Look Mom, Racists!

The fellows over at Sadly No! have a hillarious post up mocking the right-wing, racist site, Gates of Vienna.

http://sadlyno.com/archives/4473.html#more-4473

Here's the bare text of the first part of the Gates of Vienna's racist screed:

The Great Islamic Jihad is certain that Western Civilization is about to come to an end.

But even as this beast tears at our throats, a new defensive force is being born, a determination to preserve all that is good and right and true within the Western world. Even as we are abandoned by our leaders, by the sophists in our academies, and by the propagandists of our major media, ordinary people are connecting with one another, and are ready to stand up and defeat those who would destroy us.

You should really check out the Sadly No! tribute. But a couple of serious points need to be made.

1) These people at Gates of Vienna are serious, genuine, racists. Not, "deep in their hearts, they're really racists" or "if you think about it, something they say might be constructed as racist." No, these people are actual, genuine racists. Just like the proprietors of Atlas Shrugs, Little Green Footballs and (the eponymous) Michelle Malkin. These people aren't representative of conservatives in general. But they do comprise a not-insignificant sub-set.

2) What makes "Gates of Vienna" racist? Well, take the the name of the site. It's based on an old battle between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottomon Empire. The Ottomans almost got to Vienna. The dickwad proprietors at this site then take this battle and apply it to the present day: i.e. you're all gonna die at the hands of evil, crazy MOOOSLIMS. It just devolves from there. Look, just read the site if you don't believe me.

3) Do these people really believe what they're talking about, or is it just hype? Do they sit quaking in fear of the end of Western Civilization (tm)? Or is this just ginning up fear for other purposes? Look, if it's the former, it's pathetic. If it's the later, it's despicable. A commenter at Sadly No! puts it best.

Jeezus christ. This is truly embarrassing. If I’m an Islamofascist Terrorist in a cave somewhere in pakistan, plotting the enslavement of western civilization, and one of my terrorist toadies came running up and showed this to me, I’m pretty sure I’d have some other reaction than to tremble in fear and announce my sudden conversion to christianity. I honestly do have two questions. One, do these guys really think that our civilization is at risk? Or are they just playing that game ’cause it’s no fun if there’s no stakes. I mean, you ever play poker for rocks? If you run out, you just go get more. It makes for a stupid game. The other question is do these guys really think they can do something constructive, even in their warped and violent view of what constructive might be? I mean, how many mexican traficantes are really afraid of the fat white guys with shiny new glocks that call themselves the minutemen? If they ever found themselves in a real, uncontrolled situation, most of them would die with full pants…

mikey

Indeed, they would.

Hey - What's the Dumbest Plan you can think of?

Back to politics. Last week, the US Army attempted to blockade all of Sadr City, Iraq, population 1.5 million. The reason: to locate a single missing US soldier, who may or may not have been AWOL, and who may or may not be married to an Iraqi. The predictable result? Chaos. A commenter over at Steve Gilliard's site put it best:

Look, I hate to say this. But the US forces were out of line on this. What the hell did they think they were doing blockading and locking down half of Baghdad? Seriously?

Den Valdron

To which I will only add: It's a good thing that the US launched a war in order to make Moqtada al-Sadr president of Iraq. Finally - the great plan has been revealed.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/11/breaking-faith.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/world/middleeast/01iraq.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1162357200&en=905549422a159d1b&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

Birds in 7

That was simply an amazing game. No mixed feelings for my old team - it's been all Cardinals all the way. Yadier Molina's homerun is one of those hits that will stay with you.

And to think Endy Chavez almost ruined it all with that amazing catch. My god that was a good catch. Not as good as Jim Edmonds' catch in Houston two years ago, but a good catch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/sports/baseball/20mets.html?hp&ex=1161403200&en=4665093d6fb407b1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The poetry of Donald Rumsfeld

What the hell is he trying to say here?

Mr. Woodward reports that when he told Mr. Rumsfeld that the number of insurgent attacks was going up, the defense secretary replied that they’re now “categorizing more things as attacks.” Mr. Woodward quotes Mr. Rumsfeld as saying, “A random round can be an attack and all the way up to killing 50 people someplace. So you’ve got a whole fruit bowl of different things — a banana and an apple and an orange.”

Forrest fucking Gump makes more sense. Iraq is like a fruit bowl. My god.

Meanwhile in Gaza....

Starvation looms.

It is difficult to exaggerate the economic collapse of Gaza, with the Palestinian Authority cut off from funds by Israel, the United States and the European Union after Hamas won the legislative elections on Jan. 25.

Since then, the authority has paid most of its 73,000 employees here, nearly 40 percent of Gaza’s work force, only 1.5 months’ salary, resulting in a severe economic depression and growing signs of malnutrition, especially among the poorest children.

The hottest part of hell is reserved for people who starve kids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/world/middleeast/14gaza.html?hp&ex=1158206400&en=ce21fe73d50b0a87&ei=5094&partner=homepage

You too can be one day away from Nuclear Weapons!

Sort of related to the last entry, the Krauthammer wing of the G.O.P is pissed off that more is not being done to hype the "threat" posed by Iran. Their solution? Blame the intelligence agencies!

"Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.

Yeah, because the warnings coming from the mole on Pete Hoekstra's ass are definitely more reliable than professional opinions.

Many senior Bush administration officials have long been dismissive of the work of the intelligence agencies. Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pentagon set up an office led by Douglas J. Feith, the Defense Department’s third-ranking civilian official at the time, that sifted through raw intelligence to look for links between terrorist networks and governments like Iraq’s.

And that sure worked out well, didn't it?

House Intelligence Committee report released Wednesday was written primarily by Republican staff members on the committee, and privately some Democrats criticized the report for using innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions to inflate the threat that Iran posed to the United States.

The report’s cover page shows a picture of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran speaking at a lectern that bears the message “The World Without Zionism.”

Joesef Goebbles would blush at this kind of propaganda. But none of this tops, "This time, I swear I'm not crooked" Newt Gingrigh:

“When the intelligence community says Iran is 5 to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon, I ask: ‘If North Korea were to ship them a nuke tomorrow, how close would they be then?” said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives.

Well, Newt, the answer to your hypothetical is 1 day. Today Iran has no weapon, but if a third party were to ship Iran a weapon, that makes them 1 day away from nuclear capability. Of course, if North Korea shipped a nuclear weapon to, say, my apartment, I too would be one day away from nuclear capability. Better questions: How likely is your fucking delusional scenario, and how soon can we revoke your driver's license, given that you're obviously batshit insane?

Mark this down: Given their intent, track record, and capability to follow through, these GOP fanatics are more dangerous than Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washington/24intel.html?pagewanted=1

Krauthammer - Ugliest of the Ugly

M.J. Rosenberg on that piece of filth, Charles Krauthammer:

Lay aside, for the purposes of this argument, the destruction this war has delivered to Lebanon. Krauthammer has never in his career expressed a word of sympathy for an Arab, anywhere. He hates them all. For him, the only good part of this war is the damage done to Lebanon.

Actually I should have known better. About three years ago, I saw Krauthammer flip out in synagogue on Yom Kippur. The rabbi had offered some timid endorsement of peace -- peace essentially on Israel's terms -- but peace anyway. Krauthammer went nuts. He actually started bellowing at the rabbi, from his wheel chair in the aisle. People tried to "shush" him. It was, after all, the holiest day of the year. But Krauthammer kept howling until the rabbi apologized. The man is as arrogant as he is thuggish. Who screams at the rabbi at services? For advocating peace?

Indeed, who does that? Only a man for whom war is a grand exercise in cleansing those dirty A-rabs. The fact that this conflict features especially high leveles of brutality and suffering is a bonus to people like Charles Krauthammer.

Add in this trenchant comment by Rosenberg:

I think they want Israel and the US to crush the Arabs together. Following the victory, Israel will serve as America's eyes and ears in the region. This is very different from what Israelis want for themselves. Although they differ on policies that will get them there, most Israelis (not the settlers or the religious fanatics) want to make money, have a nice place to live, eat ice cream by the beach and not have to got to war. The neocons dream for Israel is Sparta. The Israelis dream for Israel is West Los Angeles.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/09/krauthammer_other_enemies_of_israel

Movement

Perusing the latest data on the so-called culture wars, this sentence jumped out at me:

There has been an increase in recent years in the proportion of Americans who believe homosexuality is innate -- 36 percent, up from 30 percent in 2003. Similarly, 49 percent believed homosexuals cannot be changed to heterosexual, compared to 42 percent in 2003.

There seems to be a correlation between a general softening of attitudes towards homosexuals and a belief that homosexuality is innate. I guess the reasoning is that people don't feel it's right to hold inherant or immutable characteristics against someone. In other words - people are saying it ain't these people's fault they were born homo.

This attitude strikes me as sort of a pyrrhic victory. On the one hand, gay people get treated a little better. On the other hand, it's a very grudging sort of acceptance, one based on resignation at the inability to change behaivor, rather than a realization that being gay isn't hurting anyone and just isn't a big deal.

I have no idea whether sexuality is innate, my suspicion is that it isn't, but if someone were to conclude that there's some choice or preference in the matter, I wouldn't feel any less strongly about things like letting gay folks get married. I suppose I'll just have to take what I can get at this point.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060803/pl_nm/life_poll_dc

Stephen Harper: They were asking for it

Just when I thought he had shown a glimmer of statesmanship, Stephen Harper, Canada's prime minister courtesy of just over one-third of the vote, reverted to character. Following Israel's apparently-deliberate targeting of four UN observers in Lebanon, including one Canadian, Harper thought it appropriate to ask, not why Israel killed them, but why the observers were there?

His inspired question reminded me of nothing so much as a rape-case lawyer attacking the victim with questions along the lines of why was she in such a place? at such a time? wearing such a dress?

From: "Why Must The Right Wing Sound So Brutally Stupid?"
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Chuckman01.htm

Standing up

Over at the Huffington Post, Uri Averny takes a bold stance against the pre-eminent danger of the young 21st century - drunk Hollywood actors and the drunken anti-semitic things they yell! Arguing that Hollywood business elites should cut ties with Mel Gibson, Averny makes his bold stance known:

"There are times in history when standing up against bigotry and racism is more important than money."

Indeed. What will History think of us if we don't Stand Tall with Firm Resolve and Moral Clarity against Drunk Hollywood Actors?

Hey, Averny - There's a fucking bloodbath going on in Lebanon, carnage in Iraq, genocide in Sudan, famine in West Africa, a brewing ecological crisis that's only gettting worse...and you have the stones to declare Mel Gibson's DUI one of those "times in history" to stand up and make your voice heard?

Arianna Huffington herself adds unhelpfully:

"But is Ari the only high-profile figure willing to publicly draw a line in the Malibu sand? How disgusting and disappointing is that?"

No, Arianna. The rest of the folks in Hollywood just don't feel it's necessary to denounce the drunk rantings that everyone already knows are bigoted and idiotic. It's not brave to denounce something that the speaker himself has already denounced.

Get your head in the game you self-centered twits!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/the-bottom-line-on-mel-gi_b_26115.html

Re: Is our Boys Learning?

Judith Warner weighs in on the NYT article. Her concluding lines:

It seems to me that, from an early age, men seem to be quite clear about what expenditures of energy are worth their time. Like kids with A.D.D. (the majority of whom are boys), they’re able to spend great amounts of attention and energy on things they find interesting, but show considerable signs of challenge when it comes to tasks they find boring or personally unprofitable.

Is this really a problem? Women would probably say yes. But I doubt, somehow, that men are going to put a lot of energy into fixing it.

Is it a problem? Of course not! Success is all about figuring out what's important and what's not. People who go to fancy business school programs call this "time management," I believe. If your instinct is to "do as told" at every possible turn, of course you are going to get lapped by those who can distinguish between what's truly important and what's merely busywork. Busywork does not the stuff of success make.

Is our boys learning?

Just read what seems like the 90th article on how females outperform males in college. No argument from me. The article cites all sorts of reasons why this might be, and most of them strike me as making sense (including: female college students are more mature than their male counterparts, female students feel more pressure to perform because they lack the "old boy" network for post-graduate jobs, etc.)

But really, the article sort of dances around the idea that girls are just more obediant than their male counterparts. In my personal observation, it's easier for me to make girls pay attention, participate in class, complete assignments, etc. I con't know how much is motivation on their part, and how much is just a tendency to do whatever the person in charge tells them to do (not that I'm really in charge of anything when it comes down to it, but it seems like more of the girls think I am). With the boys, I encounter more of the "why should I do this?" attitude.

In any event - none of this strikes me as a cause for particular worry. I did enjoy, however, the quote from the young lady who had just broken up with her boyfriend because he was playing too many videogames. Her new rule - no dating guys who play videogames. Sounds pretty smart to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=9e7c68c097d2ec04&hp&ex=1152417600&partner=homepage