Impolitically Correct

I'll wager this is a take on Mohammad the Teddy Bear you've not yet (nor will you likely ever) read:

Gillian Gibbons deserves every bit of those 15 days she received, and more. In fact, I posit she actually should have been flogged. It would have been better. For her, for Sudan, for people like her, for those ignorant of Islam.

Originally, from CBS News:

AP) Sudanese authorities on Tuesday questioned a British teacher who could face charges of insulting religion -- a crime punishable by up to 40 lashes -- after she allowed her young students to name a teddy bear Muhammad in a class project.

Gillian Gibbons was arrested Sunday after one of her pupils' parents complained, accusing her of naming the bear after Islam's prophet and founder. Muhammad is a common name among Muslim men, but giving the prophet's name to an animal would be seen as insulting by many Muslims.

Gibbons was being questioned on suspicion of abuse of religion, a charge that is punishable by up to six months in prison, a fine or flogging of up to 40 lashes under Sudan's Islamic law-based legal system.

Several Sudanese newspapers ran a statement Tuesday reportedly from Unity High School in Khartoum where Gibbons taught, saying the administration "offers an official apology to the students and their families and all Muslims for what came from an individual initiative." It said Gibbons had been "removed from her work at the school."

Incidentally, one thing you may not have read: in terms of the stuffed plush white Teddy Bear, Gibbons asked the class of mostly seven-year-olds to name it. The children came up with eight names, to include Abdullah, Hassan and Mohammad. Then she explained what it was to make a vote and asked them to choose a name. Twenty out of the 23 children chose the name Muhammad. But they were not responsible, she was. She is not Sudanese.

I'm sure Gibbons, as an individual, is a good person, but religious stupidity and cultural naivete is no excuse. Has she not heard of Theo van Gogh? The Mohammad Cartoons? Does she not open a newspaper? Listen to news on the television? Radio? Internet? Madrid bombings? London tube bombings? Hello? Anyone? Bueller?

For the hordes of overeducated white Western-origin people who think they can enter a country not their own and not be subject to that country's laws and/or think they'll be able to change literally hundreds or thousands of years of tradition, I say: tread carefully. And if you tread foolishly, be prepared and expect to be treated as an outsider.

Westerners, and again overeducated, Left-leaning and/or religious-based white Westerners, seem to have this overarching belief that every culture, every mote of land, every occupant of foreign territory can be "reasoned with" or "convinced" of the innate goodness of the Westerners' "intent" -- good though it may be.

That is absolutely not true.

People, get over it. THIS is the face is Islam in 2007. And you individually or collectively WILL NOT CHANGE IT.

The UK actually came a bit uncorked over the affair. That this even stirred the normally sloth-like, complacent and overtolerant Britons bespeaks volumes. "Londonistan" hasn't acquired its name for nothing.

But this is the least egregious recent event involving the kindly, understanding, tolerant, peace-loving religion called Islam. What of the rape victim in Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to 200 lashes:

A judge in Saudi Arabia has ordered a victim of gang rape to receive 200 lashes - more than double her original sentence for being alone with a man who was not a relative - after she appealed against the lenient sentences given to the men who attacked her. He also jailed her for six months.

The 21-year-old woman, who was 19 at the time of the attack and is known by the Saudi media as "the girl from Qatif", was raped 14 times by a gang of seven. Although her attackers were found guilty and sentenced to between 10 months and five years last year, she was simultaneously sentenced to 90 lashes as punishment for riding in a car with a man who was not a relative.

I repeat: Gibbons deserves everything she gets for being sufficiently stupid to think she could change a country, or sufficiently ignorant of its barbaric religion, called Islam.

To any Leftist who may have inadvertently stumbled across my blog: this is Islam in all its glory. This is what you get for embracing multiculturalism. This is what you get for equalizing cultures over this planet, bleating that no one culture is superior to another.

To which I state succinctly in one word: bullshit.

And finally: there is a price to pay for being empirically stupid. Individually, as a nation, as a series of Western cultures.

Islam is a religion that, like the worst, most pervasive of cancers, needs to be irradiated and then incised with the sharpest of knives, then cast into the gutter.

Because it may have been created with only goodness in mind?

No.

Because Islam is what Islam does.

BZ

P.S.

This just in: KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) - Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear "Muhammad."
In response to the demonstration, teacher Gillian Gibbons was moved from the women's prison near Khartoum to a secret location for her safety, her lawyer said.

The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pickup trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gibbons, who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation. She avoided the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.

Do you not see my point? How absolutely INSANE is ANY practitioner of this barbaric and idiotic religion called Islam?

DEM: Keeping You Blind

Did you read or hear of this from the American DEM, the Defeatist, Elitist Media?

1. Widespread French Riots (Again):

There have been three continuous days of rioting in France following Sunday's incident in Paris, where a police vehicle accidently struck and killed two teenaged Muslims on a motorbike were killed in a crash with a police patrol car. Over 100 police officers have been injured, one lost an eye, many were hit with buckshot.



"Paris Suburb Riots Called A Lot Worse Than 2005":

In one sense, the unrest seems to be more menacing than during the early days of the three weeks of rioting in 2005. Then, the youth seemed disorganized, their destruction largely caused by rock-throwing and arson and aimed at the closest and easiest targets, like cars. This time, hunting shotguns, as well as gasoline bombs and rocks, have been turned on the police.

"From what our colleagues on the scene tell us, this is a situation that is a lot worse than what we saw in 2005," Patrice Ribeiro, a police officer and senior union official, told RTL radio Tuesday. He added, "A line was crossed last night, that is to say, they used weapons, they used weapons and fired on the police. This is a real guerrilla war."

But what NO ONE will write: these "disaffected youths" are:

• MUSLIMS
• WHO LIVE IN ENCLAVES
• WHO REFUSE TO ASSIMILATE
• WHO DEMAND FRENCH ENTITLEMENTS
• WHO HAVE BEEN CATERED-TO BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT

Witness:

We've been talking about a Marshall Plan for the suburbs since the early 1990s," said Adil Jazouli, a sociologist who focuses on the suburbs. "We don't need poetry. We don't need reflection. We need money."

No CHANGE on the part of the Muslims; no WORK on the part of the Muslims; no INSISTENCE that they assimilate into the culture. NO. All they need is MONEY. Throw money at ANYTHING and that makes everything better. That's all the work you need do, naturally. That's certainly worked for the public education system in DC, has it not?

Sarkozy has the right idea, also:

In his six months as president, he (Sarkozy) largely has focused on injecting new life into France's flaccid economy through job creation and lowering taxes and consumer prices. His most notable initiative in dealing with youth crime has been punitive: the passage of a law last July that required a minimum sentence for repeat offenders and in many cases allowed minors between 16 and 18 years of age to be tried and sentenced as adults.

2. Chinese Sub Surfaces Amidst US Navy Carrier Group:

From the UK Daily Mail:

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy. The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

And here's why: the US Navy commanders as well as its CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) Admiral Mike Mullen, have emphasized the littoral portion of its fleet to the detriment of its blue water capability. And political correctness has de-emphasized the threat that China and other countries pose to the United States.

Surprised that we were surprised? Unfortunately, I am not.


BZ

Question

You are in your regional airport, the announcement has been made at the gate desk that your flight will be boarding in a minute or so.

You look about the line of people waiting and notice what appears to be a Middle Eastern man with another person, shorter, next to him, covered from head to toe in the complete burqa with the eyescreen.

Not the hijab (as the woman wears far right) which is essentially a scarf covering the top of the head, with face exposed. I mean the full and complete "beekeepers" outfit, as otherwise depicted.

Would you board the aircraft?

BZ

Party of the Poor?

Everyone knows that, historically, the Demorats are the representatives of the Poor, the downtrodden, the needy -- because the Demorats themselves can empathize, right? Conversely, the Republicans are the party of the dirty, the corrupt, the fat, the drooling, rich Fat Cats, right?

Wrong! From The Washington Times:

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

Go here for Michael Franc's commentary at The Heritage Foundation. From the article:

Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.

Ah yes, the Demorats: the "party of the poor."

Not.

BZ

Shooting The Messenger

I have this hypothetical situation for you.

Let's say, in theory, you work for a law enforcement agency somewhere in the United States.

Let's say you train cops and emergency personnel (police officers, firefighters, in cars, on motorcycles, on fire apparatus, box medics, etc.) how to drive defensively, with precision at low speed, with precision at speed, in pursuits and in emergency response, with safety being the overarching concern -- the safety of the emergency responder and the safety of the immediate motoring and surrounding public. Let's say you're the current supervisor of such a program.

Let's say you've been doing this for quite some time, over 25 years, so you have many contacts in the arena, you've attended some of the finest training available in the entire nation, in many states. Most of this training you've paid for personally.

In providing this hypothetical situation, let's say you abandoned a lucrative assignment in your department over ten years ago in order to get this driver training program off the ground floor, in its infancy. Let's say you were specifically chosen by managerial staff, at that point, due to your abilities and knowledge, to construct, from nothing, an entirely fresh series of driving courses. And let's say that your base course was used by other immediate and linked agencies, literally word-for-word, as the foundation for their current and new courses as well -- which continue to this day -- because they believed the content was superior to anything else.

And let's say you've personally trained, literally, thousands of students and recruits over the years. Let's say you're considered a Subject Matter Expert in the field and can easily qualify as an expert witness in court. Let's say that another equally-qualified veteran supervisorial instructor for an allied law enforcement agency frequently states: "I can make more money testifying against you than I can working for you."

Further, let me postulate this: let's say you personally witness, enroute to a dinner engagement with your wife, a very recent egregious driving event displayed by an obvious member of your department (you can tell by the markings on the car) that leaves you speechless at the time.

Let's say you witness that unit blow through an extremely busy intersection at what you estimate to be 65 to 70mph and, surrounding that intersection, there are numerous persons, pedestrians, bicyclists, women with children. Let's say you see that the unit did this in contravention of most every safe principle you teach where you work. And finally, you know the unit is not in pursuit but in emergency response (at least with lights and siren activated) which should, theoretically, be some of the most safe driving cops do because they have the time to safely plot, plan, and take external elements into account.

Let's say that, as a senior supervising instructor you've constructed a blog (not significantly different from this one) whereupon you've consistently and in-the-clear, for 3 years, conducted communications between yourself and your 45+ souls cadre of full and part-time instructors.

The goal of this blog and your prior e-mail devices was to provide your full and part-time instructor staff with timely information regarding not only departmental instructional issues but greater, overarching driving, officer survival and internal issues. These updated posts, let's say, you've provided not just to your instructors but to your boss, your boss's boss, a co-boss and others. Everyone knows your blog exists; it's no secret at all. In fact, let's say it was one of your prior bosses who signed off on the original idea, thinking it was a good way to communicate.

These posts have heretofore been well received and acknowledged by your current boss's boss in e-mails (which, unfortunately, you were an idiot to not save but - so it goes) as accomplished, thoughtful, well-written and facile. This all at the behest of your communicative blog.

But once you witnessed your agency's unit completely blow through an incredibly-busy intersection, during drive-time, against all orders, against all training, against all logic, against all common sense, and at 65 to 70 estimated mph -- and then you posted truthfully about the issue on your blog. . .

Well, let's theorize that the determination by your administration was to order you to eliminate the blog, to suppress the information. Because the uniform in your hypothetical profile kinda looks like your agency's, because the hypothetical description in your profile kinda sounded like your agency but was never named, because you couldn't quite read the badge, you couldn't see your agency's shoulder patch but -- if you were sufficiently educated -- you might make that link. So your hypothetical blog was eliminated because it, bottom line, displayed the truth about some immediate and personally-observed heinous conduct, not reflecting well on your hypothetical department.

Theoretically, you wrote about that event on your blog when it existed. You sent it out to all your instructors. Let's say that one of your instructors evidently took umbrage to the truth and complained to your department's union because -- after all -- that individual could find themselves subject to discipline. Your union president dialed-up the agency head, the applicable next person down, your boss, your boss's boss.

And let's say your boss shuts the door to your office in order to speak with you. He politely suggests that, if you were smart, you'd kill the entire blog because the administrative staff believes that you've embarrassed the department in public. And, theoretically speaking, because the department believes you've exposed it to liability -- despite the fact that, thank God, no accident occurred as the result of that event and no one was injured or killed.

Oddly enough, you thought (after all those years) your theoretical department was "above" STM.

Evidently not.

Let's say this hypothetical department realizes the event was significantly embarrassing and just wants to bury it, considering the recent death of an agency's officer in a vehicle accident and another event involving an officer bringing much shame on a department by their conduct.

Let's postulate that you conclude your agency just wants to "shoot the messenger" when it decides it's time to hang you out to dry and not the perpetrator of the hypothetical act.

What might you, dear reader, conclude?

BZ

P.S.

This is all hypothetical, of course.

Only The American Left

Only the American Left loves Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez -- you know, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan.

Chavez's own people don't worship at his feet:

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has lost his lead eight days before a referendum on ending his term limit, an independent pollster said on Saturday, in a swing in voter sentiment against the Cuba ally.

Forty-nine percent of likely voters oppose Chavez's proposed raft of constitutional changes to expand his powers, compared with 39 percent in favor, a survey by respected pollster Datanalisis showed.

Of course, in response Chavez said:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a "traitor," rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.

Ah yes, Hugo Chavez, the man adored by the American Left.

BZ

Waterboarding Works

And it isn't torture. From Deroy Murdock at the Washington Times:

While the White House must beware not to inform our enemies what to expect if captured, today's clueless anti-waterboarding rhetoric merits this tactic's vigorous defense. Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud.

Waterboarding makes tight-lipped terrorists talk. At least three major al Qaeda leaders reportedly have been waterboarded, most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

What is waterboarding? The Week explains waterboarding:

A subject bound to an inclined board -- with his feet raised and head lowered -- while his face is covered with a piece of cloth. The interrogator then pours water over the prisoner's face in a steady stream, causing the wet material to cling to his mouth and nostrils. As the water pours down, some of it does penetrate the cloth and the nostrils and trickles down into the lungs, and the panicky prisoner bucks and gasps for air. Few people can hold out for very long. CIA personnel who have undergone the experience as part of their training have lasted an average of only 14 seconds before pleading for it to stop. One CIA agent said: "When you're waterboarded, you're inverted, so it exacerbates the fear. It's not painful, but it scares the shit out of you."

So let me get this straight: we waterboard our own CIA trainees, but doing it those who wish to destroy our country is improper? The Week also asked: Does waterboarding do any lasting damage? In reply: "If you include psychological damage, it does." Psychological damage? Big fucking deal.

Here is torture:

Let's see: waterboarding or beheadings? I suppose, because it isn't administered by the United States, these things aren't torture? Nick Berg? Daniel Pearl? Paul Johnson? Hello? Anyone with a memory? The Fallujah hangings?

Please read the entire above article by Deroy Murdock -- something you thought you'd never see in mainstream print, eh?

BZ

Your Worst Movie Nightmare

Of course, something even remotely nightmarish like this only occurs in film; "The Poseidon Adventure," "Poseidon," "A Night To Remember," "Titanic," "Open Water" and "Open Water 2," et al.

The last passenger ship to actually sink due to an iceberg strike was the RMS Titanic on April 14th of 1912 with a loss of 1,595 souls. Other than that sole event, things like that simply don't occur. Right?

Wrong. A ship sank Friday in frigid Antarctic waters after striking a submerged iceberg, though all 154 passengers and crew were sucessfully evacuated prior to the sinking:

The ship took on water quickly," (passenger Paola Palavecino) was quoted by the Argentine news agency Diarios y Noticias as saying in a call from the (rescue ship) NordNorge (a Norwegian liner).

The 75-metre-long Explorer was carrying 91 passengers, nine expedition staff members and a crew of 54. It was completing an ecological tour of Antarctica when the accident took place around midnight Eastern time Friday, about 850 kilometres southeast of Ushuaia, the southernmost Argentine city.

"The ship ran into some ice. It was submerged ice and the result was a hole about the size of a fist in the side of the hull so it began taking on water. . .but quite slowly," Hayes said.

Hours after the incident, the Chilean navy confirmed that the cruise ship had sunk.

G.A.P. Adventures, a Toronto-based company (and owner of the Explorer, a Liberian-registered ship) offered tourists a unique 10-day trip which departed November 11th from Ushuaia, Argentina, then wound through the Drake Passage to the Antarctic Peninsula and South Shetland Islands. The cost was $4,895 per passenger. Frankly, it sounds like a trip I'd love to have taken myself, assuming I'd stay dry and the ship completely vertical throughout its voyage.

“Experience a voyage of a lifetime to a land where penguins rub shoulders with seals and orcas and whales are often seen plying the icy waters,” G.A.P. says on its Web site. The newest G.A.P. company update is here, regarding Explorer. Inquiries for American passengers are to be made via kiraz@gap.ca.

So imagine this scenario:

You're on the M/S Explorer, a 246-foot passenger ship (built in 1969, and possessing, you are told, a reinforced hull to protect against ice penetration) engaged in a summer cruise of Antarctica, near Bransfield Strait off King George Island.

During nighttime hours, your small ship encounters pack ice and then very dense ice, 60 miles off the Antarctic coast. Your fellow passengers consist of 12 Canadians, 17 Dutch, 10 Australians, 24 Britons and 13 Americans (excluding yourself). You are awakened from your sleep, told to gather a minimal amount of belongings (if any) and report immediately to your lifeboat station with your vest. The call to abandon ship is given 90 minutes after the first call.

You dress quickly, your mind racing: what to bring? Will my (wife/husband) be okay? How much time do I have? Will my clothes be warm enough? If I wear heavy clothes and I fall in the ocean, will I sink? Is the ocean actually freezing? Will I watch the ship sink? Will I even survive? How fast is fast? How much time do I really have?

Twelve lifeboats hit the frigid water. Every passenger and crew member leaves the ship alive. The seas were calm and ambient temperatures at freezing. The waters grew choppy and the skies overcast. The occupants spend up to six hours in their lifeboats whilst awaiting rescue. Not unlike the RMS Titanic sinking, those persons had that amount of time in which to ponder their fates. And immersed in freezing water, the average human has 90 seconds to exist prior to hypothermia. In two minutes the body has completely abandoned its extremities in order for the core to survive. One's ability to kick legs, move arms, is gone. The only relatively-warm portion remaining is the chest; if the head and/or neck are immersed, rational thinking is halted. Finally, a minute or two later, autonomic reflexes are impacted. It is said that death in freezing water is almost euphoric. I'd rather not find out, thank you.

Unaware of my readers' proclivities, I readily admit that I swim poorly; I suggest that I sink much better -- moreso in freezing waters. In my youth I spent much more time in watery conditions, at lakes, in the ocean, snorkeling off Hawaii. These days, if fish swim in it, I avoid it. It's that simple. At my advanced age I've already been corrupted by "Jaws," "Titanic," and the submarine death scene from the beginning of the movie "Abyss," which I find to be horrendously frightening -- but that's just me.

Are icebergs still a threat? The quick answer: yes. But due to advanced technology, maritime and otherwise, the chances of abrupt loss of life are minimal.

But still, as cavalier as we were in 1912 about "unsinkable ships" -- are we finding ourselves likewise as cavalier about technology in 2007?

You tell me.

These waters are still as frigid.



BZ

November 22nd, 1963

And most people have forgotten.

For me, I shall never forget. I was in gradeschool, and the teacher entered the class, announced his death, and sent us all home. I was amazed that the buses were already lined up, ready to take us all back to our homes.

I also can recall, watching on our ancient square black metal cubed RCA TV (the kind that, when shut off, the screen went blank and then shrank down to a small little point for a number of minutes!), the procession down Washington, the caisson rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue, the riderless horse, the sole boot in the stirrups. And then the diminutive John Jr. saluting his father's casket as it rolled by.

Yesterday, Thanksgiving, was the 44th anniversary of JFK's death.

Perennial questions:

• Was the Warren Commission correct?
• Was Lee Harvey Oswald the sole shooter?
• Why did Jack Ruby shoot Oswald?
• Can the best sniper pull off shots from that yardage with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
• Why the conflicting evidence?
• Why the botched autopsy?
• Why are all records sealed?

Will we ever know?

BZ

Happy Thanksgiving!

BZ

A CRITICAL Case:

The United States Supreme Court will finally make a decision about an individual citizen's right to carry a firearm as it relates to the Second Amendment.

The justices will review a lower court decision that struck down Washington's ban and said the Second Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable restrictions on their right to own firearms. The decision marked the first time a federal appeals court had ever voided a law on Second Amendment grounds.

Either way SCOTUS decides, this will be certifiably ground-breaking, and will have absolutely massive repercussions.

BZ

Behind The Curtain

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," roared the Wizard of Oz.

Such it would be with OPEC, if you believed them. The curtain was drawn aside this past week and its inner workings were embarrassingly revealed:

OPEC heads of state converged on Riyadh for a rare summit opening Saturday with the organisation divided over the falling US dollar and attempts to give a political impetus to the oil-exporting cartel.

In a gaffe late Friday, a private meeting of ministers from the 12 members of the cartel was mistakenly broadcast to journalists, revealing a spat between Saudi
Arabia and anti-US members Iran and Venezuela about the waning US currency.

Journalists witnessed Iran request that the final declaration to be issued by OPEC leaders at the end of the summit on Sunday express the concern of member states about the falling US currency and its impact on oil revenues.

Reacting to the proposal, which was backed by Venezuela, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal warned against mentioning the US currency.

"There are media people outside waiting to catch this point and they will add to it (exaggerate) and we may find that the dollar collapses," Prince Saud said.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who arrives later Saturday, has also called on OPEC to take on a stronger "political and geopolitical" role and return to its stance of the 1970s when it tightened the screws on consumer nations.

Saudi Arabia appeared to have prevailed in the debate about the dollar and the issue is not expected to be mentioned, but the incident highlights sharp differences at the heart of the group.

"It's the second meeting when OPEC is showing its dissension and there are clear divisions and fissures emerging," said Yasser Elguindi, a manager at oil brokerage SIG, referring to discord about output at a meeting in September.

"It's a gaffe. Nobody likes to air their dirty laundry in public," he said.

The remarkable insight into the inner workings of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries on Friday, which produces 40 percent of world oil, ended when a furious official emerged to switch off the television.

The fall of the dollar, which has declined by about 15 percent in 12 months, has affected the revenues of OPEC members because most of them price and sell their oil exports in the US currency.

This OPEC meeting comes at a time of concerted stress on global oil markets, with the OPEC cartel under pressure from many sides (foremost by the US) to increase its output to help calm record crude prices that threatened to breach $100 dollars a barrel for the first time last week.

And Saudi Arabia cannot afford to be privately or publicly seen to support America, trust me.

If we didn't "get it" then, we should "get it" now: Iran and Venezuela are our enemies. And Saudi Arabia took an actual bit of a stand for the US. But make no mistake: Chavez and Ahmadinejad will do all they can to see us burn.

BZ

Week 11 -- Go Packers!

It's week 11 in the NFL and my Green Bay Packers are kicking division ass! They also handed the Carolina Panthers a pretty decent defeat today (31 - 7), and went into the half with a 21 - 3 lead! It didn't hurt that the Pack was playing at Lambeau.

I have to hand it to Vinny Testaverde, however, who threw two late-game TD passes for the Panthers -- Vinny being the oldest quarterback in the NFL.

Consider: Brett Favre is the third oldest QB on an NFL roster this year. From PackersNews.com:

At 44, Testaverde is by far the oldest active quarterback in the NFL, ahead of 39-year-old Brad Johnson, the Dallas Cowboys' backup. Favre is next at 38, followed by New Orleans backup Jamie Martin (37), Tampa Bay starter Jeff Garcia (37) and Washington backup Mark Brunell (37).

The oldest regular starters this year are Favre, Garcia and Arizona's Kurt Warner (36).

And folks, Favre is KATN this season! Way to go, Packers!

And yes, I do have a cheesehead.

BZ

P.S.

Photo is of Vinny (left) and Brett (right).

Guess What?

Smith, Jones, Wilson, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Davis, Miller, Moore, Taylor, Anderson, Thomas, Jackson, White, Harris, Martin, Thompson, Robinson, Lewis, Lee, Walker, Hall, Allen, Young, King, Wright, Hill, Scott, Green, Adams, Baker, Nelson, Carter, Mitchell, Roberts, Turner, Phillips, Campbell, Parker, Edwards, Evans, Collins, Stewart, Morris, Rogers, Reed, Cook, Morgan, Bell, Murphy, Bailey, Cooper, Richardson, Cox, Howard, Ward . . .

These and others are the most common American surnames extant.

Moving up:

Step aside Moore and Taylor. Welcome Garcia and Rodriguez.

Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau. But for the first time, two Hispanic surnames — Garcia and Rodriguez — are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez nearly edged out Wilson for 10th place.

The number of Hispanics living in the United States grew by 58 percent in the 1990s to nearly 13 percent of the total population, and cracking the list of top 10 names suggests just how pervasively the Latino migration has permeated everyday American culture.

Two points:

1. It isn't "Latino" or "Hispanic." It is MEXICAN.
2. I'll take Gonzalez over Mohammad ANY DAY

BZ

Bad Words

I've noticed a trend, and I'm wondering if it's because I'm lazy or because I'm passionate.

For almost a week, last week, I became a Large Mammal in the TTLB Ecosystem. I noticed that I am back down to a Marauding Marsupial in my blog hits. I was proud, then disappointed. For a time I ranked up there with some blogs I really admire. Big White Hat. Texas Fred.

I also noticed that many of my posts (for whatever reason) this past month were peppered with scattered expletives.

I stand naked before you now with either a reason or an excuse, and then a question.

First, some background: I have been in law enforcement (as many of you already know) for over 30 years. I have worked for both Federal and local LE systems. As you might imagine, I've somehow sopped up some colourful language over the years -- to include words you'd not yet imagined in your personal lexicon.

With the FBI and the Marshals, you kept your lip zipped in the bullpen and then purged in the field if necessary. With my current agency, I've pretty much continuously possessed a "potty mouth" except when trying valiantly to be on my best behavior in various academy classes. And yet I warn my students: some things may slip out; I'll do my best to slip them back in.

The confounding thing is, I'm not undereducated. I'm facile with the multisyllabic word or two, and took my BA and then my Masters with regard to command of the Engrish Rang-grage.

And yet I'm wondering: too many poo-poo nasties for my readers?

Weigh in now, preeze. Should I tone down my f-and -s-bombs? Or does it even matter?

BZ

Lions For Lambs

This film is failing miserably at the box office.

Yet it features three massive stars in one movie:

• Tom Cruise
• Meryl Streep
• Robert Redford

The animated Bee Movie came out ahead of Lions For Lambs this past weekend. As did Fred Claus. And this was Veterans Day weekend as well (Further, know this: I wouldn't give more than a few drips of my piss for the Bee Movie, which accuses humans of stealing honey. Aw geez, you overpaid shitheads, can't you give us a break for even a second?).

I would ask: if the bulk of America is clearly against the war in Iraq, then why would the American purchasing public not flock to this newest anti-Iraq movie? In massive coagulated droves?

Yet the public stayed away in droves.

I don't get it.

Well, yes I do. It's obvious. Hollywood has once again misjudged America and is more concerned with navel-gazing than providing what America actually wants:

1. Entertainment

2. That is Uplifting

3. And avoids politics

Further, Hollywood is secretly concerned with some other anti-war films to be released shortly, such as "Charlie Wilson's War" with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, as well as the Brian DePalma movie "Redacted," focusing on the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by American soldiers.

Keep it up Hollywood and you'll see your profits dry up completely. You wonder why most no one cares about a writers' strike? Myself included? You figure it out.

I'm tired. Plain and simple, tired of my country being dragged across the white-hot coals of EXCEPTIONS and not the RULE.

And finally, I'm not providing links or photos to any of this propagandist vomit because I'll be damned if I'll promote any of it.

Hollywood is so out-of-touch with the Real World. And Mark Cuban's movie "Redacted" is absolutely unconscionable. It is two hours of anti-American flowing vomit.

Question: why does the bulk of Hollywood spew such bullshit, you may ask?

Answer: Because its denizens are overpaid, overcoddled, overarrogant, overprivileged and over-guilty because, on some level, they do recognize their place in reality.

Folks, their lives are not real.


And they realize it in the very core of their shallow, little soul-less hearts.



BZ

When Push Comes To Shove

And the shove did occur, this time to both NY State Governor Eliot Spitzer and, by extension, to NY Senator Hillary Clinton. And the shove came not from their fellow politicians -- on either side of the aisle -- but by the CITIZENS of this country.

And there, people, comes the rub -- "DANGER, WILL ROBINSON" -- which I'll explain shortly.

You recall Governor Spitzer -- he of the recent "I want to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants" fame. The spillover of this issue already rendered glazed the brains of many Demorats and Hillary's campaign handlers in particular (as I posted here). Wednesday he backed down from that idea:

I've concluded that New York state cannot conduct this program on its own," Spitzer said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "It does not take a stethoscope to hear the pulse of New Yorkers on this topic."

Translated: he heard your bitching. And that's just what he thinks of it: inconvenient, immature, bothersome bitching. YOUR bitching, YOUR whining. So it was time to blame anyone and everyone BUT himself:

To save face, Spitzer railed against the federal government for its inability to handle the illegal immigrant issue, saying it had "lost control of its borders. ... and has no solution to deal with it," he said.

It is clear that 70% of the residents of very liberal New York State, and 75% of the denizens of the entire United States think that handing out licenses to illegal immigrants is a vacuous idea.

Further, Spitzer discovered there is a "popularity" price to pay if you do something untenable against the will of the public:

The decision to wave the white flag was cemented as a Siena Research Institute poll released yesterday showed Spitzer with his lowest approval ratings ever - with just 25 percent of voters saying they would support his re-election if the vote were held today.

Translated: only when it affects me personally, politically, will I even remotely consider bending to the will of The People. I hope you sear that sentence into your brain, for I'm going to make another point, then make my ultimate point at the end. In the meantime, let me make these things abundantly clear:

• The People of this nation do not like the idea;
• 75% of all legal residents of the country, blue and red states combined, do not like the idea;
• It is nothing more than a recipe for fraud;
• Government-ENABLED fraud;

Further:

• Legal Americans of all ages and stripes are tired of being Strangers in their own land;
• Increasingly surrounded by people who do not speak their language;
• Whose government is not insisting that its residents speak a common language;
• Surrounded by those who believe their ability to get their ankles damp enables them to sweep into this nation unchallenged, refuse to assimilate, create groves of Mexican encampments in our cities where only Spanish is spoken and only Mexican customs followed;
• With an entitlement attitude;
• Behind a wall of racist Reconquista rhetoric

People, we say we can't do things, that we're ineffectual but, trust me, we are NOT. It is a public groundswell that had massive affects on:

- The Harriet Miers issue;

- The Dubai Ports issue;

- The nomination and support of Roberts and Alito;

- The elimination of the illegal immigrant amnesty bill;

- This week, the halting of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

And now, my final point -- doing what I call the "logical extension."

BECAUSE the Conservative elements have BEEN effective, BECAUSE the line-level Conservatives have LEARNED how to communicate, BECAUSE we communicate so quickly and so effectively due to blogs, because of the internet, because of online magazines, because of e-mail and because of TALK RADIO, then:

• EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE A REDOUBLED EFFORT TO REMOVE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
• TO INSTIGATE FURTHER "HATE SPEECH" RESOLUTIONS,
• TO RE-KINDLE THE SO-CALLED "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE",
• and then APPLY THOSE STRICTURES TO ALL THE AREAS WHERE WE SUCCEED in terms of communications.

Mark my words, ladies and gentlemen, you have not yet begun to see the impending massive and concerted Demorat and Left assault on our freedoms enumerated above.

This was a public failing and slapdown of Eliot Spitzer in combination with Hillary Clinton.

Because of our efficacy.

Expect the other shoe to fall.

BZ

CAIR

I don't think I've seen a more truthful editorial cartoon in quite some time. And for those interested in seeing how CAIR portrays itself publicly, go here. To see an answer to CAIR's website, go here.

BZ

The Complete Text

Here is the complete text of French President Sarkozy's speech before the US Congress on Wednesday, November 7th of this year. This was a speech completely ignored by the Defeatist Elitist Media (DEM), the Demorats and the MSM. No one in the media wants you to read this, because it is positive and uplifting in terms of the United States -- which is why I provide it here, in its entirety:

Madam Speaker,

Mr. President,

Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States Congress,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The state of our friendship and our alliance is strong.

Friendship, first and foremost, means being true to one's friends. Since the United States first appeared on the world scene, the loyalty between the French and American people has never failed. And far from being weakened by the vicissitudes of History, it has never ceased growing stronger.

Friends may have differences; they may have disagreements; they may have disputes.
But in times of difficulty, in times of hardship, friends stand together, side by side; they support each other; and help one another.

In times of difficulty, in times of hardship, America and France have always stood side by side, supported one another, helped one another, fought for each other's freedom.

The United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history, true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles. But they are not true merely to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. They remain true, first and foremost, to the same ideal, the same principles, the same values that have always united them.

The deliberations of your Congress are conducted under the double gaze of Washington and Lafayette. Lafayette, whose 250th birthday we are celebrating this year and who was the first foreign dignitary, in 1824, to address a joint session of Congress. What was it that brought these two men—so far apart in age and background—together, if not their faith in common values, the heritage of the Enlightenment, the same love for freedom and justice?

Upon first meeting Washington, Lafayette told him: "I have come here to learn, not to teach." It was this new spirit and youth of the Old World seeking out the wisdom of the New World that opened a new era for all of humanity.

From the very beginning, the American dream meant putting into practice the dreams of the Old World.

From the very beginning, the American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights and democracy were no utopia but were rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person.

America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.

What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The men and women of my generation heard their grandparents talk about how in 1917, America saved France at a time when it had reached the final limits of its strength, which it had exhausted in the most absurd and bloodiest of wars.

The men and women of my generation heard their parents talk about how in 1944, America returned to free Europe from the horrifying tyranny that threatened to enslave it.

Fathers took their sons to see the vast cemeteries where, under thousands of white crosses so far from home, thousands of young American soldiers lay who had fallen not to defend their own freedom but the freedom of all others, not to defend their own families, their own homeland, but to defend humanity as a whole.

Fathers took their sons to the beaches where the young men of America had so heroically landed. They read them the admirable letters of farewell that those 20-year-old soldiers had written to their families before the battle to tell them: "We don't consider ourselves heroes. We want this war to be over. But however much dread we may feel, you can count on us." Before they landed, Eisenhower told them: "The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you."

And as they listened to their fathers, watched movies, read history books and the letters of soldiers who died on the beaches of Normandy and Provence, as they visited the cemeteries where the star-spangled banner flies, the children of my generation understood that these young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.

To those 20-year-old heroes who gave us everything, to the families of those who never returned, to the children who mourned fathers they barely got a chance to know, I want to express France's eternal gratitude.

On behalf of my generation, which did not experience war but knows how much it owes to their courage and their sacrifice; on behalf of our children, who must never forget; to all the veterans who are here today and, notably the seven I had the honor to decorate yesterday evening, one of whom, Senator Inouye, belongs to your Congress, I want to express the deep, sincere gratitude of the French people. I want to tell you that whenever an American soldier falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American army did for France. I think of them and I am sad, as one is sad to lose a member of one's family.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The men and women of my generation remember the Marshall Plan that allowed their fathers to rebuild a devastated Europe. They remember the Cold War, during which America again stood as the bulwark of the Free World against the threat of new tyranny.

I remember the Berlin crisis and Kennedy who unhesitatingly risked engaging the United States in the most destructive of wars so that Europe could preserve the freedom for which the American people had already sacrificed so much. No one has the right to forget. Forgetting, for a person of my generation, would be tantamount to self-denial.

But my generation did not love America only because she had defended freedom. We also loved her because for us, she embodied what was most audacious about the human adventure; for us, she embodied the spirit of conquest. We loved America because for us, America was a new frontier that was continuously pushed back—a constantly renewed challenge to the inventiveness of the human spirit.

My generation shared all the American dreams. Our imaginations were fueled by the winning of the West and Hollywood. By Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, Hemingway. By John Wayne, Charlton Heston, Marilyn Monroe, Rita Hayworth. And by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, fulfilling mankind's oldest dream.

What was so extraordinary for us was that through her literature, her cinema and her music, America always seemed to emerge from adversity even greater and stronger; that instead of causing America to doubt herself, such ordeals only strengthened her belief in her values.
What makes America strong is the strength of this ideal that is shared by all Americans and by all those who love her because they love freedom.

America's strength is not only a material strength, it is first and foremost a spiritual and moral strength. No one expressed this better than a black pastor who asked just one thing of America: that she be true to the ideal in whose name he—the grandson of a slave—felt so deeply American. His name was Martin Luther King. He made America a universal role model.

The world still remembers his words—words of love, dignity and justice. America heard those words and America changed. And the men and women who had doubted America because they no longer recognized her began loving her again.

Fundamentally, what are those who love America asking of her, if not to remain forever true to her founding values?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today as in the past, as we stand at the beginning of the 21st century, it is together that we must fight to defend and promote the values and ideals of freedom and democracy that men such as Washington and Lafayette invented together.

Together we must fight against terrorism. On September 11, 2001, all of France—petrified with horror—rallied to the side of the American people. The front-page headline of one of our major dailies read: "We are all American." And on that day, when you were mourning for so many dead, never had America appeared to us as so great, so dignified, so strong. The terrorists had thought they would weaken you. They made you greater. The entire world felt admiration for the courage of the American people. And from day one, France decided to participate shoulder to shoulder with you in the war in Afghanistan. Let me tell you solemnly today: France will remain engaged in Afghanistan as long as it takes, because what's at stake in that country is the future of our values and that of the Atlantic Alliance. For me, failure is not an option. Terrorism will not win because democracies are not weak, because we are not afraid of this barbarism. America can count on France.

Together we must fight against proliferation. Success in Libya and progress under way in North Korea shows that nuclear proliferation is not inevitable. Let me say it here before all of you: The prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable. The Iranian people is a great people. It deserves better than the increased sanctions and growing isolation to which its leaders condemn it. Iran must be convinced to choose cooperation, dialogue and openness. No one must doubt our determination.

Together we must help the people of the Middle East find the path of peace and security. To the Israeli and Palestinian leaders I say this: Don't hesitate! Risk peace! And do it now! The status quo hides even greater dangers: that of delivering Palestinian society as a whole to the extremists that contest Israel's existence; that of playing into the hands of radical regimes that are exploiting the deadlock in the conflict to destabilize the region; that of fueling the propaganda of terrorists who want to set Islam against the West. France wants security for Israel and a State for the Palestinians.

Together we must help the Lebanese people affirm their independence, their sovereignty, their freedom, their democracy. What Lebanon needs today is a broad-based president elected according to the established schedule and in strict respect of the Constitution. France stands engaged alongside all the Lebanese. It will not accept attempts to subjugate the Lebanese people.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

America feels it has the vocation to inspire the world. Because she is the most powerful country in the world. Because, for more than two centuries, she has striven to uphold the ideals of democracy and freedom. But this stated responsibility comes with duties, the first of which is setting an example.

Those who love this nation which, more than any other, has demonstrated the virtues of free enterprise expect America to be the first to denounce the abuses and excesses of a financial capitalism that sets too great a store on speculation. They expect her to commit fully to the establishment of the necessary rules and safeguards. The America I love is the one that encourages entrepreneurs, not speculators.

Those who admire the nation that has built the world's greatest economy and has never ceased trying to persuade the world of the advantages of free trade expect her to be the first to promote fair exchange rates. The yuan is already everyone's problem. The dollar cannot remain solely the problem of others. If we're not careful, monetary disarray could morph into economic war. We would all be its victims.

Those who love the country of wide open spaces, national parks and nature reserves expect America to stand alongside Europe in leading the fight against global warming that threatens the destruction of our planet. I know that each day, in their cities and states, the American people are more aware of the stakes and determined to act. This essential fight for the future of humanity must be all of America's fight.

Those who have not forgotten that it was the United States that, at the end of the Second World War, raised hopes for a new world order are asking America to take the lead in the necessary reforms of the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and the G8. Our globalized world must be organized for the 21st century, not for the last century. The emerging countries we need for global equilibrium must be given their rightful place.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me to express one last conviction: Trust Europe.

In this unstable, dangerous world, the United States of America needs a strong, determined Europe. With the simplified treaty I proposed to our partners, the European Union is about to emerge from 10 years of discussions on its institutions and 10 years of paralysis. Soon it will have a stable president and a more powerful High Representative for foreign and security policy, and it must now reactivate the construction of its military capacities.

The ambition I am proposing to our partners is based on a simple observation: There are more crises than there are capacities to face them. NATO cannot be everywhere. The EU must be able to act, as it did in the Balkans and in the Congo, and as it will tomorrow on the border of Sudan and Chad. For that the Europeans must step up their efforts.

My approach is purely pragmatic. Having learned from history, I want the Europeans, in the years to come, to have the means to shoulder a growing share of their defense. Who could blame the United States for ensuring its own security? No one. Who could blame me for wanting Europe to ensure more of its own security? No one. All of our Allies, beginning with the United States, with whom we most often share the same interests and the same adversaries, have a strategic interest in a Europe that can assert itself as a strong, credible security partner.

At the same time, I want to affirm my attachment to NATO. I say it here before this Congress: The more successful we are in the establishment of a European Defense, the more France will be resolved to resume its full role in NATO.

I would like France, a founding member of our Alliance and already one of its largest contributors, to assume its full role in the effort to renew NATO's instruments and means of action and, in this context, to allow its relations with the Alliance to evolve.

This is no time for theological quarrels but for pragmatic responses to make our security tools more effective and operational in the face of crises. The EU and NATO must march hand in hand.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to be your friend, your ally and your partner. But a friend who stands on his own two feet. An independent ally. A free partner.

France must be stronger. I am determined to carry through with the reforms that my country has put off for all too long. I will not turn back, because France has turned back for all too long. My country has enormous assets. While respecting its unique identity, I want to put it into a position to win all the battles of globalization. I passionately love France. I am lucid about the work that remains to be accomplished.

It is this ambitious France that I have come to present to you today. A France that comes out to meet America to renew the pact of friendship and the alliance that Washington and Lafayette sealed in Yorktown.

Together let us be worthy of their example, let us be equal to their ambition, let us be true to their memories!

Long live the United States of America!

Vive la France! Long live French-American friendship!

__________________

Why can't our own politicians say this?

If we do not reach out and actively embrace Sarkozy and do whatever we can to enable and support his government, we are completely daft.

BZ

New to the BZ "Usual Suspects" List:

But actually she's not "new"; Rivka, formerly of Revka's Take, issued her "final" post on March 28th of 2006 for various and sundry personal reasons. You know -- like having an actual life to live, things like that.

But "she's baaaaack," as I had suspected and hoped, with her new blog entitled "Right Think." New blog, new look, new title -- and already new posts!

Welcome back Rebecca and, please, dear readers, let's frequent her blog on a daily basis!

Excelsior!

BZ