Old San Francisco progressives don't fade away. They just get kinda rabid..

[link thanks to Little Green Footballs]

If Borat doesn't strike a body blow against political correctness, this Charlie Brown Jihad* sure will.

* Link thanks to Instapundit

Alwaleed bin Talal

Sadly enough, the world's wealthiest Wahhabi Hillbilly did not become famous for this too-sexy-for-my-mustache shot.

His fame (or rather, his infamy) came immediately after the Saudi-financed 9/11 attacks, when Rudy Giuliani eloquently told the prince to take his $10 million check and shove it.

Rudy said: "There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered . . . innocent people"

Rudy Giuliani will probably go down in history as the only human being who has ever turned down blood money..umm..a..bribe..a..donation from a Saud.

However, in the fabulous circles that the Prince travels in, he's still worshipped by all the right people.

If there's ever a film of his life, it would be called "The Magic Muslim" and it would be modeled on the Peter Sellers' The Magic Christian. If you're not a fan of old British satires, here's a review.

Sir Guy Grand (Peter Sellers) is an eccentric billionaire who, together with his newly adopted heir (formerly a homeless derelict), Youngman Grand (Ringo Starr), start playing elaborate practical jokes on people. A big spender, Grand doesn't mind handing out large sums of money to various people, bribing them to fulfill his whims, or shocking them by bringing down what they hold dear...

...In the final scene of the movie, Guy Grand wanting to find out how far people can go for money, fills up a huge vat with urine, blood and animal excerments and sprinkles it avidly with paper money. In a choreorgraphic way, a crowd of gents approaches the vat and after some indecision starts stepping in to grab the cash. Having forgotten all sense of disgust many even start taking dives in it.

Georgetown gets $20 million from prince promoting Islam. Just months later, university ejects evangelical Christians from campus

The Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University has been renamed after Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $20 million to its projects. And while that may be just the tail, the dog appears to be moving away from its historic Catholic and Jesuit teaching philosophy too.

The Center's leaders say it now will be used to put on workshops regarding Islam, fostering exchanges with the Muslim world, addressing U.S. policy towards the Muslim world, working on the relationship of Islam and Arab culture, addressing Muslim citizenship and civil liberties, and developing exchange programs for students from the Muslim world.

The "Christian" part of the center's projects at the university that has a history of 200 years of higher education following its Christian founding, is conspicuous by its absence in its website plans for its 10-year future.

But that won't be a surprise to leaders of a number of Christian evangelical groups whose leaders recently were told to leave the campus and not list Georgetown University as a site for operations in the future.

President John J. DeGioia
Office of the President
204 Healy Hall
37th & O Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20057

Of course if we're going to complain about this latest exercise in greed orgies and excrement diving, well have to complain to everyone who accepts blood money..umm..bribery..umm...generosity from Magic Mulsims like Talal.

A lot of letters, but not such a bad idea....

What is Islamophobia?

According to this disputed Wiki page, Islamophobia is:

defined as the phenomenon[1] of a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims which manifests itself in general negative attitudes, violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping (and particularly being vilified in the media).

The concept of Islamophobia (and the related issue of Islamophobia watching) hasn't made as much progress here as it has in in Britain and Europe. This is probably due to the protection offered by our constitution. It may also be due to our somewhat uniquely pragmatic, American attitudes. (bullsh*t is a word that is difficult to translate into many European languages). Most of us instinctively shy away from participating in efforts to blacklist Americans for Un-Muslim activities.

However, recent right-wing efforts to rewrite the history of McCarthyism, to prove that Tailgunner Joe "got a bad rap" may have opened the door to the emergence of right-wing PC.

According to Ann Coulter, McCarthy succeeded because he "made it a disgrace to be a Communist. Domestic Communism could never recover." She echoes the primary goals of political correctness - don't fight your enemies using reason - instead, disgrace them, blacklist them, shout them down.

PC for right wingers conveniently ignores political correctness's Leninst roots, an ideological struggle from Lenin to Mao to McCarthy to Coulter and CAIR.

Johann Hari, a British writer who has suffered from various forms of political correctness and McCarthyism wrote a scathing condemnation of recent right-wing efforts to polish McCarthy's image:

The corpse of Joe McCarthy is being paraded before us. The more extreme wing of the US right believe he offers us a model for how to fight a war against Islamic fundamentalism. They're right - and it's a model that leads straight to liquidated democracy and defeat.

Do you believe a religious leader who fights to save Section 28 and says gay people spread disease is a fulminating bigot? Do you believe a "leading cleric" who advocates stoning gay people to death should be denounced? Do you believe sharia law – which requires gay people to be lashed or stoned – is always and forever unacceptable? Then, according to an energetic and aggressive group of white straight boys who surreally consider themselves to be on the left, you are an "Islamophobe" and "objectively pro-Nazi"

The real racism comes from Islamophobia Watch itself, and the people who parrot their claims. Where Tatchell [the accused gay Islamophobe] treats Muslims as the equal citizens of a democracy, people with open minds and a free intelligence, they treat Muslims as feeble children who cannot cope with the scorn we routinely (and rightly) pour on Catholics and Protestants. They argue that Muslims are so sensitive and uncurious that their ideas must be ring-fenced from criticism, with the police arresting anybody who vehemently criticises their beliefs.

Still, the Islamophobia Watchers have their crusade...umm...jihad or..hmm..which word is more or less of a thoughtcrime?

One of these sites, the Islamic Human Rights Commission, has nominated the bloggers at Harry's Place (a former home for Johann Hari's posts), along with King Mohammed VI of Morocco, Bruce Willis, George Bush, blogger Robert Spencer and the Organisers of Toronto Supports Denmark Rally for their Islamophobe of the Year award.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission defines Islamophobia as "intolerance". Here are photos of a protest they sponsored, including a table full of the usual Hezbollah tchotchkes.

The site that posted these pictures is linked to from "Islamophobic" Harry's Place. Which may be one reason why they're nominated for this 'award'.

The biggest problem with Islamophobia and the related blacklisting (other than the attempts to ignore the constitution and stifle free speech) is what escapes our attention while we're so busy watching each other; if we're fighting a war against terrorism, who is paying attention to the terrorists?

Who is the 'enemy', Republicans, Democrats or the "Community of the Impoverished"? Islamophobia Watch or the "International Quranic Open University Inc". Robert Spencer or Jamaat ul-Fuqra. Any guesses?

Well, it was a trick question. The Community of the Impoverished, Jamaat ul-Fuqra and "International Quranic Open University Inc" are all part of the the same group, a Pakistan-based armed and violent militia that is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US government and that may have bases near your town.

In the USA.

I wouldn't have known about this group if I hadn't been reading a site that is often maligned as being "Islamophobic", Gates of Vienna.

How many readers out there knew about this group? How many people know where Al Furqra's home base is located? How many people know about the Muslim Brotherhood's activities in Minnesota? How many know about al Qaeda's efforts to find recruits in Queens, NY?

Okay, I'm not seeing many hands. Now, how many of us have gone nutpicking in LGFs comment section? How many think that Democrats/Republicans/Islamophobes/appeasers are doing al Qaeda's work for them? How many think that Democrats/Republicans/Islamophobes/appeasers are the 'enemy'? How many people avoid reading or linking to sites that have been blacklisted as Islamophobic, despite the fact that these sites contain hard-to-find information about real, often local terrorist groups?

Maybe we have been looking for hate in all the wrong places.

Ralph Peters criticizes right wing PC

Whether the cry is "Free Mumia!" or "Close Guantanamo!" or "Bring the Troops Home Now!" the consistent purpose is to rescue killers from justice - no matter the cost to law-abiding citizens here or to the millions of Iraqis who truly desire peace.

This situation was bad enough when save-the-cop-killers/pity-the-terrorists ideology only infected the left. But political correctness has insinuated itself so deeply into our collective thinking that even the chest-thumping Bush administration refused to take on Iraq's fanatical killers - with the result that Iraq is now frankly ungovernable.

The administration ignored an ironclad rule of conflict in failed societies: A fraction of 1 percent of the population, armed and determined, can destroy a fragile state. If you are not willing to kill that fraction of a percent, the remaining 99-plus percent will suffer terror, massacre and chaos.

Our weakness of will and wishful thinking made Iraq safe for our enemies. They can walk the streets unarmed. We can't...

...I wish the world were as innocent as intellectuals pretend. But we're far from the Peaceable Kingdom. If we're unwilling to behave ferociously toward terrorists and thugs, they'll behave with greater ferocity toward the innocent. That's a consistent equation in humanity's moral algebra.

The core problem of the political correctness crippling our policies is that both the left's on-line commissars and Bush's brain trust (such as it is) are guilty of the same error: Safe in America, they insist that the world is as they wish it to be, rather than as it is. Such self-deception paves the paths to Auschwitz, Srebrenica and Balad.

There are few platitudes more cringe-inducing than hearing yet another American political leader or general claim that "the only answer in Iraq is a political solution." That's just plain nonsense - it's reality-avoidance as a strategy. It may be too late for any good solution in Iraq, but political dialogue doesn't have a prayer.

Photo by Grace Roselli

Steven Vincent, the journalist who was murdered in Iraq a short time after publishing this piece is to be honored posthumously by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in London, receiving the Kurt Schork Award:

The Kurt Schork Awards in International Journalism were set up to recognize the best in local and freelance reporters who make such a critical contribution to international understanding, but whose work is often overlooked. An international panel of judges comprising Isobel Hilton of OpenDemocracy.net; Saira Shah, writer and broadcaster; Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times; Roger Cohen of the International Herald Tribune and Peter Maas of the New York Times Magazine will shortly be announcing the two joint winners of this year’s award established in memory of Kurt Schork, the widely-admired journalist who was killed in Sierra Leone while on assignment for Reuters.

U.S. Senator DeWine of Ohio * speaks of the Saudis and their funding of terror and wahhabism, "they've made a deal with the devil."

If I lived in Ohio, I'd vote for him.

* Video and news thanks to Atlas.

My "related posts" date seems to have gone screwy, and I haven't been receiving notification of comments posted to the blog for a while now.

Sorry if I haven't responded to specific questions..

I'll be busy trying to fix this, working, etc.

Of her trip to Paris, she says:

I'm off to the Palais de Justice, and I'm not just sightseeing.

Today is the occasion of the second al Durah/France2 defamation trial, that of defendant Pierre Lurçat :

Lurçat, 39, a Jerusalem resident and president of an association called Liberty, Democracy and Judaism, was sued because he is the leader of an organization listed as the legal operator of a Web site, www.liguededefensejuive.com, that urged readers to attend a planned demonstration against France2 in 2002: "Come demonstrate against the lies of France2," it said, "and the gross manipulation with an award for disinformation to France2 and Charles Enderlin."

Those of you who are used to the free-for-all that is the internet are probably more than a bit perplexed as to what the big deal is here. That this sort of statement could be a cause of action in any court in a country that considers itself to be a modern, developed, progressive nation--not to mention a bastion of liberty--is ludicrous.

Let's put aside for the moment the question of whether the accusations this defendant made against France2 and Enderlin are true, as blogger and historian Richard Landes (and, in the interests of full disclosure, acquaintance and friend of mine) has suggested at his website Second Draft and his blog Augean Stables.

..is in Paris.

Hope she pays homage to Magritte...

Iraq Uniting against the Jihadis

Iraq today is the central battlefield in the global war between two mutually exclusive visions of the future. Yet the jihadists now know they can't win on that battlefield. After three years of near-daily killings, often in the most horrible manner imaginable, they've failed to alter Iraq's political agenda. Nor have they won control of any territory or even broadened their constituency.

The jihadists have suffered thousands of casualties, with many more captured by Coalition forces and the new Iraqi army and police. Despite more than 120 suicide operations, and countless attacks on civilian targets, the jihadists have been on the defensive since they lost their chief base at Fallujah last year. Their strategic weakness: They can't translate their killings into political gains inside Iraq...

... That morale, however, is under constant attack from two sources. The first is the part of the international (especially pan-Arab) media that depicts Iraq as a wayward train racing ahead with no light at the end of a dark tunnel.

The second threat to Iraqi morale is by far the most serious. It concerns uncertainty about the commitment of the United States and its allies to new Iraq.

Just as Rome was not built in a day, creating a pluralist democracy on the ruins of one of the nastiest of Arab tyrannies takes time. It took the United States and its allies 10 years to hand over the government of post-war Austria to Austrians. In Bosnia, the United States and its allies are now scheduled to hand over the reins of government to the Bosnians themselves - after a decade. In Iraq, the handover came just two years after liberation.

So does the Queen. If anyone is wondering why our prisons are overcrowded, these mandatory minimum sentences for drug users might provide a clue.

The Rangel bill:

"The Rangel bill will correct a mistake Congress made in 1986, when it set excessively low quantities of 5 and 50 grams to trigger mandatory sentences designed for high-level drug traffickers. The low-level crack dealers covered by this amendment will face up to 20 years imprisonment for a first offense, up to 30 years imprisonment for a second offense if they need to be prosecuted by Federal authorities

Michael Totten describes the best techniques for catching lightning on film. (if you have a great camera, that is)

..even the test photos look good.

He then goes on to explain why, if you love to chase storms, you should probably read this safety guide first.

Update: Here are some classic storm chasing photos, done by Eric Nguyen (this link and the safety link thanks to commenter Zvi.)

Did I ever mention that 'Twister' is one of my favorite silly, improbable movies of all time? Who can forget the spinning cow?

Jo: 'Nother cow.
Bill: Actually I think that was the same one.

Kesher Talk describes a well-organized effort to save theatergoers from bad philosophy, bad politics and bad art:

Dear Activists,

Last night was opening night of MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE and our FIRST nite out with THE FACTS.

We were very successful in GETTING OUT THE FACTS...with roughly 350 people accepting our invitation to read the facts ( we gave out one copy per couple) we believe our success was due to :
1. being very respectful , older and well dressed
2. most of us having seen the play lended credibility.
3. We asked if the information was wanted...did NOT just hand it out.
4. we were very relaxed, calm , smiled and empathetic to Rachel.
5. The ALL THE RACHELS flyer caught people's initial attention and before they became incited in any way, they turned to the FACTS which were written in a much less "bold, emotional" way.

Here are some details:
It was a well heeled crowd, with roughly 15 - 20% of the theatregoers invited by the producer/playwright, including such stars as Larua Linney and Sigourney Weaver. Alan Rickman, Katherine Viner, Megan Dodds all had photo shots in front of the theater before the curtain went up.

Roughly 90% of the theatregoers accepted the FACT sheet we respectfully offered. (theater holds 400 people). [We] were well dressed, stood off to the side and asked:"are you going to the theater? (wait for an answer) Would you like to understand more facts about this play? (wait for an answer) This information is well sourced....feel free to google up these sources yourself." XXX would often would end with "you do know to google don't you?!?!"....this always got a chuckle and a conversation about what we did before GOOGLE....since over 75% of the audience was 50+....this "lite" approach was received very well.

Roughly 25 people said " I'm glad you are out here". Roughly another 25 people told us they respected our polite approach.

To those who did not want a flyer we politely smiled and said "ok enjoy the show".

The play was so boring I thought my head was going to explode. For a kid who was currrently suffering through holy communion classes, that's saying a lot.

I whined and fidgeted and finally got my mom to drag me out of the theater. She was not happy, but frankly, if she'd hung me upside down over an open fire, it would have been preferable to sitting in that theater.

A piece that portrays activism-as-heroism usually equals bad art. People who admire the 'heroism' of standing in front of a moving bulldozer, living unwashed in a tree or smashing a nuke with a hammer and dousing it with blood usually have a very serious irony deficit. Trying to make drama out of paper-mache puppeteers and their ilk is neither interesting or entertaining.

But, as South Park has demonstrated, it can be funny.

If this play is anything like Catonsville 9, I'd advise the anyone interested in new forms of torture to save the waterboards and go see My Name is Rachel Corrie.

A Sudanese Arab and former Janjawid describes the government's support of ethnic cleansing..

Dily, a Sudanese Arab, recounts how for three years he and his fellow Janjawid charged the farming villages of Darfur on their camels and horses, raking the huts with gunfire and shouting: "Kill the slaves. Kill the slaves."

He reckons he attacked about 30 villages in all, and cannot count the people he shot. The villages were invariably destroyed, he says. The homes were burnt to the ground and the men, women and children killed — sometimes with the help of government airstrikes. If there were survivors "they would be left there . . . They couldn’t get help. Sometimes they made it to camps but mostly they died of thirst or starvation".

Dily is a rarity in that wretched conflict. Filled with disgust, he finally escaped the Janjawid's clutches and last month, with the help of "people smugglers", reached Britain, where he is now seeking political asylum. He expresses remorse. He is willing to talk, and the story he tells flatly contradicts the Sudanese Government's claims that it has no control over the Janjawid — the predominantly Arab "devils on horseback" who have driven two million of Darfur’s black Africans into camps and killed at least 200,000.

He says the Government deceived innocent Arab shepherds like himself into joining the Janjawid, saying they had to defend their communities against attack by Darfur's black African rebel groups. He says they were trained and armed by Sudanese soldiers, ordered by the Government to attack Darfur's villages and given military support when necessary. The Janjawid was formed for ethnic cleansing, he insists. "Why (else) would you attack villages, kill people, displace them and kill them in their thousands?"

At a street fair near NYU, a group of lady vampires attack and peddle CDs.

The street fair also featured organic apples and anti-Bush t-shirts.

..on the likely reasons for the Lidle crash*

Compared to the Hudson, the East River is very narrow as it doglegs right, then left. You don’t have much time to watch Brooklyn and Queens scroll past to the east before you bank west and cruise over Central Park. Then you tell LaGuardia tower that you’re going back to the VFR corridor on the Hudson, and you switch the radio back to the corridor frequency.

That’s how it’s supposed to be done. Apparently, Lidle and his flight instructor Tyler Stanger never called LaGuardia tower to get clearance to pass through Class B airspace. Air traffic control at Teterboro says one of the men radioed in that they’d just go a short distance up the river and turn around. But, as noted, the river is narrow, and at low altitudes it’s hemmed in by buildings; it’s a lot like being stuck in a slot canyon. The day’s low overcast made flying conditions even trickier. If Lidle and Stanger had climbed to a safer 1,500 feet, they would have been nearly in the clouds—a very dangerous situation for non-instrument rated pilots.

What if they’d gone straight ahead—that is, continued north? Well, they would have busted right into Class B airspace. Doing that without prior clearance from LaGuardia tower might have resulted in a reprimand, or even the temporary suspension of their licenses. To avoid that fate, they risked a worse one, and lost...

Some people who aren’t pilots don’t understand why some of us risk our lives for what seems to be a pointless thrill. For them, the logical course of action would be to shut down the VFR flyway to prevent more deaths. But pilots see things differently. To us, flying is a great privilege that, yes, carries a certain amount of inherent risk. But living in the presence of danger and accepting responsibility for it is one of the things that makes life meaningful. We don’t want to live in a world that’s foolproof and accident-free. We want one where prudence and respect can be rewarded with an indescribable freedom—a freedom that too few people are lucky enough to enjoy.

The appropriate response to the death of Lidle and Stanger is not to ban similar flights. It’s for fellow pilots to study what happened, learn from it, and go on to be safer flyers.

Even Mayor Bloomberg agrees.

* link thanks to Judith of Kesher Talk

A plastic garbage bag flies high, caught in a hot air current rising near City Hall.

Sometimes I like Sen. Schumer, and sometimes I don't.

This time I don't:

New York Gov. George Pataki and Democrat Senator Charles Schumer pushed for immediate changes in the wake of the crash, which revealed that flight patterns along the river hadn't been re-assessed since the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda attacks.

"A smart terrorist could load up a small, little plane with biological, chemical or even nuclear material and fly up the Hudson or East rivers, no questions asked," said Schumer.

A really smart terrorist would probably know that it's a lot easier to load up a car, truck or boat with nasty stuff. First, every general aviation airport that I've visited since 9/11 has been locked and supervised by fairly intense security.

Secondly, it would be hard to find a terrorist who was trained as a pilot and who was the right size for the job. Two large men can't even fit in a Cessna 150 - they'll pitch the center of gravity dangerously forward with a fully loaded fuel tank. Even if only one skinny terrorist was flying the plane they couldn't get much of a payload in there. Yes, biological weapons are probably light, but they're more likely to be effective on the ground than in the air - unless they flew a crop duster towards Manhattan, which might arouse suspicion. Schumer's whole scenario makes no sense.

The voice of reason comes from an experienced pilot ... Mayor Bloomberg.

Some 20 years later, he took his nephew up in a plane for a sightseeing tour around Manhattan _ similar to Lidle's fatal journey on Wednesday. At about 1,500 feet above the ground, a propeller failed. Bloomberg notified air traffic control and turned back toward the airport, where they cleared the runways and deployed the fire engines.

He had just enough altitude to essentially glide back to the airport, land on the runway and roll to a stop. Without that height, he might have had to aim for the water.

"The lesson I suppose is: Don't panic. Do what you were trained to do. No more. No less," he wrote later.

This also puts him on the opposite side of lawmakers this week who are calling for tighter restrictions in New York City's airspace. The mayor says the Federal Aviation Administration's policy of allowing small planes to buzz along the waterways is perfectly safe.

I guess Bloomberg's not a total nanny-stater.

From Time Magazine's The Lidle Crash: "Too Much Plane"?

The investigation into the crash of the small airplane owned by New York Yankees' pitcher Cory Lidle is just beginning, but already aviation experts and pilots are quietly speculating that it may be yet another case of "too much plane." Much like the crash that claimed the life of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife and a friend in 1999, there are signs that this may be a case of a relatively inexperienced pilot who ran into trouble in a high-performance plane that he had not yet mastered fully...

...According to New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, the plane circled the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor on the cloudy afternoon before heading uptown, where something went wrong. The plane's flight path was completely "legal" — operating in approved air space and under clear regulations. Small planes and helicopters are permitted to fly up and down Manhattan Island, over either the East River or the Hudson River in the west. Since much of the surrounding air space is the busiest in the U.S. — with hundreds of airliners and business jet flights going in and out of John. F. Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark International and Teterboro airports, small planes are required to fly below 1,100 feet.

Time got that right, then they went on to get it wrong in today's Time/CNN poll, asking:

Should small planes routinely be allowed to fly directly over big cities?
Yes
No

This was an accident, like the thousands of low profile accidents that happen in New York City every year.

Judith at Kesher Talk has a recap of the 2 ex-terrorists and a former Nazi discussion at Columbia University that about a hundred people were barred from last night:

The second speaker, Hilmar von Campe, also is a devout Christian who now lives in Alabama. He was 7 years old in 1933 when the Nazis came to power. His father was a state official of some sort who was ousted by the Nazis and relocated to an area that is now one of the Czech states. He reminded the audience that the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi party) was far left. Josef Goebbels, the chief liar, said We are Communists. Hitler eliminated all other parties, trade unions, youth organizations, etc. All young people had to join the Hitler Youth. Newspapers, radio, and the film industry were controlled by the Nazis. In school, there were jokes about religion and God, and constant rhetoric about how bad the Jews are and how good the Germans are.

On 9/1/39, Hitler reported that the Poles had invaded Germany and that Germany had to defend itself. Although he and his circle hated the Nazis, all felt that they had to defend Germany first and deal with the Nazis second. He said that many people were unaware of the Holocaust, but that everyone was aware of the discrimination against and unhuman treatment of Jews and all kept silent, including the churches. He said he became a liar too. He also said that in 1972, the KGB and Andropov adopted a policy of turning the entire Islamic world against Israel and the United States. During Q&A, he cited as his source a book, Red Horizons, by a defecting Rumanian general.

Walid Shoebat pursued that theme. His father was Palestinian, his mother an American who naively went to the Middle East to visit her husband's family and was trapped there with her children for 35 years. He said that Muslims fought on the Nazi side in World War II and murdered the Jews of Bosnia. He said that he was educated to believe that Jesus was a Palestinian revolutionary who came to liberate Palestinians from Zionist oppressors, that Jews spread Mad Cow disease, cause tsunamis, etc. He translated Jihad as Mein Kampf. He is a convert to Christianity. He also said during the question period that when Muslims are at least 20% of a population, they are obliged to seize state power. He also said that Muslims do not believe in the separation of church and state.

The question period was better than I expected. The questioners were somewhat critical but they did not rant. The answers were generally to the point, despite some language problems. The speakers were fairly critical of Jews and others who think appeasement can bring peace. Walid pointed out that the word hudna, usually translated as truce or ceasefire, actually means strategically taking time off from fighting to regroup and obtain concessions. Muslims feel no obligation to tell the truth to non-Muslims. When criticized for hate speech, they responded that they were criticizing Islam, not Muslims individually.

Walid had said at one point that Muslims should have a right to convert to Christianity, that Jews should have a right not to convert to Christianity, etc. A couple of questioners interpreted him as saying that Muslims should convert to Christianity. He straightened that out. Some questioners asserted that moderate Muslims do not believe all those bad things. Anani said, if you think your imam is moderate, ask him what would happen if his son converted to Christianity.

..and the left-wing shutdown of free speech during the Minuteman Protests, via Yahoo

Everything you really need to know about the protesters is contained in this sentence: "Shame on the College Republicans for inviting this fascist thug and provoking such outrage on our campus." In other words, the act of inviting a controversial speaker is worse than violence against that speaker...oh, and the speaker must be a "fascist thug" because he doesn't agree with the writer's left-wing sensibilities which are typical of Columbia students.

Her protests that "this is not an issue of free speech" makes it all that much clearer that that is exactly what the issue is. The protesters do not have an "equal right" to shout down a speaker, much less to assault him or his entourage. The right answer...the only answer acceptable in our country...is to let him speak and then set up your own event to tell everyone why he was wrong.

The Spectator's editorial was no better: Claims that the University somehow is not getting "fair representation" falls into the same trap of moral equivalence between unpopular speech and violence. From my family's experience at Columbia, this type of appalling behavior by Columbia students is not "an unfortunate exception" but rather an all too common occurrence.

It is a remarkable thing about liberals (or, at Columbia, outright leftists) in free societies: They are far more intolerant than conservatives. The protesters hate people who oppose illegal immigration. They accept the use of intimidation and violence to keep such people from speaking, then blame the victim for having been controversial. Conservatives generally don't hate people for their views even if those views are as wrong-headed as those of many (or, in my experience, most) Columbia students.

The beauty of America is that we have an open political market. People of all views are free to speak, to be a touchstone for debate, and then to win or lose in the court of public opinion and at the ballot box.

Unlike the claims of the Spectator's editorial, mainstream news outlets have "depicted the Columbia atmosphere accurately." Wishing that the atmosphere were otherwise does not make it so.

Throughout all the years that my family and friends have attended Columbia, it has repeatedly represented itself as a truly illiberal institution, in a way that only the most "liberal" institutions can. The students live in a world which would make Orwell shudder: speech can justify violence, economic conservatives are called "fascists", and any talk the students disagree with is labeled "hate speech".

In this way and others, Columbia represents everything that is wrong with the far left in America today, and I am proud to say that while I do give money to a college, it is not to Columbia.

That said, the antics of the Columbia students make me wonder how much of the opposition to the Minuteman project comes from ordinary Hispanics, and how much comes from disgruntled Stalinists/Chomskyites/Chavistas on the Left. What are they going to do next, jump on stage and scream "I smell sulphur!!"?

Setting up phony 'people's revolutions', demanding pacifism from the West while encouraging activism and violence among disgruntled privileged yuppie spawn (third world or not) is how the Left fights their ideological wars.

There's something very disingenuous going on here.

CORRECTION: According to a friend, Pam H., who was at the event, the mime lady in the film below was not a Columbia representative - she was the only member of a party of 4 who was allowed to attend the speech. *

NO CORRECTION: the story that Columbia was telling the dis-invitees - Columbia was telling them that the students were to blame. That's the story she was giving her friends outside, and that's the story most disinvitees heard.

As I left my home in New Jersey, walking through the pouring rain, my computer upstairs quietly received this email from Columbia administrators cancelling my reservation and (unbeknownst to me) leaving me out in the cold.

It is the decision of the advising office to Student Governing Board groups that at tonight’s event sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans, hosts to the Walid Shoebat Foundation, attendance will be limited to the invited speakers and their staff, CUID holders, and 20 invited guests. You are receiving this email to inform you that unfortunately, your RSVP to tonight’s event cannot be accepted.

Sincerely,

Jewelnel Davis
University Chaplain
Associate Provost
Director of the Earl Hall Center

Since I had no idea that my reservation was cancelled, I trudged through the rain, sat on many crowded subways, and (an hour later) got to Columbia early and called Judith to see where everyone was. She had also been planning to go, but her trip was shorter, so she was home when her disinvitation arrived.

I tried to play on the Columbia admin's sympathy with my soaking confirmation, as did most of the rain drenched invitees. Columbia didn't give a shit.

They locked their glass doors and smiled as people outside raged and complained. I didn't complain, but I did take pictures of them, which annoyed them to no end. Good.

The Columbia reps told me not to take their picture, but security didn't back them up. Here, security stepped out of the way so I could get a better shot.

Another invitee turned away.

..and we were all soaking wet.

Here's a film** of an invitee pantomiming sympathy to a group of people who were apparently friends of Walid Shoebat, explaining why they couldn't get in. Her audience was not impressed. Note the her hostile little wave to the camera, and her smile.

[** the whole thing is in mime because my camera has film but no sound - sorry]

Later the mime lady came out and spoke. She explained that the students, the College Republicans, were to blame for the mixup. That's not the story that Ms. Davis' email tells.

Columbia is a college, and the administrators are supposed to protect and guide the students. Instead, they used the students as scapegoats. Once again, her audience was not impressed.

So, after about an hour we got tired of standing in the rain and took a subway back downtown. I stopped by Judith's place to pick up a sifter I'd lent to her and found her blogging up a storm. She gave me a huge cup of tea (thanks, Judith!) and I added a few observations.

* I guess I shouldn't blog after standing in the cold rain for 4 hours..

Ben L. restores and repairs the structure and exterior of NYC buildings. He says:

I do the planning, estimating, and field research, and this sends me scurrying up and down buildings all over the city, photographing them to document conditions. I end up in a lot of really good rooftop perches, and I can't resist taking pictures of other things as well, landmarks, neighborhoods, whatever, just because of the wonderful vantage points I get.

Aerobatic

artistry

What is an Islamist? According to this definition, from the Cairo Declaration (on Human Rights in Islam):

Islamism is a set of political ideologies that hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to its interpretation of Islamic Law. For Islamists, the sharia has absolute priority over democracy and universal human rights: "The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this (Cairo Declaration (on Human Rights in Islam)." .[1]

"practice their faith more freely and more Islamically (in a personal and secular fashion). They also seek to "make a small contribution to the body of thought which articulates an understanding of Islam which separates religion and state and is in complete harmony with the U.S. Constitution and [their] citizenship pledge."

Anti-Islamists are a minority among activist American Muslims. Internally, we are usually ignored or dismissed by the majority of our activist co-religionists when trying to engage them in debate regarding the dangers and toxicity of Islamism upon Islam. No matter how pious, anti-Islamists are often demonized as irreligious. All the while we try to argue that, to the contrary, there is no closer relationship a Muslim can have with God than one entirely free from government and clerical coercion...

The Muslim mobs we see inflamed are not al-Qaeda, but they are enraged Islamists driven by a fear of losing the ideological world war to the West. They fear the West, which honors the individual first and the community second - put another way, America first, and the ummah second. They fear more than anything having to compete in a non-theological legislature by the legal merit of the logic of their principles, rather than from behind the corrupt cloak of their theological monopoly on sharia.

The next question flowing from all this is, "How can we create a new dream for people so driven towards rage?" Dreams are the product of our imagination. If we can visualize something, then we can imagine it becoming a reality.

And that is why I am so enthusiastic about the liberation of Iraq.

If I were to live in the Middle East, all I would see around me in government would be thugs, despots, oil monarchies, and radical theocrats ruling the people in a sea of corruption. How would I be able to imagine freedom where there is none to be found? That is what we are doing in Iraq. We are giving people in that region a sense of what could be. Without a reality in which liberty can thrive, the vacuum is filled by corruption. The reality is replaced by false dreams of a world in which no freedom-loving Jeffersonian Muslim would ever want to live.

CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) and other Muslim organizations gain their public notoriety as supposed Muslim responses to the darkness cast over our community from radical Islamists. Its response, however, is all about victimization and little else.

A terrible blow has been inflicted on the religion of Islam in America by the refusal of the religious "establishment" — including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and other entities — to abandon and denounce the radical legacy present in their formation and displayed in their long service. They hate Dr. Jasser because he dares to expose their continued devotion to radicalism and their refusal to abide by American norms of religious respect and public dignity.

The truth will emerge from our quest of knowledge, experiences, wisdom and guidance from the divine. The truth will not be dictated by a few second bites of President Bush or Daniel Pipes or people like them.

In the case of Islam, the truth is (as perceived by Muslims based on their general readings of the Quran) that Islam is a divinely revealed faith that commands its adherents to follow the principles of monotheism, justice, equality and peace in all aspects of their life.

We have to understand our world in the context of these divinely revealed truths and develop suitable instruments to ensure that they are shared with the rest of the world.

What was done first by the Danish and later by Norwegian, French, German and many other European newspapers in publishing cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad is nothing less than emotional torture, verbal violence and intellectual terrorism. In the name of freedom of speech, the most sophisticated professional class of Europe succumbed to the century old hatred against Islam and Muslims. Europeans and Americans are often taught that freedom of speech ends where the sensitivities of people begin. Seemingly, the teachers have forgotten the lesson themselves. Making fun of a religion is an exercise in emotional torture. Showing solidarity with those who promote such kind of torture is untamed violence and hurting innocent people all over the world is intellectual terrorism...

...The provocation of Danish and other European newspapers was foolish and full with hatred. There is no need for such provocation in a world that is fast becoming cosmopolitan in all its dimensions. Freedom of speech cannot be used as an excuse to hurt or insult others. Moreover, there exists double standards in this matter among most European and American journalists working for big media corporations. None of these advocates of freedom of speech would dare write against the foul practices of multinational or mega-corporations that often provide bread and butter to most working journalists. None of them would dare to expose the dirty trade practices, excessive exploitation and other violation of human rights of people working in such corporations. None of them would even touch the so-called issue of national security, even if the position of the power elite is against national interests.

A case in point is the war in Iraq. Not many European or American journalists working for big corporation-controlled media have questioned the rationale behind going to war in Iraq. None of them have held accountable their leaders for costly mistakes. In fact, their anti-Islamic writings betray their loyalty to the power elites who are keen in promoting a hateful agenda against Muslims.

Condemning terrorism isn't a sign that someone shares our goals. It isn't a sign that they're on our ideological side. It's just a sign that the person is a morally functioning human being, like most of the 6 billion inhabitants of our planet. When they condemn terrorism, Islamists are honestly establishing their cred as morally functioning human beings. That doesn't mean that they support equality, America, our laws, the Constitution or human rights.

It doesn't mean that they're our ideological allies.

Islamists can condemn terrorism while still supporting bin Laden's goal of imposing Sharia laws around the world. If we join them in supporting their goal of imposing "divinely revealed" Sharia, if we voluntarily restrict our actions and speech for fear of offending these Islamist "allies" we will lose the ideological war without a shot being fired.

That's the peace and dialogue Islamist activist groups wholeheartedly support.

Writer/blogger Cinnamon Stillwell describes Fleet Week in San Francisco:

Battered by daily anti-American and anti-military sentiment, Fleet Week is the one time right-leaning San Franciscans can revel in their patriotism. Not to mention proudly enjoying a display of American military might in the spectacular air shows of the Blue Angels...

...Last year, I wrote an article for SFGate about San Francisco’s attempt to turn itself into a military-free zone and in it, I made reference to the ridiculously named Bay Area Peace Navy. This is a group that wants to replace Fleet Week, which it calls an "ugly symbol of…oppression," with "a peaceful celebration of the Bay." Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll take military prowess over pacifism anytime. After all, someone has to protect all those San Francisco liberals and their "eclectic" lifestyles, whether they appreciate it or not.

Which would you rather watch -

..this?

..or this?

..it helps to have the smart people on your side.

"Developing alternative means of producing energy is a necessary step for dealing with the continuing energy crisis," Institute President Prof. Ilan Chet told Israel21c. "Creating fresh, sustainable methods of producing energy in the required amounts will only be possible if we can gain the knowledge to invent completely new technologies.”

Finding true sustainable and affordable alternatives to oil would strip powerful Arab oil states of their ability to use oil as a tool of diplomatic pressure. "We believe we can help shape the planet's future," Chen said.

They don't like fighting, they don't like drinking, they don't like smoking, they think profit is evil and they think Democracy is the Devil's work. They're supposed to like pot, but most of these folks (other than the last ones) look like they haven't been baked in quite some time.

They make Calvin and Cotton Mather look like libertines. They're the Left and they smell sulfur!

* Photos thanks to El Marco

No, just lenticular clouds.

When clouds go over a mountain top, the mountains cause a pattern of up and down waves in the wind, with lenticular clouds forming at the peaks of these waves.

Simply, when clouds go over a mountain top, the mountains cause a pattern of up and down waves in the wind, with lenticular clouds forming at the peaks of these waves.

Kelvin-Helmholtz wave clouds are formed when there are two parallel layers of air that are usually moving at different speeds and in opposite directions. The upper layer of air usually moves faster than the lower layer because there is less friction. In order for us to see this shear layer, there must be enough water vapor in the air for a cloud to form. Even if clouds are not present to reveal the shear layer, pilots need to be aware of invisible atmospheric phenomenon.

My son and I were just talking aobut mountain flying and lenticular clouds. This site is a great find - thanks to author/seablogger Alan Sullivan.

Here they are, the long-awaited answers to yesterday's quiz.

Q: Does the American government consider self proclaimed moderate Muslim Tariq Ramadan to be a ally or an enemy in the War against terrorism?

A: The American government treats Tariq Ramadan as an enemy. He was recently denied a visa "for providing material support to a terrorist organization".

Some self-proclaimed pious, moderate Muslims still consider Ramadan to be a role model despite his involvement with terrorism, instantly negating their claims of being pious or moderate.

Q: Does the American government consider alleged Islamophobe Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be an ally or an enemy in the war against terrorism?

A: The American government considers alleged Islamophobe Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be a welcome ally in the war against terrorism.

On May 16, Hirsi Ali announced her resignation from parliament and confirmed her previous statement that she would move to the United States to work at the American Enterprise Institute, a pro-market economics think tank. Her prospective arrival in September 2006 was welcomed by Deputy US Secretary of State Robert Zoellick.

A: The American government considers Randall Todd Royer to be an enemy. That's why he's currently serving a sentence of twenty years in prison:

Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a "Ismail" Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan.

Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR.

CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt.

Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation, and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook , was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found Guilty.

CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam.

Rabih Haddad served as a CAIR Fundraiser. Haddad was co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”). GRF was designated by the US Treasury Department for financing the Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations and its assets were frozen by the US Government on December 14, 2001.

Of course the same can be said of our Saudi allies. Our government's standards are not high - when they do prosecute someone, when they do deny a visa, they must have overwhelming reasons for doing so.

Q: Does the American government consider Wafa Sultan to be an ally or an enemy in the war against terrorism?

A: Our government considers Wafa Sultan to be an ally and a person who is welcome to enter our borders at any time.

So, our government considers alleged Islmophobes to be our allies and recongizes that terror-supporters are enemies, even when they pretend to be moderate. That's nice to know.

Also, under American law, criticizing Islam is not illegal or traitorous. Under Islamic law, this criticism is illegal and likely equivalent to treason. How one interprets the act of criticizing Islam depends on the set of laws one follows.

Cross-posted at Dean's World

There's been a lot of debate lately, on Dean's World and elsewhere, about whether critics of Islam are allies the war against terrorism. There has also been a lot of debate about whether critics of Islam are Islamophobes.

It's the sort of debate that can go on forever, unless you invoke a higher authority; no, I'm not going to use the Koran - this is still America, after all, and the Koran is not considered to be a legal document. In fact, our Constitution forbids the use of the Koran as a legal document. Therefore, the only higher authority I can legally invoke is the American government.

Through their actions, (ie. arrests, charges of criminal activity, etc), who does the Amercan government consider to be an ally in the war against terrorism - and who do they consider to be an enemy?

Here's a quick quiz *

1. Tariq Ramadan - one of Time Magazine's 100 Innovators, Ramadan is praised as a true moderate by American leftists and by his many pious Muslim followers.

According to the ACLU: "Professor Ramadan has been a consistent critic of terrorism and those who use it. In October 2001, Professor Ramadan publicly deplored the September 11 attacks, saying to fellow Muslims, "Now more than ever we need to criticize some of our brothers . . . You are unjustified if you use the Koran to justify murder."

Does the American government consider Tariq Ramadan to be a ally or an enemy?

2. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a politician, prominent author, film maker, and critic of Islam. She collaborated with Theo Van Gogh to produce a film critical of Islam, Submission. Theo Van Gogh was assassinated as a result of that collaboration.

She has admitted to making false statements in her 1992 application for asylum in the Netherlands. During the Iraqi invasion of Iran, she sympathised with Iran and the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. After she achieved asylum, she "saw firsthand the way certain practices she thought she had left behind in Africa continued in the West." She became very critical of the way the Dutch system handled asylum seekers. Islamophobia-watchers blame her for "stoking up anti-Muslim hysteria in the Netherlands" with statements about the violence that is inherent in Islam.

Other Islamophobia watchers say that:

Demonizing Islam simply solidifies the suspicions of the pious middle, and renders would be reformers like Hirsi Ali..completely irrelevent, and even offensive, to muslim audiences, the very people who need to change the practice!

3. Randall Todd Royer, former civil rights coordinator for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). He was also an active blogger, essayist and paintball hobbyist. His articles included a plea to respect religion in the public square, a call for détente between Islam and the West and an article urging Muslims to avoid wallowing in victimization.

Royer's organization, CAIR, holds this as one of their core principles

CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.

4. Wafa Sultan acheived fame for taking part in Al Jazeera's weekly 90-minute discussion program The Opposite Direction, for her debate with host Faisal al-Qasim and with Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli about Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory.

Due to some of her statements, including this:

The Islamic religious teachings have incited to the rejection of the other, to the denial of the other, and to the killing of the other.

Ms. Sultan's praise of Western culture vs. Islam was criticized through the use of violent passages found in the Bible in this post, Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted. Clearly, she does offend some Muslims.

Does the American government consider Wafa Sultan to be an ally or an enemy?

* answers coming soon.

The rain started when we crossed the Virginia border.

..clouds gathered..

..then the deluge came.

..visibility was limited..

..when you're not driving through it, distracted by the possibility of instant death, the effect of lights through heavy rain is kind of colorful and impressionistic..

I've been bugging my husband, Bruce, to post something here about wine, politics, or anything. His movie tag comment was so good, it's a post..

1. The last movie you saw in a theatre, and current-release movie you still want to see.

The Guardian. Eh. Formulaic, but mildy interesting and it looks great. But where are the scenes from Cape May? Fortunately Dennis Hopper doesn't show up with an eye-patch.

2. The last movie you rented/purchased for home viewing.

I've just been watching stuff snagged on the HD-DVR. "Swingers" was fun. "Umbrellas of Cherbourg" was pretty good, considering I hate musicals.

3. A movie that made you laugh out loud.

"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and "Blazing Saddles". It's pathetic, but I laugh at them every single time.

4. A movie that made you cry.

Guys don't cry. Oh, OK, that's not true, but we just don't want to admit it unless we want to seem sensitive, like when we're on the make. Fortunately I haven't had to do that for a long time.

That being said, there's "West Side Story." Did I mention that I normally don't like musicals?

5. A movie that was a darling of the critics, but you didn’t think lived up to the hype.

The surest sign of how much more moderate I am than most of the critics is the uncritical praise they dump on anything policially lefty: An Inconvenient Truth, Who killed the Electric Car? The Corporation, The Yes Men, Fahrenheit 9//11, When the Levees Broke. As a result I tend to be skeptical of any documentary that racks up high numbers on Rotten Tomatoes.

I used to really like anything from Spike Lee. Katrina as a conspiracy? Now I dunno.

6. A movie that you thought was better than the critics.

"Limbo" which actually has a 69% Rotten Tomatoes rating, but Mary didn't like it because of the ending or lack thereof. I'm a sucker for anything from John Sayles.

7. Favorite animated movie.

I have to pick one?

"Fantasia 2000." I still can't believe they figured out how to get Shostakovich and Gershwin in there. I am embarassed to say that I love the idea of flying whales. Woo hoo!

Close runners-up: "Spirited Away", and "The Wrong Trousers."

Anything from Nick Park or Hayao Miyazaki, with some exceptions. "Creature Comforts" is a bit much.

8. Favorite Disney Villain You know, we haven't had to keep up with this since the kids stopped insisting on these. Nonetheless...

Scar. He's my idol and my destiny. So how much time did Jeremy Irons have to spend watching old bitter Swedes spitting at kids from their porches to get this character down pat?

9. Favorite movies of all-time (up to five).

Not sure of the order here:

Lawrence of Arabia
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Blazing Saddles
West Side Story
Blade Runner

Anything from John Sayles, Mel Brooks, Joss Whedon, Nick Park, or Stanley Kubrick. When are they are going to put "Shannon's Deal" on DVD anyway?

...I forgot Brad Bird for animated movies. He's 2-for-2 with "Iron Giant" and "Incredibles".