(Note to literalists: the Watched column presently contains only a smattering of 'warblogs' because the facilitator of the template-change--Dr. Menlo--is not very familiar with them, and will be adding more as they are sent to him. Also, this blog may contain areas of allusion, satire, subtext, context and possibly even a dash of the surreal: wannabe lit-crits beware.)
Control
[Watch this space for: Pentagon and Petroleum, The Media is only as Liberal as the Corporations Who Own Them, Wash Down With, and Recalcify]
WARBLOGGER WATCH
Monday, September 23, 2002
A religious fanatic willing to sacrifice himself for his twisted cause and responsible for numerous terrorist acts - including ones in which the use of weapons of mass destruction was threatened - is finally meted the appropriate charges. The numskulls who ordinarily follow such matters are silent on the event. I guess Rod Dreher was busy with his stellar review of a book characterizing Islam as "a primitive, violent, and fiercely chauvinistic religion." Dreher, of course, agrees with the characterization: author Robert "Spencer may be wrong - I doubt it." posted by Grady4:36 PM
Sometime in the early 1830s, a Yale student named William H. Russell--he future valedictorian of the class of 1833- traveled to Germany to study for a year. Russell came from an inordinately wealthy family that ran one of America's most despicable business organizations of the nineteenth century: Russell and Company, an opium empire. Russell would later become a member of the Connecticut state legislature, a general in the Connecticut National Guard, and the founder of the Collegiate and Commercial Institute in New Haven. While in Germany, Russell befriended the leader of an insidious German secret society that hailed the death's head as its logo. Russell soon became caught up in this group, itself a sinister outgrowth of the notorious eighteenth-century society the Illuminati.
. . . As soon as initiates are allowed into the "tomb," a dark, windowless crypt in New Haven with a roof that serves as a landing pad for the society's private helicopter, they are sworn to silence and told they must forever deny that they are members of this organization. During initiation, which involves ritualistic psychological conditioning, the juniors wrestle in mud and are physically beaten--this stage of the ceremony represents their "death" to the world as they have known it. They then lie naked in coffins, masturbate, and reveal to the society their innermost sexual secrets. After this cleansing, the Bonesmen give the initiates robes to represent their new identities as individuals with a higher purpose. The society anoints the initiate with a new name, symbolizing his rebirth and rechristening as Knight X, a member of the Order. It is during this initiation that the new members are introduced to the artifacts in the tomb, among them Nazi memorabilia--including a set of Hitler's silverware-dozens of skulls, and an assortment of decorative tchotchkes: coffins, skeletons, and innards.
G.W.'s grandfather and great-grandfather, Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker, were among the chief American fundraisers for Germany's Nazi Party. Through industrialist Fritz Thyssen, the Bush-run Union Banking Company and W. A. Harriman & Company, the Bushes sold over $50 million in German bonds to American investors, starting in 1924. Thyssen in turn pumped money into the infant Nazi Party, which had proved its desire to rule and its willingness to use brute force in 1923's Munich Beer Hall Putsch.
George Walker, GW's great-grandfather, also set up the takeover of the Hamburg-America Line, a cover for I.G. Farben's Nazi espionage unit in the United States. In Germany, I.G. Farben was most famous for putting the gas in gas chambers; it was the producer of Zyklon B and other gasses used on victims of the Holocaust. The Bush family was not unaware of the nature of their investment partners. They hired Allen Dulles, the future head of the CIA, to hide the funds they were making from Nazi investments and the funds they were sending to Nazi Germany, rather than divest. It was only in 1942, when the government seized Union Banking Company assets under the Trading With The Enemy Act, that George Walker and Prescott Bush stopped pumping money into Hitler's regime.
Of course, if you don't want to take Disinfo's word for it, or the Bush Body Count's word for it, I can point you to articles about the Bush Family and it's ties to Nazi Germany in the Boston Globe, Sarasota Herald-Tribune and the Jewish Advocate.
And finally, of course, you all know about the CIA's history of hiring Nazis, as well as George Bush Sr.'s record of service there . . . and then there was that reporter reporting from Florida on NPR the day after the last presidential election, who said [pp]: "There are CIA agents swarming all over the place down here."
The most amazing thing is that some Americans have actually fallen for the hilarious deception that Bush is fighting "evil" . . . so go the powers of brainwashing, I guess.
“[I]’m sorry but [I] pay for those soldiers to fight in a volunteer army. [T]hey are servants of people like me who will never fight. [Y]es, servants of civil masters. [A]nd they will do what they are told by people who would never go to war. [T]hat’s called a democracy.” -- [A]ndrew [Sullivan]
Well, that just got me humming today and eventually the words came . . . (Conjure up Lesley Gore.)
It’s my war and you’ll die if I want to,
Die if I want to,
Die if I want to.
You will die too,
If I want you to do.
INSERT BLOCK, VOTE FOR GOVERNOR
A Voting Machine Even the President Can Understand
Today I happened upon a site called Anger Management Course that has a photograph of a newfangled voting machine for the good state of Florida that even President George W. Bush, his almost equally dimwitted brother Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), and the Supreme Court could operate.
Hell, even Noelle Bush, high on crack (or “a rock-like substance that tested positive for cocaine”), could work this thing. As for Poppy Bush, well, I don’t know.
Gordon Baskin of Anger Management Course tells me the image comes from The British Club by way of the incomparable UggaBugga.
DANIEL PIPES & THE INFIDELS
Watching the Professorate One Enemy At a Time
Say! There’s a new kid on the block: Campus Watch.
Campus Watch, following in the ignoble tradition of the groundbreaking but crude Accuracy in Academia and the more learned and refined National Association of Scholars, has taken as its task “Monitoring Middle East Studies on Campus.”
It will come as no surprise that Campus Watch is a project of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, of which Daniel Pipes is the director. The Middle East Forum publishes Middle East Quarterly and Middle East Intelligence Bulletin.
Let’s take a look.
“THE PROBLEM,” as defined by Campus Watch:
“American scholars of the Middle East, to varying degrees, reject the views of most Americans and the enduring policies of the U.S. government about the Middle East over a dozen administrations. Lest this characterization appear exaggerated, consider that, with only one exception, every American president since 1948 has spoken forcefully about the benefits to the United States from strong and deep relations with Israel. In contrast, American scholars often propagate a view of Middle Eastern affairs that, among other things, sees Zionism as a racist offshoot of imperialism, blames Israel alone for the origin and persistence of the Palestinian refugee problem, and holds Israel responsible for such problems as terrorism and fundamentalist Islam.”
“THE CAUSES,” according to Campus Watch:
“This bias results from two main causes. First, academics seem generally to dislike their own country and think even less of American allies abroad. They portray U.S. policy in an unfriendly light and disparage allies. The closer those allies are (first Israel, followed by Turkey, then at some distance Egypt and Saudi Arabia), the more hostile their analysis. In contrast, they apologize for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Ba’th regime, and other rogue states. . . .
“Second, Middle East studies in the United States has become the preserve of Middle Eastern Arabs, who have brought their views with them. Membership in the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), the main scholarly association, is now 50 percent of Middle Eastern origin. [Ed.: Does this include or exclude Israelis?] Though American citizens, many of these scholars actively disassociate themselves from the United States, sometimes even in public.”
“WHAT WE DO,” according to Campus Watch:
“Campus Watch will henceforth monitor and gather information on professors who fan the flames of disinformation, incitement and ignorance. Campus Watch will critique these specialists, and make available its findings on the internet and in the media. Our main goals are to: Identify key faculty who teach and write about contemporary affairs at university Middle East Studies departments in order to analyze and critique the work of these specialists for errors or biases; [d]evelop a network of concerned students and faculty members interested in promoting American interests on campus; [k]eep the public apprised of course syllabi, memos, debates over appointments and funding, etc.; [k]eep the public informed of relevant university events; and [c]ontinuously post the results of our project on www.campus-watch.org, including articles, reports from campus and other relevant information.”
That’s one hell of an agenda. Presumably handsome financial support is on its way from the usual sources? (Mr. Scaife, please call your office.)
We are not unsympathetic to the oft-spoken complaint of conservatives that academia leans left; it is, in fact, a rather well documented phenomenon. However, one might think the grip of conservatives on “think tanks” and large swathes of the media would more than compensate for the disparity, but that, and the cause of the disparity itself, are topics for another day. We might point out, however, that advocates of divestment from Israel by university endowments have been overwhelmed by opposition from, well, other academicians.
Meanwhile, back at the Campus Watch web site, visitors will find an array of useful tools for countering the purported bias, inaccuracies, and failures of Middle East scholarship in American universities.
In what we can only assume is a list in progress, we find “Dossiers on Professors,” a dramatic appellation for what appears to be something of an enemies list.
Thus far, “Dossiers” have been posted at Campus Watch on the following professors: M. Shahid Alam, Northeastern University; Juan Cole, University of Michigan; Hamid Dabashi, Columbia University; John Esposito, Georgetown University; Rashid Khalidi, University of Chicago; Joseph Massad, Columbia University; Ali A. Mazrui, State University of New York at Binghamton; and Snehal Shingavi, University of California at Berkeley.
Where’s Edward Said? Neutralized already?
There are even “Dossiers on Institutions,” with the list of offenders to this point including Colorado College, Columbia University, Concordia University, Harvard University, New York University, Northeastern University, San Francisco State University, Stanford University, the State University of New York, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the University of North Carolina, the University of South Florida, and the University of Toronto.
Go ahead and read them, there are not yet in place “need to know” restrictions on readership.
To counter the nefarious influence of the household names on which Campus Watch has assembled its “Dossiers,” the group provides a list of preferred or approved experts on Islam, Islamism, and the Middle East, including Ziad Abdelnour, Patrick Clawson, Khalid Durán, John Eibner, Joseph Farah [Ed.:!], Gary Gambill, Martin Kramer, William Kristol [Ed.: !], Habib Malik, Judith Miller, Michael Rubin, Robert Satloff, Jonathan Schanzer, Meyrav Wurmser, and the aforementioned Mr. Pipes.
Not Debbie Schlussel? Not Norman Liebman? Not Joan Peters?
The site also includes a section called “Keep Us Informed,” which includes a helpful form for professors, students, and others to report campus misbehavior; “Reports From Campus,” sure to be packed with riveting accounts from the front line; and, of course, the requisite donation box.
One would think that academicians of any persuasion would have ample opportunity, through conferences, seminars, symposia, lectures, journals, and books, to criticize one another’s views without resorting to the establishment of a Watch group. After all, isn’t this -- the search for truth, new knowledge, countering falsehoods, and inaccuracies -- what scholarship is about? Does the professorate not engage in this activity on a daily basis, as a matter of course?
Organizations like Campus Watch are just another variant of the ongoing, indeed incessant, politicization of academia that their members profess to oppose and despise. Aside from on-campus agitation and irritation, their true purpose is to inflame passions among a wider audience, the intelligentsia, opinion makers, politicians, and the media. Sadly, at a time when rising tensions are the last thing needed, Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch have elected to throw gasoline on the fire.
Mickey Kaus continues to maltreat his hobby horse, flogging it when clearly unwarranted. In his latest avalanche of idiocy, Kaus scolds Germany for its generous system of social benefits, implying that welfare causes terrorism - an idea endorsed by the increasingly addled G. Harlan Reynolds. "Let work do the work of assimilation" of Muslims, Kaus writes, believing his thought so novel it merits an exclamation point. In the future, Kaus may want to vet his Kausfiles on the topic with these German Muslims, who comprise the majority of Germany's Muslim immigrants according to the German Register of Foreigners.
Policies and attitudes towards these individuals have been governed by a "guest worker" approach, whereby they are perceived primarily in terms of their utility value. Accordingly, these individuals, despite making Germany the focus of their lives, often have a precarious residence status, which, besides those problems of discrimination they face, affects their possibilities for integration and participation in German society.
Maybe membership in that "unassimilated opposition culture" isn't exactly voluntary.
"Suddenly the Republicans who denied welfare benefits to new immigrants as part of the 1996 welfare reform look a bit more sensible, no?" No, actually, and neither do you for your effort, Mr. Kaus. posted by Grady5:56 PM
• • • • •
Friday, September 20, 2002
Lummox Taranto shows exactly what kind of mastery of logic one must have to receive nomination for an ONA Online Journalism Award. Unable or unwilling to engage Not in Our Name's stance against the war, the Lummox writes, "Similar sentiments [to NION's statement of conscience] are on offer at the Web Site of the World Church of the Creator, an outfit the Anti-Defamation League in 1999 declared the "fastest growing hate group in America." Actually, the statements are quite dissimilar, both in content and tone, as is plain in the passages the Lummox cut-and-pasted. Poor stuff, Lummox, though this "display [of] an original voice, freshness of insight and clear writing" does compare favorable with the rest of the field. posted by Grady10:26 PM
Shaming will probably prove ineffective against these people who allowed the attacks to be perpetrated, as the concept is utterly alien to them. posted by Grady7:16 PM
• • • • •
For the first time in recent memory, a Control-F executed on Internet commentator Andrew Sullivan's "Unfit to Print" vanity website comes up empty for the keyword "Raines." Al hamdou lilah, though his inability to register more than four consecutive posts without a lame swipe at the Times shows he's been thus far unable to disabuse himself of the patently ridiculous notion that Howell Raines has successfully foisted his personal prejudices upon the paper's entire newsroom and editorial office. A question Sullivan has yet to consider:
The vanity of even the worst journalists under God's sun is immeasurable. Fits are thrown when an editor excises the most superfluous of adjectives, as if the writer's every word is a contribution to humanity equivalent in scale to the internal combustion engine or the twelve-pack. Yet Sullivan expects his great ape constituency to believe that Raines has been able to dictate the line on every Iraq-themed piece the paper has ran without bylines being pulled, without staffers launching extracurricular websites expressing grievance, without outraged letters being sent to Romenesko for publication, and without walkouts, serially or en masse. How is this so?
Sullivan, an adoring fan of Rumsfeld and his curious brand of logic, doesn't ask the question of himself. Nor does he ask how Raines was able to seize control of the mammoth Times, a supertanker, as Max Sawicky put it, whose staff is reckoned by Hoover's to number 12,050, and steer it down the narrow channels of his own personal prejudices without incident. posted by Grady6:52 PM
• • • • •
Is Daniel Pipes dim-witted or just deceptive? Have your say here. posted by Amir6:31 PM
• • • • •
Tuesday, September 17, 2002
King of Compassion Rod Dreher, discoursing on Michel Houellebecq's works, does Houellebecq, who has a character experience "a 'quiver of glee' every time a Palestinian terrorist is killed," one better. "Hell," Dreher gushes, "I dance the tarantella with roses in my hair whenever I hear that the Israeli Defense Forces have sent one of those kaffiyehed Nazis to that dee-luxe apartment in the sky." Dreher does not say whether he continues his grotesque dance when the music is abruptly interrupted with news that the dead, with apalling regularity, are not terrorists.
According to ummahnews.com, Houellebecq, the new Rushdie in the National Review Pantheon of literary achievement, also allows his protagonist to feel "a rush of enthusiasm" on hearing "of a Palestinian terrorist, a Palestinian child or a pregnant Palestinian woman being shot in the Gaza Strip." Does Dreher likewise dance on receiving such news? posted by Grady6:29 PM
• • • • •
The Columbia School of Journalism's Online Journalism Award nominees have been nominated, and all I can say is that they are a travesty. The nominees include not one single blogger. Apparently the dimwits at Columbia missed all the stories about how blogging has revolutionized journalism. The fact that this premise is mainly supported by bloggers themselves is neither here nor there. (Of COURSE, actual working journalists would say that blogging is not journalism, but they are simply jealous that they, having to actually do research, spell their stories correctly, and employ measures of 'responsibility,' are not free to spew and vent the way that bloggers are. Jealous bastards!) Nonetheless, the snooty bigwigs at Columbia (oh how they make me sick with their high standards) could have at least included some of our best bloggers among the nominees for Online Commentary! Yet not a one! No Lileks! No Asparagirl! NO GANZ??!!!?
In an attempt to rectify this glaring omission, here are what the nominees for best Online Commentary might look like if there was any justice in the world. I encourage my fellow Watchers to nominate their own.
8. Online Commentary
This category honors a body of work by a single writer for commentary original to the Web, although neither the commentary itself nor the thought behind it need be original. (Print syndication after Web posting does not disqualify an entry; however, it is not likely going to happen for most of these individuals. Ever.) Topics can range from news commentary to pointless overemotional essays, blind criticism, uninformed opinion, and what they and they alone might consider humor. The writer should employ a screeching high-pitched voice, staleness of insight, and clear writing (in that the font is readable. Accuracy in spelling, grammar and thought are of course optional). Creative use of the medium will be considered, but not expected. Unlike the other categories, which are split into affiliated and independent awards, there is only one award in this category, which is still one too many.
Nominees, in alphabetical order:
Sasha Castel, “I Am Just So Proud to Pose With a 40 Year Old Liar Who Advocates Terrorism!”
James Lileks, “I Call My Little Daughter ‘Gnat.’ She Is Cute and I Wuv Her. Also, Kill The Arabs.” (Multiple entries)
Justin “Since we couldn’t pick up weapons and physically pound all those radical Islamic scumbags into dust [Why couldn’t you?-ed.], we had to settle for more civilized ways to contribute [i.e., urging others to pick up weapons and physically pound all those radical Islamic scumbags into dust-ed.]?” Sodano, “Good Riddance, Effective Immediately”
Pejman Yousefzadeh, "Here Is A Great Story That Makes 'The Press' Look Bad! Oh, Wait, James Taranto Pointed Out That It Didn't Really Happen? Well, It Must Be Because Taranto Read A Link In My Comments Section, Not Because the Story Was First Debunked in 1999! Who Has Even Heard Of Snopes? It Must Be My Page! Finally, The Popularity That Has Avoided Me All My Life Is Mine! Even Taranto [Who actually IS nominated for an Online Journalism Award-ed.] Reads My Site, How Else Could He Have Known It Was A Fake Story! I Even Got A Note From Lileks The Almighty Once! Oh Poo!"
Josh Treviño here revisits our previous discussion regarding domestic terrorists, and casts the arrest of Buffalo sleeper-cellies as a "vindication" of his POV.
That discussion focused on Jose Padilla, whose detention caused Treviño to cry, "At what point does an ideology, a belief, or a faith become incompatible with the very idea of our America?" (Does anyone go back and read these references, I wonder? The comments Treviño's fans have posted show no such awareness.) My point was clearly that the presence of like-minded, like-caused, and like-skinned malefactors (should all that be established here) does not necessarily prove Islam to be the direct cause of terror, just as Catholicism is not the direct cause of priestly pedophilia. (I'm not a huge fan of either creed, but I try to be fair.)
I do acknowledge that there are people in the United States who want to blow things up, and should be stopped. I have disagreed with Treviño on some of his Holy War talk. But his acknowledgement that there are some good American Muslims is at least an encouraging sign.
Jose Padilla was arrested in May at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. He was accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive bomb in the United States. An investigation later revealed there was no evidence a plot was under way. No charges were filed, and Padilla is being held by the military as an enemy combatant without trial.
I know not what course others may take, but I'm less interested in "vindication" than in finding out what the hell is really going on. posted by roy edroso11:46 AM
• • • • •
Ismail Royer draws attention to this amazing letter from "investigative reporter Steven Epstein, an expert in Islamic terrorism":
Dear colleagues and fans,
If you have been following my reporting for the last few years, you are aware of my warnings about American Muslim groups like the National Muslim Students' Association (MSA). I can now announce that through my investigative reporting, I have discovered that the MSA actually engineered the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and moreover, routinely brags about it.
FACT: On a 1976 roadtrip, Billy Ray Hassenpfeffer, the brother-in-law of MSA Executive Director Altaf Hassan, once stopped for a Slurpee at the Flagstaff, Arizona 7-11 where, a mere 15 years later, one Muhammad Siddiqi would land a job as a clerk. Mr. Siddiqi, a Pakistani by nationality, had once shined the shoes of Osama bin Ladin's cousin's hairdresser in his previous job in his native Peshawar, according to unnamed intelligence sources.
FACT: Mr. Hassenpfeffer is currently under investigation for failing to return a library book he checked out as a high school student. Hassenpfeffer claims to have "lost" the book, a biography of rock star Elvis Presley. It is claimed by many Islamist Turks that Presley, a known anti-semite, was of Turkish descent. Moreover, unknown intelligence sources say the teenaged Hassenpfeffer would repeatedly disparage the then-popular rock group KISS, whose lead singer and bassist were Jewish, as "tone-deaf clowns."
FACT: Hassan, linked by marriage to an anti-Jewish fan of anti-semites and an associate of an associate of someone who served bin Ladin (by repeatedly and unapolegetically giving the terrorist leader "mullet" hairdos in the 1970s), told ABC News on Sept. 13: "We condemn this attack in the strongest of terms." Note that Hassan pointedly did not specify WHICH attack he was condemning, a deliberate omission that implies tacit acceptance and even praise for the terrorist attacks, non-existent intelligence sources say.
FACT: Mr. Anwar Hadeed, MSA's Executive Director, is a Palestinian.
I am available for lectures and media interviews.
Mr. Steven Epstein
Director
The Investigative Project
(Steve Epstein is a take-off of Steve Emerson, the wacko who heads up the 'The Investigative Project'. The only inaccuracy on the part of Mr Royer is perhaps that the evidence present in Epstein's letter is of a higher calibre and more lucid than anything Emerson could reasonably produce.) posted by Amir3:25 AM
• • • • •
G. Harlan Reynolds, conspicuously committed to The Truth, indulges in a bout of (self-)righteous outrage over Scott Ritter's decision to confine his answer to a Time interviewer's question to manageable length. When Ritter concludes his answer by saying "Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there [at an Iraqi prison for the children of dissidents] because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace," Reynolds likens Ritter to Soviet and Khmer apologists, and charges that "SCOTT RITTER SAYS THAT "WAGING PEACE" IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN TRUTH."
Should those tightwads over at the New York Sun ever come through with his check, The Professor may want to apply the funds toward the purchase of a pair of reading glasses, his ocular faculties apparently too weak to make out the word "horrible" or the entire sentence - "It was a horrific scene" - preceding the excerpted lines.
Some days away from my computer, I have finally been put wise to the existence of the so-called "Shropshire Challenge," to which $10 has been pledged in my very name. Touching, that, though challenge sponsor Dr. Weevil seems not to share our general presumption against war, preferring instead the colossal failure of advanced humanity and attendant mass death. Those disagreeing with him - particularly those feeling that persons propagandizing on behalf of unelected president Bush's threatened war against the Iraqi people ("collectively smeared as 'Saddam Hussein'," as some obscure journalist said recently) should themselves participate in the slaughter - must now report to Baghdad for deployment as human shields. Given America's history of disregard for its citizens in like matters, I somehow don't think human shields would prove very effective in dissuading Rumsfeld et al. Better would be a refusal to allow a simpering moron to insinuate his country into a war - though I'll gladly relieve the pedant of his tenner. Provided, of course, a warbloging opposite number meets me on the streets of Baghdad to verify my presence. I understand there's a certain someone "saving [himself] for the Iraqi dustup, whatever form it takes" [emphasis added] who fits the bill. posted by Grady4:27 PM
Five days before 9/11, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65 percent of the country's rapes were committed by ''non-Western'' immigrants--a category which, in Norway, is almost wholly Muslim. A professor at the University of Oslo explained that one reason for the disproportionate Muslim share of the rape market was that in their native lands, ''rape is scarcely punished'' because it is generally believed that ''it is women who are responsible for rape.''
So Muslim immigrants to Norway should be made aware that things are a little different in Scandinavia? Not at all! Rather, the professor insisted, ''Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes'' because their manner of dress would be regarded by Muslim men as inappropriate. ''Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.''
Then, in September 2001 (only five days, in fact, before the destruction of the World Trade Center), the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by "non-Western" immigrants ? a category that, in Norway, consists mostly of Muslims. The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (who was described as having "lived for many years in Muslim countries") as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. One reason for the high number of rapes by Muslims, explained the professor, was that in their native countries "rape is scarcely punished," since Muslims "believe that it is women who are responsible for rape." The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."
But wait.. there is more..
Australian Islam-basher Pamela Bone had this to say:
In Norway, where according to the newspaper Dagbladet, 65 per cent of rapes last year were performed by "non-Western immigrants", a professor at Oslo University told women they must take their share of responsibility for the rapes because Muslim men found their dress provocative. "Norwegian women must realise that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it," he said.
Unfortunately, she is not as smart as Mark Steyn who safely uses gender-neutral terms. Bone calls the Professor a 'he' whereas it is really a 'she'.
Last year, just before September 11, Norway's Dagbladet reported 65 per cent of rapes were carried out by non-Western immigrants, mostly Muslims, on Norwegian women. And a Norwegian professor from Oslo University said "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men regard their dress as provocative.
What is up with these guys?
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'll try and post further examples in coming days. posted by Amir1:32 AM
Just when you thought things couldn't get any more stupider in the warblogger craposphere, leave it up to "brain the size of a watermelon" Reaganite Pej Puppet to take things to a new moronic low. PS: Don't come back. PSS: Tim Blair, fuck you too, bitter two-bit hack. Those car reviews must be bringing in the journalism awards, eh? Proving that granola-crunching, Tranzi lefties are not the only ones who start charitable organizations, Pej has come up with the brilliant (I'm not joking) Adopt-A-Bomb charity:
It occurred to me that we do not have a charity dedicated to assisting the war on terrorism.
Oh, I know, the Defense Department gets hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And of course, it would be very difficult to raise the kind of money needed to make a noticeable difference in the funding of the defense budget.
But still, I thought that perhaps people might want to be able to give some money to the Defense Department. It might help increase the pay for some soldiers, or assist in augmenting the quality of the benefits they receive, or even help in housing.
And it might allow for at least some extra funding to increase weapons purchases. Who knows? It would depend on the amount of money we get.
So with that, I introduce to you, a new website I have created, and which is currently in extremely crude form: Adopt-A-Bomb. Perhaps for pennies a day, you too could adopt a thermobaric weapon, or even a Daisycutter. Based on the amount you give, you would be able to receive a picture and file discussing your adopted munition in detail. You could even get your name or message inscribed on your adopted bomb before it is dropped in the search for Islamofascists and/or Republican Guard contingents.
And if Palestinians had come up with an adopt-a-suicide-bomber program would not the words "death-cult" be endlessly iterated through the warblogger hive mind?
Mothers, don't let your children grow up to be warbloggers.
He who can control his rising anger as a coachman controls his carriage at full speed, this man I call a good driver; others merely hold the reins.
Gautama Buddha
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
Matthew 5:3
Put down the Hankies - It's Clobberin' Time
James Lileks
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Isaiah 2:4
Fukuyama and Nadav Saman, "a recent graduate of SAIS" (where Fukuyama teaches), mention more moderate Islamic forces in their article than OpinionJournal usually notices in any given month. They even state that "It is the Iranians, who, having lived under Islamist rule for the past generation, are most likely to lead the Islamic world out of its current impasse."
This would seem a rebuff to such as Michael Ledeen, who at National Review calls for war against Iran. Or is it? In the midst of name-checking Muslim movers and shakers who might bring current theocracies into harmony with the West, Fukuyama and Saman yet seem open to violence from the West as a means toward converting the heathen:
"It was only when faced with defeat and domination that nations like China and Japan undertook a serious study of what, in Mr. Lewis's phrase, 'went wrong.' Joining the West when they could not beat it, they adopted a variety of Western institutions while retaining a core of their own culture... If the wait for Muslim modernization is likely to be a long one, how, then, should the West respond in the short term as it faces the continued prospect of terrorism, suicide bombings and weapons of mass destruction? The determined application of military power is certainly part of the answer."
China? That seems a funny example. When did they stop jailing dissidents? (Of course, if the dissidents recant, they can always get jobs at the Beijing McDonald's.)
More interesting is the "determined application of military power." Later, the authors elaborate: "...the rout of al Qaeda from Afghanistan and continuing U.S. operations against radical Islamic terrorism are absolutely key to dampening Islamist fervor." Fukuyama certainly knows that the "continuing U.S. operations" on everyone's minds for the past few months have meant war on Iraq. He has even mentioned, in an August speech, "the Bush Administration’s announced intention to bring about regime change in Iraq, if necessary through a go-it-alone invasion."
One of the great things about being granted the power to see all the way to the End of History is that it reduces such momentous actions to niggling details. A pity they cannot be so reduced for the rest of us.
GETTING TO YES OR NO
Professor Dershowitz Joins the Warbloggers
Alan Dershowitz is in the papers again, this time in Canada's National Post, with an essay, "Is an Attack on Iraq Justified?"
Credit goes to the Post's headline writers for their dead-on deck: "In this exclusive essay, lawyer Alan Dershowitz examines the legality of pre-emptive strikes against rogue states."
And that, indeed, he does, but aside from a few hints that yes, or maybe, the U.S. probably has the right to preemptively strike Iraq, the question lies unanswered.
In fact, the entire essay builds up to this concluding sentence, which, "Jeopardy"-like, actually takes the form of a question:
"The real question is, would it be worse to err on the side of action that turns out to be unnecessary, or of inaction that exposes us to preventable devastation?"
Well, which is it, professor?
Perhaps Dershowitz is hoping to prod the Post into paying for a follow-up essay. posted by The Rittenhouse Review6:46 PM
This is an older speech from Dennis Kucinich, who wrote a great speech but who would not make a good presidential candidate because he’s anti-choice Tapped. (Who wrote that? A white fella? Piss off the Democratic Party’s most loyal base? Get a grip fellas.) I think it's appropriate for today.
Our Congress gave the President the ability to respond to the tragedy of September 11. We licensed a response to those who helped bring the terror of September 11. But we the people and our elected representatives must reserve the right to measure the response, to proportion the response, to challenge the response, and to correct the response.
Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.
We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.
We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.
We did not authorize assassination squads.
We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.
We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.
We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.
We did not authorize national identity cards.
We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.
We did not authorize an eye for an eye.
Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.
We did not authorize war without end.
We did not authorize a permanent war economy. posted by Philip Shropshire8:41 AM
Whydja bomb?
We didn't wanna bomb!
Whydja bomb?
We didn't wanna bomb!
Whydja bomb?
You didn't wanna bomb!
Whydja bomb?
You didn't wanna bomb!
Who said bomb?
Who said we hadda bomb?
Who said bomb?
Who said we hadda bomb?
Who said bomb?
Who said you hadda bomb?
Who said bomb?
Who said you hadda bomb?
Who wantsa bomb?
We don't wanna bomb!
Who wantsa bomb?
We don't wanna bomb!
Who wantsa bomb?
We don't wanna bomb!
We don't wanna
we don't wanna
we don't wanna bomb!
Who wanteda bomb?
Somebody musta wanteda bomb!
Who wanteda bomb?
Somebody musta wanteda bomb!
Who wanteda bomb?
Somebody musta wanteda bomb!
Who wanteda bomb?
Somebody musta wanteda bomb!
They wanteda bomb!
They neededa bomb!
They wanteda bomb!
They neededa bomb!
They wanteda bomb!
They neededa bomb!
They wanteda bomb!
They neededa bomb!
They thought they hadda bomb!
They thought they hadda bomb!
They thought they hadda bomb!
They thought they hadda bomb!
Saddam said he hadda bomb!
Bush said he better bomb!
Saddam said he hadda bomb!
Bush said he better bomb!
Saddam said he hadda bomb!
Bush said he better bomb!
Saddam said he hadda bomb!
Bush said he better bomb!
Whatdid he say he better bomb for?
Whatdid he say he better bomb for?
Whatdid he say he better bomb for?
Whatdid he say he better bomb for?
Hadda get ridda Saddam with a bomb!
Hadda get ridda Saddam with a bomb!
Hadda get ridda Saddam with a bomb!
Hadda get ridda Saddam with a bomb!
Saddam's still there building a bomb!
Saddam's still there building a bomb!
Saddam's still there building a bomb!
Saddam's still there building a bomb!
Well, I just wanted to post this in response to Fascist Nazi Mark Konrad, who is one of the few people who at least proudly owns up to the title. I was amused by the fascist nazi's defense over at Dr. Weevil—a defense which actually made sense but more on that later--but be warned: I’m not a white European, at least not mostly. In fact, it could be stated plainly that you would find my ethnicity as appalling as that of the Jews that you hate so much. I also want to state this: As an American writer—at war with GOP Jingoists and Science Racists and Despicable Dogs—that I’m not only inspired and enlightened by the work of Allen Ginsberg, but: Joe Haldeman, Robert Silverberg, Woody Allen, Harlan Ellison, Marv Wolfman, Stan Lee, Steve Gerber, Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein, Stephen Speilberg, Cory Doctorow, Cyril Kornbluth, Isaac Asimov, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Paul Auster, Robert Bloch, Jules Feiffer, David Mamet, Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag, Darren Aronofsky, J.D. Sallinger, Art Spiegelman, Don Byron, Lenny Kravitz, Stan Getz, Avishai Cohen, Bob Dylan, Eugene Levy, Winona Ryder, Buck Henry, Mort Sahl, Jerry Seinfeld and last, but not least, local Pittsburgh writer Mike Chabon. I might note, that it’s a certainty that not all of these people—the ones who are alive—may agree with what is written at American Samizdat or here, especially about Israel. But the disagreements should be based on argument, not ethnicity. Furthermore: all our lives would be the lesser without their bright, gleaming lights.
Oh, by the way, Mark, assuming that you're real and not some kind of counterprop plant, I highly endorse Gene Expression for your viewing pleasure. Post often. They're your kind of people, all dressed up for the future.
Internet commentator Andrew Sullivan loses it completely today, The New York Times's decision to have one has-been instead of another submit an op-ed on the eve of the "first anniversary of September 11" being the felling blow. "Sontag and Raines ... together at last," he notes before moving on - though he doesn't get very far when moving on, commiting one yawn-worthy entry on Pilger and Vidal before invoking the "Raines Times" (how novel!). A few fractions of a thought later (that being five whole posts), Sullivan notes a supposed "convergence" between Susan Sontag's "Raines Times" effort and Paul Krugman's of the same day, presumably attempting to discredit Krugman by placing him in Sontag's disreputable company. Krugman's effort seems well-reasoned and wholly sensible to us, though we're not jilted exes driven to the verge of lunacy be our own autogenic obsolescence - an obsolescence we furnish proof for by repeating the same ridiculous nonsense day after day after day... posted by Grady5:41 PM
• • • • •
Much of the imbecility found in The Corner is enitrely willful. As disgusting as the conclusions drawn by John Derbyshire and Andrew Stuttaford are, they usually seem to have been arrived at after a perfunctory survey of the known facts. We never get that impression when reading Kathryn Jean Lopez. Today Ms. Lopez twists her knickers into a proper Gordian Knot over Nelson Mandela's worry over America's willingness to act without the approval of the fellow constituents of the UN Security Council. After Mandea notes that "France, Germany, Russia, China are against" America's unilateralism, Lopez writes, "China? Russia? Actually, maybe we should consult human-rights man Khaddaffi in all war-on-terror strategy, too, before we act." Or maybe "we" should first acquaint ourselves with the permanent membership of the Security Council. posted by Grady5:20 PM
• • • • •
Warblogger heartthrob Dick Cheney, as per his usual, has sequestered himself in a "secure location" in anticipation of the one-year anniversary of the awful events of September 11. Us normal folks have no such luxury afforded us.
1. Daniel Pipes gets fact-checked by Danish politicians:
As Danish politicians, we are offended by the way integration problems in Denmark were portrayed by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard and we wish to set the record straight (Muslim Extremism: Denmark's had Enough, Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, Aug. 27).
2. In the same publication, Mark Steyn gets fact-checked by Eric Tam from Yale University. His much quoted fear-mongering piece on Muslim crime statistics in Denmark prompts this scathing response:
When I examined Danish crime statistics (available in Danish at www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2002/NR191.PDF, but easily translatable), I concluded that Mr. Skaarup's assertion is absolutely wrong.
3. Janet Albrechtsen, a right wing Australian commentator has a daisy cutter dropped on her by the ABC's Media Watch. Albrechtsen has been writing a series of columns claiming that rape is some sort of rite-of-passage for Muslim youths and that multiculturalism somehow enabled September 11. Complete nonsense. No wonder then that according to leftist blogger Rob Corr, the Australian warblogosphere "hangs on her every word".
How many of the words in her articles are actually her words is open to some scrutiny as is the veracity of any claim she makes about Muslims or Islam. This transcript of the program raises some important issues. After the producers simply asked some obvious questions, she decides its time to let her solicitors do the talking. posted by Amir4:01 AM
• • • • •
Sunday, September 08, 2002
Building on the success of his first venture into verse, below, Mr. Norm Jenson has a sing song - at the expense of James "small feet" Lileks, someone whose career as a warblogger can be interpreted as an extended audition for the role of Lileks' Mini Me, and a trio of deep-thinkers:
I went to the warblogger fair
Tim Blair and Glenn Reynolds were there
A right-wing goon by what's right for a loon was telling us how much he cares.
The funniest was Pejman the punk who knelt before Lileks the hunk
Lileks said please Pej get off your knees
And that was the end of the punk, the punk, the punk...
Achondritic meliorism is what I see as the sane response to asset-accruing asses. I challenge any and all warbloggers or war-mongers, and especially those whose personal fortunes rely on the vagaries of internationalist malfeasance, to a semantic 'duel to the dialogic death' on the topic: " . . . capitalism, globalization and the inherant right to life, liberty and justice."
Somehow I think few of the militianary advocationists will have the driven curiosity to consult the OED and so will have little idea of the content or context of my dialogic quest. I am being deliberately obfuscationist in order to raise the bar from repitition of well-worn diametricisms to a world class height of empathic rationalism. . . . and it was said that the four minute mile was an impenetrable barrier.
This is my first post to WBW.(!) Be assured Dear Reader that I will become increasingly vernacular, but will never surrender to the neurochemical warfare that has become the ideational by-product of cultural acceptance. There is no time, and perhaps more importantly no space, for irrational non-sense in this abjectly critical, singular, period.
It is transparently true that materialism and capitalism are in fact, and at bedrock, dependant on struggle, class divisions, intolerance, and most devastatingly war. To dis-acknowledge this intimate connection, nay symbiosis, of those who would profit from other's labor and poverty is the 'prime lie' of the warbloggers; and indeed all the world's
unsustainably greedy people.
"Von Mises is important because his teachings are necessary to the preservation of material civilization. As he showed, the base of material civilization is the division of labor. Without the higher productivity of labor made possible by the division of labor, the great majority of mankind would simply die of starvation. The existence and successful functioning of the division of labor, however, vitally depends on the institutions of a capitalist society—that is, on limited government and economic freedom, private ownership of land and all other property, exchange and money, saving and investment, economic inequality and economic competition, and the profit motive—institutions everywhere under attack for several generations."
The Eleven Day Empire gives us the helpful reminder that Bill Clinton's "credibility on national security issues is just about zero, so just shut the hell up already," and calls Carter's recent op-ed piece opposing an invasion of Iraq "embarassing." Meanwhile, over at the "Chronicle of Higher Education," someone asks "One Year After September 11, Where Is the Dissent? ... Can we assimilate and understand legitimate criticism? Is there really room in our culture for complex discourse and debate?"
If there were any doubt before today, there can be no longer: Michael Ledeen is the most dangerous man in the world, or at the very least, the man with the most dangerous ideas in the world.
Just in time for the Cliff Notes types in Andrew Sullivan's book club, The Wall Street Journal today carries an encapsulation of Ledeen's latest work, The War Against the Terror Masters, entitled "The War on Terror Won't End in Baghdad." [Subscription required.]
Ledeen says that the debate over invading or attacking Iraq, such as it is, is misplaced and misguided. The über-hawk advocates not just one war but four wars, or more accurately, one gigantic, almost simultaneous war against Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, in that order. (Not Libya?)
Not surprisingly, Ledeen's contribution to the national debate includes some of the most dubious propositions and questionable assertions currently in circulation, all presented with an arrogant certaintude that displays a complete disregard for history, politics, religion, and, indeed, humanity.
Take it away, Mike:
"We should instead be talking about using all our political, moral and military genius to support a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East from tyranny. That is our real mission, the essence of the war in which we are engaged, and the proper subject of our national debate."
"Despite all the talk about growing anti-Americanism in the Middle East, we inspire their people."
"If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support."
"Of the four terrorist tyrannies, Iran seems the easiest to liberate. . . . We know how to do it: broadcasting the truth and funding others who do the same, denouncing the oppression, defending the political prisoners by name, encouraging private American and international organizations to provide money, communications and guidance to the people on the ground."
"With a triumph in Iran, the democratic revolution would quickly gain allies in Syria and Iraq, and transform our war against Saddam Hussein from a primarily military operation to a war of national liberation against a hated regime."
"[A] successful democratic revolution in Iran would inspire the Iraqis to join us to remove Saddam, it is impossible to imagine that the Iranian people would tolerate tyranny in their own country once freedom had come to Iraq. Syria would follow in short order." [A similar argument follows with respect to Saudi Arabia.]
"This war cannot be limited to national theaters; we face a regional challenge and must respond accordingly. But it is both a just war and one for which we are marvelously well suited."
The editors of The Sunday Times of London, plainly scared to intervene, watch as Internet commentator Andrew Sullivan flogs his hobby horse in a most cruel fashion. As we've noted here before, Andrew Sullivan is of the preposterous belief that not only was he himself the franchise of The New York Times, but that Howell Raines single-handedly introduced a systematic bias across the paper's several thousand employees, a spectacular managerial feat. Now it seems that Raines has done himself one better, fomenting the increasing opposition to the war so desperately wanted by Sullivan and his sickening supporters. How Raines is able to propagate ideas and indoctrinate employees so efficiently is not reported. posted by Grady6:48 PM
• • • • •
Prolonged exposure to various far-right toxins has rendered me extremely hostile to government expenditure of any sort. Why just the other day there was the report of this boondogle: U.S. Invites Scholars to Explain Anti-Americanism. Reading the Reuter's piece, we see it's that gosh darn State Department behind it. Wastrels! I mean couldn't they just have asigned themselves some reding, especially as someone's already gone throught the bother of compiling a syllabus? posted by Grady6:22 PM
There once was a warblogging Persian He spent his days and his nights casting aspersions
He wrote them all down
He meant to astound
What he wrote there were right-wing perversions
In the recent past, Ann "Slander" Coulter was one of the primary proponents of the "kill all their leaders and convert them to Christianity" school of American foreign policy. Disturbingly, she seems to have expanded her definition of who is the enemy deserving death, to include her some of her fellow Americans.
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bomber) is he did not go to the New York Times building".
Obviously, the fact that McVeigh blew up a daycare centre doesn't register on the morality radar of the "new darling of the right". The real evil is that McVeigh allowed the staff of the New York Times to live. It would be tempting to draw comparisons between McVeigh and Coulter, but that would be an injustice to McVeigh. Unlike Coulter, McVeigh regretted that he had blown up a day care centre that was located in the Alfred P. Murrah building.
Anyway, it speaks volumes that for the most part her pronouncement has passed without any comment or criticism. Imagine a prominent Muslim or Arab-American commentator was to say that "my only regret with the hijackers is that they did not reach the White House". The same voices that are now so silent would have been howling for him to be sent to Gitmo to serve out eternity in a 2.4m by 2.4m cage.
Other insights in the same interview: she speaks for the American people, has dated "every Right-winger", Dick Cheney is her ideal man, and Matt Drudge is the sexiest man alive.
LGF has become a propaganda machine of hatred towards Muslims and Arabs. Like a KKK discussion board or Neo-Nazi site it tars a group with the same brush - always attacking, always negative, always making general accusations and encouraging hatred; but because it is anti-Islam, LGF is growing in support. Will the weblog community treat LGF the same way it treated as Clearguidance.com? Is it brave enough?
Nearly one week on, and I still can't figure out what was meant by this:
I told the foot doctor there was a mosque in town
I told the foot doctor to burn the whole mosque down
And then the foot doctor, he told me what to do
He said that ....
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Allah Allah, bang bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Allah Allah, bang bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Allah Allah, bang bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Allah Allah, bang bang
Sigh. Unrelated though firing from the same corner of La La Land, UCLA student Ben Shapiro, a fan of civilian deaths, continues to furiously furnish evidence that public education is, as the conservatives say, a failure. Today the young idiot urges the targeting of Colin Powell as a supporter of terror, saying of the State Department: "State hasn't done anything useful. Ever." The deep thinkers are already linking with glee. UCLA's own web site indicates the university continues to operate a Department of History. Perhaps Mr. Shapiro should enroll in one of its classes.
Internet commentator Andrew Sullivan is back from his vacation. He seems to have acquired a measure of depth from his month of recumbency in the hammock, as he's no longer saying that American "seriousness" is dependent on an American war on Iraq. No, now he's of the belief that the continuation of "Western civilization" is dependent on that same war. I was sure he'd recapture some of his flagging energy with his month of general inactivity, but I'd never have guessed he would have recaptured enough to fuel what appears to be a crusade. posted by Grady11:00 PM
• • • • •
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
According to BartCop, this happened recently in America because the woman was holding an anti-Bush sign.
I don't know about you folks, but those allegations make this American absolutely furious.
The "relative passivity with which most Americans now experience the mobilization for war" is one of the "troubling sources of moral levity in the public war deliberations of the world's dominant military power," writes Talbot Brewer, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Virginia in his article "We the People, We the Warriors".
This process has become highly undemocratic. Large groups of ''we the people" now are insulated not only from the physical risks of injury or death in war but also from the moral risks that attend any active role in the initiation of war.
What are the moral risks of war? Consider, to begin with, that one cannot responsibly choose to start a war without supposing oneself to have the capacity to discern those rare historical moments when war has a realistic chance of doing more good than harm. Overestimating one's capacity to shape the course of history raises the risk of becoming responsible for the creation of a damnable mess.
Consider, too, that one cannot responsibly choose the path of war without being certain that one's enthusiasm for fighting is not rooted at least partly in such dark psychological sources as an overgeneralized thirst for revenge or intoxication with the capacity to humble one's enemies. To overestimate the purity of one's war motives is to risk becoming responsible for evil, entered into -- as evil ordinarily is -- with every belief in one's good intentions.
Today both sorts of moral risks are in play.
About the "insulation" from the "moral risks that attend any active role in the initiation of war" Brewer writes:
If war policy is chosen behind closed doors and then conveyed to the people in conjunction with a skillful caricature of the predetermined enemy (supported, perhaps, by intelligence whose precise nature cannot be revealed), the public can be made to prefer an array of unsavory wars that it would never choose in the light of open deliberation.
"I'd take a knife and cut everyone of your shit-swallowing throats with my own hand"
Ordinarily, I wouldn't post something like this. However, since I was invited by Bruce of War Now! and since this individual is clearly so deranged and deluded, I will post this in the hope that someone does something about it (or are they too busy focusing on real threats). I am referring to a particularly garish looking site called Alleywriter.
Alleywriter is neither funny nor intelligent. He is, however, extremely deranged, and an obviously unhealthy influence on the mind of his young daughter:
My daughter is told that Muslim's practice Islam and that Islam is a religion of hate. That Muslims hate her and would kill her and that they don't care what kind of a person she is or if they know her. She knows that they hate and would kill her only because she is not a Muslim, and because she is an American. She knows that a Muslim group called al Qaeda used 19 Muslim men to steal 4 airplanes and then used those planes to kill over 3,000 Americans.
Yet, for a lesson in irrational hatred, his "selflessly giving and forgiving" daughter might look no further than her father.
As I said, that's all been in Israel. But now it's come to America. Now we have Dr. Robert J. Goldstein, a thwarted hero who could no longer allow Jews to be murdered unavenged.
Goldstein was found to have stockpiled weapons, a massive amount of explosives, and had boobytrapped his house. He was preparing to launch a series of attacks on Islamic schools and places of worship. Killing Muslim children is, according to Alleywriter, a heroic act. Here's a lesson in morality, Alleywriter: Killing children can never be a heroic act. I don't care if they are Muslims, Jews or Christians, attacking children is an act of utter cowardice and can never be elevated to the level of heroism.
Robert intended a rampage of destruction that would have shown the Islamic community of Tampa what it is they support and cheer for when they encourage, finance and rejoice for the killing of Jews and Americans. He would have given them just the smallest taste of what real terror is, and he would have been on higher moral ground than those who knowing allow their own to be killed so that they can avoid criticism of being too harsh on their enemies.
It boggles the mind to see Alleywriter rationalise the killing of innocent people like this. What have the Muslims of Tampa got to do with killing Jews and Americans? If Goldstein was to have murdered these people, he would have been murdering people every bit as innocent as the people who died in the World Trade Center on September 11.
Of course, there is still hope. What are the chances that Robert is the only Jew to finally have had enough of seeing his people slaughtered like pigs and nothing more than token actions taken to either avenge them or to see that it doesn't happen again? I think there are more like Robert out there, and eventually, one of them will succeed. And then another, and another, until there is an organized movement matching Islams insanity death for death.
Sadly, not very many, though. Because for every Robert J. Goldstein out there, there are at least hundreds of Jews like his mother who place ethics, no matter how twisted, above revenge.
However, until the Robert J. Goldsteins are allowed to succeed, Jews and Americans will continue to be massacred by Muslims. They won't stop until we make them, and the only way to make them is to make them pay for their crimes with their blood and the blood of their families.
Alleywriter is unambiguously arguing for the murder of American Muslims and encouraging other Jews to try and complete what Goldstein started. In fact, this maniac is probably up to the "heroic task" himself if his past threats are anything to go by.
I'll tell you right now that if you're Muslim, I hate your effin guts. I disliked you already even before 9/11, but I'd cheerfully see you dead, now. And if you're thinking of being cute and putting me on the spot by saying something like, "What about me? What about my kids? My wife? What did we ever do to you? How did we ever harm you?"
Let me ease your mind. Yes you. Yes your wife, your parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and your kids. And I wouldn't do it with a bomb, not like you chickenshit scum. If the government said, "Ok, AW, you want these people dead, then you have to do the killing yourself.", I'd take a knife and cut everyone of your shit-swallowing throats with my own hand.
Really? Well, Mr Wannabe Muslim Killer, it is always easy to make threats against "parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and kids" when hiding behind a curtain of anonymity. At the very least, it prevents the subjects of one's threats from ever catching up with them. However, given that Alleywriter is himself fond of "outing" deviants on his site, and given the obvious threat he poses to American society, I'm going to call him out.
Mr Alleywriter is Mr Thomas Schaller of 1552 Oswego Road, Naperville IL 60540, UNITED STATES. Now, his identity is known - including to the Muslim community in his own area - hopefully Mr Thomas Schaller will take the time to reflect on his statements and realise that its perhaps in his best interests to back-peddle as fast as possible.
If not, then maybe it is time for someone to give Dave Dial a call. posted by Amir7:34 AM
• • • • •
The Pej Puppet, who gets unprecedented mileage from his Bartlett's, quotes Blaise Pascal: "Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical." We encourage him to pursue the many implications of Pascal's words, each of which he seems largely oblivious to. He may want to start here, next asking himself if force is justifiable without having first exhausted all other available options, as Hans Blix does. Perhaps he'd reconcile himself to the growing numbers who want no part of Mr. Bush's nifty war effort. Unlikely though, as numskulls often enjoy having a solo go. posted by Grady2:33 AM
• • • • •
PICTURE AND QUOTE: EUGENE DEBS
And here let me emphasize the fact--and it cannot be repeated too often--that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace. Yours not to reason why; Yours but to do and die. That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation. If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace....
They are continually talking about your patriotic duty. It is not theirs but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about.
There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches.....
And that sort of settles that. I was going to cook up some rhetorical whoop ass for our infinite foes Pejman "I'm Still A Whore for the RNC" Yousefzadeh and our favorite Neo-Eugenicist Godless Capitalist. It wasn't going to be a long counter. The argument is simple: If you believe that this is a just war and you're young and able, then enlist Dr. Weevil, Pejman, Mike the Dog, and/or Godless. I might note, by the way, that Eugene Debs got sentenced for 10 years for making that speech during WWI. (You would think that all the leftists, union organizers and activists that have been killed, wounded or harassed would show that the left does have courage.) But I checked out both Pej's and Godless' commentary section and found out war veterans had already beaten me there. Here are the highlights and keep in mind that Debs quote, from www.thememoryhole.org (great new site and Orwell rulz!).
Take it away veteran Jo Fish:
GC, once again you miss the point of the Chickehawk discussion. Just let the ones who beat their chest the hardest and yell the loudest for war, look me in the eye and tell me why they could not have even done as much as Dan Quayle for goodness sake (at least he showed up for drills and finished his service without incident). John McCain said that "any service is Honorable Service" when he was asked about GWB's "lost years" in the TANG; he did not want to get into the same mud they were smearing on him in South Carolina. You are going to tell me that men like John McCain, Bob Kerry, Dan Inouye and others should just shut up and go along with the administration when the debate starts and not question the wisdom of the administration?
Is the position of the far-right that all of us, right-left-center who want a maningful dialog before bullets fly are somehow wrong or deluded?
Also, I understand your feeling of being a "contributor" as a researcher, and I'm sure that you do important and vital DoD work...but, you have to go there and live the life for a tour or more to appreciate what it means to be in the service. Spend 11 months off Iran on a ship during the Hostage Crisis or go 135 days without hitting dry land during the Cold War and then come and talk to me...watch a couple of your friends buy the farm during carrier landings during peacetime...and then come tell me how easy it all is. You know I'd go back tomorrow, as would almost everyone I served with if this is righteous thing, but not if we have to do the "McNamara's War" scenario again ( a war run of the Beltway, it already happened in Afghanistan to some extent) and I'm afraid that's what worries folks who want to this whole thing to slow down just a wee bit.
As for the police/firefighter anologies, they are faulty in one very important way: either one of those groups has the power to just walk away from their job. Just stop, quit, say "I'm outta here". They can also strike, have far greater legal rights than those afforded service members under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and generally get to go home to their wives and kids almost every night at the end of their shift. Does not work that way in the service...sorry.
Then Doubting Thomas, who has a site here: http://www.geocities.com/rangerhiq/TheDailyPage.html. Check out that great line about his parents SPRINTING to the recruiting station during WWII. Contrast and compare that to Pejman's math experiments and Godless proud pronouncement that "I just build the bomb, not explode it." (Let's not ask Godless if he would do work on genetic pathnogens aimed at specific minority groups. Let's just not ask...remember David Morse in the "Twelve Monkeys"?)
The point I'm making is that the people taking the risk chose [sic] to take the risk. They volunteered.
Yes, that's right, we volunteered. Many of us WAY before 9/11 (I did in 1982).
So, good for you, you choose not to be a soldier. Want me to clap for you? Should I look at you with pride in my eyes?
Someone above said the Army isn't looking for volunteers--eh? My brother is an Army recruiter and he's always looking for a few good men and women.
I don't believe I have ever said everyone who is pro-war should serve. Also, I didn't say that only currently serving military members or veterans are the only ones allowed to have an opinion.
But, if someone who is pro-war, capable of serving, and doesn't choose to serve and then is so smug, self-actualized, and unapologetic like you are about it, Godlesscapitalist, then excuse me here for the ad hominem, but you don't sound like much of a patriot to me. You're a "pick and choose" patriot." You like the rhetoric of patriotism, but don't particularly care to actually join in the long and distinguished line of American men and women who put their money where their mouths are.
Chickenhawk...I like that word. It is so appropo. Please forgive me for holding you in contempt, sir. I do.
In WW II my dad and his peers SPRINTED to the recruiting stations to join up after Pearl Harbor. My Dad sacrificed playing football at Notre Dame to serve in the war. To his generation it was UNTHINKABLE to put their own personal goals above the needs of their country at war.
Of course this is a different war and and we don't need 10 million men (or women now) to serve as we did then. But it sure is funny to see how attitudes have changed.
(Portrait of the "Shropshire Slasher", who I resemble physically...)
Well, I see they've done gone and gotten a professional after my big fat American ass. I have been attacked by none other than James Lileks, who I think is a very good stylist, but who is generally very very wrong. He refers to me as the "Shropshire Slasher". And, I must say, that totally rocks with me as a nickname. You can call me "Biggus Dickus" or "Morpheus" or "Hyper Masculine Lefty Writer" because, ouch, it kinda hurts. Keep it coming.
Here is my graph by graph rebut. I have occasionally crossed out what I thought were errors and inserted what I thought were needed corrections.
On another blog I discovered today, the Rottweiler - who Fisks down to the molecular level - was regaling us all with an exchange he had with the Shropshire Slasher. Mr. SS believes that America is - wait for it - A NAZI STATE! and one of is proofs was “the complete sellout to corporate interests ( a definition of fascism by the way
a.)Actually, what I said, and this was buried in our oft disappearing comments section (apologies, although it's getting better)is that while it didn't look like Nazi Germany in 1940, it sure has that fiery burning Kristallnacht smell of the early 1930s or thereabouts. The main idea here, of course, is that you don't wait until 1940 because by 1940 it's way way too late. So, you look out for the early signs of fascism (all borrowed from Introducing Fascism and Nazism, or what I call the Mike the Dog Story): a strong state with a powerful executive which did not require democratic consultation before acting, combined with a hatred of bourgeois democracy (let's define that as civil liberties and the 2000 election and so far, so good), Hatred of communism and socialism as political movements based on the idea of class differences and class antagonisms...Against this idea, Fascism aimed to substitute a corporative state that denied a divergence of class interests between capital and labour (Mike the Fascist Nazi Dog, this story really is about you, although you might add "terrorism" to the list..), Fascism was frequently subsidized by big industrialists and landowners (please read the story associated with the link: "Death Squads Go Better With Coke" over at Three River and below), admiration of power and the deed which expression in the cult of violence. Training for war and violence gave free rein to sadistic and pathological characteristics (Sound familiar? Just check out our comments sections...), aversion to intellectuals whom fascism accused of undermining the old certainties and traditional values (Please see the copious warblogger Hate Minute files regarding Chomsky, Rall, Mike Moore, Fisk, Shropshire Slasher, whatever....)and my favorite: Fascism needed scapegoat enemies--"The Other" on whom to focus society's aggressions and hates (Does this really need explanation? We know who this is right, James?)
So, if you're in kind of a Clive Barker mode whenever you read your daughter to sleep, try this: First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.T hen they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics,and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
Hmm. I hear this a lot. “The main difference between Fascism and Communism was the role of private business in the former.” It’s been a few years since I read “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” but I recall quite clearly how Hitler used the private companies as his own bank, expropriating what he needed, nationalizing when convenient. Had the Reich stayed around for another ten years there wouldn’t have been a single private business of consequence in the country. In any case, it’s ridiculous to think the bankers and industrialists could say no to that uni-testical'd cacadaemon.
(b)Well, two quick points: I'm referring to Henry Ford's open admiration for the Nazis and the very well documented ties of American business to not only the fascist regimes in Germany, but also Italy. In fact, George Seldes wrote about the American corporate community's open admiration for Mussolini. And of course the corporate press fired him for that, which happens a lot. But, and this is the second point, American industrialists supported fascist movements in Italy and Germany. You could argue that we still do if you've read that story about Coke orchestrating death squad activity in Colombia. American companies love fascist dictators...It keeps wages down and union activity low, especially when you can kill the union organizers. I mean, the fantasy of the see/hear/tell/blog no American Evil warbloggers is that we're really nice guys, but so misunderstood. People need to read that Dinesh book and so forth. The truth is that our foreign policy is often quite evil, trends toward fascists and dolts and, worst of all, is absolutely conscious and not at all "accidental" or "misunderstood". What's covering the fat, self-satisfied American smirk? Darth Vader's mask.
Here's a link to a story about how IBM helped the Nazis. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,41753,00.html
And here's a link to Henry Ford's ties to the Nazis
http://www.thememoryhole.org/fordnazi.htm And here's that laff a minute story about Coke which answers "Why They Hate Us" http://www.colombiareport.org/colombia73.htm
1. Rearrangement of the entire national purpose along racial lines. E Pluribus Unum vs. Ein Reich, Ein Volk. I know, I know - just because it’s on the money doesn’t mean it’s so, but if you think this nation is trending towards some sort of government-enforced ethic purity, you really need to get out of your suburb more, and visit me in the city. Black people! Brown people! Yellow people! Mingling and living with impunity!
1.) Don't you read the enlightening work of everyone's favorite neo-eugenicist "Godless Capitalist". He's creating, I think, a very plausible blueprint for a kind of science-based fascism. You tell Godless boy you sure do sound like a racist and he says "No, it just seems like I hate the blacks...It's all just science old boy..." I also, again, recommend that you read a book called Bertram Gross' "Friendly Fascism". Every country develops it's own kind of fascism. Like I said before in the comments section, american fascism will have a black guy, a woman, and maybe even a gay guy (Sully it sounds like you...!), but it will still be fascism. You're also ignoring that we pretty much live in a segregated, racist society, especially in living patterns and certainly socially. That's not good by the way. You also might want to read up on a book called "The Power Elite" by C. Wright Mills.
If you wanted to find ein volk in this nation, where would you start? To paraphrase Clara Peller in the Wendy's commercial, where's the volk?
See point one and substitute patriotic symbols: The American flags, rousing kickass country tunes and glorious war movies...Who needs Leni Riefenstahl when you've got American PR and Hollywood?
2. Pagan spirituality The Corporate Theocracy. Hitler cobbled together his batshit mythos from ancient German myths. The idea that his regime was a Christian outfit is another odd belief trundled out by those who think Ashcroft likes to close the door, put on his hip-high black leather boots and strut around to Wagner arias.(Slasher here: Uh...how do you know?) There’s a difference between a President who regards himself as a humble servant of a Merciful God, and a runty sociopath who prongs a chubster over warby songs about leather-clad thundergods.
2. Well, we don't need what you affectionately call "batshit mythos" to do evil when you've got good old-fashioned equally "batshit" Christianity to draw from. It's all made up James. Religion is an illusion. Any silly one will do. You haven't gotten this whole Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Christian Right supports the Republican Fascist thing down have ya'?
3.Top-down state control of the arts. Denying Karen Finley a government grant because she wants to smear Spam on her hooties is not the same thing.
3. Well you don't really need top-down state control of the arts when the same people who control art and the media have the same views as the worst elements of our government. Riddle me this: what's the difference between a state run information structure that pedals the memes of the fascist state and a privatized information structure that pedals the memes of the fascist state? Answer: Not much, said in my best Frank Gorshin cackle. I mean, when Rupert Murdoch gets Oliver Stone to do that 10 hour mini-series on the life of Noam Chomsky well, hey, maybe then I'll be wrong. But you can help disprove the theory yourself as an alleged feisty corporate media newspaper columnist and write these stories for you corporate media paper: Do a long column on that Coca Cola Death Squad deal in Colombia or if you're in a union at that paper of your'n write a funny yet incisive column about how the union is getting screwed, and last but not least, pick your biggest advertiser (I recommend grocery ads myself)and say something legitimately negative about them. I'll hold my breath you gutsy, at the edge, Spider Jerusalem-like, allegedly feisty corporate media newspaper columnist you...!
4. Elaborate bureaucracies and nationwide infrastructure devoted to Jew killing. For some curious reason, Nazimerica has chosen to leave this to the PLO.
4. Well, have you taken a look at our incarceration rates? Why kill the undesirables when you can make money off them in for profit prisons? I mean, when Glenn "I worry about civil liberties, but I still like Bush" Reynolds starts talking about the country as a possible police state things are trendin' badly. I also define our national military, with its microwave death rays, fuel air bombs and mines mines mines as a "nationwide infrastructure." Call me naive. I also think the hatred is directed externally, at any nation that doesn't give us the natural resources that we want, which I will address in you next point.
5. Territorial conquest of neighbor external nations to redress manufactured grievances. Canada and MexicoIraq, Iran, Pakistan and 60 other countriesremain sovereign nations - for the moment, of course. It might suit America’s purpose to invade Mexico some day, if Bumblebee Man flies a jetliner into the Alamo, but our leadership realizes that imposing EPA clean-air regs on Mexico City would bankrupt the hemisphere’s economy.Had to make a few changes there. I mean, you're a reporter who's used to city desk editing. So you know what rape is all about.
5.You have heard about this whole NAFTA thing haven't you? That's where tribunals, held in secret and accountable to no one (Oh that sounds real democratic...)override national decision-making? That law that lowers our standard of living and doesn't really raise Mexico's either? And how long did you have to think about the clever insertion of the word "neighbor"? Hey that threw us off the track. Sure, mention two of the 60 countries that we're not invading, yet. Thanks pal...You finished that hard-hitting expose on the city's groceries yet cause I can't hold my breath a long time...
6. Elevation of the dead to National Martyr Status. When children start the day with the Todd Beamer Song, sung to the tune of “Horst Wessel,” you’ll have a point. Note to the dim: “Horst Wessel” is not Lt. Chekhov’s way of describing a spaceship owned by a famous Minneapolis hairstylist.
6. Oh man. Now that's frellin' funny. I swear that was so funny I heard the faint whisper of the "Brady Bunch" laff track. No wonder you write for an American daily, well known as the cutting edge of real funny-like humor. I mean, Joe Sobran, Scaife, the horrible mediocrity of the corporate media, it's all a laff riot. Trust me.
7. There’s more, but it’s late and I’m tired. You know why I really wrote the preceding? Because now it’s the weekend, and I will gambol in the sun, play with my wife and child, toss the squeak toy the pup, grill steaks, consume oooiiiillll, and enjoy the waning days of summer - and meanwhile, a half-dozen bitter nutrolls will spend that time attempting to prove that America is actually the same as Nazi Germany. Have fun, lads! Don’t leave out the part about shredding the Constitution, or repealing civil liberties. That would be like the Stones dropping “Satisfaction” from the concert playlist. Always remember the fans. They want the hits; give 'em the hits.
What, that shredding the constitution thing got you all bored? Figures. I'm going to call it a night too. By the way, here are some more right-thinking, uplifting, rally round the flag boys stories for your daughter: "Our pal Somoza", "Archbishop Romero and the death squads" and, my favorite, "Daddy was stupid enough to do that Coke involvement in death squads piece and now I'm unemployed and so now we have to do more walking and can't consume as much oooiiiillll ..." Just a suggestion...
