"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."


Glenn Reynolds:

Barack Obama:
"Impossible to transcend."

Albert A. Gore, Jr.:
"An incontinent brute."

Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
"God damn the Gentleman Farmer."

Friends of GF's Sons:
"Is that really your dad?"

Kickball Girl:
"Keeping 'em alive until 7:45."

Hired Hand:
"I think . . . we forgot the pheasant."

I'm an
Alcoholic Yeti
in the
TTLB Ecosystem

Monday, April 30, 2007

Eat Your Peas

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

C.S. Lewis, In Freedom


Coming Soon to a Theater Near You

True or False? This is a real movie:
A Gainesville Florida auto upholsterer attempts to transcend his mundane life by taming a wild, red-tailed hawk. He chases his passion while caring for his autistic nephew, and becoming caught up in an abstract and uneasy relationship with a young psychology student.
Time's up, and the answer is:

Hat tip to the girls, who (inevitably) have their very own take on this.

Labels: , , ,

Life on Mars!

The Sunday Times (no, you twit, the real one) reports irrefutable proof of the discovery of an extensive, advanced industrial civilization on the red planet. Deja Thoris to replace Katie Couric. John Carter to take charge of Iraq war.


Friday, April 27, 2007

I Would Have Thought This Was Obvious

From our "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" department comes this observation by Michael Novak:
This is not civil war in Iraq; it is a limited, strategic, and tactical ploy whereby foreigners try desperately to inflame Iraqis against one another. The aim of these foreigners is to bring about such a cataclysm of murder and insecurity and fear that their tiny, tiny minority can then capture total power — just as the small minority of Bolsheviks did in the early rise of the Soviet Empire; just as the tiny bands of ruthless black shirts and brown shirts under Mussolini and Hitler spread social paralysis to launch the rise of Fascism. Mayhem requires only a ruthless few.

Labels: ,

Same Old Same Old

You know those eight eco-friendly rich guys (and one rich girl) who had that meeting in South Carolina last night? You know, the meeting that all of the networks did free advertising for? You know, THIS meeting:

Well, guess how all these Nanny State true believers, each of whom has a long list of commands for you to follow in order to fight Global Warming (peace be upon it) got to last night's debate? Yup. You guessed it. You'd a thunk at least one of these buffoons would have bicycled in just as a stunt. But their contempt for the average American apparently prevents even gestures.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Leland Stanford Junior University, Organized 1891

The fellow in the middle is reported to have been Yell Captain. We'll let the Hired Hand ('04) provide such other information as he believes considerations of national security may permit.

UPDATE (8:20 P.M. PDT): Ahem. Corrected the agonizing gaffe committed by G.F., in which he says Stanford was 'established 1891'. My buddy in the middle (1LT, B.A. '02, M.A. '03, O.O.A.*) is possibly the most awesome person on the planet, and clearly has a fondness for bucket hats - he's also coming home soon after 12 months in Iraq. -HH

*Other Obscure Acronyms

Labels: , , ,


The Wall Street Journal reports that the latest Harris Poll shows that only 28% of respondents have a positive view of the President, while 70% have a negative view.

That puts him in a virtual dead heat with Congress, of which 27% have a positive view, while 69% gaze with disapproval.

Harry Reid, Democrat Majority Leader in the Senate, has an even lower approval rating, at only 22%. While only 52% had a negative view, that left almost one-quarter of those surveyed who didn't have any idea who Harry Reid was.

The Speaker of the House came up at 30 positive/56 negative.

Victory in Iraq will flip Mr. Bush's numbers to 70% positive. What might help Congressional Democrats?


If it Looks Like a Poodle, and if it . . . .

"One couple said they became suspicious when they took their "dog" to have its claws trimmed and were told it had hooves."

Yes. Well. We are speechless. Go read it for yourself, HERE.

Let us know how it all works out.


This Says It All

Stolen from The Llama Butchers, where the post is aptly titled, "Too Good Not To Swipe."

Our Friend Down the Road -- a regular LB reader -- alerted us to this fabulous artistic triumph. But, as a public service to those of our readers who may have had the misfortune to have graduated from High School any time after 1970 (and accordingly are wholly ignorant of history, literature, Western civilization, math, science, and philosophy [but who can toss a Frisbee with professional wrist action, and know that we don't say "Oriental" any longer]), you may go HERE, and scroll down to HERE.


Speaking of Inappropriate Behavior

Now I've been around long enough to have seen this and that. And, back in the day, I even scraped together enough money to go to law school, graduate, and be issued the wand and robe of that important priesthood. So I know a few things.

For example, I know what it means if a college expels me. I also know what it means if I'm such a weird, creepy, dangerous sort of guy that someone gets a judge to issue a restraining order, prohibiting me from coming within 60 yards of Cher, for example. [OK, so maybe that's not a completely random example.]

But consider the situation of Michelle Mufich. That's Michelle, over on the right. A fine-looking young woman. There can't be too large a number of girls named "Michelle Mufich," even in the whole United States, but we're not sure if THIS is her, or THIS (scroll down to where they list about a half-dozen scholarships awarded), but you can Google for yourself and decide who exactly she is. But one thing of which we are certain is that she is "persona non grata" at the University of Northern Colorado. And we have no idea on God's Green Earth what that means.

The University, located in beautiful Greeley, not only declares folks to be "persona non grata," but maintains a public web site listing their names and posting their photographs. The "University of Northern Colorado Police Department," (are no college rent-a-cops simply the "Campus Patrol" any longer?) explains:
We have a longstanding practice of issuing persona non grata (sometimes called PNG or no trespass) orders to people whose behavior is not appropriate for our campus community. The orders can be issued for offenses ranging from violation of the student code of conduct, to theft, to felonies. A person who is issued a PNG order may or may not have been affiliated with our campus at some time.

The individuals listed below were issued PNG orders this academic year. They aren’t necessarily dangerous, but they are unwelcome anywhere on campus.

If you see any of these people on campus, please call UNC Police at 351-2245. Although someone subject to a PNG order is not necessarily dangerous, we ask you to let our professional law enforcement officials handle any apparent violation of a PNG order. They will confirm the person’s identity and take appropriate action.
Where to begin? Apparently one can make it onto this list even if they're not dangerous, have never committed a crime, and have never had any "affiliation" with the college. That means that they apparently think that they can list me -- and post my picture for the world to see -- this afternoon. And keep in mind when pondering "violation of the student code of conduct" that on today's enlightened college campus, "inappropriate flatulence" can be punished as a hate crime.

We leave to your imagination the possible applications for "PNG Orders." That annoying fellow down the hall who walks by your office engaging in questionable scratching? Issue him a PNG Order. Telemarketers pretending to be taking a survey? PNG. The guy on the corner who keeps handing you the Scientology pamphlet? PNG the bastard.

Of course, not all of the mug shots maintained by the Campi Patrol (they must have more than one campus, no?) present the same wholly non-threatening visage as Michelle. But we're at a loss to understand the legal basis for a public institution, without resort to the courts, not only classifying an individual in this way, but at the same time holding them up to public ridicule, without even explaining whether the alleged offense was cocaine distribution, or being impolite to a rent-a-cop.

Imagine the uproar if students at the University of Northern Colorado decided to maintain a web site on which they posted the pictures of patrolmen and college administrators and faculty who they'd decided to declare "Odious and Obnoxious."

Just so you know I'm not making this up, the website is HERE.

[UPDATE] An anonymous commenter has provided us with a link to this story, in which Brittany Bethel (that's her on the left) alleges that her name made the list of shame because she collapsed as a consequence of an eating disorder. As being a danger to oneself is a violation of the University's "Honor Code of Conduct," and since being afflicted with an eating disorder is dangerous, having such a condition violates the Code. Recall that mere violation of that Code can earn you a spot on the list.

While we're not sure we take Ms. Bethel's explanation at face value (but, then again, see this story, from February), what's more alarming is the explanation by the University that the web site is "a response to the shootings at Virginia Tech." How exactly does that fit with the University's statement that those on the list are "not necessarily dangerous."

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Be Careful What You Wish For

I've been pondering the strategy of the Democrats to position themselves as the party of "I told you so" in next year's Presidential election. They know that, as a matter of fact, they cannot really influence the course of the war in Iraq (except -- as they enthusiastically do – by encouraging the enemy), and so they will play a form of chicken with the President on funding: They'll insist on a black-letter timetable for withdrawal, and when that meets with the promised veto, they'll pass an appropriation amidst more non-binding declamations that the war is lost, that it can't be won, and that the President is simply being stubborn.

[We set aside the fact that, if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi actually were persuaded that nothing can be accomplished in Iraq, they would have a moral and political obligation simply to immediately cut off funding, and bring the troops home this afternoon. But I digress.]

It seems to me that there are only two paths that events in Iraq can follow over the next 12 months.

First, stability and order may be brought to the country at large. There will remain levels of violence that would not be tolerated in London or Cleveland, but that are normal, for example, in Israel. I label this option "success."

Second, the current stalemate, with its chaotic levels of random violence continues, or the level of disorder and terrorist & insurgent attacks actually increases. I label this possibility "failure."

Success, of course, would be a boon to the President and his party. Since he is leaving office in any event, and since responsibility for "the war" is so closely identified with him personally, it is difficult to imagine that failure would have any dramatic effect of the Republican Party much beyond the 2008 elections. A Democrat may be elected president, and Democrat majorities may be increased in Congress, but there will be no devastating rout with existential overtones.

Consider, on the other hand, the Democrats. Should we succeed in Iraq, that event would be fundamentally disastrous for them. They will be seen as whining cowards, who not only got it all wrong, but did everything in their power to avert victory in order to score political points. Americans don't like losers, and they don't like complainers. Recall that Johnson's landslide victory over Goldwater in 1964 (despite abundant punditry to the contrary) resulted in no permanent Democratic majority. Seven of the next ten presidential elections were won by Republicans. One of the Democratic victories was by Jimmy Carter -- a whiny loser who recommended combating high heating bills by wearing a sweater -- who was destroyed in the next election by Ronald Reagan.

But consider the consequences for Democrats should we fail in Iraq. I think it unlikely that the party will be rewarded by the electorate as a font of clear-eyed wisdom. I suspect that large chunks of the American electorate will instead view them as defeatist opportunists who took political advantage of American military and policy defeats. They have no prescription for victory, and propose no alternative to humiliating defeat. They advocate nothing, and oppose everything.

Imagine that you are diagnosed with cancer. Your doctor tells you that the battle is lost, and that you should accept the reality that death is near. He offers care to make you more comfortable, to make you feel as good as possible under the circumstances, but insists that anyone recommending treatment is a fool at best, and a fraud at worst.

Americans have seldom accepted that approach, and they've certainly seldom honored and rewarded the leaders bringing that diagnosis. Most of us would rather go down fighting: Sure, the radiation and chemotherapy might kill us first, but we'll be damned if we'll instead lay in bed and wait to stop breathing.

I think the Democrats have adopted a course that -- whatever the outcome in Iraq -- is unlikely to help them in the long run, and just might lead to permanent minority status should the war succeed.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

More Congressional Perfidy

Of course we believe in Global Warming, as part of that faith which has been once for all delivered to the saints.

Only recently, however, have we learned of an important contributing factor: Daylight Savings Time. "You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate."

It makes sense to us.

Via Boing Boing.

Yes, yes, we agree. We don't think she's serious. The question is whether the Letters editor was serious.


They Don't Make Grandmas Like They Used To

The Associated Press reports (my emphasis):
Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south-central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment.

Ramey said the man told her he would leave. "I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Ramey then flagged down a passing motorist, who called 911.


"I'm trying to live a quiet, peaceful life and stay out of trouble, and all it is, is one thing after another," she said.
Quite remarkable, yes? Savor the image of Ms. Ramey steadying herself against her walker with one hand while she fished out her Smith & Wesson from the pocket of her housecoat. My kind of girl. But there's more, of course.

Venus Ramey was Miss America, 1944:

Labels: ,

Friday, April 20, 2007

Psychosis Control

It will be some time before it can be determined what lessons (if any) are to be learned from the V-Tech shootings. We remain in that period when the shouting of professional exploiters (politicians, the media, Dr. Phil) drowns out most sober reflection, as each of them insists that this tragedy should at last bring home to all Americans that the shouter's particular issue must be resolved as the screamer has always insisted.

But (as usual) Charles Krauthammer's views may be profitably considered:
If we are going to look for a political issue here, the more relevant is not gun control but psychosis control. We decided a half a century ago that our more eccentric and, indeed, crazy fellow citizens would not be easily locked in asylums. It was a humane decision, but with the inevitable consequence that some who really need quarantine are allowed to roam the streets.


In a previous age, such a troubled soul might have found himself at the state mental hospital rather than a state university. But in a trade-off that a decent and tolerant society makes with open eyes, we allow freedom from straitjackets to those on the psychic edge, knowing that such tolerance runs a very rare but very terrible risk.



We'll let you do your own research digging up the authoritative views of Alec Baldwin respecting international relations, or climatology. Information has recently come to light indicating that Mr. Baldwin's views on child-rearing are similar to his other opinions, and entitled to equal weight.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Monday, April 16, 2007


Pravda reports:
In a clear sign of its intent to reign in dissident American media personalities, and their growing influence in American culture, US War Leaders this past week launched an unprecedented attack upon one of their most politically 'connected', and legendary, radio hosts named Don Imus after his threats to release information relating to the September 11, 2001 attacks upon that country.


Inquiring Minds Want to Know

Mickey Kaus asks: Could Martin Luther King Jr. get a job in Krugman's administration?

And implicitly answers his own question: Pretty much not. Krugman's latest computer-generated string of non sequiturs is HERE.

The problem isn't that the proposition that Krugman is an unhinged lunatic requires any additional proof amongst folks familiar with his work. It's that the great mass of unthinking bovines hears him and assumes there must be something to what he says, even when there's nothing. After all, he's at Princeton, he writes in the New York Times, and he has a beard. That's three for three in the credibility sweepstakes. Such thinking and analysis (both Krugman's and that of his lowing herd of readers) itself has long since crossed the line that separates fact-based discourse from reactionary faith-based revivalist rhetoric.

One wonders if, now that so much of Paul Samuelson's political agenda has been shown to be dangerous collectivist moonshine, Krugman still expects to get a reflexive laugh from his undergraduates every time his says, "Milton Friedman."

We know the answer, don't we?

Labels: ,

Task One: Make a List

Metaphysical Truth, from Scott Adams.


Saturday, April 14, 2007

Our Peeps

In years past we have posted in this space at this time of year on the subject of Peeps, those artificially colored, artificially flavored, artificially sweetened, traditional Easter confections. We have done this in part to solidify our superficial street cred. And also because our friend PantherGirl has a thing about Peeps. (And, NO, we decline to reveal whether she prefers the interior to the exterior ones.)

At the same time, we post with regularity on subjects political, with an eye to solidifying our reputation for superior glibosity.

This year, with the aid of Mary Katharine Ham, we accomplish both at once:

Labels: , , ,

Friday, April 13, 2007

Sigh . . . .

While we confess that it did not at once occur to us, we suppose we must bow to the inevitability of THIS.


And That's Why We Love Her

Michelle Malkin, that is:
Next, one Malik Shabazz, leader of the "New Black Panther Party," refuses to apologize for lynching the innocent Duke lacrosse players--and then proceeds to call me a "political prostitute" and mouthpiece for whites. Like I haven't heard that a half-million times before. (The Left's whore fixation continues. See also: The vile bile we have to put up with.)

He could have at least rapped it. Or said something about my hair. Maybe borrow a page from Wonkette next time and toss in a gratuitous ping-pong ball joke.

Yup, I've heard it all before. Comes with the territory when you're an uppity brown woman who strays from the liberal plantation, you know.
Much more on Michelle's site, including links that will make you ashamed of your race, or your sex, regardless of what either might be.


Thursday, April 12, 2007

And That's Why We Like Him

The difference between Rudy and Mitt’s personality, one suspects, is the difference between wandering around the Louvre with two glasses of red wine under your belt, or being handed a shoebox full of high-res Louvre gift-shop postcards, arranged by artist and date. (Then there’s Fred Thompson, who would nod politely while you described your visit to the museum, then tell you about the picture he has in his study. It’s dogs, playing poker.)

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

The Few, The Proud . . .

Did Hillary Clinton really attempt to join the Marines in 1975?

She says she did. Much more (including links and updates) HERE.


Monday, April 09, 2007

G & S Hates Cyclists

We really do. They seem to think that they're a superior life form, subject to the rules applicable to pedestrians (if they want) or to vehicles (if they want) or to ambulances (if they want). As soon as I'm diagnosed with an incurable, terminal illness I plan to begin plinking them with a .45.

The Hired Hand, weary of hearing these views, sends along this video:


Are you as easily amused as we?

Do not go HERE.


Say it Ain't So

Can this possibly be true? In the wake of the humiliation of Royal Marines at the hands of common thugs, the Daily Telegraph reports this:
Amid the deaths and the grim daily struggle bravely borne by Britain's forces in southern Iraq, one tale of heroism stands out.

Private Johnson Beharry's courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.

For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict.

The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.

Labels: ,

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Why seek ye the living among the dead?

Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.'"

Luke 24:1-7


Friday, April 06, 2007

And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

Then took they Him, and led Him, and brought Him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.

And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, "This man was also with Him."

And he denied Him, saying, "Woman, I know Him not."

And after a little while another saw him, and said, "Thou art also of them." And Peter said, "Man, I am not."

And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, "Of a truth this fellow also was with Him: for he is a Galilaean."

And Peter said, "Man, I know not what thou sayest." And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crowed.

And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, "Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."

And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

Luke 22:54-62


Thursday, April 05, 2007

Say What?

I have no doubt that this is very clever and insightful:

But it makes no sense to me. From today's New York Times.

Labels: ,

A Caricature of Itself

You may recall the joke to the effect that in the event of nuclear war, the New York Times' headline would be "ATOMIC ATTACK -- MINORITIES & WOMEN SUFFER."

But that's just a joke.

Today's Times has a story that recounts the exploits of three college students, wandering around town at three in the morning. Drunk? Don't know. But they asked a cop for directions to their own house. They started a fire, setting ablaze an exterior decoration attached to someone's home. The fire was put out before it could spread, and the fellows are charged (duh!) with arson.

The Times headline? You already guessed, didn't you:

Three Yale Students Arrested for Burning a Flag

With any other provenance, we'd be inclined to think this was intended to be funny. But reactionary religious fundamentalists -- like the New York Times -- are notoriously humorless.

Story HERE.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

The One True Church, Don't You Know

Now and then over the years, Roman Catholics and Orthodox have come up with reasons why they are the One True Church. Episcopalians have never engaged in this sort of controversy. Not because they didn't believe it; they did. They just thought that it was so self-evident that the Episcopal Church was the Church the way God intended it to be that they didn't need to.

Read Cavaliers, from Chris Johnson.


I Will Make You Hurt

Johnny Cash's version included, this might be the best recording of "Hurt" by Nine Inch Nails:

It ain't easy...being addicted to smack.

Duck & Cover

When I was in grammar school, beginning in the mid 50's, we had periodic fire drills. Everyone lined up quickly and quietly; someone was assigned to close any open windows; someone was assigned to be last in line, and close the classroom door; someone was assigned to retrieve the teacher's attendance register. Everyone moved quickly out of the building to a designated area, and the teacher took attendance to verify that everyone was accounted for.

And children across America continue these drills, necessary for their safety in the event of a fire. But, until recently, schoolchildren didn't participate in that other kind of drill that was routine back in the day.

Just as often we participated in "Civil Defense" drills, through which we learned what to do in the event of an enemy military attack against the United States. We didn't prepare for the landing of Russian marines, of course, but for the arrival of nuclear-tipped Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles. We were taught that a different response was called for: Someone was assigned to close the windows, and someone was assigned to close the window shades; someone was assigned to close the classroom door. Everyone moved quickly to their designated place in the windowless hallway, where we faced and leaned against the wall, in single file, cradling our heads (and protecting our eyes) with our folded arms. No one stood in front of a classroom door (they all had windows ripe for being blown out), nor across the hall from any windowed door.

We've all heard people make light of this exercise, as if those silly, naive fools back in 1957 thought they could protect against a hydrogen bomb. Of course, everyone knew that if such a bomb actually detonated "near" the Warren G. Harding school, nothing that Miss Shields could do would be of any help. Indeed, the joke was that "almost" didn't count in baseball or football, or anything at all, except in horseshoes, and with atom bombs: A near miss would get you points.

But the preparation had two practical effects. First, not every school would be within the radius of destruction so that no measures would be effective. For many schools (and schoolchildren) these few simple precautions might save them from injury, or blindness. The second effect was more important. These drills served to bring home to us, in a practical, routine way, that outside of our cozy classroom, beyond our baseball field, beyond the tracks of our daily lives, there were people who not only didn't like us very much, but had threatened to kill us. And these people had the means of doing so: If the Soviets decided that everyone within 100 miles of New York City should die, then everyone within 100 miles of New York City would die. Perhaps this afternoon.

There was never any confusion about who the enemy was. I certainly don't recall that anyone ever said anything like, "We're going to make believe that the Russians have launched an attack." If anything, it might have been explained, "If the Russians were to launch a nuclear attack . . .," since the Russians were the only folks in the world who had both the ability to kill us, and the expressed desire to do so. There was no pretending about it. And there didn't need to be.

We see that such "Civil Defense" drills have returned to schools in the aftermath of our recognition that we are at war with militant Islamic fascists. They are, after all, the only folks in the world who have expressed the desire to kill us, and they are certainly the only folks in the world who have recently succeeded in doing so. And such drills are a good thing, not only for the practical good they may do when we suffer the next such terrorist attack, but for the fact that -- like those drills of my youth -- they serve to remind us all, and to remind our children, that we are at war with an identifiable enemy, who has the means, the desire, and the will to kill them.

Except not so much. Some such drills are apparently conducted within make-believe parameters that are at best useless but, in some instances, affirmatively demonstrate the moral rot at the center of American culture; they posit that the hypothetical terrorists in today's drill are not Islamic militants, but are instead Christian home-schoolers opposed to public education, or some other Christian fundamentalist sect dubbed the "New Crusaders."

If Osama bin Laden could himself design an exercise calculated to enervate and disarm his only dangerous enemy, this is precisely what he would do.

More HERE.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Moderate Islam

"Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went Wrong?" Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.

"But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.


"It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong."

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, in today's Wall Street Journal: "The Trouble With Islam."

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 02, 2007

Religion in the Classroom

What should a teacher do when simple, straightforward presentation of the facts of the subject matter of his course will conflict with the religious beliefs of some of his students?

Well, HERE's one solution, and HERE's another.

Labels: , ,

I Want One

Just when you thought those fabulous inventive fellows at Google couldn't come up with anything new, they do something like this: Free in-home wireless broadband, called Google TiSP. Check it out.

Hat tip to the Farmer's Wife.