Euro-weenie backlash
Yeah, so some people apparently didn't appreciate one of my earlier posts, in which I used the word "Euro-weenie" and displayed a condescending attitude of American superiority. This earned me the appellation of "ignorant fuckwit", which is sufficiently creative to elicit a smirk from me. But I stick to my moral highground; the Europeans are hypocrites when it comes to international justice. Victor Davis Hanson sums up the situation quite well. As if that wasn't enough, Dave Shiflett goes on to speak about the Europeans' "Pipsqueak Syndrome", and brings up some interesting points originally expounded by Robert Kagan in Policy Review:

"The author begins by observing the wide gulf between American and European views. 'Europeans assert that American policy relies too much on force — that President George Bush is a cowboy — while Americans respond that Europeans are far too quick to appease dictators.' Both views are true, the fair-minded Kagan counsels, as he kicks the Europeans in the teeth. 'America does rely on strength, because it is strong — and because it is the only power capable of projecting itself into troubled areas of the world. Europe tolerates dictators because it is weak and basically has no other choice.'

"For those who do not grasp the point, a nice metaphor is employed. 'A man armed only with a knife may decide that a bear prowling the forest is a tolerable danger, inasmuch as the alternative — hunting the bear armed only with a knife — is actually riskier than lying low and hoping the bear never attacks. The same man armed with a rifle, however, will likely make a different calculation of what constitutes a tolerable risk. Why should he risk being mauled to death if he doesn't need to?'

"No sensible person can doubt this analysis. In addition, all must agree that the Europeans can adopt any policy they desire, because at the end of the day, as at the beginning, it doesn't much matter. This is especially true regarding Saddam Hussein. 'The task of containing Saddam belongs primarily to the United States, not to Europe,' says our learned guide, 'and everyone agrees on this — including Saddam, which is why he considers the United States, not Europe, his principal adversary.' And his principal target as well. Europe can reasonably say Saddam is no threat — at least to them. They're hardly worth attacking.

"They also know the true source of their security. 'Europeans generally believe, whether or not they admit it to themselves, that were Iraq ever to emerge as a real and present danger to Europe, as opposed to merely a potential danger, then the United States would do something about it, as it did in 1991.' Europe has enjoyed similar security for some 60 years, and its resentment is showing."

Hanson adds a similar observation:

"Yet the United States in some ways by its very Constitution and Bill of Rights is above such laws enacted by international councils; its vast military ensures that it is not one among equals, but possesses might far above the collective resources of both its enemies and friends. It is rare for lethal military to be coupled with humane government, but such is the case with the United States — and its unusual position in historical terms should be so acknowledged. Europe, which collectively has a population and economy as great as America's, has chosen not to field a commensurately powerful military — a choice in and of itself rife with moral implications, and explicatory as well of its strenuous efforts to place American soldiers abroad under international control."

So am I being smug and dismissive? Probably. The ICC and the Europeans who support them can go to hell for all I care. They are immense hypocrites who will gladly run around and harp on the US for its treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay or lambast us for an errant bomb that kills innocent civilians attending a wedding party, or they'll go after a barely-breathing Pinochet or an impossible-to-detain-but-easy-to-criticize-and-indict-from-afar Ariel Sharon, but they won't touch the ex-Nazis, current anti-Semites, or former Soviet gulag administrators in their midst. There are plenty of war criminals wandering around Europe, but they're more interested in criticizing the one country that saves their ass every time someone raises a finger at them. Well, here's a finger back:

*flips the Old World the bird*

So Euro-whiners, there's a simple solution to all of this: you can quit giving us grief and leave us alone and let us do our peacekeeping without interference or any prospect of ICC intervention and be grateful that we fight the bad guys for you; or you can raise your taxes, quit sending welfare checks to your Muslim immigrants so they can beat up Jews, stop funding slimy, ass-kissing, corrupt, two-faced, terrorist-sponsoring dictators like Arafat, and use the money to build your own superpower-status-worthy military. Then you can walk the walk and do the peacekeeping--and ICC self-prosecuting--yourselves. Meanwhile, we'll be glad to vacation on the French Riviera, keep our boys at home guarding the border from illegal immigrants, and critique your ass-savvy peacekeeping and nation-building operations from afar.

On some islands, size doesn't matter
I got this story from Bizarre News:

Extra Large Condoms Not Needed in Britain
Britain - The Condomi condom company has officially declared its XXL condom a flop in Britain. They claim sales are low because British men are too shy to purchase the larger-sized condoms. Apparently, though, men in Germany, France and Italy aren't that bashful because the XXLs sell well in those countries. Researchers believe British men are just modest: "Research shows that most men rate their penis as smaller than average, which of course is not true," Dr. Glenn Wilson said. Oddly enough, it's only the British men that have this ailment. Victoria Wells, a Condomi rep, said, "Unfortunately, UK retailers aren't as convinced as we are that British men are well-endowed, but we hope that our research, coupled with Dr. Wilson's research, will help convince them to now start selling the XXL product."

More on religion and the state
This guy covers some of the same ground as what I tried to say here--only he does it much better.

Potatoe and single mothers
Dan Quayle may have lost the media battle ten years ago, but he's won the war. Turns out Candice Bergen agreed with the veep all along.

Who's afraid of the ICC?
So the Euro-weenies are exceptionally upset with us over our refusal to endorse the ICC. Well, guess what? Half the world's population is on our side, which I suppose gives us the democratic-populist highground. Quit pushing your elitist, condescending politico-morality on us; we don't want it.

EU baffoons
How are we supposed to take the European Court of Human Rights seriously when it convenes in this building? (The accompanying story helps illustrate why they are a bunch of boneheads.)

Invasive airport security measures?
Well, a Frenchman found a unique way to deal with the annoyance. The authorities didn't appreciate it, but I can salute his Gaulle (bad, bad, baaaaad pun).

Loved the new photo essay
In fact, I can't believe I haven't linked to any of Tony Pierce's stuff before. I keep reading him more and more, he's quite interesting. Freaky. Weird. Wrong. But cool. A new addition to the pantheon.

Putting game violence to good use
The Army is distributing a free computer game with the intent to gain the interest of potential recruits. I'll be very interested to see the data down the road that proves how successful a venture this idea is.

Euro-bashing is fun
It's also way too easy.

More Jonah
Goldberg raises another solid point: are the Democrats going to attack Bush for being in Kenneth Lay's pocket even as all these other companies are getting nailed for accounting sins? Can they have their cake and eat it, too?

Jonah, Jonah, Jonah
Alright, that column was just plain mean. Seriously, don't be so logical and reasonable. It's not fair to the other guys.

Imaginary misdeeds
Byron York lays out the facts on Bush and Harken. There's no impropriety. None whatsoever. Keep swinging away, though, Democrats. Not that you were gonna give up after being refuted anyway.

McCain hypocrisy
I'm used to reading stories accusing John McCain of being a hypocrite or worse, but this seems especially damning. Of course, it's not causing much of a ruckus because now that McCain-Feingold is passed, the Arizona Senator is mostly irrelevant. That's what happens when you make yourself a one-issue crusader--once the issue dies politically, so do you.

Progress in Russia
Russia may be coming around economically, but it's reversing progress democratically.

Islam versus France
I finally got around to reading Christopher Caldwell's piece d'resistance in The Weekly Standard, and is it ever money. Caldwell uncovers a slew of problems associated with underclass Muslims in French suburbs--most commentators seem to be zeroing in on the welfare connection--but as usual, the key issue raised by Caldwell is an intellectual/ideological problem:

"Viewed in this light, September 11 has made quite clear why certain of France's Muslims, or at least their political representatives, have refused to be drawn into the existing French order: They believe they have the stronger hand. Against 'Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful,' France proposes to pit its own national ethic, which has now shrunk into little more than tolerance. Let's not laugh at France for this--it is merely the country where a problem belonging to the West in general has become most clearly visible. It is in France that, under the pressure of Islam, the secular state is most in danger of being exposed as contentless, and therefore not worth fighting for--and where fears should be arising that, if secularism cannot be fought for as religions are fought for, it will not last long."

In other words, the girls going to school veiled, the youths attacking Jews and demanding "woospeh," and the imams preaching radical Islam on the Saudi's dime all represent a deeper problem than just welfare payments possibly funding terrorists. No, the welfare problem is just added irony--a state that is experiencing ideological rebellion by 10% of its population is subsidizing that population's rebellion. Of course, this isn't unusual for socialist policy-weaned governments and highlights yet another absurdity of left-wing ideology, but I digress. The main point that needs to be focused on is the fact that the Muslim problem in France is quickly exposing the hollowness of secularism.

In our own country, the Religious Right has been harping on this issue for over two decades, and one can argue that their force in politics peaked in '94. But their argument still exists, and just because right-wing Christians don't resort to violence quite the same way as right-wing Muslims do, doesn't mean that their intellectual rebuttal to the secular state has been snuffed out. On the contrary, the furor over the recent Pledge of Allegiance case revealed just how far off the deep end we've come with our public policies dealing with religious issues, and I expect conservative Christians to incorporate this issue into their attack on the leftward drift of society qua religion. Even near my home, a church is fighting a city to keep its property because the city wants to zone the land, confiscate it, and give it to Costco or some other giant chain so that it can reap more sales tax revenue.

The question I'm getting at here is, is secularism an independent value worth prioritizing over, say, the ability of people to practice their religion freely? I don't believe our Founding Fathers viewed secularism and religion that way, but its obvious that a great number of academics, jurists, and politicians now do. I suspect that this is mainly because, like Justice Stevens (I believe) let slip in his dissent to the majority opinion in the recent case upholding school vouchers, liberals tend to view religion as indoctrination and a barely tolerable evil that, hopefully, can be countered by exposure to reason in secular, public schools (call it the Bertrand Russell take on religion, if you will).

Yet looking at France--a society that Caldwell says erected its separation of church and state laws so as to keep religion out of the public sphere, and not the other way around as in America--we see that this more militant secularism rings hollow. The welfare state offers no real solutions to fix the social problems of drugs, crime, teen sex, et al, and that's because secularism offers no credible explanation for why individuals should seek to live according to any sort of moral code. I'm not saying, mind you, that an atheist can't be moral, or that religious practice is necessary to be a "good person." What I am merely saying is that the state offers nothing substantive to hold on to--in lieu of religious explanations--for why a young man should impose discipline upon himself and be a lawful, productive citizen. It can merely offer rewards and punishments, and obviously these are insufficient. And so, a society where it's virtually impossible for a strict Roman Catholic to take his religion seriously (let alone a pious Muslim) without offending the public order is predestined to retain all the negative aspects of modern civilization without any of the positive influences that religion might bring into the picture.

The Muslims in France know this, and that's why they have no problem standing by Allah--they know the national ethos of France is hollow and nobody will stand and fight for it. What would the rallying cry be? The social imperative? Will any Frenchman fight so that his 14 year-old daughter can receive condoms and have access to abortion, or so he can watch porn on TV, or go to the local pub and get drunk after work? I'm not saying these sort of things should be eradicated from society by government fiat, merely that they don't constitute a substantive core that one might idealize and fight for. I mean, really, if it comes down to it, in the battle between promiscuity and Allah, who is actively going to fight on the side of promiscuity? Here in America, we can talk about the "cultural wars," but I don't think it will ever escalate to bloodshed. With the radical Muslims, I think it's almost a promise that there will be bloodshed if things aren't resolved.

So, among other things, I think Caldwell raises a vital point: that we can't defeat Islamo-fascism without reforming ourselves a bit, too. And one of those key reforms is not to change this into a holy war of Christianity vs. Islam, but to change it away from secularism vs. Islam because secularism is not a powerful enough meme to eradicate radical Islam. What is needed is a real societal acceptance of the place of religion in public life--and of this France is in dire need. Secularism must be one aspect of civilization, but one that can accommodate those who believe strongly in their faith and wish to take their religion seriously. Religion is not just a private matter as much as we'd like it to be. This does not mean the state must coerce people into being religious; on the contrary, that is what the radical Islamists want and what we will refuse to allow. It is what we are fighting against, in one sense. What we must allow more freely is the interfacing of religious practice and public experience; we need to create a society and culture that allows religion to be discussed in the classrooms, allows kids to gather and pray and read their Bibles in between classes if they so wish, for parents to use vouchers to send their kids to parochial schools, and for the government to begin looking at religion as an asset in the fight against social ills. Let the wall between church and state come down, and let the two institutions work together in any manner short of literal Establishment (Obviously I am taking a Rehnquist-Scalia-Thomas view of the Establishment Clause). In France and Europe in general, things are more dire, and I really don't think secularism will be able to hold. There needs to be a simultaneous tolerance for religious practice and a more strenuous opposition and crackdown on radical, rebellious influences.

And dismantling the bloated, soft-on-crime welfare state wouldn't hurt, either.

Update--Just read Stankley Kurtz' article from yesterday's NRO. I think his documentation and analysis of Lind's book review back my position up pretty well. We're supposed to be nonsectarian, not secular.

Old news, relevant news
Check out this article from 1999 that talks about how air rage is almost completely an invention of the media and airlines to cover up the "series of underlying problems with the industry as a whole"--the same problems that eventually led to more than one airline threatening bankruptcy and demanding cash infusions from the government to keep afloat.

Insta-wisdom
Glenn Reynolds cuts through the bull and points out the real lesson of the LAX shooting:

"Instead of crafting ever-narrower definitions of terrorism, or looking for easy solutions that won't work, both government officials and pundits should consider how we might mobilize the most potent anti-terror weapon of all: the citizenry."

Self-fulfilling prophecy
Vodkapundit has the scoop on where the real population and environmental problems are, and why they will only get worse if the sanctimonious leftist Greenie-weenies have their way in implementing measures like Kyoto on the West industrial powers.

When peace is a synonym for war
Check out the ultimate goals of this Palestinian peace activist. Just reinforces my skepticism that peace will never happen in the Holy Land.

Practice safe sex
Learn everything you need to know by playing a Flash game.

Nonsensible drug policy
However you view the War on Drugs and the legalization question, I think we can all agree that we need to have a stance that makes sense to the common person and to the policymakers and law enforcement agencies. Well, in Britain, they're tossing that out the window. Apparently, Tony Blair wants to stop prosecuting the use of marijuana for leisure, but continue going after those who sell the drug. This makes no sense and is inconsistent. Why not just completely legalize pot and regulate the amount that can be sold for consumption? What really makes no sense to me, however, is that they are talking about legalizing ecstacy. Why? Unlike pot, ecstacy is dangerous; the first week I was at Cambridge, a girl had died at a party from the drug. I've seen it happen over here, too--I've had friends who have lost their friends and family members to the drug, and other friends who have gotten into serious trouble because they were around that type of drug use. According to to the Times, part of the reason for the new policy is to "gain greater credibility among young people," but I'm sure British kids will think it's just as idiotic as I do. Why is it so hard to create a sensible drug policy?

Savage smackdown
I like Dan Savage's columns (I have a link to them on the left), because despite some of the sick stuff he writes about and endorses in his column, overall he's a breath of fresh air and common sense when it comes to any sort of public discussion about sex--straight or gay. That same common sense is on display again in his The Stranger article from last week. Witness this clarity:

"So the left needs to put down the PAP symbols and put away the 'No War' posters. We're at war, ya dopes. Simply stopping the war now--rather than holding the United States to the standards we set after the last world war--would harm the very people the left professes to care about. Afghanistan needs a Marshall Plan now; Iraq's going to need one soon. U.S. smart bombs and troops, the left should argue, have to be followed by smart money and medicine and a constitution and an American commitment to long-haul nation building. We have to do for Afghanistan and Iraq what we did for Germany and Japan; anything less is immoral and indefensible. That's the argument the left should be advancing."

It's encouraging to see voices arising on the Left and supporting the war. Even better, it's good to see that they have a moral vision for why we should be fighting and are trying to slap sense into their ideological comrades. Sometimes I think guys like Savage and Christopher Hitchens have a better understanding of what we are fighting and how we must go about it than the so-called hawks and neo-cons on the Right.

More Hadayat discussion
Was he or was he not a terrorist? John O'Sullivan has the clincher:

"And the final conclusive piece of evidence that he was a terrorist — he had once been slated for deportation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service but the INS changed his mind and allowed him to stay in the U.S."

Of course, his best argumentation comes at the end:

"What seems to be the explanation is that the U.S. government is less afraid of terrorists than of the American public. For the authorities the terrorists are a known factor. Their habits and "M.O.s" can be categorized and studied; their actions predicted; and precautions against their attacks mounted."

"But the American public is an unknown beast which the political and media elites long ago decided was racist, sexist and homophobic. Our betters fear us. If not guided and controlled, they believe, we will hit out in dangerous spasms of violence at minorities, immigrants and anyone who looks like 'The Other.' We cannot be trusted with inconvenient truths. In particular, we have to be prevented from launching discrimination and attacks on Muslims and Arabs in bigoted response to terrorist outrages."

For more evidence of this syndrome, see the Jesse Jackson piece below.

"Hence they seek to calm our latent hysteria by keeping the words 'Muslim' or 'Arab' as far as possible from the word 'terrorist' lest we leap illegitimately to the conclusion that Muslims and Arabs in general are terrorists. Hence Hadayat (who is undeniably Muslim) is shrouded in ambiguity by the FBI as a lone wolf figure whose motives are unknown and unknowable."

"As I pointed out a few weeks ago, these establishment fears are grossly exaggerated. Since September 11 only 51 cases of civil discrimination and 65 cases of criminal threats and violence against Muslims were found to have merit. In a nation of 270 million people, these statistics amount to a very small backlash indeed — one greatly outweighed by the many attempts of ordinary Americans to assure their Muslim neighbors of their goodwill and acceptance."

All this recitation is just more evidence of our tolerance amidst all the patriotism and worry about terrorism and Islamo-fascism--yet another refutation of those who equate patriotism/nationalism with racism and accuse Americans of being stubborn capitalist colonialists who are out to oppress everybody else in the world who isn't white.

"In fact only one thing is likely to provoke the unfair suspicion and hatred of Muslims and Arabs that gives nightmares to Uncle Sam — namely, the fear of ordinary Americans that their government is not taking commonsense measures to protect them against terrorism because it is afraid of offending groups from which the current crop of terrorists comes."

Exactly. The real problem is the wishy-washy, super-sensitive approach that the FBI takes towards these cases, which in the end causes the public to lose faith in our leaders' abilities to protect us from the terrorists.

In terrorism denial
The LAX incident is only the latest example of government being in denial about the terrorist motives of murderous attackers. Daniel Pipes recounts numerous earlier incidents and how the government's position directly contradicted the known facts--as known then and now.

Morally obtuse
And you wonder why people don't respect Jesse Jackson as the legitimate successor to MLK's civil rights mantle? Just read this load of baloney, where Jackson calls John Ashcroft and George W. Bush "the most threatening combination in our lifetime." Threatening to what or who? Threatening to you, maybe, because they have the influence and respect to tear to shreds your bogus relevance to any issue whatsoever in the public sphere. Go home, Reverend. Go home and shut up.

Are newspapers outdated?
Not yet, argues Sidney Goldberg--father to NR's Jonah. But, the day is coming, and there is a lot of technological promise to take the basic format of what a newspaper is/does and make it more instantly useful and relevant, instead of a being a dinosaur in comparison to the new media that have fostered and taken advantage of the so-called 24-hour news cycle.

This is cool
Rapatronic photos of nuclear explosions, taken in the '50s.

"Denial really is a river in Egypt"
Mark Steyn rips the FBI, Underperformin' Norman, and everybody else who seems to have trouble concluding that Hadayet was an anti-Semitic, hate-motivated killer. Of course, if the victims were homosexuals or blacks, there's no doubt how everybody would've responded, but...well, just read Steyn. He covers it well, and with good sarcastic humo(u)r.

Other way around
I think Andrew Sullivan has things a bit backward here. In his interview with Time Out, Sullivan says:

"It gets so exhausting trying to explain oneself. People are very conservative, really. They're like Homer Simpson; they like their beer cold and their queers flaming. Homosexuals that are complicated, or don't fit into any category, they feel threatened by."

I tend to believe it's the exact opposite: most people are annoyed by the radical queer leftists but feel more comfortable when they know a gay or lesbian more personally who "seems normal". When I hear Christian preachers going off about homosexuality, it's invariably couched in the terms of the decadent, promiscuous gay lifestyle advocated and flaunted by those types who Sullivan is always railing against. I have a feeling that if Andrew Sullivan was the type of homosexual that came to mind when most people thought of the term, such rhetoric from the pulpit would be much less effective. People may still feel it is immoral and wrong, but they're not dumb; they know life is complex, love is complex, people are complex. I mean, how often do they deal with teenage pregnancies, adultery, molestation, and other sexual misconduct in their own churches? But radical queers don't seem complex; they aren't the same breed of problem. They simply seem like fruitcakes, nuts, and outrageously immoral sinners in the eyes of very conservative, religious folk. And that's what motivates them to stand out with signs picketing Disney and fighting gay marriage and adoption tooth and nail, and the more extreme of them to murder and commit other violent, heinous acts (Matthew Shephard, R.I.P.).

Stupidism rears its ugly head
You gotta hand it to the gun control activists: they can turn any news item into a handy reason for why guns should be banned. Witness The Guardian's Peter Preston, who argues that the LAX shooting should be seen in the context of America's violent, gun-obsessed culture:

"Two innocents killed at a ticket check-in are two too many. They are also mere drops in the ocean of blood which the US allows to flow daily - including on July 4 - through a society where guns and gun culture remain ubiquitous."

You have to wonder, are these people incredibly clever at finding ways to fight a self-righteous crusade against a perceived evil, or are they just incredibly dumb? I'm honestly not sure which.

Found the motive
Why did the Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Hadayet gun down two Jews at the El Al counter in LAX's Bradley Terminal? Was it terrorism? Was it a hate crime? Maybe he was depressed or on drugs? No, it because his wife is an ignorant moron of the highest degree.

The Yankees are sickening
They are bad for baseball and I hope the sport goes belly-up because of their excessive greed.

Not surprised
So Nader went to Cuba and met with Castro. I'm sure they had lots in common and yacked away for a bit, smiling and nodding and slapping each other on the back. My only question: how did Carter beat Nader to the punch? Bizarre. I would've thought Nader had a freakin' vacation home in Havana or something.

Missing the obvious
After checking to see if I moved up the rankings over at Google for Ann Coulter pictures, I noticed something that should have been obvious: you can see some pictures of Ann Coulter just by clicking on the "Images" tab at the top, after you've done your search. Duh, that was easy. Why didn't you Ann Coulter stalkers notice that before? It would've saved you the trouble of coming all the way over to my site and finding only fool's gold.

Alright, here's a pic
If you really want to see a picture of Ann Coulter, read her latest column over at Townhall, and look for her picture right up under the title. Sorry, that's all you're gonna get; I ain't no celebrity porn linkin' site.

Google suicide bomb
Alright, if I'm going to have people come to my site looking for pictures of Ann Coulter, I might as well make an attempt to be at the top for that search as well. So, pardon what you're about to read (hey, just don't read it), but I'm going to just repeat "Ann Coulter pictures" multiple times and see if I move up. (I'm currently relegated to halfway down page 3 of the Ann Coulter pictures search.) Here goes nothin':

"Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures Ann Coulter pictures"

Sorry about that folks. Blatant, hideous, evil, all of the above, I know.

Cool Google news
I am the top-ranked site for the search "odelay vatos". Cheech and Chong would be proud, I'm sure.

Funny
Everybody's either coming here from random Google searches or because my URL ended up in their web traffic monitor. Are we all really that narcissistic? "Wow, I wonder who came to my site this hour, and from where?" Jeez, I check out the sites in my report too, but the ridiculousness of it all is just hilarious. I think Insta-envy is a much bigger malady than anybody has so far publicly recognized.

Funky Google searchers
Why do you people keep coming here looking for pictures of Ann Coulter? I have no pictures on this site, and you're a sicko for getting off on pictures of shrill blonde columnists.

Trashing the Left
Check out a good roundtable discussion on the bankruptcy of the Left in response to Islamo-fascism. It's the Cold War-era Lefty response to communism all over again, only worse.

LAX shooting
How about a behind-the-scenes critique of the law enforcement response? FBI waffling aside, the facts make it obvious that Hadayet was a Jew-hating terrorist.

Orthodox in space
If you're a Jew and you're thinking about going into outer space sometime, please remember that Torah still applies. What's the problem?

"There is an old joke about the first Jewish astronaut who returns to earth utterly exhausted. He is asked: 'What happened?' He replies: 'shaharit, minhah, maariv, shaharit, minhah, maariv!' In other words, a spaceship orbits the earth once every ninety minutes. If each orbit is considered a 'day' of twenty four hours, an observant astronaut would spend most of his time praying, and after every six orbits (or nine hours) he would have to observe Shabbat for ninety minutes. As a result, he would not only be exhausted, but have no time to do whatever he was sent to do!"

Have no fear, however. Some rabbis have reasoned through this and there are now some guidelines you can follow.

Carpe Latin
If you like your news in Latin, try this Finnish website.

"The war of the memes"
Excellent post over at The Truth Laid Bear concerning the "memes" of OpposeIsrael and IslamicFascism, and our own memes of DefeatAlQaeda and OpposeTerrorism. TLB uses the science fiction concept of the meme--a computer virus that evolves and spreads to humans, eventually infecting nearly everybody. The really bad part is each meme is "bent on destroying all the other memes." Take the Palestinians:

"Many Palestinians, for example, have been running a meme for decades --- and yes, that means some of them have been running it their entire lives. I call it OpposeIsrael. This meme is pretty simple: it says that Israel is evil, and anything they do must be bad and must be combated; violently, if necessary."

"The problem is that OpposeIsrael crowded out other memes that Palestinians really should be running; memes that might have led --- and could still lead --- to a better life for Palestinians. OpposeIsrael is inherently negative --- it dictates that its hosts put the goal of destroying Israeli hopes above that of fulfilling Palestinian ones."

The positive memes would be things like PalestinianFreedom, ArabDemocracy, and PalestinianProsperity. There's a lot more to this analogy, and it's a fascinating way to approach the subject of how the battle of ideas plays out in the real world. Go check it out.

College students and business ethics
A recent NAS/Zogby poll raises some disturbing questions about how colleges are approaching business ethics. In the survey, most students believed that hiring a diverse workforce was more important for a business than dealing honestly with its investors and creditors. Also, an overwhelming majority reported being taught that ethics is dependent on the context and based on individual differences and cultural diversity, rather than that there are uniform standards of right and wrong which apply to everybody. Finally, most of these same students felt Enron was the rule, not an exception, and that business is the most likely avenue to succeed if you're unscrupulous. Note to universities and business schools: this is not how you develop an honest, accountable workforce consisting of workers who have integrity. Bashing business on the one hand, and preaching relativism and inculcating cynicism on the other, is not conducive to a successful and ethical marketplace.

Bankrupt theophobia
The dissenting opinions in the school vouchers case reveal that the opposition to vouchers isn't so much based upon logical constitutional history and analysis, but rather blind fear of and irrational opposition to all things religious. But, the fundamental demand for justice--that lower income minority children from the inner cities have the same options to attend private or parochial schools as better-off white suburban offspring--must be addressed, and it's a battle cry that should be picked up by conservatives and Tories on both sides of the Atlantic.

Bumper sticker Christianity
I came across a joke, and it reminded me why I never put Christian bumper stickers on my car, from when I first began driving until this day. First, here's the joke:

"I was at a stop light, behind a car with a bumper sticker that said 'Honk if you love Jesus.'"

"So I honked. The driver leaned out his window, flipped me the bird, and yelled, 'Can't you see the light is still red, you fucking moron?'"

Of course, I don't react that way at all when cut off by or otherwise forced to deal with asshole drivers. *smirk* Still, what kind of a witness am I being if I'm speeding over the limit by 10-15mph, weaving in and out of traffic, and otherwise being impatient and in a hurry to get to where I want/need to be, while toting a sticker that says "No Jesus, No Peace, Know Jesus, Know Peace"? It reminds me of an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine (I won't, ahem, name any names, RR!) who always remembers to remove his kipa when visiting less-than-reputable watering holes. Sure, perhaps on some level we're being disobedient and hypocritical, but I see no reason to create needless opportunities for nonbelievers to scoff at Jesus (or Hashem), Christianity (or Orthodox Judaism), religion in general, and those who chose to participate in organized (disorganized is more like it) religion.

Gimme some Love
The smartest thing Courtney Love ever did was marry Kurt Cobain; this was a savvy decision for many obvious reasons. The second smartest thing Courtney Love ever did, however, was write this screed/manifesto. It's long but brilliantly defiant of the corporate pirates that pretend to comprise a legitimate industry. I've always trashed the copyright laws coming from a pro-Napster perspective, but the real merit lies in what Courtney makes crystal clear: the present set-up screws over the artists and audiences alike. Sure, it's a cash-cow for stodgy, backward-thinking stiffs in Hollywood, Nashville, etc., and hence there's little incentive for them to make change any easier, but there are ample ways around them if just a few enterprising people with money who respect music artistry would step forward and take the lead in forming a system that treats artists as more than temporary hires that can be trashed and recycled at the whim of a few execs who think they know what good music is.

Just so you know...

:: how jedi are you? ::

Some fresh air
I've read too many reports by journalists lately pissing on the World Cup, calling it substandard and such. That's nonsense; from my perspective, it was wonderful, and I've found someone who was there who agrees with me. Of course, the experience in Japan has been considered much less successful than in Korea, but that's a minor distinction--this was without a doubt one of the best World Cups ever.

America's failed diplomacy
A Norwegian blogger has some advice for how America should approach diplomacy and treaties: stop being blunt and truthful and start lying. He observes,

"Many Americans will immediately tell the truth if asked about something, and only then wonder if a lie would have been better. Instead you should lie first, and then ponder if perhaps this time you should have told the truth. After all if you lie you can always tell the truth later on, or another lie, but if you have told the truth then you are stuck with it."

Some of his more specific advice:

"European Question: What do you think of the Kyoto accords?
The American Means: It is the worst waste of time and effort since someone decided to translate 'How to speak French' into French, it's total bullshit and we're never ever going to ratify it or abide by it, and the only reason you bring it up is to satisfy the useless enviroweenies in Europe.
The American Should Say: It is a splendid initiative, we are working hard to have it ratified even as we speak, and will do our utmost to abide by it, and I must say I am impressed with your concerned and capable citizenry that makes it such an issue.
The American Can Now: Go right ahead doing what he was already doing, and he can still keep the accords in ratification limbo."

While this is indeed humorous and indeed even practical advice, I'm all for the blunt approach. I think it's high time somebody in world politics pointed out the elephant in the middle of the room (i.e. the insanity of a lot of what passes for international law and the sorry excuses for what pretend to be serious international political bodies) and proceeded to take the axe to it. First step: start being honest. End goal: get rid of the United Nations and similar meddling bodies that have no business trying to impose their liberal agendas on the various national governments--especially our own.

USA v. ICC
Why are we fighting the International Criminal Court? Steven Den Beste has the lowdown. His is easily the best, most lucid and coherent, explanation I've read to date. He covers most of the facets, and correctly hits the main argument, which is we can't join the ICC because our Constitution does not permit it. The Euroweenies just don't understand this point--for them, Constitutions are meant to be ignored, overridden, amended, or rewritten on a whim--but we will never approve it. Never, ever, ever.

These guys are wrong
The Bush/Gore analysis found here is fascinating, but inaccurate. We Southern Californians say "Coke", not "soda", when we're referring to generic soft drink beverages. I think where they messed up is they probably got their sample from college students who study here but are from elsewhere in the country. Come to think of it, pretty much nobody in California is from California anymore, but then again, when was that ever the case? Us native-borns are minorities in our own state, methinks!

That about sums it up
Andrew Sullivan's brief take on the Egyptian who killed two people at LAX is on the money.