Huh?

And now for your bit of confusing Presidential 2008 politics. The Golden Child of Republican Electoral Comments went on to answer one of the questions many folks have about Hildabeast in 08... folks who unlike me don't get she won't win and probably won't run

"I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates. And whether it's the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger," Mehlman told ABC's "This Week."

I think a lot of statements and heck that shrill voice which raises in the collective subconcious of all men the "Did you fix the toliet like i told you to" Shrill soon to be ex wife icon in our minds.... I think any reasonable political watcher can say she is showing herself pretty angry.

But what has me scratching my head is -this- response.

When contacted for a response, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, "If the president and the White House spent half as much time worrying about the runaway deficit and the broken Medicare system as they do about Hillary Clinton, the country would be in much better shape."

I know in the modern political system the Party boss is very much a creature of the President of his party.... I totally get that, but instead of talking about a Hilary in 08 position or even a "The speculation about her Presidential possibilities in 2008 if she decides to run..." kind of a story her people have to turn it into a Anti-Bush Statement.....

Huh?

What kind of people do you have working for you?

I have no training and no experience but for the love of god Senator Clinton give me two weeks and I could turn your organization into something resembling competency

WTF Man....

Superbowl ad moments that made my head hurt

"Brown And Bubbly"--> Not an pleasent thought for drinking... unless you are from jersey.

"Daddy why do we have to learn english"---> wonderful message in a Hybrid car ad

Open letter to the enraged Islamic Community

((Thanks to Barry and his flicker forum section for inspiration))


Dear Muslim Folks on the Internet;


Since 12 little cartoons were released from Denmark we in the world of Blog have posted a lot of things (Including the cartoons) and you Islamic people of the internet have went out to look for these images and look what we in the west have said/are saying about them. And while I supported the Cartoonist and his release I think I can use my little bit of the internet in a better way.


"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"


I want to open with that because Cartoons and these cartoons exist within the context of a culture and human history that continues. And I think some things need to be talked about. But I think we need to focus on this point by a man from Jordan who had an excellent understanding of all these things. These cartoons and other caricatures of Islam have been born from the actions of vile vile men (By our standards of ethics). While their was a time of caricatures of Muslims that were born from the ignorance of colonialism…but those cultural icons do not show the Muslim world as a world of violence and blood. Ideas born by British and other outsiders of the “quaint” Muslim world while offensive in their own way does not defame the Muslim people as monsters these stereotypes while unpleasant to you do not seek to make people –fear- you.


The stereotypes that spread fear are born from aspects of the Muslim culture that many Muslims I have encountered born and bred in the “Western” world hold no pride in, and one many who have emigrated from the Muslim world also do not look to with pride. But these realities of your world, to our shame, we ignored until the coin of oil grew stronger in the Islamic world then in the “western” world.


However the Western world has its own evils and I want to take a moment and discuss the world where our evils and your evils have come and danced in the light of the moon.


In the Western world people with darker skin have not gotten treated as they should. We have for many years ignored the humanity, indeed the value of those folks with darker skin. But as is the nature of politics under classes in areas where they are numerous are a source of political advantage. So raising them up, ending their inferior status became less important then saying “it’s not your fault”


“They are against you because you are (Black/Jew/Mexican/Arab/….)”
“They will never give you a fair shake until we have the power to help you.”


While treating people of different cultures and colors differently was an evil, preaching to those same people that they could never advance because our society is so evil was much much –worse-. Because people will advance in the society in spite of those who say they
can’t because of the evils of our more enlightened society, but breeding generations of people who know no hope and knows only an evil society all around them will find “proofs” of their evil everywhere.


Muslims in Europe are certainly as many new immigrants are at the bottom of the totem poll of society. Due to colonial guilt Europeans preach this fact is their fault, and it is but not –because- of colonial guilt but due to the decrepit state of their economic system. Being born poor into a Denmark whose flag shows a Christian god, and whom white danes have a wealth and power which they say is their fault –because- they were evil imperialist European can make one angry…can deprive one of hope. And then when they come to take your prophet that is the final step of offense.


A Dane protesting the violence that took a member of the artistic community, the violence of things such as honor killings in Europe won’t think that way….But he should have. And those angry for their place in a world which tells them they are the victim because the world is so evil should try to think as the artist does. A German man would not go and kill his daughter for embracing the religion of the prophet and marrying a Muslim as a matter of cultural honor. You would know that the society of Europe views all killing as abhorrent, but understands some killings are modified by circumstances as to degrees of horror.


But the action of those who do honor killings and kill in the name of the prophet show that they don’t care about the laws or cultural mores of those they kill. They kill because of their own moral certainty and rectitude.


The Second place where our evil and yours meet is about colonialism, and some of the deals traders from the west have made for the black currency/ the fuel of the engine of our world. Outsiders took your treasurer and carted it off to their imperial capital. They forced new ethics and ways on you and didn’t let you follow their ideal. Big businessmen came in and made deals that were extremely to their own benefit over your own. While Colonialism did bring some benefits to your society, it had major negative effects and no one can argue it didn’t.


But that guilt has caused some social problems which in this incident you are taking advantage of. Many Americans and Europeans feel guilty that the guys they backed in business deals are now the folks who run and oppress your countries. The Europeans are guilty about everything from colonialist times. That guilt prevents the nations of the world to stand up as they may want to…only when a greater guilt comes forth (the abandonment of the Jews to the mercies of Hitler) do we see anything resembling justifiable outrage on their part. They are guilty of their power and as such turn a blind eye or are silent.


In Europe this matter has an even deeper impact as these people so wronged by their state long ago have returned with their sons, grandsons, and great grand sons. It creates islands of identity which threaten to obliterate the culture and history of those European people because they teach that their culture is unworthy of respect, and the culture of others –should- be respected first.


This is why some of the extremism and violence which incubated these cartoons was ignored…why heads were turned…until it rose up and could not be ignored.


How Muslims will find their own modern European identity will be chaotic. Look at the origin of Catholicism’s feud with Protestantism. The last great hot war on the subject was ended by a man who said “Paris is worth a Mass.” We live in an age where folks expect things to happen quicker and faster but we are dealing with social trends which truly do not change with that kind of desired rapidity.


But as the conflict of cultural isolation born from multiculturalism and guilt, with people who feel a justifiable wrong is not also isolated either. There is the response issued in the Islamic world and I want to address to elements of it.


The Prophet’s image in various points and parts of the Islamic past and Islamic world today is used –not in the manner of these cartoons OBVIOUSLY- so use of the image of the prophet is not the blasphemy. Indeed Blasphemy is a thing we need to look into here for a moment. Blasphemy assumes in some part first and foremost intent. In the process of reading many deep debates on this subject I looked at a Fatwa purporting to be “against” terror. But what struck me was how laboriously this Fatwa judged the intent of those who did this act. If the Intent was to slur Islam by this cartoon it could be considered Blasphemy but if the Intent was to slur the conduct of certain individuals who are doing matters Muslim leaders say is sinful to the character of Islam then is it Blasphemy?


I ask this honestly as I do not know the nature of Blasphemy in Islamic law. If judgment of those; who murder, maim, and kill must be nuanced and sober then why can’t the reaction to this cartoon be so…. The answer that seems to be suggested is a trend, a human folly, that the crimes of my people I judge less seriously then the crimes of others. But we live in a world now increasingly where elements of “other” are fading and elements of unity are growing. This is a social struggle but we need to work it out.


Next I want to return to the words I opened this discussion with.


"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"


While protests and challenges to terrorism has started, and the trends in the Middle East and rest of the predominately Muslim states is moving away from them we do not see a “Paris is worth a Mass” moment. I know short of a new Caliph such a moment is difficult, but that does not make the moment any less vital.


In conflict negotiation there is a matter of trust building. The problem is who goes first with building trust. I can make a case that both sides have worked to try the “first trust building” exercise approach and it has worked some of the time and been fubared some of the time not to the fault of one part or the other but of both.


There are those in the west who see words and iconic roles of the Prophet as a man of blood, as a warlord, and worse in the Koran and other important Islamic texts. They see this without examining some modern “Christian” history that shows some parallels. The death of the founder of the Mormon Church came over suppression of the press. His faith in its early days even proscribed executing people to “save” them from their sins. Talk of men on the moon and on the son, and man now as god once was. These things happened when the Mormon people were metaphorically “in the wilderness” and these things calmed down and were viewed different and soberly when they became part of the community.


The Muslim world is in the wilderness as well and while many Muslims may view these tales as sober allegory, or the times of the Prophet there are those who don’t…. those who are a very loud minority. And states are empowered by the loud minorities, not the silent majorities.

But “for justice” you turn a blind eye. For “justice” in Chechnya and Palestine you ignore the excesses of the Mujahadin and of your state in supporting them. It is when we turn a blind eye that evil is born into the world. Germans turned a blind eye as Jews were carted off. Their nation was made hole, their economy strong once again, they were given a reason to feel proud….In the south men and women turned a blind eye to lynchings, to churches being set on fire, and to the inhumanity of the system of segregation…. I could go on but in turning a blind eye for reasons of justice, or healing, or keeping the natural order of things we allow evil into the world.



The Prophet, nor Jesus, nor Moshe, nor Zoroster, nor the Buddah, nor any other religious patriarch…none of them would want you to be blind to that evil.


Some of you will try to compare the military of Israel and the United States and make it a comparable evil… but that logic is slowly drifting away… its false foundation rotting. Those in the Muslim world who felt outrage at the decapitation of Muslim aid workers or the destruction of the wedding in Jordan if that had been done by a US soldier would rightly be declaring war to seek vengeance and retribution. The rules of for me and not for thee have no place here because we feel the same outrage, the same hurt, and the same sense of violation for the same crime. To compare it to the military seeking a “justice” if you will for their wronged people is to try to justify the criminality and base evil of it.


These evil men inspired this cartoon. These evil men brought the retribution from Israel and the United States. These evil men call to violence against the embassies and people of European origin now in the Middle East. While it lay in the hands of god to give final justice, god also calls on you to judge criminals. If a man causes bandits to raid your home...causes a fire to burn down your home…causes people to attack you is he not a criminal who should be judged?


You have a great wealth in your lands, the sins of colonialism could end but for the short sightedness of your political and economic elite. The same people who oppressed and dominated you before the Europeans came are oft the people who now return to fill the void the exit of the Europeans created…these men steal to enrich themselves as they did upon your grandfather’s grandfather’s father’s. While the sin was once on the shoulders of those colonizers and evil business those sins do not exist now except internally. And funny those who are robbing your wealth internally are so often those who direct your rage externally.


I think we would fail our creator, and fail as men if we do not take this opportunity of outrage and take a step back. And realize just how foolish we are all being.



Another sin, a tragic one that comes of this in many online forums is talking about the holocaust. Taking for a moment the same evil artwork demonizing Jews as cannibalistic monsters exists in the world of Islam as it did in Europe the sins of mankind during World War II are on the shoulders of all nations. Numerous nations allowed the Jews to be returned to Germany for their eventual death in the gas chambers. Arabs under the yolk of colonialism either conspired with agents of Hitler or sat on their hands. In mandate Palestine the refusal of Arabs to join the fight against Hitler delayed the Jewish Legion going to battle him for nearly 2 years. The role of the Grand Mufti of Palestine telling Muslims in Europe it was their holy duty to fight for Hitler, and the war against the allies was a Jihad.


I could go on but the sins that occurred in Europe in the 1930s and 40s are not just upon the Nazi’s…. nor are they just upon the German people…. All of those alive then were weak in the face of evil, and many passively assisted the perpetration of that evil. And to those whose grandfathers did actively aid that evil, invoking the victims of it is a matter that no one who knows the history can turn their heads from. Those who fear and guilt based on race and former national dominance have taught you poorly, have sought to bring you into the brotherhood of nations poorly by teaching you that others are to blame for it all.


I welcome any Muslims who seek out information on the Danish Cartoons to make a comment here. Because I think many….far to many are refusing to understand the other, and refusing to honestly understand themselves

More Cartoon Zaniness

You've seen me here or in other forums in regard to some of the controversy over the Danis cartoon's quote a Jordanian editor. Jihad Momani in my mind had the best, indeed the most enlightened view on this controversy of anyone in the world.

The Jordanian Government however has other ideas.

Mr Momani's arrest came earlier on Saturday, a day after Jordanian King Abdullah condemned the cartoons as an unnecessary abuse of freedom of speech.

Mr Momani's paper, Shihan, had printed three of the cartoons, alongside an editorial questioning whether the angry reaction to them in the Muslim world was justified.

"Muslims of the world be reasonable," wrote Mr Momani.

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

It is ashame that the Jordanian government didn't listen to his sage words. Because this over-reaction will lead as he said to more prejudice and hatred against islam

Well Fark it all

For reasons I don't understand Inside Larry's head is down we'll see when they fix that

Update:
Now it is telling me wait ten minutes
Update 2:
Well I am not getting the immediate error message but I am not getting the pages loading either

Some one else carries the torch

On the "Christian Terrorists" Theme

Like the poor, we will always have "murderous Islamo-fascists" with us. The question is whether they remain marginalized or whether they are able to radicalized, and garner support from, the population which surrounds them. We have "murderous Christiano-fascists" right here in the US -- and we've seen their handiwork, including church and synagogue firebombings -- but their popular support is pretty much limited to the God Hates Fags "church" and a few other cranks.

Point #1) Islamo-Fascism is all about the political freedom they have. Has very little to do with their faith. If an Islamic middle class exists in Riyadh to Jakarta we won't see their like again. If a free and open society can be found from Cairo to Kabul with a real economic ability to be free their kind will be long gone. They use religion but use a religious nationalism which just simply exists in Islam...The only faith out there which can have an even comparable religious nationalism call is Judaism which exists only in the most recent history of the Jewish state which shows its most significant difference.
Point #2) Just as I pointed out that the KKK isn't a Christian terrorist group (If it is you'd have to say the Mafia is a catholic criminal organization... Please do say that I'd love to see how that works out for you) and much like Christian Identity nutters aren't Christian in any way other then they say so the same applies to Fred Phelps. His ideology is such that he isn't Christian... He may say he is Christian but I can also say I am vetoing a bill in the Galactic Senate.

There are reasons for the difference. One of those reasons is US foreign policy, especially since 1990. That's just a fact. If you don't believe me, stick a couple of Syrian divisions in Chicago and see how quickly the locals (and the St. Louisians, and the Detroiters) begin to warm up to "Christiano-fascist" car-bombings -- and, sooner or later, "Christiano-fascist" ideas.

Hmm so where are all the terrorist acts in Japan, Germany (they happened when their country was poor and broken..not anymore), How about Korea, England, Italy

oh wait putting troops in a country doesn't cause terrorism...

also where were the Us troops in Afghanistan when the Taliban helped them support Terrorism..or pakistan

That is not what the Islamic terrorism is all about.... I mean I am sure from a leftist/borderline Marxist critique that sounds nice warm and snuggly but it just isn't so.

Freedom and economic oppertunity breed terrorists not occupation

Meme Meme Who gots the Meme

RadioVixen gives a meme and I must obeeeeeeeeeeey

Instructions: Use the picture you like best from the first (no clicking around for 44 pages) page of the search results on Google Image.

The city and state of the town where you grew up, no quotation marks. I did two for reasons I still feel part of my old home town in Illinois First Image is Peoria Illinois, Second is Sarasota Florida:

The town where you currently reside. My result:

Your name, first and last, but no quotes. My result:

Your grandmother's name. My result:

Your favorite drink. My result (with drunkie and non drunkie drinkies):

Your favorite smell. My result:

Your favorite song. My result:(well this isn't subtle here)

Your favorite food. My result:

Thats it for this old Meme

Blog Blowback from Dean Esmay

As has been known to happen from time to time in the right-o-center political blogosphere a blow-back on a dominant theme happens. I think this trend occurs some of the time because we bloggers are an opinionated lot and if we disagree we have to rally our troops. I also think some of us in the world-o-blog just don’t like following some one else’s lead in the big dance. Dean I think is best representing the Blow-Back at the moment so I am going to go into a lot of different factors. Now once again it is time for a Larry disclosure of DOOM…..

Larry is not a Christian; Larry does not believe their ever was a historical Jesus, Larry does not agree with Christian theology. Larry is not a Muslim; most of Larry’s interest in the Middle East was fueled from a Israeli-centered approach. Larry does not have any major religion he calls a home; Larry went through a period of his life where he thought it was valid to bash religions for their flaws. Larry didn’t like the P*** Christ or that picture of the Virgin Mary made of elephant dung; Larry did not like them because they used public money to get made and didn’t remotely qualify as artistic (and yes I know art school hippies make anything artistic well they are wrong and need beaten with my hippie beating stick)

Boortz is a major part of Dean’s Blow back and I am going to first present the flaws in the Boortz position first, then address Dean’s flawed argument. The way Muslim society governs matters of a religious basis is as Schizophrenic as the Muslim community itself. The general rules I am going to talk about and the facts of life are going to be two different things. The general rules tend to be about applications of soft power and the facts of life are hard power.

Generally speaking very few religious leaders have the authority/respect to speak for “Islam” in a given region. And in the broken and disjointed Islamic community they have other Islamic leaders who share their worldview to think about. If part of the clerical council of the US makes an edict they have to worry what the Sunni Clerical leaders at Al-Azar will say. In some sense it is a lot like the American judiciary except there everyone is a strict constructionist. So these leaders speak “for Islam” on a narrow area of matters and only when it will have a serious impact on the lives of their followers.

As such authority is generally in the hands of a very few (usually very old) cabal of clerics many Muslims feel that going out and saying Bin Laden is not behaving as a Muslim is challenging the authority and proper role of these people and they don’t do it. Some do but they get a lot more criticism from these folks (It is wrong for them to speak out to their religious ethics Bin Laden but people who challenge Clerical authority are fair game)

The facts of life however is that Separation of Mosque and state does not exist in the Islamic world. The closest Christian Parallel is the role of the Emperor on Byzantine Orthodox Christians back in the days of Byzantium. Even in the days of the middle ages Western Christianity has had a separation of Church and state though not in our modern sense. The Catholic Church fought for many years to establish its independence and primacy in Western Europe. In so doing it did open the door a crack for folks like Martin Luther to lead to the revolution in Church-State relations we in the “western” world enjoy today.

Now I could make the theological argument for why there is no like concept in the Muslim world but there is (to my reasoning) a much more important POLITICAL reasoning. The Mosque is the only place any relative freedom to assemble has existed in the Muslim cultural context. As such a Mosque that lacks state control is a problem. This has been made worse By Nasserites/Arab-Socialism (The folks who are running Egypt, Syria, and formerly Iraq). So control of the Mosque is vital for the state if it wishes to survive.

So by and large the state builds the mosques, and the state censors the religious speech of the clerics –within and without- the mosque complex. I could not as a Muslim Cleric go to the lead mosque in Jeddah and say “Death to the Al-Sauds” because if I did I’d get drug out almost immediately and stoned to death or shot by the authorities for deviating from the script. Now then…… I could say “Death to Israel” 7 times every meeting. “Death to America” a little more dicey but depending on how I do it I could get away with it.  This serves a second benefit to the Islamic state there is a great deal of wealth in the hands of the rulers and a great deal of poverty in the hands of the people. And dictators throughout human history know some one must be blamed other then –me-

Now the state isn’t stupid either. If the Jordanian government prevented protests and Anti-Al Qaeda clerical work after the Wedding bombing in Amman the national outrage could force an end to the Monarchy. But if the Monarchy was seen as behind the drive to fight the national outrage the people would for a time have better feelings about the Monarchy. In Morocco we saw the same thing.

The exception to this rule has been in reconstruction Iraq in transition to becoming its own full fledged state again. During this time protests are much more free and much more organic. The Sunni and Shiite mosques have a degree of independence then they ever had, or may ever have again to lead people and lead their political speech. In Iraq the protests against the terrorist violence and Islamic extremism that we in “the west” want to see. This is where Boortz and those like him are wrong. And this is why outrage and protests are so big in the Middle East based on things like this and the Newsweek article. “They (the west) try to steal all your stuff but they even come after the prophet Mohammed to… go get them. (Goes off to the Money Bin to dive into their big pool of money)”

And the above statement is going to sound really funny towards the end here… But I have to go now towards Dean for a moment.

Dean Starts off with some moments of Muslims going against Terror and here he has some problems. We have CAIR after September 11th. Some problems are of course that Boortz wasn’t talking about the western world-Muslim and that’s pretty clear. Also CAIR is part of the Muslim Brotherhood…a farking terrorist organization. But this is CAIR decrying the acts on September 11th. This is not CAIR denouncing all acts of terror and violence against civilians as a method of political expression…so that fails to meet the standard Boortz was setting anyway.

Another of his statement’s rejecting terrorism does not reject acts of violence against civilians as a means of achieving politics. And while it says it is not proper in Islamic religious practice it is not an Islamic religious document so it can be ignored at the leisure of any Muslim who chooses to do so. It only addresses Bin Laden and does not go into any of the groups say going against Israel and Russia. It only addresses the American audience and not that these crimes are wrong –period-. Also no Muslim religious leader who has the credibility in the Islamic world to make proclamations of a religious nature has signed on to this document

Another document speaks on religious studies scholars opinion and scholars of Islamic theology which is NOT the same thing boortz was asking for. Nor do they have the standing to make the kind of voice that is needed for the kind of sweeping claim that is presented about it.

Many of these statements are specific to September 11th and not Terrorism as a whole.

Now THIS article starts to almost get into some of the actual kind of religious outrage that Boortz is asking for……but almost is the key

“All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason.”

This is from a Fatwa from some Egyptian/Qatari/and Syrian Clerics. In addition to NOT denouncing terror it goes further

“[It is] necessary to apprehend the true perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and abet them through incitement, financing or other support.”

Remember how back’n the Middle East some Crazy folks we saying it was really a Mossad Plot. Yeah same stuff here…

Here is the Fatwa

This is the reply to the (religious) inquiry presented by Mr. Muhammad Abdur-Rashid, the most senior Muslim chaplain in the American Armed forces. It concerns the permissibility of the Muslim military personnel within the US armed forces to participate in the war operations and its related efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere in other Muslim countries.
In his question he states that the goals of the (war) operations are:
1) Retaliation against those "who are thought to have participated" in planning and financing the suicide operations on September 11th, against civilian and military targets in New York and Washington (he then detailed the consequences of these operations.)
2) Eliminating the elements that use Afghanistan and elsewhere as safe haven, as well as deterring the governments which harbor them, sanction them, or allow them the opportunity for military training in order to achieve their goals around the world.
3) Restoring the veneration and respect to the US as a sole superpower in the world.
Furthermore, he concludes his inquiry by mentioning that the number of the Muslim military personnel, in the three branches of the American armed forces, exceeds fifteen thousand soldiers. Hence, if they refuse to participate in fighting, they will have no choice but to resign, which might also entail other consequences. Finally, he asks if it is permissible, to those who can transfer, to serve in different capacities other than direct fighting.
Take a look at #3…. That’s putting a key taint from a religious angle on the US actions. The Senior US Military Chaplin doesn’t say “If Muslims are responsible” either.
#2 is the only Neutral/Pro US part of the question. But back to the Fatwa
God (glory be to He) said: " Because of that We ordained unto the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a human being - unless it be in punishment for murder or for spreading mischief on earth- it would be as though he killed all of humanity; whereas, if anyone saved a life, it would be as though he saved the life of all humanity.
I am not sure the exact context of Mischief is in Koranic theology however Muslim theology treats killing in war, killing for self defense, and those things as different then murder. So here he isn’t addressing IS terrorism murder, or Is it war.
Hence, whoever violates these pointed Islamic texts is an offender deserving of the appropriate punishment according to their offence and according to its consequences for destruction and mischief.
And religiously it is permissible to kill for violation of the Koran. So here we see the Fatwa fails to address that issue as well again.
If the terrorist acts that took place in the US were considered by the Islamic Law (Shar'iah) or the rules of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), the ruling for the crime of "Hirabah" (waging war against society) would be applied to their doers. God (Glory be to He) said: "The recompense of those who wage war against God and His Messenger and do mischief on earth is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. Except for those who (having fled away and then) came back with repentance before they fall into your power; (in that case) know that God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."  5: 33-34
Again the Fatwa is not addressing the propriety of the act of terror. Which is why it leads into the way above quoted section of the article about it being a religious duty to bring the perpetrators to justice because they would have to –judge- their actions to see if they were proper… thus this Fatwa does not say Terrorism is bad, it says we need to see who did it and have them judged properly but the Fatwa is tied to “Is it permissible for American Muslims to fight in this war”
So it fails on that route.

Another bit of irony here is in this nugget

Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual guide of Shi‘i Muslim radicals in Lebanon, said he was “horrified” by these “barbaric ... crimes”: “Beside the fact that they are forbidden by Islam, these acts do not serve those who carried them out but their victims, who will reap the sympathy of the whole world. ... Islamists who live according to the human values of Islam could not commit such crimes.”
The leader of Hezbollah was decrying crimes HE HAS ORDERED. But from some one else. This is in a document purporting to be Muslims against terror which shows the flaw of this western type of approach.

The Saudi religious leaders quoted do not use the Koran and Islamic law to say “terrorism is wrong” and as I pointed out with the control the state has over the mosque these acts during the aftermath of September 11th are of questionable character. Now a Saudi fatwa occurs in 2003…. You remember 03 that’s when Al-Qaeda started to take the fight to Saudi Arabia…again the state trumps here.
And those religious leaders who address it scope it in talking about murder but ignore (often purposefully) was what happened –murder-. They do not make that religious declaration until (as it happened with the Saudi’s) the murderers come to their doorstep
So this set of sites fails to meet the standards Dean claims it does. Now I am with Dean that the good guys are indeed winning over there progressively…but that’s not the root of the Boortz Argument.

Dean also brings up the fact Muslims are most often victims of terrorism…. But that’s not relevant to the point. Indeed the fact that they are most likely the victims of terror in the last few years is exactly why the tide of public opinion is shifting our way…but the fact that since 03ish the attack has started to hit them their have been few if any sweeping attacks on the use of theology by Bin Laden and his ilk. And usually it hedges itself in such a way that the rebuke is extremely limited. When it comes to Muslim Heartland folk their really needs to be a Martin Luther to make these changes so their can be a voice against terrorism. Until then we see the state defending its parochial interests and leaving the door open to fuel this theology elsewhere as a matter to aid their foreign policies.
Now Dean tries to turn this whole thing around on the Christians as many pseudo-intellectual arguments do its fallacious. Modern Islamic extremism is a form of nationalism born in the early 20th century at the hay day of nationalist movements. It however puts nationalism on the Islamic theological concept of the UMMAH/ Dar-Al-Islam. There is no concept comparable in Christian Theology so the argument fails out the gate. The closest concept to that is New Jerusalem and that can only work with some one who could convince a LOT of folks he is Jesus (last guy to come close –and he didn’t even say he was Jesus- was Joseph Smith… and I don’t think of Mormons as Christians either)
However his example fails further. In the US the Christian church has never had a model with the state anything remotely similar to the model the Mosque has in the Islamic world. That unique role fuels Islamism and fuels the dictatorial powers of many Muslim states.
It fails further as rare are the Christian communities which do not give the believing Christian the ability to question the orthodoxy of a brother Christian.
I can get into socio-political differences which further make this comparison invalid but let’s get to the Nut of it.
Christian Identity groups don’t practice enough core Christian theologies to count as Christians in any real sense. They say they do but I can also say I am President of the Galaxy but that doesn’t mean I’ll be getting any money from Proxima Centuari any time soon.
The KKK has since the 1920s been a Nationalist organization that uses Christian symbolism as a recruiting tool. It used the church to get recruits but it did not use the church to sanction lynchings / fire bombings/ and the like. In the earlier days of the Klan the identity was focused on the Pre-Civil War days and not on Jesus so you fail again.
Bringing up the use of African tribes of their new Christian identity to fill roles a shaman probably filled before good Christian folks taught them about Jesus also fails to meet the standard you set in this argument which –in my opinion- isn’t the kind of Dean Esmay I’ve come to expect.
But now we get to the Esmay-Hewitt link up getting to the nut of this about the cartoons. And this is very very important.
Do you want the right to say what you want? Do you want the first amendment to mean any d@mned thing? Then you best hope you don’t catch on transnationally. Suing folks in the UK using their laws is a threat to free speech. The fact the greeks can throw a Briton in jail for blasphemy against Jesus is a threat to free speech. The Canadian government could consider haling in American bloggers for their free speech. The fact protests in Amman can force the US government to criticize free speech is a threat to our free speech.
Either the liberty in the first amendment matters or Transnationalism matters that is the root of all this dispute. The White House could have had a teachable moment and showcases the cartoons bringing up the most horrible libels of anti-Semitism and anti-Christian bigotry. Could have brought up anti-black cartoons from South America and the Middle East and said “Is this the kind of dialogue we want?” but instead of an enlightened response a knee jerk response comes up and that’s the problem.
We need to come up with an international consensus that allows free speech to exist in a real form. But we don’t really respect it any here so that’s why that doesn’t happen.
Do these cartoons attack the Prophet? Certainly but I must go to the words of a brave Jordanian who I think puts this all into the proper context
"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" wrote Jihad Momani.
That is what these cartoons were all about. People bringing back Muhammad the Warlord and using him as their justification for vile behaviors like honor killings. He played many other roles but they need to be filtered into the context of both his behaviors at the time and the needs of the Muslim faithful today.
They need the Prophet Muhammad who was a wise arbiter; they need the Prophet Muhammad who governed wisely not the Prophet Muhammad who killed, brutalized, raped, and enslaved people. Which Muhammad would you want to be?
This is where the blowback against these Danish cartoons goes off the rails. We need to respect the Islamic culture…but we don’t need to accept cultural delusion. Not in ourselves, nor in them. These guys in Denmark did disrespect the Prophet, but by tolerating and abetting an ideology of hatred and murder so did you. The codes governing the Dhimmi in the days of Islamic weakness not only disrespect the Prophet but those days when Islam was truly a great culture and the seat of the world. In those days you allowed great freedom to Jews and Christians along with other “People of the book”. So since when you are doing weak you treat them with scorn and as sub-humans are you really obeying the prophet or are you following the weaknesses in your heart the prophet would decry?
You see that there? That’s the kind of cultural dialogue that –HAS- to but will not happen because the cult of political correctness has strangled the sense we have in this world.
Which sadly finds me making the exact same argument the Islamists make against the western society….
These cartoons bring up a lot of complex problems. The people who oppose the view “Islam is a religion of peace” are not bigots nor are those who cower to Islamic outrage over the cartoons enlightened.
Get over yourselves people, and get real

GMF~!~

I got a ticket

in my life 3 tickets

0 tickets for speeding ( the traffic laws i break almost regularly)

this time ...i cut some one off. I knew I wasn't going to get anyone to let me in and I cut a guy off

cop however was behind me

#@*#&*@

It has rained for over 8 hours

not the simple kind of rain the "OMFG is their a hurricane going on" rain

Stop it god you are not funny

All animals are Equal edition....

The U.S Government gets it wrong.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

"We call for tolerance and respect for all communities for their religious beliefs and practices," he added

Are these images offensive to muslims yes but the shoe doesn't get treated the same on the other foot by government which -is- wrong.

how about this



Or this



how about this



or this one



how about this one



and here is another



You see here is the problem. These offensive images are never spoken out against by governments in any real way. It sets up a moral relativity which shows a lack of any moral foundation

The Government should have said these things are all offensive but which one clearly is designed to call out to violence, and which is critical of violence

A little editing and a change of music goes a long way

The NAACP Godwins itself.

Worldnetdaily has the story.

Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens."

He said the Republicans would fly the Swaztika with the American flag.... so not a full out godwin but yet another reason to discount anything Julian Bond has to say.

American Taliban
Likes the Nazi Flags
Tokens

he says these things without saying how the lot of his people can be bettered.

And he says this while complaining that the President doesn't give the NAACP any attention

this is another sad barometer on American political discourse.

Free Ralphie May

Well.... *RELATIVELY* Free. ( He is part of the University special events fees) is on the plate tonight.

I'll post a reviewish when i get home.

More words that should not exist

From Fark a story that I don't understand.....

Non-romantic "marriages" in the workplace are the newest craze in office romance, the New York Post said, citing a survey by Vault Inc., a career research and consulting company.
Having a support system could lead to better performance reviews and advancement, the survey said.
The firm's national survey of workplace romance said workplace "spousing" has surged in the last year, in part because it offers immediate intimacy without the sex or commitment.

wait.....what?

Had to hit the G--L- search to find out what the froog they are talking about.

Amy was dating a guy with a wine cellar and a roaming eye. I had a fiancée and a wedding date. No man was good enough for Amy, including me. But in our own casual, platonic way, we became a couple: I didn’t have to love, honor, or obey—I merely vowed to hang out with her at fire drills. We ate lunch together, mocked coworkers together, and shared the few genuine feelings that didn’t get soaked with cynicism and sink to the bottom of our souls forever. She kept me from sending hotheaded e-mails I might later regret. “Step away from the keyboard!” she would tell me. I kept her entertained. For ten, twelve, fourteen hours a day, Amy was my work wife. I was her day husband.

Of course, a work wife, like any wife, must first be courted. Amy was no different. I wrapped up pretty, shiny nuggets of information—about a woman in Accounting, for instance, who greeted me in Klingon (“Nook-neckh!”)—and handed them over. She gave as good as she got, especially when she revealed that the hottest woman in the office had gone into the ladies’ room, removed her bra, and asked coworkers as they sauntered in if one breast felt warmer than the other. Amy also made it her job to outwit the affably clueless man we all worked for. When the boss presented me with the traditional Tiffany decanter during a perfunctory prewedding company toast in the conference room, I unwrapped it, made the appropriate sounds, and tried to insert the stopper in the top. It was too big. “Let’s hope the wedding night isn’t like this,” he yodeled. As his loyal underlings tittered, Amy refused to let him have the last laugh. “Gosh,” she countered, “let’s hope it is.”

So wait....what?

a platonic friend...thats what they used to call this. Why do we have to invent new and slightly more retarded ways to say that?

This sounds like a recipie for problems

A Jordanian paper stands up for free speech

We've seen euro-editors get sacked and now some one in the middle east is stepping up for the Danish Cartoonists. And they do so by putting things in the right perspective

"Muslims of the world, be reasonable," said the editor-in-chief of the weekly independent newspaper Al-Shihan in an editorial alongside the cartoons, including the one showing the Muslim religion's founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" wrote Jihad Momani.

good for Al-Shihan for putting it in the right place

France is not cool

Update

But late on Wednesday its owner, Raymond Lakah, said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual".

Mr Lakah said: "We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication."

The president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, had described France Soir's publication as an act of "real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France".

In this crazy mixed up world which is growing smaller due to the changes in our technology.....the fact muslim states can bring pressure to ban this sort of thing needs to be stood up to

Sadly the french paper's owner didn't see that

Dear Islamic Censor Overlords.....

I stand in solidarity with the French, German, and Danish press. So here is a moment of multi-religous sacrelige

using religous bigotry to spread hate and violence is one thing. but use of iconography to raise a legitimate question about religion is vital

Dixie Chick's kiss off to Dixie

(H/t to Gay Patriot)

Back'n'the day one of the most awesome men to ever walk into the world of Country music was Mr. Johnny Cash. Now the man in black had some opinions that were probably disagreable to the folks of his time and fought against the internal politics of the music industry.

and he still sold albums, why? because he respected his audience. When he politically disagreed with what some of them said he made the disagreement with the policy, not with the person.



Here is a site explaining the above ad

Although no harm was intended by Cash's gesture, he was making a pointed (no pun intended) statement not only for himself but also for his fellow disenfranchised country performers: We're still viable artists.We can still win awards. Just give us some support! It is no secret that older country artists such as Cash, Merle Haggard, George Jones and other older, established performers are finding it increasingly more difficult to garner airplay on today's country radio stations. You can rest assured that Jones, Haggard, Waylon Jennings, and Willie Nelson all got a real belly laugh out of Cash's ad.

Much has been said and written about the absence of older artists from the radio airwaves recently. A great deal of the criticism levied upon country radio has come from the artists themselves. It appears to be a frustrating situation for all involved. Jones, Cash and Haggard all have released outstanding albums in recent years with very little fanfare and even less airplay.

Cash fought for his music, he fought for what he had to say as an artist and Johnny Cash would never run from a fight....he may lose a fight, and he often did, but Johnny Cash was all about the music

Natalie Maines however is all about herself

"For me as a person, [The incident has] completely altered the course I was on," Maines tells Entertainment Weekly. "For me to be in country music to begin with was not who I was. I liked Martie and Emily's (the talented Dixie Chicks) playing, but I did not grow up liking country music."

Oh so you didn't play the kind of music you wanted...you played to get yourself over by latching on to two talented people.

Well isn't that like -you- speaking out politically for a band as opposed to saying -I-

''We're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.''

The other two girls didn't say much to support you during that time did they...you know why because THEY were about their music.

"And I guess I was ignorant to the fact that the stereotypes behind country music were true — and it was disappointing."

again all about little Natie... Well GUESS WHAT I don't think you were ignorant. You were in the creative process trying to promote to a culture. I think it was the fact you thought you had solid gold nuggets coming out of your rear well guess what...people want you to sing, not to buy your political message.

"So I'm pretty much done. They've shown their true colors. I like lots of country music, but as far as the industry and everything that happened... I couldn't want to be farther away from that," Maines told EW.

again we look at her words, all about herself. And all about how "they" attacked her.

and her narsicissm goes deeper

So - how do sisters Emily and Martie feel about this?

"Um... I don't know," answers Maines. Yikes.

Yikes indeed. She basically say's I'm not going to do country any more, and is forcing the rest of the band to follow her lead or split up the band.

and if you look at the track record of her being a controversy/attention whore you see this is hardly new.

The easy solution when this all began for the Chicks was to back Maines' right to rip the president and then move forward. But then Natalie attacked mega-star Toby Keith and now has attacked the fans and basically anyone that listens to country music.

The trio also tried the victim route at the time crying on national TV and posing for the cover on the left. ((the famous naked with words cover)) That didn't work as the only folks running to their defense was the far left political fringe.

Its all about Natalie and the rest of the band having to cover for her big mouth.

She could have taken the Johnny Cash route. Made a good political criticism of the war and not attacked the President. She could have not attacked toby keith

but in the end, it wasn't about her music or even about the politics... it was about her need to be the center of attention.

not the music, her

so country music, and it's fans are better off without the Chicks

Hot Quiz Action

More Hot Quiz action thanks to my buddy Rene Sanchez

Your walk is: Pimp/Thug Styles Take this quiz at QuizGalaxy.com

DOG - Your daemon may be a dog if you are loyal and

caring, and like to know what is expected of

you. You probably are very family oriented,

and have a small group of friends that you

are very close to, rather than a large group

of acquaintances. You dislike confrontation,

but you will stand up and fight for the

people and issues that you really care about.

You may prefer someone else to take the lead

in a situation, although you would rather

take the lead yourself than have the

situation fall apart. You probably enjoy

routine and order, but that doesn't mean you

don't like to have fun. If anything, your

friends probably know you for getting

intense, child-like pleasure in the small

things in life.


What Is Your Daemon?
brought to you by Quizilla

HealthScare System

over on Dean's word one of his guest bloggers is talking about the state of the American Health care system. The problem is the system though, not what we demand of it. So nationalizing the system will only leave us with a broken system that is ran by the federal government.



If you want to take a look at that go ride an amtrack train or take a look at the post office.

Instead of a patch on a current bad system or nationalizing a bad system why don't we try something different....a new system.

I support creating a New System but I am grown up enough to know most folks aren't as radical as I am so I thought about an opening salvo that is less radical

and as this was the hot topic on talk radio on my way to school...lets fo into it to

so first 20 ideas to come to my head to deal with healthscare reform

#1) Compliance Costs and Unfunded Mandates.

You go to a hospital or a doctor you have to pay for unfunded mandates and compliance costs. So I'd pass as a law a requirement that on evey medical Bill the amount of money that goes towards paying the compliance costs for your insurance company and the unfunded federal and state mandates for health care to your health care provider get listed. Also the amount of money they pay in taxes and malpractice insurance should get listed. I think this is important because I think people need to see just how much the Government and Insurance companies are forcing health care providers to spend to do their basic services. I think when you see the cost of the services (to make you healthy) and the cost of doing buisness that the government forces on them but doesn't give them money to do (unfunded mandates) should be there so the American people can make an honest choice in the health care debate.

#2) End the ludicrous homeless policies we have today.

This one will cost the state more money on the front end, but less money on the back end i feel which makes it a good investment. People should not have the right to live and recieve free government health care if they are insane or a drug addict without working to end those two conditions. These people are often a drain on the health care system due to the cost of their living "In the wild" and their inability to interact with the world around them. Force homeless people if they want to get the health care they should, to be psychologically regulated. Also make this clear i am speaking of real homeless people (folks who don't have a roof over their head) vs fake homeless people which homeless advocates refer to (people who have to live in homes of friends and families). Yes making big rehab centers and big mental health centers to keep these homeless people off the street will cost a lot of money. But this will keep these homeless people from being a drain on the ER system.

#3) Do something about illegal aliens in our health care system

While the mexican government has funded studies saying this doesn't happen...well that is simply BUNK. Ambulances have even delievered mexicans over the boarder to American hospitals to get health care. We need to find a way to get a real and objective (as objective as any government study can be) sense on how much it is costing our health care system and make the mexicans pay for it. We should also work with the Mexican government and the Roman Catholic church to improve the health care infrustructure in mexico so people illegally immigrating don't come north of the border and cost a ton of money.

#4)Change how health insurance prices work

If you are the ideal BMI or whatever measure of physical fattitude you want to use and I who am -not- ideal go to work for the same employer we pay the exact same amount for health insurance. I am not a fan of penalizing folks but i think health insurance companies should be allowed to offer discounts to people who do healthful things.

Good excersises, taking use of preventative services, not being a fatty fatty fatty, quitting smoking, etc.

If you do one of those things I think your health care company should be able to provide you with discounts either in the upfront area (what you pay in) or in the back end areas (what you have to pay out of pocket).

I also think however you should be rewarded for other kinds of "good" health care choices.

Not using the ER unless it is well an Emergancy. The ER is very costly and most hospitals do not make a good return on their money from ER visits. Many even make every ER visit as a loss. If we encourage people not to do this hospitals will not have to spread that loss out amongst other services (raise prices).

#5) Dental and Mental Health care equity

fact of the matter is most Dental and Mental health insurances are ludicrously under-paying. They don't give remotely what the consumer would need to get an adequate level of services... and thats assuming everything goes WELL.

as such people avoid proper dental care or proper mental health care and that can lead to problems down the road. We need to encourage employers to get better coverage for their employees as a way to reduce these injuries that have another root cause.

#6) Health Savings accounts

ummm DUH

#7) Medical Bankruptcy

I think the government should create a special kind of bankruptcy for folks that have 70% or more of their debt be of a health care nature. It should be recognized as something different and something that you get out of quicker and leaves less of a stigma on you financially.

#8) Medical School Costs

Doctors have to pay off OBSCENE medical bills. And here is a great solution for the student loan portion that the government controls.

allow the doctor to get a portion of the debt every year excused based on providing free medical services to the community. Require them to of course make payments during that time period. By making the cost of retiring their education debt less expensive it will enable them to make a similar profit margin at a considerably lower price.

Increase the amount they get forgiven if they go to work in an urban or rural area to help out in providing excellent care

#9) Bringing the Charitable Sector and the Health Care sector togther

I think the Department of HHS starting first in the major urban areas, then going to the remote rural areas should start bringing togther charitable resources with health care resources. They should hold some confrences to look at ways big charities, and big charitable donors can work on retiring the health care debt in their area. Also i think bringing in big time employers (like ford, Walmart, etc) into the mix could be helpful to.

#10) Allow benevolent societies to start up again.

Some churches are begining a collective approach to health care. Prior to the days of insurance that was very common place and it should be again. This serves an added bonus of helping build church and communitiy ties as well. I think systems should be set up to guarentee that the "community organization" can take a level of a collective hit...possibly making this primarily a supplimental expense to any other form of health care coverage

#11) Expanding the tax deductibility of health care expenses

Make it more tax deductable and people will go for it more.

#12) Make rich people in the Medicare system pay more

This should be a DUH but the democratic party and the AARP have made it less so. I think people with a certain retirement income (lets say 50K for an individual, and 100K for a couple) and up in retirement should have to pay in at least what the average worker pays.

#13) Make buying your own health care plan 100% tax deductable

just like it sounds.

#14) take those industries that the "average" pay is 5000 dollars or less from the poverty level and make the corperate health care expense 100% tax deductible.

#15)Require Insurance companies and government insurance programs pay in a timely manner

You run a doctors office...you have to send a bill and any query materials to medicare or big insurance within 90 days before they will even process your claim. They however can wait in some cases as long as 2 years before they give dollar one to the health care provider. This is a huge cost problem which must be eliminated. Require them to give the check in the same dead line they require for the information to be billed.

#16) Limit the amount of go-backs.

Lets say you send a bill out to medicare and the coding (numeric codes used for many features, but primarily to streamline billing in this case) is inaccurate. Medicare can then pull up every single account of that type and check for the same error. If the error exists they can take the money back from the health care provider as much as 2 years later. While some of this is nessecary, it can also be excessive.

#17) More billing disclosure:

This is less something for the government to do, but in some cases it is. I think the Major health care organizations should report once a quarter how much money they are owed by insurers that they don't pay up. This is much like my point #1 giving people a real sense of knowledge about how the money is spent and used.

#18) Allow for flex time

How is this health care related you ask? well some jobs allow for limited "sick" time from their employees. But by allowing flex time into the market place this could allow choices. "I earned 12 hours of flex time this month, and i feel feverish i can take the time off" and by doing this it allows the employee to make better choices about his own health and create less of an expense to the company from having a sick man working.

#19) Federalizing/Statizing malpractice insurance above 1,000,000 dollars a year.

I thinking 1,000,000 a year in damages from malpractice costs is a reasonable amount doctors should have to pay insurance for. I do think however if a doctor rakes up more then 1 million in costs the money above and beyond that should be a government insurance (not unlike national flood insurance). I think if the doctor did all the right things he should pay his fee into the government system. But if their are problems with what the doctor did it becomes a matter of public health concern that the state must look into.

#20) Re-examin the system every 10 years.

I think regulation of the health care system and modifications must be examined and re-examined on a regular basis. I think 10 years is about as short as is reasonable to do that in

France is becoming cool again to?

Well a French Newspaper is in any case (H/t to the Commisar)

"The publication of 12 cartoons in the Danish press has shocked the Muslim world for whom the representation of Allah and his prophet is banned," France Soir said in a front page comment below one of the controversial drawings.

"But because no religious dogma can impose its view on a democratic and secular society, France Soir publishes the incriminated cartoons," it said.

Under a headline "Yes, we have the right to caricature God", the paper ran a front page cartoon with Buddha, the Christian and Jewish Gods and the Prophet Mohammad sitting on a cloud above Earth, with the Christian God saying: "Don't complain Mohammad, we've all been caricatured here."

The Soir bully for you. You've shown some backbone that has been lacking in Europe in particular, and france specifically

The Commisar has the images (which I plan to re-post on my blog when i get home) and I'd like to encourage every blogger to share the love with the images...but more importantly I'd like every news magazine to share the images. Also run with it the elephant dung mary, the p!$$ Christ, and any other offensive image which has assaulted a religous icon.

Lets take a stand for global free speech

John Kerry: Making a fool of himself again

Matt Drudge is on the case

KERRY: That's terrific. But 53 percent of our children don't graduate from high school. Kids don't have after-school programs... He didn't ask America to sacrifice anything to achieve great goals and the biggest example is making the tax cut permanent for the wealthiest people in America. The average American struggles to find time to take carry of families, working two or three jobs... It's a disgrace. He did not tell the real state of the union.

Kerry's 53% claim conflicts with a recent press release from the U.S. Census Bureau: "High School Graduation Rates Reach All-Time High"

And the Census Bureau's own website states: 85.9 Percent Of Americans Aged 20-24 Are High School Graduates. (U.S. Census Bureau Website, www.census.gov , Accessed 2/1/06)

Now... did John Kerry mean 53% of inner city students?

How about 53% of Minority students?

I think thats the only salvation he could have for the idiocy... but sadly based on old "Crushed" Kerry's track record I think he does mean 53% of all students.

But yes folks online would fact check that and quickly... but now even NBC had problems with it.

I got my first bit of campaign paraphenelia for a student government Canidate

The Harrison/Abbasi campaign are having little fliers with a three point program

of them only one remotely intrests me.

#1) Building Campus Traditions- I could really care less.

#2)Advocating for student life as an equal priority with research and atheletics-sounds like that could be a problem later

#3) Creating a "secret shopper" program to hold university and student services accountable

I like that third one.

So depending on the outreach from other campaigns I may indeed vote for the FF campaign

Your taxpayer dollars at rest

Wikipedia has a anyone can be editor system....

well some congressional staffers have tried to ruin it

here's what they said

One edit listed White House press secretary Scott McClellan under the entry for "douche." Another said of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma) that: "Coburn was voted the most annoying Senator by his peers in Congress. This was due to Senator Coburn being a huge douche-bag.".....
This juvenalia is, of course, thoroughly bipartisan. Another change to the Iraq invasion entry shows that the anonymous congressional editor played up the dubious connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

I feel so glad that these people are in office for years and utterly unaccountable