"County music ain't nothing but hip-hop with white people..."
Briana Cartwright of J*DaVeY, quoted in Philadelphia Weekly
Damn, who would'a thought...
20 July 2006
12 July 2006
Why I let the smart guys write it for me
From a brilliant post on the Gates of Vienna blog:
"The theology and ideology of Islam are eminently compatible with criminal behavior, and an operational jihad organization is functionally indistinguishable from a criminal enterprise."
Do I hear the phrase RICO echoing in Riyadh or Teheran?
"The theology and ideology of Islam are eminently compatible with criminal behavior, and an operational jihad organization is functionally indistinguishable from a criminal enterprise."
Do I hear the phrase RICO echoing in Riyadh or Teheran?
Second Amendment stats
Having been to Belgium several times (and been startled by the police carrying submachineguns in the subway), I can only chuckle sardonically over these statistics from Living Dangerously in Brussels:
Murder and manslaughter in the U.S.: 16,137 cases in 2004
(5.5 per 100,000 inhabitants).
Percent change compared to 2003: -2.4
Murder and manslaughter (moord en doodslag) in Belgium: 959 cases in 2004
(9.1 per 100,000 inhabitants).
Percent change compared to 2003: +11.12
Murder and manslaughter in the U.S.: 16,137 cases in 2004
(5.5 per 100,000 inhabitants).
Percent change compared to 2003: -2.4
Murder and manslaughter (moord en doodslag) in Belgium: 959 cases in 2004
(9.1 per 100,000 inhabitants).
Percent change compared to 2003: +11.12
Those guys over at the New York Times won't like what he said...
The New York Times, along with other papers, recently blew the cover of several NSA surveillance programs. Whether or not the programs actually were aiding the War on Terrorism, the papers felt that revealing these operations, even while they were underway, was more important to the national debate on privacy than to any issues of national security.
Predictably, the President responded:
"Every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security. And the question remains, whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion? For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage. The details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike. Had we been engaged in open warfare the press undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare they recognized only the tasks of journalism and not the tasks of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tasks should not now be adopted? Every newspaper now asks itself with respect to every story: is it news? All I suggest is you add the question: is it in the interest of national security?"
Ah, but which president? If you guessed Bush, wrong. If you guessed JFK, right you are. (Who would have known that the hero of the Left was such a fascist?)
Predictably, the President responded:
"Every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security. And the question remains, whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion? For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage. The details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike. Had we been engaged in open warfare the press undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare they recognized only the tasks of journalism and not the tasks of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tasks should not now be adopted? Every newspaper now asks itself with respect to every story: is it news? All I suggest is you add the question: is it in the interest of national security?"
Ah, but which president? If you guessed Bush, wrong. If you guessed JFK, right you are. (Who would have known that the hero of the Left was such a fascist?)
Civilization, maybe
35.61. How they answer it depends on how they answer the notoriously difficult question: 'Are foreigners humans?'
35.62. If the answer to this ssecond question is 'yes', the ideal of civility comes into operation as regards our relation to foreigners.
35.63. For civility requires civil demeanour to whatever is recognized as possessing it. If foreigners are human, civility requires that we should treat them civilly; and in proportion as we are civilized the rules of our civilization gice them a right to civility at our hands.
35.64. If the answer is 'no', foreigners are part of the natural world; and are there to be exploited as scientifically as possible.
35.65. It makes no difference whether they share our home or not; in neither case does civilization put us under any obligation to treat them civilly.
35.66. Strangers (i.e. foreigners not sharing our communal home) are in fact often treated with the utmost incivility; often, for example,murdered with impunity and a clear conscience even by people who enjoy a relatively high civilization.
35.67. This happens in spite of a conviction that all human beings ought to be civilly treated; all that is lacking is a conviction that strangers are human beings.
R.G. Collingwood, The New Leviathan, 1942, chapter 35: What 'civilization' means: specifically
(For a reason to read this weighty tome, see the first page of the book.)
Ask this "notoriously difficult question" of a nice extreme Islamist the next time you run across one. As events in the Middle East (or London or Madrid or Mumbai) show, "strangers are in fact often treated with the utmost incivility; often, for example, murdered with impunity and a clear conscience..."
35.62. If the answer to this ssecond question is 'yes', the ideal of civility comes into operation as regards our relation to foreigners.
35.63. For civility requires civil demeanour to whatever is recognized as possessing it. If foreigners are human, civility requires that we should treat them civilly; and in proportion as we are civilized the rules of our civilization gice them a right to civility at our hands.
35.64. If the answer is 'no', foreigners are part of the natural world; and are there to be exploited as scientifically as possible.
35.65. It makes no difference whether they share our home or not; in neither case does civilization put us under any obligation to treat them civilly.
35.66. Strangers (i.e. foreigners not sharing our communal home) are in fact often treated with the utmost incivility; often, for example,murdered with impunity and a clear conscience even by people who enjoy a relatively high civilization.
35.67. This happens in spite of a conviction that all human beings ought to be civilly treated; all that is lacking is a conviction that strangers are human beings.
R.G. Collingwood, The New Leviathan, 1942, chapter 35: What 'civilization' means: specifically
(For a reason to read this weighty tome, see the first page of the book.)
Ask this "notoriously difficult question" of a nice extreme Islamist the next time you run across one. As events in the Middle East (or London or Madrid or Mumbai) show, "strangers are in fact often treated with the utmost incivility; often, for example, murdered with impunity and a clear conscience..."
It's even worse than I thought
A recent article on Jihad Watch covers the dhimmi behaviors of politicians in Europe.
Unfortunately, it all sounds markedly similar to the behavior of politicians in the United States about the immigration 'problem'.
If you don't think it's a 'problem', check out the fastest-growing business opportunity in Eastern North Carolina (where I recently visited family): Mexican food restaurants and grocery stores.
We need a new word to describe the dhimmi phenomenon in regards to the northward expansion of Central & South America; maybe beanie, until someone comes up with a better one...
Unfortunately, it all sounds markedly similar to the behavior of politicians in the United States about the immigration 'problem'.
If you don't think it's a 'problem', check out the fastest-growing business opportunity in Eastern North Carolina (where I recently visited family): Mexican food restaurants and grocery stores.
We need a new word to describe the dhimmi phenomenon in regards to the northward expansion of Central & South America; maybe beanie, until someone comes up with a better one...
Quote for the day
"...the transformation of hysterical misery into common unhappiness."
The late Spaulding Grey in Monster in the Box
Guess the poor bastard couldn't make the transition...
The late Spaulding Grey in Monster in the Box
Guess the poor bastard couldn't make the transition...
11 July 2006
Quote for the day
"Research indicates that consistently orgasmic women tend to describe themselves as contented, good-natured, insightful, self-confident, independent, realistic, strong, capable and understanding; while non-orgasmic women tend to describe themselves as bitter, despondent, dissatisfied, distrustful, fussy, immature, inhibited, prejudiced and sulky."
Dr. Lonnie Barbach in For Yourself
I do what I can...
Dr. Lonnie Barbach in For Yourself
I do what I can...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
