Michael Medved finally finds Conservatives he dislikes.

Besides Joseph Farah, I mean.

Yes, apparently in addition to being politically more holier-than-thou, it appears Mike's also a former Conservative- now MO- Jew, and as such, feels free to bash it. Fair enough. I bash a hell of a lot of things, and as I've said elsewhere, if anything I'm a Reform or Recon who likes to sing Hebrew. But some of ol' Mike's criticisms just didn't seem, well... fair. And since Ortho triumphalism (not unlike other forms of it) happens to be something I find extremely grating, I thought I'd take a look.

For several generations, most Americans have embraced what could be described as the Goldilocks attitude toward religion: affirming faith choices that seemed not too soft but not too hard, not too hot but not too cool. Majorities viewed easy-going moderation and comforting compromise as the religious path that counted as "just right."

Not too itchy, but not one of those pansy hypoallergenic blends.

Conservative Judaism — the "middle branch" of the ancient faith — always exemplified the "Goldilocks" orientation with its emphasis on the "sweet spot" between stringencies of Orthodox observance and the anything-goes adaptability of Reform.

And if America's taught us anything, it's that compromise is the work of the Devil.

But just before Passover, the Conservative movement's flagship institution, The Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), announced a controversial decision highlighting the painful contradictions of middle way religions.

Following the findings of an expert panel filed last December, JTS signaled its intention to accept openly gay candidates for the rabbinate and to raise no objection to their involvement in same-sex commitment ceremonies. For a movement that still stresses time-honored standards of Sabbath observance and kosher food, this represents a stunning break with tradition. A spiritual leader proudly, publicly promoting consumption of pork would never fit in with the Conservative rabbinate, but this same denomination now will sanction rabbis who call unblushing communal attention to their personal practice of sexual relations that the Torah describes as "abomination."

Except that, to use your examples, the Orthodox argue that the Torah also condemns driving to shul, which is a longstanding Conservative practice, to the point that it has become normative and PART of Conservative tradition. Ditto with swordfish. They examined the evidence available to them, voted on it, and made a decision which will eventually become the new standard. Sort of like when haredi rabbis ban wigs or declare that only certain kinds of bleach are kosher for passover.

As I understand it, the point of the Conservative Law Committee is not, "the Torah says don't do X, screw the Torah!" Rather, it is, "the Torah says don't do X- are we sure that Y applies?" You can disagree with the methodology or the reasoning, but don't misrepresent the intent. This is less about looking for holes in halacha than it is about trying to determine exactly where the limits of halacha are- not unlike, say, Rabbenu Gershom's ban on polygamy (where did he pull that from?)

There's more.

Unfortunately for today's leaders, there is little wiggle room on biblical insistence on male-female marriage. Not only does Leviticus (part of the Torah that's sacred to all Jews) specifically prohibit lying "with a man as one lies with a woman" (18:22) but the description of the very first marriage (between Adam and Eve) makes clear that the ultimate union of two souls requires partners of opposite genders. When the Torah (Genesis 2:24) says a man will "cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh," it's not just referring to an emotional or erotic relationship, but the unique ability of a male-female couple to fuse in the creation of children.

Ok, A- there's still debate over defining exactly what that Leviticus verse exactly prohibits (especially if you and the wife are into experimenting). B- What about that Midrash that talks about the first man being a hermaphrodite? How does that measure into your neat little marriage package? And C- you could just as easily cherry-pick a quote about how joyful the Sabbath is; it doesn't mean that the whole thing turns to ashes and sackcloth if you drive to shul. And even if we're going to view the primary purpose and validation of marriage or relationships in terms of their ability to procreate (which seems a tad off to me), in this day and age, a man and a woman are far from the only combination that can lead to the creation of a child.

Religious liberals in Christian as well as Jewish denominations call it hypocritical to focus on biblical definitions of marriage or sanctions against homosexuality, while readily disregarding so many other rules from Scripture. Despite Old Testament references, they note, most people don't marry multiple wives today, or employ slave-like indentured servants in our homes, or avoid eating shellfish. But the Bible merely permitted polygamy and indentured servitude in certain circumstances, never commanding those practices for everyone. In Jewish law, male-female marriage, on the other hand, is a mitzvah — an obligation, a commandment. And to this day, Conservative Judaism still doesn't sanction shrimp.

See above Mike, cars on Shabbos and swordfish. There's precedent. You don't have to like it, but there it is.

...public pressure — not some startling discovery of ancient text — forced [Conservative] adjustment to 21st century trends. Arnold Eisen, chancellor-elect of The Jewish Theological Seminary, declared: "The decision to ordain gay and lesbian clergy at JTS is in keeping with the longstanding commitment of the Jewish tradition to pluralism. Pluralism means that we recognize more than one way to be a good Conservative Jew, more than one way of walking authentically in the path of our tradition."

In other words, he now embraces moral relativism in its modern-day "let's not be judgmental" garb and abandons the traditional role of religion to command or at least suggest clear standards for human behavior and intimate relationships.

The interesting thing here is that Medved continually believes that any decision by the Conservatives is motivated out of cynical self-interest as a marketing tool, not any sort of actual ideological belief. This is fine, of course, but it would be a little easier to swallow if he didn't tend to be such an apologist for things that fit his own political agenda and chide others on their lack of faith or benefit of the doubt.

Disaffected young people seldom flock to watered-down versions of religious faith that lack continuity or integrity. The rapidly growing denominations are those that make demands on potential adherents and advance clear standards of right and wrong. That's why Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity has grown while "mainline" Protestant denominations have dwindled, and why traditionalist Catholicism boasts more worldwide vitality than liberal strains of the church. Meanwhile, Mormons uphold multiple restrictions (giving up alcohol, coffee, tobacco, among other things) and yet constitute one of the fastest-growing creeds in the USA.

None of which, I'm sure, has anything to do with these folks' stance on birth control, abortion, or the value they place on having very large families, right? How about some stats on growth through changes in affiliation alone?

In Judaism, the same dynamic applies: with tepid, uncertain versions of the faith fighting a losing battle to maintain the affiliation of their young people, while the unaffiliated explore enthusiastic, traditionalist sects. No movement in Judaism has experienced anything like the explosive recent growth of the Hassidic organization, Chabad, with its 3,300 community centers miraculously appearing nearly everywhere and transforming the face of American Judaism. The Conservative movement has been losing influence during the past 40 years not because of its unbending adherence to outmoded rituals but because of its confusion, contradictions and gradual disregard of tradition.

Michael's partially right here, except he's forgetting that at the moment, REFORM is the largest denomination in America. So much for people only being interested in Chabad.

The core question remains the nature of religion itself and our relation to it. Should we challenge ourselves, or our faith traditions? Do we measure religion against personal impulses and values, or should we judge our impulses and values against religion? Should we adjust our faith to suit current trends and to enhance our comfort and convenience, or should we evaluate trends in the light of timeless teachings, no matter how unfashionable or inconvenient?

Or should we, like the Conservative movement has attempted to do, try some combination of BOTH? What a concept.

The choice is stark and, on the issue of marriage, inescapable. Talk of "pluralism" only dodges the issue, because if religion fails to provide forceful guidance on the most crucial behavioral issues of life, it offers only meager servings of lukewarm porridge. That might be good enough for Goldilocks, but it won't nourish the spiritual seekers who desire — and deserve — more commitment and clarity.

Fine, Michael. Let people who don't want to be Conservative Jews not be. But you're mistaken if you think that pluralism is a dodge and an excuse for Conservative to be as liberal as possible- the fact is that pluralism is a value. It may not be one of yours, but it is for millions of others, including, apparently, Conservative Jews. Yes, religion should indeed be a guiding force as well, but, as in pluralism itself, I believe there are many paths to Heaven or Enlightenment or whatever. Your suggestion to Conservative Judaism is that it become Orthodox (or maybe just on issues that really push your buttons, I can't tell). Some seekers may be turned off by perceived wishy-washiness, and that indeed is an issue. But so is defining exactly what the movement wants its future to be. It needs to find a way to hold its own in the middle while increasing numbers of Jews become- and choose to be- polarized. Conservative Judaism should not sell out its principles- whatever they are- to attract more members, either from the right OR the left. It needs to define ITSELF and try to enforce its own standards- not mine, and not yours. If pluralism is indeed a value of Conservative Judaism, its leaders need to figure out how to incorporate that into its future, on the one hand, not becoming "anything goes", but also not being instinctively reactionary on issues that happen to be controversial. You would have Conservative attempt to be Orthodox Lite (the easier to attack it, I suppose). I say let it find its own way.

Wherefore art thou, RW reform?

I don't give a hoot about halacha. I just don't. I wasn't raised with it, I don't see any good reason to follow it, and I certainly don't consider it binding. So, despite my father's many, many freakouts any time he sees me with a yarmulke on my head ("This is not a fucking shul!"), my position on Jewish law (and the presence of a shiska girlfriend) should demonstrate to him that there's no danger in me running off to Chabad anytime soon.

That said, last night I went to a Reform Kabbalat Shabbat. And, well, it just wasn't me.

Let me explain. I wasn't raised going to any shul, and in college I roomed with a friend who spent years (and years, and years) in the Conservative movement. At this point I've been to a few Conservative shuls, and though I don't identify either as a CJ or with CJ's theology, I must confess that there's something to their services I'm quite fond of. I like the Hebrew (though transliteration is a must), and I really like Carlebach-style singing. Ideologically, I'm basically somewhere on the Reform-Reconstructionist end of things, because I don't feel the need to grapple with halacha (count me in for Kaplan's vote-not-veto), and I really like the idea of individual choice- especially since, if I'm honest, that's what I'm going to do in any case.

So a few weeks ago Shiksa Girlfriend and I went to a nice, pretty small (and elderly) Conservative shul. Everyone was very nice to us (surprised, in fact, to see people they'd never met before), and were even impressed at our ability to "read" Hebrew (thanks to some handy transliterations a friend made me for my birthday). Last night, though, we went to a large Reform shul. I prepared SG by telling her it was the city's Jewish equivalent of a Mega-Church.

And indeed, it was. The whole time I was sitting there, I felt very, very uncomfortable (not unlike the last few times I've been to Reform services, come to think of it). To be fair, this isn't about ideology. It's largely about style. In regards to style, though, this was totally NOT my thing. The transliteration wasn't what I was used to (you-don-'t ne-eed to hy-ph-en-ate ev-ery wo-rd); and the whole thing seemed like a very weird combination of a couples mixer meets Jewish summer camp.

Sorry, did I say camp? Guess what the rabbi's sermon was about. See, it turns out evangelical Christians are scary. Fine, tell me something I don't know. Do we really need to spend the whole drash talking about a movie you saw last week? And comparing evangelicals, even the crazy dominionists, to Hamas? Yeah, fine, they train their kids to hate the government and non-believers. It's not like this is an exclusive thing here. Settlers in Hebron do that, too.

And it was particularly surreal hearing the rabbi complain about weirdo Christians given the fact that the music sounded like something from a Pentecostal fund-raiser (or light-Christian rock music station), right down to the- and this part scared the crap out me- weird finger waving at the end of the song. Sort of like a cross between this stuff and jazz hands.

Me: "Are they being ironic?"
SG: "I can't tell."

It's weird, because I usually spend all sorts of ridiculous energy defending Reform to bashers on the net, and one of the most regular cheap shots they toss out is that it's like church. Well, at this point I can say, it's not High Reform- which was certainly designed to emulate the German Lutherans of the day- but the comparisons are definitely there. The place I saw last night looked pretty damn charismatic Protestant to me. That's not a dig, it's just an observation. And it's not what I want.

I'm glad Reform exists. It needs to exist. (Not unlike my feelings about Orthodoxy- I would never choose it, and I have plenty of issues with it, but good for them.) And I haven't ruled it out yet. But at this point, my Conservative college roommate has ruined me: I need a more traditional service. So the search continues.

Money quote of the night upon leaving the shul:

Me: So, that was different.
SG: Yeah.
Me: Not to offend them- or you- but...
SG: What?
Me: It was just so... Christian!
SG: Wait, why are you lumping me in with them?

Brings a Tear to Me Eye

News flash: you know what sleazy Washington lobbyists apparently don't like? Being told what to do, or rather, not do.

When newly elected Democratic leaders promised tougher House and Senate ethics rules last year, some lobbyists predicted the plan would be but a ripple in a glass of champagne for an industry skilled at catering to congressional needs and wants.

Then came last week's bill, and a sobering realization: For the first time, lobbyists will be held personally accountable for obeying dozens of complicated contribution, gift, travel and sponsorship rules. Jail time, a remote but unnerving new prospect, has K Street working to interpret the rules.

Some angry lobbyists vow to do what they're paid to do: persuade members to change the bill before it becomes law in July.

That's right, if lobbyists are stopped from bribing or otherwise greasing the wheels/minds of politicians, there's only one thing to do- bribe them some more!

Lobbying league members were furious that members did not allow them much input into the rules, or how to comply.

"They passed this because they thought it was good for the republic," one said. "But they'll still call and say 'Hey buddy, can you spare a dime?' "

Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer with Foley & Lardner, was more blunt. "You remember 'Lysistrata?' " she asked, a Greek play about women who get their men to stop warring by denying them sex. "We know how to end this war. ... You could just not put out" campaign money.

It's extremely sad that this is seen as a threat. If anything, cutting down on campaign money should be a goal: what a concept, to have a government that isn't beholden to being bought and sold, or to have an election system in place where you don't have to be a millionaire or raise millions in campaigning (or both) in order to buy media attention and respect.

The legislation scheduled to take effect this summer makes golf dates, beach picnics and ball games with lobbyists the new risky behavior. With lobbyist-paid dining to be all but banned, gone is the pizza sent by lobbyists to treat Hill staffers working late on appropriations bills. Savvy House staffers now know that the popular rooftop party spot over Charlie Palmer's restaurant is fully visible from the window of offices of the House ethics committee -- whose members can act on what they see.

GOOD! Government transparency is a GOOD thing. If we can't shame the government and lobbyists on this, maybe we can at least scare them enough so they cool their jets.

Laurence Bory, corporate lobbyist at HDR, an architectural firm that handles big federal projects, attended a lobbyist breakfast near the Capitol last month with a congressional committee chairman who "ate breakfast at home, came with his own coffee mug, and told us his staff advised him that he shouldn't accept a refill," Bory recalled.

Better yet, have there not be any gifts involved. Have the lobbyists stop trying to pad their arguments with freebies. You want to give a presentation? Go for it. The rest of this stuff is just crap.

But wait, there are more sob stories!

The House rules took effect as the law firm Holland & Knight was organizing its February new members' welcome. Staffers took plans before the House and Senate ethics committees.

"They made it very clear: 'finger food,' " recalled Holland & Knight lawyer Rich Gold. " 'No sandwiches, nothing that would be considered a meal. You don't want people sitting down.' "

For 1,000 members, staffers, lawyers and clients mingling to the strains of a jazz trio among the Corinthian columns of the Cannon House office building's Caucus Room, "there was nowhere to sit, there was nowhere to even to put a drink down," Gold said. Attendees ate hors d'oeuvres with their hands.

...New travel rules say [House] members cannot be gone more than overnight, unless distance makes it necessary. They must answer 23 detailed questions about the trip on forms submitted to ethics staffers 30 days in advance. Lobbyists cannot arrange the trip, go along or provide a corporate plane. In the Senate, corporate jets will be allowed for campaign travel, but only if the senator pays the hefty equivalent of charter fare.

That pretty much kills the Association of American Railroads' annual legislative conference. Last winter the trade group flew 15 members and their spouses to Naples, Fla., for a weekend of briefings, shopping, sunning, golf and dinners. Now, the group will brief members in their offices.

Oh cry me a river. This happened because lobbyists- and government people- abuse the relationship. A bit of belt-tightening would be nice for a change. Let's make government about actual ideas and decisions, not how many perks you can get.

And incidentally, I suppose this is my chance to say that any Democrat supporting Bill Jefferson is a total partisan hack. The guy's a complete sleaze. Kick him out of office, try him, and nail his ass to the wall. Let the Dems show they're serious about corruption. Otherwise they're no better than the last Congress.

Women, Know Your Place

Pat Boone's got news for strong-willed women: even at your most capable, you're still only second-best.

I'm tempted to call this treatise "Weak Men Make Strong Women."
Consider the women, in our day, who have become the heads of state in India, Pakistan, Israel and Great Britain. Question: Is it likely that these very accomplished and brilliant women would have attained these positions if there had been men in evidence who seemed equally or perhaps even better qualified? Or was the ascendance of these women made possible by the public perception that there weren't men of sufficient stature, integrity and experience available?
Don't get all defensive, ladies; hear me out. I'm praising and complimenting you here. Thank God for you!

Yeah, stupids! Don't get the boxers-you-stole-from-your-husband in a twist. Pat's just pointing out that the only time women get elected is when all the men suck. It's a very special kind of backhanded compliment, sort of like saying, "the only way we'd let a black or a Jew in our country club is if all the WASPs start being total embarrassments (or poor)."

Pat has more:

As we look at the current political situation, we see Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House, women senators and representatives, and a certain lady senator from New York state actually considered to be the front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president of the United States. We're getting used to seeing women as chief executives of huge international companies from Hewlett Packard to Xerox, Lucent and eBay.
These women have not only occupied positions of power, they've been doing man-sized jobs... Is it likely that women would be chosen for our leaders in politics and government and business, if men assumed their traditional, time-honored and expected responsibilities of leadership and direction? Or is the phenomenon largely explained by the growing wimpiness, indecision, compromise and laxness of character among our men?

Apparently Golda Meir, Nancy Pelosi, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher- whatever their skills or qualifications, ultimately they're just a symbol of white males becoming emasculated. Heaven forbid any people (including, say, women) actually vote for people they LIKE, no, clearly a vote for a woman is nothing but a vote for the lesser of two evils, which really just means that men's capacities for leadership and responsibility are going downhill. In Pat's world, politics (and business, apparently) is a zero-sum game. If people vote for women, they must not think much of men. Frankly, I'm surprised he isn't blaming the liberal media or cable TV for all this- just look at how the Simpsons has led to the delegitimization of the father as patriarch of the family!

Pat concludes by ripping off a story from the book of Judges (a personal favorite):

In the book of Judges in the Bible, there's the story of Deborah, who described herself simply as "a mother in Israel," though she was a judge and prophetess who delivered God's directive to General Barak. The word was "The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you," and the command was to take 10,000 Israelites and attack the greatly superior army of the Canaanite Sisera. God would give Barak the victory.
But Barak wasn't sure; he told Deborah he'd only obey God's command if Deborah went with him. And the prophetess said, "Very well, I will go with you. But … the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will hand Sisera over to a woman."
And that's exactly what happened. When Barak's men completely routed the enemy army, and Sisera ducked into a tent to hide, a woman named Jael gave him some milk and covered him with a blanket – and while he slept, she took a tent peg and a hammer and drove the peg through his temple into the ground! Jael and Deborah were national heroines, celebrated to this day by the people of Israel.
And that's my observation. As men, who are the obvious candidates for leadership, abdicate their responsibilities and sell their birthrights for personal gain, strong and dedicated women will – please, God – step into the gap, rally their fellow citizens, and point us back toward the prize of the high calling.

That's right, Pat's happy there are strong women, because they're the only ones that can save us from Pussified men. He's counting on being able to galvanize the Soccer Moms of America in order to push the Christian Right's agenda. Good luck to you, Pat. May the best woman win.

O'Reilly Tries to Humiliate Stripper; Reveals he is an Idiot.

Oh my God.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: "Back of the Book" segment tonight. A report that may offend some viewers, so please be forewarned.

If you want to make some fast money in the USA and have the physical requirements, disrobing in clubs is one way to accomplish that.

At the University of Nebraska Omaha, Jenny Heineman got a job as a stripper and used the experience to write her thesis, entitled "Gender at Work: An Ethnography of a Midwest Strip Club."

...Ethnology, I thought that was an alternative fuel that we're trying to get. No, I'm sorry. What is ethnology?

JENNY HEINEMAN, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA: It's actually ethnography. And it's a study of a culture that you may be part of or an observation of different types of people.

O'REILLY: OK, ethnography. I'm sorry. So it's a study of a culture. And in America, there are 300,000 women working in strip clubs. So I guess you could say it was a culture. What did you find out? What is the headline?

HEINEMAN: Well, I believe that this job is still stigmatized, although the industry has been around for centuries. And it's this stigmatization that is dangerous for women.

O'REILLY: How so?

HEINEMAN: Because it prevents us from gaining the social and legal rights that we deserve.

O'REILLY: Well, you have to be more specific. Now, you're dancing in this club. You're making money. You're going to college. You actually graduated from the University of Nebraska in Omaha. So it doesn't look to me like you've been stigmatized.

HEINEMAN: I did with honors, actually.

O'REILLY: Well, that makes my point. Doesn't look like you've been stigmatized or held back in any way at all.

...HEINEMAN: The women themselves are the most brilliant, wonderful women I've ever met. They all have their own stories. And they're all there for very different reasons.

O'REILLY: And other studies have shown high levels of drug use, abuse. Some women take flight in this industry to make fast money because it's easy. Did you find any of that?

HEINEMAN: I can't say that I found a lot of that, no. And I think that that's true of all jobs, actually.

O'REILLY: I don't know. I mean, all I know is that there have been studies on this industry.

HEINEMAN: I believe that there's drug use in many jobs.

O'REILLY: OK, so your experience is positive. Now, why do you enjoy doing this? Obviously, you got the big tattoo on the arm. I mean, you're rebel. You enjoy it.

...O'REILLY: Why do you like it?

HEINEMAN: That's part of the point. But because it's just like any other job that you could enjoy. I enjoy my job at the coffee shop. I enjoy my job at the strip club. It's a very normal job.

...O'REILLY: It's not just like any other job. You're getting naked in front of guys. That's not what most job descriptions are. But anyway, congratulations on graduating. And we appreciate you coming on very well.

Actually, if you watch the video, you can see that O'Reilly refers to her major as "ethanology." After he was corrected, after she just told him the damn word, "ethnography," he says, "ethanography." Moron.

And yeah, she's got tattoos and likes her coworkers, refuses to admit they're all former abused junkies (none of that in, say, the news media), and dares to claim that strippers are stigmatized. Stupid whore.

For those of you keeping score on Fox's Moral Hypocrisy meter, there's another reason to check out the video- about half of the interview consists of the camera cutting to file footage of strippers dancing and making out with a wall. Oh yeah, but Heineman's the sleazy one.

Once more into the Jackass Lake!

Been away for a while. I'm sure you understand. But look what was sitting in my inbox when I returned! Tons of jackassery just waiting to be chewed, digested, and lovingly deposited into the putrefying compost heap I call this blog. So come, detritus-eaters, and let us peruse the latest in Conservative narishkeit.

Let's start with "Soy makes you queer" Jim Rutz, affectionately known as Rutz Carleton, Rutzie, Rutz Cracker, and my favorite, Senor Putz. Putz has a question for his readers- "how come people don't like me?" After all, Jim says, all he does is tell the truth: "After two years of writing this peaceful pillar of prose and treading oh so lightly on the toes of carefully selected interest groups, I have arrived at some objectively derived, scientific conclusions."

Uh huh.

Over these past two irenic years, I have touched gently upon the little foibles of liberals, homosexuals, Muslims, radical feminists, Nazi retreads, atheists, FDA bureauquacks, lawyers, Marxists, AP reporters, FEMA officials, Democrats, New Agers, politically correct trendoids and most recently, Hindus.

I cannot claim my analysis has defined all these groups distinctly; the overlaps among them are simply too massive. In fact, their psychospiritual distinctives often get lost in the dark swirl of misanthropic bile, rather like the inky clouds squirting from a distressed octopus.

Wow. A few paragraphs down, Rutz shares this gem:

I am saying that the interest groups I've mentioned above are composed mostly of people who are morally adrift – not mere victims of aberrant ideas, but devotedly evil in at least some respects. Their hate-riddled tirades and occasional vulgar or offensive tantrums are just the visible part of their ungodly edifice of twisted concepts and values.

...Make no mistake, a majority of the e-mails I get in response to my columns from homosexuals, Muslims, Hindus and some others are seething with hatred. And the odd part of that? They constantly accuse me of being hateful! The irony never strikes them.

Irony? Jim said Hindus "have no arguments that make much sense" and that their pantheon is "totally imaginary", and that the reason Indian Hindus are converting to Christianity is because Hinduism is "incapable" of performing healing miracles- unlike, say, Benny Hinn. Exactly what's ironic about this statement?

Such folks reject not only conservative economics, libertarian politics and Christian philosophy, but our precious, underlying foundations of polite behavior and moral restraint.

Like saying someone's religion is bullshit? I must have missed that in charm school. Jim also, incidentally, predicts that "the entire population of the world would be born-again Christians, under current trends, by 2032." Keep me updated on my impending conversion, Jim. This should be fun.

The issue isn't just right vs. wrong, but good vs. bad. And that's the problem behind the problem. (For further research, can anyone send me some good statistics on how many felons and drug addicts are Republicans?)

Take a look in some Southern prisons sometime, Jimmy. I kind of doubt that they're all Democrats.

Jim concludes with this pearl o'wisdom:

P.S. Did you ever notice that (apart from show biz types) beautiful women and good-looking guys are usually conservatives?

Which, considering the fact that he looks like this ==> , is pretty hysterical.

Let's see, what else? Roy Moore is at it again, showing us the "real" origin of the separation of Church & State:

The true meaning of "separation of church and state" can be traced to the Old Testament. The God of Israel separated the priests of the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron from the kings of the tribe of Judah and the family of David. And He took the separation very seriously. In 2 Chronicles 26, for example, when King Uzziah tried to usurp Azariah the priest's task of burning incense in the temple, the arrogant king was suddenly struck with leprosy for his disobedience.

...This is true separation of church and state, and a recognition that God ordained both. Whether a church is healthy and growing or fractious and failing, it is not the role of the state to interfere. The higher authority to which a church and its members answer is the Supreme Judge of the World, not the Supreme Court.

Hey, and maybe "checks and balances" actually refers to weighing sheaves of grain for sin-offerings at the Temple? And judicial review... well, that one's kind of tricky, but it probably involves a goat.

And what serving of dipshits would be complete without my old bud Prager? In addition to an old column that claims that America has not lost in Iraq, JUST LIKE Israel did not lose against Hezbollah last summer (I wonder what the Israeli hawks would say about that), I'd like to look at Dennis' latest offering. What brilliant insights today, Dennis?

Every day I see at least one car, usually more than one, sporting a bumper sticker that reads, "Buck Fush."

Apparently, some of our fellow Americans on the left find this message to be profound and witty. But it is not these individuals' presence or absence of wit or profundity that interests me here -- both are so obviously absent, no comments are necessary. It's their contempt for society and their narcissism that demand commentary.

Coming up next week, Dennis takes on a liberal coffee mug that goes too far...

And why is this suddenly a liberal thing? Bush's numbers are in the toilet. You don't think there aren't conservatives who want him to take a long walk off a short pier?

Dennis claims that one can tell who respects cultural values and mores of western civilization depending on how much regard they have for keeping their little swears to themselves.

But higher civilization has always regarded the use of expletives in public (outside of, let us say, theatrical performances) as a form of assault on civilization.

Maybe the self-appointed definers of "higher civilization" needed to pull the broomstick out of their asses and let it breathe once in a while.

No one monitors my private conversations, but just about everyone, at least until the 1960s, understood that there was something very wrong in saying such words on the radio or putting them on billboards.

That is why we have, as a society, crossed a line when people put expletives on bumper stickers ("S--t Happens," "Buck Fush") or use them in public in distinguished company -- as in newspaper interviews or campaign fund-raisers. Even the individual who puts a "Buck Fush" sticker on his or her car knows that the real "f-word" would constitute an assault on whatever remains of the concept of decency.

Except of course for the new court decision determining that, in fact, this is no longer the case, and citing Bush and Cheney as examples (see p. 27). But aside from that, sure, rah-rah, decency.

What else, Dennis?

So what does the increasing ubiquity of such stickers tell us?

It says a lot about parts of the left. For one thing, it tells us that leftist anger -- make that hatred -- of its opponents is probably the greatest politically inspired hatred in the country. Certainly there were many on the right who hated former President Bill Clinton, and that hatred did at times reflect poorly on the right. But, to the best of my knowledge, no Clinton-hater ever put a "Cuck Flinton" bumper sticker on a car.

That's right, everything the right did to the Clintons, that's all cool, but having a fake swear word on a car, that's just crossing a line. HORSESHIT.

Tell us more, D-dog.

The answer is that parts of the left have little or no belief in the concept of "decency" as traditionally understood by Western civilization. They tend to dismiss such notions as bourgeois anachronisms; they place great value on individuals expressing themselves; and they view self-censorship as a form of fascism.

It doesn't have to be fascism to be stupid, Dennis. I wouldn't call you Fascist, for instance. And the fact is that I recognize that there are different forums in which different standards of appropriate speech are necessary. But don't try and spin this line that you can know everything about a person's mentality, to the degree of how much they hate X or have disdain for decency, etc, based on a bumper sticker. I'm amazed you can even say this with a straight face. And you accepted money for this? What's next, analyzing the political reprecussions of belly-button lint, or "Personal grooming: How Lefty Laziness represents a Darker Threat"?

Take your decency and dignified public square of Western civilization, Dennis. I say fuck off.

Gingers!

Hm, it seems that there are more Cartmans in the world than I thought.

Photographer Charlotte Rushton has been chronicling the UK's redheads for a book, Ginger Snaps. Of the 300 she snapped, only two have been spared bullying because of their hair. She herself has suffered verbal abuse from complete strangers.

"I was on the Tube, pregnant, and I was really humiliated by this drunk yob. He was shouting 'do the cuffs and the collars match?' He got right up into my face. You don't do that to other people." She believes the phenomenon is long-standing and uniquely British in its most virulent form.

Sad, really. Though not nearly as sad as this.

Conservative backbencher Patrick Mercer, when recently sacked for alleged racism, sought to get himself out of a hole by comparing treatment of black soldiers to those with red hair. "That's the way it is in the Army. If someone is slow on the assault course, you'd get people shouting: 'Come on you fat bastard, come on you ginger bastard, come on you black bastard.'"

...Journalist Sharon Jaffa - also a red-head - says society must stop its ginger-baiting. "Growing up as a redhead I was lucky enough to escape with just the occasional name-calling - having the surname Jaffa was no doubt a double-whammy. But attacking someone on the basis of their hair colour can be every bit as damaging as persecuting someone for their race or religion, and therefore, in some cases, needs to be taken just as seriously."

...While other forms of the discrimination are the subject of marches, lobbying and education campaigns, redheads cannot expect the arrival of the politically correct cavalry anytime soon.

Someone shoot me. Preferably with something red. A traffic flare, maybe.

Memorial Day remix

Some old posts.

Death to Americans

I'm sorry, some people need a little killing.

Give me a break

Sultan's on the warpath again, which is fine. God knows we all feel the need to blow off steam and whip the appropriate men-o-straw (oh, mixed metaphors, how I love thee). Unfortunately, his latest piece takes this all a bit far.

Sultan accuses liberals of "exploiting terrorism and riots to their own advantage", and using a strategy of "security through appeasement".

With the exception of the civilian rioting angle, though, isn't this what both parties do? Is anyone seriously going to claim that conservatives don't exploit terrorism for their own political purposes and tactics? We're still hearing crap about how "terrorists want Democrats elected," and "if liberals come into power, it will lead to more terrorism," "don't switch horses in the middle of a race" and similar B.S. The two parties use terrorism as a great way of meshing foreign and domestic policy, and getting free scare tactics points, to boot. If liberals use rioters as pseudo-allies as a way of pressing their argument (vote for us or they'll be riots), I have to wonder if conservatives aren't equally guilty of using groups like Al Qaeda in a similar way.

Elections by way of the mob has been an old tactic of the progressive side. Andrew Jackson was after all elected by the mob, that proceeded to trample and trash the White House. In the French Revolution, murderous mobs were capably employed to deal with "Enemies of the Revolution", intimidating anyone who might dare speak out against them.

During the Civil War Riots in New York, touched off by the Democratic Tammany Hall in order to sabotage the War and help elect a Democrat President-- mobs targeted Republicans and Republican editors, before going off to lynch blacks and hang police officers from streetlamps. These riots were not only confined to New York either, but took place in several Northern urban centers that were Democratic party strongholds.

As demographics changed, so did the rioting. In the second half of the 20th century, American Democrats would be more likely to rely on riots by blacks, rather than riots against blacks-- a sea change for a party that had spent a good deal of time in bed with the Klan.

Here Sultan tries the old "both parties are the same now as they were 50/100/200 years ago" trick. When was the last time anyone called Andrew Jackson a progressive? He screwed Congress out of power to shore up the Executive branch, which sounds a lot like what Dubya's done during his term. Does that make HIM a progressive? Tammany Hall? Boss Tweed? Oh yeah, you can't go to any Democratic Convention without people singing his praises. Give me a break. That's like judging modern-day Republicans by using U.S. Grant and Benjamin Harrison as standards. (Or better yet, the American Republican Party- hey, it's almost the same name, that's good enough, right?) Besides, what happened to the "liberal/conservative" benchmark as opposed to Democrat and Republican?

In the age of Muslim Terror-- conservatives offer the defensive and offensive use of force-- while liberals preach that the only solution is to meet their grievances. When war efforts falter, the voices of liberals are more likely to be heard preaching appeasement. While the appeasement of course never succeeds-- it isn't meant to.

If conservatives respond to escalating violence with escalating force-- liberals respond with escalating appeasement. Violence is a condition they wish to prolong because it enables them to play 'Good Cop' warning that a failure to elect them will result in even greater violence.

See above. Conservatives play a slightly different tune ("we'll bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age") but they're playing the terror card and the "elect us or things will get worse card" just as much. "Only solution?" Yeah right. You could just as easily swing this the other way- liberals suggest a number of different responses, including force but also diplomacy, coalition-building, etc, whereas conservatives are more likely to want to go it alone, guns blazing, whether or not that's actually likely to solve the problem (see Afghanistan, Iraq). Neither approach is foolproof, and neither is fuck-up-proof. But this representation is simply dishonest. And don't think "the other guy's in bed with Bin Laden" isn't just another way of trying to come off as "Good Cop."

The essential liberal position holds that society as it is-- is evil and unjust and that violence against it, is directed by those who are oppressed by it. Violence is therefore righteous and it is the victims of violence who are at fault. This is not a condition that can be remedied by anything short of a Communist like transformation of society from one that serves individual ambitions, to a collective society that has rendered all individuality moot in favor of equality enforced by the state.

That's the "essential" liberal position? Says who? Marx, maybe, but I get the impression that most liberals are a tad more nuanced than that. Besides, conservatives also think some forms of violence are legitimate- the American Revolution, the Maccabee revolt, hell, this whole War On Terror thing. What's "collateral damage" if not blaming the victims? Oh, we dropped a bomb and flattened a village and the terrorists got away? Well, those villagers should have known better than to hang out with terrorists! Please.

The ultimate purpose of liberalism is to bring about this transformation into a totalitarian socialist state.

Go take a poll on that one and get back to me.

Violence is the means for achieving that transformation. To the progressives, violence by the disenfranchised and oppressed is the engine of social change. Only by voting for them-- can the violence be employed to bring about a real social transformation. Whether that violence is the violence of mobs ransacking the city in protest of having to fight a war on behalf of blacks or riots in the ghettoes-- whether it's suicide bombers in the London subway or rock throwers in the West Bank-- the left wing approach is to view that violence as a symptom of injustice which must be given in to in order to create a just society.

NOT necessarily. Sometimes, however, rioting is indeed symptomatic of larger social ills, such as in the French Revolution, which, despite its many flaws, was in part the result of people actually starving in the streets. This is the basic idea behind any civil disobedience- see the Orange revolution in Ukraine, the anti-Disengagement campaign in Israel, the Cedar revolution in Lebanon, Tiananmen Square, the riots to get Milosevic out of power, or the Civil Rights Movement. Just because some riots and protests are ONLY about violence doesn't mean that all riots are done for the hell of it. Furthermore, if riots are partially the result of cultural and economic alienation, then some combination of trying to address grievances with increased force is likely to be more effective in stopping them than just cracking skulls and prosecuting people, which is going to make the targets more radicalized, probably get them more support from fence-sitters, and eventually create an evolutionary process which makes them more dangerous because they know how to avoid getting caught. Force isn't always the best answer, and that's the problem with the conservative argument. No, we shouldn't give Bin Laden a foot massage, but we should understand why he's popular with Muslims and see if there's any way we can undercut that support without betraying our own values. (We can even leave Israel out of the equation for a minute: we support various totalitarian Arab and Muslim states because they're supposedly "pro-Western." If we started putting pressure on them to reform, we would probably look a lot less hypocritical to Arabs who see us blabbing about democracy as justification for nation-building while enabling so many countries to remain profoundly undemocratic.) Just because someone is an enemy doesn't preclude them from having a point.

Time for an Intervention?

Falwell claims "God told him" to eat Food

After being confronted on Tuesday by his entire extended family, Reverend Jerry Falwell admitted to cleaning out the household fridge, but said it was "almost positively" the will of the Lord. "You forget, children, I’m a pastor. I’m in almost constant communication with God," Falwell replied. "By the way, Jon, he says he wants you to take a few steps back. You’re blocking the TV, I mean, Devil machine."

Falwell continued. "Remember, family, ‘man does not live by bread alone’, saith the Lord. Now get your lazy ass to the store, Jeannie, and pick me up three honey-glazed hams, a jumbo-bucket of fried cheese, and some stuffed-quail on a stick. Come on, hustle! ‘Do not be a stumbling block before the blind man.’"

Falwell held a short press conference after the incident. "What happens between me and my family is not for public consumption," he remarked. "The Lord likes His privacy and so do I. If people want to know more, they’re going to have to subscribe to the members section of my website, Jerry’s Judgment. We have a great column up there right now in which I deconstruct the entire Homosexual Lobby-Grand Masonic-New World Order-Frito Lay, Inc.-conspiracy. Sign up now for only 29.95 a month, and I’m sure the Lord will bless you, eventually."

Jaundace Falwell-Smith, a distant cousin, said that this was the thirty-fifth occasion that she could remember Falwell ruining. "He ate the whole cake at my sixth birthday party, and then said I was possessed when I started crying. Let me tell you, we’d be mighty steamed if he didn’t have a direct pipeline to the Almighty."

Pat Robertson, a longtime colleague of Falwell’s, defended his friend on his television show, The 700 Club. "What people don’t seem to appreciate is that that’s God up there," he said, his giant ears almost levitating him off the ground. "When you get that call from the big guy, you don’t argue with him, you don’t debate, you do what he says. If he tells you to make dumb-ass political comments about stuff you know nothing about, you do it. If he tells you to make a complete ass out of yourself by faith-healing or quack medicine, you do that, too. And if he says, 'Jerry, that fridge full of food is an abomination unto me, vanish it from my sight,' well by God, I guess it’s chow time. To do anything else would be to stick your finger in God’s eye, and scientific testing has proved he doesn’t like that." Robertson went on to suggest that Falwell may have in fact just averted a natural disaster, and recommended that a government sub-committee be set up to investigate whether he should be awarded a medal for heroism. Fellow theological heavyweight John Hagee chastised Falwell's family for opening the preacher up to public scrutiny, and blamed the liberal media for blowing things out of proportion. "The Lord gave us dominion over the earth, and last I checked that included a man's own kitchen. To quote Saint Anthony: back off, forces of Satan!"

This marks the latest incident in which Falwell has cited Divine orders for stuffing his face since last August at the octennial Falwell Family Picnic, when, sources allege, he "totally ate all the potato salad." When someone complained, Falwell angrily muttered verses from the Book of Romans while simultaneously guzzling a 2-liter bottle of bacon drippings.

Dude!

Not cool. I understand the intent, but... no. Nuff said.

First thing we do is kill all the Sophists

WND's Andrew Longman claims Iraq's going "just fine." As you can imagine, as a person who does not live in a cave or some sort of catatonic state, I was a little surprised to hear this. But I decided to give Drew the benefit of the doubt.

There are only two problems with the Iraq war. One is that Iraqis like killing each other. The second is that it is emotionally unpleasant to watch Iraqis kill each other. But objectively, if viewed in regard to the interests of the United States, the Iraq war is doing just fine.

What are America's security needs? We need to be sure that a large, wealthy, military industrial complex does not have political leadership that would both generate weapons of mass destruction in defiance of regulation by international bodies, and would not simultaneously support Islamist terrorist organizations. On that score, Iraq is a big win.

Longfellow seems to be forgetting that a large chunk of the Iraqi fighters are Islamists, including Shiites, Sunnis, and Al Qaeda, many of whom have ties to various terrorist organizations, and who have been involved in what many would term terrorism within Iraq during the past several years. Swing and a miss!

Second, America needs to fight al-Qaida in such a way that their membership gets wiped out and ours does not. Ideally, then, we'd like to have the American military fighting the enemy on the other side of the world, far from our civilians. So, for fighting al-Qaida, you do not get a much better scenario than Iraq. Terrorists fly there using priceline.com, and "there" is geographically as far as you can get from North America. The only Americans terrorists can find there call in air strikes from their mobile phones rather than just the Starbucks store-locator.

Yeah, and if our troops were, say Mamluks and we didn't give a shit about them (or anyone we killed over there), we'd have nothing to worry about. But that's not the case. What else you got?

Today, Iraq is like an international bug-zapper for jihadists. It sendeth forth a glow in the night to all delirious Ahmadinejad wanna-bees, so they come flying from all over the world to die, to embarrass themselves, to fight a losing battle. We are even beginning to drain Iran of them.

Yo, Andy, pass me some of that crack, since you seem to be into the good stuff. Let's think this one through- a city has tons of murders in a year, and loses tons of its cops to violent crime in the process. Do the mayor and police chief high-five because their city is now a "bug-zapper?" And draining Iran? Since when? Those guys are so crazy they're accusing Ahmadinejad of being a godless heretic. Oh yeah, what progress.

As near as I can tell, Drewski's logic here seems to be that the more the Iraqis kill each other, the fewer crazy Iraqis there are. This logic would be iron-clad were it not for the fact that it seems to contradict almost everything we know about long-running civil wars and ethic/religious conflicts. You know, that whole cycle of hatred and violence thing? Take a look at South Africa, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and Israel and the West Bank while you're at it. If your only strategy is to let the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other until they're too tuckered out, you're in for a lot of killing (which, to be fair, looks like it's going to be happening in any event).

True, we should not be inactive on the humanitarian front. The actions of America in failing to protect the Christian minority has been a complete disgrace. But while we recognize this, the solution is not to defame the morality of the whole effort. It is to load up the platoons and protect those we can.

Actually, I'm pretty sure we've screwed up protecting almost anybody there, Short-man.

There's more:

Perspective is needed. America's security aims are being achieved and the most unbelievable military victories have taken place all at casualty levels considered record minimum by war historians. Humanitarian concerns and the 1,500-year-old hate between sects are primarily the responsibility of the Iraqis. Failing to heal the Middle East doesn't constitute failure on our part.

It does when we've been telling everybody that this was our GOAL! How many people do you think would have been on board with this crap if Bush told us we were going to make Iraq into a blood-soaked hellhole, minus the Baathists?

Andy concludes:

Our job is to keep our eye on the ball: making the terrorist miserable. Gen. Petraeus has pointed out on national TV that there are about eight military raids per day where al-Qaida are being captured or killed. Precisely why is that a "failure" in the war on terror? That's 3,000 raids per year on Osama bin Laden. Democrats were previously beside themselves that there were not enough al-Qaida in Iraq to justify invasion, but now that there are many and a franchise of the same name, Democrats want to leave because the fighting is hard. Is there a pattern here?

If the Iraq theater is measured by a standard of whether the Islamist caliphate is being defeated, that being the only relevant measure, then this war is strategically doing just fine.

Perspective, huh? Yeah, let's try some of that. Larry, help us out, will you? (Sholom said basically the same thing, incidentally, if a little more directly, as is his style.)

What are we to make of the bizarre contrast between our national grief over the terrible slaughter of students and faculty at Virginia Tech and our muted reaction to the continuing bloodbath in and around Baghdad? One mass killing in the 209 years since Virginia Tech was founded is not exactly a trend. It is a terrible thing but not likely to be repeated anytime soon.

We cannot say the same about events in Baghdad and Iraq. Just today four separate car bombs in and around Baghdad teft at least 160 Iraqis--mostly Shia--dead. Yesterday, Tuesday, at least 85 bodies turned up and there were more bombings. Monday was not much better--thirty corpses and at least twenty killed in bombings. Sixty nine plus on Sunday. And the beat goes on.

...When you consider the events of the last week in Iraq there is no reason any sane Iraqi--Sunni or Shia--would have any confidence in the Petraeus plan. Petraeus and U.S forces are in trouble. Desperate trouble. Despite White House flacks and politicians like McCain insisting that things are improving in Baghdad, the continued mass casualty bombings, the stacks of bodies left on the streets, the destruction of key infrastructure (like the Sarafiya bridge), and the bombing of the Iraqi parliament is reality and cannot be casually dismissed as the crazy ravings of a news media intent on reporting bad news.

Yup, sounds like we're doing a hell of a job. Maybe Longman should volunteer to go man the "zapper."

Lynch Crap

WND's Phyllis Schlafly-wannabe claims that she knows why Jennifer Lynch is getting "shunned" by the media. Let's see- is it because the media's been living up Bush's butt for the past seven years and, with help from Republicans in government and Fox News, have been consistently cock-blocked on the odd-attempt to actually find out real information? Or possibly that conservatives who made Lynch into an American hero to rally the flag behind have soured on her now that she's rebelling against their made-up BS?

Nope, says the heavy-metal-ex-wife-sounding Jane Chastain. It's because the media's mad that Lynch contradicts their feminist model of "women can be soldiers just like men."

Why did the press give the West Virginia beauty the cold shoulder this time around? She didn't follow the script that had been carefully crafted of her capture on March 23, 2003, after her Army maintenance company lost its way and was ambushed by the enemy. She didn't toe the radical feminist line of "I am a warrior, hear me roar!"

Um... ok?

Unfortunately, Jessica is either misinformed or she misspeaks when she blames the fabrication of her story on the Pentagon. Who was the "unnamed" U.S. official who gave the story to the Washington Post? That tag could fit hundreds of people. The military is awash with feminists anxious to prove that men and women are interchangeable fungibles.

That's right, any propagandizing of Lynch was clearly motivated by feminists, not warmongering patriotism-whore hawks. Got it?

When Jessica emerged from her trying ordeal, she unknowingly stepped into the middle of the debate over women in combat, and, by refusing to play the warrior role, she unwillingly poked her finger in the eye of the mainstream media, which seems hellbent on selling us on this notion. Yes, she can write a letter to Diane Sawyer or a network news organization and it will be read, but she isn't likely to get more airtime because she is considered no longer useful.

Yeah, except of course for that time she was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, way back at the HEIGHT of her popularity and where, incidentally, she blamed the military for making up details about her story. But never mind that, because those two gals were wearing pants and weren't at home baking cookies between pregnancies, so they really couldn't have anything useful to say in the first place, right?

Jessica was never a war hero. She is no longer a media hero. However, if she will go to the Center for Military Readiness and do some research on this issue of women in combat, she could use her position to wake up America and be a hero to all clear thinkers who don't wish to see enlisted women used as cannon fodder just so a few female officers can make it to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It may not be fair that the average man is six inches taller, 50 pounds heavier and has 42 percent more upper body strength than the average woman, but it is reality. There are many things women can do better than men, but being a warrior is not one of them!

Except that the military doesn't ban skinny short dudes from serving in combat. But never mind, since this strawman really doesn't have much to do with Lynch in the first place.

While I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would agree with Chastain's assessment, I'm not so sure anyone else does. Also, sorry to harsh Chastain's buzz, but while the "mainstream" media was definitely complicit in swallowing the White House's crap, it's not like liberals haven't been poking holes in the Lynch stuff before now (usually resulting in attacks from conservatives, a-la the Tillman case). To be fair, some conservatives and libertarians were, too, as were some in the media itself. Doesn't this sort of disprove Chastain's "the media promoted Lynch for feminism's sake" argument? As does this recent editorial in the NY Times by a former military honcho who blames GOVERNMENT, not the military, and incidentally, not the media (where exactly does the Pentagon fall in this case?) for inflating the Lynch story.

Interesting side-point- Chastain isn't alone in opposing women being in combat. Check out this article from LewRockwell.com. All the talk of how sending women to fight is unAmerican and unChristian made me chuckle.

Trephenation- the latest craze for idiots

I'm convinced: having a hole in his brain is pretty much the only explanation for Joe Farah's latest op-ed, "Don't discriminate, except …" Farah whines about Hollywood hypocrisy:

Tolerance.

Diversity.

Non-discrimination.

These are the high and mighty values by which our modern society measures its morality.

They sound nice.

They sound lofty.

They sound inclusive.

But never judge a word by its sound.

These words may evoke good feelings in you. But it is how words are defined that counts.

Farah then shows a copy of a memo from a talent agency looking for a Latino talk show host- what essentially looks like a casting call.

This is what tolerance, diversity and non-discrimination really means in Hollywood, in the world of government-subsidized broadcasting and in academia. It doesn't mean, as you might believe, all people are welcomed. It doesn't mean employment on the basis of merit alone. It doesn't mean non-discrimination.

It actually means discrimination on the basis of sex, skin color, ethnic origin, age, etc.

I suspect if you as an employer sent out such a memo recruiting for a white male of a certain age range, you would find yourself prosecuted. But as long as you are searching for people other than white males of a certain age range, it's anything goes.

Of course, color-blind Joe's objection against Hollywood typecasting would be a lot more hard-hitting if he hadn't repeatedly penned wacky screeds like this calling for racial profiling.

...I never seem to get checked.

Why am I complaining? Because I fit the profile of the very people who are most likely to hijack an airplane or blow it up in a suicide attack.

I am an Arab-American. I have an Arabic surname. I look Arabic.

I know what you are going to say: "Farah, pulling you out of line would be profiling. It's not American to discriminate against people because of their national origin or racial characteristics."

Need I remind my fellow Americans that we are at war? I personally would much prefer to see our country use its precious security resources more wisely. Not everyone is a security risk. Common sense needs to be employed if we are to make this country safer. Isn't it preferable to inconvenience me and people who look like me than to turn our entire country into a virtual police state?

...There is a way to make our airliners safe. We should follow the El Al model. I have flown El Al often. On El Al, I am treated with suspicion. All Arabs are. And that is why El Al had not witnessed a hijacking in 20 years until last week when an Arab secreted a knife on board a flight with a plan to commandeer the plane into an Israeli skyscraper. Sky marshals wrestled him to the ground and averted a disaster.

Why would I want to see a security system that would cause me more hassle? Because I want to see my flights land at airports – not in buildings. A few moments of irritation are well worth it. When I fly El Al, it gives me peace of mind to have my bags searched, to go through extra security checks, to be interrogated longer than non-Arabs.

Yo Joe, your brain's dripping on my shoes. Got a towel?

Flogging Dead Koreans

Apparently today was supposed to be blog of silence day. Sholom has more, including the reasons why he thinks this is horsecrap.

Following his lead, I once again feel the need to yell about VTech- or rather, more BS the right is throwing at it.

Pat Buchanan, take it away.

Almost no attention has been paid to the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was not an American at all, but an immigrant, an alien. Had this deranged young man who secretly hated us never come here, 32 people would be heading home from Blacksburg for summer vacation.

Pat, are you high? You're half German and a quarter Scots-Irish and Irish each. Does that make you an alien? Cho was a legal immigrant to this country, and there's no suggestion that the fact that he was an immigrant was what set him off. His whole family had the same status as him, and I don't know of any information that suggests they hated America. Besides, Cho came here at age eight. How do you know if he hated America then?

Cho was among the 864,000 Koreans here as a result of the Immigration Act of 1965, which threw the nation's doors open to the greatest invasion in history, an invasion opposed by a majority of our people. Thirty-six million, almost all from countries whose peoples have never fully assimilated in any Western country, now live in our midst.

People said the same thing about the Irish in the 1800s and Jews in the 1900s, Patty. Just because you think so doesn't make it true.

What happened in Blacksburg cannot be divorced from what's been happening to America since the immigration act brought tens of millions of strangers to these shores, even as the old bonds of national community began to disintegrate and dissolve in the social revolutions of the 1960s.

What immigrants AREN'T strangers? It's a new country with new customs and, in all likelihood, a new language. Am I missing something here?

To intellectuals, what makes America a nation is ideas – ideas in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Gettysburg Address and Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech.
But documents no matter how eloquent and words no matter how lovely do not a nation make. Before 1970, we were a people, a community, a country. Students would have said aloud of Cho: "Who is this guy? What's the matter with him?"
Teachers would have taken action to get him help – or get him out.

That's bullcrap, Pat. The fact is that America is a huge country with a large population. Add new technology and an influx of people to urban centers and you're going to have cultural alienation and a breakdown of community. That's just how it goes. Not only that, your conception of peoplehood and community is flawed. Even a supposedly ethnically homogenous country like England or Germany still has all sorts of divisions based on geographical, cultural and linguistic differences (watch a soccer game sometime if you don't believe me).Furthermore, there were violent rampages before 1970. Like, say, Bath School (1927), Howard Unruh (1949), Charles Starkweather (1957), the University of Texas (1965), and Richard Speck (1966).

Since the 1960s, we have become alienated from one another even as millions of strangers arrive every year. And as Americans no longer share the old ties of history, heritage, faith, language, tradition, culture, music, myth or morality, how can immigrants share those ties?

As I said, Pat, go to England, go to Germany, go to Scandinavia. There are always differences and rivalries within cultures. Besides, that's like saying that Italian-Americans and German-Americans can never get along because they have nothing in common. This is just crap. Faith? That's hysterical considering how much infighting there's been in America between Christians and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, Protestants against each other, not to mention various outsider groups like Mormons, Amish, Quakers, etc. Music? Are you serious? Yeah, if only we all could learn to appreciate waltzes, military marches and country music that would fix everything. If you think music is going to fix the problem of immigrants not assimilating, you're really off your rocker.

Many immigrants do not assimilate. Many do not wish to. They seek community in their separate subdivisions of our multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual mammoth mall of a nation.

And? Don't they have that right? Why is this not ok? Who decided the melting pot was the only legitimate model?

And in numbers higher than our native born, some are going berserk here.

Prove it!

The 1993 bombers of the World Trade Center and the killers of 9-11 were all immigrants or illegals.

First, an illegal is not the same as an immigrant, Pat. Even a moron like you should be able to understand the difference here. And those guys were terrorists whose goal was to infiltrate the United States as a strategic maneuver to inflict damage. That's not even close to coming here and then "going berserk."

Colin Ferguson, the Jamaican who massacred six and wounded 19 in an anti-white shooting spree on the Long Island Railroad, was an illegal. John Lee Malvo, the Beltway Sniper, was flotsam from the Caribbean.
Angel Resendez, the border-jumping rapist who killed at least nine women, was an illegal alien. Julio Gonzalez, who burned down the Happy Land social club in New York, killing 87, arrived in the Mariel boatlift.
Ali Hassan Abu Kama, who wounded seven, killing one, in a rampage on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, was a Palestinian. As was Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy.
The rifleman who murdered two CIA employees at the McLean, Va., headquarters was a Pakistani. When Chai Vang, a Hmong, was told by a party of Wisconsin hunters to vacate their deer stand, he shot six to death. Peter Odighizuwa, the gunman who killed the dean, a teacher and a student at the Appalachian School of Law, was a Nigerian.
Hesham Hadayet, who shot up the El Al counter at LAX, killing two and wounding four, was an Egyptian immigrant. Gamil al-Batouti, the copilot who yelled, "I put my faith in Allah's hands," as he crashed his plane into the Atlantic after departing JFK Airport, killing 217, was an Egyptian.
Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the UNC graduate who ran his SUV over nine people on Chapel Hill campus and said he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah," was an Iranian.
Juan Corona, who murdered 25 people in California to be ranked with the likes of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, was a Mexican.
Where does one find such facts? On VDARE.com, a website that covers the dark side of diversity covered up by a politically correct media, which seem to believe it is socially unhealthy for us Americans to see any correlation at all between mass migrations and mass murder.

Nice cherry-picked stats, Pat. Of course, anyone willing to do a basic google search will quickly discover that us Native Americans aren't too shabby in the killing each other department. What about other mass murders that "real" Americans committed? Like the Amish schoolhouse murders, or all those postal workers, or all those school shootings in the 80s and 90s, or Hastings Arthur Wise, or Brenda Ann Spencer or Mark Barton or James Pough or Theodore Strelski or John List or Brian Uyesugi? (Wait, are we counting Hawaiians as Americans? What about American Indians?) Are you really going to blame this all on immigrants? What about other serial killers, like Bundy or Gacy? What is this supposed to prove, exactly?

are we really a better, safer, freer, happier, more united and caring country than we were before, against our will, we became what Theodore Roosevelt called "a polyglot boarding house for the world"?

The two have nothing to do with each other, Pat. There will always be crazies, there will always be assholes, and there will always be criminals. The BS factor comes in when you try to act as if the problem is with crazy berserker immigrants instead of us lilly-white "real" Americans, a position particularly ironic since the original Nativists would have run a kraut-mick like yourself out of town as soon as look at you.

Get a clue, Pat.

Liberal Media my Ass

It's like Al Franken said (paraphrased), the problem with the media isn't left or right, it's that they're a bunch of lazy self-serving jackasses.

Case in point.

And for another example- just now Wolf Blitzer finished talking to John Edwards about Mitt Romney making fun of the 400-dollar haircut thing. Edwards said they should be talking about the issues. Fair enough.

"Coming up next- what would the Presidential candidates bring with them if they were stranded like Gilligan on a desert island? The answers might surprise you."

...I swear to God. Somebody get me a machete.

Drowning in a sea of Jackasses

Last night I was watching a PBS documentary on Mormons, and it mentioned that the Mormon church has a big problem with Mormon "intellectuals" (apparently a rather pejorative term within the community), especially when they publish or question official Mormon history and doctrine in public. More than a few have been excommunicated for it in the past few years.

One of the non-Mormon historians (he might have been an archaeologist) the filmmakers interviewed was trying to give some context to the whole thing and said something very interesting- "Mormonism isn't unique in needing validation from the historical record- there's still no archaeological evidence that the Exodus happened."

"But Jews don't give a shit!," I cried to anyone who would listen. And that's sort of true, but not always. The best recent example of this is when Conservative Rabbi David Wolpe gave a Passover sermon saying if the Exodus had happened at all, it probably didn't resemble the story in the Torah (he also said the whole issue didn't matter, since the historicity of the story wasn't what was important). While some people agreed with him, or at least got the point, others all but called the rabbi an apikoros. (Hi Dennis!)

Among other things, Dennis Prager accused the media's timing of being biased:

During Passover and on Good Friday the Los Angeles Times published a front-page article titled "Doubting the Story of Exodus." The timing was typical of the insensitivity often shown in mainstream media to religious Jews and Christians. It is unimaginable, for example, that any mainstream newspaper would ever print a front-page article on Martin Luther King’s extramarital affairs on Martin Luther King Day.

Dennis missed the fact that the LA Times story was at least partially in response to/covering the Wolpe incident, which happened a week earlier. Oh well, not important, I'm sure. This issue is particularly interesting, because six years later, we see the same argument being parrotted by YidwithLid, who has a bee in his bonnet (kippah?) over the same damn issue.

NY Times Tries to De-legitimize Judaism

On the first day of Passover the NY Times sunk to a new low in their editorial policy of trying to de-legitimize the State of Israel. They adopted the Arab strategy of trying to deny Jewish History to take away the Jewish people's claim on the Exodus. As many of us coming were coming home from telling the Exodus story at the first Seder, the Times was printing a story saying that he Exodus didn't happen.

Let me digress for a second, I don't need the NY Times or anybody else to tell me what did or didn't happen in the Exodus, as David Ben Gurion said any Jew who does not believe in miracles is not a realist. Part of believing in G-d is having faith. Faith doesn't need proof. But it would be nice for the NY Times to read a Torah so they know what they are talking about.

...The Times takes an article about an archaeological dig in the Northern Sinai to try to dispel one of the most central themes of all Jewish Theology, the Exodus. Of course they were looking in the WRONG place.

Why would the Times pick the first day of Passover to tell such "cock and bull story?" Maybe its just another way for the NY Times owners to disassociate themselves from the Jewish community like when they buried the early reports of the Holocaust. Either way it seems like part of their attempt to de-ligitimize Israel, by removing any association between Jews and the land.

Oh for the love of Bacon Cheeseburgers.

A newspaper reporting on a story tangentially related to Passover in some proximity to the holiday of Passover? Outrageous! Wow, that's almost as bad as the Discovery Channel running a loopy documentary about Jesus in the same month as Easter. Except worse, I'm sure, because it involves us, and our issues are worth more pissed-off points than the goyim's.

Hey Yiddle, how about the fact that the Times is far from the first paper to run a story like this? Does them being part a trend complicate your vision of their singular jackassery? Or does it just mean every paper that challenges Exodus in springtime is in the same self-hating boat? What about rabbis like Wolpe, who are saying similar things? I've been to a few Shabbats where the odd frumie said something snide like, "oh yeah, the Conservatives say Exodus didn't happen", but even they don't seem to suggest that it's a plot to delegitimize Judaism, much less Israel as a state. Admit it, this is a joke, right?

In other moronic news, Pat Boone is still insisting he can read, so by WND's journalistic standards, that makes him good enough to print. He compares Harry Reid to Moses' spies in Canaan, who, he notes, "were completely demoralized and defeated by one negative report!" Yes Pat, and I'm sure it had just been shlepped in from the Kinko's, just like modern times.

There's more.

Any of this sound familiar, like anything that's happened in our own current events, just this last few weeks?

Surely you heard Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announce sorrowfully in a press conference for all the world to see and hear, "… this war is lost." Just like that. Story ended. We're defeated; we can't win. Our enemies are too much for us, and we've got to tuck our tails between our legs and come home fast as we can. We're grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we are in their sight.

This pronouncement contradicting the assessments of our own Caleb, Gen. Patraeus, and our other military leaders on the ground in Iraq, who are telling us that we can win, that over 3,000 young Americans have not died in a failed mission, that though a violent segment of Iraqis are indeed "devouring their own inhabitants," America and its allies are gradually securing the land for freedom and self-government. Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan and the other dissenters to the contrary, our Calebs and Joshuas are assuring us that American might and purpose will prevail!

If we have the will. If we don't turn and run.

And if we still believe there is a mighty God who has historically taken an interest in America and our conflicts, and who has given us victory over all opponents when we were united in resolve and purpose. And most importantly, perhaps, when we openly and collectively declared our dependence on Him and sought His aid, not depending solely on our own judgment and abilities.

Do you realize that, in our whole history, America has never been defeated – when we were united under God?

Oh, is THAT the secret? If we only just shut up, keep praying, and believe that God likes us best, THEN it all works out, but if we actually do some critical thinking then we get smitten? Damn it, God, why did you give us this capacity to ask questions or look at evidence? Why couldn't we have been made like deep-sea fish or moles? And Pat, news flash- America's a relatively young country, and it's not like awful things haven't happened to us over the course of even that history. Remember when the British blew up the goddamn White House?

That's not claiming, presumptuously, that we've always been perfectly right in our various purposes and tactics – far from it – but by God's grace, when we have pulled together, supported our fighting forces with everything in us, praying publicly and believing God would grant us victory over our enemies, He has!

When we've been divided, we've lost. Not often, but history tells the truth: A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Maybe some of the reasons we become divided over wars are the same reasons we lose them- stragetic reasons, moral reasons, etc. What good does it do to have a magic invisible man helping us win every battle if there are good reasons we shouldn't be fighting it? Pat's argument falls apart the second you question whether America fighting in Iraq is a good thing- to say nothing of the fact that it presumes a victory is both possible as well as existent. What would "victory" in Iraq look like? Presumably it would involve Sunnis and Shiites not killing each other and no foreign elements fucking with govt. policy, be they Al Qaeda, Iraq, Syria, etc. The second component could (theoretically) be achieved through military action, but I don't see how killing the Iraqis is going to make them hate each other less (though it will make them hate us more).

At this moment in time, we are a house divided. Our president, our commander in chief, our military, and still a large percentage of the populace and our elected representatives believe in the urgency and rightness of our military presence in the Middle East. We're not just fighting to liberate another nation and establish democratic government in that part of the world; we're also serving notice to our demonically ruthless sworn enemies that we will not tolerate their coming into our midst to kill and demoralize us. Rather, we'll come looking for them, and we'll bring a superior force and face them in their own part of the world – not in our homeland.

Except that it's not working, we're still dying, and the Iraqi fighters don't seem to be easing up. In the meantime, our army is depleted and demoralized and other places we've committed to help are feeling the neglect- like, oh, I don't know, Afghanistan, or Waziristan, which a lot of Americans have probably never even heard of. Also, a large percentage? Where are you getting those numbers? Bush's popularity is in the toilet, and the war isn't faring much better. A recent Gallup poll says 60% of Americans want a timetable on ending the war. Is this another strategy of yours, kind of like prayer? If you just believe people agree with you, that'll make it happen?

And though it's been unexpectedly difficult and costly, our troops – still the strongest and best equipped in the world – appear to believe overwhelmingly that we're accomplishing our goal, and want to finish the job, no matter what it costs.

That is absolute horsecrap. At this point our troops are exhausted and overworked and our equipment is shit. It's easy for Pat Boone to congratulate the troops on kicking ass, he doesn't have to go on a third tour in Baghdad.

To them, and many Americans, defeat and surrender is just not an option.

And sacrificing another three thousands Americans for a situation that shows no signs of improvement IS? What planet are you living on?

But how do you think our enemies received Harry Reid's pronouncement?

I think they received it with shouts of glee, triumph and renewed purpose. I think it inspired them with new resolve to kill as many innocent Iraqis as possible and as many patrolling American soldiers as possible – and both as quickly as possible.

Since when do Republicans care about what our enemies think? Now you're listening to the Arab street? What a crock. Our enemies in the Middle East don't need our help to shout with glee- they're winning, we're dying, and we still don't know why

Jesus Crap.