May 31, 2010
Even muslim “peace activists” aren’t peaceful! lol Below, peace activism–anti-Israel style; and all that silly tripe about “international waters” rebutted too.
Two IDF videos provide proof that the “peace activists” that Navy commandoes expected on the flotilla actually were armed extremists who had carefully planned to ambush, attack and kill the soldiers. One commando suffered serious wounds after a being thrown 10 meters from the bridge of one ship to the deck below:
“Peace Activists” Swarm Israeli boarding party
The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose,” IDF spokesmen said.
The attackers assaulted the commandoes as they descended on deck by rope from helicopters hovering above the flotilla. The Navy soldiers were virtually defenseless because of their orders as the attackers beat them with metal clubs and knives and fired at them with two pistols that had been snatched from the commandoes.
The soldiers were under orders not to shoot, but the “open fire” command was given after stun grenades failed to disperse the attackers. At least 19 people were killed, most of them from Turkey, where the radical IHH group organized the flotilla.
The Navy ships initially requested the ships to change course peacefully from Gaza and head for Ashdod, where they would be able to unload their aid material, which would then be transferred over land to Gaza after undergoing security inspections.
“Peace Activists” try to lynch Israeli commandos
And from Ace of Spades:
The “peace activists” had been warned that they must divert to Ashdod where the supplies they intended to deliver would be searched for weapons and then trucked to Gaza.
They refused, choosing to make a political statement rather than deliver much-needed food and medical supplies to Gaza. They got their wish. The IDF released this video (embedded below) of the so-called peace activists attacking IDF soldiers as they board one of the ships. They attacked with guns, knives, and improvised weapons.
About this whole “international waters” bit that the activists are bleating about, it doesn’t make a difference where the ships were seized. Even assuming that the activists are correct and that the ships were taken in international waters, there’s no “safe” spot for blockade runners. Israel has no duty to wait until its own waters are breached, not when the blockade runners have announced their intentions and set sail.
Israel gave the activists every opportunity to turn aside, both before they assembled and after they made a run for the blockade. The activists aren’t bothering to pretend that they were planning to do anything other than challenge the Israeli blockade. They can hardly complain when the Israelis take them at their word.
Pro-pal activists bring knives to a gun fight, win Darwin Award.
By Rami Amichai ABOARD INS KIDON, Mediterranean Sea, May 31 (Reuters) – Israeli commandos who raided a Gaza aid ship on Monday were set upon by activists with knives and clubs and some troops jumped overboard to save themselves, according to an Israeli account.
Israel said commandos opened fire in self-defence and 10 activists were killed and seven troops wounded. With Israel jamming signals and censoring media, there was little independent reporting of the events at sea. An Israeli military spokesman said some of the commandos were equipped with paintball guns but the non-lethal weapons were not enough against activists who charged in with batons.
“They had pistols with live ammunition as back-up, to defend themselves,” he said. One of the commandos told reporters he descended by rope from a helicopter onto one of the six ships in the convoy and was immediately attacked by a group of people waiting for them.
“They beat us with metal sticks and knives,” he said. “There was live fire at some point against us.” A Reuters cameraman on the Israeli navy ship Kidon close to the six-vessel aid convoy said commanders monitoring the operation were surprised by the strong resistance put up by the pro-Palestinian activists.
One of the commandos said some of the soldiers were stripped of their helmets and equipment and a number were tossed from the top deck to a lower deck and then leapt into the sea to save themselves. “They jumped me, hit me with clubs and bottles and stole my rifle,” one of the commandos said. “I pulled out my pistol and had no choice but to shoot.”
The ongoing Islamic/Leftist campaign to delegitimize and destroy the Jewish state scored a huge victory today, and for that CCHQ is gravely concerned. But for the dead “activists”, not so much. They attacked armed Israeli soldiers, with the predictable consequences. Lesson learned. Yet, even this brazen attack on armed soldiers shows just how little they fear the IDF, whose code of “purity of arms” compels them to bend over backwards to avoid civilian casualties. As this incident shows, this doctrine inspires nothing but contempt from the Israel haters. And in most cases I’d agree with them. The IDF often bears more a resemblance to riot police than they do a heavily armed military. They go out of their way to avoid civilian deaths. But this was different. Here these soldiers dropped into a nest of hornets with no escape route, and when the mob turned on them, they were cornered. The outcome was unavoidable. Below, Israeli commandos getting the living crap beat out of them just before the bloodshed:
Counter culture till the very end, Hollywood great, Dennis Hopper dies from cancer at 74.
But Hopper is still part of the counterculture — only in liberal, Democratic Los Angeles, that means being a registered Republican.”I’ve always been political,” Hopper says, “but I haven’t always been a Republican. I was with Martin Luther King [and] at the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley. I was a hippie. I was probably as Left as you could get without being a Communist.”
Asked what happened, Hopper says, “I read too much Thomas Jefferson and decided that every 25 years you needed to have a change if you’re really going to have a republic, and the Democrats had been in power too long.”
This was about the time that Ronald Reagan was campaigning for the 1980 presidential election.
“I never cared for Reagan, very honestly,” Hopper says. “I thought he was a bad actor. I never thought he was a great communicator, didn’t think he was a great speaker.
“But the idea of changing the Congress, changing the Senate, getting the Democrats out, getting the Republicans in, also the idea of having less government — which didn’t seem to work out.”
What began as a philosophy of political change turned into a change of political philosophy.
Read the rest.
Below, one of his more unforgettable scenes from the movie True Romance (content and language warning).
The Spanish town of Lerida has become the first in the country to ban the Burka in municipal buildings.
The town council voted to prohibit the “use of the veil and other clothes and accessories which cover the face and prevent identification in buildings and installations of the town hall.” The vote, by 23 to one with two abstentions, is the first of its kind in Spain, a country where Islamic veils and the body-covering burqas are little in evidence despite a large Muslim population.
The move is aimed at promoting “respect for the dignity of women and values of equality and tolerance,” the town hall said in a statement.
The Islamic veil has sparked intense debate in many European countries, with Belgian deputies last month backing a draft law banning the garment in all public places, including on the streets, in a first for Europe.
France’s cabinet has also approved a draft law to ban the full-face veil from public spaces, opening the way for the text to go before parliament in July.
The issue is a relatively new one for Spain, an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country which has seen the number of immigrants living within its borders soar from around half a million in 1996 to 5.6 million last year, out of a total population of 46 million people.
Moroccans make up one of the largest immigrant communities.
May 30, 2010
Liberal “nuance” at its most precious:
Tavis Smiley: “Christians do that every day [blow people up]. They walk into post-offices, schools, Columbine, I could do this all day long.”Vodpod videos no longer available.
If I had a nickel for every time a Liberal claims to be christian just after he finished slandering Christianity I’d be Bill Gates. It’s like the racist who claims he’s got “lots of black friends.” But have you ever heard a Liberal christian run down their precious Liberalism? Ever? Their anti-Chrisitian slander, on the other hand, comes so effortlessly, so naturally, so unhesitatingly, you know where their first loyalties lie– and it’s not with Christianity. I am no longer even surprised, for instance, when I hear an atheist defending Christianity from the abuses of your average so-called Liberal christian. An atheist! That’s how deeply inculcated is their loathing for Western culture, the sins of which they lay almost entirely on Christianity. Gramsci is in their blood. Cultural marxism is in their DNA. They can’t fight it. They are the apologetic Christians. The embarrassed Christians, who when faced with the choice, always choose their real religion– Liberalism. And for that they will make no apologies. In the battle for the West, they can hardly be counted as friends.
Ace puts it another way:
What he means is that the majority of the country is Christian, so whenever a murder occurs, it’s a “Christian murder.”
But see, the thing is, Muslims commit those sorts of “Muslim murders” every day, too, if we’re calling any murder (for the typical motives, love, money, etc.) by a member of a religion a Religious Murder.
He kind of forgot that, eh?
What we are talking about is murders committed for the sake of religion — and no, Tavis, Christians are not killing people every day because Jesus told them they’d get into heaven if they do.
May 29, 2010
Everything I’ve ever heard this guy say seems to be right on point. Lt. Col. Allen West on how mass illegal immigration is damaging the American project, and what to do about it.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimmilates himself to us, he shall be treated on the exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American. And nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. We have room for but one flag– the American flag. We have room for but one language here. That is the English language. And we have room for but one sole loyalty. And that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Lt. Col. Allen West quoting Theodore Roosevelt, 1907.
May 28, 2010
Mark Steyn is always first rate. Via the Blogmocracy:
Barack OBama, the MSM, and the insipid movie “A Mighty Heart” have all misrepresented the meaning of Daniel Pearl’s murder. Pearl was not slaughtered because of cultural misunderstandings and he was not a martyr for lack of freedom of the press. He was butchered because he was an American Jew and his kidnappers were nihilistic savages.
by Mark Steyn
Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”
Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.
This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”
Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.
Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.
Even if Americans don’t get the message, the rest of the world does. This week’s pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.
But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently it never captured Obama’s imagination, because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” — you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever — “that captured the world’s imagination.”
Read the rest One of those moments
… and he plays it rather well actually.
Here’s my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama’s tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we’ve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So we go deep, ultra deep – to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That’s a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?
Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they’ve escaped any mention at all.
And he’s just getting started. Read the rest.
Via Vlad Tepes:
This of course has been happening all over the Western world where Muslims have migrated with sufficient numbers to change the ‘it’s a crime’ to, ‘this is our cultural right’ ratios.
Push to let Australian doctors mutilate genitals of baby girls
Australian doctors are considering a controversial form of genital mutilation on baby girls. The practice involving cutting a girl’s genitals, sometimes with razors or pieces of glass, could be allowed in a clinical setting to stem illegal backyard procedures which are leaving young girls scarred for life.
The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians will next month discuss backing “ritual nicks”, a modified form of genital mutilation. But experts are divided on whether to allow the practice, given that in some cultures it is used to remove the sexual feelings of women. Female genital mutilation has been outlawed in Australia since the 1990s but is common among African, Asian and Middle Eastern communities.
With the rise in Somali and Sudanese numbers in Australia, doctors are seeing more cases of young girls, and women, needing surgery after illegal operations. Backers of “ritual nick” said it was a superficial procedure leaving no long-term damage. RANZCOG secretary Gino Pecoraro said the policy would be discussed at next month’s Women’s Health Committee meeting.
“We will need to start to think about [its introduction] but we would have to speak to community leaders from Australia,” Dr Pecoraro said. “If a nick could meet the cultural needs of a particular woman, then it might save her from going through what can really be drastic surgery. “But we need to make sure we do not legitimise the ritualistic maiming of children.”
But many are outraged, some saying a “ritual nick” is still child abuse and legitimises female mutilation. University of Newcastle’s professor of perinatal and infant psychiatry Dr Louise Newman said some doctors were being approached to perform the procedure.
“We know it is happening here . . . but [the] majority are done in the home in a traditional way,” she said. Reasons given by practising populations include religion, despite the Koran not requiring it, and that it can help maintain cleanliness and health.
“The problem is some people see it similar to male circumcision but the reasons for both are very different as well as the impact,” Dr Newman said. “The actual procedure can be pretty devastating.”
Let the Leftwing moral equivalency game begin.
Female genital mutilation has been universally condemned and denounced in the West for as long as anybody can remember. Now the eventual normalization of this brutal practice in the West is all but inevitable thanks to the New Left’s doctrine of Multiculturalism. But don’t worry, ladies; your feminist outrage will soon give way to Liberal empathy and understanding (but always for the perpetrator, never the victim). It always does! Because your hatred of “the Right” trumps all.
My heart goes out to those little girls. But it’s Western feminists I really feel sorry for– torn between female genital mutilation on the one hand, and their hatred of all things “the Right” on the other– how do they denounce one without affirming the other? They are paralyzed by the dilemma..
May 27, 2010
The multiculti anti-Christian Left don’t like it when you criticize their little third world mascots.
There are some review snippets that likely won’t end up as movie poster taglines:
“an affront to Muslims” – USA Today
“breathtaking cultural insensitivity” – Washington Post
“cinematic Viagra for Western cultural imperialists”– Salon.com
Of all the criticisms that could likely be launched against Warner Bros.’ new “Sex and the City 2” movie, the media have latched onto the film’s reported depictions of misogynist policies in Muslim nations.
It was USA Today that called the movie “an affront to Muslims.” Reviewer Claudia Puig wrote that director Michael Patrick King “is out of his league attempting to comment on the inequitable treatment of Muslim women. He ends up mocking religious beliefs and making Carrie and her friends appear insensitive.”
Many reviews are quick to defend Muslim culture, or at least Abu Dhabi, which does seem a less-than-compelling example of a society out-of-touch with modern notions of gender equality. (Some reviews do take on the other questionable material including the sleaze and rampant materialism, but the media loved the first big-screen adaptation of the HBO series.)
The criticisms of “Sex and the City 2” as “blatantly anti-Muslim,” as The Hollywood Reporter described it, may be perfectly valid. But where were these defenders of the faith when moviemakers attacked other religions?
At the risk of appearing to compare “Sex and the City 2” with a comedic masterpiece, take the 2004 DVD release of Monty Python’s 1979 “Life of Brian,” a vicious satire of the Gospel stories.
The Washington Post found it “hard to believe that it was such a controversial film when it first came out.” Reviewer Ann Hornaday, the same person who accused “Sex and the City 2” of “cultural insensitivity” couldn’t understand how Christians would find it offensive to feature a Christ-figure, joined by a chorus of the crucified, singing, “Always look on the bright side of life.”
Or how about “Saved!,” a less-beloved anti-Christian movie released in 2004? The film, which depicts the lives of several Christian-school students as they deal – poorly – with an unplanned pregnancy, was far from offensive to Salon.com. The review complained that it was “conspicuously lacking both guts and well-sharpened teeth.”
The media double standard for entertainment is clear. Satirize – or just flat-out attack – Christianity and receive a resounding “encore!” or, at worst, a “try harder next time. Depict Muslim culture in a negative light in a film ostensibly about feminism and female empowerment, and prepare for two big thumbs down.
While the hypocrisy here is so glaring it hardly bears mentioning because it speaks for itself, this is the beauty of political correctness and multiculturalism from the standpoint of the Left . It’s the best of both worlds- attack Christianity and the West in the name of “social justice” (their ultimate target is capitalism), while defending everything non-Western from any kind of critical scrutiny. Keep in mind they are not actually defending Islam, per se (because they don’t give a rat’s @ss about Islam), but rather their multicultural experiment. Criticism of Islam undermines cultural relativism, which is the bedrock of Multiculturalism and the New Left’s vision for the West. Nor do they ever feel the need to respond on the merits when they come to the defense of misogynistic Islam, nor any other non-Western cultural depravity for that matter. It’s enough for their purposes that the critics be attacked as “imperialists” and racists. The argument thus instantly shifts from Islamic misogyny to Western racism. Now you’re on their home turf and on the defensive. But that ruse is beginning to wear thin.
The reconquista movement comes to a theater near you with the light-hearted and satirical new movie by Robert Rodriguez, Machete. The trailer is taking a lot of heat for its overt anti-white racism, but Rodriguez insists everybody chill out because it’s just over-the-top satire meant for laughs. I believe him. It is over the top. And it is satire. And it is meant for laughs. Laughs at YOU. And satire is never just satire. But, according to the likes of Rodriguez, lighten up, people, it’s just a movie. What’s more, he wants your hard-earned tax dollars for the privilege of ridiculing you (corporate welfare, anybody?). So by the time you get around to watching the movie you’ll have paid him twice for the privilege of being mocked and humiliated by yet another moral midget from Liberal Hollywood (redundant, I know). What a country. It’s all in good satirical fun though, says Kurt Schlicter at Big Hollywood:
There’s no confusion about who the villain is in Machete – it’s you. More specifically, it’s you and the other 69% or so of American citizens who agree that we should have a say in who does and doesn’t come into our country by enforcing our immigration laws.
The underlying message of Machete, other than that all Anglos must die, echoes the unyielding stance of modern American liberalism that we, as a nation, are somehow morally foreclosed from performing the most basic function of a sovereign government – securing our borders. This is expressed throughout, but particularly in recurring scenes of “Minutemen” randomly hunting and killing illegals. I don’t expect hardcore realism from a movie called Machete, but if Rodriguez and his ilk actually cared for illegals more than as simple props in their long-running left-wing production of Why America Sucks, they might want to address the uncomfortable fact that the only people brutalizing Mexican illegals are other Mexicans.
Maybe they ought to premier Machete in Washington. After all, over half of our Congressmen and Senators seem to think its premises are solid. I’m still trying the get over the sight of the Democrats on their feet applauding that foreign tinpot Calderon for disrespecting our country. However, by the time the elections roll around I’ll probably see that footage again, oh, about 10,000 times as it becomes the centerpiece of any number of Republican campaign ads. Of course, I would not put it past the bondage club-patronizing halfwits in positions of authority at the RNC and elsewhere in the GOP establishment to talk themselves into a consensus that criticizing the liberals for siding with some foreigner against other Americans is somehow beyond the pale of respectable campaign discourse.
When it comes to Islam, I don’t think “mainstream” or “moderate” means what you think it means.
Grant death for blasphemy: Islamists to UN
Demanding a permanent ban on Facebook, over two dozen Pakistani religious groups working under the umbrella of the JuD have decided to contact the UN for enacting a global law “against blasphemy of prophets and awarding death penalty to violators.”
The decision to contact the UN and envoys from Muslims and non-Muslim states was made at a meeting of clerics belonging to the JuD, Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan, Tanzeem-e-Islami, Markaz-e-Ahlesunnat, Muslim Conference, Jamat-e-Ahlehadis, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, Pakistan Ulema Council and International Katham-e-Nabuwat.
The meeting, held yesterday at the JuD’s headquarters Markaz Alqaadsia in Chawburji, was presided over by JuD chief Hafiz Mohd Saeed.
“The ambassadors of Muslim and non-Muslim states will be told that blasphemy against prophets not only hurts the feelings of one religion but also sows a seed of hatred against the people of other religions,” the meeting observed.
May 26, 2010
This guy is incredible. He’s our very own version of Geert Wilders.
“Epluribus Unum. From many ONE. From many people, one people, The American people.
But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of Epluribus Unum.
In order to do so, they have to stop the process of assimilation. And in order to do that, they have to undermine our immigration laws.
May 25, 2010
The emerging New Caliphate in the West protests the burqa ban at the Belgian embassy in London (5/22/10).
“We have been commanded to die for our honor, and our honor is our women.”
“We are going to rise up, wherever we are, because we are one Ummah. We are not scattered in groups, but rather we go under the banner of [Islam]. Allahu Ackbar.”
This one is being passed around in the Muslim community as a call to action. We are in big trouble. But there will be no organized Western response to Islam because our elites are asleep, and we have been de-balled as a civilization by the ideology of decline– modern Liberalism, and the religion it has spawned– multiculturalism. And by the time we come to our senses, it will be too late. The solutions left us will be too drastic and appalling to stomach. We will go quietly into the night. The Europe that you and your forefathers knew will not be the Europe that your children and grandchildren will know. It’s lights out for the West. Or perhaps the future of Europe is Beirut, Lebanon, and the Balkans– societies in never ending turmoil as Islam forever seeks to assimilate what’s left of its ancient foe, and christianity always resisting in a kind of existential “forever war” in lands we can no longer claim as our own. Either picture is beyond depressing. Unless we act now. No more Muslim immigration to the West. And start having children again.
This is a good one because it illustrates how dangerous is the thread that runs through all do-gooders and utopians. Collectivists of all stripes– whether on the Left or the European right– feel a strong pull towards totalitarianism. Only their American ethic restrains them (and barely, at that). From The Anchoress:
The Privileged Call for Limited Dictatorships
When I read last week that Woody Allen likes the idea of letting President Obama be a dictator for a “few years” I was repelled; but then I’ve found Allen to be a repellent individual for decades–since Manhattan, at least–so I just shrugged it off as the foghorn bleat of an over-privileged mediocrity looking for some attention. But then the equally mediocre Tom born-wealthy-high-carbon-footprint-lover-of-Chinese-Communist-Capitalism-I’ve-got-mine-you-should-not-have-yours Friedman let fly with this on Meet the Press:
I have fantasized–don’t get me wrong–but that what if we could just be China for a day? I mean, just, just, just one day. You know, I mean, where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions, and I do think there is a sense of that, on, on everything from the economy to environment. I don’t want to be China for a second, OK, I want my democracy to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to-itiveness. But right now we have a system that can only produce suboptimal solutions.
To which Andrea even-more-privileged-than-you-Tom Mitchell chimed in:
“And, in fact, Tom, you’re absolutely right . . .”
The leftist party that these people support is currently in control of both houses of congress and the White House (and they are well-represented within the federal judiciary) and yet, it is not enough. The power is not pure enough, it is not invincible enough; their power is diluted because, dammit, those little people crowing about the constitution all over the internets are mucking things up!
Although, to be fair to Friedman, his China Fantasy is not new; he talked about “being China for a day” with Tom Brokaw in 2008. He’s been hoping for a dictatorship ala China, for a while, now as Jonah Goldberg notes.
Friedman and Mitchell, and even that self-absorbed twerp Woody Allen are all wringing their hands over something they cannot (yet) control; alternative media and how it has contributed to the difficulties of getting things done in Washington. When the press had a monopoly on information, it was much easier for them to influence opinion; that in turn made the legislator’s jobs easier, too. Now, yes, things are more difficult for the politicians, but that’s mostly because they insist upon working as they always have (the incestuous commingling of pols and media freaks on the left, and pols and business freaks on the right, with back-room-deals-aplenty, back-scratching galore and pork, pork, pork for everyone) while the electorate has decided it wants something different.
Read the rest.
“Multiculturalism means our core value is that we have no core values.”
The perceptions shapers are at it again. Ann Althouse exposes the MSM frauds:
If you’re going to criticize the new social studies curriculum adopted by the Texas Board of Education, you’d better quote it. Or at least link to the text. And if you choose to paraphrase and not even link, and I have to look up the text myself, and your paraphrase is not accurate, it is my job to embarrass you by pointing that out.
The Washington Post writes:
The Texas state school board gave final approval Friday to controversial social studies standards….
The new standards say that the McCarthyism of the 1950s was later vindicated — something most historians deny –…
The students are required to “describe how McCarthyism, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the arms race, and the space race increased Cold War tensions and how the later release of the Venona Papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government…” The word “vindicated” is inflammatory and unfair. What is the Washington Post saying historians deny? One can be informed of the reality of what the Venona Papers revealed about communist infiltration into the U.S. government and still understand and deplore the excesses of “McCarthyism.”
…draw an equivalency between Jefferson Davis’s and Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural addresses…
Students are required to “analyze the ideas contained in Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address and Abraham Lincoln’s ideas about liberty, equality, union, and government as contained in his first and second inaugural addresses and the Gettysburg Address.” The word “equivalency” is uncalled for. The requirement is to analyze, not to be indoctrinated that the ideas are the same.
… say that international institutions such as the United Nations imperil American sovereignty…
What I’m seeing is “explain the significance of the League of Nations and the United Nations” and “analyze the human and physical factors that influence the power to control territory, create conflict/war, and impact international political relations such as the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), or the control of resources.” Where is the language that can be paraphrased “imperil American sovereignty”?
.… and include a long list of Confederate officials about whom students must learn.
Students are required to “explain the roles played by significant individuals and heroes during the Civil War, including Jefferson Davis, Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln, and congressional Medal of Honor recipients William Carney and Philip Bazaar.” Only Davis and Lee were Confederate officials! There is also this: “describe the role of individuals such as governors George Wallace, Orval Faubus, and Lester Maddox and groups, including the Congressional bloc of southern Democrats, that sought to maintain the status quo [in the Civil Rights Era].” That’s obviously not from the Civil War, but I can see why it’s annoying to Democrats.
They also removed references to capitalism and replaced them with the term “free-enterprise system.”
The document on economics does use the term “free enterprise system” throughout, but students are required to “understand that the terms free enterprise, free market, and capitalism are synonymous terms to describe the U.S. economic system,” so what is the problem?
Virtually everything cited in the article to make the curriculum seem controversial is misstated! Appalling!
The devastating rest, here.
May 24, 2010
This one’s excruciatingly funny. But mostly just excruciating. As someone who’s had the UK’s David Cameron in the corner of my eye for a year or two now, it confirms everything I’ve come to believe about him. Here’s who the UK conservatives chose to lead their counter attack. The very definition of an empty suit. The UK is lost.
UPDATE: Ok, some egg on my face here because it seems this was made as somewhat of a spoof, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, and I fell for it. But where there is satire, there is usually some truth. I still don’t get the whole “British humour” thing.