People who need to STFU:

Pat Robertson. Every time you open your mouth, you score one for Satan. Shut up and quit telling everyone they deserve what they got you idiot.

Ted Kennedy. I could expound on this one for a while, but I'm just sick of his fat, pompus ass.

Lindsey GrahamNearly everyone on the judicial committee. If you're being mean enough to make a woman cry, and you aren't eve talking TO that woman, then you need to reconsider what you're saying.

Ray Nagin. You're an idiot. You've been an idiot forever, but Katrina really brought it out in you. You've got a snowball's chance in hell of getting reelected because the people that didn't hate you before certainly do now. Shut up and go out with a little dignity already.

Chuck Schumer. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you weren't the Terminator, no one would even notice the fact that you're Governor. I thought you ran as a Republican?

Judge Edward Cashman. The problem, you idiot, is that if you let him go, he's NOT going to get help, he's going to go rape more children. If that doesn't bother you, maybe we should lock the two of you up together and he can rape you for four years. Maybe then you'll have a different outlook on your sentencing.

I'm sure there are more, but I have to get back to work.

Update: OK. Thanks for the update on Graham. I'll admit I got hasty on that one.

Posted by: Drew at 11:19 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

We've heard periodic reports of native terrorists fighting foreign terrorists in Iraq, but this report via Captain Ed is odd news, if true. The Islamic Army in Iraq is not just another 'insurgent' group. These are your hardcore headchoppers, hostage-takers, and civilian murderers.

These are the guys who recently murdered American civilian Ronald Schulz, and who have been implicated in the hostage taking of four Western peace activists. The group has, in fact, cooperated with al Qaeda in various operations in the past.

If The Islamic Army in Iraq has begun to fight with al Qaeda, then I'm afraid it is more likely a turf war than anything else. The news that other groups, which are more nationalist in orientation, though, fighting against al Qaeda, is probably more accurate. Der Spiegel:

According to an American and an Iraqi intelligence official, as well as Iraqi insurgents, clashes between Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Iraqi insurgent groups like the Islamic Army and Muhammad's Army have broken out in Ramadi, Husayba, Yusifiya, Dhuluiya and Karmah.

In town after town, Iraqis and Americans say, local Iraqi insurgents and tribal groups have begun trying to expel Al Qaeda's fighters, and, in some cases, kill them.

In October, the two insurgents said in interviews, a group of local fighters from the Islamic Army gathered for an open-air meeting on a street corner in Taji, a city north of Baghdad.

Across from the Iraqis stood the men from Al Qaeda, mostly Arabs from outside Iraq. Some of them wore suicide belts. The men from the Islamic Army accused the Qaeda fighters of murdering their comrades.

“Al Qaeda killed two people from our group,” said an Islamic Army fighter who uses the nom de guerre Abu Lil and who claimed that he attended the meeting. “They repeatedly kill our people.”

The encounter ended angrily. A few days later, the insurgents said, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the Islamic Army fought a bloody battle on the outskirts of town.

The battle, which the insurgents said was fought on Oct. 23, was one of several clashes between Al Qaeda and local Iraqi guerrilla groups that have broken out in recent months across the Sunni Triangle.

Update II: Via James Joyner I read this over at Rantingprofs. I would simply add that The Islamic Army in Iraq and al Qaeda both share the same short-term goals (ousting the U.S.), intermediate goals (harsh Sunni sharia in Iraq), and long-term goals (restoration of caliphate). Both are salafiyist groups and are violent jihadis of the worst kind. I'll say it again, the dispute between the two groups is about who controls the new Iraq, not what that new Iraq should look like. Various pundits would do well if they had a cursory background of the terror organizations named in the article.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:37 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.

I saw over at AoSHQ that there were reports that North Korean dicatator's train had disappeared in China. WTF? I asked myself. Did someone pull the ol' Hans Brix shark-tank on his dictatorness?

Alas, I'm afraid it isn't so. Kim Jong Il has become the Elvis of the Far East. He's been spotted all over China, North Korea, and even Russia. And I'm afraid he's getting the rock star treatment in one Chinese city. Leading the Charge:

Chinese authorities took over a hotel in the southern city of Guangzhou on Thursday and barred public access amid rumors North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is making a secret visit.

Traffic was cordoned off several hundred meters (yards) from the White Swan Hotel and police and hotel staff stopped people from walking in.

"I am sorry, but the government has rented the whole hotel and in fact this morning we had to send our guests to other hotels," one employee told Reuters. "We will only open for regular business on the morning of the 16th."

Asked if any special visitors were staying at the hotel, she said: "We don‘t know. We have not been told anything."

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan told reporters he had "no information to offer" on Kim‘s whereabouts.

Various media reports -- citing witnesses, diplomatic sources and those familiar with his movements -- have put Kim in Beijing or Shanghai. One source said he was in Russia.

Hong Kong reporters began flocking to Guangzhou, capital of Guangdong province, on rumors Kim was staying at the White Swan.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:22 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

Right. As if the ACLU would be opposed to that. Fredericksburg city Councilman fights for right to pray in Jesus name.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

The face of a 'moderate' Democrat revealed. (But how about that Sheri Belafonte? Hot, hot, hot!)

Posted by: Rusty at 08:15 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Allahpundit points out that Malaysia's impending law legalizing polygamy is on hold--for now. Personally I think polygamy ought to be legal (but only good polygamy--two hot chicks), but Islamic law's version of unfair to women at best and a license for masogony at worst. AFP:

Malaysian women's groups claimed victory after the government put on hold contentious legislation which would have helped Muslim men to take multiple wives and claim property after divorce.

The government agreed to review the Islamic Family Law bill after it triggered a public outcry last month by forcing it through the upper house over the protests of women senators and civil society groups....

Malaysian Muslim men are allowed four wives under Islamic law, but under the new amendments they would no longer have to prove they are financially capable of treating all their wives equally before taking on another.

On taking a new wife, men could seize property belonging to existing wives, and they would be given new rights to claim assets after a divorce, as well as less obligation to pay compensation and maintenance.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

No, this is not a report about the curricula. It's a story out of Westford, Massachusetts, about a teacher getting pinched for heroin. Although unwelcome, it is a change from the ubiquitous stories of teachers having sex with students.

A 30-year-old sixth-grade English teacher at Stony Brook Middle School, Jessica Palkes (pic), was arrested last Friday and charged with possession of heroin and hypodermic needles after a traffic stop. According to Westford Police Lt. Victor Neal, Palkes admitted that she was a heroin user. Her arraignment was Tuesday in Ayer District Court. Palkes pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The Superintendent of Schools, Stephen Foster, has notified the parents of current and former Stony Brook students of Palkes' arrest. It's notable that in 2004, Westford Academy teacher Rosemarie Pumo was convicted of distributing heroin to students and sentenced to prison.

Two teachers from different schools in the same small town being involved with heroin would appear to indicate a generic drug problem far removed from the crime-ridden center of the big city. An inquiring mind would have to wonder just how extensive the rural Massachusetts drug problem is.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 02:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

From the Washington Times:

The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper.

A Kennedy spokeswoman said it was an entirely different matter.

"No one can question Senator Kennedy's commitment to equality, justice and civil rights," said Laura Capps. "What he was part of was a social club, not a radical group pushing a radical agenda."

Anyway, she said, even though women were admitted to the university during Mr. Kennedy's tenure, they weren't fully integrated to the campus until much later.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:48 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, that Paris. The one in Fwance. If you were in London anyway, and you had the time and money, would you go?

Posted by: Rusty at 05:41 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Click here to see an Iraq war veteran take Moran to task over his stance on the war.

Posted by: Drew at 04:56 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

E-mail terror supporter Asad Ullah here islam4uk@hotmail.co.uk. He is the registered owner of the 'Saved Sect' website which supports exiled cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad, most famous for saying:

there is no doubt that fighting the enemy, whether close to you or far away, is a duty upon Muslims, especially after the criminals, aggressors and occupiers have spread their atrocities and corruption among the believers and in their homeland, and have violated the sanctities of Allah

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.

Therefore, dear brothers and sisters know that democracy and "freedom" are both forms of taaghout, and hence, it is a prerequisite of being a Muslim to reject these and declare animosity towards them.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:48 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 2 kb.

Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to read much of the news coming out of the Alito hearings. I did hear where Kennedy attempted to lecture on morals. I don't even think the pot calling the kettle black euphamism is strong enough for that. When you leave a woman to drown just to save your political career, you lose all rights to speak to anyone about morals.

What I have heard, though, is this. The Democrats are beginning to sound like a one-trick pony.

"Alito will do away with abortion."
"What's going to happen to abortion under Alito?"
"How will Alito vote on abortion cases?"
"Alito is going to take away womens' rights."

Are the Democrats being alamrists? Are they just trying to keep from getting another Conservative on the bench? Are they trying to push their agenda? Let's take a look at the facts. Most of the historical abortion cases that I have heard of have been decided 6 - 3. With the death of Chief Justice Rhenquest and the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice, nothing changes. We lost a consistantly constitional vote and gained another. Even if Judge Alito were confirmed and voted consistantly conservative on every issue, it would only bring most abortion votes to a 5-4 decision. Now, to be fair, there are some issues that were voted 5-4 that would now change. And there are some that we are completly unsure about such as upholding the partial birth abortion ban. But is that enough to stop Alito? Is that even why we are here?

The purpose of the Senate confirmation hearings, according to the Constitution, is simply to provide advice and consent to the President. It doesn't say that he has to follow their advice, or that their consent is completly necessary for a judge to be confirmed. Only that they provide it to the President. And historically, the Senate confirmation hearings have not been used as a formum for a partisan witch-hunt. This practice started in earnest with Justice Clarance Thomas. If you want proof of how the confirmation hearings should be conducted, take a look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I don't agree with anything that she does politically and neither do most of the Conservatives who confirmed her. Yet she received 99% of the vote during her hearings. This is because instead of asking her how she was going to vote on certain issues, the Senators at that time stuck what they were supposed to cover. Does she know the law? Is she an honest person? Can she judge impartially? How highly is she rated by her peers? Covering the confirmation hearings with all the propaganda about how a judge is going to vote or what his politics are based on is simply a waste of our time and money. And even more so when a windbag like Kennedy takes time to bluster and lecture.

And if the Senators do their job correctly and Alito is confirmed (which is the only logical outcome at this time), what then? Will abortion be overturned? Not likely. The first thing that you have to keep in mind is that these justices can't just get into office and start overturning any law that doesn't suit them. Someone would first have to bring forth a case challenging the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. And in this case, it would probably have to be something that has not yet been tried. Most tactics (for lack of a better word) that have already been ruled on are either not going to be accepted by the court for a second look or ruled on in the same way. However, I'm certain that there are enough bright lawyers out there looking to make a name for themselves that someone can find a novel approach to this issue. So, assuming that Alito gets nominated, some hotshot young lawyer finds a new way to say Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and manages to get heard, AND one of the historical "swing vote" judges decides that he agrees with the argument AND both Roberts and Alito agree with the argument....Roe v. Wade could potentially be overturned. Woe and betide us! Women will have to move back into caves! All their human rights will be taken away! They'll become a subclass of people and even lose their right to vote!

Or maybe not. You see, all Roe v. Wade has ever done is move the decisions about abortion to a federal level and take it out of the hands of the states. And with this, out of the hands of voters. Which is EXACTLY where abortion proponents want it. They're terrified of letting the people speak on this issue, so they have hidden behind the judicial nonsense perpetrated by the original Roe ruling. Whether or not you believe in abortion, you should be completly appalled at the way this has been handled. To allow a judge to add (or take away) rights that do not appear in the Constitution allows for the complete bypass of our entire system of checks and balances. The liberals have been up in arms lately over President Bush's alleged "power grab" with the entire wiretap story. Yet they refuse to acknowledge the same type of situation when it happens with our court system.

The nomination of Samuel Alito to our highest court can be used for two things. It can be used by the partisan hacks to divide our great country further in their effort to dismantle the constitution through judicial activism or it can be used to get us back on track. As voters, the choice is ours. Contact your senator and let him know how you feel on this and every issue that means something to you. And if they don't listen, then send them a clear message at election time.

Posted by: Drew at 02:23 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 990 words, total size 6 kb.

Various Russian news agencies report that a lone knifeman entered a central Moscow synagogue and began randomly stabbing congregants. At least eight people were stabbed, four of them are in critical condition. Three of the victims were foreigners, including an American, and Israeli, and a Tajik. The name of the American victim is not known at this time.

Rabbi Yitzhak Kogan reports that the assailant said, "I've come here to kill." The assailant, 20 year old Alexander Koptsev, was apprehended by the Rabbi and his son. No known ties exist between Koptsev and antisemitic nationalist groups.

When I lived in Russia, ten years ago, antisemitism was rampant. I guess things haven't changed all that much.

UPDATE: Looks like he was a skinhead, or 'gooligan' as they say in Russia.

News Search: Moscow Synagogue

Posted by: Rusty at 12:36 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Ok so my wife only shares a variation of one name with Ms. Jolie who as it turns out may be officially knocked up. Be careful brad that young-un may come out and throw a roundhouse at yer noggin.

I reckon that was an appropriate pic cept Angelina will be facing the porcelain god now.

Here are your White Trash Wednesday bloggers

Click for Exclusive Actual “white trash” family conversation from inside a tin box somewhere in the deepest darkest reaches of Bumfuct Egypt.

more...

Posted by: Howie at 12:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 3 kb.

Has the Northeast Intelligence Network suffered from jihadi cyber attack? Here is the message I get when going to their site:

Any one in contact with Douglas Hagman, let me know.

UPDATE: Up and working now, so Dave's explanation (in comments) might be right.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:15 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

I wonder what former Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd has to say about this? Via Dan Riehl: Heath Ledger slams West Virginians, Mormons:

"I heard a while ago that West Virginia was going to ban it. But that's a state that was lynching people only 25 years ago, so that's to be expected," Ledger said.

"Personally, I don't think the movie is (controversial) but I think maybe the Mormons in Utah do. I think it's hilarious and very immature of a society.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:58 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Ya know, if some idiots want to make a movie about queer cowboys, then hey, it's a free country, right? But by the same token, if the vast majority of We the People are disgusted, repulsed, and sickened by the thought, and choose not to see it, then hey, it's a free country, right? Personally, I'm only glad John Wayne isn't around to see the depths to which we've sunken.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 12:03 PM (0yYS2)

2 John Madden on the subject: "When you think about fag cowboys, you think about Heath Leger, and when you think about Heath Leger, you think about fag cowboys. You take the fag cowboys and Mormons and they just dont go together the way they do with Heath Leger. I mean Heath Leger and fag cowboys go together like Brett Favre and Lambeau Field and cold weather, and what was the question?"

Posted by: Steve Sharon at January 11, 2006 12:16 PM (e/IFH)

3 Words like "Fag" and "Queer" aside. I saw the movie. It's an excellent story of two men, who fall in love. Let's not confuse sex with love. [They find a bond that in another time would be wonderful]. The movie isn't graphic; you donÂ’t see their erect penises, you see them embrace and be tender towards each other. They were forced to remain inside the confines of society. Go see the movie. It wonÂ’t make you gay by watching it, it may even give you something to think about.

Posted by: Chevy at January 11, 2006 12:50 PM (TJt6I)

4 Nicely said Rusty.

Posted by: thirdee at January 11, 2006 12:56 PM (S0mC1)

5 Chevy: what proof do you have that seeing the movie won't make you gay?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 11, 2006 01:07 PM (RHG+K)

6 I think I'll pass, a movie that is based on the premise of: Homo's, Homo's on the range, where the deer and the antelope play Just isn't my speed. Thanks for the feedback Chevy, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Posted by: dave at January 11, 2006 01:26 PM (CcXvt)

7 Chevy, First of all, queers call themselves queers, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander, especially if the gander's queer. Second, I know what love is, and I know the perfectly natural, asexual, bond that men can form, espcially under trying circumstances; it's called "brotherhood", and it's quite common among soldiers, and yes, cowboys. Wanting to give your buddy a Dirty Sanchez is not the natural expression of amity between men, which is why it's called "queer". Third, I'm not afraid of becoming queer just by watching a movie, though you might have trouble wrapping your simplistic liberal mind around the idea. I just find the whole concept repulsive, and want nothing to do with it, and I damned sure won't support such degeneracy with my money. If you like watching gay cowboy porn, then by all means go ahead, because as I said, it's a free country, but don't expect normal, red-blooded men to go for that shit, 'cause it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 01:32 PM (0yYS2)

8 Chevy, I watched the movie and immediately felt the urge to sodomize my half brother Heath.

Posted by: Nick Barclay at January 11, 2006 01:37 PM (3OPZt)

9 well said Maximus! I personally don't hate queers, just don't want to see the homo mafia in everything that is natural, because it is not! They want rights, give them their rights.........15% off Vaseline now get the *uck back in the Closet(Dice Man was right)

Posted by: Andy at January 11, 2006 02:56 PM (tMU4W)

10 That's it Andy. I have two gay neighbors that are just plain nice guys, and I wouldn't let anyone cause them any trouble, but they know how to keep private matters private, as all people should. I don't really care what consenting adults do with one another, I just don't want to know about it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 03:22 PM (0yYS2)

11 Stop saying gay cowboys! They're gay sheep herders! Big difference...

Posted by: Chad at January 11, 2006 03:30 PM (E2GpM)

12 Let's just pray this thread doesn't get linked to one of the pro-homo sites. IM, as usual, you cut through the BS and got to the point. Well said, my friend!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 11, 2006 03:32 PM (rUyw4)

13 Yeah they are sheepherders nobody ever liked them in the old westerns either: the sheep crop the grass to short not like cattle. So if they are to be hung they should be hung as sheepherders not as queers.

Posted by: john Ryan at January 11, 2006 04:18 PM (TcoRJ)

14 Good point on the technicalities, they're damn sure not cowboys. Thanks JJ.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 05:31 PM (0yYS2)

15 They are not gay, they are homosexual. I am not ruining the english language to satisfy a bunch of faggots. Sorry if you do not like my opinion but I think they are disgusting, especially bisexual men who do not tell their wives or girlfriends about their boyfriends. At least Suha Arafag knew about Yasser.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at January 11, 2006 05:32 PM (e/IFH)

16 Faggot traditionally meant a stick of wood, and gay meant happy. Don't know how they got converted to mean polesmoking rump rangers, but that's their current context.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 07:34 PM (0yYS2)

17 >>>I saw the movie. It's an excellent story of two men, who fall in love. So if the two cowboys in question turned out to be long-lost brothers, would it still be an "excellent" and touching story about two men who fall in love? After all, they don't show any erect penises, and they really really love each other.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 11, 2006 11:55 PM (8e/V4)

18 They are sheepherders - shepherds! Not cowboys! What's the matter Hollywood? - so out of it you missed that obvious detail? what next - a pickup is a car? Boots are shoes (or just footwear)? Want to make gay love story movies - fine. But please play at least a lil' bit attention to detail! I mean - what next - a gay love story about two sailors filmed against the backdrop of the Arizona desert?

Posted by: hondo at January 12, 2006 07:52 AM (3aakz)

19 So ... they are NOT gay cowboys, but gay shepherds. .... Does this mean they ran out of ewes?

Posted by: charlie at January 12, 2006 09:24 AM (2ZhL/)

20 Their gay cowboys because someone in Hollywood realized that pointing out their actually shepherds opens them up to a lot of old jokes - AND THEY WANT TO BE TAKEN OH SO SERIOUSLY!

Posted by: hondo at January 12, 2006 09:49 AM (3aakz)

21 So two gay sheepherders walk into a bar... Let's have a contest to finish that joke. Howzabowtit?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 10:29 AM (0yYS2)

22 No, hondo, the people who do these things and write these scripts are ignorant. Not stupid, but ignorant of anything that is not in their little circle. That is the reason they cannot understand how anyone could vote for Bush. They really have no idea about how the vast majority of the people in the US live and think. And honestly, they probably think a cowboy herds sheep. Any three-year old here in Texas would know that not to be true.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 12, 2006 10:30 AM (rUyw4)

23 They know the difference between herding cattle (cowboys) and herding (is that the word?) sheep (shepherds). I know they do - I'm surrounded by them here in NYC. Ang Lee might not know - but they do.

Posted by: hondo at January 12, 2006 12:47 PM (3aakz)

24 two gay sheepherders walk into a bar..... one turns to the other and says, hey ya wanna get shitfaced ? How's that IM ?

Posted by: memphis761 at January 12, 2006 02:03 PM (D3+20)

25 Sometimes you just have to push the sheep through the fence...

Posted by: George at January 12, 2006 02:07 PM (SyfL7)

26 Sorry, but no. Thanks for playing though, and please try again! How about this: Two gay sheepherders walk into a bar, and the bartender says, "We don't allow you people in here." One of the sheepers responds, "It's okay, we're into rams."

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 04:34 PM (0yYS2)

27 As they sit down at the bar, one says to the other” Mind if I push in your stool?"

Posted by: Brad at January 12, 2006 04:35 PM (3OPZt)

28 Good try Brad, but it's been done, and we need a whole joke. C'mon peeepul!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 07:27 PM (0yYS2)

29 So far the only movie reviewer I know who really loved the movie was Mr.Slave of the South Park Daily who gave it two schmeckels up.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at January 13, 2006 09:58 AM (9H6fQ)

30 What's the big deal about their being sheepherders rather than cowboys? You guys keep saying they are sheepherders like that was some kind of bad thing. Fact is sheepherders lived as rugged and difficult life as any cowboy. You ever read anything about the Basque sheepherders of the American west? They were tough guys! Anyway, Jesus portrays himself as a shepherd too! The "Good Shepherd." So how can being a shepherd be a bad thing? btw, it's a pretty good flick. Seems to me a lot of the people here are trashing it without even having seen it!

Posted by: ed jay at January 26, 2006 11:59 AM (11Y2B)

31 Saw the movie. Liked it. Live in Salt Lake City. Larry Miller and his Mormon counterparts can't cram their religion down our throats.

Posted by: Dennis at January 29, 2006 12:12 AM (6Dcjp)

32 Saw the movie. Excellent acting. Story not that believable. Live in Salt Lake City. Larry Miller and his Mormon counterparts can't force their strange religion down the throats of all Utahans.

Posted by: Dennis at January 29, 2006 12:18 AM (6Dcjp)

33 Brokeback Mountain will not get my money. This movie was done because sissy hollywood fags like the idea of big tough butch fags pushing them around (somebody has to be the girl). I mean, look at the village people! So far this movie has grossed 66million dollars. Sounds like a lot. Compare it to the last star wars movie. 108million on its 1st weekend alone. Real Americans know what they want, and this liberal fag cowboy shit is not it. It is being force fed to us.

Posted by: bobby at February 15, 2006 10:26 AM (v53kJ)

34 I grew around sheepherders. I know a little bit about sheepherders. They are hygenically challenged. They spend months at a time out in the wild, not bathing and doing their business in the bushes. They hang around camp fires and get all smokey. Also, they tend to take on the aroma of their charges. The only thing that could be worse would be a pig farmer. Kiss a sheepherder, not on your life, especially after I saw them castrate lambs with their teeth. Yetch! And about knocking Mormans, if the religion works for you, fine, if not, maybe you ought to be a Methodist or something else.

Posted by: Bob Gill at February 21, 2006 04:40 PM (t3jdx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Often in the pages of The Jawa Report we ponder the question of whether or not Islam can be reformed to meet modernity. Except for very liberal Muslims, we have found little hope. For instance, not a single Islamic country has either full religious freedom or freedom of speech. While a Hindu is permitted to practice his faith privately in many Muslim countries, he may not do so publicly. Nor can the believing Buddhist try to convert a Muslim or criticize Islam in any way in any Muslim country.

So, can Islam be reformed? I have speculated in the past that such reform might come, but only at great cost and through external circumstances. But, I have remained open, if not skeptical, to the possibility that such a reformation is possible and has, in fact, already begun. Today I learn that I am not alone.

Via McQ who has a discussion going over at Q and O, I learn that the Pope is equally skeptical. Had I not been on vacation, I probably would have caught Hugh Hewitt's full interview, the transcripts of which can be found at Radioblogger:

the holy father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said, well, there's a fundamental problem with that because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through his creatures . And so it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used his human creatures, and inspired them to speak his word to the world, and therefore by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.

McQ has more on why this understanding is important in dealing with Iran.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:03 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

From the Associated Press via Yahoo!News:

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito came under aggressive questioning Wednesday from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who accused him of inconsistencies on issues ranging from voting rights to ethics to his membership in a conservative organization.

(a) IN GENERAL.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

The American Civil Liberties Union has officially announced its opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court:

NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it will oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.

The bad news for Dems and their co-conspirators at the ACLU is that Alito is turning the confirmation hearings into a wonkfest - a solid, masterful recitation of relevant law in response to antagonistic questioning, with no emotional fireworks to attract much in the way of mainstream media attention.

Some sort of publicity stunt will be necessary to pull off the Borking. I expect that sometime soon, a mainstream media accomplice will discover some bit of old news to try to drum up a lynch mob among the leftwing loonie fringe.

Thanks to Jay Stephenson of Stop the ACLU, who has more, including a petition supporting Alito's nomination.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:11 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

Honour thy father and mother that thy days be long in the land which the Lord gives thee.

MEMRI:

Sheikh Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, a professor of Islamic law at Al-ImamUniversity, who frequently appears on Saudi TV recently made anti-Christian comments on Saudi Al-Majd TV. He told his audience to hate anyone "who worships Christ, son of Mary" and added that "whoever says 'I don't hate him [i.e. a Christian]' is not a Muslim..."

"But if this person is an infidel - even if this person is my mother or father, God forbid, or my son or daughter - I must hate him, his heresy, and his defiance of Allah and His prophet. I must hate his abominable deeds. Moreover, this hatred must be positive hatred. It should make me feel compassion for him, and should make me guide and reform him."

Posted by: Rusty at 08:57 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.