January 31, 2005
Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife?
So how racist are you, exactly? Harvard thinks they have a way of figuring that out, via the Harvard Implicit Association Test (Courtesy Tim Blair.)
This test purports to discover what hidden biases you might have on race, gender, sexuality or any one of a number of things. The methodology the test seems to use is based largely on what appears to be the Freudian Slip methodology. Take it and you'll see what I mean.
The part that I found supremely interesting was that I took the test to determine whether or not I was biased in favor of Kerry or Bush. Now, I am going to wait a minute for you all to look back through my posting history and form your own judgment on where I stand. Don't worry, go ahead - I'll wait.
more...
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at
04:46 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Maybe you're simply a "compassionate conservative?" If so, there's nothing wrong with that. George W. described himself as such when he was campaigning back in 2000.
Posted by: Venom at February 01, 2005 09:00 AM (dbxVM)
2
I'd add that if you align yourself with GW you will still come off left-of-center, like most of the fiscal policies he's signed off on (with the main exception of the personal income-tax reduction). not to mention the bigger government vis a vis Homeland Security and a new intel reorg/czar.
Posted by: tee bee at February 01, 2005 10:53 AM (q1JHF)
3
The thing is that the Bush v. Kerry test has precious to do with actual political views, but is seeking to determine what visceral bias one has towards the gentlemen.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at February 01, 2005 11:11 AM (kiA+F)
4
Rusty, how did you find the Kerry - Bush test? I didn't see an option for U.S. nationalities.
Posted by: SteveL at February 01, 2005 12:16 PM (HBkVS)
5
"Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for Bush relative to Kerry " This test is wrong. My preference is/was not slight! Shrinks need to desing a better test than this! Ask anyone who knows me. Slight my as-!
Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 01, 2005 12:23 PM (gVJtb)
6
Good point, BRD.
Posted by: Venom at February 01, 2005 12:27 PM (dbxVM)
7
SteveL,
When you get to the page, just hit the section that says Demonstration - that's the default for US users, and will have the whole raft of American tests.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at February 01, 2005 01:08 PM (kiA+F)
January 28, 2005
D.C. Trip Planning Woes
Sorry for the absence today, folks. I'm busy throwing together a student trip to Washington, DC. The problem is that I can't find a place at a reasonable price with enough rooms!! The hotel also needs to be near a Metro stop. I'll be in DC from May 14th to the 22nd.
Any ideas out there?
Posted by: Rusty at
03:04 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You're heading a student trip?
Sucker!
Obviusly, I'm of no help whatsoever.
Posted by: ccwbass at January 28, 2005 03:07 PM (ruJga)
2
The YMCA!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at January 28, 2005 03:53 PM (x+5JB)
3
I know you can get yourself clean and have a good time...but I hear that no matter what your sexual orientation you check in with, you check out gay.
Posted by: Rusty at January 28, 2005 03:56 PM (JQjhA)
4
Might want to try something out on the end of the Metro lines in VA... hotels will be cheaper and easier to come by. Your student trip happens to fall in the span of college graduations, which means that rooms in DC will be tough to come by.
Posted by: Wine-aholic at January 28, 2005 04:02 PM (Wsn+K)
5
Was thinking the same thing...either Maryland or VA would be your best bet...staying in Washington is worse than staying in NYC, price wise.
Posted by: Laura at January 28, 2005 04:42 PM (ptOpl)
6
There's a homeless shelter right near the Capitol building.
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at January 28, 2005 05:07 PM (tiIXu)
7
Try the Holiday Inn by the zoo...rather appropriate for you and some college students...?
Posted by: Mr. K at January 28, 2005 05:26 PM (zun7D)
8
Do your students even know where DC is?
Posted by: Bill Dautrive at January 28, 2005 05:52 PM (G95Uf)
9
Holiday Inn at 87XX Georgia Ave., in Silver Spring, MD. It's five minutes to the Silver Spring Metro stop, has restaurants and movie theaters (and a mall) equally close. About ten block north of the DC line.
During rush hour, it's about 15 minutes to Union Station, just north of the Capitol, on the Red line.
If they don't have room, look in VA, along the Blue, Green, or Orange lines, from Rossyln, Fall Church, Ballston, Dun Loring, Alexandria, Pentagon City, Crystal City, etc. A look at a Metro map can give you a good starting point. Of course you don't want to be so far out that you've got a 45-minute commute on both ends.
Posted by: John B at January 28, 2005 09:20 PM (IuAUA)
10
You might try calling Marion Barry. I understand he always has vacant properties available and you get to stay for free if you agree to hand out these little viles through the mail slot intermittently throughout the day.
Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2005 10:08 PM (Qmjje)
11
As is the custom of Islam, you are welcome to stay at the hostel of my brother Muslim Abdul Shaheed Kareem Hakim Abu Musab Zayeed Rahman Moomar Ibn Ibd Etc Soforth. It is called the Intifada Inn. Look for the hands holding the crossed swords over the driveway. Peace, my brother, we mean you know harm, you are one of the People Of The Book. Just do not forget to pay the Jizya.
Posted by: The Ayatollah Assahola at January 28, 2005 11:56 PM (lK7Sh)
12
The Red Roof in Chinatown (around 5th & E) NW is clean, comfortable and close to a Metro. It's also within walking distance of the Mall. I've stayed in a lot of Red Roofs over the years for dog shows and like them a lot more than many other inexpensive motel chains. I've stayed in the NW DC one several times with good results.
Posted by: Robin Burk at January 29, 2005 08:31 AM (BUB+w)
13
A man with your political orientation might be able to stay at the White House, Yes?
Posted by: ZuDfunck's Sampler at January 29, 2005 09:24 AM (xfxCX)
14
DC Hostile. Cheap, maybe too cheap?
http://www.washingtondchostel.com/
Posted by: Rayne Steinberg at January 29, 2005 02:34 PM (xYekm)
15
As is the custom of Islam, you are welcome to stay at the hostel of my brother Muslim Abdul Shaheed Kareem Hakim Abu Musab Zayeed Rahman Moomar Ibn Ibd Etc Soforth. It is called the Intifada Inn. Look for the hands holding the crossed swords over the driveway. Peace, my brother, we mean you know harm, you are one of the People Of The Book. Just do not forget to pay the Jizya.
heh
Posted by: lune at January 30, 2005 02:17 AM (xJkmr)
16
We had to stay at the 4-H Club. It's not that bad...not a hotel, but very clean.
Posted by: Katie at January 30, 2005 09:32 AM (/U19w)
17
Far be it from me to be generous with other people's homes, but INDC Bill is in the neigborhood. Perhaps he wouldn't mind you crashin' the joint.
Posted by: Gordon at January 30, 2005 01:16 PM (dEFhD)
18
Since everybody else seems to be recommending crack houses, whore houses, or Marion Barry's house (guess that's the same thing eh?) I'll give you some substantive advice, and unfortunately I know this because my Mother has been hounding me to make reservations for my Graduation at that same time. Holiday Inn on 15th & Rhode Island is $150 a night and is about 4 blocks from the Metro. A little far depending on how many students want to sleep with you...I mean visit with you but everything else seems to be running $250. Courtyard Marriot downtown right by the convention center was $180. Think it's right near Gallery Place so that's good. Please tell me you aren't coming to "see the Cherry Blossoms." The whole Cherry blossom thing is overrated and frankly kind of dirty.
Posted by: Wittysexkitten at January 30, 2005 02:10 PM (DNyiA)
19
You can all come and stay at my house if you want, provided the kids don't mind doing a little yardwork.
Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at January 31, 2005 01:31 PM (XBUdh)
20
Right now I'm booked at the Hilton downtown. We're looking at $150 a night. I'd like to find something for like $100 a night if possible.
FYI-I'm not looking for a room for ME, I have an open invite at INDC Bill's mom's house ;-)
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at January 31, 2005 01:57 PM (JQjhA)
January 27, 2005
Muslim Studen Union celebrates the liberation of Auschwitz at my alma mater
In case your wondering, my alma mater won the NCAA football championship this year....Via Mere Rhetoric:
holocust schmolocost.....and
that whole thing drives me nuts.
there arent that many holicost surviviers.
most of those guys havent experienced anything -- except possibly excess. its a tool the zionists use... but to be honest wonder how effective it is these days.
Just thought id contribute its fun reading about the holohoax. it probably happened but 6mil is a lot i think the figure was much smaller and yes i think its possible to fabricate such a story. the jews are masters at this and congrats to them for being able to do so. not only do they claim sole bearers to the "anti-semetic" crimes, but they are able to live of reparations forever. smart idea dont you think?Ah, to be young and in graduate school again so I could pop one of these guys in the mouth.
On a paranthetical note, on 9/12/01 I was in a class and we were discussing the events of the previous day. I made the comment that the "Islamist extremists are every bit as dangerous as the Nazis." The Professor's eyes went buggy and he (literally) screamed at me to shut up.
Funny, he never flinched when students would call George Bush a Nazi. (ht: Charles Johnson)
Posted by: Rusty at
03:54 PM
| Comments (61)
| Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I have several relatives that are full Prof (including one dept Chm) at big name U's in Cal. They went through the inverviewing process professing no love of America. One of them even after many years keeps his patriotic feelings to himself on campus or at staff parties. My sister (his wife) sometimes gives some party goers what for when they bad mouth America which causes a great deal of embarassment for my brother-in-law. The others are also tenured and feel a little more comfortabel to stand up for America, but in a diplomatic way. But they all are sure they would never have been hired if they had expressed their patriotic feelings at the start.
The point of the above is that universities have for at least 50 years screened out patriotic Americans from their faculties; even though like Rathergate they deny bias.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 27, 2005 04:45 PM (IcheV)
2
I came to this site just now and I intend never to return again. Wanna know why? Because the holocaust DID happen, and 6 million WERE MURDERED. My people. You'll never understand. Read the stories, hear the survivors, see the pictures of naked women being shot and babies thrown onto electrified wires, and then dare to say the Holocaust is hyped. You're sick. Whole towns were wiped out, thriving Jewish life knocked out, lawyers, doctors, scholars, peasants, everyone. The Nazis didnt discriminate. religious or not, young or old, powerful or poor-you're a gonner. On average 3000 Jews died every day.
The Nazis has special squads, einsztrguppen or something like that, whose specific task was to go around countries and just mass murder Jews. The locals willingly assisted. They lined up a few hundred, made them dig their own graves, then just shot them all. THERE WERE CRACK SS SQUADS WHOSE SOLE JOBS WERE TO KILL JEWS. Originally, the Nazis has mobile truck gas chambers. However, it wasnt "efficient" enough for the perfectionist Nazis, as it only killed a few at a time. So they built permanent gas chamber structures. 6-7 just at auschwitz. Upon arrival, Jews were told they were having showers and they were all forced to go naked. Then they were taken to the gas chambers, who had spouts to make it look like showers, locked in and poisonous gas released. Hundreds died in minutes. Then they were taken by the ******** Nazis to the crematoriums, where their bodies were burned, and the smoke from these places of death was seen for miles while the horrific stench of death was everywhere. the Nazis had no mercy. It is said that Auscwitz is an evil place, that no birds or any living things fly over there. There is a profound silence. There are many amazing stories of the Holocaust, miracles etc. Howver the horrific suffering of that 6 million will not go unpunished. G-d will certainly exact 1000 times vengeance for their spilled blood. Just think for a minute, 6 million men women and children, of whom there were more than 1.5m killed, wher murdered for NO CRIME EXCEPT BEING BORN JEWISH. I have seen identity papers of 1 year old babies, who were killed by these devils. I recommend that for you to mend your ways and appreciate the devastation and sheer scale, you take a visit to Aushwitz-see the hell on earth for yourself, the whole chambers piled high with human hair, extracted gold teeth, peoples single suitcases. You will be sorry you ever made your sick comments.thank You
Posted by: me at January 27, 2005 05:23 PM (Ak8mQ)
3
hey, Me, maybe you ought to take a zanax and read the post again.
Posted by: Mr. K at January 27, 2005 05:26 PM (2ym4b)
4
I stand corrected, in my foolish haste, I acted irrationly and did not read the article fully. please accept my apologies. However, what I wrote should definately be told to those Muslim students.
Posted by: me at January 27, 2005 05:30 PM (Ak8mQ)
5
well now that you have calmed down, read this, more on one of my favorite subject: weenie ass eunuch college professor dingle shits who really should get the fuck out of this country:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=980
Posted by: Mr. K at January 27, 2005 05:36 PM (2ym4b)
6
Nice blog you have-mine is http://spaces.msn.com/members/onews
Posted by: me at January 27, 2005 05:43 PM (Ak8mQ)
7
I can't for the life of me, understand how all that shit went on, and our leaders chose to ignore it, or as they've said, didn't know it was happening!!!!!!!
What the terrorists are doing today is NOTHING compared to what went on at Auschwitz, not that it is any less gruesome, just smaller scale, in that they are not killing masses, thank God.
Did anyone ever try to assasinate Hitler? I mean, come on, did his peons really think that what they were doing was right?
"I just followed orders" my ass.
Posted by: Laura at January 27, 2005 05:49 PM (ptOpl)
8
yes, laura, some of the officers in the german military did try to nail Hitler. I believe Erwin Rommel, one of the best of his generals, was implicated in the plot and killed himself.
Posted by: Mr. K at January 27, 2005 05:51 PM (ms+b/)
9
hey, Me, your blog has that cool photo thingy...is that free? I have been wanting to post some pics on my blog...but that reminded me of this site, which my nephew, who it looks like is heading into the Navy, sent me:
http://www.grouchymedia.com/index.cfm
Posted by: Mr. K at January 27, 2005 05:55 PM (ms+b/)
10
They didn't try hard enough!
Posted by: Laura at January 27, 2005 05:58 PM (ptOpl)
11
Sure! The pictures are free for all to take. My site is http://spaces.msn.com/members/onews .
ps. 100% true Laura
Mr K, Rommel may have tried to assasinate Hitler, but that doesnt make him good. He did it because he knew they would lose the war. I'm sure he was up there with the rest of them in sheer evilness.
Posted by: Me at January 27, 2005 05:58 PM (Ak8mQ)
12
Me: don't be so sure. There was a big difference between regular wermacht and ss...regardless, there is a strong parallel between the anti-semitism of the Nazis and that of the Arab world.
In my own over-simplified view, a delusional arab invented a religion and chased most of the jews out of palestine. Many of these ended up in Europe. After the German beating in WWI, many in Germany blamed a jew conspiracy for the defeat...add to this that Britain had acquired Palestine from the Turks in that same war...and also had envisioned the zionist movement, so now there was a possibility to create a jewish homeland...then Hitler came along with his hideous agenda and more jews flooded into palestine...and now here we are...the propaganda from the arab world is very much like that used by Hitler.
Posted by: Mr. K at January 27, 2005 06:11 PM (YYTA7)
13
Kudos to "ME" for stepping up like a man and admitting he was wrong, above, we need for folks with that attitude :-)
Posted by: Lucius Severus Pertinax at January 27, 2005 08:50 PM (grMvH)
14
'The Professor's eyes went buggy and he (literally) screamed at me to shut up.' OK, and THEN what happened? This could be a good story!
AND, who is this guy? What is his name? It would be interesting to Google his ass and see what other academic enormities he has committed!
Posted by: Lucius Severus Pertinax at January 27, 2005 09:08 PM (grMvH)
15
Lucius,
Since I blog anonymously, that wouldn't exactly be in my own self-interest. What happened next was I shut up. He was the Prof, after all, and I was the TA.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at January 27, 2005 09:35 PM (JQjhA)
16
ah! I see! ~( 8(o) DOH!
Posted by: Lucius Severus Pertinax at January 27, 2005 10:03 PM (grMvH)
17
3 cheers for ME:
Posted by: greyrooster at January 28, 2005 06:53 AM (To5gU)
18
I am a really good liar. And I don't really care about what I lie about... I am really a modern day Obi Wan Kenobi or something. But I think what it would take to create a "holohoax," and I can say that no matter how much the International Joooo Banking Conspiracy controls us, pulling off a lie of this magnitude would be pretty damn impossible. And that is why I believe the Holocaust did occur.
Well, that and the Wansee Conference. And, like, the photos of the American liberation and stuff. Oh yeah, and the people that disappeared.
Now that I think about it, you have to be a pretty big dipshit not to jump on this bandwagon. I guess the cool kids aren't in the Muslim Student Union.
Posted by: Wine-aholic at January 28, 2005 09:08 AM (Wsn+K)
19
Hey anyone see "Dirty War" on HBO last night? Pretty intriguing and scary story about London getting hit by suicide bombers in a van, then radiation spreads throughout the town.
I didn't like the ending...it just kinda ended, with no solution.
Posted by: Laura at January 28, 2005 09:10 AM (ptOpl)
20
Laura and all else,
This is a different war than World War II and Hitler. This one is under constant scrutiny not only by us but by the media, especially the embedded media (although they don't make me very happy either)but back then, it wasn't that simple. By the time other Europeans knew something, it was by letter. Not today. The internet has changed that and if we had embedded media and the internet during that horrible war with it's horrible, sickening, heartbreaking acts, it may not have happened at all but we can't compare the two; there's a world of diffferences between them.
As for professors and whatnot hiding their American love, they should not be hired for any reason. You can still teach and show both sides but that does not mean you give up your love for your own country and any college, grad school, whatever that practices such bias should not even exist in our society today - for it's all WRONG. This kind of shit makes me sick to my stomach. Maybe we should start boycotting our own colleges that practice this kind of bias.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 28, 2005 10:48 AM (D39Vm)
21
I like ol' "me". He/she get's pretty darn intense.
Posted by: EC at January 28, 2005 11:22 AM (yYGP5)
22
But seriously. Of course the holocaust happened, but modern Jews see little to no reprocussions from it. They have taken something that was a tragedy and turned it into their own gain. Nobody say anything about the Jews because there was a holocaust. So what. They probably gouged prices when they found out that their brothers were fleeing the holocaust. That is their attitude. Poor, poor us. Sudan doesn't matter to Jews because it means the holocaust wasn't a singular tragedy for them to raise hell about. It is stupid to blame the Jews for everything, but they do take the holocaust too far and complain about it too much.
Posted by: Johnny at January 28, 2005 12:02 PM (cp2CN)
23
"but they do take the holocaust too far and complain about it too much."
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? An organized attempt to exterminate their religion, and you're criticizing them for "complaining about it too much?" You must think the war on terror is completely overblown since "only a few thousand" died on 9/11.
Posted by: Venom at January 28, 2005 12:08 PM (dbxVM)
24
9/11 was less than 4 years ago; the holocaust was 50. We still feel the effects of it: gas prices, economy, etc. They do not. At some point you just need to shed the victims mentality. We know it happened and don't need to be reminded of it every five minutes when there are things going on present day just as bad that we still have a chance to rectify. Just shut up about it. It was 50 years ago. You are not personally effected. Nobody can do anything about it now. Just stop complaining and deal with current problems.
Posted by: Johnny at January 28, 2005 12:33 PM (cp2CN)
25
Commemorating it is not really "complaining" about it. Now, I'm not Jewish, and I bet you aren't either. So, maybe we're not the right people to comment on it. But, I can tell you that Jewish people view the Holocaust as much a part of their religious identity as the Exodus and Hanukah. I don't see remembering it as being all that detrimental to either your life or mine.
By the way, the Holocaust was 60-65 years ago.
Posted by: Venom at January 28, 2005 12:40 PM (dbxVM)
26
WTF are you on about, Johnny? Do you think we like to hear the blacks complain about slavery even though THAT happened WAY before the holocaust???? Big fucking difference. When MLK started his speeeches, the blacks rioted all over the big cities, like NYC, Chicago, Watts, LA, etc. They wanted their civil rights but they sure didn't go about it civilly. Many of my friends' parents got their heads bashed in by angry blacks rioting in the downtown streets of NYC's finest department stores. It was a mess.
Blame, blame, blame for what our forefathers did to them 200 years ago....want handouts because they were so violated.
Now, the Holocaust is NOT to be compared to the race riots! People were slain only for the fact that they were JEWS and nothing else! They probably would have loved to have been a slave, then suffer the atrocities they got at Auschwitz!!
I don't see any Jews rioting in the streets saying they were wronged, do you? So, they show a few documentaries about it every now and then. So what? Why does mentioning that it happened bother you? Besides, they are memorializing those that suffered as it's the 60th anniversary of the closing of the camps. Why can't they have a remembrance? No one should ever forget what happened and I don't give a shit how many times they bring it up!
Unless you're German, of course, and feel a twinge of guilt, perhaps?
Posted by: Laura at January 28, 2005 03:07 PM (ptOpl)
27
Blacks are still sufferring for wrongs committed during slavery and segregation. A quick look at the education and poverty gaps will tell you that. They still have many reasons to carry on. Jews don't. There are few who still suffer the reprocussions of the holocaust. The holocaust has become an excuse to extort aid and sympathy from the rest of the world. How many billions of dollars have we spent helping them hold Israel? How many lives are lost because of the anti-Americanism developed through mindless devotion to an Israel we installed because we felt bad because of the holocaust. Not that that is the fault of the Jews, but it is an effect of our sympathy. After we give them land that is not theirs, protect them in every way, they still complain. The holocaust is not their fault, but what has happened to us recently is a product of their clever manipulation of the western world through means of a guilt complex over the holocaust. I mean, if you have the opportunity to get what you want from someone easily, with no cost to yourself, why not? They are playing us to the tune of the holocaust.
Posted by: Johnny at January 28, 2005 03:37 PM (cp2CN)
28
I don't think that we're friendly towards Israel out of guilt--we DO share certain core beliefs with them, as Christianity, for Christians, is the fruition of the Jewish faith.
Anyway, anyone that Bin Laden and company hate can't be that bad.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at January 28, 2005 03:59 PM (x+5JB)
29
With the help of the NAACP, EEOC and affirmative action clauses, I'd say the pendulum has swung the OTHER WAY and is staying there! The blacks have no excuse not to better themselves. Over 80% of black children come from a single parent household, mostly single mothers. They keep having babies and getting more Food Stamps and welfare benefits.
With the EOE policies at big corporations, I'd say the odds are in their favor at getting the job solely on their color, rather than qualifications.
Case in point: my brother was refused admission to college because they found out he was Italian and not hispanic! My maiden name is a common name for both Italians and hispanics with one consonant being repeated for the Italian spelling, yet many mistook us for hispanics, and we were given more attention because companies and schools thought we were the minority!
Another situation: A doctor I once went to had an attorney friend who was afraid of firing a black employee, because she said if she was ever laid off, she'd pull the race card! So, it's cheaper for the lawyer to keep paying her 20,000 salary than risk a big lawsuit.
Ridiculous, isn't it? I'd say they got us hands down these days. WE are the minority now.
Posted by: Laura at January 28, 2005 04:51 PM (ptOpl)
30
Since someone brought up blacks and slavery, lets all take some time to remember that a bunch of pansy assed Brits in powdered wigs did not rush into the wilds of Africa and round up slaves for sale on the market.
Many of the slave hunters/wholesalers were arab muslims, or black muslims. And the tradition of slavery in the muslim world continues to this day...which gives me the opporunity to say, Louis Farakhan is a complete fucking asshole, may his head explode some day soon.
Posted by: Mr. K at January 28, 2005 05:22 PM (zun7D)
31
And I hope it explodes while it's inside Jesse Jackson's ass!
Posted by: Laura at January 28, 2005 06:37 PM (ptOpl)
32
So, Laura, you're saying that you would rather be black and overcome poverty, dangerous streets, and absent parents than try to get a job as a majority member of society?
I think not.
Posted by: Johnny at January 28, 2005 06:55 PM (dz1ur)
33
Johnny, your antiSemitism really belongs somewhere else. Like a Klan meeting. Or are you already there?
Six million dead - Please tell me how you can pull off a hoax to tune of 6 million deaths. Not to mention the gays, gypsies, handicapped, and others that were all slaughtered. Please, since you know so much, tell us how someone could have pulled this off? You can't. So why don't you take the time you've been using to spew hate and falsehoods and visit the National Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. or read a book like Elie Wiesel's "Night." Or watch the freaking History Channel. Go get informed.
Or keep being an ass. Whatever. Lucky you, you live in a time and a place where you get that choice.
Posted by: Maureen at January 28, 2005 08:46 PM (ny5O/)
34
You are right Johnny, you think not at all...you simply ejaculate idiotic drivel
Posted by: Mr. K at January 29, 2005 07:19 AM (3KZB/)
35
Obviously, Maureen, you do not understand what I say. go back and actually read the posts instead of just the first line.
Posted by: Johnny at January 29, 2005 11:02 PM (RUHY2)
36
If I'm held responsible for slavery, I want one. Why should I pay for something my great, great, great granddaddy did? I didn't know him and he didn't leave me shit.
The holocaust was real. I'm convinced of that. The Romans destroyed Carthage. The huns and mongels destroyed entire populations, often killing every man, women and child in a city. Do Italians, Mongols, Hungarian, Germans need to be reminded everyday? How long before it is put to rest?
Does it help anything? My own Nordic ancestors slaughtered many different people. Am I responsible? I don't think so. Unless it's in a good movie, like the Vikings, I don't want to hear it. It's over with. Let it die.
The Germans had their nation destroyed because of their behavior. Something tells me they are not proud of it. The question should be, does constantly reminding the German people create good will or bad will? Germany has a way of making tremendous comebacks. They are once again a world power. Wonder what young Germans today think? Would they not back us in a war in Iraq due to an underlying reason like Israel? Don't know, don't care but I did sell my German car.
To JOHNNY: Please learn that if you say what you feel about anyone except a white man, you are automatically branded a racist. We have liberal, small minded, academic nerds that have been educated in closets. They have been conditioned to attacking anyone who doesn't have their ridiculous agenda. Their agenda is to drop their britches and bend over to everyone who isn't a white Anglo/Saxon type. I believe Venom's domestic partner is a black raghead.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 30, 2005 08:47 AM (gvOyZ)
37
JOHNNY: By the way. I'm not saying I completely agree with you. You have the right to think and write as you please. It's the AMERICAN way. My point is telling it like it is, whether the true or not, will bring attacks on your intelligence. Some of our bloggers here are Jewish. They are extremely protective. For good reason I might add.
I would like to add that yes America has suffered due to Israel. Americans have been killed because of our association with Israel. We have spent hundreds of billions of our dollars as a direct result of our association with Israel. Many nations and peoples hate us because of our association with Israel.
The question is ARE WE DOING THE RIGHT THING. Standing by and letting millions of people be slaughtered again is not my way. Yours either I would guess.
However, you have spoken. You will now be accused of Racism and genocide. Welcome to the club. Liberal nutso's beware. Our club is growing and you're the reason.
Got to go now. Have to cut wood for tonights bombfire. We've made an effigy of VENOM bent over with a camel humping him. Going to set it afire after the dogs piss on it. Hey Ma, where's my sheet?
Posted by: greyrooster at January 30, 2005 09:28 AM (gvOyZ)
38
Greyrooster:
Please tell me, did our Nordic ancestors also set up mass production factories specifically to eliminate one ethnic group, and others that did not meet our criteria for the perfect race? Did the huns and the mongols also set up these sorts of facilities?
Did these same groups also conduct a wide variety of cruel experiments on living human beings?
The reason I think we need to never forget the holocaust is that while it was ongoing, and the Germans were gearing up for it, the rest of the world that could do a damn thing about it was in denial. As a result, many, many millions were killed not only in the concentration camps but also in World War 2. Remember Neville Chamberlain, "Peace in our time" he said, then the Nazis rolled through Poland.
You remember things like the holocaust in the hopes that history won't repeat itself, not to stick someone's nose in it for eternity.
Those who were in denial are essentially the same groups who proclaim the US is an evil empire because it is almost single handedly combating the same sort of hatred, only this time the banner is carried by Islamofascists instead of Nazis.
Posted by: Mr. K at January 30, 2005 12:52 PM (gwxfq)
39
MR K: While I agree with much/most of what you say. I still believe constantly rehashing the issue doesn't make allies for Israel. Islamics hate Jews every bit as much as the Nazis ever did. The difference, the Jews can kick the muslim's asses. As you say, the world sat by then and they are sitting by now. Proof in itself that reminding people/nations of past horrors doesn't have the needed reaction.
No Mr. K, I'm proud to say our ancestors only wanted the women and the money. Ah, for the good ole days.
For the record, Thor could whip mohammeds ass any day.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 30, 2005 04:25 PM (gvOyZ)
40
No, rehashing the holocaust doesn't create allies for the Jews, but neither does it solve this problem elsewhere in the world. Jews should be the first ones in the Sudan, where, not only is a holocaust-like problem going on, but it is being performed by the hated Arabs. Instead, they look and say, "The holocaust was much worse," and go about their business. Basically, they either need to drop the subject or back their words up by actions in other parts of the world.
Posted by: Johnny at January 30, 2005 04:50 PM (RUHY2)
41
well, we agree on one thing...maybe its a deep rooted genetic yearning...yes, the good ole days!
Posted by: Mr. K at January 30, 2005 04:52 PM (b1Q+0)
42
I'm fixing to go beserk any minute. Any muslims in the neighborhood.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 30, 2005 05:31 PM (gvOyZ)
43
Come on JOHNNY: How can Israel send troops across Africa? They need every soldier they can muster just to exist. They're surrounded by enemy countries. How can they take on more?
I mean they can and have kicked the shit out of the muslims but numbers do count.
Hey! I just thought of something. Shit, when I went to high school none of the Jewish guys could fight. I mean these little shits were easy. Couldn't play basketball, football or win the big fight after the football game. WHAT DOES THAT SAY FOR THE muslims?
Posted by: greyrooster at January 30, 2005 05:42 PM (gvOyZ)
44
Mr. Greyrooster you are right. Israel has its hands full, but there are Jews everywhere in other parts of the world. They control the major movie studios, Harvey Weinstein, Jefferey Katzenburg, etc. They are prominent actors, Adam Sandler, William Shatner, etc. And politicians, Joe Liebermann. They have the power to publicize racial and religious atrocities in the world and pressure other governments to take action. As brother of victims of the holocaust they should feel a particular empathy for people being wronged in that manner. Yet mention Sudan and they invariably say it is nothing compared to the holocaust and dismiss it offhand. They inevitably make it all about them when they could and should use the fact that it was once about them to make the world see that it is now happenning to others.
Posted by: Johnny at January 30, 2005 09:30 PM (RUHY2)
45
JOHNNY: Power to pressure other governments? Shit the United States couldn't do it. How would a few wealthy Jews come out?
We will agree to disagree on the Sudan thing. Personally I don't think the US should be there either. There is no present or near future threat to us. If we solve their internal difficulties, there will be more of them to hate us in the future. Feed em. Save em. Cure em. Then they multiply and theres more to hate us. Damn the truth hurts!! Worst of all they will want to come here so we can again, feed em, save em, cure em. Then they multiply on our welfare and vote to give em more. Ouch! I guess I get called a racist again. You know, Sudan is Black. If I were talking about a flood of Russians or Irish I wouldn't be racist. If we get involved it will be for one reason only. Islam.
One issue I would like address is Israel not having a part in Iraq. They have much more knowledge in handling terrorist shitheads. We could have used that experience. Additionally, why do they get a free ride when much of the hatred toward us is caused by our siding with them.
Mildly disturbing to me that you feel that the Jewish Americans are different than the rest of Americans. My race is not my country. I am Norweigan/Swedish by race. My loyalties are 100% American. All the people you mentioned are American. Do you feel they are different? Excluding Hasidics (they dress funny)and may be more Jewish than American. I don't know. Only one I ever met was the one that owns the stationary store on lower Broad Street in Manhattan. Dressed in black with jerry curls and a little masonic looking apron. Why should they be concerned about an Arab/black thing thats really none of their business. Let the do nothing assholes at the UN address the issue. That's what they are paid to do. That is if there's any money left after Kofi the clown mis- appropriates the majority of funds.
Have a good day. I am happy today. The elections in Iraq were a big defeat for the Islamofacists. If Kerry had been elected the election would have never taken place.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 31, 2005 06:41 AM (vehol)
46
Yep, I'm happy too. But of course, the liberal media would have everyone believe otherwise. Whenever anything good happens, they always skip this on the reporting. The civilians are dancing in the streets and one lady said it was the most memorable day in history, besides the day we got Saddam.
But, the lib's will STILL keep chanting, "it was Bush's illegal invasion".
Yeah right, and let Saddam remain in power and kill hundreds of thousands more than WE ever have or ever will.
Posted by: Laura at January 31, 2005 04:20 PM (ptOpl)
47
Watch the news today and MSN was interviewing a young Egyptian on the election in Iraq. He said the election was good and would without a doubt be the start of great things for the Arab world. Sadam was bad and it's good that he was removed. However. he didn't like the way Sadam was removed.
I've spent time thinking of this. Was there another way to remove Sadam? I wonder how this young Egyptian planned to do it. Assassination? More of a muslim thing. Keep bombing until we get lucky and get him? What was another way.
He was massing billions from the food for oil program. He had underground bunkers that went for miles. Weapons were pouring into the country from all sides. He had a terror organization to control the Iraqi people. He was the only candidate during elections. He had a mad dog muslim sect(Sunnies)100% on this team.
I believe the young Egyptian just didn't want to face the truth and give America/Bush any credit. How do you get through to a closed mind? I guess time is the answer. They have been raised on hate America, hate Bush, hate Christians, hate Israel propaganda so long they cannot muster the mental capabilities to question their reasoning. I thought this was exclusively a liberal democrat thing. You know, anything republican is bad when reality shows the other way around.
Posted by: greyrooster at February 01, 2005 11:26 AM (XC1Qx)
48
I wonder why this is so? You watch CNN and get one perspective, usually lib-slanted, then you watch FOX and get another. Seems the media is divided...you are either one or the other. CNN never shows any "good" that is happening over in Iraq. Why are they so quick to cut us down?
And why are these countries taught to hate us? What the hell did we ever do to them?
Posted by: Laura at February 01, 2005 12:18 PM (ptOpl)
49
I think this liberal, America is bad crept into our educational institutions in the 60's. They were taught just as Islamofacists are taught. Rebellion against anyone over 40 who didn't have a pony tail. Now those same students are in positions of power in the media.
Also in our educational institutions. That is, certain public supported institutions. Others still turn out leaders in business, technology, etc. You don't hear from these successful business types. They are too busy being productive. 95% of these leaders are republican.
Posted by: greyrooster at February 02, 2005 12:05 AM (D+Kmg)
50
I agree with this. Suddenly, in the 60's, there were demonstrations on campuses galore--some no doubt fueled by drugs. Egalitarianism and a lack of respect for authority was, and in many ways, continues to be the order of the day. It has since trickled down to grade-school children
And we wonder why little kids today have no fear to talk back to their elders/teachers/parents.
O tempora! O mores!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at February 02, 2005 07:27 AM (x+5JB)
51
I'm ashamed to say that it may be a product of our own liberal society. I have two close friends that were born in other countries. One a Cuban who came to Miami. His son is now a Doctor in Miami. My friend owns a large boat building company. Is very successful. Why boats? His answer. If you ever crossed the Gulf on a intertube you would understand. His son and daughters were (still are) to most respectful kids you can imagine.
My other friend lives in Millbrae, Calif. A Greek immigrant who arrived here with $80.00 in his pocket. Again his son is a college grad in Real Estate. Best mannered young man you could dream of. It's yes sir, no sir all the way to his $90,000 Car. My friend Angelo owns blocks of apartments from South San Francisco to San Mateo, Calif. I could not guess his value.
My point is, it seems like they did a better job of raising their kids. Don't really know why. I think instilling respect at a very early age. Also teaching them the value of money.
This also leads me to TERRIBLE ECONOMY shouted by the democratic nutsos. If the economy was so terrible how did they gain the American dream so quick? I guess the economy is only bad for those without the will to pay the price for success.
Posted by: greyrooster at February 02, 2005 11:32 AM (GpysX)
52
Yes--I love this country, but we can certainly all learn from some of the "Old World" attitudes about respect for tradition, elders, authority, etc., sadly lacking in many of today's people. Paradoxically, we as a country can be very puritanical (say, on public smoking) AND liberal (like on abortion) at the same time. The same for Europeans, but perhaps in DIFFERENT ways on some things.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at February 02, 2005 11:54 AM (x+5JB)
53
YBP you hit the Nail on the head. We need to go back to "old school" ways. This BS going on now, if you hit your kid in public, they can report you to CPS. Tell that to my now departed Dad, who'd slap us silly if we misbehaved. Take one of his hard slaps, and you straightened up pretty quick.
Used to be if I got in trouble at school, I'd be shit scared to report it at home. Yet today, the teachers can't do SHIT or the kids will go home, tell their parents, and the parents will come to their rescue and tell the school off.
A little smacking around never hurt nobody. Sure kept us in line in my day.
Posted by: Laura at February 02, 2005 04:44 PM (ptOpl)
54
Absolutely, Laura. All many kids talk about these days are their "rights," even if it means the right to elicit help in trying to kill a teacher on their web-site. (True story! Even the kid's parents claimed it was a freedom of speech issue. I cannot think of the story without remebering the last line from Bridge on the River Kwai--"Madness!")
My dad was known for his heavy hand as well--he didn't abuse us, but we surely knew right from wrong.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at February 02, 2005 04:51 PM (VPJmC)
55
I've raised 5 kids. 3 of my own and 2 I just picked up at the start of their highschool years. No need to go into the reasons why. My families gain, their parents loss.
I must confess I never hit any while they were growing up. Never needed to. I did strike my son when he was 19. Hell I beat the shit out of him. He crossed the line and the shock of my attack brought him back to reality. Two black eyes, no car keys and no money for a few months will make one think. He then went on to graduate from college with a better than fair GPA. He is now a serving officer in the Marine Corps. He led his company into Fallujah. I was proud and scared at the same time. He has extended his tour. His reasoning. Doesn't wish to abandon his men.
Never spanked my kids. But would have. They knew it. Probably why I never had to. I've also never had a problem with them. Knock on wood. They were/are a pleasure to be with. 3 years ago I was in the hospital for 4 months. They drove 100 round trip every day to see me.
Unbelieveable huh. The girls even dragged their boyfriends with them.
My kids are my greatest success. No credit to wife of 30 years. Did it all by myself. Ha
Posted by: greyrooster at February 02, 2005 05:29 PM (GpysX)
56
The pendulum has definitely swung the other way with all this "free speech" crapola! Call someone a "nigger" and you're a racist, but let a black go off about the whites, and it's "free speech"...funny, how the term means different things depending on which side of the mouth you're shooting from!
Like that asshole father in CA...wants to get the "under God" out of the Pledge...he has the "right" because it's freedom of speech....well, doesn't the other side have the right for it to remain in the Pledge? Worked ok since 1954, now all of a sudden, this jackass thinks it's not right?
Gay marriage thing too...all of a sudden, everyone wants to be legally married AND gay...I have no problem if that's the way you play, and I do feel that they should have the same rights as married people, such as power of attorney, medical issues, next of kin making decisions in the hospital, etc., give them the rights, but don't actually "marry" them. Marriage is, was, always should be between a man and a woman. Let them live together and give them the same rights.
We need to go back to the 40s and 50s morals again. Hell, even the turbulent 60s were no match for this day and age. I sure wouldn't want to be dating age again, what with HIV going around. In my day, you were afraid to get pregnant, now the kids are afraid to DIE.
Equal opportunity and affirmative action are a bunch of shit too. Now, we're the minority! I say if they have the QUALIFICATIONS and/or INTELLIGENCE, give them the job or admittance to college based on THAT AND THAT ONLY, not this "well, we need so many blacks, so many hispanics, let's give them a chance" shit.
Posted by: Laura at February 05, 2005 06:01 PM (ptOpl)
57
Johnny, u r completely full of shit. Ever herd of "lest we forget?"
The jews are not complaining about it, and they are not trying to change it.
Do u really think that they belive that they can do something about what happened???
You are sitting here preaching about dealing with current problems, and that is excactly what they are doing. They are trying to prevent this from happening again, even on a smaller scale.
Making sure that people haven't died in vain. That good doesn't ALWAYS conquer evil.
You could learn a thing or two.
And Laura, jesus christ u r soooo upset about the jews who were murdered and u are acting just as rascist as the germans were.
Do u think this is what your people would have wanted to hear come out of your mouth???
"Black's" were not only being kept as slaves but they were being dragged along the street tied to the backs of cars and being scraped to death buy the roads. Stoned, skined alive.
quote, "They probably would have loved to have been a slave, then suffer the atrocities they got at Auschwitz!!"
yeah, and the "black's" probobly would have rather been gased than beaten and made to follow orderes.
I know I would.
I knew the americans were ignorant but damn....
Posted by: ash at February 13, 2005 04:17 AM (qLHzL)
58
Johnny, u r completely full of shit. Ever herd of "lest we forget?"
The jews are not complaining about it, and they are not trying to change it.
Do u really think that they belive that they can do something about what happened???
You are sitting here preaching about dealing with current problems, and that is excactly what they are doing. They are trying to prevent this from happening again, even on a smaller scale.
Making sure that people haven't died in vain. That good doesn't ALWAYS conquer evil.
You could learn a thing or two.
And Laura, jesus christ u r soooo upset about the jews who were murdered and u are acting just as rascist as the germans were.
Do u think this is what your people would have wanted to hear come out of your mouth???
"Black's" were not only being kept as slaves but they were being dragged along the street tied to the backs of cars and being scraped to death buy the roads. Stoned, skined alive.
quote, "They probably would have loved to have been a slave, then suffer the atrocities they got at Auschwitz!!"
yeah, and the "black's" probobly would have rather been gased than beaten and made to follow orderes.
I know I would.
I knew the americans were ignorant but damn....
Posted by: ash at February 13, 2005 04:18 AM (qLHzL)
59
Johnny, u r completely full of shit. Ever herd of "lest we forget?"
The jews are not complaining about it, and they are not trying to change it.
Do u really think that they belive that they can do something about what happened???
You are sitting here preaching about dealing with current problems, and that is excactly what they are doing. They are trying to prevent this from happening again, even on a smaller scale.
Making sure that people haven't died in vain. That good doesn't ALWAYS conquer evil.
You could learn a thing or two.
And Laura, jesus christ u r soooo upset about the jews who were murdered and u are acting just as rascist as the germans were.
Do u think this is what your people would have wanted to hear come out of your mouth???
"Black's" were not only being kept as slaves but they were being dragged along the street tied to the backs of cars and being scraped to death buy the roads. Stoned, skined alive.
quote, "They probably would have loved to have been a slave, then suffer the atrocities they got at Auschwitz!!"
yeah, and the "black's" probobly would have rather been gased than beaten and made to follow orderes.
I know I would.
I knew the americans were ignorant but damn....
Posted by: ash at February 13, 2005 04:18 AM (qLHzL)
60
sorry, computer stuffed up
Posted by: ash at February 13, 2005 04:20 AM (qLHzL)
61
Iam so fucking pissed at these people. Wtf are u ppl talking about. Like common the Jews are killing the palestinians, THOUSANDS of them die everyday. And u ppl are still complaining about 9/11? The Americans are also killing up the Iraqis and ive seen sick magazines of them stripping them and playing with their balls, those sick faggots. Everytime one american dies everybody goes hyper and man, but then howcome none gets angry and upset when a palestinian or Iraqian is killed???
Posted by: Anwar at April 06, 2005 06:32 PM (lXf//)
Islamic Comic Books
Look, up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Supermuhammed!!!
John at Crossroads of Arabia blogs on this Arab News article:
Muslim children from the Gulf states, the UK and Australia now have something new to look forward to: An English-language comic book for kids, described as the first of its kind in the Arab world...Can someone tell me why countries with religious freedom allow the totalitarian state of Saudi Arabia to proselytize in them? Isn't it about time to tell the Saudis to take their money used to build Islam in the US and shove it until they allow full religious freedom at home?“The aim of this Saudi-Swedish educational project is to wean Muslim children away from satellite TV and expose them to Islamic views,” Al-Hajji told Arab News.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:11 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's been time to tell the Saudis to go to hell for a couple of decades now.
Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at January 27, 2005 09:44 AM (WsZ4F)
2
We can't ... correction the administration can't ... because the king personally told our administration that they are our friends and our government believes it ... are you blind ... the government thinks its okay! You must be un-American to believe anything the government doesnt!
Posted by: Salamander at January 27, 2005 09:59 AM (V40IZ)
3
Maybe countries with religious freedom allow Saudi Arabia to proseletyze because they've got religious freedom?
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and shouldn't be subject conditions based on who's paying for it.
Besides, I'm guessing these will be like Islamic Jack Chic tracts. I'd love to get my hands on one.
Posted by: Eric at January 27, 2005 10:07 AM (hrQvk)
4
I look forward to altering the dialogue and text on these things.
Posted by: Laurence Simon at January 27, 2005 10:27 AM (uBCxH)
5
Freedom of religion of one thing, but that is an INTERNAL matter. If a nation-state means anything than controlling its borders must be an inherent attribute. If that is the case, than a free society can control the influx of money from outside the country.
Restricting the transfer of Saudi money to the US to support religion is not a restriction on freedom of religion in the legal sense. If Muslim societies wish to support Islam within our country, more power to them. But the transfer of money from one country to another is a PRIVELEGE dictated by law and not a RIGHT. If they wish to retain this privelege I submit that they ought to offer that priveledge to us as well.
If not, then the relationship is inequitable and ought to be altered.
If the s
Posted by: Rusty at January 27, 2005 10:59 AM (JQjhA)
6
Should we also block the .sa domain?
Posted by: Eric at January 27, 2005 01:41 PM (hrQvk)
7
How about we let those kids read this comic book:
http://davidsonpress.com/islam/
Just an idea. 
Posted by: mike at January 27, 2005 07:38 PM (a8b5N)
8
Ha!!
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at January 27, 2005 09:36 PM (JQjhA)
9
I'll say it and even use it as a platform but you just did it yourself. I would not trust a Saudi for anything in this world and I sure would love to see others follow in that same path.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 28, 2005 06:57 AM (D39Vm)
10
I think it's great. The more Islamic children are exposed to Islamic views the more backward they become. Which in turn means less competition for followers of civilized, modern religions. Better yet, for those who chose not to practice religlion.
That way, the west and progressive countries in Asia can continue to get rich selling them our TV's, cars, cell phones, etc.
I think getting Islamic children away from TV's is a good idea. They learn to much watching TV. Sitting in the sand, reading comic books is better.
What happens when they run out of oil to sell?
Do we feed them? Do they return to herding camels in the desert? Makes you wonder.
Personally, I liked them better when they ran around the desert killing each other. Beating slaves & women and cooking grasshoppers on camel dung fires. Just seems more Islamic. A natural way for them to be. Maybe, Islamic comic books will help them return to the good ole days. When women were women and camels were camels and the men knew the difference.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 28, 2005 07:20 AM (To5gU)
11
Why do they need more fictional literature based upon fantasy? They already have the Koran.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at January 28, 2005 10:45 AM (x+5JB)
12
NOW THAT WAS GOOD!!!!!
Posted by: greyrooster at January 30, 2005 10:57 AM (gvOyZ)
13
Greyrooster--I'm STILL waiting for a barrage of criticism from the liberals for my comment!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at January 31, 2005 06:03 PM (4q4yV)
14
Due to my warning, they apparently decided better. Then again, that is exactly what I wished. Sneaky huh.
Posted by: greyrooster at February 01, 2005 03:11 AM (DSbhO)
15
I THANK you, sir!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at February 01, 2005 06:59 AM (x+5JB)
16
PRESTON TAYLOR HOLMES: That's impressive. I can't help but think a name like that belongs on a book cover. You know, one of those big brown ones with the gold lettering. Any the wife likes the Taylor part. Her maiden name.
Posted by: greyrooster at February 04, 2005 07:36 PM (JHIKU)
17
Way, way, way, way. Spell check first dummy.
Posted by: greyrooster at February 04, 2005 07:38 PM (JHIKU)
18
The name's even better than "Robert E. Lee Priutt" in Jones' From Here to Eternity."
Greyrooster: Did you hear about the vadalism to several of the War between the States monuments at Gettysburg? Some sick nut has lopped off the swords of several statues--blue AND grey, I believe.
He/she/it should be shot for defiling these monuments.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at February 05, 2005 07:52 AM (ALptw)
19
I'm a Muslim comic book artist. All I got to say is... LOL
But I got to add that the Saudi Royal family are nothing but a herd of fascist pigs. Most of Muslims around the world hate them.
Why are you affraid of Islamic comic books, the market is full of comics about Christianism. Even in manga format!!!!
Dont fear what you dont know deeply.
Best regards,
Wassalam
Muhammad Hassan
Posted by: Muhammad Hasan at April 04, 2005 08:55 AM (PF8YD)
20
wow, you're all so educated.
Posted by: randomcat at April 25, 2005 05:43 PM (uwzOE)
January 21, 2005
Aurora Alert! (Yeah, it's off topic.)
by Demosophist
I posted a few days ago about an unprecedented series of sunspot and solar flare events that would lead to some electromagnetic pyrotechnics in the atmosphere, and it looks like it's coming to pass. For those in the mid-lattitudes who have never seen an aurora this may be your chance-in-a-lifetime. According to an astrophysicist friend of mine:
There is a distnct possibility of auroral activity in the mid latitudes for the next few days. If you happen to be outside, look up, you "might" get a show.The latest event was another X-level, but it was 7.1 vice 3.8 (bigger numbers are much more powerful).
And he updated recently with this:
WOW! Mid-latitudes are experiencing one right now and did those numbers climb in the last couple of hours.Do check tonite....... you might actually see one this time. Reports areindicating that those who are currently in darkness are experiencing an aurora in the mid latitudes. Dang.... and it's daylight here!
He lives in Arizona, but since there have been flares within the last few hours one would not expect this event to be over very soon. Once it gets dark, take a look outside, weather permitting.
(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and Anticipatory Retaliation)
Posted by: Demosophist at
12:17 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Remember, the increase in Sun's activity is directly due to George W. Bush's refusal to ratify Kyoto Protocol...
Posted by: BigFire at January 21, 2005 12:32 PM (cZIis)
2
Know we know. Bush won because of Sun Spots!
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 21, 2005 01:13 PM (fLlQ8)
3
HA HA FUNNY GUYS!
The worst part is I don't understand this post and at -1 degrees at 11 pm EST, I'm certainly not going outside.
But if it was nice, I could go out and just pluck a star from the sky, it's so close to me here in the northern woods.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 21, 2005 09:54 PM (D39Vm)
4
One below!?
During aurora season in Fairbanks, one below is shirtsleeve weather!
Posted by: McGehee at January 22, 2005 02:30 PM (S504z)
5
suherthw\E UH\WA
Posted by: FAfafdjhww at February 28, 2005 09:22 AM (9FRSB)
January 20, 2005
Inaugural Notes: Congratulations Culver BHT
by Demosophist
My high school alma mater has a unit marching 17th in today's Inaugural Parade, and I just want to congratulate the kids from the Culver Black Horse Troop and Equestriennes who will be in the event. It's the 19th time for the cadets and the 5th time for the equestriennes. (I'm actually not sure whether that's 19 times at the inaugural, or 19 state events. Going by the BHT website this will be the 14th Inaugural.) I was a member of this contingent in LBJ's 1965 Inaugural, and it was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. We took the train from Indiana along with the horses, and (at the time "little") Stevie Wonder was on the same train. I barely slept, and it could fairly be called the first "adult" experience of my life. My horse was approriately named "Jughead" and he managed to canter backwards in front of the Presidential Reviewing Stand without any input from me at all. It was quite a circus trick, but really represented a lack of skill rather than any great proficiency. I'm afraid old Jughead was the boss. Still, I did stand out enough as a result of that nonsense to be readily identifiable to my family who were watching on TV.
The parade today starts at 2:30PM EST and the best place to view it is CSPAN.
(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophiaa and Anticipatory Retaliation)
Posted by: Demosophist at
01:16 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Wonder what was on that banner the protestors were holding? I saw a quick view of some cops turning the protestors away. Other than that, it was pretty uneventful.
I'm glad that Bush used "God" many times.
:-)
Posted by: Laura at January 20, 2005 01:47 PM (ptOpl)
2
Three cheers for our overwhelming elected President!
Is the Black Horse Troop related to the Black Watch. I noticed they were created about two generations later.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 20, 2005 02:15 PM (IcheV)
3
Is the Black Horse Troop related to the Black Watch. I noticed they were created about two generations later.
I"m pretty sure that, at the time, the only relevant variable was that they had some black horses available. In subsequent years many of the horses were brown or chestnut, and many had white markings (as mine did in 1965) but they used a substance called "lamp black" on them, to make them uniform. No, no relation to the Black Watch, which is a fine Scottish Regiment with a courageous military tradition.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 20, 2005 02:40 PM (2sPNR)
4
Right you are, Demos!
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 20, 2005 05:04 PM (IcheV)
5
Thank God its Bush and not Kerry, God bless the USA and all freedom loving people throughout the world.
Posted by: Jane at January 20, 2005 07:37 PM (+7VNs)
6
Jane:
Thank God its Bush and not Kerry, God bless the USA and all freedom loving people throughout the world.
Indeed. Over the Christmas/New Years holiday I had the distinct pleasure of visiting the "Little White House" of Harry Truman in Key West. This is where the outlines of the Marshall Plan and the Cold War were established, and where a great deal of the real intellectual work was done. The election of 1948 was, perhaps, the mirror image of this one... with Truman having taken the leap of using nuclear weapons to end WWII and Dewey, the Republican, the "effete easterner" who just didn't get it. Truman was a whisky drinking, poker playing, classical-reading haberdasher from the Midwest who got the "big picture" right. (In fact, if you grew up in that era you probably remember an Armed Forces TV program called "The Big Picture.") There is some deep lesson about political and human nature there, that I haven't quite figured out how to express. But I saw myself and our present era reflected in every relaxed and unselfconscious detail of the Key West Little White House, right down to the seven-sided poker table and the deep turquoise bedroom.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 20, 2005 07:57 PM (2sPNR)
7
Laura, Thumbs up for Bush's re-election. Thumbs down on dragging 'God' into everything he says.
Demosophist, if you took part in LBJ's inauguration, that makes you like way old!
Posted by: Jeffrey at January 20, 2005 09:27 PM (eidub)
8
Soooo fucking not high anymore, thanks to your stoopid blog >_<
Posted by: Matt at January 20, 2005 09:32 PM (eidub)
9
Demosophist, if you took part in LBJ's inauguration, that makes you like way old!
Yeah, like G.W. Bush old! Antediluvian.
Truth is, it was like yesterday.
Soooo fucking not high anymore, thanks to your stoopid blog >_
Try this. But don't breath through your mouth.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 20, 2005 10:25 PM (2sPNR)
10
What is wrong with being old!?@#
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 21, 2005 06:55 AM (IcheV)
11
DEMOSOPHIST: Never been to the Key West White House. Don't know why my wife hasn't seen it, as that's her kind of thing. We will be heading for the keys in February for my annual go fishing in the warmth trip. Maybe, I'll get to see it.
Did I see Kerry getting booed during the ingauguration? I can't believe the prick even showed up.
MATT: Piss on ya.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 21, 2005 09:04 AM (m4cNs)
12
Seems there's a push to get religion out of everything. Too bad for those who don't share Bush's religious views.
I'm glad he had the balls to stand up for what he believes in, and wasn't ashamed to mention God in his speech.
Posted by: Laura at January 21, 2005 09:07 AM (ptOpl)
13
Seems there's a push to get religion out of everything. Too bad for those who don't share Bush's religious views.
Although secularism has grown, the growth has been less in the US than in any of the countries that formerly had a central church, so one might be forgiven for thinking that the reason for the persistence of religion in the US is that sects have to compete in a "religious marketplace." It's ironic but this used to also be the case for trade unionism, and one can track the decline of unions rather precisely to the formation of the AFL/CIO, which was supposed to get rid of what was considered at the time "inefficient competition."
What Peg Noonan, and a number of other conservatives who fear religious sentiment, don't understand is that within this context of sectarian competition a "religious awakening" will be conditioned to those social and cultural assets that the challenge calls for, just as they were in previous "awakenings" during the Revolution and the Civil War. And their impact will be beyond the set of believers themselves, permeating the larger culture with resolve and insight.
Religion is about to experience a major comeback in the culture of the US, but my ear-to-the-ground spies tell me that it won't be exactly what either the religionists or anti-religionists expect.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 21, 2005 10:27 AM (2sPNR)
14
Peggy's latest article is very unlike Peggy. I wonder if someone is writing under he name? I have read three of her books as well as her WSJ articles regularly. This one today is out of character. I can not plut my finger on it but maybe Ronnie's old speech writer is envious? I do not know but something is amiss.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 21, 2005 04:55 PM (IcheV)
15
Just a quick analysis on "four more years with Bush."
Mr Bush represents continuity and not change in the US agenda. The primacy of freedom has been articulated in different ways by presidents as diverse as Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan. Nor is this an exclusively Republican, let alone neoconservative, creed in the modern era. The vast majority of Democrats in Washington essentially agree with Mr Bush about the ends of America's mission in the world. The dispute, and it is an important one, is about the means. Senior Republicans, as well as Democrats, have suggested that the White House should amend its strategy in this second term.
To that extent, Mr Bush has quietly been inching toward his opponents. As the careful language he employed two days ago suggests, there is an appreciation that words regarded as admirably plain within the US do not travel easily. In a series of interviews Mr Bush has conceded that some of his phrases have caused unnecessary alarm overseas and resolved to be more cautious. In her testimony before the Senate Foreign Committee, Condoleezza Rice, the incoming Secretary of State, spoke of the importance of a conversation and not a monologue with the outside world and hinted that the balance between the diplomatic and the military aspects of policy would change.
This will not be a revolutionary movement. Nor will the differences between some European governments and the Oval Office disappear. The US will continue to regard the threat posed by radical Islamists, the dangers of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the behaviour of rogue states such as North Korea with more urgency than France and Germany. These countries should ask themselves whether their assessment of these perils is so much more modest because of evidence, or the inconvenience that acknowledging their intensity would entail. They might also ponder what it is about the promotion of freedom that they regard as so alien and objectionable.
Posted by: Liquid Snake at January 22, 2005 05:45 AM (PM/BC)
16
Did you enjoy it - that's the main question???
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 23, 2005 03:15 AM (D39Vm)
17
I'm looking for any photos of the "spirited" Culver horse that participated in the Inaugural Parade. My daughter was riding as it was bucking and kicking down the parade route and she and the horse were unfortunately dismissed from the parade before passing the President at the reviewing stand. I would appreciate any photos that caught them in action! Thanks
Posted by: Anita at January 25, 2005 06:28 PM (d8iGL)
January 13, 2005
AIDS/HIV, Bad Science, and the Cultural Pathologies of Africa
I love Dean Esmay. He's cool. He throws me a link every once in a while and actually reads this blog from time to time. So it is with a great deal of reluctance that I challenge the inferences drawn by the quack Harvey Bialy, Ph.D. over at Dean's World.
Bialy's argument is rather poor on its face, and I'm surprised that any one could be duped by it.
The argument goes something like this. If HIV causes AIDS, then how come the AIDS rate has gone down but the HIV rate has remained constant? If HIV causes AIDS then shouldn't you expect that the AIDS rate and the HIV rate would mirror each other?
The conclusion he wishes the reader to draw is this: Since the HIV rate has remained fairly constant, but the AIDS rate has declined--then HIV does not cause AIDS. Something else does.
This is a clear case of drawing false inferences from reliable data. The major hole in Bialy's argument is that he leaves out the fact that since the early 1990s--precisely when the HIV/AIDS rates began to diverge--several intervention strategies have been introduced which lessen the likelihood that a person with HIV will contract full-blown AIDS.
That is, because HIV is treatable it should be expected that the number of HIV cases will be much larger than the numbers of AIDS cases. These data, then, support the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
What is more interesting to me are the unspoken reasons why so many in Africa are unwilling to accept that fact. Why would so many people go on this insane hunt to find another culprit for the AIDS crisis in Africa?
In my mind such insane theories as advocated by Dr. Bialy are a matter of cultural denial. What are Africans in denial over? They wish to deny the pathologies of their own culture--namely that rape, molestation, and sodomy are much higher in sub-Saharan Africa than elsewhere in the world.
Those that wish to deny that HIV causes AIDS are in fact denying that their own culture is largely responsible for the pandemic. For instance, it is estimated that 37% of the adult population in Botswana has AIDS. Read that number again--37%!!!
I once went to a campus-wide convocation in which the speaker was a children's advocate in Africa. She spoke of entire regions of Africa where there are literally no Adults. None. Remember that a rate of 37% does not mean that every area of the country is equally affected. Some parts of the country may have much smaller infection rates, in other areas the rate is close to 100%.
She spoke of entering a village controlled by a gang of teenagers because all the adults were dead from AIDS. I couldn't help but think of Lord of the Flies.
She spoke of gangs of men with AIDS who would go from village to village raping little children. How little? Infants.
Why would grown men rape infants? Because they have been told that HIV does not cause AIDS. A popular cultural myth is that the only way to get the AIDS infection out of their systems is to have sex with a virgin.
Another example. In post-appartheid South Africa the police will no longer patrol the streets of some ghettos. Rape is a nightly occurence. Again, rape in these ghettos is of the gang rape sort. The only recourse has been for vigilante groups to lynch those suspected of being members of the rape gangs. Even so, the rapes continue.
Of course, most cases of HIV are probably not caused by rape. Most cases are probably contracted in Africa just as it is contracted in the US--sodomy. The easiest way to contract the disease is to be on the receiving end of sodomy. It is very difficult for a man to get AIDS from a woman. Men usually get AIDS from another man--and women get AIDS from men who have slept with another man.
Denying that AIDS is caused by HIV is part of the cultural machismo in Africa that tacitly allows bisexual relationships among men and in which heterosexual promiscuity is tolerated (as long as it is the man that is promiscious).
On the other hand in Arab Africa, which generally looks down on these behaviors, the incidence of AIDS is much lower. (Yes, homosexual relationships with young boys is probably common in Northern Africa, but the underground culture of man-boy relationships does not allow for grown men to be penetrated--the main mechanism for transmission.)
HIV causes AIDS. To deny this is to buy into the myth that all cultures are equal to the task of addressing the problems before them.
The essay published by Dean does not falsify the hypothesis. On the contrary, these data verify the hypothesis. By adding intervention to the mix, the data does just what it is supposed to do. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
03:37 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1013 words, total size 7 kb.
1
I agree with you Rusty. It IS causal. ABSOLUTELY. I was just being more than fair since the Harvey crew over at Dean's world have slammed me for this in the past. Repeatedly. I'm willing to grant their thought experiment in that case. My take is that HIV is responsible for the vast majority of AIDS, but some (v. few) cases have other origins. Just to clarify.
Thanks for the link
Posted by: caltechgirl at January 13, 2005 04:40 PM (SbnT9)
2
Questioning isn't generally seen as being "duped" but if that's the way you see it, okie dokie.
Posted by: Donna at January 13, 2005 04:42 PM (0yEW+)
3
Another explanation I've heard for the apparent difference in transmission patterns in sub-Saharan Africa is a practice called “dry sex”.
Posted by: Dave Schuler at January 13, 2005 05:30 PM (OLr4c)
4
Admitting I lack the expertise to offer a valuable opinion makes me a wuss?
Feh. I've been called worse by people I actually know
Posted by: John at January 13, 2005 05:36 PM (LwJx1)
5
i challenge dean and all of the scientists he cited to take a blood transfusion from someone with hiv but not aids.
if they won't then they should publicly retract the posting.
Posted by: reliapundit at January 13, 2005 05:54 PM (mZjms)
6
RUSTY: Now you went and did it. Welcome to the racist club. You told the truth therefore you are a racist in the eyes of the liberals. It's really not so bad once you get used to it. In fact, your fan club will grow.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2005 06:36 PM (oKjnh)
7
My God is someone saying South Africa in worse now that it is run by blacks? Couldn't be. The whites were responsible for all the crimes. Rhodesia and South Africa are surly better places to live now that the white people are no longer in charge. This is crazy. Sounds racist to me. Love it.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2005 08:04 PM (oKjnh)
8
I'm a wuss for tossing my husband a link without rendering an opinion? I wonder what I am for accepting his sperm and bearing his child...
Pushover, I guess.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at January 13, 2005 08:36 PM (LOj+R)
9
Dr. Shackleford,
I wanted to thank you for your link.
I actually want to stand by my "agnostic" comment over on MUSC Tiger, but that may not be quite right since I believe there really may be something to what Dean and his Scientists are saying.
Now as for you discussion on Africa, well all I gotta say is talk to Kim about that, who I support fully in his rant about his homeland.
(That's Kim du Toit if you are not familiar)
PS:
LOL Rosemary, You go girl!
Posted by: CInomed at January 13, 2005 09:05 PM (PmWhP)
10
Man, are people STUPID or what? When I can get myself under control; I'll then reply.
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 13, 2005 09:22 PM (D39Vm)
11
Dean presents one piece of evidence that MAY have the explanation that you propose, and I am officially agnostic on the subject, but your dismissive reaction is probably arrogant, unless you are a research biologist, epidemiologist, or have other expertise specifically related to the topic.
Some bright, well-credentialed people have raised questions, and while they well be dead wrong, slapping any insurgent hypothesis down because established science "told you so," if you aren't familiar with the intricacies of the challenge ... well, it's dangerous ground. In addition, most people tend to think of states of disease in two-dimensional terms, have it or not, is this or isn't, when in fact many "diseases" are either subjectively defines places on a genetic spectrum or painfully multifactorial.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at January 13, 2005 10:49 PM (2uDpz)
12
Bill,
Just because a guy has a 'Ph.D.' next to his name doesn't make him bright nor does it make his research of any quality. The only place this theory is taken seriously is in Africa, for the stated reasons above. I am no friend to Orthodoxy, but neither should we question Orthodoxy simply because it is Orthodoxy.
The report as published by Dean is flimsy at best and fraudulent at worst. I went to Dean's site expecting this major revelation (as promised) and got THAT? The argument, as published, would get an F in a basic stats class and is a classic example of bad inference from data.
And of course you're right about disease definition, but that it's still a pretty pathetic argument put forth by the guy Dean cites.
Greyrooster--No, but sub-Saharan societies generally are ill equipped to deal with AIDS and are in denial.
QOAE-LOL
CInomed, John, Donna-the argument was so poor I can't help but wonder how any one could remain agnostic.
Posted by: Rusty at January 14, 2005 08:23 AM (JQjhA)
13
"Just because a guy has a 'Ph.D.' next to his name doesn't make him bright nor does it make his research of any quality." I completely agree, Rusty. I've run into some pretty dumb (both ignorant and unitelligent) PhDs in my time (uh, no offense, Dr.). I've also seen really poor research based on either:
1) A faulty knowledge or gross error in the statisical analysis. (as it looks like in this case)
or
2) Continual maschinations of data until a statisical correlation (or non-correlation) is spit out. (I blame SAS and their software for this that allows complex analysis to be done by people who have no business doing this type of analysis OR a correlation in search of a theory).
It's the number 2 point that is scarier in that it's the opposite of classic scientific experiment (i.e. developing a hypothesis, deciding upon a test method to prove this hypothesis and THEN doing the analysis of the data)
Posted by: JFH at January 14, 2005 03:23 PM (fmEeo)
14
PHD doesn't stand for common sense. Some have it some don't. Some are dedicated academic professionals. Some are hiding in academia because they can't hack it in a competitive enviroment. Only they know the truth. That is, until they open their mouths.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 14, 2005 07:43 PM (Chchy)
15
RUSTY: And why is that? heh, heh, heh. Spot light on Rusty.
Off subject but Greyrooster's first grandson comes home from hospital in morning.
Greyrooster's idiot son has chosen to stay in Iraq. Apparently, to be assigned to another unit. I think he's done his share. If I could get my hands on him, one of us would get an asswhipping. Bet on him.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 14, 2005 07:51 PM (Chchy)
16
Without reading the links yet, I did see you Grey Rooster calling Rusty a racist because he was talking about FACTS in Africa and that's exactly what they were - FACTS. Africa has the highest rate of HIV+ and AIDS cases in the world and there are lots of people trying to educate and raise money for the people of Africa to stop the spread of the disease. That does not make Rusty a racist. If you paid attention to news and other reports, you'd know already that what he is stating are facts.
What makes me sick is how any man could rape a child must less an infant iet just boggles my mind. And they sure as shit do not use condoms or any other type of protection.
Being Hiv-positive, you need to tell everyone you've ever been with so that they can be tested. Some become ill with full blown AIDS because their immune system cannot handle it. And it has to be one of the worst ways to die. You can be HIV positive and never get sick butif you don't protect your partner,he or she could contract HIV+ and get full blown AIDS. It all depends on your body. One thing you don't want to do is pass it on because people react differently to it depending upon their own immune systems. You can also have HIV+ for a long time and never get sick but you can get others sick without protection. They have meds now for early and quick diagnoses of HIV+ virus and itis working for most people. By the time most people get tested, it's way too late. Once you go into full blown AIDS, make our your will, do a power of attorney and a living will. Anyone,despite what their immune dysfuction is - cannot donate blood nor can they be organd donors. I found that out after 9/11 and as disappointed as I was then to know that, I realized I certainly did not want to pass my illness onto other peopl as I have my own sons. There are way too many immune disorders in this country.
There was also a point that when the Portuguese from southern MA would fly home. When they returned, they were tested and found there are different forms of HIV and AIDS.
Back in 1975 in Readers Digest Magazine,there wasan article on an epidemic regarding AIDS but most people never bothered to read it so it was another ten years before it really become known. If you have no signs of the illness despite being HIV+, consider yourself lucky but you still need to be tested and treated and protected,especially protecting your partner.
As to this article, there may be less people coming down with full blown AIDS even though they have HIV+ results. Intervention makes the difference here. So the person who wrote that article is an asshat; what is going to save you from this horrible death is knowledge and if you test positive, don't fool around with it by passing it along. The speading of HIV does indeed cause AIDS but with early help and intervention, some will never get sick and to me that's a good start.
Just don't donate blood or your organs.
Grey Rooster, be proud of your son for staying in Iraq; many are returning for their third tour of duty there, so he must feel it's worth it. We'll keep him in our prayers and thoughts.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 15, 2005 12:54 AM (D39Vm)
17
CINDY: Read my post again. And think this time. Does a person have to put LOL after everything to place some subtle humor?
Posted by: greyrooster at January 15, 2005 08:18 AM (4npOj)
18
I don't know Grey Rooster, still sounds like you're angry with him for staying in Iraq.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 15, 2005 03:51 PM (D39Vm)
19
To continue on the topic of downward revision of HIV infection in Africa:
Estimates on HIV called too high
New data cut rates for many nations (BOSTON GLOBE)
By John Donnelly, Globe Staff | June 20, 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/06/20/estimates_on_hiv_called_too_high/
Study cuts Kenya HIV estimates (BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3379707.stm
Posted by: Ed at January 15, 2005 10:04 PM (lgWew)
20
People need to stop approaching this as if it has been proven that HIV causes AIDS. It has never been proven.
HIV has never even been isolated in a lab. The test for HIV is also very inaccurate. I have a friend who tested positive, and then got a letter a few weeks later saying that the test was just wrong.
Lots of people get AIDS symptoms without being HIV positive. HIV doesn't always mean AIDS, and AIDS doesn't always mean HIV. That's enough to make me seriously question the HIV/AIDS connection.
Posted by: Mark J at January 17, 2005 12:47 AM (ykFk5)
21
Was referring to Racist comment. Get it? Get it? Get it?
My point is that if one tells the truth and the truth happens to be a bad comment about any other race than white. You are automatically banded a racist.
Please note that Rusty has not answered my (and why is that question). Nor do I expect him to. I wish to be the only racist on this blog. Ha, Ha.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 06:54 AM (paXpx)
22
ED: Speech was nice. Do you have a point or solution? I also stood up at the 37% figure. But why is problem placed on whites. Do blacks begging for money count any better? Could the 37% figure have originally came from blacks begging for money? Exaggeration just a white thing huh!
The fear is not youth gangs. It's fear of having to support them later. The same old story. Support us, protect us, feed us, save us from ourselves, and by the way, we hate you white bastards.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 07:18 AM (paXpx)
23
Gotta love the conservative mind. Bludgeon it with facts and reality for long enough, and it slips into its favorite defense mechanism: "Do you have a point?" coupled with a healthy dose of "Must be racism, and we all know racism is bad *wink wink nudge nudge*" Puh-leeze.
Posted by: BanzaiRabbit at February 25, 2005 10:55 PM (ztw8g)
24
I think it is highly unreasonable to argue that HIV does not cause AIDS. It is so unreasonable that it doesn't even warrant discussion. To the above poster who seems to argue that reports of higher incidence of AIDS in Africa are part of some "white" conspiracy, please try to get a grip on reality. Knowing definitively how many people have AIDS would require a thorough and well-funded study and a population willing to cooperate with researchers. Neither of these conditions exists. Whether it is 37% or 15% shouldn't really matter. Either way AIDS is an epidemic that threatens the future of many of these countries. I don't buy your population estimate argument at all. You cite figures from 1980 and 2004. I think if you examine the figures more closely you would find very high population growth until the mid-90s when a large number of people started dying from AIDS and then much slower or even stagnent population growth since then. An incidence of 37% HIV and a growing population at present are not at odds with each other as we know that the disease is usually present for several years before if untreated it results in death. So, I'm afraid to say it is not conservatives that need to be bludgeoned with facts, it is you my friend. You also seem to deny that cultural attitudes about sex in this part of sub-Saharan Africa may have something to do with the growth and difficulty in containing the epidemic in that part of the world and then cite that "The problem is that none of these ideas are supported by actual sociological or sexual research." What is you basis for this claim? I think you assume this to be the case but you're actually quite wrong. Many sociologist and anthropolgoists have chronicled the fact that promiscuity and a diminished respect for women's sexual rights (i.e. the need for their consent) are present in many African communities (although the opposite is true in others). The practice of migrant workers and truckers spreading the disease to their families after having sex with prostitutes is also widely established as a primary cause of the spread of the disease in Africa. When I was in South Africa I was told that it was estimated that something like 75% of truck drivers were HIV positive. This isn't by chance. There is a lifestyle that supports these rates of transmission and it isn't one of monogomy or absistance. While drugs and money will be indispensible in the fight against AIDS in this part of Africa, a critical piece in figthting the epidemic also must be education and reform of the population and their attitudes about sex. There is no denying that AIDS feasts on promiscuity and activities such as prostitution. There is also no denying that cultural prejudices against wearing condoms and against restraining sexual appetites also fuels the epedimic. While is may offend you liberal sensibilities to hear such reason that contradicts your cultural relevatists, anti- anything that smacks of Christian morality (i.e. monogamy and abstinance), progress in reducing the spread of AIDS must address people's sexual practices. The campaign to educate people in this country about AIDS did suceed in doing some of this in the late 80s and early 90s as people rationally saw the connection between promiscuity, wearing condoms, contracting HIV and dying. Comprehension of such a clear logical connection would help in Africa. This must be done in a way that is sensitive to the stigma that attaches to women especially from this connection (i.e. they or their partner were promiscuous) especially since many times women are at the mercy of their partners.... Blaming it on the white man doesn't only fail to accomplish anything useful, it deflects attention from the real issues at hand. Futhermore, it is an intellectually indefensible position.
Posted by: manofreason at February 27, 2005 12:48 PM (pZiwh)
25
To manofreason, it is not a question of a 'white' conspiracy, or even a question of blacks 'begging for money' as one above post put it. The point that was being made by Ed, I believe, is that there are far too many inconsistencies in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and that is all it is - a hypothesis, and far too many inconsistencies in the 'African AIDS Epidemic' story which has been perpetuated by the media. As far as I am concerned, all statistical data regarding AIDS in Africa is massively inaccurate at best. I would like to know how such data is compiled and whether or not it is independently verified by any third party. Just because data comes from a supposedly reliable source such as the WHO/UN or a nation's government, does not make it true.
Regarding the 37% infection rate in Botswana for example, I find it highly improbable first of all that this figure could be calculated anyway in a country as sparsely populated as Botswana is. And secondly, I wonder as Ed points out, how Botswana, along with other African countries alledgedly hard hit by AIDS could manage to grow at such high population growth rates if people are supposedly dying in such large numbers from AIDS. And if, as you point out, they are only infected by HIV and not necessarily dying, then that calls into question the whole theory that HIV=AIDS=death.
On the subject of a 'white' conspiracy, I do not believe in such things as conspiracy theories, but I will say that the Western nations tend to be extremely one-sided in their view of most things African. Little or no attempt is made in the Western media to report posiive news from Africa, whilst wars, disease and AIDS tend to be 'hot' news. Being black or white has nothing to do with it. Black and white people exist in the West, and black and white people coexist in Africa also. It is very interesting to me though, that the African countries which tend to shun the West, or at least are not afraid to publicly stand up or speak out against them seem to be those with the highest HIV infection rates, whilst the inverse seems to be true for those countries in favour with the West. Botswana and Zimbabwe have both, in different ways, shunned the West in recent times and are rewarded with high HIV infection rates, whilst countries such as Uganda and Kenya, who have in recent times received praise and support from Western countries for economic and democratic reforms, have seen their HIV rates declining
On the question of promiscuity and 'diminished respect for women's sexual rights' as you put it, there is no way one can make a quantitative judgment over whether one culture is more promiscuous than the next. One may appear to be more promiscuous, but that does not necessarily make it the case. I think it is disrespectful in the extreme to imply that AIDS has spread in Africa because of promiscuity whereas it has not in other parts of the world. You mention truck drivers, but it is very naive to think that African truck drivers are more or less promiscuous than truck drivers in other parts of the world. By the nature of the work, where ever they are in the world, truck drivers may feel the need to... how shall I put this... ammeliorate their loneliness.
As regarding education, as someone born in Africa, and who has regularly visited there over the past 20 or so years, I can assure you with my hand on my heart, that the average African is far more informed about AIDS and its alledged causes than the average European. Huge roadside billboards advertising condoms and safe-sex are commonplace in Africa. There are numerous educational programmes on the subject of safe-sex both on television and radio. These are things which I have not witnessed living in Europe. The last advert on television regarding such things I can remember seeing on British TV was perhaps around 1990 or thereabouts.
I do not wish to pour scorn upon anyone, but the idea that AIDS is the scourge of Africa is not my own opinion having visited there many times, and being culturally involved with the people. Yes, people are dying, but of what we don't know. To take an example, one member of my family recently died in a rural part of Africa from where my family hail. It is not known what she died of. The explanation I was given was 'malaria', but I can tell you that malaria is used often in the sense that 'flu' is used in the West, or at least in Britain. People when they get ill say they have the flu, but that does not necessarily mean they have the influenza virus. There are countless cases like these where people die of tropical illnesses and have no official diagnosis of what they died from. In a land where poverty is rife and doctors charge such high fees, there is little incentive to visit a doctor in your illness. The idea that cheap and reliable HIV testing is available and done in Africa is laughable. Therefore, causes of death are very often a matter for speculation. This is from my own personal experience. To say that so many are dying because they have been infected with HIV and developed AIDS is an easy answer. No argument is so unreasonable as not to warrant a discussion, as you suggest at the top of your post. It has never been proven that HIV causes AIDS conclusively, regardless of the media's attention to this philosophy, and it is therefore sad in my mind that Africa has been tarnished with this brush of being the victim of an 'epidemic'. All science needs to be challenged, and there have always been alternative ideas as to the origin of AIDS, yet they have not always been treated fairly, just as Africa has not been treated fairly over this subject. Africa, anyway is a land of over a thousand different cultures and attitudes to life, to women and to sex. Even within one country, there are different communities with different cultures and opinions. It is easy for the Western media to oversimplify the situation so that Westerners can 'understand' the situation, but oversimplification it is. To me, your position of saying 'blame the white man' is intellectually indefensible is oversimplistic and patronising to Africans. It is neither the white man nor the black man's fault that so many die from disease in Africa, it is however, the Western community (which includes blacks) who have decided (without reason in many minds) that Africa is suffering from an epidemic which in their own countries only afflicts those at the bottom rungs of society - homosexual men and intravenous drug users.
Posted by: jimbo at June 23, 2005 07:45 AM (HTTxf)
January 12, 2005
Not The Last Samurai
by Demosophist
The issue of Hiroshima/Nagasaki comes up whenever the left or the Islamofascists get around to listing the "crimes of the US." In the past I've tended to agree with the critics, because by and large I was as uninformed as they about what was actually going on within the Japanese High Command in those last days. Well, we now know that using nuclear weapons was probably the only way to get Japan to surrender, and even that almost didn't work. From John Hawkins' interview of Victor Davis Hanson: more...
Posted by: Demosophist at
02:53 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.
1
yes, and had we intervened earlier, when the Japenese invaded Manchuria, and when Hitler rolled into Czechos...oh, yeah, that would have been preemptive war. can't do that....sorry, better to let millions die, so we can appeal to liberal sensitivities.
Posted by: Mr. K at January 12, 2005 06:18 PM (t6m5j)
2
We should have been more concerned about a people that killed thousands of Americans in a cowardly sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.
When I think about Bataan, Japanese prison camps, forced sex slaves, the rape of Nanking. I believe the Japs got what they deserved. I also think they know it.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 12, 2005 06:34 PM (R0PwA)
3
It’s not just the Okinawa campaign, but the suicides on Saipan that cemented Washington’s commitment to using the bomb. While the suicides were hyped (not all were as voluntary as the military press made them out to be), the Japanese mainland was arming women and high school students with primitive weapons to use in suicide attacks. I've lived in Japan and I like the place, but having been immersed in their culture, I can see what a horrible mess their society must have been while ruled by the militarists in Hirohito's various governments.
There weren’t many purely military targets left by 1945 – one reason we firebombed around the Sumida River in Tokyo was that industry was spread out into many little shops and family factories, since we’d pretty much destroyed the large industrial plants. So the liberal screaming about what else we could have bombed shows once again their ignorance of history and willingness to save Japanese lives at the expense of American ones. That’s not even getting into the fact that the Soviets would have jumped off from Sakhalin and invaided Hokkaido and Northern Honshu, fragmenting Japan as they did Korea. How many Japanese would have died in that campaign and subsequent terror?
Posted by: John at January 12, 2005 08:09 PM (YFWw+)
4
I have never felt it was right to drop Atomic bombs on Japan; they are still suffering from the effects. I think what we did was so very wrong but what was worse, was rounding up Japanese-Americans, including those that were born here and just because they were of Japanese descent, taken from their homes and businesses and even losing family members and putting them into camps. In a way, it was no different than the Camps by Germany. I just feel that whole situation was a big black mark in our history. I'm sure we would have won the war anyway but I don't think the bombs or the camps put us in a good light. Glad we have learned so much since then or we'd be rounding up every Muslim who lives in this country and putting them in camps. We're supposed to be better people than that.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 13, 2005 09:42 AM (D39Vm)
5
We're supposed to be better people than that.
The details finally convinced me that Japan would not have surrendered any other way. Also note that the Russians were on Sakhalin and had they invaded from the north I doubt that they'd have left anything but devastation in their wake. Those bombs almost certainly resulted in the minimum number of casualties for both sides. Harsh to say, but the real killer there was totalitarianism's willingness to sacrifice everyone on its grisly alter, including its own people.
As for the internment, that's another issue. I just don't know much about it, but I think Michelle Malkin has made a reasonable case that it was necessary, and that it was also humane. There's just no comparison at all between our Japanese internment camps and the extermination camps of the Nazis. The closest parallel to those were the slaughterhouses in Fallujah, which would be scaled up to enormous proportions were those bastards ever able to take over the country. As for internment of Muslims in the US, I just don't know anyone who advocates that. Some have accused Malkin, but to my knowledge she's never made such a recommendation.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 13, 2005 03:38 PM (7AGFb)
6
Internment probably saved a lot a Japanese/American lives. There was cases of lynching of German Americans during WW2. As it turned out internment was not needed. Does anyone know what Japanese immigrants would have done if the Japanese invaded the west coast? What is the difference between Hawaii and California? The Jap Navy got help there. Think about it. The threat of invasion was real during the early years of the war. All races that came to America have paid a price. Maybe thats the price the Japanese had to pay. At least they didn't die in the internment camps. My ancestors paid with the revolutionary war, war of 1812, war with Spain war, Mexican war, Civil war, WW1, WW2. No one rides free. Wish to reap the benefits? Sometimes you have to pay a price. Fair or not. The truth is, the majority now come to America to reap what others have paid for.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2005 07:45 PM (oKjnh)
7
My $0.02:
The Japanese shelled various locations in California during WWII. There was a power plant in Santa Barbara County near the shore that had been hit (mostly superficial damage) by a submarine off the coast. There was a very real and pervasive fear of the Japanese war machine in those days. Hawaii merely demonstrated that the Anglo-Americans had anecdotal evidence to suspect Japanese-Americans. They wondered if it could happen in California as well.
Posted by: Buck Brown at January 14, 2005 06:38 PM (ZECZR)
8
Demo: the reason we didn't know about the internment camps because it was never discussed and certainly was not in our history books. But thee people were American's of Japanese, Chinese and Oriental descent.They were taken from their homes, ending up losing their homes and businesses. During WW2, many Japanese American's signed up and fough side by side with their own countrymen (Americans) and those that did, had no idea what was happening to their families,their homes and their businesses. A few years back, they were reimbursed by our govt for their losses which could never make up for all the things they really lost; the govt's fear to intern these AMERICAN'S was wrong in every way for none of them were a danger to the rest of us and they certainly did not approve of the Japanese attacking their own country - which was the United States. Just because we were at war on many fronts, including Japan,did not mean that the Japenese who lived here agreed with it and were just as shocked and disgusted as the rest of us; then they were torn from their homes and bussinesses and put in internment camps; that was not necessary for they were American's.
I understand, Demo,about the atomic bombs but I still do not agree thatit ould be done because it not only killed millions butit caused so much damage on the people and has still an affect on Children since then all the way up to today. I guess that kind of power bothers me.
I never said we should round up all the Muslims, so you misunderatood me. WhatI did say above is from WW2 internment camps and the things we learned from it will make sure there were no Muslim Interment camps although they do deserve it more than the American Japenese ever did. This was their home, not Japan.
Our enemy today are Islamic radicals and since we do have hundreds of Muslims here in the US, maybe we should put them in interment camps for our own safety. even though there may be lots of terrorists in those families. It was just a thought. And it would be easier to pick out the terrorist who's over for a visit.
Just another though,is all.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 15, 2005 01:48 AM (D39Vm)
9
Cindy:
Well, you're on a horse that's too high for me to assail. And we're so far removed from the WWII experience that it's really hard for any of us to judge in any realistic sense. Suffice to say that for the time being at least (and all bets are off if there's a WMD attack on the US) the basic incentives are somewhat different for us that the 1940s Americans. Intelligence provided either by coverts, or by inside people who have been turned really constitutes a critical component of the War on Terror, and any unjustifiably harsh treatment of Arabs works against that. So barring a WMD attack I think you can expect to see some significant forebearance toward Arabs in our modern society.
But be advised that Jacksonian America, once awakened, will be impossible to put down.
Also, as I recall there were really two groups of internees who were treated much differently. Citizens of the US were treated much differently that non-citizens, and a significant number of citizens chose to remain in the camps after the war even though they were no longer required to stay. Also, bear in mind that if some Japanese citizens had their property confiscated that's a separate issue. If they lost businesses, it's in teh context of emergence from a depression in which business failures were far from atypical. But I agree that confiscation of private property, to the extent that it occured, was actionable.
Finally, although I think Malkin opposes recompense of the internees I don't. One can frequently moderate the need to commit a "sin" in the fallen world by the recognition that there are consequences for doing so that one can't shirk. The ethics of what was done are in sharp contrast to "internment camps" maintained by our enemies during this period, including internment of British and American citizens by the Japanese. An no one has ever offered to compensate those people, as far as I know.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 17, 2005 03:22 PM (7AGFb)
10
Amen.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 07:04 PM (Vc+ll)
11
When will I be compensated for my father. He didn't get to sit the war out in a internment camp. Who payed the higher price. A Japanese American family in an internment camp or my family? When will my children be compensated for growing up without a grandfather? Everyone pays a price. The difference is us plain old white folks that have been here 300 years don't expect to be compensated. Anyone think my family didn't lose their small business? Wrong. Friggin cry babies.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 07:18 PM (Vc+ll)
12
"I Recently saw The Last Samurai and felt it one of a long line of fundamentally anti-American films eminating from the left coast, essentially siding with a totalitarian movement and ideology against the US." okay that line there pretty much sums up the level of your ignorance Demosophist. Gimme a break, "Anti-American"? The director of the movie Edward Zwick IS American! For christ sakes this is an AMERICAN movie! Where you get "Anti-American" out of that is beyond me.
"I don't know if the movie is historically accurate or not, but sincerely doubt it."
Well buddy the whole movie is based on the actual events of a samurai Saigo Takamori who leads the rebellion for the same reason as in the movie. and the "lowest class of nobility"? did you even watch the movie or have picked up history book for that matter? The Samurai were the ruling class of Japan for over one thousand years. and change them into "business men"? I dont think you really got the point of the movie(or watched it for that matter).[In real life] after seeing the US's warships and cannons, and seeing how weak the were economicly and militarily compared to the US and other countrys they excepted the US's ultimatum. We totally revolutionized them. We trained their soldiers, and everything. So in a way WE are responsible for them becoming a world military power during the early 1900's to WW2.
"The Last Samurai is an utterly foolish movie, with almost no redeeming social value. It could easily have been produced by the Japanese Fascists in the High Command as a propaganda film during WWII, except that censorship would have prevented it from being shown here." Umm......okay. I think the only thing utterly foolish here is you. this movie is about a people hanging on to dying ways and traditions, and how an American Captain who took part in the American's own butchery [of Native Americans] sees the beauty of their culture and becomes a part of it.
Again how you get any of that bs you totally blows my mind. and sheesh quit trying to use words that are probobly bigger than your I.Q. and start focusing on actually making a point.
btw i'm sorry if i'm given u guys a history lesson. I am doing a research paper on the Samurai culture and accidently stummbled upon this, and after reading this moron's post I had to comment and clear up the MAJOR misconceptions. plus I just really enjoyed the movie and kinda got pissed at this faild attempt at a review.
Posted by: Doc at February 14, 2005 03:44 PM (0vNaM)
13
Well buddy the whole movie is based on the actual events of a samurai Saigo Takamori who leads the rebellion for the same reason as in the movie. and the "lowest class of nobility"? did you even watch the movie or have picked up history book....
I'm somewhat disinclined to limit my view of history to what comes by way of a Hollywood movie, but I do know about who ruled Japan for a thousand years, and it wasn't the Samurai. They were, as I said, a warrior caste and the lowest echelon of the nobilty. And the plan to turn that caste into a business class at the turn of the century was quite deliberate. Lipset comments on it in his essay of Japanese Uniqueness, as does Eisenstadt. Again, do you get your knowledge of history from films?
Umm......okay. I think the only thing utterly foolish here is you. this movie is about a people hanging on to dying ways and traditions, and how an American Captain who took part in the American's own butchery [of Native Americans] sees the beauty of their culture and becomes a part of it.
I rest my case. Next you'll be quoting Ward Churchill to me. Again, this story is a narrative that willfully distorts history in order to present a specific theme not unlike that presented in *Dances With Wolves*, which is probably where you got your history of the West. I suppose you think that cartoon in *Bowling for Columbine* was historical truth too?
Gawd.
I am doing a research paper on the Samurai culture...
And what source told you the Samurai caste ruled Japan for a thousand years? Hokusai painted for the Samurai? This is what you're saying? Heh.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 14, 2005 05:57 PM (Dfdj0)
14
It may be that your historical text has conflated the role of the military caste in Japan with that of rulership, because they were the "muscle" that allowed the rulers to maintain their position. As such, they weren't without leverage (as any military caste would be), and they were definitely part of the nobility. But they weren't the ruling caste any more than those referred to as the "knightly caste" in Europe were the rulers. It was a feudal system, and the military played it's place according to feudal rules of fielty. That, in fact, was one of the few things that was accurate in the movie: *The Last Samurai*.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 14, 2005 06:28 PM (Dfdj0)
15
I think it's you who need to check your scources.
"but, I do know who ruled for 1000 years and it wasnt the samurai." It was the Shogun who himself was part of the Samurai warrior class(who did work for the emperor but was still responsible for most everything else). I dont know where you get your information because the Samruai were considered the highest class of Japanese society. They were highly respected and looked up to. I meen anybody with half and ounce of common sence can see this. Why do you think some Japanes display there ancestors armor and weapons in there home? or how the Samurai code played such a big role in WW2. because they were a very highly respected and honorable people. not the "lowest class of nobility" as you deemed it. That in fact plays a large role in the movie. The ONLY time I have heard differnt is from you. You are wrong.
"this story is a narrative that willfully distorts history"
You are wrong here as well. First off there really was a rebel leader Saigo Takamori(Katsumoto)as I said before that fought to keep the old ways and as in the movie were defeated in one last huge battle. As for the character Algaren, he is based on a French army captain who fought side by side with the samurai in the Boshin War. Yes this is not based on ACTUAL events. but it is sticking to history to a certain extent at least(more than Dances with WOlves lol). and even the battle at the end is accurate. despite being outnumber some 50-1 the Samurai still outkilled the Troops who were armed with very similar weaponry as in the movie. It is a non fiction story.
"next you'll be quoting Ward Churchill to me."
okay first off i dont know who the hell that is. and second that wasnt a quote that was from me.
"and the plan to turn that caste in to a business class at the turn of the century was quite delibrate."
Okay, first off Japan didn't want to turn the Samurai into businessman at all. They wanted the samurai dead or disbanded; they cut their salary in half, and as a final insult made it illegle to where the sword(which is a sign of their HIGH status in most cases). This is what started the rebellion. and business had little or nothing to do with what they wanted. They wanted to revolutionize their country in every way.
"I rest my case."
you never had one.
"Hokushi painted for the samurai." ok whered that come from. If you step back and take a look I'm the only one making a point here. You are wrong about the culture, and are not clear on your own points. you've been so busy trying to show me up that you forgot about your own "Last Samurai Axis Propaganda" Theory.
and stop trying to camoflauge your lack of knowledge of the culture with big words and irrelivant statements.
Posted by: Doc at February 14, 2005 08:48 PM (nZFVn)
16
Okay, first off Japan didn't want to turn the Samurai into businessman at all. They wanted the samurai dead or disbanded
Yeah, according to the movie. And one can always find an historian (like Ward Churchill) who will make whatever claim is convenient for them, but the fact is that they simply couldn't kill off the Samurai, and it made excellent sense to sort of "retool them." Not completely successful.
Why is it so difficult to believe that Hollywood would take an historical sequence of events and subtly distort and spin it so that their message, which was not the message of history, is what got through? As for the role of the Samurai all I can say is that if I come across the citation for the artcle I'll post it (I read it a decade ago as part of a set of articles in Doctoral program in Science and Technology Policy)... but the observation stands. In the aggregate the Samurai were the lowest echelon of the nobility at that point in history, which doesn't mean that some of them weren't above others. (And as far as I know you're right that they were a ruling caste at some point, though I'm skeptical.) Actually the movie makes it clear that their social status wasn't very high by presenting them as financially without resources, etc. (But note that the period I'm talking about wasn't the 1860s, but the turn of the century. Just prior to WWI.) What role could they play in a new westernized (non-feudal) Japanese society? What impressed me about the article (which may actually have been written by Eisenstadt, now I think of it) was that thay could just deliberately transform a troublesome social class by organizing a new function for it. Very clever. But not entirely successful.
Yes, of course they were part of the nobility. I said that. But they were a threadbare nobility by that time.
And the point I made about the transition is also valid. The elements of the old feudal culture came back and the Samurai inspired a new fascist militarism born out of that same tortured sense of honor. What do you think fascism is, if not a throwback to feudalism? Anyway, if you want to read about the sociological aspect of these events (I'm actually a sociologist, so I don't trust historians who always write the narrative that appeals to their inner child) read S.M. Lipset's "American Exceptionalism and Japanese Uniqueness." (Or the title might be the other way around, I'm not sure.)
Anyway, another movie that's distortive in the same way, since you're into verification of Hollywood's sense of history, is *The Gangs of New York*. In reality there was a very strong anti-war movement in New York City during the Civil War, and there were race riots that targetted the black population for their supposed role in bringing about the war. It's a very ugly chapter in Irish-American history that Scorcese deliberately distorts to give it a "class warfare" element, manipulated by some evil capitalists. The reality was far more mundane. Just your run-o-the-mill race prejudice, and resentment at being required to serve in a cause they opposed.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 16, 2005 08:04 PM (Dfdj0)
17
I see now that we were talking about two differnt eras of samurai. I thought you ment all through history they were the lowest class, but i see know you were talking about pre ww2 and I agree.
"They simply couldn't kill off the Samurai, and it made excellent since to retool them."
I see where your coming from and half agree on that. But still the Samurai were to honorable and proud of a people to just drop and change what they and their ancestors had done for 800 years or more. Maybe your right and some low ranking samurai did give up the sword. That maybe so. But the one thing you didnt mention is that there was an actual rebellion of the Samurai as in the movie, and most of which were killed (allthough from what I've read and heard they put up a hell of a fight, still outkilling there foes armed with cannon and rifle).
And I think you'll agree with me that even though the samurai caste was done and over they still highly influenced the Japanese soldiers of WW2.
"since your into verification of Hollywood's since of history,"
Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not the kinda guy who will take a history lesson from Hollywood believe me(seen Zulu?lol). But I do believe The Last Samurai was intact with the history. Let me lay it all on the table:
There was a rebellion led by Saigo Takamori in the mid 1800's.
The rebellion was caused by similar things as in the movie. Salary cut, food supply cut, etc.
The character Algeran is actually based on an actual person,(the name of which I don't recall but I'll let you know sometime) who did fight side by side with the samurai(allthough this was not during the samurai rebellion but the Boshin War actually).
The Japanese Government pays America, England, France, and other countries to help turn Japan into a modern country(cannon, clothes, telegraph, military tactics+training the works).
Then with all this together the Samurai rebel, the Japanese Government sends it's new
"modern" army after the samurai, there is a big battle where the Samurai fight valiantly but are defeated.
This actually happend both in history, and largely in the movie. Give some details why you think it's not accurate.
Posted by: Doc at February 16, 2005 08:43 PM (1tfre)
18
"They simply couldn't kill off the Samurai, and it made excellent since to retool them."
I see where your coming from and half agree on that. But still the Samurai were to honorable and proud of a people to just drop and change what they and their ancestors had done for 800 years or more. Maybe your right and some low ranking samurai did give up the sword. That maybe so. But the one thing you didnt mention is that there was an actual rebellion of the Samurai as in the movie, and most of which were killed (allthough from what I've read and heard they put up a hell of a fight, still outkilling there foes armed with cannon and rifle).
Indeed, a bit like the Spartans at Thremopylae, the Germans and Japanese at the end of WWII, the current Jihadists. (Not necessarily in terms of effectiveness, but intent mind you.) This is one of the signals or signs of totalitarianism. One could even include the Russians at Stalingrad.
And I think you'll agree with me that even though the samurai caste was done and over they still highly influenced the Japanese soldiers of WW2.
Well, they were the direct inspiration for the Kamikaze, as well as the resistance on Iwo Jima. But ultimately there was something lacking, that ensured their defeat, something that Steven Ambrose identifies. My point about Hollywood is that their idealism is so childish that they see the Samurai as a romantic image of their own opposition to the double-edged sword of American Exceptionalism. There is something vaguely admirable about such a dedication, until you realize that it's intimately connected to the death camps and the gulags... the other side of that coin.
There was a rebellion led by Saigo Takamori in the mid 1800's.
The rebellion was caused by similar things as in the movie. Salary cut, food supply cut, etc.
Well, I wasn't really questioning the historical accuracy of the skeleton story. Note that the skeleton of The Gangs of New York is also true. There were, in fact, anti-war riots in New York City. What was inaccurate was the manipulation of the ethnic rivalries, the sort of "Simon LaGree" aspect of it, design to excuse and explain what has been an unfortunately recurring story in America: that the group at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder always resents and fights the newcomers taking their place. This isn't because of exploitation by capitalism. It's human nature.
The gist of Lipset's article, which I still suggest you read (and I'll still look for the citation of the other article) was that although there's as much literature an "Japanese Uniqueness" as there is about "American Exceptionalism," the reality is that the former isn't true, while the latter is. The Japanese, at least as it relates to their militarism, are actually like other cultures recently emerged from feudalism, including the Germans. And the American Revolution truely was a world revolution, with a slow fuse.
If your email is real, I'll send you that other citation when I have the time to find it out in the garage. It's at the bottom of some boxes that I kept from grad school. Really worth reading, because although there was a kind of relapse, the experiment actually worked in the long run. Eventually the Samurai class formed the core of the new business and technology spirit.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 17, 2005 09:57 PM (Dfdj0)
19
I liked the movie.
The Samurai were a traditional group which thought that Japan was changing too fast and in the wrong way. Omura was the one behind it and he tried to influence the Emperor's choice, which he did. Katsumoto would have halted his attack had the Emperor asked, he was only doing his duty to Japan. This shows Chu, duty and loyalty.
Katsumoto represented the traditional Japan and Omura represented the new Japan. The Samurai showed honor by not giving up. Even though, at the end, Katsumoto and the other samurai killed many of the opposing Japanese troups, they still bowed to him when he killed himself. Although many of them died by his sword, they still respected his honor and reconized that a great leader had just died and they were bowing to the lost, dead Japan.
The Samurai did the honorable thing by not giving up, they died in honor.
Katsumoto also managed to finish his poem.
I don't know if that's relevant, but that's how I saw the movie.
Posted by: Death's Scribe at May 25, 2005 08:59 PM (cDFec)
Sex Cafe
Sex education + the daily special + 1 billion Chinese = Hilarity. Via Simon this New Kerela article:
Our service is to bring convenience for customers by combining sex education, sex counselling and free condoms into a one-stop shopping experience," said Tao Lin, director of the city's family planning centre, whose idea it was to turn the original sex education centre into a cafe.Waiter, there's a condom in my soup!!
Shhhhh!! Quiet, or every one will want one.
Posted by: Rusty at
01:26 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I just hope they like American men. T minus two months and counting...
Posted by: Joe R. the Unabrewer at January 12, 2005 05:31 PM (R4gIs)
2
Why is it that when, America spits on the Iraqi people with their bombs from the sky, blowing people to oblivion, it part of war.
And you consider beheading inhuman.
Posted by: rebel at March 02, 2005 10:44 AM (WZ9tn)
Shia vs. Sunni Fatwas
A fatwa is an Islamic religious ruling. In my absence Jeff at Beautiful Attrocities has been parousing the Ask the Imam site. The Ask the Imam site is obviously run by those crumudgeonly Sunnis. For instance:
Q: What are the positions allowed for intercourse? Can wife sit on top of husband?But those Shia are a bunch of swingers, baby. Check this out from the Grand Ayatollah Sistani's site which Tim Worstall reminded me of:A: An Aayat of the noble Qur'aan states, 'Have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the front opening & not in the hind opening.'
Question: My question is, what does the holy book Quran and prophet Mohammad (pbuh) say about anal sex even if the wife agrees to experience this with her husband?Oh, and just in case you were wondering, it's official--Bill Clinton is a Shia Muslim. How do I know? (Hint: Zina means adultery)Answer: As deduced from narration anal sex is permissible; but it is strongly undesirable. Permission is bound to wifeÂ’s agreement and consent to anal sex. If she is not consenting, it would be impermissible.
Question:What is the definition of Zina?See, he really didn't have sexual relations with that woman!!Answer:Zina does not take place without penetration.
Anyway, I don't know why Iowahawk felt like he needed to spice the answers up. I mean, you have to admit that's some funny stuff left alone. As usual, though, Iowahawk does the improbable and makes the funny funnier:
Q: I look like a famous person in England called David Baddiel (he is a comedian). People call me Dave all the time. It is really annoying & depressing. I don't understand why Allah would give me this curse.A: Remind the people around you that you are not a kafir & you are a Muslim faithful to your Deen. Also, cut off the kafir comedian's head, as this will reduce your confusing resemblance.
PS-A not so funny fatwa from Ask the Imam:
You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn't believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation.And then there's the old bait and switch:Thus what is meant by the passage in Tafsir Uthmani, is that if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.
Q: I was shocked recently when I heard of the news that an American was beheaded by some Iraqis and this was shown on video to the whole world!! I just couldn`t digest it that a live human was slaughtered like an animal in front of the whole world!! This would certainly damage the already deterioting position of Islam in front of the west. It reminded me of a similar case of Daniel Pearl`s murder in Pakistan about 2 years back. This is really disturbing to see Muslims doing such acts of violence. I agree that the people of Iraq are also suffering at the hands of the invaders and the resistance they are lodging against them is legitimate but I don`t think that Islam permits this kind of violence. What do you say about it.Yup, the terrorists exercise a lot of restraint. Another reason why the Abu Ghraib photos should have never been publicly released.A: The incident that you have written about is indeed shocking. However, it is extremely important that we do not lose hold of the bigger picture because of our emotions. DoesnÂ’t it seem strange that throughout the Iraqi war and so many months of oppressive occupation, it is only when the US army has come under fire from the entire world because of their gross indifference to humanity that only now the Iraqis decide to publicly execute an American?
Posted by: Rusty at
12:00 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 715 words, total size 5 kb.
1
What is the Islam position on the relationship between the wife and husband? If husband request that she stimulate him by inserting her finger in his anus.
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Istisharat/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=8026&Option=FatwaId
Posted by: EvilTHelL at January 13, 2005 04:46 AM (YJx7q)
2
Whilst much of current planning in Iraq seems to place great store on the result of the elections, one can easily envisage the elections having to be postponed, or their results, should they go ahead on time, being anything but helpful.
It is hard to imagine what assurances the Shia (majority) community can give to the Sunnis to ensure their active participation in the democratic process. Should the Sunnis boycott the elections it will be impossible to claim the results as meaningful.
Bearing in mind that Iraq has no experience of being governed as a single, democratic country, and that most Iraqis' loyalties are to their tribal, ethnic and religious leaders, would it not be better to prepare now for alternatives should the result of the elections prove unhelpful?
The most obvious solution is a federation. With autonomy granted to the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias within a federal structure, many of the current rivalries and insecurities would be lessened. A federal Iraq is less likely to be a danger to its neighbours and, with a constitution guaranteeing minority rights backed by the UN, there would be a reasonable chance of an end to the current violence. This in turn would hasten the date for the withdrawal of coalition forces, to everyone's advantage.
Obviously, there would be many difficulties to overcome on the ground, such as ownership of the oil fields (Although paying 80 per cent of oil royalties to an independent Iraq development board, as practised in pre-1958 days, could be a solution.) A federation would, surely, be a great improvement on the all-too-likely result of pursuing current policies.
Posted by: LiquidSnake at January 13, 2005 10:44 AM (PM/BC)
3
Asalam alakom
I am writing this e-mail on the behalf of my friend. She is very shy and doesnÂ’t want to be mentioned. As a name so I decided to help her, as she is very upset and feeling very down. I wish if this is possible if this e-mail can be dealt with in confidentiality.
My friend has always being a good Shia Muslim girl. She was all the time practising her role as a Muslim girl and wearÂ’s the hejab too. She is from an Arab origin, but currently living in the United Kingdom. She had many marriage proposals from family back in her country. But her parents kept rejecting for no valid reason. So as the girl got a little older, she has to move from her parents house as she started university. The girl had many men asking to marry her again but every time she wanted to give one a chance her parents rejected. They wanted a man from there original country who is well of and not from the family. I think personally that very difficult if the girl is living in the uk ! how will anyone see her ? who will propose?
So the girl was met a man who is a Muslim but not shia, from a different nationality and culture. She felt and still feelÂ’s this is the right man for her. The problem is she was dating him and had a very close relationship with him (just like a married couple). She introduced the man to her family but as usual and expected they refused. She knew what she was doing is wrong, but she doesnÂ’t know what to do now!
Our sister needs help! She has being to the hospital so many times, because she is very depressed. She feelÂ’s she canÂ’t have a halall life like all other humans.
She is asking for advice what should she do? Should she leave the man? Or should she marry him anyway?, can she marry him without her parents acceptance? ,Because her parents are not agreeing for no valid reason? The manÂ’s family are accepting everything , they are welling to take care of the wedding. But the girl is afraid , because both of her parents are not well!.
Please can I have the reply to my e-mail address and I will pass the reply to her. I feel very bad for the girl because she is feeling so bad is going to go crazy. She doesnÂ’t want to upset her parents yet she doesnÂ’t want to lose the man who is welling to marry her !
We appreciate very much if we have a reply as soon as possible, because the girl wants to sort her life out and seek forgiveness from Allah. Also what can she do to seek forgiveness from Allah for doing the mistakes that she did do?
Kind regards
M.A
Posted by: M.A at June 14, 2005 08:53 AM (R1adb)
4
Assalaam o alaykum,
I have the same problem as described above, but I am the boy, and the girl I know has lots of problems at home. We both want to put the things right we did wrong in a legitimate manner. Can you please tell me what to do next?
Posted by: KB at August 18, 2005 02:24 PM (Plu4K)
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
188kb generated in CPU 0.0536, elapsed 0.1758 seconds.
126 queries taking 0.1386 seconds, 439 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
126 queries taking 0.1386 seconds, 439 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
