Hey, did you guys hear about that storm from last year...What was it called? Karen, Kate, no, it was Katrina right? And did you know it hit New Orleans? Yeah. Heard something about it, I think from the same people who told me that John Kerry served in Vietnam...But I can't be sure, my memory ain't so good...I need to hear things a few (million) times before they stick.
UGH! PUHLEEZE! You'd think there had never been (and would never be) another storm as "devastating" and "tragic" as Hurricane Katrina!
I was purposely avoiding posting on the subject, in defense of the poor bloody corpse of a beaten-to-death horse that this story is, but then I read what Pete (a.k.a. Alois) had to say about it. The very fact that someone could make me laugh out loud in my frustration was reason enough to share it here:
AND THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT: New Orleans, one year after. Since it was my son's former home and a city I knew fairly well, I was tempted to say something.Fortunately, Michelle Malkin says it for me.
Living right next door to a town that was decimated by a tornado a year ago—a town that got no aid from FEMA because all of that had been diverted to Katrina relief—and a town that, at least on the surface, is almost fully recovered today, I've got very little good to say about the way the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana handled the Katrina catastrophe.
As my wife would say, "Let me put it this way": I'm glad my son chose to flee New Orleans. Even if he went to Israel. In wartime..
So today I spent entirely too much time on my local "mommy forum" in the section known as the "sandbox." That's what they call the forum in which you're actually allowed to talk about sensitive or controversial topics. Have to keep it separate dontcha know, just to make sure people who might get offended have fair warning...
So there was a thread in there about "political confusion" today, and the original poster wanted to know whether people call themselves middle-of-the-road when they really aren't. Well that topic was sort of interesting, so I bit. I gave the usual answer about how I don't think it's the labels that confuse people, it's the stereotypes associated with them, the misunderstandings about what the parties or terms stand for, etc...
And along the way, someone posted how they didn't really know what either party stood for really, but they would probably identify themselves Democrat if polled because (how did she put it?) she was nowhere near close to EVER indentifying Republican.
On the surface, seems innocent enough, but then I thought about it...This woman says she knows nothing about what each party stands for or what their platforms are. So I had to wonder, why have such an extreme visceral reaction to the very thought of identifying (ick) "Republican," like it's a dirty word.
So I asked her, and for context, I put in a bit about how I had researched the Democratic party recently and even though I'm independent, couldn't identify with them, but I had reasons, and amonst them I cited what I consider to be their current "socialist" leanings. I was referring to policies and politicians remember, not voters and "beliefs," but let's not let facts confuse the woman who posted the next response.
She took such offense at being called "socialist," you'd have thought I called her a child abuser! In defense of the Democrats, she posted a list of "core beliefs" of her party and demanded to know which among them were consistent with socialist beliefs. Leaving aside the fact that they are probably all consistent to a certain degree with "beliefs" held by socialists, the list itself was laughable. I wanted to fisk it right there in the forum, but hey, I have to live here, our kids might meet on the playground, who knows?
But out here, nothing can stop me from doing what simply MUST be done! So here goes...
Atlanta, Georgia (PRWEB) April 7, 2006 -- There is a question that always comes up in political circles: What does the Democratic Party stand for? Every Democrat knows in his or her heart exactly what we stand for, but we often find it hard to put all our values and everything we believe into a few words.We are Pro-Constitution of the United States of America:
As horrific as 9/11 was, it did not repeal our constitution. The unpatriotic "Patriot Act" is impeding our constitutional civil rights
We are Pro-Democracy: Even as we impose Democracy in foreign lands, we should not forego our own. Every Citizen should have the right to vote, and the right to have their vote counted.Key word? "CITIZEN!" Every citizen does have the right to vote, but illegal aliens aren't citizens. I know you'd LIKE them to be, but they are not, therefore they do not have the right to vote. As for having votes counted, every citizen has a right to have his or her vote counted--ONE TIME. Not again and again and again until the results are what your party wants them to be, and not again if you screw up and pick the wrong candidate because you're too stupid to read the ballot correctly or ask questions if you're confused. And you sure as hell don't have a right to vote AGAIN if you're just "not sure" you voted for the right person. One person, one vote. Nothing "anti-democracy" about that. Democracy is based on LAWS, and some of them govern elections. Get used to it and get over it. Time.To.Move.On.
We are Pro-Civil Rights: Equal Opportunity and Dignity for ALL Americans, without biases. You are either for equal rights or you're against equal rights. Equal means equal, for everyone.Yes, that's right! Equal means equal, RIGHTS that is, not OUTCOMES! Affirmative action IS bias. It does not apply to "everyone" therefore it is not "EQUAL." So I guess you guys are really anti-equal rights, or is that pro-bias, I can't tell. But weren't we supposed to be talking about "Civil" rights, not equal rights? I'm so confused....
We are Pro-Free Speech: Putting down debate and discourse is unpatriotic!So sayeth the party of Code Pink, the girls who storm public hearings and Congress yelling at the top of their lungs so no one can hear the speaker. So sayeth the party of the students at UT Austin who verbally assaulted Ann Coulter and tried to make it impossible for others to hear her speak?
I get it. Freedom of speech is fine, when it's speech you agree with. Otherwise it's perfectly "patriotic" to censor it.
We are Pro-Small Business and Individual Opportunity: While maintaining an environment for ethical large corporate profitability.The line should go on "We just want small businesses to pay out the ass in wages and benefits even if it means they'll go under or be forced to sell out to the large corporations (who give us nice big fat checks too!)"
We are Pro-compassion and dignified assistance for the disadvantaged: Do not preclude helping the needy because a few abuse the system. Help enable the disadvantaged to become self sufficient.Of course by "disadvantaged" we mean anyone who doesn't feel like working, who's "depressed," has a hangnail, would prefer to spend their time doing drugs, milking the system, having illegitimate kids, or just watching soaps on TV. And by "self-sufficient" we really mean completely dependent upon us and the taxes we impose on people other than you.
We are Pro-Inclusiveness, and Anti-Divisiveness: Strength of the Nation AND Strength of the Community.This is just code for "LET'S HEAR IT FOR HYPHENS!" By community of course we mean ethnicity. This is just a way we cleverly disguise our desire to balkanize the nation into ever smaller special interest groups to whom we can pander for votes.
We are Pro-Religious Freedom and Separation of Church and State: Following the guidelines of our founding fathers.Of course we mean "guidelines' in the loosest sense of the term. We know better than the founding fathers in fact, and we're sure Jefferson was being LITERAL when he used the metaphor of a "wall" of separation, even though no such wall existed until Justice Hugo Black put it there! Just as long as we're clear that it is a WALL of separation. Oh, unless you're Muslim, in which case we might make an exception. We'll see. It all depends if we continue to believe kissing your butts exclusively will get us off the infidel hit-list. As it now stands, it's looking good for Sharia law in the next decade or so!
We are Pro-International Leadership, lead by example and via “international alliances”: Better through UN and NATO than aggressive unilateralism.In other words, lie down and play dead and maybe the bad men will go away. Whatever you do, if the bully in the schoolyard says he's gonna kick your ass at recess, be sure to give him your lunch money ahead of time. This way, even if he still kicks your ass, at least the change in your pockets won't leave a bruise when you fall on it.
We are Pro-Strong Military and Defense: Support the people who defend our values with their life and limb. Develop military solutions in balance with the threats.We're not even sure what this means. It sounds good thought doesn't it? Of course it's predicated on the theory that all threats we face are really figments of George Bush's imagination, because a solution in balance with the threat of Global Islamofascism would probably require us to actually kill people somewhere, sometime, and killing people is baaaaad. Our military shouldn't have to do that. They should just walk around in those cute uniforms carrying unloaded weapons, like our heroes at the UN.
We are Pro-Homeland Security: Train, equip and fund our “first responders”.Because everyone knows the only way to be "secure" is to make sure the rescuers can get to us a little faster after we're attacked!
We are Pro-Fiscal Responsibility: Mortgaging our future by uncontrolled deficit spending is bad policy.I mean, we're for it for OTHER people. You know, "rich" white people and republicans. Lord knows the shit they want isn't worth spending money on. But if a bunch of poor people or illegal aliens need something, we'll borrow to give it to them! You betcha! No cuts to social programs for us! Just get rid of all that expensive military stuff. Who needs it anyway? We have no enemies, at least none that won't stop hating us the minute Bush is out of office!
We are Pro-Women's Health and Pro-Planned Parenthood: Respect women’s rights. Respect the right for women and doctors to make health decisions without legal intervention. Focus on health, education, and prevention of unwanted pregnancies.Of course we mean Pro-Planned Parenthood the ORGANIZATION. Did you think we meant pro-birth control or pro-adoption? Heck no! If someone wants to use abortion as birth control, that's fine by us. If a woman decides in her eighth month that she's just too busy to have a baby and wants her doctor to terminate the pregnancy for her, and he's willing to say her "health" is threatened because she might have an anxiety attack if she has to give birth, who are we to argue? And when we say "woman" we really mean "anyone with ovaries who's ever had a period," because we wouldn't want to give the impression we wouldn't support the rights of minor girls to skip out of school to get abortions without their parents knowledge. What's a little surgery on a child without parental consent when we all agree politically, right? After all, we're Democrats. We know what's best for other people's children don't we?
We are Pro-Civil Unions: Dignity, Respect and equal opportunity without judgment.We'd say we're pro-gay marriage, but then we might get "judged" and lose votes, so we've toned it down a bit, but you all know what we really mean, right? *wink*
We are Pro-Environment: For our health safety and enjoyment; our children’s health safety and enjoyment; and the rights of future generations!Those filthy Republicans! They just love pollution, they roll around in it like the stinking capitalist pigs they really are. Not us, we are clean. We only fly in our private jets and drive in our SUVs and yachts on odd number days, because we care!
We are Pro-Gun Control: Controlled, trackable access to guns for self defense and sporting needs.Of course we reserve the right to decide who really "needs" self defense and sporting guns. Basically the police, movie stars and their bodyguards and criminals. If you're an average law-abiding citizen, you don't really "need" a gun now do you?
We are Pro-Education: We support a strong Public School system and access to higher education.Did we say "strong?" What we really mean is "powerful." Can't have any other educational entity having anything close to the spirit-crushing strength of the public school system! And as for access to higher education, what we really mean here is that SAT tests and grades shouldn't get in the way of a kid's dream of college! And if he or she is a member of a minority group or "protected class," access should be even easier!
We are Pro-Workers' Rights: We support the right to organize and negotiate for fair wages and a healthy and safe workplace, without the fear of losing your job.Unless of course you don't WANT to organize and negotiate through a union, in which case you should defintely fear losing your job you capitalist scum! You must work for Wal-Mart!
Did I miss anything??
Is it me, or is that list the biggest piece of fluff garbage you've ever read? Then I checked the DNC website for their actual platform, and I couldn't find it! No joke. They haven't got one! Go check, please, prove me wrong! I wish they did, then I'd be better able to prepare myself for what or who might be "leading" us after the November elections.
Alert the presses! Annan makes an actual demand of Hezbollah!
Oh, wait, I shoulda known...The Israelis have to do something too. Got to be all fair-zee-ware-zee after all (retch, puke, gag):
BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday called on Hezbollah to turn over two captured Israeli soldiers to the Red Cross.He also urged Israel to lift the air and sea blockade of Lebanon that it established as part of the military campaign against Hezbollah after the soldiers were seized.
The blockade has to do with preventing Hezbollah from RE-ARMING, it's not "punishment" of some kind for the Lebanese people! I'm quite sure (despite it not being reported) that the Israelis--if they could--would happily board each and every ship and only halt those carrying weapons, but hey, they don't have that kind of manpower or time. Hezbollah, on the other hand, would happily stash weapons in amongst bags of rice, baby formula and women's undergarments if they thought they'd get through!
By tying the release of the soldiers to the lifting of the blockade, Annan once again proves he's the personification of the moral bankruptcy that has so completely overtaken the UN.
OH, and you'll love THIS part:
After meeting with Siniora, Annan also conferred with parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri, a key negotiator with Hezbollah, and Lebanese Energy Minister Mohammad Fneish -- one of the two Hezbollah Cabinet ministers.Fneish said the U.N. chief relayed his proposal to hand over the Israeli soldiers to the Red Cross.
"I told him that I am not authorized to discuss this with him," Fneish told CNN. "This is a matter that would have to be discussed within Hezbollah and can only be part of a prisoner exchange process and the final decision would ultimately be made by [Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah."
Oh yeah, I forgot, two soldiers captured at gunpoint during a battle of invasion of a sovereign democratic nation, who are probably gagged and bound and suffering horribly at the hands of their merciless tortureres, far from the prying gaze of anyone who might help them--that is if they are still alive-- are exactly the SAME as who-knows-how-many pieces of worthless scum terrorist ASS, currently enjoying warm comfortable jail cells and three squares a day under the watchful eye of the Red Cross and the world!
Yup, they're "equivalent," definitely. No, wait, the Hezbollah are worth MORE, that's what we'll hear next. That's because it will take dozens, maybe hundreds of their pieces of shit to trade for one Israeli. In a way, I agree with this. I mean, it would take hundreds of Hezbollah just to amount to the worth of one Israeli's toenail clippings, but you know that's not what Nasrallah means when he demands so many of his breed for so few of the Israelis. And (not surprisingly) Annan will surely agree with him!
Those soldiers should have been released as part of the cease-fire agreement. To have not demanded it then was like handing Hezbollah the keys to the kingdom, and a large part of why they can legitimately claim victory in this conflict.
Koffi, I wish you large festering boils, preferably in your mouth so you'll be unable to act as a mouthpiece for tyrants anymore.
HERE'S AN IDEA: For the MSM [and yes, even you, Fox News]... We'd sure like to see you spend a lot less time covering the deeds of worthless pervert scum and a lot more time covering the scum that is trying to swallow Western civilization. Y'know? That is all.
To which my Dad replies:
Actually I think it is probably good that the news media are so stupidly preoccupied with this nonsense that they briefly stop confusing people on the truly important issues of the day!
WTF?
Hey, I couldn't make this shit up (via Instapundit).
Kevin Drum reviews Peter Beinart's latest book "The Good Fight" and comes to some pretty startling conclusions (startling in that he's willing to say out loud what we've all known for years about the left-wing anti-war crowd):
So what is it that Beinart really wants from antiwar liberals? The obvious answer is found less in policy than in rhetoric: we need to engage more energetically with the war on terror and criticize illiberal regimes more harshly.Maybe so. But this is something that's nagged at me for some time. On the one hand, I think Beinart is exactly right. For example, should I be more vocal in denouncing Iran? Sure. It's a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state that stands for everything I stand against. Of course I should speak out against them.
And yet, I know perfectly well that criticism of Iran is not just criticism of Iran. Whether I want it to or not, it also provides support for the Bush administration's determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike. Only a naif would view criticism of Iran in a vacuum, without also seeing the way it will be used by an administration that has demonstrated time and again that it can't be trusted to act wisely.
So what to do? For the most part, I end up saying very little. And Beinart is right: there's a sense in which that betrays my own liberal ideals. But he's also wrong, because like it or not, my words--and those of other liberals--would end up being used to advance George Bush's distinctly illiberal ends. And I'm simply not willing to be a pawn in the Bush administration's latest marketing campaign.
What's most remarkable to me is that Drum fails to see a more "nuanced" (that is what liberals call that mushy gray area between the black and white they claim to loathe so much, right?) approach, a way to have their cake and eat it too, so-to-speak.
By failing to criticize Iran at all, they lose ANY moral highground from which to criticize the President's (or anyone's) efforts at dealing with that dangerous nation. Their silence IS consent of a sort. If they would speak up and say "Yes, Iran is HIDEOUS, we should be very very very afraid of them, and that is precisely why we should NOT go after them militarily, but rather this way, they would be able to add to the dialogue and--who knows--perhaps get the problem solved using their solutions.
Ahhhhh, but there's the rub you see...They HAVE NO SOLUTIONS. They have no better idea. They are like the husband who refuses to contribute to the decison of what color to paint the bathroom simply because he wants to have the perpetual right to criticize the choice.
Theirs is a position of the do-nothings. They want only to sit back and JUDGE, never to BE JUDGED.
And yet they recoil if we challenge their patriotism. What a load of crap.
Lashawn Barber highlights the irony that affirmative action supporters are now going to have to deal with other minorities whining for race or ethnicity-based entitlements.
The “past injustices” argument, once a noble proposition, has become a laughably oblique screed used to help disguise or downplay underachievement and justify government-mandated “reverse” racial discrimination and its attendant immoral transfer of wealth.It is wrong to treat people differently because of their race, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. That clause does not guarantee equal outcomes. No policy can or ever will guarantee equal outcomes. The idea that everybody must have the same stuff and that every profession must reflect the proportionate racial make-up of the country or else racism is involved is idiotic, illogical, and unworkable. But the notion is entrenched, and the ignorance is passed on from one generation to the next.
The government is already trending toward bestowing preferred minority status on hispanics, for whom affirmative action was not created. Blacks who support and rely on race preferences — particularly for skin color-based government contracts and college admissions — and reject fair and consistent standards of performance will live to regret it.
They’ll get a mouthful of their own bitter medicine, and I’m going to enjoy watching them swallow it, especially since they’re powerless to stop it and have no moral authority to claim that it’s “unfair.”
Reconstruction is over.
What a week. Where do I start? First of all, why haven't I posted much here, given all that's been going on? Well, I've been wasting enough breath to fill several hot-air balloons over on my local mommy board in the politics/current events forum. I've gone head-to-head with some of this nation's most articulate, but wrong-headed women, and I'm exhausted and probably defeated. There's only so much time and energy I can give to banging my head against a brick wall. Not only that, the more I read of their illogical-but-passionate arguments ("We're hated because of Bush and Iraq...Why do we support Israel anyway?...People only criticize Hillary because she's a 'strong woman'...The judge who nixed warrantless wiretapping saved us from losing our precious freedom of speech...Blah blah blah..."), the more I'm convinced we're in for a world of hurt before anything can get better. I can only pray that my family and I don't have to suffer the effects of their stupidity ourselves.
The other reason I haven't been posting much is that I'm so frustrated and angry about the so-called "cease fire" agreement.
In a twisted way, I'm "impressed" with the way Iran has played us like a fiddle. Nothing that has happened has been accidental or incidental.
1) First, they used Hezbollah to attack Israel right at the start of the G-8, effectively taking them and their nuclear ambitions off the top of the agenda.
2) Next, they used the latent anti-semitism and anti-zionism in Iraq to fuel anti-American/anti-Western sentiment and cut us off from alliances in Iraq, turning that already crappy situation into a PR nightmare for the Bush adminstration.
3) Then they manipulated our press--already worked into a frenzy over having another war to cover 24/7, and already predisposed to blame all the troubles of the world on Bush, America and Israel--and fed them doctored photos of bogus massacres, never pausing for a second to ask the really tough questions or get the real story. You never saw questions like "How is it that the same organization that can show up seemingly unimpeded by torn up roads or bombed out bridges, moments after an Israeli attack and accompanied by a full camera crew, can't manage to evacuate a building full of children despite two days of explicit warnings from the Israelis? How is it that there were only "civilians" in Southern Lebanon, no visible signs of Hezbollah, but today, Hezbollah is everywhere? How can anyone hope to disarm a group of people who have simply melted back into Lebanese society, guns other weapons carefully tucked away already?"
4) They hid behind the Lebanese population to such an extent that the Israelis had no choice but to destroy half the country, alienating a people who weren't exactly predisposed to be friends in the first place. This drew the entire Lebanese population to their side, making it that much easier for them to stage the coup they will likely stage some time in the next year.
5) They forced the international community to send in "peace keeping troops" who will now become the mother of all human shields for Hezbollah. When (not if) they resume rocket attacks on Israel, what is Israel going to do? Fire back and risk killing peace keepers? Again, on a massive scale?
So there it is. Israel had no choice but to sign off on this piece of crap. Their economy couldn't sustain a long war, and the longer Hezbollah kept fighting, the bigger the victory they could claim when the fighting finally stopped. Unless Israel could have killed every last Hezbollah fighter, Hezbollah was predestined to "win" this fight. I can't believe I didn't see it myself (stupid Deb, stupid!).
Meanwhile, how does the rest of the civilized world react? Well, what would you expect? Oh, you'd expect us to verbally attack the terrorists who hide behind women and babies? Sorry, as long as those terrorists are targeting JEWS, it's not gonna happen. Fill Israel with anyone else, maybe, but as long as it's a Jewish state, the rest of the world will find some way, any way, to explain or even condone the actions of the terrorists. Just ask Jimmah Castro, er, I mean Carter. He'll be the first one to tell you that Israel had "no right" to "attack" Lebanon, and when asked whether or not Israel was attacked first, he'll be happy to ignore the question and tell you all about Hezbollah's legitimate gripes regarding prisoners held in Israeli jails. If you can stand to listen some more, he'll tell you all about how Christian fundamentalists are the root of all evil in the world and the most dangerous enemy we face. No, you read right. He said "Christian fundamentalists."
Yeah, as Dennis Miller would say, he's got a "stranglehold on reality."
Then of course you have the way the so-called civilized world, the ostensibly inherently noble moral compass known as the "international community" has reacted to the Holocaust Cartoons recently put on display in Teheran, allegedly in response to the Muhammed cartoons printed in a Danish paper.
Oddly, no one is asking (again) the really important question: What did Israel, or the Jews, or the Holocaust have to do with some Danish cartoons? Why isn't the exhibit of cartoons making fun of Danish people, or Europeans in general? Why Jews? Why Israelis? No one's going to ask because no one really cares. Might as well ask "Why NOT the Jews?"
And most importantly, what's not happening--except from Jewish circles--is protest. Newspapers that are reprinting the cartoons aren't being threatened. Embassies aren't being stormed by angry Jews. Editors aren't being fired. Nothing. Is. Happening. Nothing that is except hatred getting some more free air time.
Then--although probably unrelated to the Iranians or Hezbollah--a bunch of terrorists get the go-ahead to launch a huge airplane attack on the US via Britain, and the attack is foiled only because the British have surveillance as good as their immigration policy is BAD. And how do we respond here in this country? By rejoicing in the decision of a Carter-annointed judge who strikes down NSA "warrantless wiretrapping" as "unconstitutional," at the same time that we're submitting to longer lines and an inability to bring so much as a bottle of water on an airplace (and all by Homeland Security "decree", not legislative action mind you).
Clearly, Daniel Henninger sees what I'm seeing:
Our Bitter Politics
May Drop the Gift
Of a Foiled Plot
August 18, 2006; Page A14New York City on Wednesday released more audiotapes from September 11, the day whose realities won't go away no matter how corrosive and divided our national politics become.
Congress has before it two chances to begin the task of shaping a legal system appropriate to the threat: the Specter bill to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and its responsibility after the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision to write rules and procedures for military commissions. Given the political climate, it's far from certain that Congress will get this right.
Over the past year the Democrats have built a political case that President Bush's conduct of the war on terror is trampling civil liberties and the rule of law. There is a list for the Bush assault on "our values": the NSA's warrantless wiretaps, Guantanamo, phone-call datamining and of course his Supreme Court nominations.
Whatever the merits of all this, Congress's Democrats are publicly committed to making this version of the Bush civil-liberties record a voting issue for their party in November and beyond. So presumably they will remain deaf to Secretary Chertoff's plea for a legal system tailored to fight Islamic terror, at least until after 2008.
Even allowing for election needs, why is it not possible for the congressional Democratic Party and its Amen corner in the punditocracy and blogosphere to overcome their George Bush phobia here? They should allow the creation of a civil-liberties regime that will genuinely (not hopefully) reduce our exposure to the risks now being rolled up by the surveillance and arrests in London.
The foiling of the plot in Britain was a kind of public-policy miracle, a rare chance to rethink. The U.S. could have spent the past week with 4,000 funerals. We would have had calls for measures so stringent and draconian they would make the Bush program look like pattycake. We have none of that. But unless our politics changes, we will.
My only hope is that it won't take another attack on OUR soil to wake us up. As horrific as it sounds, I hope the next major attack is elsewhere and affects fewer Americans, but there will be another attack. With the wiretaps gone, most likely sooner rather than later. And when it does, if it's here, the blood of those killed will be on the hands of the the activist Judge, the ex-President who appointed her, and the average American housewife who--in a misguided attempt to "defend" our freedoms, ensures they will continue to be threatened.
And now for some much-needed rest. Pray for us sinners Lord. We know not what we do (apparently).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Moussoui also found in Minnesota?
WASHINGTON (CNN)--Three of the 11 Egyptian students who failed to show up at a Montana university last month were taken into custody Wednesday.The FBI on Saturday issued a nationwide alert to law enforcement agencies. Included were the students' names, ages, passport numbers and photographs.
"At the present time there are no known associations to any terrorist groups. Approach with caution," the lookout bulletin said.
Two were found in New Jersey, according to two law enforcement officials, one of whom said they turned themselves in to authorities. No further information was available.
Eslam Ibrahim Mohamed El-Dessouki, 21, was arrested without incident about 11 a.m. (noon ET) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, according to a statement from FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko.
"El-Dessouki was taken into custody on an administrative immigration violation as an out-of-status student," Kolko said.
El-Dessouki "was located through source information," a federal law enforcement official said.
There was no indication what El-Dessouki was doing in Minnesota, but he was not visiting relatives, the official said.
Oh I'm sure he was just sight-seeing (cough....bullshit...cough)
I read this tripe from Haaaahvaaaad lecturer, Jessica Stern yesterday, and my teeth almost fell out of my mouth when my jaw hit the floor.
Just check out this one paragraph:
Jihad has become a millenarian movement with mass appeal, similar, in many ways, to earlier global movements such as the anarchists of the 19th century or even the peace movement of the 1960s and '70s. But today's radical youth are expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo by making war, not love. They are seduced by Thanatos rather than Eros. Newly-wed pro-jihadi youths spend their wedding nights watching today's ghoulish pornography: the beheadings of foreigners held hostage in Iraq. Children film themselves reenacting these beheadings, seduced by a familiar drama of the good guys killing the bad guys in order to save the world.
Ms. Stern forgets the difference that makes ALL the difference: CULTURE
The culture in which jihad could become a "fad" as she so ludicrously describes it, is one in which parents derive a certain kind of ecstasy at the thought of their babies dying for God.
Our culture, by contrast, is one in which a parent (Andrea Yates) who brutally hunts down and murders all five of her own children (also for God) is deemed "insane" and locked up in a nut-house for life.
For those of you in remedial humanism 101, let's review:
There: Mommas who wish their babies to die for God = sane, rational, heroes or "martyrs"
Here: Mommas who wish their babies to die for God = crazy, insane, irrational, monsters
Proof that Ms. Stern doesn't get it comes farther down the page. Let's read what this esteemed professor has to say about how to combat the problem:
To win this war, we need to understand that we are fighting an idea, not a state. Military action minimally visible and carefully planned and implemented may be necessary to win today's battles. But the tools required in the long run to win the war are neither bombs nor torture chambers. They are ideas and stories that counter the terrorist narrative--and draw potential recruits away from the lure of jihad.
OK, first of all, anyone who uses "narrative" instead of "culture" is obviously a few fries short of a happy meal when it comes to their ability to perceive reality. Just something I've observed. It's a pretentious word used almost exclusively by academic elites who are so busy looking at the veins on each leaf of each tree, they forget they're in the forest, never mind being able to see it. These are the same folks who can't stop using the word "nuanced" either. But I digress...
Uh-huh. "Ideas" are the ammo we need. Yes, I'm sure that will do it! We'll just round up all the jihadis, their clerics, their teachers, their parents and grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and friends, and we'll subject them to some of your lectures, some of your "ideas" about better more wholesome ways to fight the status quo they loathe so much.
How would that go exactly? How would you suggest, for example, we combat the "idea" that Jews are monkeys and pigs who drink the blood of Muslim babies? What purpose does racism serve and how would you "replace" it with a better "idea"? Is there a better scapegoat, really? Or do you honestly believe you can convince all the living generations of an enormous group of people that the scapegoat they've chosen is the wrong one? Would a better "idea" have been Hitler's undoing? Would it have worked with the Hitler Youth d'ya think?
Shit, even relatively civilized Mel Gibson--a guy who's successfully hidden his hatred for decades and certainly never ordered his life around doing anything about it--had to get a smack-down to realize being a flaming anti-semite was damaging to his "career," never mind to his "soul." Is that what we want from the Jihadis? An apology for their rantings?
See, it's simple kiddos. People like Ms. Stern--people who think jihad is a "fad" that will just go away--not only don't know their history (or they'd know, as Hugh Hewitt does that "Strictly speaking, I'm not sure that you can describe something that's been around for 14 centuries as a fad.")--they don't know the first thing about Arab or Muslim culture. If they did, they'd understand that it makes about as much sense to talk to a radical Muslim about better "ideas" for dealing with their angst and woe as it does to talk to Andrea Yates or any other child-killer-now-deemed-mentally ill.
Or, as my Dad likes to say, "Talking to a jihadi makes about as much sense as talking to a Dingo dog." If you don't already know, Dingo dogs look like dogs, walk like dogs, bark like dogs, but unlike dogs, cannot be easily domesticated and are always a danger to humans, even when the seem "trained." Their goal in life is to kill and eat, and they'll play possum (play dead) to ambush their pray. They are animal terrorists of a sort. And they don't care if what they kill is a baby kangaroo or a baby human. Makes no difference to them. If it serves their purpose (filling their belly in this case) they'll kill it and eat it. So it is with Jihadis. If it suits their purpose of world domination to kill babies, so be it, even if they are their own.
Put another way, ask yourself, why is it that despite being on the receiving end of over 160 rocket attacks in the last 24 hours alone, you don't hear much about Israeli citizens being killed? Sure, the rockets are inaccurate, but that only proves my point. The Israeli missiles are almost perfectly accurate and we know they don't 'target' women and children, if they did, they wouldn't waste time and effort (and risk planes) dropping leaflets imploring them to get out to avoid getting hurt!
So why the discrepancy? Random attacks for which Israelis have maybe a minute or two warning (five at the most) kill very few, surgical strikes in Lebanese villages that were warned days in advance kill dozens (or so we're told).
There's only ONE explanation, and if you stop and think about it (which of course no one in the media ever does, thus missing the REAL story every single cottin' pickin' time), it makes perfect sense. Israelis love their kids. They come from a culture that loves and values life. When they feel lives are threatened, especially those of the youngest and most innocent and vulnerable amongst them, they move heaven and earth (literally) to move them out of harms way. Jihadis, in contrast, not only don't move Muslim children out of the way, they pack them into buildings, send out faulty intelligence or fire missiles attracting bombardment, and then secretly rejoice at the huge PR boost the ensuing carnage provides. Dingo dog behavior. Kill and eat, kill and eat, without fear or remorse.
Now imagine if you will the Sesame Street song "One of these things is not like the other," and you'll have my point. CULTURE is the differentiator, not "ideas." Sure, cultures are made up of ideas, but they are also made up of "beliefs," which are far less rational. Even I'll be the first to tell anyone who asks that Judeo-Christian beliefs are far from rational. "Turn the other cheek?" "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" You mean even before I know whether they'll reciprocate? Sheesh! Totally irrational. Some would say "Nice idea, in theory. And yet, we live in a culture that has built its entire world around those beliefs, and thus, that "idea." It would be about as easy to change our minds about these things as it would be to convince us that the world was flat. I know this, you know this, probably the most illiterate gangsta in the hood would agree as well, but for some reason, Ms. Stern would not. In her fantasyland, we could just present a different "narrative" to the jihadis (who come from a culture in which the narrative they have was supposedly handed down literally by God himself), and they would change their minds, would accept a better set of "ideas."
Yeah. Right. Her and what army?
And that, folks, is my point. It takes armies, not ideas. As with Dingo dogs, the only thing you can do to change the behavior and motivation of a Jihadi is to KILL HIM. Kill enough of them, fast enough, overwhelmingly enough and convincingly enough, and those who are left--like the Dingo dogs who encounter a bonfire in the midst of your encampment in the outback--will tuck their tails between their legs and run the other way. In the world we live in, that's about the best "idea" we could hope for them to have.