. But, you gotta love this lady below. She sent me one of those goddess/spirituality book pitches, probably because she's too lazy to actually read what I write and just looked at the name "The Advice Goddess."
Because my business card used to say "Amy Alkon, Freelance Goddess," I called myself "The Advice Goddess" in a pinch after I couldn't buy the trademark, "The Advice Ladies/Lady," from my former partners. The truth is, I really wanted to use Shrek/Pirates of The Carib screenwriter Terry Rossio's suggestion: "Amy Alkon, Opinionated Bitch," but I figured that name would keep me out of all the dailies.
Here's my exchange with this woo-woo broad, Karen Tate, who pitched me her book for review, Walking An Ancient Path: Rebirthing Goddess on Planet Earth -- her book which she bills as "a spiritual socio-political look at the benefits of embracing the Feminine Consciousness in an effort for humanity to (sic) safe itself."
Now, it could be more wrong for me -- if it were "How to Live Your Every Moment by The Stars" or "Feng-Shui Your Home!" Anyway, I read the e-mail, convulsing within with laughter, both at the subject and the fact that she sent it to me, then restrained myself, and sent back a polite response:
---- AdviceAmy@aol.com wrote:
> Thanks, not for me, but best of luck! -Amy
Hilariously, Miss Spirituality wrote back:
In a message dated 6/27/08 5:53:26 AM, karentate108@ca.rr.com writes:Hi Amy,
So you're not "really" interested in Goddess or the impact of the Sacred Feminine? Like female empowerment of knowing the Divine within?Sorry, my mistake.
Karen
Am I "interested in Goddess or the impact of the Sacred Feminine?" I wrote back:
Not in the slightest. I responded to be polite, instead of not answering and letting you wonder. What's hilarious to me is something my sister, who's a bit woo-woo/yoga, but still sharp and rational, pointed out -- the hostility of people who are "spiritual" and woo-woo.Get this: I write, "Thanks, not for me, but best of luck!" And instead of saying to yourself, "Oh, let's take her off the e-mail list," you write back, indignant.
You'd better work on the spirituality thing, huh?
P.S. You also might check out a writer's work before you assume they'll be interested in your subject.
Oh, and I have to go back to her original e-mail and pull the topic discussion list she suggests so you can see how hilarious it is and how hilariously wrong it is for me vis a vis anything I write or ever have written:
Goddess is the Real Secret
The Rising Feminine Consciousness - A Revolution of Thought
Esoterica and Divine Energy of Sacred Places
What is the Sacred Feminine, Goddess or Feminine Consciousness - Spiritually, Socially, Politically?
Purposeful Travel
Sacred Places Around the World
Women - Visionaries, Venturers and Vessels for Change
Women Rethinking their Rules as Caregivers
Obviously, the values I'm interested in promoting are not (gag!) "feminine" ones, but Enlightenment values: Science, reason, and secular ethics.
Two books I will recommend: In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas, a slim book by Theodore Dalrymple (initially recommended by Crid), and the terrific Predictably Irrational, by MIT prof Dan Ariely.
Wait! She wrote back:
In a message dated 6/27/08 10:44:03 AM, karentate108@ca.rr.com writes:It's hard seeing Goddess being trivialized when it can be such an important force to help women and save the planet. I was hoping to educate. I wasn't being hostile - I was trying to be enlightening. I'll admit, it was maybe a little edgy, but women should know better.....then again, sometimes we're our own worst enemy perpetuating stereotypes.
Karen
My response to "It's hard seeing Goddess being trivialized...":
Oh, please. What probably makes life hard for you is a general humorlessness that's apparent in your e-mails to me. Also, that you seem rather hostile but have this cover of goddessy hooha over your hostility.Me? I don't pretend. I am hostile -- to bullshit ideas about how female "energy" is preferable to male and all other sorts of crap in that variety. The Enlightenment happened because of white men who accomplished things. Women, too, are able to accomplish things; more, now that they aren't pregnant all the time, but civilization as we know it was largely the accomplishment of a bunch of white guys...much as women try to deify Jane Austen and the like.
You "save the planet" by spreading rationality, not goddess crap. You're "edgy." Right. "We're our own worst enemy perpetuating stereotypes"? Do you know how unintentionally hilarious you are?
If you really want to save the planet, and not just sell books to women with wild lettuce growing where their brains should be, speak out against Islam. No goddessy crap or feminine energy bullshit needed. Just spread the word that the Quran commands the conversion or slaughter of those who are not Muslims. And while you're at it, speak out against all evidence-free belief in god.
-Amy Alkon, Opinionated Bitch
And she writes back yet again (too tediously for a response):
Yep, you describe yourself right, and obviously prove you know little about the political and social implications of embracing the Feminine Consciousness.kt
Looks like I know just enough!
Being A Dick At High School Graduation Could Get You Arrested
Dennis Yusko writes for the Albany Times-Union of a 19-year-old man who crashed a high school graduation dressed as a giant penis, and sprayed the crowd with Silly String:
His motive? "He thought it would be funny,'' (Sgt.) Briscoe said.Morett was ticketed for disorderly conduct, a violation, and will face the charges in City Court on Tuesday, Briscoe said.
Morett graduated from Saratoga Springs High School last year. He tried to streak away from law enforcement, but could not.
"Once I stopped laughing, he was pretty easy to catch because he was tripping on the lower portion of the costume,'' said Briscoe, who made the arrest.
Uh, do you mean he was tripping on his big, inflatable balls?
Picture here.
Furious George
Funny stuff from George Carlin on airplane travel.
via Slate
Why Stoning Women Is Worse Than Eating BBQ'd Pork
A classic argument against cultural relativism. Pretty amusing, too. It's from the paper "Who's To Say What's Right Or Wrong? People Who Have Ph.D.'s In Philosophy, That's Who," by the late Richard Sharvy:
The Story of Al and Cal. Al is a devout Moslem who grew up and lives in a strict Islamic theocracy. Cal is a promoter of rock groups and lives in California, a bit north of San Francisco. One day, Al is magically transported to California for a party at Cal's. Dozens of people are drinking wine, eating barbecued pork, and taking off their clothes and jumping into Cal's hot tub. Al is outraged.Then Cal is transported to Al's home, and is taken to watch an adulteress get stoned to death. Cal is outraged.
Are the situations parallel? No. Stoning people to death for adultery is objectively wrong; it violates their objective natural rights. But consuming wine and pork is merely distasteful to certain people. One is a matter of right and wrong, of rights and wrongs; the other is a matter of taste.
I can hear many of you now thinking that I am being very arrogant and chauvinistic, when I say that Al's culture is morally bad, but that Cal's is not. Don't you really want to shout "Who's to Say What's Right and Wrong?" at me? I hope not, because I've already answered that question. I am; I have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I am an expert on what is really right and wrong. So restrain yourselves. Ask instead "What justifies my claims about the two cultures in the story of Al and Cal?"
In asking this, you are not suggesting that I am mistaken, I hope. You are not suggesting that merely because some people believe the opposite, there is no correct answer. You are not suggesting that there is any remote reason to think that stoning people to death merely for adultery is perfectly just. We have already solved those problems. If you truly believe that you do not know whether or not mass murder for example is really wrong, then you are just a very sick person and I cannot help you. You are just like a person who really believes that everyone else might be a robot, or an agent of the CIA.
But how would I convince Al that stoning adulteresses is wrong? With a lot of rational argument about individual rights, the history of women-as-property that underlies unequal recognition of claims of females, questions about how he might view things if he were a woman, and so forth. And if rational argument fails, we can try stoning him.
Your Privacy For A Drink
As a current victim of identity theft (thanks, Bank of America!) I was horrified to hear that some bars around the country are using a system that not only scans but stores information from driver's licenses. From KNSD TV:
The system called Club Scan is being used by bouncers at Bub's Dive Bar in Pacific Beach for the past two months and other locations around the county.The scanner checks to determine whether an ID is fake or real and also collects personal information that includes names, addresses and photographs.
They say the system helped them solve a rape, and it's good that it's been solved, but this method of data collection should neither be allowed nor tolerated. No drink is worth having your data sucked.
As Ben Franklin apparently put it:
Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY.
Oh yeah, and not to go all Woody Allen/Marshall McLuhan on you, but I happen to have a recent photo of Ben, seen here with my pal Clif Garboden from The Boston Phoenix. And a few old framer friends. All at the National Constitution Center in Philly.
And back to the bars...if people have an iota of sense, they'll boycott the bars using this system. Your data is only as safe as the weakest link in that system. And if you hand your driver's license over to anyone, you're just nuts.
Thanks To The Person Sent Me Money Recently Through Amazon
I'm guessing this is to recognize the work I do on my blog. I didn't get an initial e-mail about this, or missed it, so I didn't get to thank you, and couldn't figure out who you are through my Amazon payments window. But, it's much appreciated!
Why You Should Buy Clothes Made In Sweatshops
In 2002, Nicholas Kristof had an op-ed a piece in The New York Times, headlined "Let Them Sweat." I never read it then, but I saw a link to it from a blog item by Jacob Sullum on reason.com. Kristof actually writes that there should be an "international campaign" to promote sweatshop products, with a "bold label" with the words, ''Proudly Made in a Third World Sweatshop!'':
The Gentle Reader will think I've been smoking Pakistani opium. But the fact is that sweatshops are the only hope of kids like Ahmed Zia, a 14-year-old boy here in Attock, a gritty center for carpet weaving.Ahmed, who dropped out of school in the second grade, earns $2 a day hunched over the loom, laboring over a rug that will adorn some American's living room. It is a pittance, but the American campaign against sweatshops could make his life much more wretched by inadvertently encouraging mechanization that could cost him his job.
''Carpet-making is much better than farm work,'' Ahmed said, mulling alternatives if he loses his job as hundreds of others have over the last year. ''This makes much more money and is more comfortable.''
Indeed, talk to third world factory workers and the whole idea of ''sweatshops'' seems a misnomer. It is farmers and brick-makers who really sweat under the broiling sun, while sweatshop workers merely glow.
...''I dream of a job in a factory,'' said Noroz Khan, who lives on a garbage dump and spends his days searching for metal that he can sell to recyclers. He earns about $1.40 a day, and children earn just 30 cents a day for scrounging barefoot in the filth -- a few feet away from us, birds were pecking at the bloated carcass of a cow, its feet in the air.
I'm reminded of similar columns -- surprising revelations on recycling by The New York Times' John Tierney:
Are reusable cups and plates better than disposables? A ceramic mug may seem a more virtuous choice than a cup made of polystyrene, the foam banned by ecologically conscious local governments. But it takes much more energy to manufacture the mug, and then each washing consumes more energy (not to mention water). According to calculations by Martin Hocking, a chemist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, you would have to use the mug 1,000 times before its energy-consumption-per-use is equal to the cup. (If the mug breaks after your 900th coffee, you would have been better off using 900 polystyrene cups.) A more immediate environmental impact has been demonstrated by studies in restaurants: the average number of bacterial organisms on reusable cups, plates and flatware is 200 times greater than on disposable ones.Should you recycle today's newspaper? Saving a tree is a mixed blessing. When there's less demand for virgin wood pulp, timber companies are likely to sell some of their tree farms -- maybe to condominium developers. Less virgin pulp means less pollution at paper mills in timber country, but recycling operations create pollution in areas where more people are affected: fumes and noise from collection trucks, solid waste and sludge from the mills that remove ink and turn the paper into pulp. Recycling newsprint actually creates more water pollution than making new paper: for each ton of recycled newsprint that's produced, an extra 5,000 gallons of waste water are discharged.
...America's supply of timber has been increasing for decades, and the nation's forests have three times more wood today than in 1920. "We're not running out of wood, so why do we worry so much about recycling paper?" asks Jerry Taylor, the director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. "Paper is an agricultural product, made from trees grown specifically for paper production. Acting to conserve trees by recycling paper is like acting to conserve cornstalks by cutting back on corn consumption."
And finally, don't forget the "carbon footprint" of New Zealand beef and cheese compared to that from locally raised cows. This Montreal Mirror story compares Kiwi beef to beef in the U.K.
So...things are not always as they seem. Feel free to add your surprising revelations on issues where people are "sure" they have the virtuous answer.
Islam, The Religion Of Pedophilia
Anyone who's read bits of the Quran probably knows that Muhammed married his wife Aisha when she was a six-year-old child, and had sex with her at nine. Vile, huh? Well, to civilized people. Muslims don't revile Muhammed for this. They worship him.
In this clip from MEMRI, Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, an Islamic marriage officiant, says about Muhammed's child-marrying and childfucking, and child-marrying and childfucking by Muslims in general, "We consider the prophet Muhammed to be our model."
Jeez, at least in the case of Catholic priests, a few people in the Church were embarrassed, and we "infidels" eventually tried the buggers.
Airplane As Special-Needs Nursery School
I'm sure it's terribly taxing having an autistic child. But, because you have an autistic child doesn't mean the rest of us should have to put up with your autistic child -- unless he or she can behave well enough to be in public or on a plane without pitching screaming fits on the floor. That's what happened with one woman's child on a recent American Eagle flight -- which the crew ended up turning around and sending back to the airport. Here's an excerpt from the story from Ed Crump at Raleigh-Durham's ABC outlet, WTVD:
As the American Eagle flight headed down the taxiway, two-and-a-half-year-old Jarett Farrell wasn't a happy traveler.His mother says she was doing all she could to calm the autistic boy, but got no sympathy from the flight crew.
"If they just would have been a little more understanding I think that none of this would have been a problem," Mother, Janice Farrell said.
But it became a big problem for everyone on the plane. Farrell says that's because the flight attendant was indignant.
"She kept coming over and tugging his seatbelt to make it tighter, 'This has to stay tight'. And then he was wiggling around and trying to get out of his seatbelt. And she kept coming over and reprimanding him and yelling at him," Farrell said.
One of the pilots came back to the cabin with a stern warning and Farrell says the frustration level escalated.
She says Jarrett picked up on that and things only got worse.
"He just melted down. He saw me getting upset. He was upset. He was on the floor rolling around," she said.
Besides the kid thrashing around on the floor, they were seated in the bulkhead, and the mother refused to put her bag up in the overhead, per Federal law. Apparently, there were things in it to distract/occupy the kid. Well, honey, them's the rules. If you have a special-needs kid, you need to prepare the kid for travel: Drug the kid. Dramamine, Benadryl (my personal choice). Or, gasp!, stay home and have granny and the cousins come visit.
What's Next, Friendimony?
Say a longtime friend stops talking to you. You look around your house at all those birthday presents and other gifts they've given you and get an idea: You'll sue them for the discontinuation of material support!
That's kind of what's happening in New Jersey, where the state Supreme Court just ruled that a couple doesn't have to live together for one member to be able to sue the other for "palimony" after breakup.
Sorry, I just don't see why, in a childless relationship, one person should have a claim on another person's money or stuff.
Details on the relationship that led to the case from the NJ Star-Ledger's Tom Hester:
L'Esperance, a pioneer in laser eye surgery, provided Devaney with money and a condominium in North Bergen.Devaney was 23 and L'Esperance 51 when she went to work for him in 1983. After a few months, their relationship became intimate. She knew he was married, but he told her he planned to get a divorce. The couple saw each other no more than two or three evenings each week and sometimes one day on the weekend. During the seven years Devaney lived in the condo, L'Esperance spent no more than seven nights there, according to the decision.
The justices noted the trial judge found Devaney relied on L'Esperance's promises to take care of her and she eventually became financially dependent on L'Esperance.
Is that her fault or his? I just wrote a column on a related subject today. No woman (and no person) should ever expect anybody is going to take care of her but her.
And finally, while I have no problem with prostitution, and think it should be legalized, it's not. And isn't this woman, in actuality, with her case, confessing to being a hooker?
via ifeminists
Red Wig Time
Anybody got any suggestions on how to get the freeloading step-daughter out without throwing the husband out with the bathwater? Got this one in my e-mail this morning.
We agreed to allow my 25 year old step-daughter and her now 3 year old to live with us as she was newly divorced, paying off bills, working full time and going to college full time. The Free Loader has now graduated college, paid off her bills, has a good job and over a year later is still here and not paying anything. Plus she is a pig and I have to pick up after her. The kid is spoiled rotten and throws temper tantrums like an invading mogul. I want her out! My husband differs. It is a strain on our marriage. We have no privacy and rarely sex. That right there is enough reason to want her out. I have been married to an otherwise great guy for 6 years. We bought this house together. How do I get her out ?
If There Were A God, Maybe He Would've Equipped You With A Brain
I just love the way people attribute their survival in the face of idiocy to god watching over them. This guy had his arm eaten off by an alligator, but hey, god was there to keep him alive. From a Mike Celizic story on MSBNC:
Kasey Edwards had grown up around alligators -- so he knew that when he had a 600-pound bull gator clamped on his left arm and a buoy rope gripped desperately in his right hand, he was in a tug-of-war he couldn't win."I don't care who you are: If an 11½-foot alligator tries to pull you under the water and you hang on, there's something else holding you on out there," the 18-year-old told TODAY's Matt Lauer in an exclusive interview Wednesday, three days after losing his left arm to the gator, but winning the war to survive. "I definitely felt that God was with me that day to keep me on that rope."
Edwards' life-and-death battle with one of nature's deadliest predators played out at 2:30 Sunday morning in a canal that fed into Lake Okeechobee, the giant freshwater lake between Miami and Orlando in Florida. After an afternoon spent swimming and drinking beer at Vero Beach, Edwards and some male and female friends had gone to Lake Okeechobee to hang out along the canal.
The group had stopped drinking beer before they left Vero Beach around 6 p.m. with a designated driver, Edwards said, denying allegations that they were intoxicated at the lake. "It was 2 o'clock Sunday morning at this time. Nobody was intoxicated at all," he said.
They had seen alligators, and when Edwards stripped off his shirt and announced he was going to take a swim in the canal, his friends tried to dissuade him, but he dove in anyway and swam across the canal and then parallel to a row of buoys that lined the far bank.
'More aggressive'
"I'd grown up around alligators as a little boy, swimming in the canals and the lakes," the crew-cut 18-year-old said in explaining why he jumped in the water. "They never really bothered me."
Genius.
And god was there to keep the guy alive...why? Because the world is so short on people lacking in common sense? If you can see how this guy fits into what's supposedly god's plan, do let us all know.
And I have to say, I am always amused by the rather pathetic notion that god is sitting in a wing chair up there in "heaven" peering down and caring about miniscule daily doings of the individual numbnut's life: "Whoops! Jimmy just got the wrong change! Better rectify that!" How can anybody with an I.Q. over the speed limit believe in this stuff?
Rear Window
Me 'n my prehensile trail. Gregg left this one on my desktop, so I thought I'd put it up.
Warning: Do not wear a dress with a train in Los Angeles, a city where a fashion statement too often involves wearing $118 sweatpants with "Juicy" on the back. Or without. At last count, 26 people at the LA Press Club Awards stood on the back of my dress. Next year, I'll be selling tickets for the privilege.
photo by Gregg Sutter
Buy Brazilian
Why Ford's most advanced assembly plant is in Brazil, not Detroit.
In short, "sources" told the reporter, Bryce G. Hoffman, that the car companies would love to build this kind of facility in the US -- "If only the UAW...would allow it."
On a side note, I e-mailed Hoffman, and learned that he's a fifth generation Angeleno. Fifth generation? Who were his relatives, the Aztecs?
P.S. And yes, I know the Aztecs weren't actually in California, but "...the Chumash?" isn't funny.
Mad About Poo
Over at Consumerist, one of my favorite sites, they're foaming at the mouth about a mall store called Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory that didn't allow a mother to use their bathroom when her five-year-old was about to have explosive diarrhea.
Consumerist logs this entry, "Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory Refuses Bathroom Access to 5-Year-Old, Who Then Has Diarrhea In Front Of Them," under "Worst Customer Service Ever." But, is it? Here's a picture of one of these stores, and there are many in malls (see the fourth one over on Google). And here's the letter to Consumerist from the mother of the kid:
I explained she had diarrhea and couldn't hold it and told them she was about to go on the floor. They refused again and never offered me any alternatives. I begged them to have a heart and that she was 5 but by that time she had lost it all over herself and me. I ran with her in my arms to the movie theater that let me use their bathroom. I cleaned her up, threw out some of her clothes and went back to the Chocolate Factory - asking for names and number of management. I again pleaded with them to use their heart in situations like this.I called the manager today and she finally called me back. She supports the employees and tells me that it is an insurance decision. She told me to sue if it makes me feel happy. She laughed at me when I told her I would be using my extensive contacts to begin a viral campaign to boycott her store and the entire chain and told me that she was "sure that would make my daughter very proud." My daughter was humiliated, forced to defecate on herself due to the lack of compassion exhibited by the store - which the owner continued to support on the phone with me. I don't want anything, I just want them to have a bit of compassion in the future.
I think this commenter, Jetgirly, on Consumerist makes a good point:
When I was fifteen and sixteen I worked in a chocolate shop in a mall. The most compelling reason for us not to let our customers in the bathroom was the fact that it was the only space we had to hang our coats and purses. As long as we knew there were no customers in the back, we knew our personal property was safe from non-employee theft. Our stock room was tiny and we never could have installed lockers or anything- there was barely room for a tiny safe for the cash. Anyone who has worked in a mall knows that in a small store, employees possessions are often not locked up (due to the loack of space). Thieves trying to get in the back using the bathroom excuse is a well-known problem. Another reason is simply the amount of stock back there. Chocolates were shipped to our store "bulk", sorted by type. We packaged them in the front of the store- some boxes were pre-packed, others were packaged according to customer's wishes. The chocolates that we sold were preservative-free and had short shelf-lives, so they weren't packed for long-term storage. The stockroom was filled with rows and rows and rows of chocolates in wax boxes separated by layers of wax paper. Knocking one of those boxes over would result in five pounds of loose chocolates spilled all over the floor, and about $85 in lost product. Bump into a shelf and take the whole thing out while you're running to get to the bathroom, and you've got a couple thousand dollars worth of chocolate all over the floor. And if you don't knock it over, who's to say you're not going to steal it? Third, customers making a mess. Let's say the kid didn't make it all the way into the bathroom and had diarrhea in our storage area (even worse in an elevated position in the mother's arms). We wouldn't/couldn't sell that chocolate. Would you seriously buy chocolate knowing that a kid's diarrhea had recently dripped down the box it was packaged in?
Schoolkids Learn A Valuable Lesson:
The authorities are lying assholes. Whoops, that wasn't supposed to be the lesson, writes Jon Carroll on SFGate:
One day last month, representative of the California Highway Patrol visited classrooms to deliver some bad news: Some classmates of theirs had been killed in traffic accidents. Alcohol apparently was involved. The students, as might be expected, were stunned. Many wept. Some screamed. School stopped as people comforted each other.Then, a few hours later, the administrators announced that it was all a joke. Well, not a joke - it was an educational experience. The administrators had set up the stunt to make the students understand how very sad death is, and how drinking booze and driving is a bad thing. It was something the students will never forget, the administrators said, and oh how true that is.
The takeaway is: Don't trust anyone. Grown-ups will lie to you and try to make you feel bad. The world sucks even worse than you thought it did. Guidance counselor Lori Tauber defended the exercise: "They were traumatized, but we wanted them to be traumatized. That's how they get the message."
These are professional educators, and they are comfortable with the following pedagogic theory: Trauma is good for kids. It's an effective teaching tool. Why not teach American literature the same way? Harpoon a real whale and watch it die - "Moby-Dick" brought to life! They'll remember that.
And here's a fun twist on the idea:
You know that some parents are not as attentive as they should be? Sometimes they drink too much, or they don't have time to help with the homework, or they can't be bothered with making a real dinner. They don't attend parent-teacher conferences, either. Well, how about if an officer from the California Highway Patrol visited them at home and told them that their child has committed suicide.Teen suicide is a serious social problem, and it's true that parents should be alert for the warning signs. Maybe a teacher could come along with the officer and say, "Gosh, if you'd come to the parent-teacher conference, I would have told you about your child's last essay, 'Why Dead Is Better.' But I guess you were too busy."
And the parents would be given time to grieve, and told that after a few hours they'd be asked to come to the morgue to identify the body. But instead of the body, it would be little Jimmy or Jill saying, "I hope you learned your lesson now. We wanted to traumatize you, and that's just what we did."
Idiots. Idiots!
I'm all for teaching kids to question authority -- and everything else. But, this is emotional abuse. And those funny, funny administrators who pranked the kids should learn what a laugh riot it is to be out of a job.
Maybe you don't protect your kids by lying to them. There are those kids who will abuse drugs and alcohol no matter what their parents do or say -- which, by the way, isn't necessarily the same thing as using drugs and/or alcohol. And okay, it's a beyond-ridiculously small sample group, but tell me if your experience mirrors mine: Kids who are doing the best, and in all areas of life, and who stay out of serious trouble or trouble at all, are the kids whose parents are honest with them: parents who, or example, don't demonize all drugs, but tell their kids, for example, which drugs will seriously fuck up your life, and which drugs can be used in moderation, and when, and how to go about doing that. For example:
I've told the story of how, when I got to college, I found the idea of getting drunk so boring that I don't think I had a single drink when I was there. Why? Probably because my parents consistently offered me alcohol when I was a kid. (Which, I believe, is now a crime in some states.)Anyway, if my dad was drinking something, he'd offer us a taste. So drinking had no allure of the forbidden. And because we were offered it, we almost never accepted (tasted terrible). And then, being raised Jewish, we'd have wine at holidays (Manichevitz will put anyone but the most hardened drunk off drinking).
At 15, I got curious about getting drunk. Since my parents were unforbidding about alcohol, I decided the safest way to experiment would be to do it when they were there. We went to my cousin Patty's wedding, and I drank (ugh!) vodka and Tab until I was reeling. I threw up on the way home and my dad laughed at me and said, "I bet you won't be doing that (drinking too much) again." I didn't have another drink until I was in my mid-20s, and then only an occasional glass of wine. And still.
I actually have a really hard time with people who treat kids like they're these lesser beings -- more like pets than people. No, they don't have the judgement they will have -- or we hope they'll have -- but I find that you get through to kids best if you treat them like adults but with a lesser vocabulary and fewer privileges. By this, I don't mean pouring little 7-year-old Johnny a martini when he gets home from school, but not talking down to him. Don't even kids find this insulting? Don't they pretty much discount everything the down-talking adult says? I always did.
via ifeminists
George Carlin Has Gone To "A Better Place"
That is, if your life sucks so badly that you think it would be preferable to be dead and having your eyeballs eaten out by maggots. Here's a piece from one of his shows. It's "Religion Is Bullshit," of course.
UPDATE:
George Carlin on death here (thanks, Rip Rense):
I still have my dead friends Cathy Seipp, Marnye Oppenheim, Marlowe Minnick, and Marlon Brando in my cell phone numbers. I like that. I'd rather remember them than not.
Rip On Seipp
Rip Rense won first place for online commentary for his column on our late friend Cathy Seipp. An excerpt:
She was a friend of a hell of a lot of people, of course, and that's not just a "fine legacy," it's an important achievement in these times of snarling and backbiting as extreme sport. She was prickly, cantankerous, reactionary, unforgiving, forgiving, brilliant, incisive, caring, compassionate, all rolled into one potent complex human. I didn't understand some of her arch positions and reactions, and how they squared with a person of such heart---but then, I hope someone might make such an observation about me some day, so that's no slight.Cathy had the smarts and the decency to know that human beings are not the sum total of their attitudes or political opinions. She did not, as far as I know, dismiss people on the basis of political litmus tests, which as I said, is The American Way, nowadays. She took them either as genuine, as good souls, or not. Churlishness, puniness, pettiness, egotism, arrogance---I think these were some of her measures of disapproval. And so did she have friends of many views and attitudes---and so did she bring them together, at least in the L.A. journalism scene, no small feat. I mean, anyone who has elicited the admiration of Susan Estrich and the vile Coulter Beast has some unique mojo going on.
This was "Cathy's World," as her blog was called, a place where mensches were mensches and women were, too, no matter their points of view.
She was, as everyone who knew her will attest, immensely affable, once you got past (if you got past) the shoot-from-the-hip opinion of something you said/did/wrote. "Stop whining" was as apt to come from her as an observation born of affection. Me, I don't understand how relating a factual story of being treated like dog leavings by an editor merits a "stop whining," as I generally relate such tales out of sheer astonishment. But that was her, take her or leave her.
By the way, when you lose somebody you care about (scratch that, I hate that term -- it always sounds like misplaced keys)...when somebody you care about dies, the most mundane stuff becomes precious, because you no longer have the luxury of the mundane with them.
In an old purse I was getting rid of, I just found an e-mail from Cathy -- dated Tuesday, October 26, 1999 -- and addressed to me, Monica Corcoran, Hillary Johnson, Sandra Tsing Loh, Nancy Rommelmann, Samantha Dunn, Denise Hamilton and Jill Stewart...basically, the writergirls of the writergirl breakfasts Cathy and I started. (We later added Emmanuelle Richard, Kate Coe, Kerry Madden Lunsford and others as we met them.)
Anyway, it was all about meeting at the Village Coffeeshop and how we had to make it a little later so Sandra could get there after her meeting, and then, so typically Cathy:
I know you all said you were coming but people forget and plans change so let me know if you still are, OK?
And then, even more Cathy:
Suggested topic: My new policy -- the 110% kill fee. What do you think?
I think it's really sad when you'll take anything you can get of a person, because that's all you can get.
LA Press Club Awards
Well, I was a finalist for Journalist of the Year, and against Tim Rutten and two others from the LA Times, and I didn't get that, but I did win a first place award for my column. It's the alt weeklies/papers under 100,000 circ category:
C6. COLUMNIST
1st Place: Amy Alkon, Creators Syndicate, "The Advice Goddess"
Judges' comments: Alkon's column is a searing combination of science, libertarianism, and sass that makes for fun and thought-provoking reading. She's not afraid to make people angry.
2nd Place: Gustavo Arellano, OC Weekly, "Ask a Mexican"
Honorable Mention: Amy Klein, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles
My blog picked up a second place award:
I7A. BLOG - INDIVIDUAL
1st Place: Brad Greenberg, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, "God Blog"
2nd Place: Amy Alkon, AdviceGoddess.com, "Tea & Crumpet/Know Your Death Squad"
Honorable Mention: Jill Leovy, Los Angeles Times, "The Homicide Report"
And here are a few other awards I got:
B5. SIGNED COMMENTARY
1st Place: Jervey Tervalon, LA Weekly, "The Slow Death of a Chocolate City."
Judges' comments: Well written in a clear voice, this commentary takes readers into a community and gives them a look at changing demographics from a different point of view.
2nd Place: Amy Alkon, Creators Syndicate, "Look Before You Sleep."
Honorable Mention: Marc Cooper, LA Weekly, "East Versus West."
C13. HEADLINE
1st Place: Todd Cunningham, Los Angeles Business Journal, "Broke-o-Matic"
Judges' comments: Clever and appropriate.
2nd Place: Amy Alkon, Creators Syndicate, "Opportunity Knockers"
Honorable Mention: Jay Firestone, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, "One Camp, Two Camp, Red Camp, Jew Camp"
The entire list of awards is here.
photo by Gregg Sutter
Be The Woman Your Husband Cheats On You With
I just came across a wise passage -- one of many in a terrific book called Advice to a Young Wife from an Old Mistress by a woman named Michael Drury:
Wives and mistresses have different clocks. A wife can become so engrossed with the future that she almost cases to live today. Everything is for tomorrow: the children's education, the bigger house, next year's promotion, retirement, the long focus on some event not yet arrived. A mistresslives perhaps too much in the present, but this very immediacy, physical and spiritual, is a lodestar. More than one man has said, or thought, that with his mistress he at least knows himself alive.
The Two Faces Of Obama
Barack Obama makes most opportunists look like pot-smoking slackers. David Brooks writes in The New York Times of the two Baracks:
Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there's Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who'd throw you under the truck for votes.This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He's the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he's too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.
...Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.
Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don't go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.
...All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I'd use to describe Barack Obama. He's the most effectively political creature we've seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn't smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
Oh, and did I mention that he's not the only two-faced creep running? Yet again, we've got quite the pair to choose from, running for president.
Feminism Ruins Everything
An e-mail I got, which I answered rather ramblingly (it was late) reminded me of the subtitle of the Hitchens book, "Religion Poisons Everything."
The man writes:
Dear Amy,
I am an avid reader of your column and a big fan. I greatly enjoyed your response to Angry Girlfriend who sought advice regarding her 49-year-old boyfriend who lives with his parents (Pacific Sun, June 13-19, 2008). But I am still mulling over your musing on whether "when he picks you up for dates, instead of opening the car door, he helps you onto the handlebars." What are the rules and expectations here? Can a man who opens car doors for women avoid being labeled and dismissed as a "nice guy" (that is, a wimp). What are the rules in date and in non-date business or social situations? Does it depend on the relative ages, social standings or slots in the workplace pecking order of the man and woman involved? Do the rules change if the man is driving the car or is an entering passenger on the same side of the vehicle as a woman passenger? Having held other doors open for many a woman who then glides by with a contemptuous smirk or without acknowledging my presence, I'd like to hear your take on the social ritual of men opening doors for women, which until the current era (the last 20 years or so) I enjoyed participating in. I still mostly open doors for women but not with the same youthful enthusiasm I once did.
Yours truly,
Kind of Out of It
I respond:
There are women who think you're degrading them by opening the door. There are women like me who think it's a sign of good manners. I open the door for anyone getting into my car, man or woman, and hold the door for whomever is behind me, even if it's a man the size of a gorilla. I do it because it's polite and genteel, and I do my best to be not only funny and a little vulgar, but polite and genteel. I behave in a way that fits my values, and if anybody has a problem with it they can go soak their head and any other body parts of their choice. Sure, women will smirk sometimes - take it as your cue to have nothing else to do with them. If you have standards, have them, and have them without reservation, and shrug off the smirkers. To some women, you'll be an anachronism, like Tom Wolfe in a white suit. Doesn't stop him from wearing the white suit. What makes a man a wimp isn't old-fashioned standards, but newfangled lack of confidence. How old are you? Please copy this entire e-mail into your reply. Thanks, -Amy
He writes back:
Thanks for your reply. (I'm old: 65, but if the light is dim enough and I square my shoulders, I can pass for 58.)
I respond:
Just do as you would do, and don't worry about what people would think. If they respond with anything more than "thank you" they're boors.
More From This Week's Weirdmail
Look what else the postman dragged in:
Canada Goes Wackypants
I thought this piece had to be from The Onion. But, no, Agence France Presse. It's bad enough the Canadians are allowing the thought crimes trial against Maclean's and Mark Steyn. Now a Canadian father is getting slapped by the court there for disciplining his own daughter. Unbelievable. The judge reportedly found the girl's punishment too severe. An excerpt from the AFP story:
OTTAWA (AFP) -- A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl's grounding, overturning her father's punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet, his lawyer said Wednesday.The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer.
The father's lawyer Kim Beaudoin said the disciplinary measures were for the girl's "own protection" and is appealing the ruling.
"She's a child," Beaudoin told AFP. "At her age, children test their limits and it's up to their parents to set boundaries."
Excuse me, but what the father was doing is called parenting. More people should try it. It's how you raise responsible citizens instead of drug addicts and carjackers.
Now, the judge not only allows this little power play by the kid -- going to court against her dad on this -- but reverses a decision in a "court" she has no business meddling in? Canadians, you're in some serious trouble.
Oh, and note how the girl got to court -- using a lawyer in her parents' 10-year custody dispute. Sick. And the mother allowed this? (Per a Windsor Star story.) Even sicker. That's the antithesis of parenting. I'm reminded of the Golda Meir line, about how there will only be peace when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Israelis'. In this case, if the stories are correct, it seems there will only be parenting after this mother loves her daughter more than she hates her ex.
Sociology Class: More Manure Than The Barns At The Kentucky Derby
Hey, college students! Got a shovel? If you're taking sociology, and using a text by James M. Henslin, it sounds like you'll need it. A college student named Matt, taking a summer course in sociology using the Henslin textbook, explains what's so utterly cracked about it in a terrific YouTube video:
Who needs an evidence-based education when you can have a victimization-based indoctrination!?
Thanks, Robert
Do You Get A Discount If You Take Out The Whole Crew?
Do you really need to know that bad things will happen if you injure or kill a construction worker? Like, "Aw, shit, I was going to pick off the foreman until I learned about the $7500 fee."
photo by Gregg Sutter
Guns Don't Kill People
Gun replica jewelry kills people. Well, that is, if the terrorist seated behind you on the plane garrotes you with your gun replica necklace for good luck before he storms the cockpit.
Of course, he will be doing no such thing if you're a woman wearing a 1.75-inch sterling silver gun pendant around your neck while passing through Canadian airport security, and not just because the terrorists all have to be laughing their primitive asses off at how they've ruined airline travel in the Western world. (Does anybody with a brain think they're going to pick airplanes for their next attack? Then again...maybe just to show what idiots we have running security at the airports. Sorry, I mean "security." Security theater.)
J.P. Squire writes for the Kelowna Daily Courier in British Colombia of a 39-year-old Toronto woman, Marnina Norys, wearing a pendant in the shape of an antique Colt 45, who was "caught by alert Kelowna airport security." (Alert to what, eccentric fashion choices?):
"That's a replica," an unidentified security agent told the harried traveller as if she would understand that replica weapons, even miniaturized pieces of jewelry, are not allowed.Her jewelry posed no threat, responded Norys, and could hardly be used to hijack an airplane. "It's what it represents," said the agent.
..."How do you know it wasn't a real gun?" asked Guy, a security agent with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, who also declined to provide his last name.
"Who knows if there is a gun that small that can shoot bullets? You don't know that. They followed the rules."
Anyone who tries to get through airport security with a piece of jewelry that looks like a miniature knife, spear or any other weapon would be told the same thing, he said.
The ban on replica weapons is explained on the website www.catsa.ca, he said. Its 13-page list of permitted and non-permitted items does contain the wording "replica weapons," but isn't specific on size.
"You'd think they'd have better things to do than harass a middle-aged woman over a quirky piece of jewellery," said Norys, adding the pen she took through security could have done more damage than her necklace.
"Sounds like a Kids in the Hall sketch," said Margaret Resin, Norys' mother. "Were they afraid you were going to attack some Lilliputians?"
You have to find ruler and look at it to fully understand how ridiculous this is. Or line up a quarter and a nickel. The length of the two coins side-by-side is just a shade over 1.75 inches on my wooden schoolgirl ruler.
By the way, I read the other day on travel writer Chris Elliott's site about the TSA's "widely misunderstood 3-1-1 rule," about the 3 oz. bottles of liquid we're limited to in a small baggy. Except...we're not?
Here's the deal from the TSA site:
3-1-1 for carry-ons = 3 ounce bottle or less (by volume) ; 1 quart-sized, clear, plastic, zip-top bag; 1 bag per passenger placed in screening bin. One-quart bag per person limits the total liquid volume each traveler can bring. 3 oz. container size is a security measure.
And then, there's this, four lines below the statement above:
Declare larger liquids. Medications, baby formula and food, breast milk, and juice are allowed in reasonable quantities exceeding three ounces and are not required to be in the zip-top bag. Declare these items for inspection at the checkpoint.
So...are we or are we not allowed a big jug of freshly squeezed lemonade? Or Mommy-ade? How much is a "reasonable quantity"? Maybe you're a sipper. I go through a big bottle of Pellegrino in no time, especially when I'm writing.
Wait, there's more. These are the exceptions in detail:
Baby formula, breast milk, and juice for infants and toddlers.All prescription and over-the-counter medications (liquids, gels, and aerosols) including KY jelly, eye drops, and saline solution for medical purposes;
Liquids including water, juice, or liquid nutrition or gels for passengers with a disability or medical condition;
They've never heard of a diabetic terrorist?
And KY jelly? KY jelly? Who says flying is no fun these days?
I found the above TSA link on a blog item by Elliott (also linked just above) about how U.S. Air is going to start charging $2 for soft drinks on its flights, including bottled water. Not a problem for me, as I bring two empty water bottles and fill them from the drinking fountains at the airport. Well, except in France, where Air France recently made me throw both empty bottles in the trash before boarding. TSA rules, they said.
Elliott's take on the $2 bev fee?
In fact, over the long term, depriving passengers of basic necessities like drinkable water could cost the carrier more than the revenue it will generate.We can't bring bottled water through a TSA screening area under the agency's ineffective and widely misunderstood 3-1-1 rule. So you basically have to buy the airline's water at $2 a bottle, which is a steep markup from the grocery store price.
If you're a budget traveler, you could find yourself strapped in an economy class seat on a long flight with nothing to drink and no money to pay for essential water.
Oh, come on. I find that a bit hysterical. You can afford hundreds of dollars for a flight, but you'd rather chance passing out and maybe dying to save two bucks on a bottle of water? Or even four?
And they say natural selection is over.
gun link via reason
People For The Ethical Treatment Of Interns
Where are they when you need them?
This Week In Nut Mail
The weirdest, wackiest correspondence comes, not by e-mail, but with lots and lots of stamps on it. This was from one of the "the world will end soon!" types -- a rather regular correspondent who also sends multi-colored lucite disks with crosses embedded into them. I give them to the neighbors, who put them in their cacti.
(And just to clarify, no, I'm not suddenly experiencing my first episode of baby-lust at 44 -- he's referring to a letter from my column.)
The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!
The nutters' chicken little mascot for marriage, Maggie Gallagher, sounds the alarm at NRO that some gay people who want to get married might be...eeek!...swingers! (Kind of like some hetero people who are married or want to get married!) Eeeeek! Gallagher writes:
Second, many gay married couples reject "heteronormative" assumptions about marriage, and they (as well as the New York Times) are becoming remarkably more open about this.When Andrew Sullivan tentatively suggested in the early Nineties that gay couples have a thing or two to teach heterosexuals about the rigid presumption of sexual fidelity, the public outcry lead him to recant (and today, he gets mad at you if you point out that he actually did say it).
Less than a decade later, Eric Erbelding from the perch of his legally recognized Massachusetts gay marriage, is quite comfortable explaining to the New York Times that "Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical."
The truth is, it is probably the most boring gay couples who want to get married. The two lesbians in San Francisco who have been together since the beginning of time, for example. Are they swinging? No, but they probably wobble a little at their age.
And even if gay couples want to swing, or do anything else two consenting adults might think to do with each other or other consenting others...why is this Maggie's business?
Frankly, plenty of straight married probably have lifestyles that prudish Maggie Gallagher wouldn't approve of either. Maggie's comfort zone, thankfully, isn't the basis on which we grant rights in this country.
Marriage is a civil contract between two people. And contrary to the way the nutters I've heard on the radio and read in print are trying to paint it, there's no ding on anybody's religious freedom here. No, nobody is going to force priests to marry Adam and Steve, per the dishonest fearmongering of Gallagher and Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, writing in the LA Times.
The thing is, if you're a public official, you're in the wrong business if you want to deny licenses to people whose behavior doesn't suit you morally -- and this goes for whether we're talking dog licenses or marriage ones.
Dale Carpenter had a wise and informed take on all of this over at Volokh, addressing points like these three he listed (just below), as well as Gallagher and Stern's specious yowlings:
*Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. In 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination and the school now lets same-sex couples live in the dorm.*Medical services: On religious grounds, a Christian gynecologist in California refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. (He referred the patient to a partner in his practice group, who agreed to provide the treatment.) The woman sued and the case is pending before the California Supreme Court, which is expected to rule in favor of the lesbian. [UPDATE from Andrew Koppleman: "Right now the dispute is being litigated on a motion for summary judgment, so there's been no trial, but Benitez's allegations are on pp. 4-6 of her Supreme Court brief, which you can find at http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/legal/benitez/benitez-opening-brief.pdf. If she's right, then she had no choice but to go to that group under her health insurance plan, received significantly inferior health care for nearly a year, evidently because of the doctors' scruples, and was finally told, after wasting a year waiting for appropriate treatment, that she wouldn't receive treatment from that group at all."]
*Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Carpenter explains:
These examples, and others given in the NPR report and by gay-marriage opponents, illustrate many things. They show that there are indeed antidiscrimination laws that apply to those who provide services to the public. They show that these antidiscrimination laws sometimes require individuals and organizations to do things that these persons and organizations claim violate their religious beliefs. They show that conflicts between antidiscrimination laws and religious belief often wind up in court, requiring judges and other decisionmakers to decide how the conflict should be resolved under the law and the Constitution. They show that on at least some occasions antidiscrimination laws are held to trump religious beliefs and that, as a result, religious individuals and organizations must sometimes decide whether to comply with the law or to stop providing services to the public. They even show that many of these disputes arise in the context of religious actors who object in particular to gay relationships.What these examples do not show, however, is that gay marriage is "repressing" or "obliterating" religious rights or that "a storm is coming" because gay couples are marrying. With the exception of the Vermont clerk refusing to perform a civil union ceremony (about which more below), none of them involve a claim of discrimination provided by the gay couples' status as married or as joined in a civil union or domestic partnership. All of the cases involve the application of state laws barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that pre-date the official recognition of gay relationships. Neither the viability of the discrimination claim nor the viability of the religious objectors' desired exemption turns on whether the gay couple is officially recognized. In most of the cited cases, in fact, the couples' relationship was not recognized by the state, but adding such a status to the cases would change nothing about their legal significance.
The most egregious abuse of these examples to undermine gay marriage is the Catholic Charities case, which involved the application of a 1989 antidiscrimination law. That dispute arose because the Catholic Church objected to complying with the law for the first time only after gay marriage was permitted in the state. It was a fortuitously timed conflict for gay-marriage opponents given that the state legislature was at that very moment considering a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
So it is not true that (as NPR put it) gay couples "armed with those legal protections" newly provided by marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, are suddenly challenging religious objectors. The conflicts between the law and religion that NPR points to have been around for a very long time. They go back some three decades, to the very first state and municipal laws that protected gay couples from discrimination in employment, housing, and education. (Indeed, conflicts between antidiscrimination law and religious objectors go back even further, to laws that forbade discrimination on the basis of race and sex.)
Fear Of The Dork
Just posted another Advice Goddess column -- one in which a woman has a problem or two with my advice. Here's her question:
I disagree with your advice to "The Hunted," the woman who said a co-worker was stalking her at work. I agree she should be more direct, but what about "He's been asking co-workers about me and finding me on breaks" says this guy's harmless? Sometimes those "little things" turn ugly fast. A woman should heed that warning bell that something's wrong. Yet, you mocked her, saying, "Come on, a guy at work gives you reason to believe he has a crush on you and the shower music from 'Psycho' comes into your head?" Do you really think "Thanks, but no thanks" will deter him? She needs to say it ONCE in front of witnesses. Then it's Human Resources time.--Wary Woman
Here's an excerpt from my answer:
Yesterday, I asked a stock boy at the supermarket to help me get a jar off the top shelf. Before he could, another stock boy handed it to me. The first stock boy pouted, "I wish I coulda helped you." Later, he circled back and complimented me on my skirt. So, I tased him.Okay, I didn't exactly tase him. I thanked him and kept shopping -- probably a dumb move, since, as you point out, "Sometimes those 'little things' turn ugly fast." Yeah, you never know when the stock boy'll follow you to your car, clock you with a can of tomato paste, drive you to your place and make you watch as he gets your Wheaties down for you.
I'm not saying women shouldn't be careful. I'm saying they shouldn't go hysterical the moment they get attention from a man. Take this woman, who claimed she was being "stalked." The U.S. Department of Justice defines stalking as "repeated and unwanted attention, harassment, (or) contact...that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear." Whoops! There's that warning bell you mention. Only, if this woman heard one, it was "Ding! Ding! Ding! He's beneath me! He's ugly and socially awkward, and he's asking me out!" ...continued...
The rest is here, plus comments.
Who's Killing Marriage?
These two?
Or these two?
I'm A Colluder!
Well, kind of. According to this feminist blogger, Womanist Musings:
A colluder is a woman that disavows feminism for men's rights.
Actually, what I am first and foremost is a grammarian. That would be a woman WHO...etc.
She goes on about what "colluders" are:
They feel that feminism has reached all of its goals, and that the women that are complaining today aren't interested in equality...oh no, we are interested in ruling men. Since females in roles of power are counter gender norms, this simply cannot be tolerated.
Huh? Once more in English?
I'm not "for" the men's movement particularly. What I am is somebody who's for equal rights for all, not special rights under the guise of equal rights. I also really, really dislike victimism and whining.
Okay, so lujlp leaves a comment about his problem with feminism on the site:
You want to know why people assume feminisim has a vigina centered hive mentality?http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html
Because a the leader of a NOW chapter accused all men who did not vote for Clinton of being gang rapists.
She accused my little brothers, 17, 14, & 12 of being gang rapists when they were brought up t do what feminists claim they wanted - to treat the girls in thier class the same as they treat they guys.
And what was the response to this nutjob's psychotic rant? Nary a word of objection.
Your fathers, your brothers, your children, labeld as RAPISTS becuse they didnt vote they way this woman felt they should or becuse they act like children when they are in fact children.
And not a word of protest to be seen from other feminist leaders.
One of the wymyn responds:
Okay now I am irritated... 1) It is spelled VAGINA and I love mine 2) Clearly you are here to work your agenda and don't give a rats ass about what I am actually saying. This conversation is about fissures in feminism and the fact that there are different kinds of feminist theory and you give me they called me a rapist.
What lujlp said was interesting, and fact-based. The Womanist Musings blog post, besides the silliness at the beginning, was a total bore. Yes, there are many different shades of being a whining victim and speaking in that incomprehensible "post-structuralist" lingo and all that. Almost all of them about special treatment under the guise of equal treatment. Life is rough. For everyone. Try being a man in a custody battle, for example.
If you're against discrimination and injustice, you're against discrimination and injustice of all kinds. And you don't create discrimination and foment hate, just as long as the discriminatee has a penis, which is what feminism tends to do.
The comment I left on the site:
I'm against feminism because I'm against discrimination against men or anyone, and feminism is, far too often, a big whine for special treatment under the guise of equal treatment. It's also, very often, a cover for man-hating; for example, Diana Russell's contention that "a considerable amount of marital sex is probably closer to the rape end of the continuum."If you're a lesbian, fine. If you're going to paint heterosexual sex as a criminal act by a man most of the time, you're scum, and anybody who's for justice, fairness and equality, should stand up against you.
Wait: Do we hear even a squeak against Diana Russell from the feminists? The feminists of color, the Wite-Out-colored feminists? Anybody?
Nope. Because feminism is about promoting injustice not stopping it. Which is why I'm a proud "colluder."
(How ridiculous!)
(Thanks, lujlp. I needed that.)
Bank Of America Customer? Bury Your Money In A Mason Jar In The Backyard Instead
Every day, the mail brings a new giftie-poo, thanks to Bank of America. Today, it was a notice that my Kaiser health insurance was in jeopardy because the direct deduction I have from my checking account didn't go through.
For those of you just tuning in, I was forced to close my account in a rush after Bank of America tellers doled out $12,000 of my money in seven separate occasions. SEVEN SEPARATE OCCASIONS! Oh, and did I mention that they gave the money, in at least one, and probably all of these instances, to a large black woman with missing teeth and a fake driver's license in my name? Oh yeah, and with the wrong expiration date!
In between calling the credit bureaus, credit card companies (past and present), department stores with credit cards, the DMV, the post office, the Social Security Administration, companies that had denied this thief instant credit, and dealing with numerous BofA employees who mainly seemed to see their job as preventing me from getting answers or a letter of fraud in a timely manner so I could make a police report...well, gee whiz...it seems it slipped my mind that I'd have to change my Kaiser direct deposit to the new account number.
I'm now being charged a $25 fee by Kaiser, and I have to reapply for direct deposit, worry that my health insurance will be cancelled, and now, get them money this month and maybe next, I'm not sure, by check -- which I'm now too afraid to send through the mail or have handled by anyone who's a stranger. More time eaten, thanks to Bank Of America, who brag through one of their P.R. ladies, Betty Riess, that they have "multiple layers of security," clearly have no such thing.
I am tighter with my personal data than probably anybody but Bruce Schneier (for example, I don't use a debit card, consider checks risky instruments, etc.). Because the fraud started right after I put money in my IRA and was asked to update my driver's license info, I suspect that this information the thief has (birthdate, social security number, driver's license number) came from somebody at BofA, or from somebody who did or does data entry for BofA. Can't be sure, but the combination of information the thief had, including my account number, leads me to believe my suspicion correct.
I asked the employee at BofA who both took my IRA information and closed my account when the morons there finally stumbled on the fraud, to send me the form she had me put the updated driver's license info into. That was last week. Mail here takes a day. I'm getting angrier and angrier. Also, more and more suspicious.
Meanwhile, these arrogant cretins think they're going to deny me the tape of the perp so I can try to find her and have her prosecuted. Sorry, but those of you who read me here can probably imagine that I don't come off as a person who takes no for an answer easily.
I've got a book to write, but I'm going to call the Peggy Noonan of Bank of America on Tuesday -- a woman named Nereida Claudius, VP; Customer Advocate, Office of the Chairman, who has that same "soothe the mental patient voice" as the WSJ columnist/former speechwriter. She's going to have to do better than sound soothing, however, because she sent me a letter, dated June 5, in which she says:
"Although I must respectfully decline your person request for any available photos of the alleged perpetrators, please allow me to assure you that Bank of America will fully cooperate with any investigation you may choose to pursue through law enforcement channels."
What bullshit. Surely, they know the police are too busy and really not interested in pursuing identity theft cases unless they have piles of evidence they can break a ring. (Did I mention that numerous cops and even a detective told me that?)
I made a police report on May 30, and called the cops on June 11, and they hadn't even looked at my case. They are just flooded with cases like mine. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them flying in all the time.
I talked to cop after cop and finally got to the right detective in West L.A., and, on the advice of a detective I'd spoken to downtown, schmoozed her and tried to convince her that my case was different, solvable, to get them to even look into it. I told her all the legwork I'd done, that I thought the data the thief had probably came out of BofA or data entry people they used, and why, and on and on.
Meanwhile, I know the reality, and it's that unless I'm allowed this tape and allowed to pursue the thief, I will continue to be victimized, and so will many people who aren't as...can't believe I'm saying this...lucky as I am, and that's because I had frozen my credit prior to Bank of America allowing me to be financially ass-raped under the pretense that they have some sort of security protecting their account holders.
Oh, and as for their investigators, if they actually find something, do you think they're going to announce it to the public? My neighbors have just had their BofA cards compromised, they were told, and they can't get anyone on the phone who can tell them where, how, or why.
If I don't get action out of them on this tomorrow -- as in, get the tape of the thief released to me -- because I'm so consumed with writing my book, and a bit behind on it thanks to them, I'm calling the network news to see if they might be interested in exposing this. Meanwhile, I'm adding Bank of America to my chapter "The Business of Being Rude."
Here's an ABC News story by Elisabeth Leamy with news of (and comments from) other Bank of America customersvictims:
Not-So-Safe-Deposit BoxesSan Francisco resident Carla Ruff's safe-deposit box was drilled, seized, and turned over to the state of California, marked "owner unknown."
"I was appalled," Ruff said. "I felt violated."Unknown? Carla's name was right on documents in the box at the Noe Valley Bank of America location. So was her address -- a house about six blocks from the bank. Carla had a checking account at the bank, too -- still does -- and receives regular statements. Plus, she has receipts showing she's the kind of person who paid her box rental fee. And yet, she says nobody ever notified her.
"They are zealously uncovering accounts that are not unclaimed," Ruff said.
To make matters worse, Ruff discovered the loss when she went to her box to retrieve important paperwork she needed because her husband was dying. Those papers had been shredded.
And that's not all. Her great-grandmother's precious natural pearls and other jewelry had been auctioned off. They were sold for just $1,800, even though they were appraised for $82,500.
"These things were things that she gave to me," Ruff said. "I valued them because I loved her."
Bank of America told ABC News it deeply regrets the situation and appreciates the difficulty of what Mrs. Ruff was going through. The bank has reached a settlement with Ruff and continues to update its unclaimed property procedures as laws change.
Here's a comment below that story:
My recently deceased father left over $42,000 in Savings & other accounts at * with my brother named as Trustee. An unauthorized family member with NO legal standing, not named on the account or was not a check signer was able to get Bank of America to empty/raid my deceased fathers accounts. Now I am holding thousands of dollars of my dad's final medical expenses with no funds to pay for them. My dad took pride in paying his bills on time and had a perfect credit record. He stated my times prior to his death that his final expenses were to be paid and them the balance of any monies to be split among children. * took it upon themselves to disperse his money how they saw fit, disregard the names on the account and totally abuse the trust my dad had put in them to safekeep his hard earned money. Now we have to pay thousands in legal fees we don't have to get the money back, seek criminal prosecution against that family member and all because * is a giant in the banking industry and we are just "the little people". In searching for legal aid I found a Class Action Lawsuit against * filed in October 2004 for the very same thing they did to us. What can we do to stop this from happening to others...Their arrogance is amazing. They are so big and have endless resources they can cheat and steal from anyone not paying attention or violate all forms of trust. Can someone help us?
I tried to find the guy, but no luck.
Let's see how intelligent they are at Bank of America. Place your bets: Who thinks they'll be blockheaded enough to keep stonewalling me, and who thinks that will actually get me to sit down, cross my legs, and shut up?
Move Over, David Geffen!
I'm ready for my beachfront mansion, thank you!
Just when you thought Barbara Ehrenreich couldn't get any more ridiculous, she starts whining that the rich people have sucked up all the good vacation real estate. She's doing this in (where else?!) The Nation -- home of The Nation Cruise (bargain-basement prices here).
Nope, sorry folks, if you aren't a bazillionaire, there's nary a view to be found in the entire You Ess Of Aaaay!
Ehrenreich mewls:
I took a little vacation recently--nine hours in Sun Valley, Idaho, before an evening speaking engagement. The sky was deep blue, the air crystalline, the hills green and not yet on fire. Strolling out of the Sun Valley Lodge, I found a tiny tourist village, complete with Swiss-style bakery, multistar restaurant and "opera house." What luck--the boutiques were displaying outdoor racks of summer clothing on sale! Nature and commerce were conspiring to make this the perfect micro-vacation.But as I approached the stores things started to get a little sinister--maybe I had wandered into a movie set or Paris Hilton's closet?--because even at a 60 percent discount, I couldn't find a sleeveless cotton shirt for less than $100.
Oh, the horror, the horror. Some of us -- those of us who live in the real world -- know that you're going to pay through both nostrils and then some in a place like Sun Valley, and do our shopping ahead of time at Loehmann's, and more creatively, on Goodwill and on eBay.
These items shouldn't have been outdoors; they should have been in locked glass cases. Then I remembered the general rule, which has been in effect since sometime in the 1990s: if a place is truly beautiful, you can't afford to be there. All right, I'm sure there are still exceptions--a few scenic spots not yet eaten up by mansions. But they're going fast.About ten years ago, for example, a friend and I rented a snug, inexpensive one-bedroom house in Driggs, Idaho, just over the Teton Range from wealthy Jackson Hole, Wyoming. At that time, Driggs was where the workers lived, driving over the Teton Pass every day to wait tables and make beds on the stylish side of the mountains. The point is, we low-rent folks got to wake up to the same scenery the rich people enjoyed and hike along the same pine-shadowed trails.
But the money was already starting to pour into Driggs--Paul Allen of Microsoft, August Busch III of Anheuser-Busch, Harrison Ford--transforming family potato farms into vast dynastic estates. I haven't been back, but I understand Driggs has become another unaffordable Jackson Hole. Where the wait staff and bed-makers live today I do not know.
Uh...elsewhere?
Ehrenreich continues:
If Edward O. Wilson is right about "biophilia"--an innate human need to interact with nature--there may even be serious mental health consequences to letting the rich hog all the good scenery.
Oh, eat me.
As I commented on a blog on the WSJ site where I saw the link to the above nitwittery:
No, as a middle-class newspaper columnist, I can't afford beachfront property in Los Angeles. Instead, I am forced to leave the one-bedroom, 'hood-adjacent house I rent, hop on my bike and ride for an entire six minutes to get to the beach. Tragic, isn't it?
I may also be forced to drive, maybe up to 20 minutes if there's traffic, to hike through some of the most breathtaking mountain scenery a Detroit-born girl like me has ever experienced.
Another commenter, kemnit wrote:
Just throw a pack on your back and go backpacking. We did this a couple weeks ago in Yosemite. Total cost: $40 for two for three nights; $20 for the park fee, $5/ea for bear box rental, and $5/ea for a wilderness permit.
And having the brains to figure that out? Priceless.
And, P.S. Barbara, don't be too quick to knock the rich. At least they usually pay for their own health care.
Bad News For Retarded Terrorists
MetBlogs L.A.'s Wil Wheaton writes about the LA commuter rail's innovations in security theater -- random bag searches of passengers. He links to the MTA/L.A. County Sheriff's Office press release:
Prior to initiation of a screening event, signs will be posted at all entrances to the station parking lots and platforms to notify passengers that the deputies are present and the random security screening will be conducted. Access to the station platform will be restricted; passengers must pass through the checkpoint to gain access to the station platform.
"Suitcase nukes and anthrax in the line to the left! strap-on bombs, knives and guns to the right!"
It gets better.
Any passenger may refuse to permit an inspection of his or her baggage. A refusal to permit inspection will result in the individual's not being permitted to access the Metrolink system. Deputies will request that the passenger leave the station facility.Thank you for your cooperation and understanding as we continue to work to make Metrolink as safe as possible.
Right. Safe from what? Getting people to work on time?
The geniuses running Metrolink are here. If you're one of those people who's very impressed by people with big degrees from big colleges, note that all three of these dudes have them up the wazoo.
Turns out the Sheriff's department makes some serious bucks for "contract law enforcement" for Metrolink and others. Hmmm...maybe retarded search programs are actually kind of $mart.
via BoingBoing
Let's Reward The Slackers!
Charity for the car companies! $30 billion in taxpayer dollars tossed out to The Big Three -- their reward for responding to the oil crisis in the 70s by building cheap, ugly econoboxes for 20 minutes, and then going back to supplying America with vast gas guzzlers.
The Japanese picked up where they dropped the ball -- which is why I, a girl from Detroit who'd love to drive an American car, drive a hybrid Honda Insight. Wired has the deal on their blog:
The Department of Energy made a big deal of the hand-out, announcing it at a plug-in hybrid conference in Washington D.C., but c'mon -- $30 million? To be spread out among three companies over three years? What'd it do -- scrounge change from couch cushions in the Pentagon? EV advocates were quick to thank Uncle Sam for the money but said it's going to take a whole lot more than that to wean us from oil -- which, by the way, will collect $17 billion in tax breaks during the next decade.
Wait -- $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies? Uh...why? Are we a free-market system, or a free handouts system?
Again from Wired:
General Motors, Ford and General Electric will share the money, which Assistant Energy Secretary Andy Karsner said would accelerate development of the cars to make them cost-competitive by 2014 and commercially viable by 2016.2016? When the Chevrolet Volt and a plug-in Prius could be in showrooms by 2010 and Nissan says it'll skip plugs entirely and give us an EV at about the same time?
More on plug-in hybrids here.
Fantasy Islam Vs. Reality Islam
A Muslim who sought to impose Islam on Britain sees the error of his ways -- only by being immersed in Islam in Saudi Arabia. An excerpt from Ed Hussain's book in The London Times:
I was appalled by the imposition of Wahhabism in the public realm, something I had implicitly sought as an Islamist.Part of this local culture consisted of public institutions being segregated and women banned from driving on the grounds that it would give rise to "licentiousness". I was repeatedly astounded at the stares Faye got from Saudi men and I from Saudi women.
Faye was not immodest in her dress. Out of respect for local custom, she wore the long black abaya and covered her hair in a black scarf. In all the years I had known my wife, never had I seen her appear so dull. Yet on two occasions she was accosted by passing Saudi youths from their cars. On another occasion a man pulled up beside our car and offered her his phone number.
In supermarkets I only had to be away from Faye for five minutes and Saudi men would hiss or whisper obscenities as they walked past. When Faye discussed her experiences with local women at the British Council they said: "Welcome to Saudi Arabia."
After a month in Jeddah I heard from an Asian taxi driver about a Filipino worker who had brought his new bride to live with him in Jeddah. After visiting the Balad shopping district the couple caught a taxi home. Some way through their journey the Saudi driver complained that the car was not working properly and perhaps the man could help push it. The passenger obliged. Within seconds the Saudi driver had sped off with the man's wife in his car and, months later, there was still no clue as to her whereabouts.
We had heard stories of the abduction of women from taxis by sex-deprived Saudi youths. At a Saudi friend's wedding at a luxurious hotel in Jeddah, women dared not step out of their hotel rooms and walk to the banqueting hall for fear of abduction by the bodyguards of a Saudi prince who also happened to be staying there.
Why had the veil and segregation not prevented such behaviour? My Saudi acquaintances, many of them university graduates, argued strongly that, on the contrary, it was the veil and other social norms that were responsible for such widespread sexual frustration among Saudi youth.
At work the British Council introduced free internet access for educational purposes. Within days the students had downloaded the most obscene pornography from sites banned in Saudi Arabia, but easily accessed via the British Council's satellite connection. Segregation of the sexes, made worse by the veil, had spawned a culture of pent-up sexual frustration that expressed itself in the unhealthiest ways.
Using Bluetooth technology on mobile phones, strangers sent pornographic clips to one another. Many of the clips were recordings of homosexual acts between Saudis and many featured young Saudis in orgies in Lebanon and Egypt. The obsession with sex in Saudi Arabia had reached worrying levels: rape and abuse of both sexes occurred frequently, some cases even reaching the usually censored national press.
My students told me about the day in March 2002 when the Muttawa [the religious police] had forbidden firefighters in Mecca from entering a blazing school building because the girls inside were not wearing veils. Consequently 15 young women burnt to death, but Wahhabism held its head high, claiming that God's law had been maintained.
Where Hussain goes wrong is here, a statement he expressed after students were enthusiastic about going to Britain to go bomb people:
I vowed, in my own limited way, to fight those who had hijacked my faith, defamed my prophet and killed thousands of my own people: the human race.
Wanting to kill people who don't believe in Allah isn't a hijacking of the Quran and Islam, it's adherence to them.
Gold Coast, Old Coast
Each beautiful in its own way. First, there's downtown L.A.
And then there's a bit of old Philly.
I'm guessing George Washington stopped by, but just to ask directions.
The End Of "Acceptable" Racism?
We've got a black man running for president. Isn't it about time we ended the racism called "affirmative action"?
To me, it's lack of money that most divides people from opportunity -- and in my own biz, it's the racist "minority fellowships" and "diversity internships": "diversity" that translates as "No white people need apply." I often wish some white kids would -- and challenge the racism that so many don't even bother to question.
Jonathan Kaufman writes in the WSJ that many blacks don't want to lose the boost they get from affirmative action. (Well, there's a surprise.) An excerpt from Kaufman's piece:
Stephen Kemp, a successful black funeral director in Southfield, sends his son to a $24,000-a-year private high school. His son, a junior, has been receiving letters from elite colleges wooing him to apply. "When they look at his application they see he is an African-American male -- he has so much opportunity," says Mr. Kemp, who himself attended the University of Michigan. "Brown called him yesterday."Mr. Kemp thinks it is fine that his son gets special attention, because diversity on campus benefits whites as well as blacks. "If you are getting a true education, that has to reflect all kinds of people," he says.
The election, especially Sen. Obama's success in winning white voters, has Mary Donaldson thinking that affirmative action is likely to fade away in coming years as the country continues to change. "My son is 9 years old. Just because he is black, he can't think he's going to get special treatment," says Ms. Donaldson, who works at a pre-school in Southfield and supports Sen. Obama. "I don't want him to totally depend on something like that."
To me, racism is wanting a black president, and sexism is wanting a woman president, and not simply the best president, of any gender or color, for the job.
Lots of people have it tough in some way. Ugly women, for example, are less employable than beautiful ones. What about "affirmative action" for hags? Do we force Vogue to put homely women on the cover? Do we make Maxim make the real girl next door (the one who weighs 160 before coffee) their hottie of the month? And how about in other professions? Do we force NASA to hire stupid people? And, while we're at it, how about making scientists work as checkout clerks at the drugstore? Where does it end?
Makes Me Want To Kill Myself With Occam's Razor
Adventures in new math. (Hey, kiddies, just grab a calculator!)
Thanks, Norman!
Securing The American Dream
Look closely. A little something you didn't see in Norman Rockwell's day.
photo by Gregg Sutter
Sharpen Your Elbows!
United is next in line after American to charge $15/bag, starting August 18. Dumbshits. No, you'll no longer be getting on a flight, but getting on an airborne fight club, where people with coffin-sized carry-ons push and shove and jockey to get on the flight first to get their vast bags in the overhead.
So...what's the solution? I'd like to see people pay by the pound. And yes, I mean by the total poundage, human weight and all. I travel like Liz Taylor, with cheaper luggage, and minus the entourage, but I'm guessing I still weigh less, with my luggage, than a whole lot of other passengers -- like the enormous man on a commuter plane to some southern city who pressed me so tight into the window that I had an impression of it in the side of my face when we landed.
Other cost-cutting measures here, in this Micheline Maynard story on redOrbit:
Airlines are scrutinizing every step of their operations, from the tarmac to the sky, and from the nose to the tail of their planes, searching for ways to cut their soaring fuel bills.They are power-washing jet engines more often to get rid of grime, carrying less water for the faucets and toilets, and replacing passenger seats with lighter models.
Japan Airlines is suspending beer sales on domestic flights, except in first class, for a savings of 210 pounds, or 94 kilograms. Cathay Pacific in Hong Kong is stripping some of its 747 freighters of paint, removing as much as 440 pounds per plane.
I read elsewhere that one of the airlines is going to start charging $2 for soda. Does this nickel-and-diming really pay? Personally, I'd rather have it built into my ticket. You?
Reading, Writing, And Murder
Matthew Barakat reports for the AP on yet another episode of poisonous Muslim thought infiltrating the USA:
McLEAN, Va. (AP) -- Textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday.Other passages in the school's textbooks state that "the Jews conspired against Islam and its people" and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed "polytheists."
The passages were found in selected textbooks used during the 2007-08 school year by the Islamic Saudi Academy, which teaches 900 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax and receives much of its funding from the Saudi government.
The academy has come under scrutiny from critics who allege that it fosters an intolerant brand of Islam similar to that taught in the conservative Saudi kingdom. In the review, the panel recommended that the school make all of its textbooks available to the State Department so changes can be made before the next school year.
...The county conducted its own study of the textbooks last year at the request of Supervisor Gerald Hyland, whose district encompasses the academy.
Hyland and the county never released results of what they had found, but Hyland said in approving the lease that he is comfortable with the school's teachings, though he did so with a qualification.
"I would be less than frank if I didn't tell you that the curriculum does contain references to the Quran, which, if taken out of context and read literally, would cause come concern," Hyland said at the meeting at which the lease was extended.
This is the problem. This guy's a schools supervisor, but yet another dimwit who wants to believe the Quran is some sweet book filled with teachings of peace and tolerance, when the stuff they're talking about here -- killing the infidel -- is precisely what the Quran commands.
We're seeing more and more of this -- the infiltration of American schools and society by Islam. There are a more examples in a terrific Cinnamon Stillwell piece on SFGate, who reports that some public, charter and voucher-funded private schools are using tax dollars to teach Islam and bring in speakers with Islamist ties or sympathies. For example:
Last month, students at Friendswood Junior High in Houston were required to attend an "Islamic Awareness" presentation during class time allotted for physical education. The presentation involved two representatives from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization with a record of Islamist statements and terrorism convictions. According to students, they were taught that "there is one God, his name is Allah" and that "Adam, Noah and Jesus are prophets." Students were also taught about the Five Pillars of Islam and how to pray five times a day and wear Islamic religious garb. Parents were not notified about the presentation and it wasn't until a number of complaints arose that school officials responded with an apologetic e-mail.
People need to wake up to the slow creep of Islam into America. I believe Europe is lost, and will be under Sharia law in my lifetime. But, with our vast territory and huge population, we still have a chance -- if we wake up instead of going like sheep to the slaughter...like the commenters below Stillman's piece who cry "Islamophobia." Phobia? Phobia? Your religion commands you to behead me, and I'm "phobic"? Right.
Repeat after me: No, not "Baaaa!" But, "Islam is totalitarianism tarted up as religion." And, by the way, there's no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim; there are only Muslims who are uninformed about what's in the Quran, or who ignore what's in the Quran, which is incitement after incitement to violence against the "infidel."
Why It's Best To Be American
Do you think I suck? Maybe because I'm a writer, a redhead, because I was born Jewish, because I'm from Michigan, because I'm an atheist, because of what I write, or for any reason?
Well, I totally support your right to say so. In fact, I'll fight for it. And I can do that pretty easily in America, because the law is on my side. If only that were the case in other Western countries.
It turns out that speech in many countries in the West is not so free. And Muslims, when they aren't too busy killing murdering people for not worshipping Allah, are taking advantage of laws in Canada and other countries to squelch criticism of Islam and Muslims.
Take the sickening court case being brought in Canada against Maclean's magazine for daring to publish an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It. In that excerpt, Steyn argues that the rise of Islam is a threat to Western values. (Well, duh!) Adam Liptak writes in the IHT:
Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean's magazine, the nation's leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect."
Oh, boo frigging hoo. So, Muslims...your god, this Allah dude, is supposedly all powerful and all that crap, and your religion is, like, totally the greatest ever, but it can't withstand a little criticism?
Here's a thought: If you're too sensitive to live in Western society, why don't you all fucking leave? Go back to wherever you or your parents or grandparents were herding goats and beheading those in rival tribes before U.S. stupidity and shortsightedeness in the 70s allowed us to continue our dependence on Mid-East oil.
More from the Liptak piece:
Last week, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined 15,000, or $23,000, in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.By contrast, U.S. courts would not stop the American Nazi Party from marching in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, though the march was deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.
Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps "basically a Puerto Rican program." The First Amendment, Justice Eve Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase "the general level of prejudice."
Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
"It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack."
There's a responsibility on the part of those who disagree or abhor speech to debate it. You don't make hate go away because you tell people they can't talk about their hatred. You simply send it underground. And sorry, but what you can't see can hurt you -- and ultimately, is probably more hurtful than what you can see.
Of course, I'm opposed to the notion of "hate crimes," anyway, on the grounds that the notion is just ridiculous. As a number of people on this blog and elsewhere have pointed out, what kind of murder isn't a hate crime? And policing people's supposed thoughts is extremely dangerous territory, since you can't really know what anyone is thinking.
Liptak's piece also addresses the "Supreme Court's insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence":
The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to, and be likely to, produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article - or any publication - aimed at stirring up racial hatred surely does not.
Interestingly, the Quran would qualify as violence-inciting speech, as it does precisely that: commands Muslims to convert or kill the "infidel." (That would be us.) And it works!
And that's why Muslims strap on bombs and blow themselves and others up, and fly planes into the World Trade Center. (That and the fact that they're gullible fuckers -- believing, without evidence, the stories of the 72 virgins, 80,000 slaves, and the permanent woody they'll have in paradise.)
Hunka Hunka Burning Forefather
George Washington was kind of a hottie. Tall, too!
George lives on at the National Constitution Center in Philly in an amazing roomful of the framers of the Constitution.
Science, Texas Style
The slippery opponents of science in Texas are hard at work, writes Laura Beil in The New York Times, "playing to the American sense of fairness" and demanding that "classrooms be open to all views":
DALLAS -- Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to "creation science," which became "intelligent design," which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator."
The words are "strengths and weaknesses."
Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.
Already, legislators in a half-dozen states -- Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina -- have tried to require that classrooms be open to "views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.
"Very often over the last 10 years, we've seen antievolution policies in sheep's clothing," said Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education, a group based in Oakland, Calif., that is against teaching creationism.
The "strengths and weaknesses" language was slipped into the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the State Board of Education first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. It has had little effect because evolution skeptics have not had enough power on the education board to win the argument that textbooks do not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolution.
... Dr. McLeroy, the (state education) board chairman, sees the debate as being between "two systems of science."
"You've got a creationist system and a naturalist system," he said.
Dr. McLeroy believes that Earth's appearance is a recent geologic event -- thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion. "I believe a lot of incredible things," he said, "The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe."
America The Primitive. It's not enough that Muslims are trying to knock the world back to the Dark Ages, the Christians in Texas have to pitch in.
David Barash, in a subsequent letter to the editor, says it so well:
To the Editor:No reputable college or university will teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of atomic theory or the theory of gravity.
Evolutionary theory is no different, although I begin to despair whether it will ever be possible to drive a stake through the heart of the ever-shifting manifestations of the creationist.
David P. Barash
Redmond, Wash., June 4, 2008The writer, an evolutionary biologist, is professor of psychology at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Yes, we've got a guy running education in Texas who believes the world is thousands of years old, fuck the fossil record. If you've got kids in school in Texas...move.
This is how we're supposed to compete scientifically with China and the rest of the world?
Blank Of America
Call it a revenge chat. Live, on the Internet. Me vs. Bank of America.
I was looking for information about how Bank of America protects their customers' checking and savings accounts. They talk about "multiple layers of security" (in a Wired.com piece, for example), and then their tellers ended up giving out $12,000 of my money in seven separate occasions...on at least one occasion, to a black woman with missing teeth with a fake driver's license in my name, with the wrong expiration date.
My blog items on that are here and here. The nightmare continues: This woman, and/or others, has/have been applying for instant store credit on my social security number and in my name: Target twice, Kmart once, and Walmart once. That I know of.
My assistant and I worked late yesterday, so she didn't have time to get the mail, so further surprises may await. Every day is Christmas with these thieves, to borrow/get creative with a Gregg favorite from "Mean Streets."
Three words for anyone reading this: FREEZE YOUR CREDIT. The fact that I had previously frozen mine is the only reason why my life as I know it is not over; why I'm merely getting, "Sorry we couldn't accomodate your request for instant credit" letters in the mail.
The fun does continue. For example, I have to send legal letters to all three credit bureaus to get each credit request from the thief removed from the file (requests can bring down your credit score). And every day, I imagine the other people who aren't so lucky as I was to have Cathy Seipp as a friend (Cathy being the one who told me to freeze my credit, as she did, years ago).
Those unlucky people will be getting bills in the mail, and spending considerable time trying to convince creditors that they didn't buy that plasma screen and the rest, and trying to clear their credit history.
I just got a letter from disgusting BofA refusing me access to the videotape of the perp they gave my money to in their branch in Dixon City, California -- the access I need to be able to go after the fat black woman with missing teeth who not only has my driver's license, but my birthday and social security number.
I need this because I know the police will not pursue this like I will, or not pursue it at all. There's a huge delay in even getting a case started, thanks, in large part, to BofA refusing to give me a letter saying I was a victim of fraud in a timely manner, despite my spending DAYS begging on the phone to employees with all the brains and wherewithal to help me of a philodendron.
I can't know for sure, but because I am so tight with my personal data, and don't give out my driver's license number, and rarely write checks, which I consider risky instruments (because they have your account number printed on them), I speculate that this woman got my data through somebody at B of A.
I think this probably happened after I put money in my IRA in early April, and was asked to update my driver's license info in their system. I think this because of the combination she appeared to have -- not just my driver's license number but my account number -- and also because of when the breach occurred: days after I updated the info for BofA.
Somehow, last night, in my Internet searches for info on what BofA says they do to protect (uh, let's make that "protect") their customers, I ended up on a page offering a live chat with a Bank of America employee, and thought I'd have a little fun.
The transcript follows below...
Chat InformationWelcome to an online chat session at Bank of America. Please hold while we connect you to the next available Bank of America Account Specialist. Your chat may be monitored and recorded for quality purposes. Thank you for your patience.
Chat Information: You are now chatting with Gail . Welcome to Bank of America. How can I help you complete your online checking or savings application today?
You: Hi!
Gail : Hello! Thank you for you interest in opening a new checking and savings account. Do you know which accounts you would like or may I help with a recommendation?
You: I just have a few questions.
You: I'm interested in your checking and savings accounts, but I'm concerned about account security.
Gail : I will be more than happy to answer any questions you may have, if possible.
You: Great.
You: What do you do to protect your accounts so somebody unauthorized can't access them? I know what you do online, because my boyfriend uses your bank. But, I mean in the bank.
Gail : A customer can only access their accounts or make withdrawals with a current valid ID. Sometimes a second ID is requested.
You: When would they ask for a second ID?
Gail : It is normally requested for withdrawals and wire transfers.
You: "Normally"? Meaning, whenever you go to the teller to withdraw cash?
Gail : Yes.
You: So, just to clarify, if I go to the teller to ask for cash, you're going to ask me for a second piece of ID.
Gail : It can be requested.
You: Okay, it CAN be, but might not be. Hmmm, that makes me a little edgy.
You: Is it just not requested if the teller, say, knows the person who's taking the money out? Or are there other instances they might not request it.
Gail : You can request a note to be placed on an account to request an ID be asked for whenever you complete a bank transaction in a banking center, if you wish.
You: You mean a second ID?
Gail : The note can include to show one or two IDs.
You: What do you do to check that an ID is actually valid?
Gail : I do apologize. That question would best be answered by the banking center. I do not have the information that they use to check IDs.
You: Okay...I'll try to stay in your realm of experience. This is great to get live help now.
You: Do you feel secure having your money at Bank of America?
Gail : Yes. My account has been with this bank since 1996. I have never experienced any security issues.
You: So, you probably couldn't imagine Bank of America giving out large sums of cash to a person with fake driver's license in a customer's name.
Gail : Not at all.
You: Probably if it happened once, and the person didn't have a pattern of withdrawing large sums of cash, the person trying to fraudulently withdraw the cash would be stopped, right?
Gail : Most definitely.
You: Well, Gail, BofA gave away $12,000 of my money, and on seven different occasions, and in places I never go, and in huge sums. $1,500 here, $2,500 there. SEVEN different times. By the way, I'm a skinny white girl with red hair, and at least one of those times, they gave it away to a fat black woman with missing teeth.
You: You guys advertise your bank accounts as secure. In fact, a lady who works for you named Betty Riess bragged about it recently in a story on Wired.com.
Gail : One moment please, I will transfer you to my manager for further assistance.
You: I'm trying to get the bank to give me the videotape of the woman, but they won't. So...not only did Bank of America allow me to be victimized, over and over and over again, Bank of America isn't giving me what I need to track this woman down and bring her to justice.
Chat InformationPlease wait while I transfer the chat to Diego who can best assist you with your question.
Chat InformationYou are now chatting with Diego . Welcome to Bank of America. How can I help you complete your online checking or savings application today?
Diego : Hi, I am Gail's manager. I have been reading your chat. In this area, we help with the online application and do not have the full details to help you. I want to make sure you are in contact with our Customer Service Center to completely get your answers.
Diego : May I get that contact information for you ?
You: Perhaps you can tell me what you do to protect against people taking money out of your customers' accounts with a fake driver's license.
You: My name is Amy Alkon.
Diego : We are a help desk for the online application. It sounds like you are requiring more detailed assistance and I want to make sure you get that. Our Customer Service Center is available from 7a-10p and can talk with you one on one to help you with your concerns, Amy.
You: Diego, I've talked to lots of people there.
Diego : Please contact our Customer Service Center at your earliest convenience at 800-432-1000. Pressing zero at the prompt will help you reach us even faster so you may speak about this incident.
You: I'm interested in hearing what you do to figure out whether a person has valid ID or not. If anything.
Diego : I regret we do not have any further information in this area. We help with the submission of the online application.
You: You advertise that you have security.
Diego : Amy, I really am sorry that we don't have the information you are needing tonight.
You: Then please transfer me to somebody who can help me.
Diego : It appears like we may be better able to help you with your concerns in person. We do not have any other chat area. I am very sorry about that.
You: Bank of America allowed me to be financially raped, and is withholding information about who did it.
You: Diego, do you bank at Bank of America?
Diego : Amy, I am very sorry about this. I do not have more information for you.
You: Because BofA gave away $12,000 of my money on seven separate occasions to a woman who was not me, armed with only a fake driver's license in my name and a deposit slip. Do you feel secure banking in a bank with that level of security?
You: I mean, if you're honest, the answer has to be no.
Diego : I really suggest contacting us in person so that matter can be more closely reviewed for you. In this chat area, we help with the online application and we just do not have any access to anything. Please Amy I want you to get your help and regret in this chat area we are very limited in information to give you.
You: Diego, I've contacted numerous people at the bank in person.
You: I want the tape of the woman so I can track her down and have her picked up by the police and prosecuted.
Diego : I am very sorry for the inconvenience. We just don't have any further details for you in this chat area.
You: You sure don't.
Diego : You will need to contact 80-432-1000 or visit a branch. I am very sorry that is the only option availabe.
You: Diego, a word to the wise: Freeze your credit.
You: Oh, I've visited a branch.
Diego : Thank you Amy for visiting our chat area and giving that feedback.
You: Diego, it'll be up on advicegoddess.com tomorrow.
Diego : I regret this inconvenience you have experienced.
You: You "REGRET" it?
You: http://www.advicegoddess.com/goddessblog.html is the precise address.
Diego : Amy, I am trying to apologize that you are in a chat area that does not have the information you are seeking. I really wish more help was available online in this chat area.
Diego : Thank you for providing all that information.
You: Do join us on my blog tomorrow. Please spread the word over there at BofA that the squeaky wheel named Amy Alkon will keep squeaking and squeaking and squeaking, all over the Internet, and on all possible media.
You: I want to protect myself from further fraud, and BofA is preventing me from doing that.
You: Utterly disgusting.
You: How do you people sleep nights, working for BofA?
Diego : Thank you for visiting our chat session.
Last text message receivedDiego: To close this window, please click Close.
You: Advicegoddess.com, Diego!
You: I have to copy it to post on my blog first, but thanks for the suggestion!
Digg this blog item here: http://digg.com/world_news/Blank_of_America
Prehistoric Music Delivery Tool
The results of an archeological dig on the streets of Philadelphia.
Welfare For The Saudis
It's not enough that American taxpayers are supposed to bail out all the asshats who pretty much went to Vegas on a mortgage and a prayer.
On May 16, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice snuggled up to Saudi Arabia Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal, and they both signed a "Memorandum of Understanding on Civil Nuclear Energy," granting those poor, destitute, oil-rich Saudis our assistance in nuking up. From a U.S. Department of State press release:
The United States will assist the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to develop civilian nuclear energy for use in medicine, industry, and power generation and will help in development of both the human and infrastructure resources in accordance with evolving International Atomic Energy Agency guidance and standards.
Aww...just heartwarming, isn't it?
Congressman Edward Markey, chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, gives some detail on the dealie-poo in the WSJ:
Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions.Have Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush or Saudi leaders looked skyward? The Saudi desert is under almost constant sunshine. If Mr. Bush wanted to help his friends in Riyadh diversify their energy portfolio, he should have offered solar panels, not nuclear plants.
...In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "[Iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure why they need nuclear, as well, to generate energy." Mr. Cheney got it right about Iran. But a potential Saudi nuclear program is just as suspicious. For a country with so much oil, gas and solar potential, importing expensive and dangerous nuclear power makes no economic sense.
The Bush administration argues that Saudi Arabia can not be compared to Iran, because Riyadh said it won't develop uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, the two most dangerous nuclear technologies. At a recent hearing before my Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman shrugged off concerns about potential Saudi misuse of nuclear assistance for a weapons program, saying simply: "I presume that the president has a good deal of confidence in the King and in the leadership of Saudi Arabia."
Oh, goody. Well, let's just cross our fingers that Saudi Arabia is as stable as the rest of the countries in the primitive tinderbox that is the Middle East.
And one more bit from Markey's piece:
While the scorching Saudi Arabian sun heats sand dunes instead of powering photovoltaic panels, millions of Americans will fork over $4 a gallon without realizing that their gas tank is fueling a nascent nuclear arms race.
Sweet!
Debating "Bush Lied..."
Everybody's in a tizzy about the Fred Hiatt piece in the WaPo that says the "Bush lied" story isn't quite so simple. What's far too simple, as one of the first commenters below the piece points out, is Hiatt's source for the piece: a single report by Senator Rockefeller:
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word."In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.
There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
Sure, generally cherry-picked "intelligence" information; all of it designed to do a job: sell attacking Iraq to the American people. (Osama who?)
Deflating Hiatt's piece doesn't take much. Turn here, for example, to James Bamford's award-winning Rolling Stone profile on John Rendon, aka "The Man Who Sold The War":
Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam's men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.It was damning stuff -- just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That's why the Pentagon had flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm, once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa.
The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn't true didn't mean it couldn't be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the product of a clandestine operation -- part espionage, part PR campaign -- that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling the world a war. And the man who had long been in charge of the marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.
Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson.
P.S. Hiatt's lack of interest in the facts is well-known over at The Daily Howler:
But guess what? Fred Hiatt has a big fancy desk--and no apparent plan to lose it. In his column, Krauthammer blatantly misled the Post's readers. But two weeks have gone by since the column appeared. No attempt has been made to correct.For the record, Harold Meyerson misstated facts about Dick Cheney in a Post op-ed last summer (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/17/03). Hiatt didn't make Meyerson correct his facts, either. Under Hiatt, the op-ed page is the Post's wild west. Our advice: Double-check any "fact" which you find there.
Lovely Rita
She was our waitress at the Philly sports bar where we watched the Lakers lose Game One of the NBA Finals.
I haven't watched basketball in eons, and found it rather hilarious that, minus Larry Bird, one of the whitest men on earth, or anybody remotely Irish looking, the Boston team is still called "The Celtics," and not "The Really Large Black Men."
Oh yeah, here's really doofy team name: "The Clippers." The friend who made fun of them for that said they were originally from San Diego (get it: a ship reference, but a rather dainty one). And I knew that -- the ship reference, that is -- but they still sound like a bunch of hairdressers.
Now The Nutters Are Going Against Birth Control
From a piece in the Stevens Point Journal by Ivy Fargueson:
In prayer vigils or protests from La Crosse to Appleton, men and women encouraged people not to use birth control pills, including emergency contraception, for its role in terminating life."It is crucial to mark June 7 with a symbolic time of silence to memorialize everything we as Americans have lost," said Peggy Hamill, state director for Pro-Life Wisconsin. "The deadly connection between contraception and abortion is all too real. The birth control pill acts to end a newly formed human life."
According to Hamill and other supporters, birth control pills terminate life by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the womb. Anti-abortion activists say that's because life begins at fertilization, not implantation.
Pro-Life Wisconsin members also encourage women to take seriously the side effects involved in taking hormonal birth control pills and to talk with natural family planning doctors in their area for more information.
"If you're using the pill consistently for any extended amount of time, you will be participating in the chemical abortion of your own children," Hamill said. "If someone is very serious about not becoming pregnant, they need to learn natural family planning, which is very effective, very scientific and very wholesome and healthy."
Oh, bullshit...on all of it. Ask Catholics how many of their children were the effect of "natural family planning."
If you're a religious nutter against abortion, put your money where your mouth is. You pay for the pregnancy, including any complications, of those teen mothers and others unprepared for parenthood that you convince to "choose life." Next, you pay to have some nice, qualified infertile couple to raise the kid. And then pay for the to go to college.
And by the way, if you're a guy and you're having sex, and not with grannies, you're a potential father, whether you want to be one or not. The only way you're remotely safe from that is if you control the condom from start to finish, including bringing it yourself and never letting it out of your sight. And I wouldn't necessarily trust a woman who says she's on pill, either. An IUD, if she actually has one, is a much safer form of birth control, since she can't "forget" to pop it in one day.
Sound terribly cynical? You read my mail and tell me different.
via ifeminist
All Talk, A Lot Of Napping
At a certain point, a guy's sex drive calms down a bit. There's an idea about male menopause, called "andropause," but it's disputed (it's made out to be the male counterpart to menopause, which it's really not, as it's a decline, not a total shutdown in repro systems, per the link).
Anyway, I'm working on a question, and I'm wondering, if a 55-year-old man goes away for the weekend with a woman he's dating, and he doesn't seem to have E.D. or anything wrong with the parts, but just talks about sex and then doesn't really seem all that interested in doing it...but then gets around to doing it, and not exactly enthusiastically...this isn't a case of nerves or tiredness, huh? And it probably bespeaks what's to come...which isn't a whole lot of, uh, coming, in the woman's future, unless she's also dating Mr. Buzzy.
I think that guy just isn't into sex, or was never into sex. Maybe he's got a drop in testosterone, but I don't think he's going to turn into the raging beast this woman hopes he'll be.
This guy does what a number of older guys do in his position: talks about what trouble she's going to be in from him (like he's going to have a hard time doing anything but banging her), and then does anything but. I think it's an ego thing. Too hard to admit that he'd rather be shopping or napping.
Islam Gets Nice-Washed For The Children
You'll surely be pleased to learn that taxpayer dollars are being used to disseminate Muslim propaganda to American schoolchildren. Leah Fabel writes on Examiner.com that "jihad" has been redefined in new textbooks used in Montgomery County schools:
A new report issued by the American Textbook Council says books approved for use in local school districts for teaching middle and high school students about Islam caved in to political correctness and dumbed down the topic at a critical moment in its history."Textbook editors try to avoid any subject that could turn into a political grenade," wrote Gilbert Sewall, director of the council, who railed against five popular history texts for "adjust[ing] the definition of jihad or sharia or remov[ing] these words from lessons to avoid inconvenient truths."
Sewall complains the word jihad has gone through an "amazing cultural reorchestration" in textbooks, losing any connotation of violence. He cites Houghton Mifflin's popular middle school text, "Across the Centuries," which has been approved for use in Montgomery County Schools. It defines "jihad" as a struggle "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil."
"But that is, literally, the translation of jihad," said Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and acclaimed author of "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam." Aslan explained that the definition does not preclude a militant interpretation.
"How you interpret [jihad] is based on whatever your particular ideology, or world viewpoint, or even prejudice is," Aslan said. "But how you define jihad is set in stone."
So...how is it defined? This guy, Al-Kafir Akbar! turned to an Arabic dictionary to find out:
Arabic, for an English speaker, is like a language from another planet - the Islamists are aware of this language barrier and are exploiting it by planting disinformation about Arabic words and concepts in the minds of non-Arabic speakers. They, however, will not pull the wool over my eyes because I am learning their language.Very briefly setting some context for the non-Arabic speaker: Arabic words are based on a root of consonants arranged in a pattern; adding letters to the initial root and changing the vowels changes the pattern and the word's meaning, as the words below illustrate. "Jihad' is a transliteration, so I figured out the Arabic-letter root and pattern and then looked it up and from there found 'jihad.' FYI, while looking at the Arabic words below: Arabic reads right to left and has short vowel markings which are generally not shown in print (meaning, I cannot type them in, but they are shown in dictionaries).
From aforementioned Arabic dictionary (p.131):
جهد to strive, endeavor, exert oneself, labor; to overwork, fatigue, exhaustTwo points to make:
1)Those three letters are the basic root. Adding to it more letters and shifting the vowels makes words that have broadly related, yet specifically different meanings.
2)There is that definition we constantly hear - and that the Shaykh used. Well and good. Guess what? That word is not pronounced 'jihad.' It is pronounced 'jahada.' Hmmm.... now that's interesting....In the next column, same page, we have under the Form III pattern:
جهاد fight(ing); jihad, holy warThere is the same root in a new pattern of a different (unseen) short vowel and an added long vowel. Guess how that word is pronounced? - 'jihad.' How about that - even the transliteration is in the definition! That sure answers the question: does the jihad doctrine accurately follow from the word itself? !!!
...The Arabic word for 'striving' and the Arabic word for 'fighting'/'holy war'' have a common consonantal root, which hardly makes them synonymous. That, however is exactly what the likes of Shaykh Rashid - to English-speakers - pretend is the case.
"Jihad does not mean holy war," is the myth.
Here's more from an authority on the subject -- JihadWatch's Robert Spencer -- quoted by Deroy Murdoch on NRO (subsequent quotes from Muslims are from Spencer's What Americans Need To KNow About Jihad):
As Spencer details, jihad is an Islamofascist struggle for global domination, not just withdrawal of American troops from Baghdad or Israeli soldiers from Bethlehem."Islam is a revolutionary ideology and program which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals," said Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of Pakistan's radical Jamaat-e-Islami party. "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the Earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam, regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it." Maududi said this at Lahore, Pakistan's Town Hall in April 1939, nine years before Israel's independence and seven years before President Bush's birth.
...Islamism requires that infidels submit to Islam.
A 1991 manual of Islamic law, approved by Cairo's influential Al-Azhar University, called jihad a "war against non-Muslims." Reliance of the Traveler, as it is titled, added: "The caliph makes war upon Jews [and] Christians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax."
...Al-Qaeda's Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, rejects the Mid-East "peace process." "War with Israel is not subject to a treaty, cease-fire, Sykes-Picot Treaty agreements, patriotism or disputed borders," he said last summer, "but it is jihad for the cause of God until the entire region is for Him only."
Indeed, today's Islamofascists, the most diabolical anti-Semites since Auschwitz, are downright Hitlerian in their Jew hatred.
"Where did they come from? Are they human beings?" Iran's Ahmadinejad has wondered about Jews. "They are like cattle, nay, more misguided...Next to them, all the criminals of the world seem righteous."
Hamas' charter cites the prophet Mohammed's prediction in Sahih Muslim, book 41, No. 6985 that someday Jews will "hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!'"
"Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country," Sheik Ahmad Abu Halabiya said in an October 2000 Gaza sermon broadcast on Palestine Authority TV. "Fight them wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them..."
Check out this other film on the evil stuff people of this totalitarian system masquerading as a religion say about the Jews -- while the Jews care for Muslim children in Israeli hospitals...the children of people who cheer and pray for the Israelis' death. Here are more Israelis -- caring for Muslim refugees in Somalia. And here, black Muslim refugees in Sudan are being taken in by, of all places, Israel.
And there you have the main problem with the "peace process." True Muslims don't want peace -- and why would they? Their religion that directs every moment of their lives mandates violence and death to the "infidel." (Oh, P.S., kiddies -- that would be us.)
Giddyup
Socialists Against Housing Market Correction
That would be the two panderers now left standing. Paul Thornton writes for Reason that the candidates, in a "concerted attempt to 'keep Americans in their homes,'" have called for billions in spending to curtail foreclosures and shield home buying speculators from the consequences of their risky investment decisions...which really sucks if you're a renter who aspires to be a buyer at some point:
Foreclosures boost the supply of housing at a faster than expected clip. With supply for potential buyers (i.e., renters) increasing, home prices stand to fall (albeit modestly) to less insane levels, particularly in overheated areas such as Southern California, the region I call home. That increasing supply of housing and those lower prices could be why a Zogby poll released in April showed that, despite the economy's tailspin, most Americans think now is a good time to buy a home....Obama stops short of Clinton's 90-day "moratorium," but the Illinois pol also wants to inject $30 billion into the mortgage market.
Until the middle of April, McCain was alone among the major presidential aspirants in calling bullshit on this idea. The Arizona senator's line on the mortgage meltdown--that he would refuse to "play election-year politics with the housing crisis," as quoted in the Los Angeles Times--showed such deference to the free market, it was too good to last. So it didn't. By April the straight talker was peddling his own multibillion-dollar borrower assistance package--which, he insisted, would help only "deserving" borrowers, of course.
Lost in the rush to help troubled borrowers is an understanding of what this crisis isn't: a situation in which "Americans are losing their homes." More accurately, borrowers who can no longer afford their mortgage payments are becoming--gasp!--renters. "Americans are living in other people's homes" doesn't quite tug at the heartstrings the same way, which is part of the reason you're not hearing about it.
...Also lost in the flood of campaign promises is the housing bubble's true crisis, which barely anyone in Washington cares to mention. In 2001 renters who wanted to buy a house in Los Angeles County could expect to spend about $200,000, roughly the area's median home price at the time. By the peak of the housing bubble in 2007, the median price had shot up to about $550,000, which the California Association of Realtors estimated would easily take more than $100,000 in annual pre-tax income for a family to afford.
Wrap your civic-minded intellect around that one: more than $100,000 a year to afford a modest home. Candidates, there's your crisis--and thankfully, the market is already taking care of it, through the correction of foreclosures and the resulting increase in the supply of available housing.
If I don't have to bail you out when you lose big in Vegas, why do I have to buy you a new house while I do the fiscally responsible thing and rent because I can't afford to buy? (I am still holding out hope the candidates aren't going to make me make good on your gambling debts.)
The Taming Of The Shrew
So, why do you think Hillary lost? And here's a question for you: Do you think Bill wanted her to win or lose?
Maybe It Really Was Just A Revenge Move
I've long suspected Bush Junior going after Saddam was just a revenge move on Bush Senior's behalf: "Weehaa, I'm in charge of the troops now...send 'em in!"
From the NYT, the truth the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee weren't able to squash:
It took just a few months after the United States' invasion of Iraq for the world to find out that Saddam Hussein had long abandoned his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.He was not training terrorists or colluding with Al Qaeda. The only real threat he posed was to his own countrymen.
It has taken five years to come to a reckoning over how much the Bush administration knowingly twisted and hyped intelligence to justify that invasion. On Thursday - after years of Republican stonewalling - a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee gave us as good a set of answers as we're likely to get.
The report shows clearly that President George W. Bush should have known that important claims he made about Iraq did not conform with intelligence reports. In other cases, he could have learned the truth if he had asked better questions or encouraged more honest answers.
The report confirms one serious intelligence failure: Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials were told that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons and did not learn that these reports were wrong until after the invasion. But Bush and his team made even that intelligence seem more solid, more recent and more dangerous than it was.
The report shows that there was no intelligence to support the two most frightening claims Bush used to sell the war: that Iraq was actively developing nuclear weapons and had long-standing ties to terrorist groups. It seems clear that the president and his team knew that that was not true, or should have known it - if they had not ignored dissenting views and telegraphed what answers they were looking for.
Overall, the report makes it clear that top officials, especially Bush, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld knew they were not giving a full and honest account of their justifications for going to war.
We're not going to establish a democracy in Iraq; it was never possible in this Muslim country. What we did is remove a bad guy -- not our job; we're not the world's policeman, or we'd be in Darfur and lots of other countries right now, along with Iraq -- and that bad guy we removed kept a lid on all the primitive tribalism we see exploding in Iraq.
It's not going to get better, but we broke it, and we have to fix it. And why? Because the brash jerk from Texas now occupying The White House, one who got out of the kind of military service where he'd be in harm's way, thought it'd be cool to send in lots of other people's kids to kick some ass in Iraq?
Pen Station
I'm in Philadelphia promoting the output, not really of my pen, but of my keyboard, at the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies conference.
I was in Philly once before, for the Human Behavior and Evolution Society conference a couple years back, but it was so intense, I never left the Penn Campus except to go to Drexel to hear keynote speaker Daniel Dennett talk.
Anyway, I only now realize what a beautiful town this is. Here are a few photos from this evening:
This one's controversial Civil War Major General George McClellan:
And last but not least, here I am with (on the left) my old L.A. pal Tony Ortega, the editor who's turned the tired old Village Voice into a fun and exciting read. In the middle, that's the very entertaining Gustavo Arellano, who writes "Ask A Mexican." And yes, that's me on the right, with a big piece of trash in the middle of my torso. (Can't win 'em all!)
Why 9/11 And Not 9/12?
It turns out 9:111 is a special verse in Islam, enroute to the eternal land of perpetually hard penises, 72 virgins, and 80,000 slaves, the pledges in the Quran to Muslims who murder in the name of their religion. And no, I'm not kidding about the penises. Here, at Islam-Watch, they quote Al-Suyuti (15th century) a famous Islamic theologian and Quranic commentator:
"Each time we sleep with a houri (heavenly virgins) we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected (Muslims in heaven) never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world ...Each chosen Muslim will marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas."
An Egyptian intellectual, Farag Foda, criticized the backwardness of Islam, and was murdered for it in 1992. An excerpt from his words:
"Is this what concerns Muslims at the end of the 20th century?" Farag Foda asked in a column in October magazine. "The world around us is busy with the conquest of space, genetic engineering and the wonders of the computer, while Muslim scholars... were worried about sex in paradise." (Excerpt from Judith Miller's book, God Has Ninety-Nine Names: Reporting from a Militant Middle East.)
And finally, verse 9:111 from the Quran:
"Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden (Paradise) will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain"
The Islam-Watch post continues:
Verse 9:111 means what it means. A Muslim who is killed or who kills fulfilling teachings of 9:5, 9:29 and all the other verses of the Quran exhorting murder, rape, terror, and torture are guaranteed accession to Allah's paradise.Allah takes away from Muslims all rights and ownership of their life. Muslims will blindly engage themselves in Allah's stratagems of wars without any questions asked; and kill and get killed in the process. This is the only mode of actions that will earn them Paradise. Allah is the peerless master of incitement of violence and bloodbath.
A true Muslim mind therefore will be infatuated with the prospect of eternal erections and ceaseless sexual copulation with numerous heavenly virgins. Achieving martyrdom, while fighting Jihad or holy war as outlined in verse 9:111 to kill the infidels/enemies of Islam, is the surest of way of ensuring a straight landing in the Paradise of Allah.
...The Quran is written in the language of terrorism. It is filled with numerous verses urging Muslims to terrorize the non-Muslims, kill them, rape their women and take possession of their lands and properties. The important points to remember is that whatever Muhammad did to terrorize the infidels was actually the actions of God. Among the many verses which exhort Islamist terrorism, the following verses stand out as naked aggression of Allah/Muhammad on the unbelievers: 2:63, 3:151, 8:12, 8:60, 8:59, 9:5, 9:29, 9:55, 11:102, and 17:59 etc. These are the Eternal Laws of Allah authoring murder and extermination of infidels as a holy duty. The lives of infidels are totally worthless in the book of Islam.
The Quranic laws and commands are valid for eternity and binding upon all Muslims. The barbarous attacks of 9/11 are just one incident inspired by Quranic verses like 9:111 over the last 14 centuries. As Islamic martyrdom-seekers around the world are constantly seeking to unleash Jihadi acts like the 9/11, the cruelty inspired by the depraved sensual paradise of Allah will continue to afflict the humankind for a long time to come.
This is why we're stupid to pretend that Islam is a religion of peace, and to act accordingly. Going along with that propaganda simply shows ignorance of the religion. Islam is totalitarianism and primitive barbarism masquerading as a religion and it needs to be exposed as that at every turn -- before it gains more converts than it already has.
Obama On Defense
My friend who sent this to me wrote, "He sounds like the Miss America contestants who want 'a really good diet pill and world peace.'"
Left Like Trash In The Street
How does this happen? What do you think compels people to watch an old man be a victim of a hit-and-run, and then just leave him where he fell in the street? Car after car passes him, as does a man on a scooter, who circles him and then speeds away. Pedestrians do nothing. From CNN.com:
The chilling scene -- captured on video by a streetlight surveillance camera -- has touched off a round of soul-searching in Hartford, with the capital city's biggest newspaper blaring "SO INHUMANE" on the front page and the police chief lamenting: "We no longer have a moral compass.""We have no regard for each other," said Chief Daryl Roberts, who released the video this week in hopes of making an arrest in the daylight accident last Friday that left Angel Arce Torres in critical condition.
I don't know how you walk past the guy and live with yourself. How you can not help him. What is it in these people that allowed them to do it?
The Frozen People
I'm one of the lucky ones. I spent my entire day yesterday calling credit card companies -- credit cards I have and credit cards I closed and credit cards I thought the thief who stole my identity might have applied for.
I was supposed to spend the day writing my column, but I started going through Tuesday's mail and found a letter from Sears saying my credit application had been denied and another like it from Target.
This doesn't make me lucky. The fact that I knew the late Cathy Seipp makes me lucky. I already knew that, of course, and in spades; I just didn't realize it on such a practical level. Cathy was the smartest journalist I know about financial matters. She had disability insurance, for example, to take care of herself and her daughter should anything ever happen to her, and, at one of our writergirl breakfasts, she announced that she'd "frozen" her credit.
California was the first or one of the first of 43 states to pass a law that allows residents to lock up their credit with all three credit bureaus -- also known as putting on a "security freeze." This means, if somebody applies for credit in your name they can't even get into your file.
And that's all that stopped me from experiencing the constant, day-to-day ruin that people go through after they've had their identities stolen, as I found I had last week, after Bank of America let a forty-something fat black woman with missing teeth take out $1500 from my bank account in Dixon City, California, with only a fake driver's license in my name. She or she and other somebodies took $12,000 in total, within the span of a month. (Uh, don't believe the BofA P.R. about how they have "multiple" layers of security: in my sorry experience, they must just ask, "Would you like that in 10s, 20s, or hundreds, Ms. Thief?")
Bank of America let this happen not once, not twice, but SEVEN times, in banks in places I never go (Garland, Texas; Richardson, Texas; Auburn, California, where the thief also tried to get instant credit, and using not only that driver's license, but my social security number and birthdate). Chilling.
I began calling every single entity on my credit report, and a few that weren't. I had a closed account at Macy's, but you can't be too careful. And sure enough, she'd tried to reopen it. This is the one shining moment of intelligence I encountered in a day spent talking to numerous people with all the intelligence of a philodendron. I was told Macy's asked her questions that only I could've answered, and she couldn't answer them, so they denied her access to my former account.
By the way, this all started in April; April 14th, to be exact. Now, I can't know for sure where the security breach was; how this woman got my information, but I will say, I am unlike most people in the way I protect my personal data; for example, applying for those store discount cards in the name, "Mrs. Klaus, Elf's Ass Lane, North Pole," and covering the key pad when I punch in my ATM password, and never using a debit card, and only paying five people in my life with checks, which are extremely risky instruments, since they have your account number right on them. (That and a fake license are all anyone needs to steal your money -- if you bank at a place that has Bank America-style "security.")
Because I'm so tight with my data, and because this woman had my driver's license number, which isn't something I toss around (I believe only the bank, the DMV, and my auto insurer have it), something clicked in my head.
I'd just gone in in early April, maybe around April 9, to put money in my IRA. At that time, per my checking yesterday, they'd asked me to "update" my driver's license info, which I did. I don't know for sure, it's only speculation, but again, because I'm so close-to-the-vest with all my data -- never even shredding bank statements, but keeping years and years of them in locked storage -- I believe that either somebody at BofA or somebody at a company they hire to process data, sold or stole my data.
I'm working on chasing the thief. I believe Target may let me have tape of her, and I'm working on getting tape of her from the bank. The bank had better help me. First of all, I have a shot at finding this woman (if you look at my past history -- I'm two for two, catching George Gomez, who stole my pink Rambler, and Leo Laine, who did a hit and run on my Honda Insight in the Whole Foods parking garage).
And this is important, that I be allowed/helped to catch her, because guess what: I'm not the only person she's financially ass-raping.
In case you're among her victims, or somebody else's, I strongly urge you to get a freeze on your credit. And do what I've done with most of my credit card accounts: made them so they can only be accessed on the phone with a password that I've given them: the kind with a bunch of jumbled letters and numbers that's hard to crack.
I Broke It, I Paid For It
My fault. Stuck up a bit of code with some toilet paper hanging off its shoe on the Woz entry, which made comments on it disappear into the ether. If you posted one on that, please repost. Apologies. -Lucy Riccardo
Your Proctologist Called. They Found Your Head.
I was driving my tiny, 1900 lb. Honda Insight hybrid down Lincoln Boulevard in Santa Monica when I changed lanes. Either this somehow aggravated a person in a Range Rover about eight car lengths of pretty much open road behind me, or that person's just an angry fucker.
My car's a hatchback, just miniscule, and this creep pulled up practically into my trunk -- and I mean, as I was moving. And he stayed there. As I drove, he rode the ass of my car, probably just a few inches away. I was upset and scared, but I also wasn't going to let myself be menaced by the asshole so I took at deep breath and kept going to the stoplight at the same speed as the rest of the traffic, refusing to be intimidated.
Eventually, the driver swerved into the parking lane and sped around me. And then I saw the license plate, "The Woz"? My first thought was of Apple Computer's Steve Wozniak, the adorable Apple inventor-turned-schoolteacher I am forever indebted to. And then my thoughts turned to what a fucking dumbshit this Range Rovering "The Woz" must be.
I mean, the only thing dumber than driving like a menacing asshole in a vehicle with a personalized plate would be driving like one in a vehicle with one of those "How's my driving?" bumper stickers with the phone number under it.
Then again, maybe even that's trumped by driving like a menacing asshole, then, when I pull into the left turn lane beside your vehicle to take your mug shot, running a red light to keep from being photographed.
Get this: The Range Roverer pulled up long before I did (probably assuming they'd ditched me by speeding through another intersection), and stopped. In fact, it was totally stopped at the light, and probably for a second or two, because the light was yellow well before he or she neared it.
And then, when the Range Roverer saw me pulling up in the left turn lane to the left, whomever was driving it took off from a stopped position and ran the red. (Jeez...where's the moto cop who hides by the power plant building when you need him?)
So...anybody have any idea who "The Woz" is? Put the word out. Let's figure it out. But, keep your distance. If the creep's taking anger management classes -- which he or she sorely needs -- they sure aren't doing the job.
Freedom Of Speech In Canada And Western Europe?
If you want it, you'd better be Muslim. Otherwise, you're sure to be accused, and even brought up on charges and prosecuted for, a "hate crime" (in other words, a thought crime, as if anybody can know what you're thinking).
Muslim students in Canada are suing Maclean's for a supposed human rights violation over a book excerpt they published by Mark Steyn. Sorry, but do Muslims in Western society have a right to go about their business uncriticized? Does anyone?
Now, from the Belfast Telegraph, Brigitte Bardot's latest conviction for "racial hatred." (Newsflash: Muslims aren't a race. In fact, they're recruiting from all races.)
Former French film star Brigitte Bardot has been convicted of provoking discrimination and racial hatred by writing that Muslims were destroying France.In a letter to the then Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy in December 2006, she claimed that France was "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying our country by imposing its acts."
The letter was also published on Bardot's official website.
Bardot, who is an animal rights activist, was criticising a Muslim festival, Eid al-Adha, which is celebrated by slaughtering sheep.
As for Muslim values, sorry, but are we supposed to love and support totalitarianism masquerading as religion, with a book that commands its followers to deny women rights and kill or convert the "infidel"? (Pssst. That would be us. On both counts -- being a woman and an "infidel" in my case.)
To Brigitte: Keep up the great work!
The Reality Of Iraq
These days, nobody's talking about turning Iraq into a democracy or instilling Western values -- I think because this fantasy of turning Iraq into some little Muslim version of America or some other free country just seems ridiculous now.
"Mission Accomplished"!
Uh, yeah...right.
What is our goal there now? Our real goal, from those who got us in there, and are about to depart office and leave their mess to the next jerk in The Oval Office?
Because the reality of Iraq, a Muslim country is this sort of thing -- a follow-up story in The Observer about that 17-year-old Iraqi girl who was brutally killed by her father over her friendship with a British soldier. Afif Sarhan and Caroline Davies write that the mother has been gunned down by the father:
Leila Hussein lived her last few weeks in terror. Moving constantly from safe house to safe house, she dared to stay no longer than four days at each. It was the price she was forced to pay after denouncing and divorcing her husband - the man she witnessed suffocate, stamp on, then stab their young daughter Rand in a brutal 'honour' killing for which he has shown no remorse.Though she feared reprisals for speaking out, she really believed that she would soon be safe. Arrangements were well under way to smuggle her to the Jordanian capital, Amman. In fact, she was on her way to meet the person who would help her escape when a car drew up alongside her and two other women who were walking her to a taxi. Five bullets were fired: three of them hit Leila, 41. She died in hospital after futile attempts to save her.
Her death, on 17 May, is the shocking denouement to a tragedy which had its origins in an innocent friendship between her student daughter, Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, and a blond, 22-year-old British soldier known only as Paul.
The two had met while Rand, an English student at Basra University, was working as a volunteer helping displaced families and he was distributing water. Although their friendship appears to have involved just brief, snatched conversations over four months, Rand had confided her romantic feelings for Paul to her best friend, Zeinab, 19.
She died, still a virgin, four months after she had last seen him when her father, Abdel-Qader Ali, 46, discovered that she had been seen talking 'to the enemy' in public. She had brought shame on his honour, was his defence, and he had to cleanse his family name. Despite openly admitting the murder, he has received no punishment.
It was two weeks after Rand's death on 16 March that a grief-stricken Leila, unable to bear living under the same roof as her husband, found the strength to leave him. She had been beaten and had had her arm broken. It was a courageous move. Few women in Iraq would contemplate such a step. Leila told The Observer in April: 'No man can accept being left by a woman in Iraq. But I would prefer to be killed than sleep in the same bed as a man who was able to do what he did to his own daughter.'
Her words were to prove prescient. Leila turned to the only place she could, a small organisation in Basra campaigning for the rights of women and against 'honour' killings. Almost immediately she began receiving threats - notes calling her a 'prostitute' and saying she deserved to die like her daughter.
Even her sons Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, whom she claimed aided their father in their sister's killing, disowned her. Meanwhile, her husband, a former government employee, escaped any charges, and even told The Observer that police had congratulated him on what he had done.
What we should've done in the Middle East struck with awesome force, and flattened the area in Afghanistan where the terrorists who struck us are hiding, instead of going into Iraq, a country that did not attack us, and with too little firepower, and too-large expectations.
Meanwhile, yes, Saddam was a brutal bastard. Are the Iraqi people better off now that we've come in there and toppled him? Maybe the Kurds are, but instead of lifting these people out of Muslim fundamentalism, we've thrown them into it in a way they weren't before. From a UPI story by Ben Lando:
Iraqi women say they are increasingly targeted for anything from their clothes to driving to attending school, as society shifts from Saddam Hussein's brutality to one facing violence in the streets and religious fundamentalism.Iraq's ambassador to the United States, Samir Sumaida'ie, began his welcome to the International Women's Day celebration he was hosting this week not with the praises for his countrywomen, but with a moment of silence.
Guests packed into the embassy reception hall bowed their heads -- some covered in the Muslim hijab, most not -- "to remember what Iraqi women have endured and are enduring," he said before dusting off a quick chronology of Iraqi women's achievements: 1923, the first women's magazine; 1935, the first woman law school graduate and doctor; 1938, the first woman judge.
"That was at a time when our neighbors didn't allow their girls to go to school," Sumaida'ie added.
Iraq's Constitution is intended to ensure this doesn't happen. A quarter of Parliament itself is to be female. Women voted in post-Saddam elections, a favorite reminder of the Bush administration. There's little overt U.S. attention to their ongoing struggles, however, as violence forces Iraqi women into widowhood and threatens them sexually.
"Iraqi women have not always been in such desperate state," Sumaida'ie said. They raised families with "remarkable courage and remarkable fortitude ... in extraordinary circumstances."
A new report from Women for Women International notes Iraqi women polled say the situation since 2004 has gotten worse. Nearly 70 percent of Iraqi women respondents think women are increasingly targeted in Iraq and attribute it to "less respect for women's rights than before, that women are thought of as possessions, and that the economy has gotten worse." Just more than 76 percent "said that girls in their families are not allowed to attend school, and 56.7 percent said that girls' ability to attend school has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion."
And here, a bit about life in Basra, where the murdered girl and her murdered mother lived:
Basra, the formerly cosmopolitan oil capital in southern Iraq once known as the "Venice of the Middle East," witnessed specific targeting of women. At least 57 women, warned to cover up by ominous graffiti on city walls, were found killed.
So...if Iraqi women not better off now for our intervention...when do we predict they will be better off? And is this yet another piece of "We had to destroy the country to save it"? When, exactly, will we be saving it?
Still Clinging To The Pole Like The 70s Cat
You know, that old "hang in there, baby" poster? I woke up on deadline day to find that there was a "router issue" at nexcess.net, our otherwise good, Ann Arbor-based server company. This must've affected a lot of people because the phone was "all circuits are busy" from 5 a.m. when the alarm rang, and I only found out what the problem was at 5:34, when they answered my desperate e-mail for help.
Well, it's a good thing they're up now. Gregg picked them, both because they have good reviews, and because they are on State Street in Ann Arbor, so he can march in there when he's in Detroit if they aren't coming through for me. I love that!
"What Did You Do In School Today, Dear?"
"Nothing much, Mommy. We just played female genital mutilation."
Seven years after 19 Saudis mass-murdered 3,000 Americans, a New Hampshire school is celebrating what it's like to be Saudi. Aww, isn't that just so sweetly multi-culti?
Warner Todd Huston writes of an unbelievably ill-thought "cultural exchange":
On May 9, the kids of the Amherst Middle School in Amherst, New Hampshire, were forced to parade about their school dressed as "Saudi Arabians" so that they could "learn from people around the world" in a happy day of multiculturalism. But, what they ended up being taught was the wholly sanitized version of how wonderful Saudi society is instead of the truth.
A few examples of the day's activities, as outlined in The Milford Cabinet, a newspaper apparently without editors in a state of physical consciousness:
• During the check-in, guests selected a traditional Arabic name for their name badge and completed an actual Saudi customs form, which warned in bold letters "Death for Drug Trafficking " at the top.
• ...as the traditions of Saudi Arabia at this time prevent women from participating in these public roles.
• Seventh-grade girls hosted the hijab and veil stations, where other female guests learned how to wear the required head covering and veils. An antique trunk full of black abayas worn by women, and white thobes worn by the men, were available for guests to try on.
• An Islamic religion station included a Muslim prayer rug with a compass imbedded in it to locate Mecca, readings on the Islamic faith, call to prayer items and prayer beads.So, this school taught these children to be accepting and tolerant of excluding women, forcing them to hide behind a veil, and were told that the Muslim religion was something they should try on for fun?
Wonderful.
I can't help wondering if these middle school kids learned of the honor killings and the female genital mutilation called "female circumcision" that women are forced to go through in Saudi Arabia? Were these innocent American kids told that the Saudis have thuggish, pseudo "police" that roam the streets that beat people up who seem to be breaking their strict religious dress codes that religious zealots in government force upon the people? Did they learn of the oppressive laws that prevent people of other religious faiths from practicing their religions? Also, did they learn that the Saudis export bin Ladden's style of terror all across the world? Did they learn that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?
I wonder, did these impressionable American kids lean any of these facts? Not according to the Milford Cabinet they didn't.
...Only in the west can we see oppressive cultural ideas that are antithetical to freedom and liberty promulgated as a fun thing for our children to learn about.
Let's Have A Little Chat About "Normal"
I think it's pretty obvious: I am not "normal," as in, anywhere near the norm, and have never been -- well, except when I'm in a room with only my little sister Caroline, who's wacky in her own right.
In addition, I was diagnosed about 10 years ago with ADHD, which I don't consider a disease, just a description for a very busy brain. Basically, my head can feel like it's home of a family of squirrels, each running off in a different direction to engage in a different activity at the same time.
That said, I'm able to eat, sleep, feed myself, hold a job, socialize, and flush, and pay my bills (and even catch the occasional criminal from time to time) -- all without help from the state. I think that is an okay goal to have for people we bring into the world -- and a good reason, if there's a reasonable chance, medically, that a person won't be able to meet that goal with the kids they have, that they should avoid procreating, and consider adopting. (Yeah, boo frigging hoo, you're Jewish and the kid looks Chinese.)
Of course, not everyone thinks this way. This woman, for example:
I am a mom of 5 children. 2 of my children have autism. One has Spastic Dysplegia, which is a form of Cerebral Palsy. Before reading any further, I want to answer the typical questions: 1) Yes, they are all, biologically mine. 2) After I had one child with severe disabilities, why did I have another? Why not?Your world changes when you have children with disabilities that society doesn't understand. There is a fear factor involved, when society doesn't see what they have labeled as "normal". Sad as it is, we are a judgmental world, bordering on wanting only the best, to making sure we do have only the best. 72% of pregnancies that are confirmed, through an amniocentesis, with Down's syndrome, are aborted. Sad, since Down's kids are the most beautiful children. However, in the eyes of our society of today, they are not normal-therefore, labeled as imperfect.
Life changes when you have your first child. That is a fact with all couples that have children. Nothing is ever as it was again. Your life becomes a challenge, daily in ways you never imagined.
For example:
His sister is extremely smart, but totally unverbal. Her movements are sporadic and she makes sounds, constantly that make no sense. She is easy to overwhelm and fast to be aggravated in the simplest of conditions. Her autism is severe, with vast areas of many spectrums of the disease. Yet, Taylor can understand every word you say. She might not look at you in the eye but, you don't need to talk to her like she is a small puppy. i speak to her as I do with everyone, and don't treat her (or any of my children, labeled as disabled) any differently. She knows who is due on what day, at what time. She knows when the bus will be coming to pick her up for school, and she knows where she is to go when she gets there. She knows who is who, and where they belong. She can type in the most complex url on the computer, and get to any website she wants to. She is fascinated with YOUTUBE at the moment. She loves music, but will keep repeating the segment, over and over to hear the part of the song that really seems to please her.She will twirl the top of a plastic helicopter for hours. She will flip the pages of the same book, readiing (yes, reading) the words, even though she knows every word by heart. She uses an electronic talking board at school and speaks in full sentences. Yet, she works on routine and timers. The smallest amount of routine change can set her off to high-pitched yelling and even hitting.
Taylor has no shut off valve for eating. She would eat until her stomach exploded. It is a stim that is part of her realm of her world. Food is there, therefore, must be eaten. She enjoys it. So, I have to tape the refrigerator every night so, if she does roam during the night (as she is known to do), she won't get into the refrigerator and eat everything she can find before daybreak. I have to do the same with the freezer-she will eat french fries, frozen..or, she will eat an entire box of waffles-only difference being, she knows how to use the microwave and will heat them.
This is just part of our lives. All 3 children have incontinence issues; from minor to severe. Sean has them at night, for he sleeps so deeply. Colin cannot be trained at all. Taylor will do one in the toilet, but has yet to try a BM-I am pretty sure it is the time involved in such a task-she would have to sit in one spot longer and it is something she has a hard time doing. She is extremely active. She paces a lot, goes from room to room, and has a hard time staying still for long amounts of time.
And who pays? Apparently, and not surprisingly, it sounds like we do; at least in part:
Today, I interviewed a new Supportive Care provider for Taylor. She is a former paraprofessional from the Blue Valley School System, here in Kansas. I allowed her to bring her son, age 2 because..well, I am not a formal interviewer. I also wanted to see how Taylor would be with a child, so young around this woman that might be her next provider. The woman wanted to know if I pay gas mileage (As if! This is a benefit from the state. When they pay me, I will pay others)
There's a Spanish proverb: "Take what you need, but pay for it." No -- not "Do whatever you want and make other people pick up the tab." Now, I can only speculate from the little bit posted above that that's what's going on, and that that's not all "other people" are lkely to be picking up.
I wonder...who will care for these children, physically and financially, when this woman (and/or her husband) grows too old or gets sick or dies?
Whoops, perhaps not a question she's answered.
Mann Working
Actually, it's Gregg with two G's, and he's doing a few fixes on my site. He's now swatted most of the big bugs and comments are now working -- although the formatting on them is a little off (names above the comment, same size as the comment text, etc). Sorry about this...all will be swept up very soon. -Amy
Meet The New Face Of Al Qaeda
The face of homicide bombing is changing. Foreign Policy has some unexpected, or somewhat unexpected, perps:
Muriel DegauqueCountry of birth: Belgium
Age: 38
Mission: Suicide bombing in Baquba, Iraq
Background: Friends remember Degauque, born a Catholic in the sleepy Belgian town of Charleroi, as an average student who was well-dressed and well-mannered. She converted to Islam after struggling to break addictions to alcohol and drugs. Her religious beliefs reportedly became radicalized after she married a Belgian Muslim who was known to local authorities as an extremist. Traveling to Iraq via Syria in 2005, Degauque died on November 9 of that year when she carried out a suicide bombing attack against a U.S. military patrol.
Why she matters: Terrorism experts believe Degauque was the first European Muslim woman to execute a suicide attack. European women who marry Muslim men are now the largest source of religious conversions in Europe, and European counterterrorism officials are increasingly concerned that female converts represent a small but potentially deadly element of the terrorist threat in Europe.
Also from Foreign Policy, The Worst Places To Be A Terrorist. Surprisingly, France is one of them:
FranceKey tactics: Though many Americans view them as softies when it comes to the war on terror, the French actually have some of the world's toughest and arguably most effective antiterrorism laws. In France, terrorist investigations are overseen by a special unit of magistrates with unprecedented powers to monitor suspects, enlist the help of other branches of law enforcement, and detain suspects for days without charges. Additionally, prosecutors have a mandate to pursue terrorists abroad if the suspect or victim is French. France is also not shy about deporting Muslim clerics it views as threatening. It shouldn't be surprising that French law enforcement is well set up for counterterrorism: France was the first European country to fall victim to Middle Eastern terrorism during the Algerian war in the 1950s.
In action: France has not had a terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11, but it claims to have foiled several, including a chemical attack planned by Chechen operatives against Russian targets in Paris, a planned bombing of one of Paris's airports, and a 9/11-like airline plot against the Eiffel Tower.
Concerns: French civil libertarians have raised concerns about detentions that, in some cases, can last for years without trials. Allegations of police brutality are also common in France's predominantly Muslim suburbs.
And, while we're at it, "Let's Call A Terrorist A Terrorist," write P. W. Singer and Elina Noor in The New York Times:
IMAGINE if Franklin D. Roosevelt had taken to calling Adolf Hitler the "leader of the National Socialist Aryan patriots" or dubbed Japanese soldiers fighting in World War II as the "defenders of Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere."To describe the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese Army in terms that incorporated their own propaganda would have been self-defeating. Unfortunately, that is what many American policymakers have been doing by calling terrorists "jihadists" or "jihadis."
While the State Department recently circulated an internal memo advising foreign service officers to avoid such terms, President Bush, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and members of the news media continue to use them.
The word "jihad" means to "strive" or "struggle," and in the Muslim world it has traditionally been used in tandem with "fi sabilillah" ("in the path of God"). The term has long been taken to mean either a quest to find one's faith or an external fight for justice. It makes sense, then, for terrorists to associate themselves with a term that has positive connotations. For the United States to support them in that effort, however, is a fundamental strategic mistake.
Interesting. Why, they ask, would we use "jihad" or "jihadi," referring to our enemy as a "holy warrior"?" "Hirabah," a colloquial term for barbarism or piracy, would be better, they say:
Unlike "jihad," which grants honor, "hirabah" brings condemnation; it involves unlawful violence and disorder.
Or, make it simple and just call the fuckers what they are: murderers, barbarians, primitives, and the old standby: terrorists.
Do You Have Old Sperm?
Laura Donnelly reports in the Telegraph on some new findings about geezer daddies' sperm:
A mass study found that deaths of children fathered by over-45s occurred at almost twice the rate of those fathered by men aged between 25 and 30.Scientists believe that children of older fathers are more likely to suffer particular congenital defects as well as autism, schizophrenia and epilepsy. The study was the first of its kind of such magnitude in the West, and researchers believe the findings are linked to the declining quality of sperm as men age.
A total of 100,000 children born between 1980 and 1996 were examined, of whom 830 have so far died before they reached 18, the majority when they were less than a year old.
The deaths of many of the children of the older fathers were related to congenital defects such as problems of the heart and spine, which increase the risk of infant mortality. But there were also higher rates of accidental death, which the researchers believe might be explained by the increased likelihood of suffering from autism, epilepsy or schizophrenia.
Most research into older parents has, until now, focused on the risks passed on by older mothers. But the new study, published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, was adjusted to take account of maternal age and socio-economic differences.
The research also found higher death rates among children of the youngest fathers, especially those below the age of 19. However, the study said these differences were explained by the risks of teenage motherhood and poorer diet and lifestyle.
Previous research using the same data found that older men were four times as likely to father a child with Down's syndrome, while other studies have found that the genetic quality of sperm deteriorates as men age.
Will findings like this stop old dudes from fathering children, by accident or on purpose?
For an answer to that, look to a similar model: parents who know they have a predisposition for a disease, yet try to have kids anyway, crossing their fingers that they won't give birth to encephalitic babies destined for a short life of torture. Or maybe they'll give birth to a disabled child who requires taxpayer funding from birth to death, or at least after the parents get too old or too poor to take care of him or her anymore.
I read about a woman this weekend who had FIVE autistic children. Now, maybe these kids all regressed into autism, but hey: after you have one, or maybe two with autism, don't you go ask the doc to tie up the old tubes?
But, nope...in the face of poor odds, many people try their luck anyway at producing children -- because they love kids and they want one. Well, they want one, anyway.
Run From The Border
Tragic true story on the op-ed page of the LA Times of a family that emigrated to the sewer known as Tijuana years ago, and has now run from the place -- less one beloved family member. An excerpt from Aiko Enriquez Nishikawa's piece:
And I ask you, kidnappers: Why?How do you put a price on someone's life? On my parents' love for their son?
Everything my family had, we got through hard and honest work. We didn't inherit it, didn't steal it, didn't win the lottery. My father went to Tijuana with nothing; everything he got was earned over 45 years. My mom, a doctor, member of Colegio Medico de Tijuana, has been working for over 25 years out of love for what she does.
How do I explain to you that I wanted to have my brother with me all of my life, that I remember his smile when he was a child and had huge teeth? How will you understand that I will miss the sound of his laugh, his clean stare, how he would complain like my mother does, or get suddenly serious like my dad does? How can I explain that I would've done anything in my power to shield my parents from this pain? That you don't have the right to destroy our lives?
This letter represents the pain, the anguish and the anger that we feel. It's a desperate cry for an answer, an explanation, a hope, a demanding of our rights. We couldn't get help from the people who are paid to protect and serve, to guard the safety of citizens. Unfortunately, they protect and help the criminals.
When will there be action? When will the municipal, state and federal institutions be cleaned up in a real and forceful way? When will there be real laws with sentences that punish kidnappers and the bad behavior of corrupt agencies? What will happen to our country with its good people? When will we stop living as cowards and start fighting for a better future for the sons and daughters of Mexico?
I love Mexico and Tijuana. It is the place were I was born, my country. But it's impossible to live here.
Goodbye, Tijuana.
More on the Tijuana kidnappings like this one here. And then there are the kidnappings preceded by massacres. So nice to see that the Mexicans are carrying on their cultural traditions -- in this case, the brutality of the Aztecs.
Taxpayer-Funded Islam
Not only are we committing cultural suicide, we're funding it. Investor's Business Daily has a piece on a Minnesota Madrassa -- or, rather, a publicly funded charter school that Muslim radicals have turned into a Madrassa:
Flagrantly violating the constitutional ban on state promotion of religion, the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, or TIZA, herds children into bathrooms to perform ritual Islamic cleansing before leading them into the school gym to pray to Allah each day.
In three visits to the K-8 school, the Minnesota Department of Education never noticed a problem, even though the tax-funded school is located at a mosque. And the ACLU didn't bother until a Minneapolis columnist exposed the madrassa earlier this week.
"It appears the school may be impermissibly blurring the line between providing a secular education and endorsing and promoting religion and religious activities," said Charles Samuelson, who heads the group's Minnesota office.
Blurring the line? It has erased it. There's overwhelming evidence the public school's endorsing the Islamic faith, including:
• Daily scheduled prayer led by an imam.
• Classroom instruction in the Quran.
• Compulsory "after-school" Islamic Studies classes (buses don't leave the school until after Islamic Studies is over).
• Halal cafeteria food.
• Observance of Islamic holidays.
• Early release for Friday mosque.
Forced conversion is a genuine concern at TIZA. How many of its 300 students have recited the shahada, or Islamic profession of faith, without their parents' consent? Radicalization also is a worry. Are Muslim boys being indoctrinated into violent jihad?
The school, named after an 8th century jihadist who invaded Spain, shares the headquarters building of the Muslim American Society (MAS) of Minnesota, whose mission is "establishing Islam in Minnesota." The FBI says MAS, based in Washington, D.C., was founded by members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
What's more, the school is sponsored by Islamic Relief, a Muslim charity identified by the U.S. Treasury as an al-Qaida front group.
And let's call Islam what it is, shall we? The religion of violent Jihad, as commanded in the Quran. This is what they're teaching young kids -- on the taxpayer dime.
This school should be shut down immediately and those in Islamic Relief should be jailed or deported. I'm guessing at least some of them aren't citizens, since we're very busy laying out the welcome mat for those who want to kill us all and put an end to our society.
How can we change our immigration policy so we stop letting in the disease that will eventually be the death of western values and those of us who don't go for the Allah business?
thanks, Ken