...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

Wild world, a revisionist take: Two men of the world, Pete 'n' Joe, do a weird, atonal version of the Cat's old Tea for the Tillerman tune.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:39 | link | comments (1)

Grovel. Scrape. Shuffle. Bow (Part II): Dutch dhimmis offer profuse apologies via You Tube for Fitna. From wired:

Dutch people eager to dissociate themselves from the anti-Quran film Fitna have taken to the web to apologize for the controversial video.

Hundreds of Dutch citizens have uploaded videos to YouTube showing themselves holding signs with apologies for the film. In other anti-Fitna clips, the subjects simply say the words, "I'm sorry."

Fitna, a 17-minute film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, juxtaposes passages from the Islamic holy book with graphic footage of terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe. In one scene, the sound of paper ripping can be seen as a reader pages through the Quran.

A website called Sorry for the Film encourages users to upload photos of themselves to indicate they do not support the views propagated in Fitna. Mediamatic, a technology collective based in Amsterdam, posted instructions for making "Sorry Fitna" videos…

There's only one word for these characters: pathetic.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:00 | link | comments (1)

Political chameleon: He's black, white, rich, poor. Why, this graduate of Harvard law school is even "blue collar". Whatever you want him to be, he'll be, so long as you're taken in by his "Everyman" scam and elect him president.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:37 | link | comments

Trinity United’s pity party: You can understand why Bambi’s church is so sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. As the Wrightists see it, whitey’s to blame for all their tsuris; as the Palestinians (and other Arabs) see it, the Zionists are to blame. Also, both victim groups are always up for a good nutty-as-baclava conspiracy theory, especially one involving the Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:45 | link | comments

Growing by leaps and bounds: For the first time in history, there more Muslims in the world than there are Catholics.

Don’t worry, though. Only a tiny minority of the new Numero Uno are violent “extremists”. The vast majority of those who want to see sharia calling the shots are perfectly content to allow nature take its course and let demographics do the heavy lifting.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:28 | link | comments

The naked truth: Under the terms of sharia, dhimmis get to live (under humiliating circumstances) provided they don’t criticise the religious doctrines of their overlords. Geert Wilders has dared to defy those terms. In so doing, he has rent a small tear in the Iron Veil that has fallen on Europe. That makes him and his subversive film a clear threat to those who think sharia and dhimmitude are the way to go. From FrontPage Magazine:

Even before its official release, Fitna, the new film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, served to demonstrate the dire threat that radical Islam poses to the West.

 

Muslim indignation at the film has fueled a phenomenon that has habitually stifled honest discussion about Islamic terror and its origins. When non-Muslims point out that Islamic jihadists commit acts of violence and are inspired to do so by the Qur'an, many non-Muslim and Muslim apologists for jihad, including many who are widely known as "moderates," respond by claiming that those who point to this truth are committing an act of "hatred," "bigotry," "Islamophobia," and the like. Curiously, these supposed voices of reason have not a word to say about the actual acts of violence and hatred committed by the jihadists -- or about the sources that engender them. Rather, the daring voice that reports on these actions is vilified.

Wilders' film speaks for itself. Quoting Qur'anic verses and Muslims themselves, Fitna clearly demonstrates that Muslims who engage in violence and hatred do so with reference to the Qur'an. In making this clear, Wilder's film also points the way to a solution to the crisis within the Islamic faith: Only when peaceful Muslims begin to turn their indignation upon the extremists among them, rather than upon Wilders and others critics who speak out against the dangers of Islamic fanaticism and its sources, will there be progress against the spread of jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism within the Muslim world and beyond. Unfortunately, the intolerant reaction to Wilders' film shows yet again that this is, at best, a dim hope.

Like the little boy in that Andersen story, Wilders had the audacity to point out that the Emperor is buck nekkid. The clueless and the craven are hoping that, since it was a “right wing” “anti-immgration” “Islamophobe” who did the pointing, the vast majority of people will ignore him, and continue to hail the Emperor’s beautiful haute couture. So far, that seems to be what’s happening.

Update: Der Spiegel interviews Wilders--and the interviewer is Fitna to be tied by the Dutch guy's audacity.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:46 | link | comments

The sunny side: The executive director of the Canadian Islamic Congress in Ottawa laments the kafirs’ inability to see the Prophet Mohammed as he really was (i.e. one peaceful, righteous dude):

If the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were to live among us today in our democratic Canadian society, he would not recognize or accept the explanation of Islam that some self-proclaimed "authorities" are promoting and offering to Muslims and the world.

Their inflexibility and rigidity in response to changing times and cultures goes against the encouraged moderation, logic and consideration he stood for and the perversions of these values stand in the path of progress. They produce an "in-captured mentality" that is excessively pessimistic, rigid, spiritless, visionless, and intellectually dead. It undermines the core of God’s powerful message in the Qur’an: "And We have not sent you (Muhammad) except as a mercy to humanity." (21:107)

When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was asked to curse non-Muslims, he - the best and wisest of teachers and mentors -- emphatically refused, saying "I have not been sent to curse people but as a mercy to all humanity." (Muslim)

So, what about abuse, violence, or terrorism in the name of Islam (sometimes "hidden" behind less direct words)? Muhammad forbade it ALL; he was not sent just to those who wish to be "true representatives," but to all people, as the MERCY of God.

And that is why the loud voices who call themselves over and over "sole" representatives of Islam cannot be what they proclaim, because they do not follow the Prophet’s teachings in spirit. In their understanding of Islam, there is only ritual but not the essentials; their interpretations are void of true Islamic logic.

Muhammad (pbuh) was not sent as a dictator, but as God’s messenger, advisor, guide, mentor, reformer, teacher... He was sent to heal society, not to oppress or poison it; to build good relations among all peoples, not to fragment them; to ease life for humanity, not to make it onerous; to bring hope to all, not fearful anxiety; to help us develop social responsibility, not just retreat into "survival of the fittest."

He was sent for all of these good reasons; both theory and the praxis, both concept and hands-on. In contrast, those who claim to be "sole representatives of Islam" do quite the opposite in their words and deeds.

Are those who act so zealously against the Prophet’s logic blinded by their egos to the extent that they cannot recognize how much he disliked acts of abuse, violence and injustice?! If only these self-appointed "representatives" could know how much they do not know about Islam; if only they would follow the humbler example of those Muslims who seek to live their faith in spirit and action, rather than by ritual alone. But perhaps if they did stop to reflect and become spiritually enlightened, our 21st- century media would have little to talk about. Imagine; all those Islamophobic reporters, columnists and editors laid off - gone!

Tragically, it is part of the human condition that some of the worst-off among us are those who are so full of their own importance that they are unaware of their ignorance. Out of their ignorance and arrogance, they produce daily this excitement for the media, who wait in breathless anticipation - like Hollywood paparazzi -- for juicy tidbits to use against Islam and Muslims. Truth goes out the window long before pens hit paper or fingers tap the computer keyboards of manufactured journalism…

Some “juicy tidbits,” huh? Oh, you mean like these? I can see why they would really bum you out.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:32 | link | comments

Bambi and Oprah: A MadTV parody.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:53 | link | comments

The audacity of cluelessness: Young, old, black, white—they all love their Bambino. From the Chicago Sun-Times (my bolds):

PITTSBURGH, Pa. — Barack Obama supporters in the Steel City must not have read the national polls.

Young white males in this town also must not have heard that Gov. Edward Rendell, the state’s top booster of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s push in Pennsylvania, doesn’t believe they will vote for a black man.

Because Pittsburghers — in all shades — came out en masse, filling up the auditorium at the Soldiers Military Museum where his more-than-40-minute speech was interrupted repeatedly with raucous shouts, whistles, clapping and stomping.

Children too young to see over the heads of standing adults stood on the seats and clapped as if they understood every word.

‘Half hour too long’

Seith Reighard, a 20-year-old microbiology major at Pittsburgh University, sat with a row of other young white males as they waited for Obama to appear.

“I think Obama is the most genuine politician I have seen in a long time,” Reighard said. ”My generation had lost our faith in politicians to actually do something, and finally I see a guy come along who will. It doesn’t matter, the color of his skin.

“I am here because I feel for once my views will be heard.”

National polls put Obama behind by double digits in Pennsylvania, but given the enthusiastic turnout (all of the free tickets were taken), you couldn’t tell he’s an underdog in the state.

He was introduced by Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), who told the crowd that Obama’s campaign offers a “chance for America to chart a new course” and cited Obama’s “intellect” and “integrity” as some of the factors leading to Casey’s endorsement.

“We need to hear and listen to the voices of young people all across the country,” Casey said. “Young people have sparked a renewed sense of hope and optimism.

Under fire, Obama has appealed to the “better angels of our nature,” Casey said…

Yeah, he’s a regular Martin Luther King, rolled into one.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:35 | link | comments

Building faux-democracy at the expense of crippling the real McCoy: What happens when an American president grossly misunderestimates the enduring appeal of jihad, sharia and Islamic Judenhass? The Jews get shafted—again. By Mort Zuckerman in JWR:

The world applauded when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, forcibly removing Jewish settlers. At last, the Palestinians were free to show how they could build their own society.

But what did they do with their freedom? They elected the terrorist organization Hamas in 2006. First Fatah and now Hamas have rained 4,000 rockets on Israel, killed 24, and wounded 620 — the equivalent of killing 1,200 Americans and wounding 31,000. The citizens of Sderot and Ashkelon have suffered a collective trauma; children fear that when parents leave for work, they will never see them again.

And what does the world do?

It criticizes Israel — Israel! — for a "disproportionate" response. Israel is discriminating in trying to defend its people. It attacks Gaza's rocket launchers, weapons factories, and terrorists, all hidden in civilian areas.

What is a proportionate response? None at all, it seems.

Hamas kills indiscriminately. It makes no distinction between civilians and combatants. But it is Israel that earns the opprobrium. The moral equivalency was evident in a New York Times headline: "Hamas and Israelis Trade Attacks, Killing at Least Nine." Nor did TV broadcast pictures of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza celebrating the news that eight teenagers had been shot dead and many more injured in the library of a Jewish religious school in Jerusalem.

Would Paris, London, Bonn, or New York sit back quietly if terrorists attacked from sanctuaries somewhere just off their borders? Silent voices. Where is the world's outrage against these Palestinian war crimes? Twelve resolutions have passed the United Nations Human Rights Council on the conflict, but not one has made even a passing reference to the terrorism against Israel.

Where is the appreciation that while under attack, Israel has continued to supply its enemies with electricity and with 2,500 tons of food and medicines every day? Last year, 14,000 Gazan Palestinians were treated in Israeli medical facilities.

But Palestinians continue to get away with their confidence trick of persuading the world that they are the victims. The death of every Arab woman and child is a propaganda victory for Hamas, so it uses women and children as human shields and then exaggerates the casualties. The distortion foisted on the world is manifest in the celebrated case of the death of Mohammed al-Dura, who was alleged to have been shot by the Israelis in Gaza on the first day of the intifada. Now an independent French ballistic expert reports that he could not have died from Israeli gunfire. The technical analysis shows the shots could have come only from Palestinian positions.

And what of the Palestinian leader supposed to be leading the peace effort? Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas says, "What is happening now in Gaza is more than a Holocaust." Absurd? This from the "peacemaker" whose doctoral dissertation included the theory that European Zionists conspired with the Nazis to push for the Holocaust so that it could ultimately result in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. According to Abbas's writings, 6 million Jews were not sent to the gas chambers to be killed but were among corpses cremated for sanitation reasons.

Some suggest Israel should deal with Hamas; there is talk of Egypt negotiating a truce. But why negotiate with an enemy dedicated to Israel's destruction? Recognition of Hamas would prove that terrorism, not diplomacy, is the way to gain Israeli concessions — not to speak of international support — and would strengthen Hamas in the West Bank. Any truce would protect the smuggling of arms and munitions until Hamas can attack again, with missiles that can reach Tel Aviv.

This current turmoil is a direct outcome of Bush administration misjudgments. We forced the Israelis and the Palestinians to include Hamas in the 2006 election. Later, we caused the removal of Israeli control of the Philadelphi road, a crucial barrier in the protection against the smuggling of arms, insisting it be left to the Palestinians under Egyptian and European supervision. Israeli protests that foreign troops would not stop either terrorists or arms from making their way into Gaza went unheeded.

America has an extra moral obligation to defuse this crisis…

Not happening, Mort. Instead, Condi Rice is adding accelerant to Israel’s funeral pyre with her incessant calls for “peace”. (Ms. Rice is being ably abetted by Israel's clueless leadership, which is delighted to collude in their state's demise.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:20 | link | comments

Grovel. Bow.  Shuffle.  Scrape. Repeat: Dutch Jews do the ever-popular dhimmi dance. From ejpress:

AMSTERDAM (EJP)---The umbrella representative group of Jewish communities in Holland, called the newly-released anti-Islam film ‘Fitna’ by extreme-rightist Dutch MP Geert Wilders “counterproductive” and “generalizing”.

 

But the country’s "Centraal Joods Overleg" (Central Jewish Platform) drew the attention to the fact that the 15-minute film, entitled "Fitna" a Koranic term meaning ‘strife’, shows Muslim clerics calling to behead Jews, Koran passages equating Jews to "pigs and monkeys" and photos of demonstrators promising "another Holocaust" and praising Adolf Hitler.

 

 

The film, which shows footage of the New York 11 September terrorist attacks followed by the Madrid train bombings, was posted on the internet on Thursday.

 

Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) which holds nine of the Dutch parliament's 150 seats, said he wants to show that the Koran "is an inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror".

 

In a statement, the Dutch Jewish body said Wilders’s film "was guilty of serious generalizations." "Only the negative elements of the Koran are shown," it said, adding: "By presenting graphics on the explosive increase of the Muslim population in Holland and Europe in relation with pictures of terrorist attacks and with the slogan ‘stop Islamization, protect our freedom", Wilders suggests that all Muslims are potential terrorists."

 

While the anti-Jewish statements Wilders compiled "demonstrates some Muslim clerics have dreadful ideas about Jews and that even children are being brainwashed," the film only serves to "polarize Dutch society and is counterproductive to the fight against extremism,” the Jewish body said.

The Central Jewish Platform said it wants to work with the Muslims in Holland and the rest of the country in order to halt extremism and radicalization…

 

It heartens me not at all to know that the Dutch Jewish establishment is as out to lunch as the CJC.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:41 | link | comments

Speed demons: The bad news is that driving in Saudi Arabia is extremely dangerous, and traffic fatalities in the Magic Kingdom keep going up and up.

The good news is that they can't blame it on the women drivers.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:30 | link | comments

The real deal: Racist ranter Jeremiah Wright showed up at a Chicago church for a birthday party the other day—and the crown went wild. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor surprised a South Side congregation Friday night by showing up at an event marking poet Maya Angelou's birthday.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright received a thunderous, standing ovation from members of St. Sabina Church, which hosted Angelou as she nears her 80th birthday.)

"When he came out, people literally went wild," said St. Sabina's pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger.

Wright, Obama's spiritual adviser for years, has lain low ever since his fiery past sermons became political fodder in the presidential campaign.

Obama has condemned remarks by Wright that denounced America for allegedly racist and genocidal acts. Wright recently scrapped plans to receive an award in Texas and to speak at Houston and Tampa, Fla., churches.

Wright did not talk publicly about Obama on Friday night. Instead, he gave the benediction at St. Sabina and smiled as the audience sang "Happy Birthday" to Angelou.

Wright attended at the invitation of Pfleger, who called recent criticism of Wright "shameful."

"I wanted him to come here so he could see that people really stand with him and support him while he's under all this attack," Pfleger said Saturday. "America, unfortunately, has been really cheated of knowing the real Dr. Wright."…

Oh, so you mean the real Dr. Wright isn’t an obnoxious conspiracy-purveying, America-loathing, Jew-despising, Farrakhan-adoring hate monger? Good to know.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:22 | link | comments

“Silent” treatment: The Los Angeles Times calls the Muslim response to Fitna “muted”. Here’s some of the mutedness, as reported by Reuters (my bolds):

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Muslim nations on Friday condemned a film by a Dutch lawmaker that accuses the Koran of inciting violence, and Dutch Muslim leaders urged restraint.

Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-immigration Freedom Party, launched his short video on the Internet on Thursday evening, prompting an al Qaeda-linked website to call for his death and increased attacks on Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan.

"The correct Sharia (Islamic law) response is to cut (off) his head and let him follow his predecessor, van Gogh, to hell," a member of Al-Ekhlaas wrote on the al-Qaeda affiliated forum, according to the SITE Institute, a U.S.-based terrorism monitoring service.

Dutch director Theo van Gogh, who made a film accusing Islam of condoning violence against women, was murdered by a militant Islamist in 2004.

Wilders' film "Fitna" -- an Arabic term sometimes translated as "strife" -- intersperses images of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and Islamist bombings with quotations from the Koran, Islam's holy book.

The film urges Muslims to tear out "hate-filled" verses from the Koran and starts and ends with a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad with a bomb under his turban, accompanied by the sound of ticking.

The cartoon, first published in Danish newspapers, ignited violent protests around the world and a boycott of Danish products in 2006. Many Muslims regard any depiction of the Prophet as offensive.

"The film is solely intended to incite and provoke unrest and intolerance among people of different religious beliefs and to jeopardise world peace and stability," the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) said…

Yup. You can barely hear them.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:58 | link | comments

Lovely to look at; as left as they come: He has little experience; his heroes include a racist Christian (Jeremiah W.) and a racist Muslim (Malcolm X); and he has lots of unresolved, ahem, parental issues. And yet folks are still all gung-ho for Bambi. What gives? Well, according to Kenneth Blackwell (no, not that Mr. Blackwell, of the egregiously lame best-and-worst dressed lists), it’s because the Bambino is so gosh-darn purty. From the New York Sun:

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."…

We know who he is. Jesse Jackson. With bigger ears.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:42 | link | comments

First things first: Pakistan's new prime minister was sworn in the other day. His first order of business--slamming that dastardly Dutch exposé, Fitna.

Second order of business: trying to keep the "insulted" from doing too much damage to civic infrastracture.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:24 | link | comments

Spitzer tchotchkes: It never ceases to amaze me what people try to flog on e-Bay. For instance, Eliot Spitzer “memorabilia”. Here are some of the many incredible items which, according to a Newsday article, are going for a song:

·         the Web domain name clientnine.com., priced at a bargain-basement $250,000

·         a photo greeting card from the Spitzer family, current high bid just $9.99.

·         a signed, 8x10 glossy photograph of the disgraced governor--$75 .

·          The Emperor’s Club VIP coffee mug

·         a bald baby doll from the 1940s advertised as a Spitzer look-alike

Who the heck would want to spend actual money on this chazerai? According to Moe Berkowitz, who's been in the political memorablia game since folks were going Madly for Adlai, "There are local collectors: people who collect senators and governors, they of course need to have that (Spitzer item) in their collection…There are people who collect items of people who have fallen in disgrace. Another Spitzer area is people who will collect Judaica; people who collect items that are Jewish."

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with my dreidel collection.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:40 | link | comments

Memo to fox: please see to that sticky hen-house situation: Muslim groups are calling on the Arab League to be more pro-active in "solving" the problems in Darfur.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:10 | link | comments

Fear, loathing and cluelessness in the U.K.: A pundit in the Daily Mail frets that Fitna may propel Old Blighty into an unwanted jihad:

From the Netherlands drift the first sparks of a firestorm that threatens to engulf Britain and the rest of Europe.

At its centre stands one man, a 44-year-old by the name of Geert Wilders.

He is a Dutch MP who likes sharp suits and has a shock of blond hair.

It's a look not dissimilar to that of car salesman "Swiss Toni" from classic comedy series The Fast Show - but mention the name of Geert Wilders in Holland and it won't raise a laugh.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

His actions, the Dutch government is warning, have put countless lives at risk. Plans are being drawn up to evacuate Dutch embassies around the world, riot police are on standby in Amsterdam and ordinary citizens are cancelling foreign holidays as they prepare for trouble.

There are already protests on the streets and by the goverments of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia.

Wilders, you see, has spoken out against the Muslim faith. He's attacked the "tsunami of Islamisation" that he says is engulfing traditional Dutch society.

He's attacked the prophet Mohammed, saying that were he alive today he should be "tarred and feathered" and deported as an extremist.

He's attacked the culture of political correctness that has seen immigrants given housing and benefits without even having to try to assimilate into Western culture.

And he's attacked the Koran, a book he likens to Hitler's Mein Kampf, describing it as the cornerstone of a "fascist ideology" that aims to destroy all who oppose it.

Wilders has also made a 15-minute movie. Called Fitna (Arabic for "strife"), it was broadcast on the internet for the first time on Thursday afternoon, prompting fears of a backlash against Dutch citizens of unprecedented proportions.

Wilders remains unrepentant. Over the past few years the Right-wing MP has received many death threats and knows his life is in danger.

Even so, he says: "If I were to moderate my voice, if I stop saying what I think, then the people who use undemocratic arguments like death threats would have won.

There have been protests on the streets in response to Wilders' anti-Islamic statements

"So I will never stop, because if I moderate my voice, if I do not tell the truth according to me, then the people who use threats will win. I believe that in a democracy those people should never win."

Opinions of Wilders are mixed. The Establishment seeks to discredit him as an over-ambitious, Right-wing, pro-Israeli politician who will do anything to gain popularity.

It says his comments are so inflammatory that they have no place in a civilised society.

But others insist he should be free to express his opinions and that those who seek to silence him are the real threat.

Surveys show that many people agree with him. Where others have been cowed into silence, Wilders has given voice to the concerns of the masses (or so the argument goes).

And, as Wilders has noted, those concerns are not unique to the Dutch - but are also boiling close to the surface in Britain.

When a Danish newspaper published caricatures of the prophet Mohammed in 2005, more than 100 people died during ensuing protests across the Muslim world.

So it is hardly surprising that mainstream TV companies haven't been keen to broadcast Wilders's video.

The sensitivities surrounding the film mean that even making it available on the web hasn't proved straightforward.

When an early clip from Fitna was placed on YouTube, the internet moviesharing site, the authorities in Pakistan took the unprecedented step of blocking access to it.

Then, earlier this week, the website on which Wilders had proposed showing the film was closed down by its internet service provider amid concerns over its content.

Undeterred, Wilders vowed that, if necessary, he would personally hand out copies of it on DVD in Amsterdam.

In the end, he didn't have to, as he posted the footage on LiveLeak.com, a Britishbased video-sharing website.

It is that connection which yesterday dragged the UK into the controversy.

"This heinous measure by a Dutch lawmaker and a British establishment. . . is indicative of the continuation of the evilness and deep vengeance such Western nationals have against Muslims," Iran's foreign ministry spokesman said.

The documentary juxtaposes Koran extracts against footage of terrorist atrocities, of Sharia law in action and of jihad...

Quel horreur! Grounds, indeed, for a relaunch of the holy war. Thing is, though, the pundit hasn't noticed that it’s already well underway.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:01 | link | comments

Some gentle words from a true believer: North Carolina Muslim to Geert Wilders: Islam Will Dominate Europe, Destroy Western Civilization, Tear Out Dutch MP's Heart.

As always, thinking globally; acting locally.

Update: Chill, fellah. It seems Geert left a lot out.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:40 | link | comments

Donkey shenanigans: In keeping with today’s (unintentional) animal theme (so far, dogs, sheep and wolves), here’s an excerpt of a book review by Raymond Ibrahim, editor of The Al Qaeda Reader. (I have a well-thumbed copy, if anyone cares to borrow it.) Ibrahim is explicating Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam by Dr. Tawfik Hamid, who knows all about the subject since he’s a former jihadi:                                                    

…Hamid’s metaphors are more poignant and instructive. After accurately likening radical Islam to a “cancerous cell” within the Islamic body, he goes on to discuss Western “myths and misconceptions” regarding the spread of this cancer (i.e. that Islamist terror is the inevitable byproduct of poverty, discrimination, ignorance, absence of democracy, colonialism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, U.S. foreign policy, et. al.). He then reminds us that “Every medical doctor [i.e. people who truly apply the “scientific method”] will assert that it is very difficult to treat a disease if it is misdiagnosed or if the disease is confused with symptoms. If we misdiagnose, then we treat the wrong illness. If we confuse the roots of the illness or superficially mask its symptoms, we cannot effect [sic] a cure. The same applies to the societal disease of terrorism.”

Bringing his psychological background in play, Hamid carefully delineates the phases of radicalization — from hatred to suppression of conscience to desensitization to violence — with a stress on how radicals seek to suppress the human capacity for critical thinking, well demonstrated by a telling dialogue with a senior member of al-Gam’a who once explained to him that “One’s brain is similar to a donkey…you can ride it to the palace of Allah, but you must leave it outside when you enter.”

To sum it up: the trouble with the world today is that too many asses have parked their brains.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:31 | link | comments

Baaaa, humbug: A Reuters blogger describes a scene supposedly redolent with meaning—Obama campaigning in a building where a scene from The Silence of the Lambs was shot:

PITTSBURGH – Sen. Barack Obama held a campaign rally on Friday in the Soldiers and Sailors museum in Pittsburgh. No drama there? Well, the building was used to film a crucial sequence in the movie “The Silence of the Lambs.”

For anyone not familiar with the 1991 thriller, the scene occurs when serial killer Hannibal Lecter, played by Anthony Hopkins, is locked in a large cage from which he toys with Clarice Starling, a young FBI trainee played by Jodie Foster .

It’s in this scene that she discloses to him her childhood memory of finding a slaughterhouse for lambs.

The cage is super secure but not secure enough to hold Lecter, who escapes by clubbing his guards to death, stringing one of them up from the walls and then ….

Actually, you should see the movie for yourself. It didn’t win five Oscars for nothing.

Pennsylvania Sen. Robert Casey held a news conference to explain his decision to endorse Obama in the very room where the cage was constructed, a spacious, opulent chamber with an ornate balcony.

Obama, who is running for the Democratic nomination, made no reference to the film in his speech in a hall downstairs.

But there was a distant echo of one of its most chilling lines. Lecter taunts Starling when she visits him in the cage with the words: “People will say we’re in love.”

During his speech, a supporter shouted to Obama: “I love you, Obama.” And he replied smoothly: “I love you back.”

There’s another chilling echo, of course, one that has nothing to do with Hannibal the Cannibal but much to do lambs. It’s the sound of Jesse J. and Malcolm X seeping out from under Bambi's ill-fitting sheepskin. Not that the bewitched would notice. Even after the Wright revelations, to them he's still the same sweet, appealing lambikins--the café au lait JFK. And unless it turns out he was frolicking with Eliot and "Kristen" at the Mayflower, they're voting for him no matter what. (And afterwards, perhaps, they'll celebrate with fava beans and a little Chianti?)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:30 | link | comments

Dog days: In Malaysia, they’re merely “annoyed” at Fitna, a remarkably brief film which highlights certain violent passages in the Koran. In Pakistan, though, the country that practically invented the mass seethe-a-thon, they’re “angry”. Meanwhile, the Euro-poodles did what they do best when confronted by Islamic annoyance and rage: they groveled, bowed, trembled, apologized, and rolled over on their backs so as to expose their bellies to those they were certain were the Alpha dog.

Diana West asks us to consider "the unified effort of Muslims and Europeans to censor a critique of Islam--something not tolerated under Islam:

From EU to NATO officials, from the head of France to (sadly) the head of Denmark, the official European response to "Fitna" is less in line with Western traditions of free speech than with the censorship of Islamic law. Indeed, Dutch officials couldn't find a Dutch law under which to ban "Fitna," and they tried. The pressure to silence "Fitna," however, reveals the extent to which Islamic law has already eroded core conceptions of Western liberty."

Changes in body postures and facial expressions by which dogs indicate their feelings and intentions to other dogs. A-B Neutral to alert attentive positions. C: Play-soliciting bow. D-E: Active and passive submissive greeting - tail wags, ears fold back, weight is transferred to hind legs. I: Passive submission. J: Rolling over and showing belly and genitals. F-H: Gradual shift from aggressive display to ambivalent fear/defensive/aggressive posture.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:37 | link | comments

Peace-mongery: There’s a scene toward the end of Joel Gilbert’s terrifying two-hour-long  documentary, Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran, and the Revolt of Islam, (I saw a screening this week) showing the two Israeli architects of the Oslo Accord, Yitzak Rabin and Shimon Peres, singing on a stage following what they were convinced was the dawning of a new era of peace. There they are, ecstatic with joy, belting out “Shir Leshalom”—“Song for Peace”—along with an equally ecstatic buxom blonde vocalist. Quick cut to the message which, unbeknownst to the revellers, was being broadcast by Yasser Arafat over Palestinian TV. As Israelis are singing of peace, peace, peace, Arafat is shrieking, “jihad, jihad, jihad.” Cut to the rapturous Jews and their peace song. Then back to Arafat, and his yelps of holy war.

An effective bit of juxtaposition, showing what should have been—but which, clearly, wasn’t—obvious at the time: Yasser Arafat has about as much resemblance to a “peace partner” as a camel resembles a fish. And Israel’s peace-mongers were so addled by daydreams of peace that they refused to twig to the obvious, and put their nation’s existence in danger.

 

We know what happened next. The failure of Oslo. The launch of the second Palestinian uprising. Then another, and another, and another, failed attempt at peace-making. And with each attempt, Israel’s—but not the Palestinian—reputation is further blackened (“racist”, “apartheid state”), and the international coyotes, sensing that their prey is growing ever-weaker, howl even louder for Israel’s demise.

 

Not a pretty picture, but one that was more or less inevitable given that, for more than three decades now,  Israeli peace-mongers--ably abetted by the Americans--have been chipping away at Israel’s strength. As Gilbert’s documentary makes clear, it’s neck and neck at this stage to see who’ll win the race to finish Israel off—the mullahs and their nukes, or Israel’s feckless leaders, and their absurd delusions about “peace”.

 

As Gilbert sees it, the current problems started back with Menachem Begin. In the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War—a war which, if not for a last minute shipment of weaponry from the U.S. Israel would likely have lost—Begin sought to make a peace deal with Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat. The deal was brokered by American president, Jimmy Carter. According to Gilbert, Begin wanted to reach a deal to wash away the taint of his having been an Irgun terrorist. Sadat wanted to make a deal because, after four kicks at the can—in ’48, ’56, ’67, and ’73—he realized that the Arabs weren’t having much luck wiping out the Jewish state through military means, and maybe it was a good idea to try another tack—like trying to defeat it through diplomacy. Again, Gilbert shows how the Israeli completely misunderstood the Arabs’ intent. Sadat does indeed arrive in Jerusalem, and—wonder of wonders—addresses Israel’s parliament, the Knesset. Over and over he reiterates Egypt’s desire for “peace with justice.” The Israelis, who, though despite having been situated smack in the middle of Dar al-Islam for many decades have somehow managed to remain bone ignorant about their neighbours’ theology, take  Sadat’s words to mean that he is reconciled, once and for all, to Jewish sovereignty. In reality, Sadat, a devout Muslim, is referring to something very specific that harkens back to a famous episode in Islamic history. To him, “peace with justice” means that, for now he’s content to hold off on military solutions and sign a peace treaty (as Mohammed signed peace treaties with his enemies—a tactical lull in hostilities that allowed his forces time to rest and regroup). Looking down the road, however, “justice” demands that Israel—a dhimmi entity whose existence Muslims, for reasons spelled out in Islamic teachings, can never countenance—must cease to be, and that the land briefly “occupied” by the Jews, having once been claimed by Islam, will be returned to Islam. Then, and only then, will there be “peace”.

 

Sadat was speaking in code that, to this day, Israelis and other Westerners—including, alas, George W. Bush and Condeleezza Rice—refuse to crack. Instead, the peace-mongers wax rhapsodic about “land for peace”—as Menachem Begin gave Sadat “land for peace”—little realizing that each bit of land Israel “returns” is a setback for Israel and a victory for Israel’s enemies, bent on annihilating Israel through diplomacy and the never-ending peace process.

 

The most depressing aspect of this process is how Israel’s peace-mongers, ever besotted by the prospect of peace, under pressure from America, and with “Shir Leshalom” and other peace songs (of which there have been more than a few on Israel’s hit parade) ringing in their ears, remain clueless about Islam’s coded, loaded language, and continue to collude in their own destruction.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:16 | link | comments

Religion of raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens: ABC News asks a "Quran expert" to interpret some of the same passages mentioned in the film Fitna. And--whaddya know?--the way he explains them, they sound so much more "historical" and less theatening than they do when Wilders or Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq or Robert Spencer explain them.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:31 | link | comments

Brits at sea: The cover story in the Spectator is a cri de coeur for what the Brits have lost—their guts, their wits, their moral compass, their sense of themselves. The British are at sea, all right, and not in their former “Britannia rules the waves” kind of way. But then, so is the rest of the Western world:

…Indeed, the harms being done by liberal democracies to themselves are now greater than those being caused by foes. Physical self-wounding is on the increase in ‘free societies’. But so, too, is a self-wounding which is political, moral, cultural and economic. For example, the taking of liberties with Western societies by Muslims has been greatly aided not only by the appeasement of Muslim demands — again in the name of liberty itself — but by a seeming will to self-destruction.

In consequence, Islamists have judged liberal democracies to be internally weak, and rightly so. In particular, in its conflicts with the ‘purified’ Wahhabi form of jihadist Islam — no ‘religion of peace’ this — the West is militarily strong but on its many home fronts is daily giving ground.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent intervention upon the issue of Muslim ‘rights’ to religious self-determination in a non-Muslim society was a classic of its kind. Unnoted were the surrenders at its heart. Without dissent, he cited the assertion by the Islamist Tariq Ramadan that sharia law is an ‘expression of the universal principles of Islam’. Universal? The head of the Anglican Church further described sharia, without qualification, as a ‘method of jurisprudence governed by revealed texts’, thus acquiescing in Islam’s claim not only to universality but to divine authority and inspiration. A Muslim could wish for no greater abjection in the ‘unbeliever’.

Misjudgments of Islam and this kind of trahison des clercs are historic commonplaces. Even Gibbon thought that the ‘option of submission or battle’, offered by Islam to the non-Muslim, was ‘fair’; while the chance of conversion to Islam — as an alternative to subjugation or death — he regarded as a sign of ‘clemency’. However, sternness was also once displayed in Britain’s conflicts of faith, and cruelly so in the struggles with ‘Popery’. A Cromwell could even describe ‘Papists’ as ‘strangers to God, and to the works of God, and to spiritual dispensations. We in this land’, he declared to parliament in January 1655, ‘have been otherwise instructed’. In relation to Islam, we have also been ‘otherwise instructed’. But we do not say so.

With such retreats, many from moral cowardice, there has necessarily come lost identity and lost sense of nation. Indeed, in these times of misjudgment, sense of nation is now as if under taboo, to civil society’s peril. Citizenship (of an increasingly identityless country) has also been permitted to signify so little that no polity could cohere on its basis, ‘modernise’ as you may. Moreover, no society can rest, or has ever rested, upon the possession of rights alone, whether ‘human rights’ or other. But in these times of misjudgment, duties, and especially enforceable duties — the duties that bind us — are once more perceived by many as intrusions and impositions upon personal freedom…

"Duties"? That’s just sooo WW2. These days we have thought cops and multicultism and feeling morally superior by trashing the world’s one and only Jewish state? Who needs or wants “duties” when you can have all that other yummy, soul-destroying stuff?

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:23 | link | comments

Motoon ‘toonist sues Fitna filmmaker: Okay, the world has officially become too bonkers for words. From the Beeb:

Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who depicted the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, says he will sue the maker of an anti-Islam film.

Mr Westergaard says his cartoon, which sparked riots two years ago, was used in the film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders without permission.

Mr Westergaard told Danish TV that his cartoon was a protest against terrorism, not Islam as a whole.

The Danish journalists' union is suing on his behalf for copyright violation.

"Wilders has the right to make his movie but he has not permission to use my drawing," Mr Westergaard told Denmark's TV2.

"This has nothing to do with freedom of speech," he said. "I will not accept my cartoon being taken out of its original context and used in a completely different one." …

Mr Westergaard has lived in hiding in Denmark since his cartoon led to unrest in the Middle East and beyond following its publication in 2005...

It’s “original context” is that his ‘toon was packaged along with some much more inflammatory images by some Danish zanies, which set off a seethe-a-thon that has yet to subside completely. It’s “original context” is that of our man-made law, and its insistence on free expression, and their God-law, with its proscriptions on such freedom, and calls for complete submission. Any other “context” the ‘toonist cares to mention is totally irrevelevent.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:11 | link | comments

Bambi’s wool: Barack Obama won a Grama, er, Grammy recently for the CD of the recitation of his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. Mark and Hugh listen to some of the disc’s choice cuts, and mull over another of Bambi’s heroes—Black Muslim/racist Malcolm X:

HH: As a way of talking about that, I’m going to play some of the clips, some my audience has heard before, some new ones today. And let’s just walk through it. Cut number one, Barack talking about Malcolm X and what it meant to him. It’s audio number three: 

BO: Only Malcolm X’s autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me.  The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. All the other stuff, the talk of blue-eyed devils and apocalypse, was incidental to that program, I decided. Religious baggage that Malcolm himself seemed to have safely abandoned toward the end of his life. And yet, even as I imagine myself following Malcolm’s call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged. I knew that for Malcolm, that wish would never be incidental. I knew as well that traveling down the road to self-respect, my own white blood would never recede into mere abstraction. I was left to wonder what else I would be severing, if and when I left my mother and my grandparents at some uncharted border. 

HH: Mark Steyn, clearly a first for presidential memoirs, if he becomes president.  

MS: Yes, I think so, and I think as we were saying earlier, the key word there, what he identifies with in Malcolm X, is self-creation. And I think it’s, in a sense, there’s a tragedy about Barack Obama, because he didn’t have to be a guy who mired himself in all the grim pathologies of the racial grievance industry. I thought when he first appeared on the national stage, that he was a character more like Colin Powell. Colin Powell and Barack Obama are both the children of British subjects. In Colin Powell’s case from the West Indies, in Obama’s case, from Kenya. And the advantage of that is that they’re not part, they’re not part of what we call now the African-American experience. They’re not part of the Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton narrative. So there’s something very bizarre about Obama in effect artificially trying to find ways of identifying with that particular, I would regard, that particular self-defeating narrative.  

Like I said, Bambi is Jesse Jackson in sheep's clothing, only now the disguise is slipping.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:53 | link | comments

Tit for tat: A Texas woman is irate because airport security forced her to remove her nipple rings when they kept setting off the metal detector.

Man, I hate when that happens. From AP via the Globe and Mail:

LOS ANGELES — A Texas woman who said she was forced to remove a nipple ring with pliers in order to board an airplane called Thursday for an apology by federal security agents and a civil rights investigation.

“I wouldn't wish this experience upon anyone,” Mandi Hamlin said at a news conference. “My experience with TSA was a nightmare I had to endure. No one deserves to be treated this way.”

Ms. Hamlin, 37, said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on Feb. 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.

The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Ms. Hamlin's chest, the Dallas-area resident said.

Texas woman says security officials forced her to remove a nipple ring with pliers before boarding an airplane. She wants an apology

Ms. Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewellery, Ms. Hamlin said.

Ms. Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewellery was out, she said.

She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.

“Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her,” said Ms. Hamlin's attorney, Gloria Allred, reading from a letter she sent Thursday to the director of the TSA's Office of Civil Rights and Liberties.

Applying pliers to the torso of a mannequin that had a peach-coloured bra with the rings on it, Ms. Hamlin showed reporters at the news conference how she took off the second ring.

She said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring.

“After nipple rings are inserted, the skin can often heal around the piercing, and the rings can be extremely difficult and painful to remove,” Ms. Allred said in the letter.

TSA officials said they are investigating to see whether its policies were followed.

“Our security officers are well-trained to screen individuals with body piercings in sensitive areas with dignity and respect while ensuring a high level of security,” the agency said in a statement.

On its website, the TSA warns that passengers “may be additionally screened because of hidden items such as body piercings, which alarmed the metal detector.”

“If you are selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to a pat-down search,” the site says.

Ms. Hamlin would have accepted a “pat-down” had it been offered, Ms. Allred said.

If an alarm does sound, “until that is resolved, we're not going to let them go through the checkpoint, no matter what they're wearing or where they're wearing it,” said TSA spokesman Dwayne Baird in Salt Lake City.

People routinely pass through security wearing wedding rings without problems, and it might take a larger bit of metal to trigger an alarm, Mr. Baird said.

Ms. Hamlin filed a complaint, but the TSA's customer service manager at the Lubbock airport concluded the screening was handled properly, Ms. Allred said.

Ms. Hamlin wants an apology from the TSA and an investigation by the agency's civil rights office.

Ms. Allred said she might consider legal action if the TSA does not apologize.

“The conduct of TSA was cruel and unnecessary,” Ms. Allred wrote. “The last time that I checked a nipple was not a dangerous weapon.”

Speak for yourself, Gloria. Have you ever seen Pam Anderson’s ta-tas? Those puppies could poke your eye out.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:27 | link | comments

Dhimmis try to cast Wilders into the wilderness: In defiance of those who prefer their kafirs be kept dumb and happy, Dutch politician Geert Wilders finally released his movie Fitna. Notice how the MSMers attempt to keep the blinkers in place—by trying to make Wilders, a brave, brave man, sound like some “right wing” crank. From two mega-dhimmi media outlets, AP via the Ceeb:

A Dutch politician has posted a graphic film on the internet warning the West about the teachings of Islam, as a Muslim group prepares to challenge the movie as a potential violation of hate speech laws.

Right-wing legislator Geert Wilders released the film Fitna — the Qu'aranic term for "strife" — Thursday, despite warnings from the Dutch government that it could spark violent protests in Islamic countries similar to those held over cartoon caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Credits at the end of the film list Wilders as co-scriptwriter.

The film quotes verses of the Qu'ran alongside footage of terrorist attacks in the United States and Spain, at times showing graphic footage of bloody, mutilated bodies set to music, and even a beheading of a Caucasian man by men garbed in black.

"The government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you. Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our Western civilization," says text appearing near the film's end that eventually calls on Europeans to defeat the ideology of Islam.

The film ends with a caricature of Muhammad, his head drawn in the shape of a bomb that explodes into a crack of thunder and lightning.  

A Dutch judge is scheduled Friday to review a petition from a Muslim group seeking an independent review of whether the film violates the country's hate speech laws…

Well, if the Netherlands is anything like Canada, darn tootin’ it does. Just ask Maclean’s, which has to defend its right to print the truth about Europe’s burgeoning Muslim population (construed as “hate speech” by a well-known Jew-hater/Islamst) in a “court” where the truth is no defense.

Update: Iran calls the film "heinous"--which, when you think about it, is actually a ringing endorsement: If the mullahs call you "heinous", you're certain to be on the right track. ("If they say your behaviour is heinous/Kick them right in the Coriolanus." Sorry. Just had an overwhelming urge to paraphrase Cole Porter.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:14 | link | comments

Creep vs. creep: How ridiculous, pointless, pathetic, and yet dangerous, is Canada’s “human rights” racket? Read Mark Steyn’s biting take-down of the thought cops and learn of the loopy twilight world where human rights creeps and their prey, white power creeps, are locked in virtual, mortal combat. My favourite part of the Maclean’s piece:

…I'm sure many Canadians have found themselves in that embarrassing situation where you cruise an Internet dating site, hook up with a hot blond 17-year-old cheerleader and arrange to meet only to find that Candii is, in fact, a 54-year-old overweight male accountant. Alas, the problem's far worse for a neo-Nazi hoping to find a friendly website and meet a few kindred spirits. There must be a few genuine white supremacists whooping it up over at "Stormfront," but they seem to be thin on the ground. Mr. Steacy, the CHRC's lead investigator, is a member of Stormfront; Richard Warman, celebrated Canadian "human rights" crusader and plaintiff on every CHRC case since 2002, is a member of Stormfront; and Sgt. Stephen Camp is a member of Stormfront. What proportion of Canada's "white supremacists" are, in fact, government employees? On a quiet day, chances must be pretty good that you'll log on and find the joint deserted except for "jadewarr" (Mr. Steacy) trying to entrap "estate" (Sgt. Camp) while "estate" (Sgt. Camp) is simultaneously trying to entrap "axetogrind" (Mr. Warman). "There really should be a register of pseudonyms," urged lawyer Doug Christie, "so that investigators don't wind up investigating each other."

Welcome to the wacky world of Canadian "human rights." If it sounds like a fetish club for servants of the Crown, well, that would be a lot cheaper. This is a long battle to reform a secretive and decadent institution. But Keith Martin is right: Section 13 should be repealed. We need a royal commission. And "jadewarr" and chums might be encouraged to find more useful employment.

A “fetish club”? Sounds more like a bunch of pimply, socially-retarded teenage boys, sitting in the folks’ basement and zinging each other with virtual lasers via the 'net. Maybe “jadewarr” and chums could make themselves more useful by testing new video games. In the meantime, these silly servants have managed the impossible: they have made the white power creeps' defence lawyer of choice, Doug Christie (his impressive roster includes practically every Hitler-lover who's ever faced prosecution in Canada), sound like the sanest guy in the room.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:35 | link | comments

The Beeb in bed with the bad guys: During the last run-in with fascist totalitarians, Lord Haw Haw, a traitorous Brit, tried to demoralize his people by broadcasting fascist propaganda. Fast forward to today, when Lord Haw Haw seems to have been given a big promotion. As Melanie Phillips observes, he’s now in charge of the BBC (my bolds):

Trevor Asserson is a British lawyer (who now lives in Israel) who for years has campaigned against the BBC’s bias against Israel. He has now produced an even more serious charge against the BBC — that during the 2006 Lebanon war, the BBC’s Arabic service provided a platform for the campaign by Hezbollah and Iran to delegitimise and demonise both the USA and Israel in the eyes of the Arabic speaking world.

With Deena Pinson, he recorded, translated and transcribed the BBC’s principal news analysis programme, Hadeeth Al-Sa’a, for a period of four weeks from 19 July to 20 August 2006. Their report (you can down load the pdf at number 6) says that during that period the programme put on 17 spokespeople for Hizbollah and Iran amongst programme guests but only 5 for Israel. It comments:

 

Many programme guests expressed blatantly and viciously anti American positions… In addition we came across a number of quite extreme statements. For example we were told that the bombing of an electricity station was a ‘crime’ which is ‘unprecedented historically’ and we learn that it is US policy ‘to crush the Palestinians completely and to take all of their lands.’ When comments as extreme as this go uncorrected and unchallenged, the BBC appears to have tossed its moral compass into the waves and completely to have lost its bearings…

The BBC Arabic gives little indication of the destruction, the evacuations and the deaths (often of Israeli Arabs), caused by the thousands of Hizbollah rockets fired into Israel. By contrast some of the language used to describe Israel is hysterical in tone and the translated transcript reads like an Islamist extremist tract.

The implications of such findings are clearly far more serious than merely transgressing the BBC’s own impartiality guidelines. When such propaganda is transmitted back into the Arabic-speaking world – and with the kite-mark of BBC journalistic integrity, no less -- this is bound to incite yet more violence and aggression, turning the BBC effectively into an accomplice of Iran against America and Israel…

Funny thing--here in Canada, his eminence seems to be running the Ceeb, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:02 | link | comments

Mama mia!: The Cosa Nostra diversified into Mozzarella, and now Italy is being roiled by a cheese scare.

Wasn't that a Bob Marley song--"Buffalo Mozza/Controlled by the Mafia"?

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:45 | link | comments

Ho Ho Ho: Eliot Spitzer sings:

Here I Ho again.

I know just where to go again.

All aglow again.

Takin’ a chance on sex.

 

Hotted up am I.

No need to find an alibi.

"Mr. Clean"’s a lie.

Takin’ a chance on sex.

 

I thought that I was so mighty.

Would never get caught.

Now look where nooky has got me--

In a terrible spot.

 

Took an awful spill.

Still had to pay my prosti bill.

Now I got lots of time to kill.

Takin’ a chance on sex.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:09 | link | comments

Heh: Nic and Carla drop by Buckingham Palace for brewski and canned cheese canapes, and everyone but Carla wears a ribbon. CNN's list of the day's most popular news stories headlines it "Mr. and Mrs. Sarkozy woe the Brits"--a most amusing Freudian slip.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:45 | link | comments (3)

The myth of protection: In the mistaken belief that the HRCs protect Canadian Jews from Nazi-like hatred (or Canadians from any kind of hatred), Holocaust survivor Nate Leipciger wrote this letter to the National Post:

The question posed by Jonathan Kay has a much simpler answer. It takes media pundits who, comfortable with their blindness, attempt to impose it on others.

I survived Auschwitz, in great suffering. I lost my entire family at the hands of the Nazis. To suggest a neo-Nazi is a free-speech hero goes beyond the absurd and ridiculous. We the survivors are not yet dead. We must protest such articles wherever and whenever they appear.

The Mark Lemires of this world are trying desperately to emulate the propaganda-pushers of the Nazi era. I do not have words to tell you how it feels to read the equation of "Nazi = hero." If this is the new moral math, then I prefer an abacus.

Nathan Leipciger, co-president, Canadian Holocaust Survivors, Toronto

Gordon MacDonald, in a thread on Ezra Levant's blog, does an excellent job of explaining why Nate’s faith in the thought cops is so profoundly—nay, tragically—misplaced. (Gordon’s words, some of which I've bolded, are sage, although, like me, he could use the services of a good copy editor):

sadly the commentor in the National Post like so many others has implied that stopping abuses of the HRCs is a pro neo-nazi stance. PEN, EGALE, Chomsky and Borovoy from the CCLA ALL recognise the threat of HRCs - and they sure as hell are not neo-nazis (or even mildly conservative for that matter).

The Holocost is one of those things that only someone who was there will ever understand. The rest of us can only imagine the horror.

The terrible irony is that in todays world, those who would wipe Judasim off of the face of the earth in a heartbeat (radical Muslims), are leveraging the HRCs as one more tool in their ongoing attempts to scrape democracy from the face of the earth and replace it with a world of their making - a world in which no Jew would survive.

Way to nail it, Gordon.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:13 | link | comments

Better duck: Massive ice shelf collapsing off Antarctica.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:20 | link | comments

Hollywood’s “quagmire: The Atlantic has an interesting piece on Hollywood’s depiction of the war. Given the people who are making these “ain’t-we-awful” flicks—i.e. those situated on the self-loathing end of the political continuum—it should come as no surprise what kind of utter crapola has been foisted on unsuspecting movie public (most of which has declined to pony up any dollars to see it):

Less than two weeks before the United States and its allies invaded Iraq, in March of 2003, Sony Pictures released a war movie called Tears of the Sun. The director was Antoine Fuqua, fresh off the success of 2001’s Training Day; the star was Bruce Willis, playing a Navy SEAL lieutenant whose platoon is assigned to extricate an American caught up in a Nigerian civil war. The plot was a straightforward brief for moralistic interventionism: Willis and his men flout the orders of their caution-minded superiors and take on an army of Muslim rebels who are raping and pillaging their way through the African countryside. “For all the years that we have been told to stand down and stand by,” one of the soldiers says as they lock and load. “For our sins,” Willis’s lieutenant agrees. Then they sweep in, guns blazing.

Tears of the Sun was a relatively modest film, budgeted in the tens rather than the hundreds of millions, but it was significant even so for being precisely the sort of movie 9/11 was supposed to spawn: righteously patriotic, confident in American might, and freighted with old-fashioned archetypes, with the rugged Willis saving the helpless Africans (and the lissome Monica Bellucci) from a horde of machete-wielding savages. It represented the kind of culture-industry sea change anticipated by the Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter’s famous remark that 9/11 had slain irony. It seemed to vindicate the conservative columnist Peggy Noonan’s prediction that the attacks would resurrect the spirit of John Wayne. And it was the sort of movie the left-wing critic Susan Faludi presumably had in mind when she lamented, in her recent book, The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America, that “the cultural troika of media, entertainment and advertising declared the post-9/11 age an era of … redomesticated femininity, and reconstituted Cold War manhood.”

Nothing in this commentary, however, bears much resemblance to the way American popular culture actually has evolved since 9/11. The latter-day cowboys have conspicuously failed to materialize: in the past six years, the movie industry has produced exactly zero major motion pictures dedicated to lionizing American soldiers fighting on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Tears of the Sun proved to be an outlier; more typical of our cultural moment are the movies that its director and star turned out early last year. In Fuqua’s Shooter, a redneck sniper goes up against a conspiracy that’s headed by a villainous right-wing Montana senator (who happens to be a Dick Cheney look-alike) and aimed at covering up an oil company’s human-rights abuses. In Robert Rodriguez’s B-movie homage, Planet Terror, Willis plays another military man, but this time the plot, such as it is, turns on a zombie-creating nerve agent that may have been tested on Willis and his soldiers, the movie hints, as punishment for their having killed Osama bin Laden when the government wanted him kept alive and at large.

Such self-conscious nods to contemporary controversies should be taken, in part, as proof that our popular culture is more impervious to real-world tragedy than most critics would care to admit. The machine that churns out Hollywood blockbusters grinds on remorselessly, and nothing so minor as a terrorist attack is going to keep the next Pirates of the Caribbean from its date with box-office destiny.

But it wasn’t just the reassertion of America’s usual frivolity that caused the 9/11 moment to be stillborn; it was the swiftness with which the Iraq War replaced the fall of the Twin Towers as this decade’s cultural touchstone. It’s Halliburton, Abu Ghraib, and the missing WMDs that have summoned up a cultural moment in which bin Laden is a tongue-in-cheek punch line for a zombie movie and the film industry’s typical take on geopolitics traces all the world’s evils to the machinations of a White Male enemy at home.

Conservatives such as Noonan hoped that 9/11 would bring back the best of the 1940s and ’50s, playing Pearl Harbor to a new era of patriotism and solidarity. Many on the left feared that it would restore the worst of the same era, returning us to the shackles of censorship and conformism, jingoism and Joe McCarthy. But as far as Hollywood is concerned, another decade entirely seems to have slouched round again: the paranoid, cynical, end-of-empire 1970s.

We expected John Wayne; we got Jason Bourne instead…

Here’s my pitch for a movie: At a G-7 gathering, the cocktails of Western leaders are secretly infused with a magic clarity potion. One by one they awaken to the global threat of Islamic supremacism, and muster the wit and the spine to prevent Islam from sweeping the planet.

Nah. They’d never go for it. It requires far too great a suspension of disbelief.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:17 | link | comments

On the street where they live: Hard on its probe into the matter of Swastika, Ontario's name (the town and its name have been around for 100 years, but the CJC just now got around to asking whether its moniker had anything to do with, you know, the Nazis) comes another CJC investigation. Here's the CJC's Frank Bialystock (didn’t I see him in The Producers?) defending the CJC’s interest in a street named Swastika in another North Ontario town, Kirkland Lake. It's in response to an op-ed piece criticising CJC buffoonery that appeared in the Kirkland Lake paper:

It's unfortunate that columnist Rick Owen felt the need to attribute sinister motives to Canadian Jewish Congress' straightforward effort to educate itself about the origin of the name of Swastika Avenue.

Our goal was nothing more than to better inform members of the Jewish community from outside this region about this matter.

Your March 17 news story helped to mitigate Mr. Owen's unfair interpretation of our efforts to learn more about the Town of Kirkland Lake to some degree, but did not fully address his views of our actions.

Mr. Owen chastised CJC for not going to the source to gather information.

On the contrary, this is exactly what we did by sending a very cordial letter to Mayor Bill Enouy, asking how this came to be the name of a street we thought had been established in 1998.

We received an equally cordial and very informative response from Swastika historian Carolyn O'Neil, explaining the street's origins and providing very interesting information about the history of the street, the area, and the people who live there, as well as their commitment to Canada and its values.

As a professor of Canadian history, I appreciate the clear explanation by Ms. O'Neil of this significant piece of regional lore.

This clears up the misunderstanding and underscores the pride of the residents of Kirkland Lake.

To accuse CJC of "making an issue out of something that has never been an issue" is an attempt to create controversy where none exists.

Sincerely,

Dr. Frank Bialystok,
Chair Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario Region

Thanks, Frank, for that unintentionally hilarious explanation--and for helping make new friends for the Jewish people. It's heartening to know that the CJC has its priorities straight, and is determined to get to the bottom of every last location in Canada named Swastika. That'll keep those Nazis at bay!

(I admit to having something of a personal connection to the story. My father grew up in Kirkland Lake, a town which has no lake, but where the streets were literally paved with gold—tailings from the nearby mines. A wild and woolly kind of place whose main drag featured a brothel, and which attracted the likes of Benny Goodman to come and entertain the miners--who tended to come and go--and other townsfolk--who were more settled. I’ve often thought of writing a novel about it, and the travails of a Jewish family living up there during the gold rush. Maybe I still will.)

Update: According to Swastika, Ontario's Wiki entry, the town is pronounced Swas-tee-ka. Please bear that in mind when reading the following:

The CJC’s freaked ‘bout Swastika

All because of the Nazi mystika.

Thinking such imbecility

Has any utility

Puts Canadian Jews up a crika. (Without a paddle, one might add.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments (5)

Alive and kicking: According to a new poll, Bambi's presidential bid has withstood the challenge of racist Wright.

Charisma and rampant stupidity save the day!

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:21 | link | comments

Edifice complex: Egregiously rich oil entity, Abu Dhabi, is building a humungous Guggenheim art museum that Der Spiegel describes as “Pharaonic.” The Abu Dhabians, er, ites, er, whatevah, are hoping that their Guggenheim will rival the Bilbao one as a tourist destination—and so is Guggenheim mastermind, Thomas Krens. Here he is tap dancing around a couple of sticky issues. First, the kind of images that may—and not be—be appropriate to hang on the walls of a museum in a sharia-ridden land (my bolds):

SPIEGEL: The government there is also paying for the construction of the museum. But it's hard to imagine a museum for the sometimes drastic art of the modern age and the present, side-by-side with strict Islamic culture, which permits only purely ornamental art.

Krens: You think so?

SPIEGEL: The salacious early photography of someone like Jeff Wall in Abu Dhabi -- inconceivable.

Krens: I can assure you that no one, throughout the entire time I was there for the negotiations, so much as created the impression of wanting to impose censorship. You know, the Guggenheim owns the largest collection of photographs by photographer Robert Mapplethorpe…

SPIEGEL: …many of which could be described as pornographic, even brutal.

Krens: And we would never even exhibit 30 percent of his photographs in New York. We would be allowed to do so there, and it would probably be possible in Abu Dhabi, as well. The question is: Why should we challenge a local culture? Perhaps to provoke political confrontation? That's unnecessary. And if an increasingly small portion of our collection is in fact not exhibited, this does not diminish the entire presentation.

Bow. Scrape. Shuffle. Grovel. Krens has the dhimmi dance down pat.

Next, the chances that kafirs are going to be willing to make the trek to Abu Dhabi which, let's face it, ain't exactly sunny Spain, and how “the Jews” who fork over mucho shekels to the Guggenheim are likely to feel about some of them being directed to an Arab museum:

SPIEGEL: But if you assume that people travel everywhere anyway, why Abu Dhabi, of all places?

Krens: Take a look at the map. Abu Dhabi is surrounded by interesting countries: Iran to the north, Iraq farther to the northwest, Saudi Arabia to the west and south.

SPIEGEL: Many of these countries aren't exactly friendly to the West. Doesn't that pose a major risk for the project?

Krens: Our world is filled with political conflicts. Allowing them to stop us is exactly what we don't want to do. When I went to Bilbao for the first time, it was truly dangerous there. Basque terrorist groups threatened me and told me to stay away. I had bodyguards and an armored car. It isn't a coincidence that we are now going to the Middle East.

SPIEGEL: But doesn't it irritate your many Jewish donors?

Krens: What do you think this really is? It's a cultural bridge. We are setting a clear example. We have a Jewish name. Solomon Guggenheim, the founder of the museum, was a Jew. Frank O. Gehry, our architect, is Jewish. And, of course, we talked with a lot of people, with Israeli politicians and with the Israeli ambassador to the United States.

Ah, yes, more “bridges”. And no doubt lots of dhimmified Jews will cross this particular bridge in order to take in this new cultural hotspot. Alas, the Jewgenheim is also likely to attract another, unwanted, kind of visitor—holy warriors who will view it as an especially enticing target for their wrath.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:45 | link | comments (1)

Hands off, John: John McCain gives us a preview of how he’d handle the presidency—ineptly, due to profoundly bad thinking. From the National Post (my bolds):

LOS ANGELES - Republican candidate John McCain said yesterday he would devote "personal deep engagement" to the Middle East peace process if he were elected U.S. president.

In response to a question after a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, he indicated he would have a much more hands-on attitude toward Middle East peacemaking than George W. Bush, the current President.

"I would devote every effort including personal deep engagement and involvement in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process," he said. "It is too important ... for us not to give it the highest priority."

The Arizona Senator, who has clinched the Republican nomination for the November presidential election, visited Israel this month as part of a Middle East fact-finding tour.

His remarks came after a formal speech in which he called for a more vigorous international diplomacy and a new effort to rebuild frayed relations with allies.

Distancing himself from Mr. Bush's sometimes unilateral diplomatic approach, Mr. McCain said the United States needs to live up to its responsibilities as a world leader and become a "model citizen" in the global community.

"The United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone," he said.

"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies."

Mr. McCain, who has been criticized by Democrats for hewing too closely to the policies of Mr. Bush, his fellow Republican, acknowledged the damaged U.S. image around the globe after five years of the Iraq war.

"Leadership in today's world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation. One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies," he said.

He slammed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the two Democrats seeking to become their party's candidate in the November election, for advocating quick withdrawals from Iraq.

The Republican candidate also restated his opposition to torture and said the United States should close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, where it holds terrorism suspects.

"America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model," he said. "How we behave at home affects  how we are perceived abroad. We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured."

Call it “the Boy Scout platform”. If America is really nice, doesn’t flex its muscles too much, and escorts little old Middle East problems across the street, the world will be a kinder, gentler place. (Hmmm. Sounds kind of familiar.)

Sorry, John. A “republic of virtue” is the worst idea I’ve heard so far during this campaign—worse even than the vapid maunderings of Barack Obama.

Cursed are the “hands-on” peace-mongers, for they shall lead us to rack and ruin.

Update: If McCain is so bent on sprucing up America's "image", maybe he could ask Israel for some hints on "rebranding".

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:11 | link | comments

Get with the dhimmi program, Benedict: Arab chick gripes about the Pope’s backbone in comment page of the Globe and Mail:

…By focusing so much attention on Magdi Allam's conversion, the Pope appeared to be engaging in a petty one-upmanship unbefitting the religious leader of more than a billion Catholics.

 

It was especially frustrating given that, on March 15, the first Catholic church opened in Qatar, and a Vatican official confirmed it was in talks with Saudi Arabia to build its first church - the Saudi kingdom being the only country in the region that bars non-Muslim houses of worship. (This last has been especially galling, considering the hundreds of thousands of expatriate workers from many faiths who keep Saudi Arabia running. Granted, it also makes it easy to deflate the double standards of Saudi officials when they condemn Denmark or the Netherlands for cartoons or a film, reminding them that Muslims in both those countries can publicly proclaim their faith in ways non-Muslims in the Saudi kingdom can only dream.)

 

But back to the Pope: What is achieved by his public gloating over a conversion? I am just as incensed when I hear Muslim leaders boast that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. So what? How sad that faith has become a hollow competition of "my numbers versus yours."

 

Let me be clear - everyone has the right to convert to any religion they want. Magdi Allam was clearly unhappy with Islam, which he attacked frequently in his writings. I want to be even clearer in my condemnation of any death threats that he or any other convert receives should they decide to leave Islam. We are taught as Muslims that there is no compulsion in faith, and our clerics should convey that message.

 

But those of us who call for freedom of worship, and who condemn threats of violence against those who choose another religion, are certainly not helped when the leaders of those other religions seem to exploit a conversion to score points. The Vatican seemed to want to have it both ways, holding up Magdi Allam as some kind of victory for Catholicism while, at the same time, claiming it was a private matter of faith.

 

I hope Magdi Allam finds peace in his new faith, but I agree with Rev. Christophe Rouçou, the French Catholic Church's top official for relations with Islam, who told Reuters: "I don't understand why he wasn't baptized in his hometown by his local bishop."

 

This Pope seems to relish unnecessary run-ins with Islam. In a lecture he gave in 2006 in his native Germany, the Pope quoted a medieval text that described Islam as violent and irrational. This was rich coming from the leader of a church with its own bloody history. Of course, it certainly didn't help that, in response, some Muslims staged angry demonstrations living up to that offensive description.

 

Interestingly, the Pope sought to make amends when he visited Turkey's Blue Mosque and prayed toward Mecca with its imam. And he is due to meet Muslim representatives later this year. Muslim scholars and leaders had written to the Pope and other Christian authorities after the fallout over his speech, urging dialogue between the two faiths for the sake of the "survival of the world."

I long ago gave up waiting for clerics of any kind to save the world, but I'd much rather they sit and talk to each other than boast over who's joined their team.

 

If the Pope wants to play a numbers game, there is another equation he should keep in mind. The bin Ladens and Geert Wilders - the latter being the Dutch politician behind the above-mentioned anti-Islam film - appeal to minorities at opposite ends of a spectrum of hate.

 

As the head of a much bigger flock, Pope Benedict should wield his responsibility with more wisdom.

 

Yeah, Ben, what’s up with that? My response:

 

Mona Eltahawy is upset that the Pope had the audacity to baptize a prominent Italian Muslim while the TV cameras were rolling, seeing it as another instance of the Vicar of Christ going out of his way to provoke Islam. She goes on to state that, as far as she’s concerned, there’s no problem with Muslims converting since there’s “no compulsion in faith”, knowing full well that the death penalty as the punishment for apostasy is a fundamental tenet of sharia law, and will remain so despite her condemnation of it.

 

If Ms. Eltahawy is looking for a Christian leader who does not “relish unnecessary run-ins with Islam,” she need look no further than the Archbishop of Canterbury. I’m guessing that his agenda of Christian humility and placation is far more to her taste.

 

In veritas, it isn't "a numbers game"; it's a law game--their God-law vs. our man-made law. And it looks like they're winning, since we don't "get" the game and are thus playing right into their hands.

 

Update: Here's the kind of dhimmi who'd get thumbs up from Ms. Mona.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:38 | link | comments (1)

Gay caballeros: If you’re gay, there isn’t a whole lot of wiggle room when it comes to sharia: Homosexuality is punishable by death. However, that hasn’t stopped a gay Muslim filmmaker from trying to reconcile his faith with his sexuality. From the times online:

…Sharma says this was a “very personal” film to make: he is a Muslim himself and dislikes the polarisation of discussion of Islam “between the Jihadists and the Bush supporters”. It makes for difficult viewing, forcing us belief-bare Western liberals to examine why gays would have anything to do with a religionthat rejects them at every turn, and sometimes violently.

Sharma filmed in secret in many countries for six years, amassing more than 400 hours of footage. He would put tourist-related material at the beginning and end of each tape so that if Customs took an interest in what he was doing it would find innocuous pretty pictures. He found his subjects through the internet and underground gay or HIV organisations. As a Muslim he could make himself “invisible” – it would have been much harder, he says, as a white Western film-maker to travel and film as he did.

The film shows Imam Muhsin Hendricks, a Muslim man in South Africa publicly speaking out against the homophobia of Islam. We watch the flight of four gay men out of Iran in a desperate attempt to gain asylum. Two are afraid to show their faces. Nearly all have faith which they try, and inevitably fail, to square with their sexual orientation. They feel desperate that they will never see their families again, but know they have to get out. Kazemi’s boyfriend was executed for sodomy; another man worries about the fate of his partner. “He was my introduction to love,” he says.

One Egyptian, Mazen, recalls the lashing he received after being apprehended, with more than others, after attending a gay party. One half of a lesbian couple (Maha and Maryam), deeply in love, feels her faith has been compromised by her desire. Two Turkish lesbians, Ferda and Kiymet, go to visit Ferda’s mother. Two of the Iranian men are granted asylum in Canada. “How can I be free when so many others aren’t?” one says to his friend, who replies, with steely hope, “One day they will all be free.”

Since filming, the subjects’ lives have changed generally for the better, says Sharma, who reveals that three of the Iranians are now safely living in Canada – one has become a gay rights activist. The fourth has been granted asylum but is still waiting to enter the country. Muhsin has been given funding to set up a group for lesbian and gay Muslims. Mazen, living in Paris, is “trying to find work in a xenophobic France,” says Sharma. “It’s terribly difficult for me, having got so close to so many of them, not to be able to materially help them.” Ferda and Kiymet have broken up.

Sharma doesn’t believe homosexuality will become acceptable within Islam in his lifetime: “It is not top of the agenda,” he says. But he hopes gays will make “significant advances” within Islam and that his film will be used as a “tool” for debate and also to give visibility to a group often rendered invisible…

More likely it’ll be used as a “tool” to convict and execute more gays.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:02 | link | comments

The bad and the beautiful: With mucho apologies to the late Jim Croce:

In the Southside of Chicago

Some are lookin’ for a fight.

And if you go down there

You better just beware 
Of a guy known as Rev’rend Wright.

 

Well, he’s angry as a hornet,

And he stings just like one, too.

And like his man, Farrakhan,

He’ll go on and on about the infamy of Jews.

 

And he’s bad, bad, Rev’rend Wright.

Loves to whinge about his people’s plight.

Nine one one’s Jews’ trick.

White folks made blacks sick.

 

Well, he’s pumped so full of outrage

And he’ll shout it out again.

And he’ll roam the stage just like a bantam rooster

Who’s a-cruisin’ for a hen.

 

And he’s bad, bad, Rev’rend Wright.

Listen up, and he’ll give you a fright.

Meaner than a Jesse J.

Nothing like an MLK.

 

Well, Obama’s like his nephew.

But really, more a son.

And since Rev’s a pistol

No way Bambi’s distancin’ himself from that son of a gun.

 

Now someone outs the racist

Who was up to his old tricks.

And so Bambi O

Learns a lesson ‘bout a-messing ‘round

In racial politics.

 

Well, he’s bad, bad, Rev’rend Wright.

Won’t be showin’ up election night.

Time that he lay low.

So he doesn’t sink O’s show.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:32 | link | comments

Shocking: Some Arab officials and journalists concede that Hamas is responsible for the escalation in Gaza.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:47 | link | comments

Freedom-envy: Sometimes I like to daydream that I live in a country where people can speak their mind without having to worry that someone will be offended by their words and snitch to the local or national thought cops. A country where, for instance, Geert Wilders could release a film that many will take as being an “insult” to Islam.

At the moment, under the terms of Section 13(1) of our “human rights” rules, that would not be possible. As Dutch-born Peter Hoekstra, a Republican from the American republic writes in the WSJ, though, such talk is still possible in the U.S. of A. (my bolds). (And, to quote a tuneful Jew, God bless America):

…Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders's anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like "Fitna," as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith. But free societies also hold freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. We don't silence, jail or kill people with whom we disagree just because their ideas are offensive or disturbing. We believe that when such ideas are openly debated, they sink of their own weight and attract few followers.

Our country allows fringe groups like the American Nazi Party to demonstrate, as long as they are peaceful. Americans are permitted to burn the national flag. In 1989, when so-called artist Andres Serrano displayed his work "Piss Christ" -- a photo of a crucifix immersed in a bottle of urine -- Americans protested peacefully and moved to cut off the federal funding that supported Mr. Serrano. There were no bombings of museums. No one was killed over this work that was deeply offensive to Christians.

Criticism of Islam, however, has led to violence and murder world-wide. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie over his 1988 book, "The Satanic Verses." Although Mr. Rushdie has survived, two people associated with the book were stabbed, one fatally. The 2005 Danish editorial cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad led to numerous deaths. Dutch director Theodoor van Gogh was killed in 2004, several months after he made the film "Submission," which described violence against women in Islamic societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch member of parliament who wrote the script for "Submission," received death threats over the film and fled the country for the United States.

The violence Dutch officials are anticipating now is part of a broad and determined effort by the radical jihadist movement to reject the basic values of modern civilization and replace them with an extreme form of Shariah. Shariah, the legal code of Islam, governed the Muslim world in medieval times and is used to varying degrees in many nations today, especially in Saudi Arabia.

Radical jihadists are prepared to use violence against individuals to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. In some countries, converting a Muslim to another faith is a crime punishable by death. While Muslim clerics are free to preach and proselytize in the West, some Muslim nations severely restrict or forbid other faiths to do so. In addition, moderate Muslims around the world have been deemed apostates and enemies by radical jihadists.

Radical jihadists believe representative government is un-Islamic, and urge Muslims who live in democracies not to exercise their right to vote. The reason is not hard to understand: When given a choice, most Muslims reject the extreme approach to Islam. This was recently demonstrated in Iraq's Anbar Province, which went from an al-Qaeda stronghold to an area supporting the U.S.-led coalition. This happened because the populace came to intensely dislike the fanatical ways of the radicals, which included cutting off fingers of anyone caught smoking a cigarette, 4 p.m. curfews, beatings and beheadings. There also were forced marriages between foreign-born al Qaeda fighters and local Sunni women.

There may be a direct relationship between the radical jihadists' opposition to democracy and their systematic abuse of women. Women have virtually no rights in this radical world: They must conceal themselves, cannot hold jobs, and have been subjected to honor killings. Would most women in Muslim countries vote for a candidate for public office who supported such oppressive rules?

Not all of these radicals are using violence to supplant democratic society with an extreme form of Shariah. Some in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark are attempting to create parallel Islamic societies with separate courts for Muslims. According to recent press reports, British officials are investigating the cases of 30 British Muslim school-age girls who "disappeared" for probable forced marriages.

While efforts to create parallel Islamic societies have been mostly peaceful, they may actually be a jihadist "waiting game," based on the assumption that the Islamic populations of many European states will become the majority over the next 25-50 years due to higher Muslim birth rates and immigration.

What is particularly disturbing about these assaults against modern society is how the West has reacted with appeasement, willful ignorance, and a lack of journalistic criticism. Last year PBS tried to suppress "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a hard-hitting documentary that contained criticism of radical jihadists. Fortunately, Fox News agreed to air the film.

Even if the new Wilders film proves newsworthy, it is likely that few members of the Western media will air it, perhaps because they have been intimidated by radical jihadist threats. The only major U.S. newspaper to reprint any of the controversial 2005 Danish cartoons was Denver's Rocky Mountain News. You can be sure that if these cartoons had mocked Christianity or Judaism, major American newspapers would not have hesitated to print them.

European officials have been similarly cautious. A German court ruled last year that a German Muslim man had the right to beat his wife, as this was permitted under Shariah. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated last month that the implementation of some measure of Shariah in Britain was "unavoidable" and British Muslims should have the choice to use Shariah in marital and financial matters.

I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film). I defend the right of Mr. Wilders and the media to air this film because free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society. Western governments and media outlets cannot allow themselves to be bullied into giving up this precious right due to threats of violence. We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can appease the radical jihadist movement by allowing them to set up parallel societies and separate legal systems, or by granting them special protection from criticism.

A central premise of the American experiment are these words from the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There are similar statements in the U.S. Constitution, British Common Law, the Napoleonic Code and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, hundreds of millions in the U.S. and around the world enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and many other rights.

These liberties have been won through centuries of debate, conflict and bloodshed. Radical jihadists want to sacrifice all we have learned by returning to a primitive and intolerant world. While modern society invites such radicals to peacefully exercise their faith, we cannot and will not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms.

Kind of puts the kibosh on sharia, since it holds that people are fundamentally unequal, so saith the supreme authority on such matters--and on all matter--Allah.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:54 | link | comments

Disproportionate comparison: A pundit on the Der Spiegel site calls Tibet "China's Gaza Strip"--thus placing a behemoth (China) on par with a pipsqueak (Israel). If the pundit had even a glimmer of a clue he'd be able to see that, in actuality, Israel, a lone Jewish state surrounding by 22--count 'em--22 ever-hating Arab nations, not to mention the zanies over in Iran and the nutbars of non-bordering Pakistan, all bent on Zion's destruction, is the Mideast's Tibet.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:34 | link | comments

Rancid fruit: Cherry-picking hatred. (hat tip: Ben Hur)

I'm sure it's not so bad once it's put back into context (or so I've heard).

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:01 | link | comments

A rude awakening: The Globe and Mail belatedly discovers the terrorists in our midst.

Hey, I thought that was the Post's bailiwick.

Oh, wait. Looks like the Star has twigged to it, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:48 | link | comments

Shill-com hijinks: I missed this episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie first time around.

Well, maybe not “missed” so much as purposely avoided like the plague:

Ban the Burka (Repeat: March 26 at 8PM/8:30 NT) – There’s trouble in Mercy when a mystery woman shows up at a mosque wearing a face veil. Sarah finds it oppressive. Fred finds it creepy. Baber falls in love. But he doesn’t have a way with women so he enlists Yasir to turn him into a ladies’ man.

Reminds me of the episode of Happy Days when the Fonz tries to turn Ritchie into a ladies’ man. ‘Cept for the sharia, of course.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:43 | link | comments

Avi's new gig: Kathy Shaidle examines the dhimmi dauphin of Canadian socialism and his lateral move to Al Jazeera.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:35 | link | comments

Model behaviour: With apologies to Simon and Garfunkle, er, Lennon and McCartney, er, you know who:

I am the very model of a human rights commissioner.

I listen to and weigh in on the claim of each petitioner.

My Weltanshauung’s leftist and I want you all to think like me.

And when you don’t I must say that it is the biggest mystery.

 

I’m very well acquainted, too, with elements heretical

I understand what activates and keeps them so kinetical.

About “hate speech” I’m well apprised and verging on the Stalinist.

And my deliberations are a fact that they cannot resist.

 

I’ve swallowed all the Kool-Aid of the Trudeau multi-culti cult

And what you see before you is the ultimate and end result.

In short, like a contemporary Spanish inquisitioner,

I am the very model of a human rights commissioner

 

I know our mythic history from way back in the 70s.

I ask the trenchant questions and subject folks to the third degree.

I sat there, stunned, as Ezra’s eloquence hit like a tsunami

And told him he’s entitled to opinions--yes, most “certainly”.

 

In my court we don’t worry ‘bout the truth and such like niceties.

We only are concerned about hurt feeling and those vice-ities.

I’m proud to say that my conviction rate’s a full 100 per cent.

And that success has not occurred by happenstance or accident.

 

I want you all to think nice thoughts and always act with politesse,

‘Cause if you don’t you must agree we’ll be stuck with an awful mess.

In short, consider me society’s “niceness” conditioner

And heed the very model of a human rights commissioner.

 

That’s why I’m most perturbed about the skin heads and Islamophobes

And why they are the subject of my furtive and important probes

It’s folks like them who shred the very fabric of society.

And silencing these miscreants is vital, you must all agree.

 

The CJC, Soharwardy and Elmasry are all in synch.

Convinced that it is crucial that we keep close tabs on what you think.

While Section 13(1) is something some like Steyn are wary at

There’s no recourse when they are hauled before our commissariat.

 

And should it come to pass that free expression is a casualty

So what? We aren’t American, and free speech ain’t our cuppa tea.

So I’ll keep clamping down on those with that predisposition, er,

And be the very model of a human rights commissioner.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:43 | link | comments (2)

Entente cordiale?: History repeats as Sarkozy calls for a "French-British brotherhood."

Embattled birds of a feather stick together?

Likely a pointless accord since, as Tony Blankley (on the RealClear Politics site) observes with profound sadness, England has no fight left:

...Where once our parents marched through the mud, jungle, sand or urban bombscapes of world combat -- asking nothing, offering all -- and prevailing, gaining glorious victory, we, their diminished progeny, whine that the world has not given us enough of a living.

But into every generation, a storm must come. And as we boomers slide toward our incontinence and as our children approach their young-adult vigor, the new barbarism reveals its menace to our civilization. Every week has its own largely ignored example of the coming struggle.

Two weeks ago, the story came from a town with a college that has been a leading force in the advancement of Christian civilization for 900 years: Oxford, England. Once again, something more than bluebirds threatens English skies. It seems that authorities at the Oxford Central Mosque have requested permission to use loadspeakers to blast the call to prayer five times a day from atop their minaret across the town that has heard for the past 900 summers, falls, winters and springs only the bells of the local churches.

Unsurprisingly, the Church of England's bishop for Oxford, the Right Rev. John Pritchard, has announced his support, calling on his congregation to "enjoy community diversity." He would be a likely successor to the current archbishop of Canterbury, who called for Shariah law for England recently.

Perhaps surprisingly, two Englishmen stepped forward to oppose the proposal: professor Allan Chapman, an Oxford University historian, and Charlie Cleverly, the rector of St. Aldates Church in the heart of Oxford. "I don't have any problem with Islam, but don't force it on the people. I'm a liberal; I want to be inclusive, but I don't want to be walked over," stated the professor.

The Anglican rector of St. Aldates was a bit more blunt: "It is common knowledge, though few will say it, that radical Islam has a program to take Europe, take England and take Oxford. In this strategy, some say the prayer call is like a bridgehead, spreading to other mosques in the city."

As if to support this politically incorrect assertion, Inayat Bunglawala, the assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain rejected the complaint dismissively, asserting that the "call to prayer will be part of Britain and Europe in the future."

A week later, England's ruling class again displayed its unfitness to rule. In Manchester, England, the Greater Manchester Police rejected the application to join it offered by Craig Briggs, who had just completed four and a half years with the 3rd Battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment. He seemingly was qualified but for one shortcoming. He has a tattoo on his lower arm that spells out the shocking name: "ENGLAND." He was formally informed that "Home Office policy precludes applications with tattoos ... which may cause offence and/or invite provocation from the public or colleagues." Informally he was told, "Unfortunately, some people feel intimidated by the word England." And I thought only Nazi swine (and in olden days, the French) were intimidated by the thought of England.

England, in her tolerance, has admitted into her midst -- and given succor -- those who loathe her. But more loathsome yet are the natural born Englishmen -- most in high places -- who have forgotten the simple truth of another World War II song:

"There'll always be an England,

And England shall be free,

If England means as much to you

As England means to me."

You can revise that to: Where once there was an England/An England that was free/It crumbled when the Islamists' sharia crossed the sea.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:56 | link | comments (2)

The return of Moqty: Last time we checked in with Shia firebrand, Moqtada al Sadr, he had hightailed it to Iran and was said to be deep in religious studies, training to become a full-fledged holy rollah. (His mother must be so proud!)

Guess the Ayatollah lessons weren’t enough to satisfy him, though, since Moqty is right back at it, fomenting all sorts of civil strife in Iraq. From Reuters:

NAJAF, Iraq, March 25 (Reuters) - Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called on Iraqis to stage sit-ins and threatened a countrywide "civil revolt" if attacks by U.S. and Iraqi security forces continue against his followers.

"We call upon all Iraqis to stage sit-ins all over Iraq as a first step. And if the people's demands are not respected by the Iraqi government, the second step will be to declare civil revolt in Baghdad and all other provinces," Sadr said in a statement read out by senior aide Hazem al-Araji.

He also threatened a "third step", but said it was too early to announce what that would be.

Iraqi security forces launched a major crackdown on militia, including Sadr's Mehdi Army, in the southern oil city of Basra on Tuesday.

Sadr declared a ceasefire last August and extended it in February, but his followers took to the streets in some Baghdad neighbourhoods on Monday and Tuesday to stage what they called a "civil disobedience campaign", ordering shops to shut.

"We call upon all the religious, political and social figures to intervene to stop the attacks against our people, which have been supported by occupation forces," Sadr said in the statement read out by Araji. (Baghdad newsroom)

A bit confused aren’t we, Moqty? The attacks against your people are being conducted by—go figure—your people. And by “your people” I mean your fellow Muslims, not your fellow Shias. 

Nothing you guys like better than blasting the bejeesus out of each other.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:06 | link | comments (1)

Um, because Israel is Jewish and not Chinese?: Dennis Prager asks "Why do Palestinians get more attention than Tibetans?"

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:46 | link | comments

Come again?: There are times when Globe and Mail pop culture opinier, Lynne Crosby, can be bracing and amusing. Then there are times— like today, for instance—when her shotgun marriage of high and low culture composed in Byzantine prose is utterly confounding. Upon reading the following, embedded in a fulmination about, of all people Jamie Lee Curtis and her preternaturally perky ta-tas, the only possible response is to scratch one’s noggin and go, “Huh?”

…Discourse about old, ugly women is at the root of feminist consciousness for a reason: Best branded in our souls via the (here is T.S. Eliot) "withered dugs" of the Playboy crone, who capered among the nubiles as an object lesson in contempt, we have long learned that those being put out to sexual pasture are largely mares...

“Withered dugs”? Not exactly something you want to read as you’re tucking in to your morning All-Bran. Doesn’t anyone edit Lynne’s columns to see if they, you know, make sense?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:19 | link | comments

Stupid: What else can you call Jews who, despite knowing that Barack Obama has been shaped by a racist, Jew-loathing mentor, persist in wanting to vote for him?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:05 | link | comments (1)

Kvetching victims club, American branch: Decades after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the launch of the feminist movement, Democrats are still kvetching about racism and sexism. Bruce Walker on the American Thinker site tries to account for the perpetual whinging. Why, after all this time and the enactment of so many laws, are these folks so upset?:

…Why?  Because the sins of America are a religious article of faith to self-appointed black leaders and to self-appointed representatives of the female sex.  And it is crucial that the sin is not racism or sexism, but specifically American (or, perhaps, Western) racism and sexism.  There is a reason why black leaders long ignored the genocide in Sudan, in which whites were enslaving and murdering blacks:  the whites in question were not American.  There is a reason why feminist yawned when told about honor murders, female circumcision and the imprisonment of rape victims:  the men in question were not American.   The catechism of the Left is that America is evil. 

 

Actually, America has been very good to women.  Men and women are different, and every human society has reacted to those differences in some fashion.  No society provided equivalent rights to men and women.  Whether that meant that women were treated unfairly is a matter of judgment.  Women in America have never been subject to a wartime draft.  The first labor laws protected the health of women and children.  Currently federal laws affirmatively discriminate in favor of women.  The Violence Against Women Act, for example, only provides funds for violence against women, not violence against men.  The Child Support Enforcement Program does not enforce family law orders, but only family law orders related to support -- and the vast majority of custodial parents are women.  Title IX requires that women sports in college receive funding far out of proportion to actual interest in those sports.

 

None of this is necessarily bad, but it is certainly evidence that the unequal legal status of men and women often discriminates against men, not women.   That should lead a sensible person to determine that the different treatment of men and women in society is not bigoted sexism, but rather a serious attempt to be fair to classes of Americans who have basic and natural differences.

 

The record of American on racism and ethnic discrimination is different.  Blacks, undoubtedly, have faced hateful bigotry on account of their race.  The enslavement of Africans was a sin, and it was recognized as a sin while it was happening by many American leaders.  The foundation of Liberia under President Monroe was an early attempt to rectify that wrong.  The carnage decades later in the Civil War was a more desperate attempt to rectify that wrong.  The history of black Americans for a century after the Civil War was largely a battle between whites who wanted to elevate the black man and whites who wanted to degrade the black man.  Ultimately the former won.

 

Blacks were not the only Americans who faced discrimination because of their race.  Even Europeans -- Germans, Irish, Jews, Poles and Italians (among others) -- all went through a cycle of disdain and yet all rose above that and assumed a full measure of the American Dream.  More significantly, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and Koreans have all come to America with oral and written languages completely alien to English, with no common theological or philosophical system, and with a physical appearance that made them as distinct as black Americans.  These Asian-Americans faced racism, but they rose above it -- and without much in the way of civil rights laws, affirmative action programs or similar government advocacy.  In fact, Asian students, themselves once the victims of racism, are made to stand aside in some state college systems for less-qualified other minorities.  

 

The words of Emma Lazarus "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddle masses yearning to breath free" are true about America:  victims of bigotry throughout the last two centuries have flocked to America precisely because it was a global haven for those who were persecuted and despised, denied equality and fair treatment.  These people sought America.  These people, emphatically, never damned America.

 

This is not a defense of racism, but rather an observation that racism has proven very easy to transcend in America, when a group adopts American values or when a group adheres to its own values of work, family, study and thrift.   This formula has worked well with all different colors of Americans, including many black Americans.

The outspokenness of civil rights leaders and feminists -- indeed, the outrageousness of their comments -- is the best evidence that racism against blacks and misogyny are very weak in America.  If we lived in the land and time of the Taliban, feminists would be silent and shuddering.  If we lived in the land and time of Jim Crow, then blacks would be overly polite and subservient.  Thank goodness we do not.   

 

Hating America is a religion with radical feminists and militant blacks.  It is a very bad religion.  It is a religion immune to any cure.  It is a religion founded upon lies.  It is, in fact, more like a sick cult than any religion that normal Americans might follow.   The greatness and goodness of America, as has so often been the case, is well defined by its mortal enemies.

 

Funny how the kvetchers don’t seem terribly concerned about other ethno-religio-cultural groups wherein sexism and discrimination are not only rampant, but are taken as a matter of faith.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:01 | link | comments

What the UN does best: Enable tyrants, facilitate dictatorships, and wrap itself in a mantle of irreproachable self-righteousness while making things much, much worse. By Michael Holman in the times online:

Here we go again! Seven years after the World Food Programme helped to save Robert Mugabe’s political bacon by unilaterally and unconditionally deciding to feed his starving people, the UN agency is making the same mistake.

At the end of 2001 Zimbabwe’s leader was in trouble. Presidential elections were looming. The consequences of his land grab were becoming clear. After denying that hunger was imminent, Mugabe finally admitted that half a million Zimbabweans faced famine.

At this point the WFP stepped in to feed the country – but without an insistence on minimum conditions, such as an end to the land policy which created the crisis that donors sought to alleviate.

The outcome of the operation was predictable: food aid became institutionalised as the land grab continued. The WFP has fed millions of Zimbabweans and Mugabe has been cushioned from the consequences of his policies.

Seven years later history repeats itself. Mugabe is fighting for his political life. Elections are imminent. And he has been forced to admit that his country is starving. But again, help is at hand from the same source.

In a statement last week the WFP announced that it “plans to complete this month’s food distributions in Zimbabwe earlier than usual to avoid any overlap with the final run-up to the presidential and parliamentary elections on 29 March”. In other words, in time for Mr Mugabe to use the resources of the State to distribute the food as he deems fit.

The WFP claims that it has “zero tolerance for political interference . . . in the distribution of its food assistance,” a claim as pompous as it is hollow. For a start, it should be unacceptable to the WFP that reporters from the very countries who pay for the food should be banned from Zimbabwe. It is also unacceptable that election monitors are similarly proscribed.

No one underestimates the UN agency’s predicament. What if Mr Mugabe responds to a WFP attempt to impose conditions by choosing to let his people starve rather than accept foreign reporters, and the presence of independent monitors?

But there is another question to ask: if Mr Mugabe’s political life is in the balance, could these terms prove the straw that will break his back? If he agrees, the better the chance that democracy prevails on March 29. If he refuses, might this tip the scales towards his overthrow?

Selecting and applying the conditions that should accompany food aid is no easy task. But the record suggests that the naïve and unconditional generosity the WFP has displayed has done long-term harm, whatever short-term good.

The UN, in a nutshell, doing long-term harm since 1945.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:14 | link | comments (2)

Today’s doggerel: With profound apologies to O. Nash:

Obama’s Grama—she is white.

Obama’s preacher—he’s a fright.

And, whaddya know?, for B. Obama

It’s the “fright” who’s like the Dalai Lama.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:00 | link | comments

Thugs call the shots:  In FrontPage Magazine, John David Lewis describes his encounter with “thugs” on a university campus who could not abide his free expression (since it wasn’t in line with their way of thinking). A harrowing account, indeed. What jumped out at me, though, was the following, since it resonates with what’s happening here in Canada with our very own thought cops (my bolds):

…The topic of my talk was theocracy and Islamic law. Islamic governments, as ideological states founded on claims to divine revelation, must jail—or worse—those who speak out against the clerics. This was the thug’s ideal: In lieu of rationally demonstrating the “truth” of his beliefs, he would criminalize me, or jail me, or perhaps kill me, to stop the spread of ideas contrary to his. In Iran, this ideal has already been achieved; there I would have been arrested, condemned, and thrown into solitary confinement. But in America, the thug’s ideal is frustrated; without the power of the law to silence me he was reduced to name-calling.

What deeper attack on civilization, freedom, the mind, and human life could be possible than to propose the establishment of thought crimes in an American university? His was the voice of a dark-age Nazi brownshirt longing for the day when he can destroy those who vocalize ideas that make it difficult for him to evade the irrational nature of his whims. Who is it that should be empowered to peruse articles and determine which ones constitute crimes? The thug made that very clear…

Lewis is lucky that he lives in the States. In Canada, “thought crimes” have been a fait accompli for quite some time.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:47 | link | comments

Buffoon with forehead icky re-bloviates: Ayman is off his meds again. From AP:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — Al-Qaida deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri called on Muslims in a new audiotape released Monday to strike Jewish and American targets in revenge for Israel's recent offensive in the Gaza Strip.

The al-Zawahri tape came on the heels of a message from Osama bin Laden, who called for a holy war to liberate the Palestinian territories. Together, the two messages appeared to be a more direct push by the terror network's leadership to use widespread anger over the Gaza violence to whip up support.

Israel's weeklong offensive in Gaza ended in early March. It was launched in an attempt to put down Palestinian militants firing rockets against nearby the Israeli town of Sderot and city of Ashkelon. The Israeli assault killed more than 120 people, including many civilians. Three Israelis also were killed.

Bin Laden and al-Zawahri have frequently referred to the Palestinian cause in their past messages, but usually in broader terms of liberating Jerusalem and denouncing Israeli violence. Their latest calls for attacks, however, had a more immediate and urgent tone.

The string of messages has raised concerns that al-Qaida could be planning new attacks in the West — or is seeking to inspire its sympathizers to carry out violence. In another message last week, bin Laden warned of a "severe" reaction against Europe after Danish papers published a cartoon seen as insulting Islam's Prophet Muhammad.

The authenticity of the 4 minute, 44-second audiotape could not be independently confirmed. But the voice resembled that of al-Zawahri on previous audio and videotapes confirmed to be his. It was posted on an Islamic militant Web site where al-Qaida usually releases its statements, and a banner advertising the tape had the logo of al-Qaida's media arm, Al-Sahab.

"Muslims, today is your day. Strike the interests of the Jews, the Americans, and all those who participated in the attack on Muslims," al-Zawahri said. "Monitor the targets, collect money, prepare the equipment, plan with precision, and then — while relying on God — assault, seeking martyrdom and paradise."

Al-Zawahri said attacks should not be limited to places in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

"Today there is no room for he who says that we should only fight the Jews in Palestine," he said. "Let us strike their interests everywhere, just like they gathered against us from everywhere."

"Let them know that they will get blood for every dollar they spend in the killing of the Muslims, and for every bullet they fire at us, a volcano will turn back on them," he said, referring to American military aid and other ties to Israel. "They cannot expect to support Israel, then live in peace while the Jews are killing our fugitive and besieged people."

Israeli officials did not immediately respond to repeated messages seeking comment.

Al-Zawahri also referred to the publishing of the cartoon seen as insulting Islam's prophet. The cartoons, which sparked deadly riots across the Muslim world in 2006 after they were first published, were reprinted last month.

"They will never be able to insult and make a mockery out of our Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah upon him," al-Zawahri said…

Wanna bet?

Update:

About Ayman al-Zawahiri

One has now become bored and quite weary.

Such a cranky old scold.

And it's same old, same old.

And that head icky--that's just plain eerie.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:14 | link | comments

Hugh crunches the numbers: A Jihad Watch reader asked Hugh Fitzgerald if he would be willing to shift his loyalty to the Palestinians “If the Israel/Palestinian conflict were exactly the same…only the roles of the two warring parties were exactly reversed.” Hugh responded as follows:

…Let's see.

If there were 22 Jewish states, and only one tiny Arab state, and if in those 22 Jewish states every other group was denied anything like equality (see the various groups of Christians all over the Muslim Arab world, or for that matter see the various groups of non-Arab Muslims -- such as Kurds, Berbers, and black Africans in Darfur), and if those 22 Jewish states also possessed fantastic oil reserves and the one tiny Arab state possessed nothing but the intelligence of its populace, and if those 22 Jewish states were the size of the 22 members of the Arab League, with 14,000,000 square miles of territory, and the one tiny Arab state had less than 1/1,000th of that, or about 10,0000 square miles, and if those 22 Jewish states were possessed of an ideology that required them to move heaven and earth in order to eradicate that one tiny Arab state -- oh, and did I forget to mention all the other "not-quite Jewish states" that would be the correct analogue to the non-Arab Muslim states that the Arabs (and Islam) have convinced that they, too, have a stake in opposing Israel and wishing to see it destroyed? (See those frenzied mobs in Iran, or Pakistan.)

And if, furthermore, I knew that if those 22 Jewish states were intent on rewriting, or destroying, or utterly effacing, the history of those Arabs in their one tiny "Arab" state, because the rewriting of other peoples' history was what, for 1350 years, those Jews had been doing, and if there were a figure in Judaism akin to Muhammad, who was held up as the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, as the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and if that Perfect Man in Judaism was not like any figure known to me in Judaism, or in Christianity, but was remarkably like Muhammad, as described in the Sira as teased out of the words and deeds attributed to him in the Hadith, and if, furthermore, I knew that if those 22 Jewish states, with their 14,000,000 square miles, and their fantastic unmerited oil wealth, and their unbelievable fixation on destroying a sliver of territory that was less than 1/1,000th of the territory they controlled, ever managed to destroy that tiny Arab state in the area bounded to the east by the River Jordan and on the west by the Mediterranean, a place so small one could not find it on the map, were ever to succeed, that would not satisfy them, but make them ever more eager to recover other lands that had once been in their possession, and indeed to work, with a sense of triumph, for the final acceptance, all over the world, of Judaism as the dominant faith, and with Jews assuming the role that Muslims look forward to assuming themselves, then yes, I would of course be on the side of that tiny Arab state.

Oh, I forgot to mention that to make your little hypothetical complete, one would also have to posit that the Jews had long ago conquered that little area, and many of the Arabs had fled to Europe, or elsewhere in the "Jewish lands," and in both places had had to endure different kinds of difficulties, and suffering, and recently, in Europe, had endured what the Jews endured under the Nazis. And those Arabs, who had in the last century come to realize that in order to deal with the entrenched prejudice, complicated in its origins, against them, that it made sense for them to return to that little sliver, which under Jewish rule had fallen, by all accounts, into ruin and desolation, and they had done so, buying up land at exorbitant prices, and managing to have their right to establish the Arab National Home on this little territory recognized by the civilized world, even if those Jews, in their vast territories and many (22 by now) states, were determined never to let those Arabs have their tiny country -- why, yes, if all of that, and all the rest that I haven't bothered to give here were offered, with Arabs in place of Jews, and vice-versa, I would have not the slightest difficulty being on the side of the Arabs in that case.

The reality, of course, is that Israel is the tiny besieged state, whose people are threatened by a permanent Jihad. Israel is the tiny state where, against all odds, the fantastic achievement of Israel came to be, the resurrection of the ancient Jewish commonwealth. The great Italian journalist Indro Montanelli once wrote, toward the end of his long life (he died at the age of 90) that the greatest thing to have happened during the twentieth century, through which he had lived and during which he had experienced and observed and studied so much, was the establishment of the State of Israel. And then, he added, "and possibly the only good thing to come out of the twentieth century."

Moral idiots will not share this view. I invite you to think clearly about how I have taken your invited hypothetical, and worked it out, and ask yourself if you wish to remain a moral idiot, or care to embrace what is just, what is right. Many people born into Islam, by the way, once they have jettisoned Islam, have had no trouble recognizing what Israel faces. See Ibn Warraq, see Wafa Sultan, see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, all of whom were subject to environments where anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiments were their daily fare.

As they have managed to retain their intellectual and moral clarity, and to develop mentally in the freedom of the West, they have come to certain conclusions about Islam. And they have also reached certain conclusions about much-maligned Israel, the conclusions that I too have come to, and you, I'm afraid, have not.

Game, set, match: Hugh.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:51 | link | comments (1)

And a damn fine job it's doing, too: Dick Cheney says Hamas is trying to 'torpedo' peace talks--as if Abbas is qualitatively different from his extremist "compadres".

Actually, Dick, they're two peas in one festering pod.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:12 | link | comments

Song and dance: If only the one-eyed black Jewish Rat-Packer were around to sing it:

I knew a man Obama and he chants for you

In dulcet tones.

Defendin’ his attendance at an awful church

He made no bones.

Said Granny’s like Wright, Granny’s like Wright,

And that was so wrong.

 

Comparin’ his old mater to that racist Rev.--

It’s such a joke!

But see the silly people hang on ev’ry word

As Bambi spoke.

He talked of his life, talked of his life.

Afterwards they all cheered.

 

He said his name “Obama” came from Africa

Along with Dad.

But Mama and his Grama came from Kansas plains,

Which made him sad.

He needed “street cred”, needed “street cred.”

Jeremiah Wright was his man.

 

Mr. Obama, Mr. Obama,

Mr. Obama, chants.

 

He chanted and he panted ‘bout “audacity”.

And all his “hopes”.

He said that “change” was possible if you “believe”--

And other tropes.

The young’uns all swooned, young’uns all swooned.

Lots of others did, too.

 

His chanting had incantatory properties--

It hypnotized.

So folks who listened to his spiel soon didn’t mind

Lame alibis.

Their brains turned to mush, brains turned to mush

And they adored him still more.

 

Mr. Obama, Mr. Obama,

Mr. Obama, chants.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:19 | link | comments

Et tu, Dick?: Cheney says Palestinian state long overdue.

The final nail in the coffin of Bush et Co.: From "you're either with us or against us" to Cheney's pathetic and blatantly false observation.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:48 | link | comments

Which would explain Ontario's endless winter of '08: Scientist says global warming ended a decade ago.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:40 | link | comments

Heh: The duplicity of hope.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:29 | link | comments

He’s baa-aack!: Guess who just turned up like a bad penny, like a recurring nightmare, like a stubborn case of lice, like a burrito that doesn’t want to digest? The one. The only. Mr. Personality hisself--Kofi Annan. From the New York Sun:

UNITED NATIONS — Kofi Annan, who spent the last years of his decade-long tenure as U.N. secretary-general clashing with members of the Bush administration, says he hopes a widely held perception that his successor, Secretary-General Ban, is "too close" to America is nothing but a "passing phase."

Mr. Annan, who became secretary-general in 1997 with strong backing from the Clinton administration but ran afoul of Washington when he criticized the war in Iraq as "illegal," was in New York City yesterday to receive an international justice award from the MacArthur Foundation. In a wide-ranging discussion with U.N. reporters, he opined on world affairs in a style that fans and detractors alike once likened to that of a "secular pope."

"Almost every secretary-general at one point or the other is perceived as close to the Americans, and at another point fighting the Americans," he said. "I hope this perception that Secretary-General Ban is too close to the United States is a passing phase."

Mr. Annan, who is now based in Geneva, said he is following the "revealing" American presidential campaign closely, adding that he has "no horse" in the race. "I used to ask myself the question, 'Is society ready for a woman, a black man?'" he said. "It seems to me that there have been major shifts in the American society that I missed even though I have been here for a long time and I thought that I understood" America. "This election has been an eye-opener for me, and I think for many people around the world."

Mr. Ban's critics say his closeness to America is harmful for the world body. "The U.N. flag is no more a protection, but rather a target because of its failure to preserve impartiality in different conflicts in the world," a former aide to Mr. Annan, Lakhdar Brahimi, whom Mr. Ban appointed to investigate a bombing at the U.N. headquarters in Algiers, told Algerian reporters this week.

While Mr. Ban has often said he would rather achieve results in areas where the United Nations can be effective than make public his views on world situations, Mr. Annan spoke of "a bully pulpit that I believe as secretary-general I should use." In reality, Mr. Annan said, "There are very few things that the secretary-general can do," so what is left is to "challenge the member states" and "inspire" them.

In his recent memoir, "Surrender Is Not an Option," a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, had strong criticism for Mr. Annan's "secular pope" stance. He supported Mr. Ban, Mr. Bolton wrote, because "of all the candidates to succeed Annan, I thought he was the least likely to wake up at one point during his five-year term concluding he was God's gift to humanity."

Bolton might have quoted Winston Churchill’s famous line about Sir Stafford Cripps, an insufferably pompous M.P.:“There but for the grace of God, goes God.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:22 | link | comments

Don't believe it: Cold doesn't hinder Ontario Easter bunny.

Sez you. Poor critter nearly froze his tail off.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:08 | link | comments

Seethe-a-thon expected in five, four, three…: The Pope just turned a prominent Muslim into an apostate. Better take cover, Benedict. From AP via the IHT:

VATICAN CITY: A prominent Italian Muslim - an iconoclastic writer who has condemned Islamic extremism and defended Israel - converted to Catholicism in a baptism by the pope at the Vatican Easter service.

Magdi Allam, an Egyptian-born, non-practicing Muslim who is married to a Roman Catholic, has infuriated some Muslims with his books and columns in the daily newspaper Corriere della Sera, where he is a deputy editor.

Allam titled one book "Long Live Israel."

As a choir sang Saturday night, Pope Benedict XVI poured holy water over Allam's head and said a brief prayer in Latin.

"We no longer stand alongside or in opposition to one another," Benedict said in a homily reflecting on the meaning of baptism. "Thus faith is a force for peace and reconciliation in the world: distances between people are overcome, in the Lord we have become close."

Allam, 55, told the newspaper Il Giornale in a December interview that his criticism of Palestinian suicide bombings had provoked threats on his life in 2003, prompting the Italian government to provide him with a security detail.

Yahya Pallavicini, vice president of Coreis, a group of observant Muslims in Italy, said he respected Allam's choice but said he was "perplexed" by the symbolic and high-profile way in which he chose to convert.

"If Allam truly was compelled by a strong spiritual inspiration, perhaps it would have been better to do it delicately," Pallavicini said, according to a report by the ANSA news agency.

Allam, who has a young son with his Catholic wife and two adult children from a previous relationship, indicated in the Il Giornale interview that he would have no problem converting to Christianity. He did not speak to the press Saturday, and his newspaper said it had no information about his conversion.

Allam explained his decision to title a recent book "Viva Israele" by saying he wrote it after he received death threats from Hamas.

"Having been condemned to death, I have reflected a long time on the value of life. And I discovered that behind the origin of the ideology of hatred, violence and death is the discrimination against Israel. Everyone has the right to exist except for the Jewish state and its inhabitants," he said. "Today, Israel is the paradigm of the right to life."

In 2006, Allam was a co-winner, with three other journalists, of the $1 million Dan David Prize, named for an Israeli entrepreneur.

The prize committee cited Allam for "his ceaseless work in fostering understanding and tolerance between cultures."

Sounds like a good guy. He better watch his back too, though.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:00 | link | comments

No bell, but dhimmis kvell*: The  Ceeb’s Nalah Ayed on the significance of Qatar’s new (dhimmi) church:

…At the opening ceremony, Qatar’s deputy prime minister said the country’s decision to open the church would send a positive message to the world about the possibility of coexistence, that just as mosques can be built in the secular West, churches can be built in countries where Islam is dominant.

Qatar has been sponsoring interfaith conferences for several years now, encouraging dialogue between different religions. Allowing churches in the country reinforces that position.

Observers here suggest there’s more to it than that. For some time now, Qatar has sought to differentiate itself from its more conservative neighbour Saudi Arabia, and although it has only a fraction of Saudi’s size and power, it has sought to counter its influence.

The opening of the church also leaves Saudi as the only Gulf country that still doesn’t allow the establishment of churches on its soil.

Qatar is also trying to project an image of modernity, analysts say, especially as it prepares a serious bid for the 2016 Olympic Games.

“This is a purely political decision,” says Mehran Kamrava, director of the Center for International and Regional Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service in Doha.

“What we see is an attempt to brand the country, project a certain image of the country as forward-thinking, forward-looking, modern, progressive and so of course, having a church is part of the project of modernity.”

No bell, no crosses

Whatever the reason behind the decision, there are detractors. Qatar is, after all, a deeply conservative Muslim country that follows the same strict interpretation of Islam as Saudi Arabia. Many believe that had the question been put to Qataris, in a referendum for instance, they would have rejected it.

Former justice minister Najeeb al-Nauimi says he doesn’t oppose the building of a church in principle.

But he has criticized the decision because it was imposed by the leadership without consulting its citizens, likely for political reasons.

It was done, he says, “to please Britain, to please Europe, [to say] you see, we are like you, you open a mosque, we open a church. But [U.S. President George W.] Bush, when he says we have a mosque, he did not grant that mosque to the people, it was done through a normal democratic process. We have to do the same.”

Al-Nauimi is also concerned that the church will become a target. There have already been threats made against it on extremist websites.

The Vatican of course is aware of all this. To avoid offending local sensitivities, the church was built without a bell and without crosses on the outside.

For greater certainty, its entrance is also protected by metal detectors.

Christians deeply appreciative

Among Christians, though, who have made Qatar their home, there is only deep appreciation.

In their first few years here, Robert and Debbie would attend clandestine prayers held in garages and living rooms. For many decades, the presiding Catholic priest operated here without official sanction.

With time, the situation improved. Catholics acquired a parish centre and seven priests held 56 masses a week at other locations around the country. But having a real church, they say, makes Qatar feel more like a home.

“We were really praying and praying that a miracle take place,” Debbie told me. “God has heard everybody's prayer.”

At the church’s official opening, the celebrations were full of jubilation and went on for hours. The crowning achievement: having it open in time for Easter festivities this weekend.

“It's really great. We can celebrate the Holy Week, the passion of our Lord and Easter here in this wonderful monument,” beamed Robert.

It is a transient community. Many of those who attended the church’s opening will likely eventually go home. But the church will remain to serve new generations of expatriates who come looking for opportunity…

If “opportunity” doesn’t knock for the testy “extremists,” that is.

*Yiddish for “cries of delight at this joyful turn of events” (or something like that).

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:50 | link | comments

Blast from the past: Aging former pop star Chris de Burgh, whose last hit that I can recall was “Lady in Red” back in the decade of Wham! and Flock of Seagulls, is defying “media misinformation” and planning to perform in Iran (for all the ladies in black, I s'pose). From Fars News:

Speaking exclusively to the Record, pop legend Chris de Burgh confirmed that he would have an open-air concert with popular Iranian band Arian in Tehran this summer, press tv reported.

Chris then responded to critics who believe he should not play in Iran and said, "I don't believe virtually anything we read [on Iran] because we are on the receiving end of a lot of propaganda."

"The only way you get the truth is by talking to people in Iran and finding out what goes on," he explained.

"About 12 years ago, we became aware that I was very popular in Iran and we tried to figure out how to get there because I like playing new places," he continued. "I'm visiting Iran to make people a little happier."

The Irish singer, 52, is a UN ambassador for promoting food campaign initiatives against malnutrition and had earlier collaborated with Arian to sing A Melody for Peace.

Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:23 | link | comments

Anniversary shmaltz: Just in time for anniversary festivities (60 years since the "nakba"), don't miss the Washington Report's special "Nakba Blog."

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:16 | link | comments (2)

Feel the love: Radical Hamas and "moderate" Fatah sign a reconciliation deal.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:56 | link | comments

Harpoon hypes the HRCs: The Toronto Star’s revered “editorial page editor emeritus” (his billing each and every time his column appears), Harpoon Siddiqui, finally gets around to the subject of HRCs. I’m sure it will come as no surprise on which side of the divide Harpoon looms. Like the Canadian Islamic Council, the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and, oh, yeah, the Canadian Jewish Congress, he’s gung ho about allowing shifty lefty bureaucrats decide—usually in camera—what constitutes acceptable speech in this country. Harpoon argues that since HRCs have, up till now, been sauce for the goose (the Jews who’ve successfully kvetched about Ernst Zundel and his ilk) it is only fair that they be sauce for the ganders (Islamists like the CIC’s Mo Elmasry and the law kids who Mark Steyn—the object of their disaffection—cheekily refers to as Elmo’s sock puppets):

...The pattern is clear. Those [Macleans, Steyn, Levant]  hauled before the commissions howl "censorship."

But the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the anti-hate provisions of both the human rights codes as well as the Criminal Code. It ruled that curbing hate speech is a reasonable and justifiable limit on free speech.

That, then, is the law in Canada.

Liberal MP Keith Martin now wants to change the law. He has introduced a private member's bill to delete section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits messages "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

He has been hailed as a hero, especially by right wingers. But the Liberal party has distanced itself from him, for good reason: There was little or no hue and cry when human rights commissions were ruling on complaints by various groups, but there is when the complainants are Muslim.

Martin and others need to address that if they are not to be seen as hypocrites.

The media, including the Star, also vehemently oppose human rights tribunals regulating the press.

They do so to protect press freedom. They also point to disparities in the human rights codes in different jurisdictions. Ontario's refers to signs, symbols, emblems etc. but not the media. The federal statute, and the ones in Alberta and B.C., are clearer, which is why the tribunals there heard the cases they did.

It follows, then, that the federal and British Columbia commissions have no option but to hear the complaint against Maclean's. Otherwise, they will stand accused of double standards.

As for the Ontario commission, it needs to address the irony that it may rule against a crackpot holding up a sign, "Gays pose a threat," but not a media outlet conveying a similar message to a far wider audience.

One tactic being used to undermine the complaint against Maclean's is to cite a 2004 statement by Mohamed El Masry, the controversial head of the Islamic Congress. He had said that all Israeli civilians are fair game for suicide bombers. As vile as that sentiment is, must it be used as a weapon of guilt by association against the student complainants?

Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney thinks so. He has attempted to vilify them by focusing on El Masry, while wrapping himself in the flag of freedom of speech.

But as a minister, his job is to stay neutral and refrain from trying to influence independent tribunals. It is also his duty to uphold the law, which empowers many of them to adjudicate alleged hate speech.

We should get the human rights commissions out of the business of regulating the press. But until Parliament and the provincial legislatures do so, the commissions – and ministers of the Crown, in particular – have a duty to ensure equal applications of the law for all citizens.

As Harpoon's peroration makes clear, it's time to change this dreadful law, not promote it.

Here’s a rule of thumb by which I am delighted to live my life and to share with you: In general, if Harpoon is for something, you won’t go wrong by being agin’ it.

Harpoon does have a point, though. So far, Islamists--or, more specifically, resistance to Islamists and their flawless law--have managed to put the kibosh on: religious family tribunals (Catholic, Jewish); funding for religious schools in Ontario; and, the way things are looking, HRCs may be next. One would have thought  by now the CJC, which persists in tying up its efforts with Muslim ones ("building bridges" in CJC parlance), would have detected a pattern, and realized that maybe it's time to take a new tack.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:56 | link | comments

Wishy-washy damage control: Some boycott types got on Motorola’s case for selling things to the Zionist “occupiers”. Here’s what Motorola said (from JTA):

Motorola responded to a U.S. group that demanded that it end its sale of products to Israel's army and settlements.

The campaign launched last month by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation singled out the sale of fuses for air-launched bombs; communication devices for the army; and radar devices to secure Israel's security barrier and settlements.

"As a well-respected and responsible corporate citizen, all of Motorola's global activities are conducted in strict accordance with U.S., local, country and all other applicable laws, as well as our own code of business conduct," Motorola said in a March 11 reply.

Motorola said it periodically reviewed its business conduct. "Such a review is currently being conducted and we plan to post the revised documents to our website when our review is completed," it said.

Here’s what Motorola should have said (shorter, more direct, much more to the point): Get stuffed, Jew-haters.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:36 | link | comments

A tough sell: Washington Post pundit E.J. Dionne, Jr. claims that of all the presidential candidates, the only one who has a complete grasp of this religion thing is—wait for it, ‘cause it’s certainly worth waiting for—Barack Obama.

And I hear that his mentor/spiritual leader, Jeremiah Wright, has a pretty good handle on it, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:21 | link | comments

Berman ‘splains it (“radical Islam”) to the squishes: Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism and of that book-length evisceration of faux-moderate Tariq Ramadan in the New Republic, offers this assessment in the NYT of the continuing appeal of “radical Islam”—and of America’s serial feckless responses to it. Berman, who mostly “gets it,” but who’s not yet prepared to go over completely to the dark side (booga booga), tries to let the Times’ squishy readers down easy. Yes, some of the mess has to do with Bush (quel relief!), but most of it is due to pathologies over which America has absolutely no control.

…A lot of people right now make the common-sense supposition that if extremist ideologies have lately entered a sort of grisly golden age, the Bush administration’s all-too-predictable blundering in Iraq must bear the blame. Yes, certainly; but that can’t be the only explanation.

Extremist movements have been growing bigger and wilder for more than three decades now, during that period, America has tried pretty much everything from a policy point of view. Our presidents have been satanic (Richard Nixon), angelic (Jimmy Carter), a sleepy idiot savant (Ronald Reagan), a cagey realist (George H. W. Bush), wonderfully charming (Bill Clinton) and famously otherwise (George W. Bush). And each president’s Middle Eastern policy has conformed to his character.

In regard to Saddam Hussein alone, our government has lent him support (Mr. Reagan), conducted a limited war against him (the first President Bush), inflicted sanctions and bombings (Mr. Clinton, in other than his charming mode), and crudely overthrown him. Every one of those policies has left the Iraqi people worse off than before, even if nowadays, from beneath the rubble, the devastated survivors can at least ruminate about a better future — though I doubt that many of them are in any mood to do so.

And each new calamity for Iraq has, like manure, lent new fertility to the various extremist organizations. The entire sequence of events may suggest that America is uniquely destined to do the wrong thing. All too likely! But it may also suggest that America is not the fulcrum of the universe, and extremist ideologies have prospered because of their own ability to adapt and survive — their strength, in a word.

I notice a little gloomily that I may have underestimated the extremist ideologies in still another respect. Five years ago, anyone who took an interest in Middle Eastern affairs would easily have recalled that, over the course of a century, the intellectuals of the region have gone through any number of phases — liberal, Marxist, secularist, pious, traditionalist, nationalist, anti-imperialist and so forth, just like intellectuals everywhere else in the world.

Western intellectuals without any sort of Middle Eastern background would naturally have manifested an ardent solidarity with their Middle Eastern and Muslim counterparts who stand in the liberal vein — the Muslim free spirits of our own time, who argue in favor of human rights, rational thought (as opposed to dogma), tolerance and an open society.

But that was then. In today’s Middle East, the various radical Islamists, basking in their success, paint their liberal rivals and opponents as traitors to Muslim civilization, stooges of crusader or Zionist aggression. And, weirdly enough, all too many intellectuals in the Western countries have lately assented to those preposterous accusations, in a sanitized version suitable for Western consumption.

Even in the Western countries, quite a few Muslim liberals, the outspoken ones, live today under a threat of assassination, not to mention a reality of character assassination. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch legislator and writer, is merely an exceptionally valiant example. But instead of enjoying the unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities, alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy — quite as if any writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.

A dismaying development. One more sign of the power of the extremist ideologies — one more surprising turn of events, on top of all the other dreadful and gut-wrenching surprises.

Oh, no. Reality intrudes into the pages of the Sunday Times. Beat it back—quickly—lest it frighten and confuse the bien pensants.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:11 | link | comments

Is this the end of Bambi?: After being the focus of outrage due to his ranting Rev., it must have a been a relief for Bambi to be able to express outrage over the egregious breach in his passport security, and to have Condi Rice be the one offering the panting apologies.

Too bad for Bambi that the person responsible for the violation was one of his consultants.

I will now attempt--and fail--to supress the Eliot Spitzer levels of schadenfreude I am experiencing: Why deprive myself of such unsought for--and such delicious--joy?

In a rational world, this would be Bambi's coup de grace. However, in a rational world, that would have come last week with the revelations about his longstanding membership in Reverend Wright's black power chuch--and yet here we are a week later, with Bambi's presidential hopes still very much alive.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:40 | link | comments

Alternate realities: Growing up in Canada back in the day, one often heard the phrase “two solitudes.” It described our two founding peoples—the French and the English—and how their differences in language, history and sense of nationhood kept them permanently apart. I recalled that old-fangled, pre-multiculti expression just now, when I read this Obamanation by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek. The two solitudes of our day refer to those who “get it” and those who don’t have a clue. You can slot Alter into the latter group:

"The Presidency," Franklin D. Roosevelt told a reporter shortly after he was elected in 1932, "is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership." We don't know yet whether Barack Obama can get himself elected president, much less prove a success in office. He could get swamped by unanticipated problems or suffer from crippling flaws we haven't seen yet. All presidents are blind dates. But Obama is showing signs that he could project his voice in the theater of the American presidency. Even if his legislative agenda founders, he might be able to help the nation raise its sights in new ways. You might think of it as the Obama Dividend.

As the afterglow of last week's landmark Philadelphia speech on race fades, even many conservatives agree with liberal editorial writers that Obama's approach was brilliant. I'm skeptical of that adjective and reluctant to hazard a guess about the political impact of the speech on blue-collar whites. Until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, we won't know if they even heard about the story of his white grandmother, or how he gave voice to white frustration about affirmative action and busing. But I do know that the speech was "presidential" in the best sense of that word, and for reasons beyond a tone of gravitas and a backdrop of American flags. To succeed in a crisis (and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s inflammatory sermons were at least a mini-crisis for Obama), presidents must do more than rally the country enough to win backing in polls for a course of action. That's relatively easy. The hard part is using the bully pulpit to instruct and illuminate and rearrange our mental furniture. Every great president has been a captivating teacher. By talking honestly and intelligently about a subject that most Americans would rather ignore, Obama offered a preview of how he would perform as educator-in-chief.

Obama's unique assets have usually been viewed in international terms. The election of President Barack Hussein Obama would blow the minds of people in the Middle East and other regions, and help restore American prestige. Of course, given unpredictable global events, the Obama Dividend abroad may last about as long as the much-hyped post- cold-war "peace dividend." It could pay returns for only weeks or months instead of years. Just look at Kenya, where one tribe involved in the recent unrest loves Obama (because his father was a member), and the other tribe has no use for him.

But in the United States, black opinion is now nearly unanimously behind Obama, with as many as 90 percent supporting him in the primaries. While Obama can do much to guide white Americans toward a better racial future and a greater appreciation that poor kids are not, as he says, "someone else's children," his most exciting potential for moral leadership could be in the African-American community...

I know how "the other tribe" feels, being a member of it myself. As for Bambi's much-vaunted but largely phantasmagorical "moral leadership"--his 20-year membership in the Chuch of Hate Whitey and Abominate America pretty well makes mashed potatoes of that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:53 | link | comments

Too funny!: Ceeb radio just referred to the Ceeb as "the mothership."

Darn tootin'. It's the mothership of loopy, Bush-bashing, Palestinian-loving, Sharia-shilling, U.S.-and-self-loathing hardline lefties. People like Mr. Naomi Klein, who feel equally at home at the Arab Ceeb (the one without Coach's Corner), Al Jazeera.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:14 | link | comments

Adios, scaramouche?: Given my "untamed" proclivities, it's a looming possibility.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:03 | link | comments (2)

Defective reasoning: Sometimes, for no particular reason other than cockeyed optimism, I like to think that people are smarter and more sceptical than I imagine, and that, in the final analysis, they won’t let themselves be pushed around and bamboozled by the tricksters.

Then, of course, I read something like this—a letter to the editor in the Toronto Star by one Ruth Cohen—and the whole shaky edifice comes crashing down (my bolds):

No amount of golden-tongued oratory can ever erase the damage so incredibly visited on the Barack Obama campaign by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Strangely enough, there may be a fortuitous sense in which the diatribe may be the salvation of Obama and the Democratic party. Because Obama has been cut down to size, he may finally grasp that his gifts can best be used as the vice-presidential nominee, thereby providing a solution to all the problems plaguing the party and the nation.

Good thinkin’, Ms. Lincoln. So you mean America’s problems would disappear—poof—were Jeremiah’s "nephew" to be but a heartbeat away from the presidency?That that would "cut him down to size"? In light of his inability to make good decisions and own up to his bad ones (like his decision to choose the nutty Jeremiah as his mentor, expose his impressionable daughters to his racist rants, refusal to renounce this obnoxious bigot, and equating him with the loving Granny who raised him), wouldn’t it make a whole more sense to keep him as far away from the (typical ) White (person) House as possible?

My thinking, anyway.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:53 | link | comments

Wrong pin: The Toronto Star’s man on the scene, Oakland Ross, advances the fiction that cleaving Jerusalem in two is “the linchpin of any bid for peace”:

JERUSALEM–This 3,000-year-old city would remain united and in Israeli hands if Benjamin Netanyahu were returned to power, the right-wing former prime minister assured a gathering of foreign ambassadors recently.

Widely considered the Israeli politician most likely to take over should the current government fall, Netanyahu was broaching a sensitive issue, and he knew it.

If peace is ever to prevail between Israelis and Palestinians, it will be achieved in large measure through difficult compromises on the future of this bitterly contested city.

Some of those compromises would be territorial, some would be religious and none would come easily. Right now, they do not seem to be coming at all.

"We want to negotiate Jerusalem," says Ghassan Khatib, former Palestinian minister of planning, now vice-president of Birzeit University in the West Bank. "Unfortunately, Israel is refusing to negotiate Jerusalem."

There are reasons for that, and they include efforts by current Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to hold together a fractious parliamentary coalition that threatens to collapse every time his government so much as whispers the word "Jerusalem" in peace talks now underway with Fatah, the more moderate of the two main Palestinian political factions.

That is how strongly some people here feel about the age-old dream of a Jerusalem united under Jewish sovereignty, a dream Israelis now claim as a reality even though most of the world disagrees.

No foreign embassies are located in Jerusalem because no foreign government officially recognizes the city as Israel's capital or endorses the Israeli claim to jurisdiction over the entire city.

Nonetheless, Trade and Industry Minister Eli Yishai, who heads the right-wing Shas party, has threatened to withdraw from the Olmert-led coalition, along with his 12-member caucus, if the future status of the holy city is put on the bargaining table.

That would leave Olmert six seats short of a majority.

In fact, despite Yishai's warning, there have been recent discussions between Israel and Fatah on the subject of Jerusalem – and the government has not fallen, or not yet – but the threat of collapse remains, hindering a peace process that is already stumbling.

It was at least partly to placate Yishai and his followers that Olmert recently approved a renewal of Israeli housing construction in Givat Ze'ev, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank north of Jerusalem, further jeopardizing peace talks.

"I think it's going to kill this process," said Khatib.

A united Jewish-ruled Jerusalem has been an article of faith for many Israelis both before the city was "reunited" under Jewish rule following Israel's victory in the 1967 Six Day War and in the four decades that have followed.

The policy was most memorably articulated in 1973 by prime minister Golda Meir.

"Arab sovereignty in Jerusalem just cannot be," she told an interviewer. "This city will not be divided – not half and half, not 60-40, not 75-25. Nothing."

This is a position still held by at least some Israelis, and it would stop any conceivable Middle East peace train dead in its tracks.

"It is very clear, at the end of the day, we will have two Jerusalems," said Moshe Amirav, an Israeli expert on the subject who advised yet another former prime minister – the current defence minister, Ehud Barak – during the second Camp David, Md., round of peace talks in 2000. "Israelis will have to give up on the idea of a united Jerusalem."

When Israelis took control of East Jerusalem in 1967, they also vastly increased its size by absorbing adjoining parts of the West Bank.

Since then, Israel has sought to populate the eastern parts of the city with Jewish residents, who now number about 180,000, compared to roughly 240,000 Arab inhabitants of East Jerusalem.

Legally, with the possible exception of the Old City, all of East Jerusalem would become part of an independent Palestinian state, if one is ever established.

But, in fact, many or even most of the Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem – or "settlements" to the Palestinians – would likely remain under Israeli jurisdiction

"In principle, these are illegal settlements," said Khatib. "But negotiations are negotiations. There could be trade-offs between different components."

Meanwhile, the Arab communities of East Jerusalem would become parts of the Palestinian city, known to Arabs as Al Quds. The city, or two cities, would then serve as capital of both countries – Israel and an independent Palestine.

This may seem complicated, but the territorial challenges of Jerusalem's future are probably much easier to resolve than the religious issues, almost all of which centre on an eastern section of the Old City, known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif, or the Noble Sanctuary.

For Jews, this is the holiest site on Earth. For Muslims, it ranks third in holiness, after Mecca and Medina. Currently, the area is under Israeli sovereignty but is administered by a Muslim authority known as the Waqf.

Some believe the site constitutes the thorniest obstacle to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

For Khatib, however, the solution is simple.

"From my point of view, it's not a religious conflict," he says. "It's a legal matter."

The Noble Sanctuary and, in fact, all the Old City lie on the eastern side of the so-called Green Line, a boundary drawn in 1949 as part of an armistice agreement to end hostilities between a nascent Israel and several neighbouring states.

Therefore, says Khatib, the holy site "has to fall under Palestinian sovereignty."…

Dream on, Khatib. Clearly, it is a religious matter, since Islamic delusions of grandeur and supremacy preclude the acceptance of Jewish sovereignty in Israel. That, and not the status of Jerusalem, is and always has been the “linchpin” of any final peace deal. Giving Arabs sovereignty over part of Jerusalem is no "linchpin." It is actually part of the plan for weakening Israel and destroying Jewish sovereignty.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:31 | link | comments (2)

Hot air: The Globe and Mail has the first part of its hard-hitting, six-part series, "TALKING TO THE TALIBAN." And, well, I couldn't resist sending the following:

If we could talk to the Taliban, just imagine it

Chatting to jihadis in Pashtun.

Imagine intellectual wrangles, discussing all the angles.

Trying to arrive at a bargoon.

 

If we could talk to the Taliban, learn their rationale,

Maybe find a way to cool ‘em down.

We’d study up on their sharia, teach them Ave Maria.

Our dialogue’d be our shining crown.

 

We could converse with clerics who despise us.

And they would curse our presence in their land.

If they should ask, “Do you want the caliphate?”

Say for the helluvit, “It’s grand!”

 

If we could talk to the Taliban, open up that door,

Think of all the things we could discuss.

Although we’d talk to the Taliban,

Flock to the Taliban,

Bow and scrape and squawk to the Taliban.

No way they’ll bow and scrape and squawk to us.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:52 | link | comments

I figured it out: Thought I’d share my “eureka” moment. Lying in bed this morning it suddenly struck me why the Canadian Jewish Congress is so fixated on the phantom menace of decrepit and neo-Nazis. It’s not because they pose such a threat to Canadian Jews. It’s because pursuing “Nazis” enables the CJC to preserve its membership in good standing in Canada’s Special Victims Unit, a.k.a. the Human Rights Fraternity. As Shelby Steele has observed, there’s a hierarchy of moral authority in the West. At the summit-- the victim di tutti victims, so to speak: the Palestinians. At the bottom: Israel, the world's designated nasty “victimizer”. Also clinging to the totem pole (in no particular order): blacks, aboriginals, Muslims, the disabled and other ethno-cultural groups who have a stake in playing the victim card. The Jews claim a place on the greasy pole by virtue of having been on the receiving end of “the longest hatred”, up to and including their victimization at the hands of the Nazis. However, there is absolutely no status to be had in complaining about Islamic anti-Semitism (hatred borne of antipathy for Israel and Judenhass embedded in Islamic texts)--the real and present danger for Jews both here and abroad--because A) Israel has been deemed morally indefensible by much of the international community and the SVU and B) according to fraternity rules, you’re not allowed to complain too loudly that another “victim group” is purveying hatred, even if it is. Add to that the well-nigh unshakeable perception in leftist quarters that a "vicitm" is incapable of being racist, and that what would be tagged as "racist" were a  non-victim doing it doesn't qualify as such when a victim does it because of the victim group's unfortunate history. One need look no further than Barack Obama's rationalization of Jeremiah's Wright's racism to see clear evidence of that.

Then, too, the CJC has been so intent on “building bridges” with Muslims (a bridge on the river Kwai, with the CJC in the Alec Guinness role, if you ask me)--mostly because it had some cockamamie notion of marching arm-in-arm with these groups to lobby for religious school funding in Ontario--that it dare not put those painstakingly constructed relationships in jeopardy by, say, issuing a statement condemning Israeli Apartheid Week.

 

That’s why the CJC continues to pursue harmless white power creeps--and why, foolishly and dangerously, it has hitched its wagon to the most regressive and repressive force in the nation: Canada’s Thought Commissars. In a bizarre kind of way, it needs the Nazis and the HRCs so it can retain its moral authority (such as it is) and its paid-up membership in Canada's kvetching victims club.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:45 | link | comments (2)

Throw Granny from the train: Bambi's disproportionate response, in verse:

The candidate, Bambi Obama,

Found himself in the midst of high drama.

Sought to soften Wright’s sin

With historical spin

And by casting aspersions on Grama.

 

Update: Mark Steyn, on the drama and Grama:

 

...The Rev. Wright has a hugely popular church with over 8,000 members, and Sen. Obama assures us that his pastor does good work by "reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS." But maybe he wouldn't have to quite so much "reaching out" to do and maybe there wouldn't be quite so many black Americans "suffering from HIV/AIDS" if the likes of Wright weren't peddling lunatic conspiracy theories to his own community.

Nonetheless, last week, Barack Obama told America: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

What is the plain meaning of that sentence? That the paranoid racist ravings of Jeremiah Wright are now part of the established cultural discourse in African American life and thus must command our respect? Let us take the senator at his word when he says he chanced not to be present on AIDS Conspiracy Sunday, or God Damn America Sunday, or US of KKKA Sunday, or the Post-9/11 America-Had-It-Coming Memorial Service. A conventional pol would have said he was shocked, shocked to discover Afrocentric black liberation theology going on at his church. But Obama did something far more audacious: Instead of distancing himself from his pastor, he attempted to close the gap between Wright and the rest of the country, arguing, in effect, that the guy is not just his crazy uncle but America's, too.

To do this, Obama promoted a false equivalence. "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother," he continued. "A woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street." Well, according to the way he tells it in his book, it was one specific black man on her bus, and he wasn't merely "passing by."

When the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan dumped some of his closest Cabinet colleagues to extricate himself from a political crisis, the Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe responded: "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his friends for his life." In Philadelphia, Sen. Obama topped that: Greater love hath no man than to lay down his grandma for his life...

Well, after all, she was expendable.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:05 | link | comments

Bambi boosters: The “deep thinkers” of Tinseltown (and one from snowy Canuckistan) are sticking with the café au lait JFK no matter what. From the L.A. Times:

CAREER disasters (which usually involve some embarrassing bootlegged video or gossip magazine exposé) are commonplace in Tinseltown. If you're lucky, you can redeem yourself by being honest -- and then dazzling audiences with an unexpected Oscar-worthy performance.

Perhaps the same holds true here for politicians.

After the YouTube videos surfaced showing Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, making racist statements, the senator's entertainment industry supporters were beyond worried: Some thought Obama was, quite simply, finished.

"I was getting calls from celebs who were pretty upset and pretty scared," said music industry executive Steven McKeever, who serves on Obama's finance committee. "Major figures in this town were nervous and losing sleep over it."

And then, on Tuesday, their candidate made the speech of a lifetime: He talked about race relations in America in terms never before used by a U.S. presidential candidate. (By Thursday, the speech was viewed more than 1.6 million times on YouTube.)

If Hollywood had a prize for political reinvention, Obama would have won it.

"He spoke from the heart, and it was one of those most remarkable moments you'll remember all your life," McKeever said.

It had all the makings of a Hollywood thriller: disaster, triumph and the promise of a great finale. With everything on the line, Obama went into himself, wrote his own script and penned a comeback. Sort of like Bruce Willis making a great escape from a burning building.

And since Tuesday, McKeever said his phone hasn't stopped ringing. Stevie Wonder, an avid Obama supporter, called, as did a number of other entertainers. "Everyone knew this was a historically significant moment," McKeever said. "I even talked to people who weren't even supporters. They came away with a sense of awe."

Wonder went on his KJLH radio show Thursday morning to make a few statements about his favorite candidate.

He said: "Every communicator -- whether artist, actor, reporter or media -- should use their gift to unite us and not divide us. The reality is, conscious Americans know that Barack Obama is the color of truth."

Entertainment executive Alex Avant, son of Motown great Clarence Avant, said he was also impressed by the senator's words.

"Barack's speech was a beacon of hope that went beyond surface dialogue regarding racial issues," said Avant, a partner in creating the website iamhiphop.com. "What you believe defines the time you're living in. Belief systems have time periods, and he just shattered them."

So in less than a week, the mood among pro-Obama forces in Hollywood went from despair to delight, and that means a reenergized campaign out here.

Expect lots of pro-Obama efforts from the glitterati in the coming weeks. Moveon.org already has a major initiative underway. The group announced last week that it is teaming with Academy Award winners Ben Affleck, Matt Damon and Oliver Stone, multiple Grammy winner John Legend, author Naomi Wolf and others to hold a new ad contest called "Obama in 30 Seconds."

The effort provides a platform for Obama supporters to show in 30-second spots what inspires them about the senator's candidacy. MoveOn will buy time to run the winning ad on national television before Pennsylvania's crucial April 22 primary. Affleck explained the effort this way: "MoveOn's 'Obama in 30 Seconds' ad contest is a chance for everyone, from aspiring filmmakers to armchair pundits, to raise their voices to put Obama over the top and help make history."

Legend called the contest a "powerful way for ordinary citizens to be involved in an extraordinary moment in our history."

The list of other people involved in the MoveOn campaign is dazzling. It includes musician-activist Michael Franti; actor-musician-director Adrian Grenier; Academy Award-nominated producer Ted Hope; author and civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson; award-winning documentary filmmaker Rory Kennedy; Stanford Law professor and founder of the Center for Internet and Society, Lawrence Lessig; recording artist Moby; Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas; Lionsgate Entertainment President Tom Ortenberg; Native American activist and documentary filmmaker Heather Rae; Focus Features President James Schamus; producer and entrepreneur Russell Simmons; hip-hop musician DJ Spooky; Academy Award-nominated documentary filmmakers Ricki Stern and Annie Sundberg; and Grammy Award-winning songwriter and musician Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam.

Of course, if the going gets really tough, Obama still has George Clooney as his ace in the hole, though Clooney has kept a low-key profile in this campaign.

Hollywood friends understand, perhaps better than anyone, what it means to make a comeback. And what it takes.

Also, they happen to be thick as a brick and smug as a bug in a rug--pre-requisites for voting Obambi.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:55 | link | comments

Foggy Bottom hits bottom; digs: This one, as they say, takes the cake. From JTA (my bolds):

The U.S. State Department urged Americans of Arab origin to report difficulties encountered entering Israel.

"The United States Government seeks equal treatment for all American citizens regardless of national origin or ethnicity," said a travel warning issued Wednesday.  "American citizens who encounter difficulties are encouraged to contact the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv or the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem." It listed phone numbers of consular officials.

The warning described difficulties that Arab Americans might face.

"American citizens whom Israeli authorities judge (based on their name or other indicators) may be of Palestinian origin are likely to face additional, and often time consuming, questioning by immigration and border authorities," it said.

The warning came days after Arab American groups sent a letter to Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state, urging her to press Israel to lift such restrictions, claiming they violate U.S.-Israel treaties.

The travel warning also warned Americans of Israeli descent that Israel regards them as Israeli citizens.

It repeated warnings urging Americans not to travel to the Gaza Strip and to postpone travel to the West Bank. Americans who do travel to the West Bank are warned to avoid demonstrations and exercise caution at checkpoints…

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:14 | link | comments

Fascist pot calls kettle black; Swiss make fondue: Iran is very worried about how human rights are being violated in Europe.