Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Muslim reformers

My previous post dealt with the problem.  This one has to do with the solution: Muslim Reform Movement.  The fact is that we all can talk about violence inherent in Islam till we blue in the face, and we will still have a problem.  Even if we defeat the the jihadis militarily now, they will come back later because the ideological basis for them will remain intact.  So, they will have to be defeated ideologically as well.  The only one way to do it in my opinion is to re-interpret Koran, de-emphasizing violence in it.  So, we need to promote the genuine reformers of Islam, people who seek to re-interpret the religious doctrine of Islam.  One of such organizations, Muslims Against Sharia, left a comment on this blog recently, and I am thankful for that.  There are others:


Dr. Tawfik Hamid;


American-Islamic Forum for Democracy.


I am adding these links to my sidebar.  There are probably others.  We need to scream as loud as we can, so that the media listens to these people, rather than CAIR.  Front Page recently conducted a symposium of Muslim reformers.  There is hope.  Finally, it seems that Turkish Government got involved in the Muslim Reform effort:



Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion.


The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran.


…………………………………………………………………………….





Turkey is intent on sweeping away that "cultural baggage" and returning to a form of Islam it claims accords with its original values and those of the Prophet.






But this is where the revolutionary nature of the work becomes apparent. Even some sayings accepted as being genuinely spoken by Muhammad have been altered and reinterpreted.


Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.


"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.


"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."


The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.


Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".


So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.





…………………………………………………………………………….


According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.


He says that to achieve it, the state is fashioning a new Islam.


"This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation," he says.


"Not exactly the same, but if you think, it's changing the theological foundations of [the] religion. "


Fadi Hakura believes that until now secularist Turkey has been intent on creating a new politics for Islam.


Now, he says, "they are trying to fashion a new Islam."


Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy.


They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones.


"You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura.


"You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology.


"I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is."



Read the whole article.  Generally conservatives like myself are skeptical about government involvement in anything.  But in this particular case, placing government resources behind the project might be a good thing.


Powered by Qumana


What is the number of the enemy we face?

We often hear that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but just normal peaceful people going about their daily lives.  That is definitely true for one simple reason: day-to-day activities tend to preoccupy people.  But how big is that violent minority?  Well, consider this post by Elder of Zion:



That "tiny percentage of radical Muslims" again












I've already had a number of posts on the book "Who Speaks for Islam?" as I (and others) have shows the duplicity of the authors as they try to downplay the number of radical Muslims in the world.

The authors defined the 7% of Muslims who considered the 9/11 attacks "completely justified" to be "politically radicalized" and they used the term "moderate" for the other 93%.

In a new article by Robert Satloff, he blows a few more holes into the book - but he also gets a hold of the all-important data: how many Muslims mostly or partially justified 9/11?

The answers are not quite as comforting as the authors implied. In addition to the 6.5% who felt that 9/11 was "mostly" justified, we find out:



The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents -- 300 million Muslims -- who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don't utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate.

And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of "who is a radical." Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not "completely" justify 9/11 is . . . "moderate."



So over one out of every three Muslims worldwide, 36.6%, can find some justification for 9/11; and about 80% of those were defined as "moderate" in this book.Which means that there are nearly a half-billion Muslims worldwide who would be considered supporters of terror by any reasonable definition, not "only" the 91 million that the authors claim.



Read his complete analysis in order to understand the problem.


Powered by Qumana


Infiltration

Being sick has its rewards: I have a little bit more time for blogging when I am not miserable.  So, when a friend alerted me to an interesting article, I decided to post about it:



Amerabia


By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
The Washington Times | Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Even Americans knowledgeable about Europe's growing accommodation to the totalitarian ideology known alternatively as Islamism, jihadism or Islamofascism tend smugly to believe the same thing can't happen here. Think again.


Every day, new evidence appears of similar acts of submission — the Islamists call it "dhimmitude" — on the part of the U.S. government, judges, the press and leading corporations. Eurabia, meet the United States of Amerabia.


On May 4, an ominous alarm was sounded in a Pajamas Media column by Youssef Ibrahim, a former New York Times reporter. Mr. Ibrahim is an astute critic of the Islamists' steady, tireless and increasingly effective efforts to impose — on Muslims and non-Muslims alike — the repressive theo-political-legal agenda they call Shariah law. He warned that "In the very real war on terror, a noisy squabble over 'fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here' clouds a simple truth: namely, that 'they' are here already. Indeed, Islamists are busy constructing a wing of jihad in America's backyard."


Among the most worrisome of the "they" now operating inside the U.S. are various front organizations systematically established by the Islamist organization known as the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood. During last year's federal trial of the Holy Land Foundation on terrorism-financing charges, the government introduced into evidence the names of many scores of such Ikhwan fronts. Identified also as unindicted co-conspirators were virtually every one of the most prominent Muslim-American organizations, including notably the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).



Read it and be scared.  Here is the Yossef Ibrahim's article that Frank Gaffney mentions:



Islamist Chickens Roosting in America’s Backyard


May 4, 2008 - by Youssef M. Ibrahim





In the very real war on terror, a nosy squabble over “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here” clouds a simple truth: namely, that “they” are here already. Indeed, Islamists are busy constructing a wing of jihad in America’s backyard.


A potential audience of one million Arab-speaking cable subscribers of Time Warner in the greater New York area can feast on the Arabic Channel known as TAC to choose a menu that includes:





  • A daily dose of Islamic jurisprudence from a sheik — most often Egyptian Amr Khaled, who wears a suit instead of a robe, advocating “peaceful jihad.” He opines on how it is the duty of Arab-Americans to become first, second, and always members of the Muslim ummah. The softness of his jihad-chic demeanor belies its exclusionary message: segregation of Arab-American Muslims from fellow Americans.





  • TAC also serves a nightly diet of Syrian TV News, direct from Damascus with Syria’s view of the world. In this diatribe of analysis and disinformation, Iraq is an American butchery, the Zionist regime of Israel is destined for obliteration, and Syria is the greatest gift to the “Arab cause.”





  • For entertainment there is a sprinkling of pseudo-historic soap operas about the old Muslim empire of Europe. In Ramadan, the month-long fasting period, this proselytizing is revved up to new levels of intensity, removing footage of belly dancing and other “infidel” joys from the steady fare of old Egyptian movies.


On its website, TAC says it is now 14 years old and serves the “Greater New York City Metropolitan area, including Jersey City, Bergen County, NJ, and Mt. Vernon, NY.”




Again, read it all.  And while you are thinking that those people have their 1st Amendment right to broadcast all this stuff which amounts to enemy propaganda, ask yourself this: "Can you imagine German American Bund operating its own radio station during World War 2?"


Powered by Qumana


Sunday, May 4, 2008

How the Prius works

Engineers like me always want to know how things work.  So, Planet Analog provided some info on Toyota Prius:



One year ago, Automotive DesignLine and EETimes took a Toyota Prius fresh from the dealer and tore it down to see what makes it tick. The resulting series of stories became some of our best read features ever.


Today, with fuel prices continuing to soar, the hybrid cars are selling faster than ever. If you missed them then, or would like a review, here are direct links to features in that series—along with a time lapse video (at the end of the first article) of our crack engineers taking the vehicle apart, and a subsequent take on the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid, targeted to debut in 2010.



Enjoy, my fellow nerds.


Powered by Qumana


Quick links

Here are some quick links without my comments.  Just read them.


My cousin Karlchen.


Melani Phillips: Happy 60th birthday, Israel — well done for surviving.


WHAT I LEARNED AT 'ANTI-JIHAD U' by Judith Miller.


Getting to Know John McCain by Karl Rove. (via Bookworm).


Powered by Qumana


Irresponsible journalists

I got this in e-mail from Planet Analog, but unfortunately they did not have this editor's note on the site, so I am posting it here in full.  Many of us know how irresponsible media is.  In addition to that, these journalists are also technically illiterate.  So, what else is new?











  EDITOR'S NOTE





As some of you know, I have a pretty low opinion of most journalists, especially those who try to cover a topic which has even a tiny amount of technical content. I've met and worked alongside many of these journalists over the years, and I don't know which group is worse: the ones who don't know anything technical but figure they can skate by; or the ones who know just enough to be dangerous and wrong, and that they can handle the topic.


This week's example is the coverage and hysteria about the MD-80 jet aircraft, mostly operated by American Airlines, and the emergency stand-down of these planes for inspection (and thousands of cancelled flights) due to a possible wiring problem. This was described by most of the media as "faulty wiring", "dangerous wiring", "miswired", and other very skewed, misleading terms. They made it sound as if the AC-supply lines were plugged into DC supplies, or that connectors and cables were mismatched or even crossed.


Only the Wall Street Journal, among the major media, actually had some specifics: "it [the FAA] determined that American Airlines' repairs didn't meet its painstaking standards, which dictate details such as which way retention clips holding the wires face, toward the back or front of the aircraft. This matters because the clips could chafe the coating on the wires, causing wear that would expose the wiring to leaks from fuel or hydraulic fluid. . . . some wiring was secured at intervals exceeding the one inch dictated by regulations." (I did find some pictures, after a little on-line searching, and the cable bundles were laced down pretty tightly, with lots of clips and ties closely spaced. But the caption didn't say if the picture was of "good" or "bad" cabling!)


Now, I know that proper cable dress is very important to long-term reliability (I have been tripped up by cable sloppiness and poor strain relief too often) but does this aircraft-wiring problem constitute "dangerous wiring" or even "miswired"? I'll let you be the judge!


On a more mundane topic, here's a thought problem I came across: my laptop PC was doing some disk-intensive work, and fairly warm air was coming out the exhaust. So I thought I would raise it a little, off the flat surface of the desk, to allow airflow and better cooling.


But then I thought about it some more. Air, especially stagnant air, is a poor conductor of heat. Maybe it is better to have the bottom of the laptop directly on the desk, which could act as a heat sink? How good is the thermal contact between the laptop and the desk, and the heat-sinking properties of the wood top? Pretty soon, I was convinced that the intuitive ideas to lift the laptop might actually be counterproductive.


I know that you can buy thermal mats to go under a laptop, to improve surface heat-sinking, but I am not ready to do that. Before I do anything, I want to know if placing the laptop flat on the wooden desktop is better or worse, from a thermal perspective, than raising it a little. And what about a metal desktop, or a plastic laminate desktop? I'd be interested in hearing your views, especially if you can model the thermal situation (and hey, it would make a good article, too!).


OK, enough off-the-subject thoughts. Check out the solid array of diverse technical articles below. And while this week's ebb-and-flow has fewer new products than last week (don't read anything into this, it's a normal weekly variation we see here), we have more news and short items than last week.


Until next week. . . .


Bill Schweber, Planet Analog Site Editor
bschweber@techinsights.com
(formerly @cmp.com; same "desk", new company name)




Powered by Qumana


An article by Judith Klinghoffer

I got this e-mail from Judith A. Klinghoffer:



...Obama must have trusted the media NOT to read Dreams from my Father p.99-100. In it he specifically contrasts his views from those of a bi-racial woman named Joyce  who refused to be categorized: (the italicization in the text is Obama’s)



 One day I asked her if she was going to the Black Students’ Association meeting. She looked at me funny, then started shaking her head like a baby who doesn’t want what it sees on the spoon.

“I’m not black,” Joyce said, “I’m multiracial.” Then she started telling me about her father, who happened to be Italian and was the sweetest man in the world; and her mother, who happened to be part African and part Native American and part something else. “Why should I have to choose between them?” she asked me. Her voice cracked, and I thought she was going to cry. “It’s not white people who are making me choose. Maybe it used to be that way, but now they’re willing to treat me like a person. No- it’s black people who always have to make everything racial. They’re the ones making me choose. They’re the ones who are telling me that I can’t be who I am . . . . “



In other words Joyce is the person Obama tries to convince us that he is. But she is the person he rejected as a “sellout” in favor of an all out Blackness, the kind which will naturally lead him to Rev. Wright and to Michelle. For this is how he goes on –



 The truth was that I understood her, her and all the other black kids who felt the way she did. In their mannerism, their speech, their mixed-up hearts, I kept recognizing pieces of myself. And that’s exactly what scared me. . . . I needed to put distance between them and myself, to convince myself that I wasn’t compromised - that I was indeed still awake.

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets. . . . At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.”



He goes on to explain that changing his name from Barry to Barack was part of the choice.



Read it all.  Obama is no different than his crazy pastor.


Powered by Qumana


Interesting technology article

Here is an interesting technology article:



'Missing link' memristor created: Rewrite the text books?

By R. Colin Johnson
EE Times

(04/30/08, 01:00:00 PM EDT)
PORTLAND, Ore. — The long-sought after memristor--the "missing link" in electronic circuit theory--has been invented by Hewlett Packard Senior Fellow R. Stanley Williams at HP Labs (Palo Alto, Calif.) Memristors--the fourth passive component type after resistors, capacitors and inductors--were postulated in a seminal 1971 paper in the IEEE Transactions on Circuit Theory by professor Leon Chua at the University of California (Berkeley), but their first realization was just announced today by HP. According to Williams and Chua, now virtually every electronics textbook will have to be revised to include the memristor and the new paradigm it represents for electronic circuit theory.


Admittedly, this kind of stuff is interesting for the nerdy guys like me.


Powered by Qumana


Russian troops in Iran?

Little Green Footballs linked to this article by Amir Taheri:



WHY DOES AHMADINEJAD WANT RUSSIAN TROOPS IN IRAN?
by Amir Taheri
Asharq Alawsat
April 25, 2008





Why is the leadership in Tehran anxious to give Russia the right to land troops in Iran?


The question is not fanciful. The Islamic Republic is conducting a devious campaign to prepare public opinion for that eventuality.


The message is relayed through deliberately vague terms that diplomats understand immediately while the general public does not.


The device is to revive two treaties that most students of Iranian history thought were dead and buried long ago.





…………………………………………………………………………….


Why is an administration that pretends it has a mission from the "Hidden Imam" to liberate the whole world keen to give Russia a licence to land troops in Iran?


Obviously, only Ahmadinejad and his associates know the full answer. However, one could speculate that the Khomeinist president has decided that a war with the United States is inevitable. In such a war, the Americans may well seize Iran's oilfields, an easy target for a surprise attack and a difficult asset for defenders to protect. Once that happens Russia could land troops in northern Iran and then go to the United Nations to ask for a generalized ceasefire and the fixing of a timetable for the withdrawal of "all foreign troops from all Iranian territory." The US would come under global pressure to cooperate with Russia in ending the conflict and paving the way for the departure of foreign troops and the restoration of Iranian sovereignty.



Do read it all.  Amir Taheri always provides good analysis.  I can add that it looks like the Iranians are trying to pit the Russian troops against Americans.  Once again the jihadis are attempting to use the super-power rivalry for their own purposes.  And once again they might succeed.


Powered by Qumana


Where is ACLU when you need it?

Well, ACLU is a leftist organization and does not care about real civil liberties.  They only get involved in the leftist causes.  The same is true for ADL.  This is from Jewish Russian Telegraph:



Mark Nystedt, Christian, indefatigable pro-Israel, pro-Jewish activist, was arrested last Wenesday the 30th. He is circulating his story, here in full:





As many of you know, I am an avid advocate for Israel. I have targeted liberal Christian denominations and individual churches that blame Israel and Jews for the hostilities in the Middle East (the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict) and who make excuses for those who wish exterminate Israel and kill Jews (Yesha Arabs, aka Palestinians, Arabs, and Persian/Iranians). This blaming of Israel and making excuses for Israel's enemies fits the classic definition of anti-Semitism. It is often expressed with phases such as "Israel occupied Palestinian territory" and "Israel Apartheid." The West Bank is Israeli territory occupied by Palestinians, the consequence of Jordan attempting to exterminate Israel in 1967; and Israel is the most respectful nation in the Middle East of human/civil rights of its minority citizens while the misery that Yesha Arabs find themselves is the consequence of their ongoing 60-year struggle to kill Jews and exterminate Israel. Targeted anti-Semitic denominations include the Unitarian Universalists Association, the United Church of Christ, and the Episcopal Church.


My usual advocacy method is to sit on a folding chair in front of an offending church with signage, fliers, and booklets. I listen to the radio with earphones and have a pamphlet in hand offering it silently and seated to those who passby. Last year, 5000 people took fliers. [Occasionally, I will pro-actively hand fliers to pedestrians. Last year, in this mode, 4000 people took fliers.] Targeted offending anti-Semitic churches include: - the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul (138 Tremont Street, Boston, across Tremont Street from the Park Street subway station and where the Episcopal Bishop of Massachusetts has his offices), - Old South Church (Copley Square, Boston, UCC, which hosted the Sabeel "Apartheid Paradigm in Israel-Palestine" conference in October 2007 and where Massachusetts Governor and Sen Barak Obama's northeast campaign manager Deval Patrick attends, Sen Obama is a STILL member of Chicago's infamous Trinity UCC) - the Unitarian First Parish in Cambridge (Harvard Square across from Harvard Yard), and - suburban Episcopal churches.






On April 30 2008, I was in front of the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul. Obviously, someone in Bishop Shaw's office called the Boston Police with a complaint about me. An Episcopal Diocese NAG (National Association of Gals) employee was hovering to observe the anticipated events. A Boston Police paddy wagon arrived about 2:30. The officer warned me that protesters had to be mobile/walking and not seated and that if I remained seated that I would be arrested. There is no city ordinance that requires protesters to be mobile and this arbitrary requirement by the Boston Police Department denies me constitutional right to free speech.

On June 11 2007, I was in a similar situation. Then I chose to leave. See my on-line unpublished letter to the Jewish Advocate about the ACLU declining to help resolve this matter (google 'ACLU anti-Semitism Nystedt'). The ADL also declined to help as they have programming with the Episcopal Church.



So, when I returned to this location on April 30th, I was fully prepared to suffer the consequence of sitting. I sat and I was arrested for disturbing the peace.


Handcuffed, paddy wagon, booked, and overnight in Precinct 1 cell 7. 5x7 with a metal shelf for a bed. It reminded me of Christ's tomb except that it had a combo toilet/sink an its walls were made of steal. Fortunately, I wore work boots, one of which doubled as a pillow. Didn't some ancient Israel prophet sleep with a rock as a pillow? Being in this drum amplified my snoring which great annoyed the lockup's other guests. I woke up at 2:30AM with the sound of the other lockup guests pounding on their walls. I told the arresting officer that I suffer from sleep apnea and need a CPAP machine. No allowance was made for that medical need. Obviously, I considered guilty upon arrest in violation of the the US Constitution. I was released at 3AM, now May 1st, with a summons to appear at the Boston Municipal Court (Edward Brooke Building, 24 New Chardon Street, West End) at 8:30AM, which I did.


The court got started about 9AM with 200+ cases to be heard. About one-third, with non-Anglo names, were no shows and issued warrants for arrest. A few were continued until lawyers could sort things out. The rest were either bailed or held without bail. My lockup buddies showed up wearing hand and ankle cuffs. About 1PM, my case was called. After 30 seconds of reading my file, the (Assistant?) District Attorney recommended that my case be dismissed. The Judge said "Case dismissed," I said "Thank you," and I left. The few dozen defendants still in court were taken aback.


Now, I am looking for a lawyer to sue the City of Boston, the Massachusetts Episcopal Diocese, and the individuals involved for denying me my constitutional right to free speech, harassment, etc, whatever. Any suggestions, except the ACLU and ADL, would be appreciated.


Thank you for listening/reading. Its been therapeutic writing this.


Mark Nystedt. Haverhill Massachusetts.




Please send ideas on how to help Mr. Nystedt.


Powered by Qumana


10-point plan to resist jihad

This is via LGF:



N.C. congresswoman releases 10-point list to tackle radical Islam threats



April 18, 2008 6:45 PM


McClatchy Newspapers


(MCT)


WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick wants America to ''wake up'' and stop allowing terrorism to proliferate - and if that means revoking the passport of a former U.S. president or examining the preaching of prison chaplains, that's what she's prepared to do.


…………………………………………………………………………….


Here is Myrick's 10-point plan to tackle threats posed by radical elements of Islam:


1. Investigate all military chaplains endorsed by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was imprisoned for funding a terrorist organization.


2. Investigate all prison chaplains endorsed by Alamoudi.


3. Investigate the selection process of Arabic translators working for the Pentagon and the FBI.


4. Examine the non-profit status of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.


5. Make it an act of sedition or solicitation of treason to preach or publish materials that call for the deaths of Americans.


6. Audit sovereign wealth funds in the United States.


7. Cancel scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their text books, which she claims preach hatred and violence against non-Muslims.


8. Restrict religious visas for imams who come from countries that don't allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.


9. Cancel contracts to train Saudi police and security in U.S. counterterrorism tactics.


10. Block the sale of sensitive military munitions to Saudi Arabia.



Read it all.  And also be sure to read Robert Spencer's article on the subject.


Powered by Qumana


Sunday, April 27, 2008

My favorite song

My older daughter takes figure skating lessons.  She's been a bit lazy lately (she is only 7), so in order to prop up her enthusiasm her coach suggested that she should prepare a short program with music.  Her program would have to be only about a minute long, so any musical piece would have to be shortened.  In trying to pick music for her I discovered that there is a song that I can listen to over and over, without getting tired of it.  I am fascinated by the World War 2 history, so it is not a surprise that this song is from that era.  The song is "Bei Mir Bist Du Shein", with lyrics originally written in Yiddish and then translated into English.  In English it became a tremendous hit when it was performed by The Andrews Sisters.  Of all the versions of this song I think that the Andrews Sisters is the best.  Enjoy:





Here is Benny Goodman's version:





I actually still undecided, whether the Andrews Sisters or Benny Goodman's version is the best.  And here is Al Bowlly's version, with lyrics addressed, properly, to a girl:





Here is the original Yiddish version:





Which one do you like best?


Powered by Qumana


Sunday, April 20, 2008

In poor taste

Russ Vaugn sent me this Old War Dogs link:



TIME Magazine, that bastion of objective news reporting, where journalistic ethics are disappearing even faster than their readers (circulation rates down 17.5% in 2007 from the previous year according to Wikipedia) has trashed an American patriotic icon with its latest cover:


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=293411344350742


The cover is insulting to all American warriors but constitutes absolute sacrilege to one particular branch of American fighting men. TIME’s clueless, liberal editors may have endeared themselves to Al Gore and his Green Lemmings but they have surely incurred the wrath of a far more formidable green organization, the entire present and past United States Marine Corps, the lean, mean Green Machine.

In this confrontation between boneheads and Jarheads, all I can say is Semper Fi!



There was nothing to excerpt from Russ's Old War Dogs article, so I just repeated it here.  But do go to the original Old War Dogs post because it has more links on this subject.  Also, read the whole Investor's Business Daily article.  Just to give you an idea of what I call "in poor taste", here the idiotic picture from the Time Magazine:



Powered by Qumana


Saturday, April 19, 2008

Debunking some false accusations

Just like the charge of racism, the charge of anti-Semitism is often leveled falsely against people on the Right.  To be sure, there are many anti-Semites on the Right and on the Left, although the anti-Semitism is more prevalent on the Left these days.  But such accusations should not be leveled lightly because there is no easy way to disprove them (and it is hard to prove a negative).  So, the false accusation of anti-Semitism is just as bad as the false accusation of racism.  As a Jew, I have a special responsibility to defend people falsely accused of anti-Semitism, not only because people's good name should not be smeared, but also because such false accusations prevent the real thing from being taken seriously.


So, here is an article restoring Walt Disney's good name (via LGF):



Disney was not an antisemite

24 January 2008

By Daniel Finkelstein

It happened again the other day. It’s always happening. And I think it is time I said something.

Here’s what goes on. I make a joke to a Jewish friend about that Iranian lecturer who thinks that Tom and Jerry is a Zionist conspiracy thought up by the Jewish Disney corporation. And they reply: “That’s ironic. Walt Disney was an antisemite.”

It is remarkable how many Jews think this.


…………………………………………………………………………….


First, Disney hired Jews, lots of Jews. Disney was not himself Jewish, of course, but the success of his business owed a great deal to a Jew. The bedrock of Disney was Walt’s merchandising partner, the Jewish Kay Kamen, the man who helped make Mickey Mouse into a cult and who once remarked that Disney had more Jews in it than the Book of Leviticus. This was not an accident, occurring against Walt’s wishes. When Harry Tytle joined the studio as a production manager and told Walt that he was half-Jewish, Disney replied: “It would be better if you were all Jewish.”

Second, the supposed antisemite was a frequent contributor to Jewish charities — the Yeshiva College and the Jewish Home for the Aged among them. And in 1955, he was made Man of the Year by the Beverly Hills Lodge of B’nai B’rith.

Third, and most important, is what there isn’t. There just isn’t any serious evidence of antisemitism. And this is not a charge that can be waved about without proof. Jews can enjoy Walt Disney. He was an inspiration.



Read it all.  And a message to my fellow Jews: be very careful with leveling the charge of anti-Semitism.  There are plenty of real anti-Semite, some of them genocidal.  We don't need the false ones.


P. S.  I don't think I have accused Ron Paul or Barack Obama of anti-Semitism, although both enjoy support of anti-Semites.  But I think I was very careful not to level such charges against these men themselves without any evidence, precisely for the reasons laid out in the beginning of this post and in the article I linked to.


Powered by Qumana


Sunday, April 13, 2008

Another reason to thank Poland

Poland was often called "The First Ally" by the British historian Norman Davies in his book "Rising '44" about Warsaw Uprising in August of 1944.  The Poles stay true to this history of theirs (via Gateway Pundit):



Polish MEPs demand from EU to regard Hezbollah as terrorist organization. It will be easier to invigilate them and monitor their financial transfers in EU – says Konrad SzymaÅ„ski (PiS), on of campaign initiators.

Hezbollach is listed as terrorist organization in US, UK and Israel. Brussels objected such decision so far. Some other organizations, as Council of Europe is against any terrorist lists at all, because people being charged for relations with terrorism do not have possibility to defend themselves. On the other hand experts say that Hezbollah gathers money in EU member states. Last days, Bulgarian parliamentary committee revealed that Bulgarian mafia bosses financed Hezbollah.

Szymanski states, that Hezbollah’s activity destabilizes situation not only in Lebanon or Israel, but also at the whole Middle East. First step of campaign will be debate on forum of European Parliament. Such proposal, signed by 40 MEPs should be filed in coming days.



Dzenkue, pan Szymanski (thank you, Mr. Szymanski).


Powered by Qumana


What's at Stake for the West in Lebanon?

That is the title of the article from the Middle East Forum:




David Wurmser is a specialist on the Middle East and served as an advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney until recently. His prior positions included special assistant to John R. Bolton at the Department of State and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Wurmser is the author of numerous influential papers and three books, including Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein (AEI Press, 1999). In 2000, he contributed to the Middle East Forum's Lebanon Study Group report, "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role," which condemned Syria's occupation of Lebanon. He received a Ph.D. in international relations from Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Wurmser addressed the Middle East Forum on March 6, 2008 in New York City.



"Iran's Stake in the Levant"


Mr. Wurmser calls Lebanon a "key battleground between the West as a whole and the forces that seek to drag the Middle East down." The situation in Lebanon must be viewed in the context of the larger conflict in the region, which is becoming far more dangerous. Two years after the Cedar Revolution in March 2005, which was brought on by the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese are still living through a tragedy. The inability to install a new president today is indicative of the situation. It is because of the size and success of the popular demonstrations by the Lebanese, however, that Lebanon has become the focal point of the enemies of the West, namely Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

Mr. Wurmser focused on the Iranian strategy toward Lebanon, arguing that Iran is undergoing a transformation, not in the direction of reform as the West hopes, but from a pure theocracy toward a "theofascist state on the edge of an even more aggressive foreign policy." This transformation in Iranian politics, according to Mr. Wurmser, is being played out in Lebanon and in Gaza.


Top American officials have made statements to the effect that U.S. and U.N. sanctions have hurt the Iranian regime, and that the support for former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and other figures deemed "moderate" in the December 2006 elections indicated the weakening of the Iranian regime. Mr. Wurmser asserts that this perception is false because it ignores the real indicators. Rather, a new power structure is emerging in Iran that is closely aligned with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For example, Ahmadinejad fired many government officials and replaced them with a group of hard-core members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Mr. Wurmser singled out Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejehei, whom Ahmadinejad placed in control of Intelligence, who espouses an aggressive anti-Western foreign policy and supports terrorism; and Saeed Jalili, whom Ahmadinejad appointed as head nuclear negotiator for Iran, is a veteran of the IRGC who was mutilated in the Iran-Iraq war.


Mr. Wurmser traced several of Ahmadinejad's actions to Jalili's 1990 book, Foreign Policy of the Prophet, arguing that Jalili's writings, though they describe the time of Muhammad, are a blueprint for Iran today. Jalili cites an episode in which Muhammad told his followers to proselytize, not negotiate. In this spirit, Ahmedinejad has fired ambassadors and replaced them with more proselytizing ones. Jalili wrote about how Muhammad and his successors sent letters out to other tribes telling them to "convert or you will face the sword," as well as to major powers in Byzantium and Persia. Mr. Wurmser linked this to Ahmedinejad's sending similar letters to President Bush. He pointed out how the "language is lifted straight out of Jalili's book, and that, in fact, "Jalili is the mind behind Ahmedinejad."



Read it all.  It's important.


Powered by Qumana


How many anti-Semites...

...does it take to convince American Jews to stop voting for Democrats?  The answer is not known: it hasn't been done yet.  But here is an interesting link via Atlas Shrugs:



A Threat To Jews Who Would Abandon Obama


April 7, 2008




Hat tip Cyberella


Here’s a “gem” from a blog on the Barack Obama web site.


This person has it all backwards. It was the Jews who stuck out their necks for the blacks in the civil rights movement. Two of them got killed for it. And what do we get? We get Jesse Jackson with his Hymietown comment. We have Al Sharpton, who incited mobs to kill the Jewish owners of Freddie’s Fashion Mart in Harlem, and the “diamond dealing” Jews of Crown Heights. We have Louis Farrakhan who called Judaism a gutter religion, and who called Hitler a “great man.” And most recently, we have B. Hussein’s beloved pastor whose church published a Hamas screed.



OBAMANISM IS THE CURE FOR CLINTONITIS AND MIDDLE EAST STRIFE.


Obamanism is the cure for Clintonitis that has devastated America and I hope Jews all over US rally around Obama and support him to win both the nomination and the Presidency because after he wins, he would help the Jews and Israel as well as settle the Middle East problems.


However, if Jews betray Obama and he loses, Africans worldwide would consider it a betrayal to the whole African people and will never forgive world Jewry.


In retaliation, (eye for eye, remember!) Africa would consider expelling all Jews from Africa who have been mining African Gold and Diamond and enriching themselves for many centuries.


It was African gold and diamond that built international finance, trade and banking that the Jews (Rothschild, Warbug, Rockefeller and others) dominate.


It was African gold and diamond that built Jewish banks and wealth worldwide.


Thousands of years ago, when Jews were starving and nearly perished in Palestine, they took refuge in Egypt, Africa.


If Egypt and Africa did not feed the Jews, perhaps there would be no Jews today.


Jews also took all Egyptian and African science, technology and religious knowledge that have helped them to develop themselves and to get to where they are today: on top of most of the industries and corporations all over the world.


Jews owe Africa and Africans everything they have today because if Africa did not shelter them when they were homeless and starving, they would not be here today.


If Africa did not give them their religion, Judaism and science and technology of the ancient astronaut Anunnaki’s gods, they probably would have not prospered.


If Jews betray Africans by betraying Obama, there would be grave consequences that would shake the foundation of Earth.


Let Jews remember who their best friend is!


Hundreds of years ago during the Inquisition in Europe, the Catholic Church slaughtered Jews in Spain and all over Europe and forced most of them to convert to Christianity to stay alive.


Moreover, during World war 2, Hitler and his Nazi regime gassed and slaughtered them too.


When they escaped to America, they met opposition and discrimination everywhere.


They had to hustle to survive.


Again, Africa helped them by allowing them to continue mining all their gold and diamond.


African gold and diamond are the foundation of the wealth of world Jewry.


Abraham Foxman, we hope you remember that!


The only people who have been nice to Jews have been Africans.


It is now payback time and Africans hope you would not bite the hands that fed you and made you rich and the envy of the world today.






I hope Jews Against Obama will forgive for posting this post in its entirety here: there is nothing to excerpt.  And I am linking to that site anyway.  As for the Jews who vote for Democrats, at least they should know who they are voting for.  Although, I suspect that they would vote for a candidate named Adolf Hitler if he had (D) next to his name.


Powered by Qumana


Character matters

I think I got this from Bookworm, but I am not sure:



Back in 1996 and 1997, before John McCain was a presidential candidate or object of media fascination, Michael Lewis followed the Arizona senator around as he campaigned for Bob Dole and worked to reform campaign-finance laws. Lewis' pieces for the New Republic and the New York Times Magazine portrayed McCain as a passionate, cantankerous, astonishingly honest political character who frequently acted in ways that brought him no political gain. In the recent back-and-forth over whether McCain is a regular politician or a true outlier, we remembered a wonderful moment from Lewis' 1997 New York Times Magazine profile of McCain, "The Subversive." The passage below comes at the very end of Lewis' article.


By 7:30 we were on the road, and McCain was reminiscing about his early political career. When he was elected to the House in 1982, he said, he was "a freshman right-wing Nazi." But his visceral hostility toward Democrats generally was quickly tempered by his tendency to see people as individuals and judge them that way. He was taken in hand by Morris Udall, the Arizona congressman who was the liberal conscience of the Congress and a leading voice for reform. (Most famously—and disastrously for his own career—Udall took aim at the seniority system that kept young talent in its place at the end of the dais. "The longer you're here, the more you'll like it," he used to joke to incoming freshmen.)


"Mo reached out to me in 50 different ways," McCain recalled. "Right from the start, he'd say: 'I'm going to hold a press conference out in Phoenix. Why don't you join me?' All these journalists would show up to hear what Mo had to say. In the middle of it all, Mo would point to me and say, 'I'd like to hear John's views.' Well, hell, I didn't have any views. But I got up and learned and was introduced to the state." Four years later, when McCain ran for and won Barry Goldwater's Senate seat, he said he felt his greatest debt of gratitude not to Goldwater—who had shunned him—but to Udall. "There's no way Mo could have been more wonderful," he says, "and there was no reason for him to be that way."


For the past few years, Udall has lain ill with Parkinson's disease in a veterans hospital in Northeast Washington, which is where we were heading. Every few weeks, McCain drives over to pay his respects. These days the trip is a ceremony, like going to church, only less pleasant. Udall is seldom conscious, and even then he shows no sign of recognition. McCain brings with him a stack of newspaper clips on Udall's favorite subjects: local politics in Arizona, environmental legislation, Native American land disputes, subjects in which McCain initially had no particular interest himself. Now, when the Republican senator from Arizona takes the floor on behalf of Native Americans, or when he writes an op-ed piece arguing that the Republican Party embrace environmentalism, or when the polls show once again that he is Arizona's most popular politician, he remains aware of his debt to Arizona's most influential Democrat.



Read it all.  Character does matter.  This is why I respect and admire John McCain.  This is also why I voted for him in 2000 Primary.  And this is why I will vote for him in November with absolutely no hesitation, despite whatever political disagreements I might have with the man.


Powered by Qumana


Engineers - into politics!

Back in the 1930s there was a slogan in the Stalin's Soviet Union: "Komsomol members!  Man your airplanes!"  So now, similarly to that one, I decided to issue my own: "Engineers - into politics!"  Admittedly, this call is not the one I would myself heed.  Nor would many of my fellow engineers be likely to do it.  Because, although there many problems that need to be solved, and engineers are usually good at solving problems, there is much more to politics than just problem solving:



SAN FRANCISCO — Engineers elsewhere apply their talents to the political sphere, but those in the United States, unfortunately, don't--and there are no signs the situation will change anytime soon. The overwhelming majority of American engineers choose industry and business, not government or policy, as their rightful place, even as their counterparts around the globe see no conflict between politics and their profession.


…………………………………………………………………………….


Engineers in China are acknowledged as key players in the country's rapid economic rise. They're overrepresented in the Chinese Politburo and among government ministers, said William Wulf, president emeritus of the National Academy of Engineering and a professor at the University of Virginia.


Their role on the political stage is a reason for the country's success. "That's a real part of why China is doing so well," Wulf said. Lawyers predominate in American government, and while their solutions often address the immediate problems, they don't give much thought to future implications, he said.


The engineering mindset tends to focus on the long term. When you build a bridge that will be there for 100 years, you have to think about its impact, and its ability to absorb future traffic growth and adapt to new kinds of transport. "A lot of what we're seeing in China's astounding growth is that sort of long-term thinking," Wulf said.


There was a time when engineers played a greater role in U.S. public policy. NASA program directors--technocrats in the broadest sense--worked to get funding for the U.S. space program at its inception in the late 1950s. But even that effort doesn't match the role engineers are playing in other countries, according to Wulf.


"Maybe they were program directors in NASA, but they weren't in Congress, and you wouldn't have heard them opining about the economy," he said. If not politically inclined, then what are engineers? In their own words, they're logical, detail oriented and methodical. The profession attracts those who don't mind working on their own and who are confident--maybe overconfident--about their own abilities, said Vivek Wadhwa, a Harvard University fellow and professor at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering.


"Common traits of engineers are that they tend to be introverts, they tend to be arrogant, they tend to be proud. That's the stereotypical engineer," said Wadhwa, a former tech entrepreneur who started his career as a programmer.


Their primary characteristics are a love of detail and the ability to work independently, he said. "You start your career writing code or doing other types of design work. For the first few years, you're really on your own. It's not a social profession," Wadhwa said.


…………………………………………………………………………….


In Islamic and developing countries, engineering and medicine are the proven paths to success. Subjects such as social science, psychology or business are considered luxuries, Sahimi said. Drastically different social conditions mean the equation isn't the same here. The United States has a large middle class, a democratic society and a developed economy.


"In the U.S., people who study engineering have the same characteristics [as engineers in the developing world], but they may not go into politics precisely because of the conditions the U.S. has," Sahimi said.


The view of the profession as a respected path toward success is shared by U.S. immigrants, according to Natalie Forood, a software manager at Ruckus Wireless in Silicon Valley. Forood, who emigrated from Ukraine at age seven, is the daughter and niece of engineers.


Having seen successful women engineers in Ukraine, and with encouragement to do well in math from her EE father, Forood felt confident she could grasp technical concepts. It wasn't easy, though. Engineers need perseverance, she said. "An important trait in order to succeed in this field is to be persistent, and to work really hard at understanding concepts," she said.


A logical mind and the ability to think ahead are critical. It's like a chess game, where you have to figure out what you're going to do based on what your opponent is going to do, Forood said. The abilities to cope with pressure, to focus and to work hard are common personality traits in the profession, she added.


Forood disputed a common criticism made of engineers--that they think in black-and-white and narrowly focus on one solution. On the contrary, engineers collaborate, she said. "What I've observed is that people discuss several approaches and come up with the best one," she said.


The stereotype of engineers as more conservative than other professionals is based in reality, though, according to Forood. "By nature, I think most engineers are more reserved and cautious than people in other professions," she said. You don't see many engineers doing extreme sports, for example, Forood said. They're aware of the risks and aren't willing to take them.


Nevertheless, being cautious or introverted shouldn't stop engineers from playing a role on the larger stage of government, according to NEA president emeritus Wulf. The United States would be better off if they did, he said.


Only been two U.S. presidents, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, were engineers, Wulf pointed out. The typical engineering attitude to a public-policy issue is, "Oh, that's not a technical problem, so I have nothing to contribute," he said.


But in Wulf's view, engineers have expertise in other matters, whether they acknowledge it or not. In one nontechnical area in particular--immigration and visas--engineers have plenty to contribute, he said.


"They have been essentially mute," Wulf said. "The contribution of foreign-born engineers has been profound. Somehow, legal and illegal immigration have been conflated in some people's minds, and I think it's just shooting ourselves in the foot."


Other countries benefit from engineers' brainpower at the public-policy level and the United States could, too, he said. "In reality, they often have a lot to contribute. And in places like China, France and much of Latin America, they do contribute," Wulf said.



Now, at least one of the examples of US Presidents who were engineers suggests that perhaps it would be best if engineers stayed out of politics.  And no, I am not talking about Hoover.  But then, my grandpa often quoted one of his teachers who would always tell those students who failed a test: "You will never become a good engineer.  You might become a Chief Engineer."  So, maybe Jimmy Carter falls into that category of engineers.  Or maybe he simply did not understand that there are things beyond his control, and there are people who are not rational.  Anyway, do read the article.


Powered by Qumana


Sunday, April 6, 2008

EUSSR

Little Green Footballs linked to Doug Ross, who linked to this great article by Vladimir Bukovsky:



The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. What is the European Union? Quite recently, before the elections in Italy and Austria, it was almost a union of Socialist Republics. The Soviet Union was always very eager to keep its own model of socialism in place and if anyone tried to deviate, they were either invaded or put under enormous pressure. That method was called the Brezhnev doctrine. Now exactly the same has happened in Europe. When Austria deviated from the course of socialism it was ostracised. Milosevic's socialism was somewhat different from the people in Brussels, so his country was bombed.

How was the Soviet Union governed? It was governed by fifteen unelected people who appointed each other and who were not accountable to anyone. How is the European Union governed? By two dozen people who appoint each other and are not accountable to anyone, and whom we cannot sack. How was the Soviet Union created? By coercion or very often with the military occupation of the Red Army. How is the European Union created? Admittedly not by armed force, but by coercion and bullying, making it impossible for any other country to live outside it economically. It is like a shot-gun marriage. The Soviet Union had in its constitution the right of secession for the constituent republics. It existed for propaganda purposes, particularly as there was no actual procedure and even to talk about it was considered a crime against the territoriality of the Soviet Union. I was amazed to discover that more or less the same situation exists in the European Union. You can enter it but you can't quit. No one said so far you cannot quit but a procedure is not in place. That seems to be very similar to what I used to know.

The Soviet Union was a very aggressive country; it couldn't exist unless it spread its own model of socialism further and further. The moment it stopped spreading, it started collapsing and I suspect that the same thing is true of the European Union. Although economically it makes no sense for them to attract more new countries, they impose enormous pressure on the half-developed Eastern European countries and some other European countries like Switzerland to join the union. It seems to be ideological. They used to be told in the Soviet Union that the purpose of its function was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people. We were supposed to forget our nationalities, our ethnic traditions and customs. Growing up in Russia, you couldn't tell a Ukrainian from a Russian; it was not supposed to be mentioned, for we were supposed to be one entity. The same seems to be true of the European Union. They don't want you to be British or French. They want you all to be a new historic entity - European. One of the grand purposes of socialism was always the destruction of the national state. The old belief was that the state would wither away - with some help from them. And that's exactly what we observe in Europe. The purpose of this agglomeration from Brussels is to absorb nation states, so that they should cease to exist.

Some might say my comparison is not accurate because the Soviet Union was an ideological state and the European Union is a practical, pragmatic arrangement. In reality the European Union today is based on a very firm ideology. It's a statist ideology involving the preservation of socialism for ever but also the ideology of political correctness, which has become the rule. One might say that the Soviet Union had a gulag, and as long as a country doesn't have a gulag it cannot be compared with the Soviet Union. I think we already have the beginning of a gulag in the European Union. At least we have an intellectual gulag. When anyone tries to speak his own mind on questions of race or gender, if their views differ from those approved, they will be ostracised, might not be able to occupy a professional job or to publish a book. This is the beginning of the gulag. The Home Secretary has tried to introduce a bill making 'hate' speech a punishable offence, something completely contrary to the common law of this country. The Treaty of Nice includes provisions for creating a European Police force which will have enormous privileges, including diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine, a policeman coming to you, beating you, taking whatever he wants, and you can't even sue him because of his diplomatic immunity ? If you introduce some kind of subversive hate speech into a computer in one country, you might be extradited from your own country without any prior hearings and without any of your rights being defended by local law. I have seen myself how easy it is to lose your freedom and how difficult it is to get it back.



Again, read the whole thing.


Powered by Qumana