Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Promoting Coexistence In Palestine Through Sports

While most Palestinians continue to foster hate by encouraging children to embrace martyrdom through Islamic jihad, a few are trying to foment peace through coexistence. In a perfect world, we would all live together in peace, but that will never happen as long as adults continue to teach children to hate. We are not born with the prejudice and bias, it is something that is taught and passed down from generation to generation. And if we want to some day live in harmony it will have to start with our children, especially the Palestinian kids who have been brainwashed from a very young age, by parents and the media alike, into loathing the Israelis enough to sacrifice their own lives to get rid of the Jews.

So what better way to promote peace, cooperation and coexistence than sports. Apparently, the European Union, along with an Israeli organization Hapoel Tel Aviv Club, funded a project 'Football- Our Common Denominator' which brought Israeli and Palestinian kids together to play "a friendly game of football" south of Hebron, in the PA, in early December.

The offical Palestinian Authority daily- Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 11, 2010- reported the following [excerpt]:

Headline: "Game for coexistence between Palestinian and Israeli children"
"On Friday, Palestinian children hosted a group of Israeli peers for a friendly game of football between two mixed teams, in the first visit of its kind, in order to demonstrate the possibility of peaceful coexistence between two states in the future...
The mixed game was organized with the support of the 'Football - Our Common Denominator' project, funded by the European Union, in conjunction with the Israeli Ha-Poel Tel Aviv club."

It must start with the children who need to learn the importance of coexisting with others if there is ever to be peace in that region. A sports match is only the beginning. There needs to be many more projects like this.

Source: Palestinian Media Watch

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Somalia's Al Shabaab Demands Obama Embrace Islam Or Americans Will Die

If it wasn't for the fact that at least 20 young Somali Muslim males went missing from Minnesota several years ago, some of whom blew themselves to bits and yet others have been indicted in connection with an ongoing investigation into how and who recruited the would-be-terrorists, the latest out of Somalia would be laughable.

Al Shabaab, the marauding, hardline Islamist thugs have ravaged Somalia (along with their arch-enemies now good buddies Hizbul Islam), in an attempt to establish their uber-strict form of Sharia on the poor people of the country. Some of the most bizarre fatwas have emerged from over there, including the banning of bras and school bells, because they are un-Islamic. Somalia has been a hotbed of violence for ages, and now they are threatening to export it to the good old U.S.A. unless Barack Obama gives in to their demands. They don't want ransom money, they don't want the removal of troops from Afghanistan, they want Barry O to embrace Islam. I'm not quite sure what their rationale is for demanding that he convert to Islam, other than the fact that they might consider him one since he has a Muslim background which would mean they would expect him to 'revert' but that's what Fuad Mohamed "Shongole" Qalaf wants. During a speech broadcast on radio he said,

"We tell the American President Barack Obama to embrace Islam before we come to his country."

So, although I find the idea that some extremist goons thousands of miles away in some God-forsaken country seem to think they can threaten a President into converting to their religion rather entertaining, the fact that they already reside in the U.S. is not so amusing. I am sure the majority are law-abiding, peaceful types glad to not be subjected to the religious excesses of al Shabaab, but how many other young Somali men have been recruited into jihad like the missing Minnesotans? And look at 19-year-old Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who was absolutely convinced that dialing a cellphone was about to blow up a van at a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony in Oregon this year? Not only was he Somali-born, he also happened to be a naturalized U.S. citizen.

So al Shabaab's threats are not out of the realm of possibility, which is not a comforting thought.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Baby It's Cold Outside- Or, What Happened To Global Warming?

It's the second year in a row, where I live, that we've had the coldest pre-winter ever, and I'm loving every minute of having to bundle up, since it's not something we've enjoyed very often. I've been here for 15 plus years, and although we experienced some cold spells the first few Decembers and Januaries after moving here, all those other years I've had to dust off the sweaters and coats only a few days here and there during the winter months. But it seems that the winters are getting colder, harsher and snowier- not just in this country, but all over the world.

Europe has recently experienced terrible weather. So have we, with record amounts of snow, and the first white Christmas in Atlanta, GA since 1898. All this coldness begs the question:

what happened to Global Warming?

Yes, I know that there are scientists and other eco-types who claim that global warming has caused the increase in snow fall, but what about the record cold temps? Florida had record cold weather in January of this year, and again in December, and they're in for another freeze before year-end. Temps have been so frigid this year that record numbers of Manatees have died in Florida waters. And this hasn't been the coldest year to date. The winter of 2009/2010 also saw record-breaking cold weather across our planet. I was reading a comment from a woman in the Netherlands in a forum on a website that I sell my photography and she said the winters have been getting progressively colder and that they were finally skating on natural ice again after years.

Just as there are those who continue to claim the world is heating up at an alarming rate and that we are at fault, there are others (scientists included) who believe that we are actually entering what they believe is another little ice age.

More opinions from those who believe the ice age is coming, here and here.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Spam Comments

As a result of a slew of spam comments I have decided to temporarily enable comment moderation.

I love comments but not when they're made under false pretenses, i.e. to promote some on-line business.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

YouTube Closes Down Palestinian Media Watch's Account

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) along with MEMRI are two of the best sources for information concerning the Middle East and beyond.

PMW needs our help after essentially being censored by having their account closed on YouTube.

The following is an email I received asking for help. It doesn't specifically mention what to do, but an email to YouTube might help. Anyone with half a brain knows that PMW isn't promoting hate speech, they are merely attempting to shed light on the plethora of hate speech that does exist in the Middle East.

YouTube closes down PMW account

PMW needs your help. YouTube has closed down PMW's main video account - PALWATCH - for "violating YouTube terms of use", by supposedly propagating hate speech. Of course PMW does not promote hate speech, but exposes the hate speech of the PA and the Hamas, in order to bring about its elimination.

YouTube stated that the account was henceforth terminated "due to repeated or severe violations of our Terms of Use" and they specified the following PMW videos from Palestinian sources, promoting the killing of Jews:

1. "Hamas TV teaches kids to kill Jews" formerly at
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 10/02/2009.

2. "Jews are a virus like Aids" formerly at
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 01/18/2010.

3. "Farewell video before suicide attack of Hamas suicide bomber Adham Ahmad Hujyla Abu Jandal" formerly at
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 06/10/2010.

4. "Hamas suicide farewell video: Jews monkeys and pigs; Maidens reward for killing Jews" formerly at
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 08/14/2010.

5. "PA cleric: Kill Jews, Allah will make Muslims masters over Jews" formerly at
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 12/12/2010.

6. "Hamas suicide terrorist farewell video: Palestinians drink the blood of Jews" formerly at
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 12/15/2010.

PMW urgently seeks to have this account reopened, since some of these videos have accumulated hundreds of thousands of viewings and the exposure is critical to our ongoing work.
If any of our subscribers could help, it would be much appreciated.

Thank you,
Itamar Marcus

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Muslim Family In Spain Denounces Teacher For Offending Son- Or, Talking About Ham Is A No-No

For various reasons, there are many of us who choose not to eat pig, in its many different culinary manifestations. I'm a vegetarian, so any form of animal flesh is out- besides, after seeing the film "Babe", who could ever eat bacon again? Others stay away from ham and pork for health reasons- you can still get trichinosis from eating undercooked pork, and who wants to share their intestines with a bunch of nasty worms. Still others stay away from piggy products because of religious dietary laws. Judaism and Islam forbid eating pork, and it's even a no-no for the Seventh-day Adventists, although there are some who don't abide by those particular laws. But even though I choose to 'just say no' to eating pork products (along with some Jews and Seventh-day Adventists, we have no problems if someone else eats them, and we certainly are not offended by the mere mention or a picture of a piglet. Some Muslims, on the other hand, consider it almost a capital offense to even talk about the "P" word, and people around the world are suffering the consequences of that aversion.

Ask a high school teacher at the Menéndez Tolosa institute in Spain who was reported to the National Police by the family of a student of his, for having offended the boy. His major crime? Mentioning 'ham', which the Spaniards happen to love.

According to Spanish language El Diario de Cádiz , a professor was teaching a class in geography and talking about the different climates on our planet. As an example of a cold, dry climate he mentioned Trevélez, which happens to be a major ham-producing village in Granada, Spain. Apparently, that kind of climate is perfect for curing ham and the professor used that fact as an anecdote. Now, the professor wasn't forcing the students to eat, or touch said 'cured ham', he simply mentioned the fact that the weather there was ideal. Well, the mere mention of the "H" word ticked the student off, and he told the teacher to stop talking about ham because it offended him as a Muslim. The teacher responded, and rightfully so, that it was simply an example and that he did not take into account the religion of his students. And rather than broach the subject with the teacher first, the family raced off to the police to file a complaint- the teacher is now accused of labour abuse, with a little racism and xenophobia for added effect.

Students and teachers alike are furious considering he is a well-liked professor with a stellar record, who has dedicated well over 20 years to teaching. The National Police is keeping the investigation open pending the outcome in court.

Now, I know not all Muslims would go so far as to file a criminal complaint against someone for mentioning pork, ham bacon or any other pig-related word, but good grief, the fact that even a few do happen to file frivolous complaints is a few too many. This should not be happening in the Western world. We should not have to censor ourselves for fear that we might offend someone, or worse yet, that we might get sued for said offenses.

I think the good professor should file a counter-complaint (on behalf of the poor maligned pig) against the student and his family for porkophobia. This insanity has got to stop!

Other Sources: Diario De Jerez,

H/T Tea and Politics

Friday, December 17, 2010

The U.K. Red Cross Bans Christmas Decorations In Their Stores UPDATE: Old Story

The Red Cross lost my respect a long time ago with the various controversies it has been involved with throughout the decades, including what it was doing with all the money it raised during the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake, and training the Taliban in first aid. Neutral or not, aiding and abetting terrorists is appalling. I stopped donating years ago, and have found other worthwhile charitable organizations to give money to when natural disasters have decimated our land and countries around the world. So, the fact that they have now banned Christmas in their 430 U.K. shops, doesn't really make much difference to me, other than the fact that it proves that England is quickly succumbing to a politically correct path which will eventually lead to its own demise, and that the charity itself deserves a lump of coal when Santa comes along this year.

Not that the Red Cross is a Christian organization, per se (other than the use of a red "cross" as its symbol), but to ban any and all Christmas decorations other than some measly tinsel or snow, which is what it did, is completely and utterly fatuous. According to an article on the DailyMail website,

Staff have been ordered to take down decorations and to remove any other signs of the Christian festival because they could offend Moslems.

Ironically, the ban was apparently self-imposed, and criticized by both Christians and Muslims alike.

Labour peer Lord Ahmed, one of the country's most prominent Moslem politicians, said:

'It is stupid to think Moslems would be offended. 'The Moslem community has been talking to Christians for the past 1,400 years. The teachings from Islam are that you should respect other faiths.' He added: 'In my business all my staff celebrate Christmas and I celebrate with them. It is absolutely not the case that Christmas could damage the Red Cross reputation for neutrality - I think their people have gone a little bit over the top.

Over the top, indeed. I'm sure there probably are a few Muslims, along with some equally bah-humbug-ish Atheists, who might take offense to a nativity scene- that has always been the case- but I have always believed that if you don't want to celebrate a a particular holiday, then by all means don't. But to prevent others from celebrating their religious holidays is incredibly selfish.

No-one would expect the Red Crescent to ask Muslims to not celebrate Ramadan. And there's certainly no global movement to stop Jewish people from celebrating Hanukkah or Hindus Diwali, but for some reason Christians are being asked to step back and remove their 'Christ' from Christmas, and not just by the Red Cross. There has been an increasing trend to take Christmas away from Christians, from people being told not to say "Merry Christmas" to nativity scenes being removed from public places. And remember the time when Christmas Trees were called 'Holiday' Trees?

I actually prefer to say 'Happy Holidays', not because I am being politically correct, but because this time of year is not exclusively Christian; other religions celebrate too, and one never knows what religion a person might be. But if someone tells me Merry Christmas, you can be sure I will respond with a "Merry Christmas to you too!".

UPDATE: According to the Red Cross, this apparently was a story from back in 2002. Still doesn't change my mind about the organization.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Wikileaks Cable- The American Airlines Crew And "Loco" Hugo Chavez

Although I firmly believe what Wikileaks is doing is, for the most part, a criminal act rather than a freedom of speech issue (but that's a topic for another post), some of the less potentially harmful information that has emerged has been rather bizarre. Take what happened at the airport in Caracas, Venezuela several years ago, when the captain and crew of American Airlines flight 903 were briefly held by Venezuelan authorities because of what amounted to the language barrier. According to a confidential, classified 2008 cable from the US Embassy in Caracas, the captain and flight crew had been detained because of the following announcement by one crew member:

"Welcome to Venezuela. Local Chavez time is ..."

If you remember, back in 2007, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, decided to arbitrarily create his own personal time-zone by permanently turning the clock back a half hour; simply because he could. And, as those of us who travel by air well know, passengers are always informed of the local time upon arrival at our destination. However, according to the cable, one Chavez groupie passenger, Nestor Maldonado Lanza, thought he heard "loco" instead of "local". For those of you who might not know Spanish, "loco" means crazy, which (ironically) Chavez is, but that's beside the point. Incensed at this perceived insult, Lanza immediately told National Assemblyman Carlos Echezuria Rodriguez (who was waiting for him at the airport) about these terrible Americans who had called his beloved Presidente "loco". The Deputy, in turn, called Vice President Carrizales, and from there it almost spiralled out of control- all because of one misinterpreted word.

Omar Nottaro, American Airlines Country Manager, managed to extricate the crew from what could have turned into an international incident, by some deft diplomacy which included apologies to various entities and off they went. Frankly, there should have been no need for apologies but when you are dealing with people like Chavez (who is clearly not in his right mind) and his minions, it's best to placate.

And apparently it wasn't an isolated incident- the cable also briefly mentions a Delta flight that had similar problems in Caracas.

Thursday, December 09, 2010

UK Muslim Cleric Says There Is No "Rape Within Marriage"

There is no such thing as rape in marriage, according to a prominent Muslim cleric in the U.K. Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, who heads the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain. Sayeed said that since "sex is part of marriage', and since ‘in Islamic Sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape.’ He's basically saying that it's okay for a man to force his wife to have sex against her will, because she's his property after all. But forcing a woman to have sex against her will is RAPE, so he's in essence condoning the raping of wives. In comments made on the blog The Samosa and the Independent, Sayeed said,

‘Clearly there cannot be any rape within the marriage. Maybe aggression, maybe indecent activity… Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage. ‘Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable.’
Yes sexual intercourse is part of marriage but not when a woman is bullied and forced into having sex. The sexual union should be an expression of love, not to satisfy some animalistic male urge. We are human beings after all, not animals.

Rape within marriage is against the law in the West and we certainly don't need idiots like Sayeed encouraging men to rape their wives because they feel it is their right within Sharia law. He also told women not to go to the police after allegedly being raped by their husbands, at least

‘Not in the beginning, unless we establish that it really happened. Because in most of the cases, wives… have been advised by their solicitors that one of the four reasons for which a wife can get a divorce is rape, so they are encouraged to say things like this.’

As for the punishment for men who have raped wives?
‘He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough.’

I'm sure the discipline would be simply a slap on the wrist. Thankfully, there are those in the Muslim community who condemned Sayeed's comments. Inayat Bunglawala, head of Muslims4UK (a counter group to the radical Islam4UK) said:

‘Sheikh Sayeed’s comments are woefully misguided and entirely inappropriate. Rape – whether within marriage or outside it – is an abominable act and is clearly against the law.’

Rape is an act of violence, and according to a spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers, Dave Whatton, most rapes are perpetrated by those familiar with the victims.

‘We know that the majority of rapes do not take place through strangers attacking women late at night but between acquaintances and within marriages and partnerships.

‘It is a fundamental principle that Sharia law should not replace the laws of the UK. Putting out views that rape can be dealt with in another way fundamentally undermines everything we are trying to do,’ he said.

The problem is that there are many who would like to supplant UK laws with Sharia. And the UK isn't the only country.

What Sayeed is doing is encouraging men to rape their wives because he claims it's okay in Islam. Well, it's not okay in any religion. A woman has the right to say no, it's her body and if the husband can't control his urges then take a cold shower. If a man wants to love and respect from his wife, then he needs to treat her as a human being not a sexual object.

The Ongoing Narco-Terrorist War In Mexico

There's a war going on in Mexico and it's getting bloodier and more violent and no-one seems able to do anything about it. Neither the police nor the military have been able to prevent the massacres that are occurring with unrelenting frequency all over Mexico. It's getting so bad that an entire police force in a small town in north Mexico quit after their building was ferociously attacked.

All 14 police officers in Los Ramones, a rural town in northern Mexico, fled the force in terror after gunmen fired more than 1,000 bullets and flung six grenades at their headquarters on Monday night.

No one was injured in the attack. Mayor Santos Salinas Garza told local media that the officers resigned because of the incident.

The gunmen’s 20-minute shooting spree destroyed six police vehicles and left the white and orange police station pocked with bullet holes, the Financial Times reported.

The station had been inaugurated just three days earlier.

If you can't count on the police because they are either corrupt or fear for their own lives, where does that leave the poor Mexican people? But just in October alone, we have had a series of attacks that have left men, women and children dead. 15 innocent people were massacred at a carwash.

Gunmen killed 15 people at a car wash Wednesday in a Mexican Pacific coast state where drug-gang violence has risen this year. It was the third massacre in Mexico in less than a week.

The gunmen in three vehicles drove up to the car wash in the city of Tepic and opened fire without provocation, said Fernando Carvajal, public safety secretary of Nayarit state, where the city is located. Fifteen men were killed and three people were injured.

Apparently some of the workers at the carwash were recovering addicts. Other recovering addicts were targeted at a rehab center in Ciudad Juarez in early October. 18 were killed. Mercilessly lined up and then gunned down. The possible reasons for the massacre are twisted at best.

It was the third attack on a drug treatment center in Ciudad Juarez. Chihuahua state authorities said Thursday they were investigating reports that the centers have turned into hideouts for drug smugglers being sought by police and hit men from rival gangs.

Public Safety Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna, Mexico's top law enforcement official, said rehab clinics were also being used as recruiting and training centers by drug cartels.

He told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview that a recently detained drug suspect belonging to the La Familia cartel oversaw various private, nonprofit drug rehab centers across western Michoacan state. The suspect Rafael Cedeno claimed to have trained 9,000 recruits for the cartel in 2008.

"We're checking to see if there is a link with what we've found (in Michoacan)," Garcia Luna said.

Garcia Luna said in Michoacan, Cedeno's rehab centers held retreats to train members, and if addicts did not cooperate, they were executed. He said the La Familia gang preferred recovered addicts because they were less likely to touch the drug loads.

And saddest of all was the birthday party massacre in Ciudad Juarez, where 13 people were killed and 15 injured. Some of the injured will probably not survive. It's not the first birthday party that has been targeted. Back in January 15 people were killed in the same city, at a party for teenage athletes.

Though in most cases no-one knows for sure who the perpetrators are, we can rest assured that they are narco-terrorists and every bit as vicious, evil and barbaric as their Islamist extremist counterparts. The narco-terrorists fueled by drugs and money, and the radical Islamists by a twisted religious ideology.

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

'Tis The Season- Hamas TV Calls For Allah To Eliminate Jews, Christians and Communists

It's not just Jews and Christians that the Palestinians want dead, apparently they're not too fond of Communists either, so they'd like Allah to smite down the lefties, too.

In the video below, from Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), Hamas' official Al-Aqsa TV broadcast an 'Allah please kill all our enemies' video on December 3, 2010, just in time for our holiday season.
"Allah, oh our Lord, vanquish Your enemies, enemies of the religion
[Islam] in all places.
Allah, strike the Jews and their sympathizers,
the Christians and their supporters,
the Communists and their adherents.
Allah, count them and kill them to the last one, and don't leave even one."
Of course, it isn't the first time they've called for death to infidels. Back in January, 2010 there was this particular video calling on Palestinians to kill all Jews, only this time it was on Fatah's PATV station, not Hamas' Al-Aqsa, and rather than calling on Allah to do the dirty deed, they call on the people themselves.

Ho ho ho, and a Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

CAIR Files Complaint On Behalf Of Muslim Woman Barred From Skating Rink For Wearing A Head Scarf

Rules are rules, but many conservative Muslims feel that certain rules shouldn't apply to them because, well, they are special and should be exempt, given all the various strict religious requirements they adhere to. By choice, mind you. And regardless of whether those rules state absolutely 'no exceptions' are to be made, they feel they should be excluded, and if not, they automatically run to CAIR (Council on America Islamic Relations) crying 'discrimination'. There have been several women who, in spite of knowing full well Disney's strict dress code have filed suit against the Mickey Mouse franchise because the company initially balked at their request to wear their hijabs (veils). Sadly, Disney eventually caved after CAIR stepped in and won concessions for the women.

So much for rules.

Now an Hispanic Muslim woman, 40-year-old Marisol Rodriguez-Colon, has solicited CAIR to intervene on her behalf because a roller-skating rink (Ron-A-Roll rink) refused to let her skate with her hijab.

Their rules are very specific, with a sign at the entrance that plainly states:

"No Hats. No Headwear. No Exceptions."

The rule was not instituted to discriminate against Muslims, it's for safety reasons, but Colon decided that this was plainly a case of discrimination when she and another Muslimah relative were not allowed to enter the premises of Ron-A-Roll rink for a birthday party for her niece. They were given the option to wear a helmet over their hijabs, which they both flatly refused.

"I wear this with pride," Colon said. "I was mortified -- by asking someone to wear a helmet you are actually ostracizing us.

"You are singling us out and showing everyone there is an issue -- that something is wrong with these two women."

"You are not allowed -- you are not welcome here. That is what that says to me," Colon said of the statement.

She said she was insulted that the rink would deny entrance to people "because of what they believe and what they are wearing because of those beliefs."

Management insists upon the rules because of safety issues, and we know very well that if they were to be harmed in any way, these women would be the first to sue the establishment, big time, for any injuries incurred.

So instead of removing their hijabs, or using the helmets, the women left and immediately contacted CAIR, which filed its obligatory complaint with Connecticut's Human Rights Commission, because of course not being allowed to skate in a hijab is a major human rights violation.

And apparently, this isn't the first complaint regarding skating rinks and hijabs, but in the following case, the venue caved.

Several years ago, University of Albany student Zahra Shah was barred from wearing her headscarf at an upstate New York roller rink.

That arena, citing insurance reasons, also banned headwear.

An employee at the time told Shah that other skaters could trip and get hurt if the hijab fell off.

When Shah explained that she wore the scarf for religious reasons, one rink employee told her it was like a cowboy "religiously" wearing a cowboy hat.

After a barrage of phone calls from activist groups and others, the rink management apologized and said Shah could skate with her headscarf.

Perhaps these kinds of places should have contracts that people like Colon would have to sign that would prevent them for suing if they were injured. Maybe that would shut them up.

Source: NY Post

Friday, November 26, 2010

Joke of the day: New TSA Signs

Received this in my email. Secretary Napolitano's latest TSA signs. Click on image to enlarge. Enjoy.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Happy Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving isn't just a time to gorge on Turkey or Tofurkey along with all the various fixings that are part and parcel of the autumnal harvest celebration. Yes, it's wonderful to spend time with family and friends munching on all the yummy dishes we come to expect- the yams, the cranberry sauce and stuffing, the mashed potatoes, the pumpkin and apple pies. But we should also take stock of the blessings in our lives, be they few or abundant. There is always something to be grateful and thankful for, whether it's having a roof over our heads and food on the table, or a job, or good health, or the fact that we are alive.

I wish you all a bountiful and blessed Thanksgiving in the company and warmth of good friends and family.

Crossposted on Mind, Body and Spirit

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

My TSA Pat Down- why I opted out

I wasn't quite sure how I felt about the recent, ongoing uproar regarding the latest TSA enhanced security measures, until my trip westward this past Monday.

I definitely know that the thought of being shredded into pieces of confetti at a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet in the air, my bits of flesh commingling with that of my fellow passengers, seemed to trump all the talk about feeling violated by both the backscatter body scanners and the enhanced pat downs. But I also wasn't sure what I would do when faced with a decision between being simultaneously ogled and exposed to radiation in the scanner, or being fondled by some potentially perverted TSA agent during an 'enhanced' pat down.

Since 9/11, I had always travelled metal-less (at least through the metal detectors) to avoid having to endure the 'normal' pat down, so I figured I'd probably be spared this time around as well since that strategy had always worked in the past. But several days pre-flight I still wasn't sure which route I would choose if, for some reason, I was faced with either choice. The enhanced pat down didn't sound so incredibly horrendous- although I can see why a male might feel a tad more violated than a female. A man's package, or "junk" as the "don't touch my junk" guy Jon Tyner put it, seems to be a little more available for an inadvertent or intentional copping a feel than a woman's private parts, but even so, the thought wasn't very appealing. The scanner was equally unappealing. Aside from the fact that some TSA stranger gets to see you literally buck naked, the radiation was what concerned me most.

No-one knows for sure the actual dangers of being subjected to the radiation emitted from the body scanner. TSA claims it's safe, but there are people who say there's no way to determine how dangerous it might be. In fact, board certified neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock (of The Blaylock Wellness Report), believes it's more dangerous than the Feds are willing to admit.

Blaylock says:

A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama’s science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.

The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed “serious concerns” about the “dangerously high” dose of radiation to the skin.

He goes on to say:

One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin — such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.

This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being “1,000-times less than a chest X-ray” and “far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight” are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.

We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).

As someone with auto-immune issues, and having had a bunch of X-Rays this year and last, the negatives pretty much clinched it for me- I was going to 'opt out', and did. Not because there was a planned 'opt out' campaign going on for Thanksgiving travel, but because I simply did not want to be exposed to any more unnecessary radiation.


As I reached the security area, and searched for somewhere to put my carry-on baggage a TSA agent shouted that the 1st lane was available, so off came the shoes, and everything was placed in the bins, and as my bags went through the scanner I suddenly realized I was faced with my choice. I calmly explained my position to the TSA agent who tried to dissuade me from opting out by giving me a detailed explanation of what the pat down entailed, even though I assured him I was quite familiar with the procedure and to go for it. I told some agents that were standing around that I was more concerned about my baggage being safe while I was being patted down than being groped, which is when someone told me that I shouldn't have placed my baggage in the bins and sent it on through if I had planned on opting out. I told her that I had no clue that I was in the designated body scanner lane, to which she replied there were signs indicating so. I don't recall seeing anything, but you can be damn sure I am going to check on my way home. I was asked if I wanted to be patted down in private and I declined, since I figured there would be less chance of roving hands in public. So the woman had me stand with my legs apart and my arms lifted shoulder-high, and explained exactly what she was going to do, and continued to do so until she was finished. It was time consuming, but relatively painless, and I never felt physically violated. The oddest thing I encountered during the whole ordeal was the agent's fascination with the elastic waistband on my pants, her proudly returning to show me that her gloves came up clean for explosives and that I could go, and the sick, old man sitting next to me in his wheel chair that was about to be groped.

I understand the need to protect passengers from being blown to bits by terrorists, and we can thank Muslim extremists for all the mega annoyances the traveling public has had to endure since 9/11, but there has to be a better way. Besides, the backscatter scanners would have no way of detecting explosives in breast implants or in the buttocks, which is something al Qaeda is already working on, according to various sources, and pat downs wouldn't do the job either. Since, as they say, although not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims, TSA should be profiling more. We need to throw away 21st century political correctness- it has no place in the world as it is today. Of course, profiling doesn't always work either, since al Qaeda is adapting to the times. Not all terrorists these days are Middle Eastern men in their twenties to thirties, but we need to be far more proactive than we are today, and maybe we should take some lessons from Israel's El Al Airlines that actively profiles its passengers without laying a finger on them.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Danish M.P. Wants Bare Breasts In Immigration Documentary To Thwart Extremism

Holland, and now Denmark, have an idea on how to keep Muslim extremists (or any other extremists for that matter) out of their countries- by showing bare-boobed women in a documentary that all would-be immigrants must watch. Apparently, anyone who wants to move to the Netherlands must watch a documentary film introduction to the country that includes topless bathers and two men kissing. Foreign policy spokesman for the far-right Danish People's party, Peter Skaarup, wants Denmark to do the same thing. He feels that since women often shed their swim suit tops on Danish beaches, foreigners should be able to deal with that, and if they can't, then they should just stay the heck out of his country.

Denmark already is working on the documentary, which will be part of an immigration test, Skaarup just wants to add the bare boobies into the mix.

This, he said, is mainly relevant for immigrants coming from fundamentalist societies where women are oppressed and are not allowed to display their sexuality or even their hair. On the other hand Danish women are allowed to wear –-or not wear— what they please, underlining that he is not trying to provoke anyone with his statements.

“If you’re coming from a strict, religious society that might make you stop and think, oh no, I don’t want to be a part of that”, Skaarup told Danish daily, Jyllandsposten.

“Topless bathing probably isn’t a common sight on Pakistani beaches, but in Denmark it is still considered quite normal. I honestly believe that by including a couple of bare breasts in the movie, extremists may have to think twice before deciding to come to Denmark,” he said.

Naturally, there are those who aren't too thrilled about his proposal.

Integration spokesman for the conservative party, one of two government parties, Naser Khader says “a pair of naked breasts is no protection against extremism.”

“It's Quite the opposite, fundamentalists are so obsessed with sex that they will be pouring in over the borders. Maybe we should try with naked pigs,” Khader writes on his page on social networking site Facebook.

Maybe they should add bare breasts, a few piggies, and several dogs to boot. That should do the trick. But, I'm sure, the lawsuits would follow shortly.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Veteran's Day- This Bud's Video Is For You

Honor, gratitude and love to all the veterans of all the wars in the free world- for all you have done, this Bud's for you!!

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Zonation's Observations On Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity

Zo, Black Christian conservative artist from machosauceproductions, was at Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity in DC along with his video camera. As always, very interesting observations.

Countering some of the negative commentary regarding Tea Party gatherings and Glenn Beck's rally in DC and criticism regarding the dearth of African Americans attending those events, Zo noticed that the Jon Stewart's shindig, was also predominately white.

Also interesting were the interviews with some of the more intellectually challenged of the participants, especially in light of the fact that there have been a plethora of videos highlighting the same types within the Tea Party crowds.

Friday, November 05, 2010

Bye-Bye Keith- MSNBC Suspends Olbermann Indefinitely

Looks like the brash, uber-obnoxious, hateful Keith Olbermann has been given the boot from the MSNBC line-up, without pay, at least for now. Suspended indefinitely for having donated to three different Democratic candidates during the mid-term elections, Phil Griffin (MSNBC's prez) said:

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay,"

As much as I despise the man for his hate-filled invectives, I initially thought -this is just wrong, to whom one donates is one's private business- until I discovered that NBC news requires that those who do wish to donate to political campaigns get pre-approval. Obviously, Keith didn't do that, because in his breathtaking arrogance he seems to think he runs the show. Not so, it seems.

The move is doubly significant in that it represents a major development in the relationship between Griffin and Olbermann, who once told the New Yorker, "Phil thinks he's my boss."

Uh, guess he is you're boss, after all, Keith.

He'll probably be back, since unlike NPR'S sacking of Juan Williams, this was merely a suspension; Griffin flexing his muscles and showing Olbermann who indeed is the big cheese. Maybe Keith will come back a humbler, less loathsome individual. Uh, nah. But this a lovely, little lesson for Keith. Gotta love that Karma!

Source: HuffingtonPost

U.S. Communist Party Members- just your average, everyday Joes

Check out your average, every day Commie, posted on the Houston Chapter of Communist Party USA. They were none too happy with the election results, but they want you to know that they're just like you and me, and want you to join their cause.

Did someone forget to tell them that Communism has failed, in the long term, in every single country that has ever implemented that form of government?

Thursday, November 04, 2010

No Legalized Pot For California, But They Pick Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer- Again!

Who would have thought that California, of all places, would have voted down Proposition 19 (legalizing Marijuana). I was actually incredibly surprised considering the amount of dope heads that live there, and the fact that it supposedly produces one-third of this country's 'weed'. But after reading an article in the Sacramento Bee, published in April 2010, about pot farming in Mendocino County, it makes total sense. Legalizing it would bring down profits, from the grower to the dealer.

As for the re-election of Jerry Brown, a governor who actually admitted during a CNN interview back in 1992 that he "lied",

It’s all a lie," Brown says. "You’re pretending there’s a plan ....

Frank Sesno: What did you lie about?

Brown: You run for office and the assumption is "Oh, I know what to do." You don’t. I didn’t have a plan for California. Clinton doesn’t have a plan. Bush doesn’t have a plan .... You say you’re going to lower taxes, you’re going to put people to work, you’re gonna improve the schools, you’re going to stop crime … crime is up, schools are worse, taxes are higher. I mean, be real!"
I'm not really surprised at all, considering the amount of liberal fools that reside there. One would think that the residents of bankrupt California would have embraced Ebay's former CEO Meg Whitman, a Princeton and Harvard Business School graduate, who took Ebay from $4 billion to $8 billion in annual earnings, and from 30 to in excess of 15,000 employees in her ten year tenure at the company. But no, they settled for Jerry Brown, and re-elected ultra-liberal Barbara Boxer who bounced 143 checks the tune of $41,000 plus change.
Unfortunately, Meg Whitman never recovered from the "illegal maid" fiasco that Gloria Allred dug up at the last minute, obviously egged on by Jerry Brown and the Democratic Party's penchant for dirty politics. She should have fought back, but didn't.
My condolences to the 'good' people of California who will suffer the consequences for the folly of the dopes.

Monday, November 01, 2010

Maureen Dowd Down On Obama "Dude"- Lib columnist blasts Obama

The Left's love affair with Barack Obama is slowly fading as people become increasingly disenchanted with the man for various, often opposing reasons. For some, he's just not liberal enough to stay in favor, for others I think the misty veil of illusion is finally being lifted and they are finally seeing him for what he truly is: an arrogant man with little to no substance. Of course, there are still many people (and I know plenty) who refuse to let go of that initial attraction to an individual that suckered the world into thinking he was God incarnate, ready to right the world's wrongs. It's a little like the battered woman in an abusive relationship who doesn't have the courage to leave. She keeps hearkening back to when the love was still alive, even though the honeymoon is over.

It does still surprise me, though, when certain liberals actually have the courage to criticize their messiah, as did Maureen Dowd, queen of the liberal op-ed columnists. Her article entitled, Can The Dude Abide is chock full of interesting insights, and for the most part- so true.

Barack Obama became president by brilliantly telling his own story. To stay president, he will need to show he can understand our story.

At first it was exciting that Obama was the sort of brainy, cultivated Democrat who would be at home in a “West Wing” episode.

But now he acts like he really thinks he’s on “West Wing,” gliding through an imaginary, amber-lit set where his righteous self-regard is bound to be rewarded by the end of the hour.

Hey, dude, you’re a politician. Act like one.

As the head of the Democratic Party, the president should have supported the Democratic candidate for governor in Rhode Island, the one the Democratic Governors Association had already lavished more than $1 million in TV ads on. If Obama was going to refuse to endorse Frank Caprio out of respect for Lincoln Chafee, the former Republican who endorsed him for president and is now running as an independent, the president should have at least stayed out of Providence.

She goes on to say:

His arrogance led him to assume: If I build it, they will understand. He can’t get the gratitude he feels he deserves for his achievements if no one knows what he achieved and why those achievements are so vital.

Once it seemed impressive that he was so comfortable in his own skin. Now that comfort comes across as an unwillingness to be wrong.

We want the best people to govern us, but many voters are so turned off by Obama’s superior air that they’re rushing into the arms of disturbingly inferior pols.

As for trying to push his own agenda rather than listening to the people, which is an indictment of his ramming through Obama care, she says:

Obama admitted to The Times’s Peter Baker: “There is probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short term it was unpopular.”

But who defines what’s “right”?

With the exception of Obama, most Americans seemed to agree that the “right” thing to do until the economy recovered was to focus on jobs instead of getting the Congress mired for months in making over health insurance and energy policy. And the “right” thing to do was to come down harder on the big banks for spending on bonuses instead of lending to small businesses that don’t get bailouts.

The mid-term elections will signal if the Obama party is over and if people are brave enough to cut the umbilical cord.

Click here to read the full op-ed.

Jon Stewart's DC Rally To Restore Sanity And Conservative Derangement Syndrome

Most of my FaceBook pals were eagerly awaiting Jon Stewart's DC Rally For Sanity. Some actually went there, others were planning on participating in sister rallies in other locales, while still others bemoaned the fact that they were unable to attend. Most of them, of course, are in the arts, but there were a few who aren't and those people were just as bummed about not being able to commune with fellow 'conservative haters' as my ultra liberal colleagues; and believe me the hate was and will continue to be palpable.

Most of them firmly believe that anyone who doesn't happen to be an Obama-loving liberal are right-wing fanatics. It matters not that some of us who dislike Obama happen to be moderate conservatives or just plain moderates, and that the majority of conservatives are not extremists- they hate us all. They see anyone deviating from the 'Obama-is-god and will magically solve the world's problems if given the chance' path as the enemy, so the fact that Republicans might take control over the house scares the heck out of them. The fact that some were endorsed by the Tea Party movement, frightens them even more. There are some who actually see the potential increase in Republican power as a doomsday scenario. Take one photographer pal who, along with an article on the Huffington Post entitled "If The Tea Party Wins, America Loses" linking to a Keith Olbermann video rant, posted the following comment on his FaceBook page:

"Fanatacism [sic]and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, with banners flying and with drums beating we’ll be marching backward, backward through the glorious ages of that 16th Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind." from Inherit the Wind
My no-longer friend, who is one of the few who knows my politics, is a bitter hater and that hatred has truly corrupted his mind. With G. W. Bush no longer in the political limelight, all that Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) has been transformed into CDS (Conservative Derangement Syndrome). Some of it is understandable, however. Although I generally respect the Tea Party movement, there are some questionable fringe elements. And some of the candidates that it endorsed, and that are now poised to either win or lose in the mid-term elections, should never have gotten this far. But Olbermann talks as if the Tea Party is synonymous with the Republican Party, which it is not.

However, just as we have a fringe element on the right, so does the left. Many of those, I'm sure, found their way to Stewart's ado on Saturday, as some of ours have ended up at Tea Party rallies over the years. But Glenn Beck's Restore Honor rally, which Stewart was lampooning, specified that there were to be no political placards at the event, and that request was honored by all, other than counter-protesters outside the venue. But at Saturday's fete there were plenty of placard, including several I found terribly offensive, see above. To view more go to Doug Ross' blog here. Of course, the typical liberal response (as evidenced in another Ross post about that libs diatribe) was that the placards were simply an exercise in sarcasm, and that conservatives are too stupid to discern the difference. What he fails to comprehend is that just as there might be some of us too "dense" (as he put it) to "get" the sarcasm in "Death To Right Wing Extremists", some left-wing crazy might also not "get it", and be inspired to haul off and harm someone he deems right wing. Isn't that what the left has criticized the Tea Party for? Some of their equally offensive placards inciting some right-wing militia-man to go out and hunt down liberals? Frankly, I have seen some very distasteful signs at Tea Party rallies, and I don't approve at all.

Whether it was sarcasm or not, it just proves that the liberals have as many stupid loons as we do, and we should be scared of them both.

Photo credit: Doug Ross

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Shortest, Smallest Political Quiz- Where Do You Stand Politically

In light of the upcoming elections, for those who haven't voted already (yours truly has), I thought this little quiz might come in handy if you are still stumped about where you stand politically.

It's very short and I'm not quite sure if it's skewed towards Libertarian (since that's what I scored) but it's interesting justthe same.

Political Quiz on (which is actually a Libertarian organization)

Watching Out For Voter Fraud In The 2010 Mid-Term Elections

I never thought my beloved country would ever stoop to voter fraud to ensure a particular candidate would win over another, but considering it has happened in the past, including during the 2008 elections, thanks to ACORN, we can rest assured it will more than likely happen again during these 2010 mid-terms. There is way too much at stake, so it is incumbent upon us all to make sure that with the many tight-races occurring nationwide, that someone doesn't win as a result of fraudulent activity. An election should be won fair and square, regardless of whether or not we like the results, but since the Democratic Party has far more to lose, in many ways, my bets are on them, and this time they have SEIU on their side.

The following conservative website has been established specifically for reporting any voter fraud that you might encounter on election day. Keep those eyes and ears open.

The following is set up for November 2nd:

On November 2nd, if you SEE something, SAY something

CALL: 877.794.0004
CONFERENCE CALL all day and night!

CALL IN NUMBER: (218) 936-7999
BRIDGE: 972046

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Dirty Politics- The 2010 MidTerm Elections

Midterm elections are upon us and I've never seen it quite as down and dirty. On both sides, mind you. More than likely it has to do with the fact that both the Democratic and Republican Parties have much to lose, or gain, depending on your political perspective. The right is trying to dig its way back from the major losses it incurred in 2008 from an Obama win that should never have happened. I blame that on all the disenfranchised Republicans and Independents who chose to sit out the 2008 election or vote Third Party simply because they hated John McCain more than they wanted to retain control. I warned people about that foolish decision- that punishing the Republican Party would ultimately punish the American people, and we are now suffering the consequences.

But the miserable past few years have now galvanized the conservatives into action- the Tea Party movement (which really isn't a Party at all, so they claim) emerged, and people are ready to vote the bums in our government out. However, in their over-zealous efforts to not repeat the mistakes of the past, people blindly voted for a few duds that the Tea Party backed, and who have no chance in hell of ever getting elected. Christine O'Donnell comes to mind, to name a few. While I'm sure she's a lovely woman there is no way the woman will win. I could be wrong but I doubt it. She's way too fringe for the the majority of moderates, independents and liberals, who I believe make up the majority of the American people. Perhaps this will serve as a lesson to the Tea Party elite, that it's ultra important to vet a candidate before you put all your efforts into ensuring they get the nomination. Mike Castle in Delaware, although considered a RINO by many, would have at least voted 70 to 80% of the time with the Republicans, as opposed to the 0% of the time which will happen if as-left-as-you-can-get Chris Coons wins. I'd be much happier with 80% than zippo%, but some people can't quite fathom the importance of that distinction. Then we have Nevada's Harry Reid who should have been dead in the water, but it's looking like he might just retain that seat, thanks to another tea Party favorite who is just too far right for most.

As for the liberals, they're desperately trying to hold on to control of the House and Senate. Thankfully, it looks like that won't happen with the House, but they're doing their damnedest to hold on to the Senate, and doing whatever they can to make sure they don't lose it all.

Politics have always been dirty, and those who started off with a relatively respectful campaign were dragged into a much more negative stance by their opponents. Florida Republican Congressman, LtC Allen West's TV ad's eventually turned negative in response to his Democratic opponent Ron Klein's vicious attacks. The Democrats, in fact, stooped so low that they released West's social security number on an anti-West flyer. Klein's reps claim ignorance, but the flyer included an Indiana tax lien West took 4 months to pay off with the social security number clearly visible, and the lien issue has been prominently featured in all of Klein's rancorous TV ads. I sincerely doubt he wasn't aware of the flyer's contents.

It's too bad we can't have civility in politics, but with a President as polarizing as the one we currently have in office, we can't expect much. All I know is I will be ecstatic come November 3rd, whatever happens.

Quote from Benedict Pringle

Friday, October 29, 2010

Mohammed Top Name For Baby Boys In The UK

Back in 2007, I wrote about how the name Mohammed (in all its multitude of variations) was England's second most popular name in 2006 to call a baby boy. At the time good old 'Jack' was the most popular, but it was predicted that Mohammed would take first place by the following year. The prediction wasn't quite on target- it took top honors in London and a few other regions in 2008, but the name did not hit jackpot until last year.

Apparently, Mohammed (if you include all the different versions) became the number one boy's name across England in 2009, with Jack being booted (after 14 years as king) to third place with Oliver taking second. Whether this is because Islam (as predicted) is the fastest growing religion in the world, or whether the Muslims in the UK are becoming more religious, as some seem to think, is uncertain.

Damian Thompson, of the UK Telegraph, is one who believes it's due to the increased religiosity of young British Muslims. Thompson quotes from a 2007 Policy Exchange Poll:

Young British Muslims are much more likely than their parents to follow the rules of the Islamic religion, a think tank survey showed.

Support for Sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the Hijab is much stronger among younger Muslims, according to the survey by the centre-right Policy Exchange.

The survey of more than 1,000 Muslims from different age groups in the UK, found:

• 71% of over-55s compared with 62% of 16 to 24-year-olds believe that they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain than with Muslims abroad.

• 19% of over-55s compared with 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds would prefer to send their children to Islamic state schools.

• 17% of over-55s compared with 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds would prefer living under Sharia law than British law.

• 28% of over-55s compared with 74% of 16 to 24-year-olds prefer Muslim women to choose to wear the Islamic headscarf

Since the last UK census was in 2001, there's no way to determine if it also has to do with a growing immigrant population, and/or the fact that Muslims have a tendency to encourage the building of large families. Either way, it's an indication that England's Muslim population is becoming more religiously conservative, which ultimately does not bode well for the country. But that's been pretty obvious over the years.

The various spellings included:

Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed, Mohammod, Mahamed, Muhamad, Mahammed and Mohmmed.

Bye-bye Jack. I'm sure Mohammed will continue to reign supreme in the poor old UK.

Man Joking About 'Talaq' on Skype Has His Marriage Ended By Deoband

There are some pretty stupid edicts in every religion, but 'Talaq' in Islam takes the cake. First of all, being able to divorce your spouse simply by saying 'Talaq' three times is a major joke, and not a laughable one. It's absolutely ludicrous that all it takes to divorce your spouse is one word repeated three times. Talaq, talaq, talaq - and bye-bye wife. But it's even more ridiculous that a man who was joking around with his wife on Skype is now divorced because of this idiotic rule, and no-one will bend those rules for the hapless couple. And what they have to go through to 'remarry' is even more absurd.

An e-savvy Qatar resident learnt this the hard way when he typed talaq thrice while chatting with his wife on Skype. He says he did not mean it but Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband has ruled that his nikah stands terminated.

That's not all. For his careless 'chat', the man can remarry his divorced wife only after halaala, a practice under which the woman has to marry and divorce another man before she can marry her previous husband again.

Deoband's fatwa section — Dar-ul-Ifta (DuI) — recently received a written request from Qatar, seeking a fatwa on a rather amusing situation. The youth stated that he was recently chatting with his wife on Skype when he typed the word 'talaq' three times, though he did not mean it and asked if his nikah was still valid.

Dar-ul-Ifta shot back that the nikah stands terminated. "When you pronounce talaq three times, it means talaq has taken place, and it does not matter whether the woman has reciprocated or not. Your wife has become 'haraam' for you whether you are aware of the commandment of Islam or not. You neither have the right to take her back nor solemnise new nikah with her without a valid 'halaala'. After the completion of 'iddah' (iddat) period, the woman can marry where she wishes except you," the seminary said.

As per senior Islamic scholars, 'halaala' requires the woman to complete her iddat period of 40 days beginning immediately after talaq. During this period she is supposed to stay away from celebrations and socialising.

At the end of iddat, she would have to marry another man who should then divorce her. She will be required to go through another round of iddat only then would she be eligible to marry her "first husband".

Why the stupid young man even bothered to inquire about this, if it was simply a joke, demonstrates how incredibly fearful people are in that religion. Had he not written Deoband (an Islamic school in India), he wouldn't be dealing with the situation he's now in. In some ways it's his own fault for being so scared that he felt compelled to ask about it, but the whole idea of  'Talaq' needs to be addressed. Divorce shouldn't be that simple. And not to make an exception when it was said in jest is just plain cruel.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Liberalism A Genetic Malfunction- Researchers Discover "Liberal Gene"

So, researchers at Harvard and UC San Diego have discovered what they call the "liberal" gene, the DRD4.

So, does that mean there's a conservative and moderate gene, too? And if so, where did I inherit mine from, since both my parents are Democrats and liberal, although I think my dad's more conservative then he'd like to admit, at least if those political affiliation tests have any validity to them.

I've always wondered what made some people liberals and others conservatives or moderates. Maybe it is genetic and they have no choice but to be the wankers they have a tendency to be. I guess we should feel sorry for them, since if it is genetics they have no control over their idiocy.

Hope they didn't waste taxpayer money on this study.

For the rest of the story click here.

Conservative Canadian Bloggers Need Our Help Against Frivolous Law Suits

Canadian bloggers (and Canadians by extension) are in deep doo-doo when it comes to their freedom of speech. And not just from Islamist ne-er-do-wells who have hides as thin as rice paper who will sue for the lamest of reasons, but they are also being targeted with frivolous law suits by fellow Canucks, aided and abetted by the infamous thought police- the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). If you hang around any of the conservative Canadian blogs like Blazing Cat Fur's, you will be familiar with the name of one Richard Warman, who used to work for the CHRC. Apparently this litigious wacko has nothing better to do than sue anyone who happens to offend him, or who has criticized him in the past and supposedly has about 60 ongoing SLAPP suits according to another blogger. Why the Canadian court system suffers the likes of Warman is beyond me, but it just proves the country is in dire straits.

Blazing Cat Fur was sued by Warman 18 months ago for simply linking, get this, to Mark Steyn's website, and for also linking to a website that lists a bunch of allegations against Warman himself (who apparently posted anti-Semitic, anti-gay and racist diatribes on Nazi websites). BCF has already spent $10,000 on his defense against a $500,000.00 law suit by Warman. He now needs some help, so if you can give a little something, go to his website and click on the Feed The Kitty paypal link, you never know when we might also need help.

This country isn't that far behind our Canadian brothers in terms of thought police and censorship. We must fight to maintain our right to free speech, even if it means defending ourselves from frivolous law suits.

Dirty Politics- New Low With Gawker's Publication Of Christine O'Donnell "One Night Stand"

Even as Republican I am no fan of Christine O'Donnell. The Tea Party made a huge mistake by not vetting a few of its candidates who should never have won in the first place, including O'Donnell. And even though she has no chance in hell of winning the Delaware Senate seat that Mike Castle could have handily won, people are stooping to new lows to seal the deal. Politics can get nasty and ugly, but this goes beyond the pale and both sides of the fence are condemning it.

Gawker, a U.S. blog, published an anonymous story about an alleged "one-night stand" that some lowlife claims he had with O'Donnell three years ago. This unnamed 25-year-old Philadelphia jerk was paid 'low four-figures' for this information.

First of all, the fact that they paid for the story and that the pig wasn't even named makes the whole story suspect. In the post he claims she was 'a decent kisser' but that she claimed she was a virgin, as if that should be something to condemn.

He also claims the two did not have sex and makes intimate comments about her body and grooming.

Thankfully, fan or not of O'Donnell, people have condemned Gawker for publishing the story.

'Gawker hits O'Donnell while she's down,' wrote The Atlantic.

In a column for the Huffington Post, author Danielle Crittendon wrote: 'This whole story reeks as a pre-election plant, and Gawker should own up to the identity of this cowardly sexual creep.'

Meghan McCain, daughter of Senator John McCain, Tweeted: 'I am no fan of O'Donnell but what Gawker has done is disgusting and vile, and once again not showcasing the real issues in this election.'

She added: 'This is the exact reason why women don't want to run for office in this country... Anybody saying there isn't a double standard for how the media treats women versus men running for office isn't living in reality.'

The National Organisation for Women (NOW) initially refused to comment, since they are endorsing O'Donnell's opponent Coons, but eventually wrote a statement condemned condemning the story.

It issued a statement tonight stating that 'sexist, misogynist attacks against women have no place in the electoral process.'

The organisation's president Terry O’Neill said: 'NOW repudiates Gawker’s decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O’Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere.
Gawker claims they know who the man is and verified his connections to O'Donnell, but that doesn't mean the story is true, especially in light of the fact they did not get a sworn affidavit. Even though there are pictures of O'Donnell in a silly Lady Bug outfit that he supposedly provided Gawker, it still doesn't mean the actual story is true.

O'Donnell is certainly bizarre, and didn't deserve the nomination to begin with, but she also doesn't deserve this, especially since everyone knows there is no way she will win. This is just another demonstration of dirty politics, and in this case it's despicably low.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Joke of the day: Barack's BS Bingo

Just received this in my email.

Here's some fun stuff to do when you feel compelled to torture yourself by watching another of Barack Obama's Teleprompted, snooze-inducing speeches. I usually can't bear to listen to him, but I think I'll play this little game to make it a little more tolerable over the next few years. Follow the directions below.

Rules for Bullshit Bingo:
1. Before Barack Obama's next televised speech, print your "Bullshit Bingo"
2. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases.
3. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"

Saturday, October 23, 2010

L.A. Union StageHand At Obama Rally Fired For Wearing USS George H. W. Bush T-Shirt and Hat In Honor Of His Navy Son

AS a union actress I don't consider myself anti-Union. At least not anti-actors' unions. SAG, AEA and AFTRA, for the most, have created working and safety standards that were and are very necessary. However, I have never appreciated the fact that unions often get involved in politics where they have no place, but they often do, and unfortunately some of my union dues goes to issues that I am opposed to.

That said, the stage workers' union, IATSE, just fired an L.A. stage hand, Duane Hammond, because he happened to be wearing a USS George H. W. Bush T-Shirt, which he refused to turn inside out, and a cap that he refused to remove. The union took offense, apparently, to the fact that he was wearing wardrobe that mentioned the "Bush" name at a location that was setting up for an Obama rally, in spite of the fact that it wasn't a pro-Bush logo, but simply the logo of the ship his son happens to be serving on in the U.S. navy. All this poor man wanted to do was honor his son's service for the past 3 years on the ship that was named after Bush senior. Even though he tried to explain the reasons for wearing the shirt to his union bosses he was unceremoniously sacked.

According to an update, and obviously after much unwanted publicity, the union apologized to Hammond and apparently are "bending over backwards" to make up for their reprehensible actions. This should never have happened, even if Hammond had been wearing a pro-Bush T-shirt. This is a free country, at least I thought it was.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg Walk Off "The View" Set In Unprofessional Hissy Fit

When I heard the news that Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walked off "The View" in protest, I couldn't imagine what hideously offensive comment Bill O'Reilly might have made that would prompt these women to leave in such a huff. A very unprofessional turn, I might add, to walk off a show you are co-hosting, but I was curious to know what terribly 'bigoted' remark O'Reilly actually made that warranted such action. I cringe, at times, with some things some of our conservative talk show hosts say, but when I eventually found out what this so-called 'bigot' said I was totally shocked. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, considering the sources, but it would have at least been understandable had it been justified.

While trying to explain Barack Obama's low approval ratings, O'Reilly brought up the whole polarizing 'mosque near Ground Zero issue'. Not buying that the polls state 70% of the American population oppose it, the women questioned the validity. When questioned further, O'Reilly revealed that the reason was "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11." Whoopi called it "bullshit" and after some shouting both Whoopi and Joy, like angry children, walked off the set.

Since when is calling a spade a spade bigotry? And since when do we have to qualify our statements every time we speak about "terrorism"? Oh, of course, we're not really supposed to be using the word 'terrorist' (according to Obama) or associating Islam with terrorism, when the majority of terrorists these days just so happen to be Muslims. Or, in this case, we're supposed to refrain from saying that Muslims flew planes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania? I think most of us assume when someone refers to Muslims killing us on 9/11 that they're referring to extremists and radical Islam. When we spoke of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) and all their terrorist activity during their violent heyday, should we not have called them Irish?

The fact is, it was Muslims not Catholics, not Buddhists, not Hindus, not Jews (although lunatic, delusional Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to think they had something to do with it) Muslims rammed those planes into the Twin Towers in the name of their religion. Yes, they were extremists, but that doesn't change the fact that they were Muslims, and telling people they aren't allowed to mention that is absolutely absurd. Walking off a show because someone mentioned that is even more absurd. Barbara Walters did berate them for walking off, not because she agreed with Bill O'Reilly's statement, but because in this country we should be allowed to debate without being censored or throwing hissy fits.

Whether one agrees with what O'Reilly said or how he said it, he had every right to opine. That's what makes this country great, our freedom of speech which is slowly being whittled away by people like Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg who call us bigots for having opinions that differ from their own.

Grow up and wise up. Being pc about the whole radical Islam issue is not going to make it go away, it's just making its ranks grow stronger.

Source: NYDailyNews

Monday, October 18, 2010

UAE Court Ruling States Men Can Beat Wives And Kids

Domestic violence is a chronic, prevalent problem worldwide and something that should be strongly condemned and prosecuted, and yet women (and some men) wind up killed because rarely is anything done about it. Restraining orders can only go so far, but if a man is intent on killing his wife he will find a way, and it often starts with simple beatings that lead to uncontrollable rage and the desire to permanently harm the spouse. There are no justifiable reasons to ever beat your partner, but in Islam this is actually encouraged by some. Yes, I know there are clerics who like to use the whole toothbrush analogy, but sorry, I don't buy it. Never is it okay to hit your wife, and there is something fundamentally wrong with any religion that condones it, in this day and age.

And yet, the United Arab Emirates has just now ruled that it's perfectly okay (in fact it's a right) for husbands to beat their wives and kids- on one condition - there should be no visible, physical marks. In other words- go ahead men beat the women in your lives as long as you don't bruise them. What is most stupefying is the fact that this is applicable only to the female members of the household. Of course, there's that needed reconciliation attempt before the beating, but if that fails, knock her flat, just don't break her teeth.

The UAE can thank Judge Falah al Hajeri for this latest act of male chauvinism.

The judgment was made by one of the UAE’s most senior judges, Chief Justic Falah al Hajeri, who made the ruling in the case of a man fined £85 for slapping his wife and kicking his daughter.

The Emirati man in the case was found guilty of slapping his wife so hard he damaged her bottom lip and teeth.

He also slapped and kicked his 23-year-old daughter so that she suffered bruises on her hand and knee.

While the defendant, who has not been named, initially claimed he hit the two women only by accident, he was found guilty of assault.

However, he appealed, claiming that even if he had intended to strike his wife and daughter, under Shariah law he had the right to do so if he had first exhausted all other ways of resolving the dispute.

Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri said: 'Although the law permits the husband to use his right to discipline, he has to abide by the limits of this right.

'If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment.'
Mr al Hajeri went on to explain that one of the ways of determining whether a man had breached this limit was to look for physical traces of beating.

Typical classic denial- not intending to hit the wife. These kind of abusive men love to blame the victim, as well as claiming it was the woman's fault. And if he has the right to do it under Shariah law, then Shariah law needs to be dumped or evolve. Women are not the property of men, and they are certainly not children in need of discipline.

There have been some enlightened souls in the Arab world who balked at the ruling, but others who see it as a "real-life compromise"

...between the competing demands of the petro-state’s highly Westernised population and its conservative Muslim heritage.

There should never be any compromise when it comes to domestic violence, I don't care whose religion thinks it's peachy keen to beat a wife.

The Qu'ran mentions something about the right of men to discipline their wives, and that particular verse has often been open to interpretation. Islamic scholars have been battling over that for a very long time. The following two men represent both sides of the argument.

Jihad Hashim Brown, the head of research at the Islamic think tank the Tabah Foundation said beating one’s wife was in conflict most Islamic texts, which encourage Muslims to treat their wives in 'love and kindness'.

He said a Quranic verse might appear to allow certain things but if the verse was not 'clear and concise', it should not enter courts of law.

However, Dr Ahmed al Kubaisi, head of Sharia Studies at Iraq’s Baghdad University, said that under Sharia law beating one’s wife was an option to prevent the breakdown of the family.

He said it should be used only as a substitute to resorting to the police. 'If a wife committed something wrong, a husband can report her to police,' Dr al Kubaisi said.

'But sometimes she does not do a serious thing or he does not want to let others know; when it is not good for the family. In this case, hitting is a better option.'

And what about when a man does something wrong, is the wife allowed to deck him, as long as she leaves no marks? She should!

A Female Persian Blogger's Reasons For Wearing The Veil: More Confidence and Better Marriages

Here's some very bizarre insight into why a Muslim woman would actually choose to wear the full face veil (niqab). As odd as it might seem to those of us who treasure the ability to clearly see those we communicate with, to breathe fresh air, and have the sun shine on our faces there are some Muslim women who prefer to be completely covered up, and the reasons for this are incredibly absurd. That's right, not all women are forced by abusive, controlling husbands and fathers to cover their faces, like ninjas, some do it of their own volition.

One Iranian female blogger "Eye and Light" seems to think that veiled women are far more self confident, and much more "successful in their marriages", though what she'd know about either eyes or light is questionable. I'm not sure if she indeed does wear the full veil or perhaps is simply waxing poetic about the virtues of the veil, but this is what she said in this translated post.

Veiled women have more self-confidence. They’re more satisfied with their bodies. As psychologists say, they have a positive body image. For these women their forelegs and lips have a sexual value, therefore they make an effort to cover them. These women don’t consider themselves the same as the unveiled women in the street. They believe their bodies are full of value and beauty and they are sensitive about these values and holding onto them. That is why veiled women are more successful in their marriages. Self-confidence is an important factor in a marriage and veiled woman have more of it.

Women who don’t wear the veil have less self-confidence. They feel they’re missing something in their social life and they want to fill the gap with their femininity. You have to see how hard they try to refresh their make-up in public bathrooms to understand this. It is the issue of self-confidence that reminds Hillary Clinton [to apply] lipstick in the middle of diplomatic talks. [picture of Hillary Clinton here]

Another reason why women who don’t wear the veil don’t have self- confidence is that they feel they’re being judged by many men -- clearly men have different tastes. I know a girl who is very light skinned and blond: she is beautiful, one of those types that are called foreigners. Once her boyfriend told her that a woman should be dark and hot. Poor thing, she was saddened, she asked me whether she was very plain. I told her: no, my dear, you’re not, you’re very pretty and European. Your problem is that you’ve sold yourself cheap to any worthless guy who can voice his opinion about you.

Uh, wrong Miss "Eye and Light", most of us unveiled women have plenty of confidence, thank you very much, and most women, at least in the West, don't walk around thinking of our lips and forelegs as sexually charged objects. Nor do we, in the West, both males and females go around looking at every person we meet in a sexual manner. People are far too harried and hurried to notice others, and since we are not covered up, the body becomes a non-issue. It's the women who dress in extremes that get noticed in the West, the women who cover themselves up and the women who dress immodestly, the rest of us for the most part go unnoticed.