Whymrhymer: The Venerable Infidel

2006-10-15T11:11:00.000-05:00

If You Need Me, I'll Be At BNN! I haven't been updating this blog on a regular basis because I found someplace better! It might be better for you too! If you enjoy blogging and enjoy keeping up to date on current events and think you might enjoy combining those two interests, here's the place to consider going: Blogger News Network. At BNN you'll have more exposure and quite possibly some other benefits that might 'ring your bell'. Think you might be interested? Think the BNN editor might be interested in you? Go to THIS LINK to find out how to find out!! See ya' at BNN! Regards, Whymrhymer: The Venerable Infidel

2006-10-05T00:37:00.000-05:00

What's News? 10/5/06 The Despicable Westboro Baptist Church News and Opinion by: Whymrhymer The news papers call them “controversial” but that hardly fits an organization that would even consider staging a protest at a military funeral or, their latest outrage, planning a protest at the funerals of the five Amish girls who were brutally murdered by a twisted psychopath this week. This latest protest is now off the ‘drawing board,’ NOT out of the goodness of their hearts (not that there is much ‘goodness’ to be found in their hearts) but because a National talk show host, Mike Galligher, has bought them off with one hour of airtime on his radio show. I see Mike Galligher’s point and understand his decision but there is a much better alternative; if the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, had the guts he would have made sure the National Guard was on hand to prevent any protests and worry about any legal ramifications later. He has the power but apparently not the intestinal fortitude. Something should have been done about the funeral protests immediately after the very first one. Harassing a mourning family is NOT an expression of freedom of religion. News Links: Baptist group decides not to picket funerals of Amish girls WBC Cancels Protest of Amish Funerals

2006-10-04T01:04:00.000-05:00

What's News? 10/4/06 Death in a One-Room Schoolhouse: The Guilt of a Child Occasionally things happen that, at least initially, defy understanding, such was the case when Charles Roberts, a 32-year old milk truck driver, family man and supposedly a religious man, walked into a one-room Amish school house on Monday and began the well-thought out process that would end with the murder of five children, all girls, and his own suicide. News reports, initially full of equal parts of wonder, horror and speculation are now starting to be filled in with facts . . . facts that appear to illustrate how profoundly the experiences of a child can affect that child's behavior far into adulthood. The following is, admittedly, speculation but based on the facts we now know, I think it's pretty close to the reality that will eventually be pieced together: Charles Roberts claims to have molested two female relatives when he was just 11 or 12 years old; whether or not his actions at that time were technically, legally, morally or ethically "molestation" matters not a whit! All that matters is that he perceived what he did to be molesting two much younger girls and he has lived with the guilt and shame of the act for 20 years -- guilt that, we can speculate, must have been generated by a strong religious background. Many years later, when his first-born daughter died almost immediately after his wife Marie gave birth to her, Roberts did not see that death as a natural occurrence caused by some defective organ in the newborn, and regardless of the actual, medical cause of the newborn's death, Roberts, no doubt, saw it as his punishment . . . his punishment by God for his sins, and specifically he saw his daughter taken away from him to punish him for his act of "molestation" so many years before.

"I am filled with so much hate, hate toward myself hate towards God and unimaginable emptyness it seems like everytime we do something fun I think about how Elise wasn't here to share it with us."

Those were his words in his last note to his wife, a note he left while she was at church where, ironically, she and a group of mothers meet regularly to pray for school children. At this final stage of his life it seems that Roberts has, in his own mind, gone from being a perpetrator to being a victim. He has probably convinced himself through twisted logic that the two little girls he was involved with as a young boy are responsible for seducing him and are therefore responsible for the incident that, those many years later, brought down the 'wrath of God' upon him. This is also evidenced by the fact that, in that same note where talked about what he had done, and about being filed with guilt and hate, he also admitted that for the past two years he had been having dreams about "doing it again." Dreams forced on him, he no doubt felt, by the two girls who seduced him. Having found the real 'culprits,' for all his misery he then set out for revenge -- and the rest is well documented in every news media outlet. He meticulously planned what he was going to do which evidently involved "doing it again" as he dreamed he would. Aside from the murder weapon, the police found that Roberts had, over the past week, purchased and otherwise gathered the things he planned to use when he walked into that one-room school house; he had extra clothing, toilet paper, a flashlight and a candle, other weapons and, most telling, he brought two tubes of K-Y Jelly and devices police feel were going to be used to restrain his young victims. It appears obvious, when you study the early lives of successes, failures, saints and sinners, that the power of the sum total of a child's experiences can contribute significantly to the behaviors and thought processes of the adult that child becomes. In the case of Charles Roberts, the experiences of childhood came back to destroy him and, as a terrible consequence, rob five young girls of their chance for a full childhood. News Links: Schoolhouse killer haunted by guilt Gunman told his wife he molested relatives

2006-10-03T01:40:00.000-05:00

What's News? 10/3/06 Military Moving Into the Background in Thailand Back on September 19th, in the dead of the night, Thailand's government changed hands in a bloodless coup; martial law was imposed and Thailand's Constitution was revoked when Lt.-Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratglin, Thailand's top military officer took control. The coup was apparently orchestrated by the king of Thailand, 78-year old King Bhumibol Adulyadej; a king who was unhappy about the way his country was being run.. At the time, it was announced that the Thailand government would be under the control of a "Council of Administrative Reform," with the King acting as head of state. Coup leaders promised that a new Prime Minister would be installed within two weeks. As promised, within two weeks, Thailand's new Prime Minister has been appointed and has started work over the weekend. The new Thai Prime Minister, General Surayud Chulanont (the former commander-in-chief of the Thai military) began his term in office with a blessing by His Holiness Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara Somdet Phra Sangharaja, the country's leading Buddhist monk, and he then made a statement to the media in which he reiterated that his appointment as Thailand's Prime Minister was an interim post. General Chulanont will hold the post for one year while Thailand's new Constitution is being drawn up and, presumably, then elections will be held to allow the people to choose a Prime Minister. The country may appear as if it is returning to normal but it should be noted that the person who is really in charge of the country is not the new Prime Minister, it is Gen. Boonyaratglin. Right now Gen. Boonyaratglin has the power to say who stays in the government and who goes out of it and, most importantly, Gen. Boonyaratglin has the power to select the persons who will draft Thailand's new Constitution. According to the CIA World Factbook, Thailand's government is a Constitutional Monarchy it is not, strictly speaking, a Democracy (although you will find it referred to as a Democracy in numerous news media accounts -- possibly even some of mine). The country is run by the King and it is the will of the current King that Thailand shall have a Constitution, and they will have . . . after he approves it! News Links: New Thai PM looks for harmony amid post-coup rifts Bank official joins interim Thai Cabinet Filed by: Whymrhymer

2006-10-03T01:29:00.000-05:00

What's News? 10/2/06 Foley's Folly Sparks Partisan Politics Republican Florida Congressman Mark Foley may now be addressed as ex-Congressman Foley. After allegations that he had inappropriately (and perhaps illegally) communicated with former House pages (teenaged males) with email and instant messages that were apparently of a sexual nature, he resigned from the House of Representatives on Friday. That, and the fact that the FBI and the Florida Bureau of Investigation are both investigating his communications should be enough to put the matter to rest but this is Washington and this is an election year and shark fins are in the water everywhere. The Republican House Speaker, J. Dennis Hastert (Ill) is the one who got the FBI and Florida law enforcement involved in the case, but a score of Democrats are being reported by an eager press corps as saying that he only did that after they started putting pressure on him. The implications are, of course, that the Democrats are more concerned about sexual improprieties than the Republicans and, had it not been for the moral outrage of Democrats, Republicans would have done nothing beyond slapping Foley's wrist and giving him a time out in the fabled House cloakroom. Rep. Hastert, on the other hand, is saying that he had no reason to suspect that any laws (Federal or otherwise) were broken; they knew about "overly-friendly" (but not sexual) email sent to a 16-year old former page, had talked to Foley about that and told him to stop it immediately. It wasn't until last week, according to Hastert, that they learned of some sexually explicit messages Foley had previously sent to other boys who had served as pages; it was after that that Hastert requested FBI involvement. If the allegations prove to be true and Foley is found guilty of Federal, state or local crimes, he should be punished appropriately under the applicable laws, but turning this sad situation into a partisan political circus with the objective of gaining votes in the upcoming election is not, by any measure, a noble deed. The focus now should be on the Page Program and how to avoid this type of harassment in the future, not on how to manipulate this situation to gain or avoid losing votes in November. News Links: Scandal opens new door for Democrats FBI to Look at Foley's Actions

2006-10-03T01:20:00.000-05:00

The Woodward Assumption In his new book titled "State of Denial," Bob Woodward (star scandalmonger at the Washington Post) alleges that President Bush did not tell the public or the Congress everything he knew about what he calls the deteriorating Iraq situation that was leading to a civil war. One problem with Woodward's charge of malfeasance is the same problem you see with anyone who makes an allegation, especially the ones who are being highly paid to make allegations. You must either choose to trust the accusor or trust the one being accused; in this case you must either trust Bob Woodward's words and sources more than you trust the man you elected to be President. You decide! Another problem with Woodward's charges is there seems to be a lot of 'assuming' going on. What Woodward assumes is a "deteriorating situation" may, through the eyes of an experienced Middle-East analyst, be a normal series of events occurring as predicted -- no 'red flag,' no reason to call in Congressional leaders. What Woodward sees as an eminent civil war may be, through those experienced eyes, an expected escalation of violence that is being 'handled' as well as it can be; again no 'red flag.' A sitting President does not make decisions in a vacuum, he has intelligence estimates and a powerful set of advisors. What does Bob Woodward have besides some no doubt anonymous sources and . . . oh yes . . . and a book contract. The proof of how Bob Woodward sees the world of Washington is there in his Washington Post article today; in an incredible display of naivete he makes this makes this statement:

"There was a vast difference between what the White House and Pentagon knew about the situation in Iraq and what they were saying publicly."

By golly! I sure hope so! If I sound like I'm being an apologist for President Bush . . . I'm far from that, but neither am I an advocate of taking away the power of the president (be he Republican or Democrat) to make decisions on Natonal Security issues and I sincerely feel that you can be sure that if there was something that the Congress or the general public really needed to know, they would have known it. Opinion by: Whymrhymer

2006-09-24T12:24:00.000-05:00

Venezuelan Diplomat Whines: Not Treated "Special" at JFK by Whymrhymer News reports cite a White House source who says that Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's foreign minister arrived at JFK airport Saturday night just 30 minutes before his flight was to take off, he paid cash for his tickets, he refused to go through a security check, and he did not immediately inform airport security that he was a foreign diplomat. In other words, his own actions triggered a security alert. Then, when his diplomatic status was discovered, only after his travel documents and passport were confiscated, and he was given permission to board, he refused to get on the plane. In a press conference, Maduro (as reported by the Venezuelan press and linked below) denies none of that but instead claims that the only reason he was detained was because of retaliation for his boss' (President Hugo Chavez's) well publicized "devil" speech at the UN. What happened and why, in this particular instance, isn't as important as the question: why doesn't it happen more often? As I see it, the problem is the treatment regularly given to foreign diplomats; they are allowed to bypass everything except the cocktails when they fly between countries. If anyone were to ask me, I'd say that we (our Homeland Security Department and their Transportation Security Administration) must be insane! Time to Review Vienna Convention Accords Granted, we have been giving foreign diplomats this "royal treatment" since 1961 when we signed on to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations but times have changed and the world is a more dangerous place than it was perceived to be in 1961; we are living in the 'Decade of Terrorism.' Isn't it time for diplomatic niceties that compromise security to stop? Take a Cue from Australia In Australia last year, Britain's Prince Andrew found out that that no one is exempt from Australia's airport security procedures. Bravo Australia! You're actions may be a breach of an international treaty but airline passengers flying through your cities will be safer since you tore up your "white list." What's more important? Perhaps the United States should also start reviewing its airport procedures where diplomatic immunity can allow certain "special" people to carry whatever they like onto airplanes. I can certainly understand why we have to allow documents in a diplomatic pouch, carried by a diplomatic courier, to pass unchecked but there is no defensible reason that personal effects and the diplomats themselves should not undergo scrutiny by airport security officials -- especially diplomats from countries that are hostile to ours (e.g., Venezuela, Iran, Syria, etc.). That may be viewed as "profiling," not to mention extreme political incorrectness, and that is exactly what it is. As Europe's top human rights official, Council of Europe Secretary General Terry Davis, admitted last month: "Immunity should not mean impunity” or, an appropriate paraphrase might be: 'Immunity should not mean stupidity.' News Links: Aide Detained at Airport en Route to Venezuela Venezuelan Foreign Minister in Temporary Police Custody in New York You can find this article and a whole host of other informative, thought-provoking articles at The Blogger News Network

2006-09-24T12:02:00.000-05:00

Osama's Death: That Might be a Bad Thing! by Whymrhymer Rumors of Osama bin Laden's death are wildly circulating through the media and causing speculation and, one gets the impression, a sense of hope! Lets assume, for a moment at least, that the rumors are true, that Osama died of typhoid earlier this month in Pakistan. What would be the net effect of his death? The first thing that comes to mind is that Osama, since September 11, 2001, has become an icon for Islamic fundamentalists. What happens when an icon, any icon, is lost or dies? He, she or it becomes larger than life. Myths spring up and the icon takes on an almost religious significance that is partially based on fact but primarily based on the emotional impact of the loss. Mindless, emotional reactions are always dangerous and many times, violent. In the case of Osama's death, be it real or staged, Osama's "memory" will bring many new converts to the ranks of radical, fundamentalist Islam. New warriors, as they see themselves, not only fighting for the glory of Allah and the wisdom of Mohammed but now for the memory of a "legendary" Osama bin Laden. And who do you suppose will be held directly responsible for Osama's death? Who will see renewed attacks against it's troops and facilities? The United States, of course. That the United States is responsible for Osama's death is, in reality, an undeniable truth -- if only a partial truth. Back in 2001 the President of the United States vowed to catch him and hold him accountable for his crimes so Osama ran and hid in the mountains -- like a coward -- rather than lead his "warriors" into battle against "the great Satan." In the mountains his pre-existing medical conditions would have only gotten worse and his physical condition could have only deteriorated. Osama dead or alive! Neither option is good for America, but dead might be, at least for a while, worse. News Link: Bin Laden: Dead Or Alive? You can find this article and a treasure trove of other timely and thought-provoking articles at the The Blogger News Network. Go now and visit!!

2006-09-24T11:56:00.000-05:00

New Agreement on Rules for Interrogating Terrorists: Merely Theatrics by Whymrhymer The President and those Senators whom many Conservatives call RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) have reached an agreement that leaves the Geneva Convention intact and sets down the rules for U.S. interrogation of terrorists in detainment -- once again stressing the RINOs apparent point that appearances are more important than results. It's easy to see why there was opposition to the President's proposal to revise our interpretation of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention certainly needs revision, just to clarify it's too vague language but the opposition is concerned primarily because unilaterally revising the language of the Geneva Convention, in effect, breaks a treaty that has been agreed to and signed by many (approx. 194) nations. Our tampering with the Geneva Convention may also effect the treatment our soldiers are given if they are captured by a nation that has signed the Geneva Convention. All that, as interesting and important as it is, is really quite beside the point. If we were to go to war with a nation that has not signed on to the Geneva Convention or against fighters that do not recognize the Geneva Convention, they would not follow it's rules and, of course, we would not be bound by it's rules. Such was the case in Viet Nam against the Vietcong, such is the case in the current Middle-East conflicts against terrorists. The Geneva Convention is actually a set of four separate Geneva Conventions, the Third Geneva Convention is the one that governs the treatment of Prisoners of War. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention defines Prisoners of War as: 1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces. 2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, "provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions" (emphasis mine): a) They must be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. b) They must have a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" c) They must carry their weapons openly. d) They must conduct their operations "in accordance with the laws and customs of war." As anyone can see, terrorists wearing the clothes of the common man of the region, using car bombs and roadside bombs as their weapons of choice, who target non-military (civilian) buildings and situations and who are well known to brutally behead their detainees with dull knives (and video tape it for release to the media), can hardly be considered prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. These people can, IMO, hardly be considered worth of the title: human beings. Very clearly, you can ignore all references to the Geneva Convention in the press accounts and the Congressional banter -- the Geneva Convention does not apply to detained terrorists. The machinations that the President and Congress are going through have, in fact, nothing to do with the Geneva Convention. What is going on in Washington is partly the continuation of a 5-1/2-year power struggle between Conservatives and Liberals and partly a show put on for the world to see how much we "care" about our imprisoned terrorists. The net result of the show is, at least on the surface, the weakening of our ability to effectively interrogate captured terrorists. In my opinion, this discussion between the President and the Senate, that the public has been so intimately involved in, should have been conducted in closed sessions -- not in the public arena. The public has no pressing need to know about our policies governing our government's interrogation of terrorists. No private citizen is involved, and no private citizen will benefit or be harmed by those interrogation techniques. News Links: Deal set covering rights of terror suspects Deal on detainees quells GOP infighting You can find this article and a treasure trove of other timely and thought-provoking articles at the The Blogger News Network. Go now and visit!!

2006-09-21T10:38:00.000-05:00

Is the Senate Finally Getting Serious on Immigration? by Whymrhymer The Associated Press Story that leads the U.S. news front today declares that Congress is hard at work addressing border security and immigration. To say 'it's about time' would be an understatement. The debate underway in the Senate concerns proposed legislation to build a 700-mile fence along the U.S./Mexican border, which would go a long way to securing the most porous one-third of that border. The House, this week, is working on three bills that will 1) criminalize the building of unauthorized tunnels between the U.S. and Mexico, 2) make it easier to deport illegals who belong to gangs or commit crimes and 3) clear up the gray areas that will allow state and local authorities to assist U.S. Customs and Immigration officials with the capture and detention of illegal immigrants. That all of this is being so vigorously pursued in the run-up to the November mid-term elections, in an attempt to schmooze voters, is irritating -- but that it is being done at last is gratifying. The House seems to have had the best grasp of the problem for some time now. Last December they passed bills that were intended to tighten the border to stem the flow of illegals across our borders and to implement rules that would more effectively prevent U.S. employers from hiring illegals -- both critically important items -- but the legislation was 'debated to death' in the Senate. The Senate was, at the time, under the influence of President Bush's pie-in-the-sky guest worker program. Since then, the Senators have apparently become better informed about the realities of the immigration problem and have been ignoring the President's still continuing pleas for a program that he refuses to admit is just another amnesty program. The fencing bill being worked in the Senate was approved last week and sent up to the Senate this week. 200 miles of the 700-mile fence under debate would be built in Texas, from Laredo to Brownsville. The two Republican Senators from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, are in favor of the fencing bill but have a quarrel with the fact that the U.S. government is telling the states where the fencing should be built; they feel that that decision would be better made by local and state officials. There are, no doubt, many other issues to be cleared up and one can only hope that, when the debate is over and the bill has passed, the final product will not be as porous as the border it is meant to protect. News Links: Border lawmakers, officials resist fence proposal Enforcement is focus of immigration bills You can find this article and a treasure trove of other timely and thought-provoking articles at the The Blogger News Network. Go now and visit!!

2006-09-21T10:18:00.000-05:00

The Paper Tiger of Tehran by Whymrhymer Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the podium at the UN yesterday to, as usual, denounce the U.S., its policies, it's President and it's power at the UN. Ahmadinejad continued his insistence that his country's nuclear program is "transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye" of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). The IAEA is an arm of the UN. His words, heavily repeated in the press, were prefaced and appended by prayers to 'Almighty Allah' (a fact that was NOT heavily reported); needless to say, had President Bush, some hours before, started and/or ended his speech with a prayer it would be headlined in every major media outlet. Because of all of the media attention and media respect that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets every time he spews his anti-Israel, anti-American vitriol its very easy to forget that, in Iran, he is a powerless figurehead. There is a real power, a real evil behind the Paper Tiger's mock throne and his name is Ali Khamenei. Iran is an Islamic Theocracy controlled by ayatollahs who are, in turn, controlled by Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. That may not be a comforting thought, considering Khamenei irrational hatred of the West but its good to know who the real enemies are. Ahmadinejad, in the mean time, has become a hero in the Arab world and that is somewhat amusing when you consider that Iranians consider themselves to be Persians and Persians are not Arabs. The fact that in its long history the once powerful Persian Empire has been conquered three times (first by Alexander the Great, then by Ghengas Kahn and finally by the Arabs) does not sit well with the typical Iranian -- I have been told by an Iranian ex-patriot friend of mine that they go to bed each night cursing their conquerers. News Links: Iran: Targeting the Heart of Terrorism Ahmadinejad's UN Speech: Analysis and Comment by UN Watch You can find this article and a treasure trove of other timely and thought-provoking articles at the The Blogger News Network. Go now and visit!!

2006-09-15T23:44:00.000-05:00

Pope Benedict's Bold Statement to Islam by: Whymrhymer at The Blogger News Network Pope Benedict XVI has raised the ire of the Muslim world by quoting the words of an emperor of the Byzantine Empire (a predecessor of orthodox Christianity) while he was speaking to students and faculty at the University of Regensburg's School of Catholic Theology in Regensburg, Germany. Pope Benedict was both a professor at Regensburg and vice president of the university during his eight year tenure there (1969-1977); the Pope had been on a six-day visit to his homeland. The quotation that has caused a massive controversy was a scathing indictment of Islam that was originally delivered in the 14th Century by Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

That was how Islam was viewed in the 14th Century and, thanks to the radical fundamental sects of Islam, that is how it is being viewed today. An apology by the Pope is being demanded, seemingly by every entity in Islam with a tongue, because his words have not only hurt the sensibilities and self-image of the majority of Muslims who do not follow the many violent dictates of the Muslim holy book, but because his words (much like the infamous Danish cartoons) are critical of Muhammad. Pope Benedict has shown, through his choice of that quotation, that he holds the violence that is now so closely associated with the Muslim world in contempt and who, but those who approve of the dictates of jihad, could disagree with him. The Pope's selection of that particular quotation was not a mistake, it was a statement directed at Islam -- one that was long overdue from the Vatican and one that should be rallied around by every civilized nation. If the Pope apologizes he will have mended some fences but he will be marked as a man who has been coerced to turned his back on an important principle of civilization for political reasons.

2006-09-15T23:36:00.000-05:00

Redefining Terrorism by Whymrhymer at The Blogger News Network In a letter to Senator John McCain, Colin Powell states:

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 [of the Geneva conventions] would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

That statement raises some relevant questions:

Should what "the world" feels or says about the United States dictate the actions of the United States?
Is the good that can come from a successful interrogation, specifically the saving of innocent lives, more important than the physical or mental discomfort of a person who has information that can save those lives?
Why should we apply the Geneva Convention's rules to combatants who are not fighting under the flag of any country or wearing the uniform of any country's military and are, therefore, not shielded by the Geneva Convention?
How could 'going easy' on captured terrorists provide a lower "risk" for our troops? (These are terrorists! Does General Powell actually feel that they would reciprocate by "going easy" on our captured troops?)

The media and many politicians have referred to the our treatment and interrogation of captured terrorists as "torture." They seemingly believe that anything beyond asking polite questions would be torture. In a recent case, it was revealed that we "tortured" a high-profile terrorist by stripping him naked, placing him in a cold room and playing loud music -- specifically, music by 'The Red Hot Chili Peppers.' If that scenario was presented to a person who has undergone real torture, his or her response would most likely be unrestrained laughter. Answers to the above questions cannot be provided by this or any other citizen -- the answers need to come from our Representatives in Washington and, to get the "right" answers, we need to make our feelings known to those Representatives. Unfortunately, in this day of partisan politics as usual, our opinions may not mean much to our Representatives but we MUST try.

2006-09-12T10:42:00.000-05:00

9/11 Speeches and Threats by Whymrhymer at the Blogger News Network Last night, President Bush used the occasion of the fifth observance of September 11, 2001 to try again, for the fifth time in the last few weeks, to convince the American electorate that terrorism must be defeated and that we must have the resolve as a nation to do whatever it takes to defeat it. His past attempts at convincing the public of this have not been very successful -- at least not for more than a few days or weeks, as measured by polling numbers. The majority of the American people, those polling numbers suggest, are not terribly optimistic about our ever winning this war and that should be no surprise. Most Americans don't know what to think and, when they are being barraged from both sides with rhetoric, they tend to block out the 'noise' and take their 'cues' from their favorite, trusted media outlet, print, broadcast or Internet; and they go no farther. If, for example, they know and have blindly trusted CBS or Fox News as a source for information for years, they will think the way CBS's or Fox's coverage of news events and their commentators suggest they think and, ultimately vote the way the CBS or Fox 'logic' suggests they would be wise to vote. The same scenario, of course, applies to long-time fans of other media outlets and other media personalities on all ends of the opinion spectrum; and its a fact that the majority of the media outlets and many media personalities take that pessimistic approach to the Presidents "War on Terror" and especially to events in the Iraqi theater of that war. Whether or not last night's "9/11" speech will have any long lasting effect on the President's popularity is a matter for some days or weeks from now; but there was another speech yesterday that should have convinced all but the most die-hard opponents of the War on Terror that the enemy is out there, he is real and he is unstable enough to be a real threat to America. That speech was recorded sometime in the recent past specifically for broadcast on the fifth anniversary of 9/11; the speaker: Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second in command. If President Bush had opted for a moment of silence, instead of a speech and then had al Zawahiri's speech broadcast, coast-to-coast and world wide, it would have been one of the President's most eloquent public moments. Al Zawahiri delivers Bush's message in a straight forward way; an example:

"We have repeatedly," he said, "warned you and offered a truce with you. Now we have all the legal and rational justification to continue to fight you until your power is destroyed or you give in and surrender. The days are pregnant and giving birth to new events."

Al Qaeda may or may not have the strength to pull off another event as disastrous to the American psyche as 9/11 was, it's a question that is open for debate and one that is being actively debated. That al Zawahiri feels, however, that he has the "legal and rational justification" to destroy the United States is not debatable and we all know that the old axiom "where there is a will, there is a way" is often proven to be true. Al Zawahiri's speech is not easy to find in the media or even on the Internet but it's out there and I urge you to find what you can and bathe yourself in his powerful hatred and his delusions of the nobility of his words. Then, the next time you listen to President Bush, you may start believing that, in spite of the Texas accent, the swagger and that annoying grin, he really knows what he's talking about. News Links: Blogger News Network President Tries to Win Over a War-Weary Nation Al-Qaida threatens attacks in Persian Gulf, Israel Fifth anniversary of 9/11, Al-Qaeda threatens new attacks

2006-09-10T11:09:00.000-05:00

Blair's Middle Eastern "Swan Song": Modest but Determined Legend has it that the swan, a beautiful but difficult creature, mute throughout its life, sings a beautiful song before it dies. Some British newspapers, most notably The Guardian, have not been able to resist the 'Swan Song' metaphor in their descriptions of Tony Blair's waning moments (or months) as British Prime Minister and as Britain's ambassador to the world. After what is being accurately called a mutiny in the British Labor Party, Blair has finally sent signals that he will step down as Prime Minister within one year -- but even his most ardent supporters project that he will be gone within months. So it is against this backdrop of dissent and ill will at home that the lame duck British PM is making his last (?) visit to the war torn middle east; Israel and Palestine on Sunday and Lebanon on Monday. No need to ask "why bother;" its obvious that Blair feels, or at least hopes, that he can make a positive contribution to reducing the tension between Israel and its two contentious neighbors. Realistic as always, however, Blair left London with the warning that there would be no “grand announcement” of progress as a result of his visit. So far he's proven that his modest assessment of progress was right on. After meeting with Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, Olmert announced that he has plans to meet with and work with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president . . . but he stressed that securing the release of Gilad Shalit, the abducted Israeli soldier, was his first priority. Abbas, after meeting with Blair, also agreed to a meeting with Olmert "without pre-conditions" . . . but in a later statement Abbas' told reporters that his priority is going to Gaza and starting "urgent talks on forming a national unity government" These are pretty clear signals that the meeting between Olmert and Abbas may not be soon and, in true middle east fashion, if not soon, maybe not at all. Links to this story: Blair to Brown: I won't do what you demand Blair in the Middle East, Seeking to Bolster a Peace Accord Blogger News Network

2006-08-27T13:31:00.000-05:00

Katherine Harris' Black Hole I picked this story titled: Rep. Harris' God Remarks Draw Critics off of "Topix.net" this morning. All I can say is I hope her critics run her right out of politics . . . tared and feathered and on a rail if possible. What totally irresponsible garbage for a United States Representative to be spouting. Here are three totally blind, totally stupid quotes from Rep. Harris:

"if Christians are not elected, politicians will 'legislate sin,' including abortion and gay marriage." ". . . God is the one who chooses our rulers." "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."

We're certainly back to basics according to Rep. Harris: Either your a Christian or your a sinner and American elections should be cancelled -- they will be forthwith held in Heaven. My bad! My very bad for not knowing that Rep. Harris had completely lost her grip on reality. I know it now! OR Keeping in mind that these comments were made in a Baptist weekly journal ("the Florida Baptist Witness") there are two other possibilities: 1) she was totally misquoted (doubtful), or 2) she is not only stupid, she's a world-class hypocrite. Nah! She's lost her grip and is swimming upstream in a political black hole.

2006-08-26T02:40:00.000-05:00

Moral Excuses for Doing the Wrong Thing A story published today (8/25/06) at Keynoter.com and in the news nationwide, shines a bright spotlight, at least in my mind, on the sad state of a society (any society) that is controlled by religion rather than logic and common sense. Here is a bit of the article:

"A California biotech company has developed a way to generate human embryonic stem cell colonies without intentionally destroying embryos in the process. Lead researcher Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology declared Wednesday that "this removes the last rational reason for opposing" research aimed at using the cells to understand and treat diseases. Lanza's optimism was not widely shared. His team earned praise for trying to address ethical concerns and for technical prowess. But opponents of embryonic stem cell research said the new approach still poses moral dilemmas." (emphasis mine)

The "moral dilemmas" are, of course, the inventions of religious conservatives. Logically speaking, there is not a reason left to oppose this research but yet these religious conservatives are trying to convince the world that their opposition (based on faith, not reason) is the morally correct response. Forget the fact that no embryo will be harmed or that this research may someday produce treatments for diseases such as Parkinsons and Alzheimer's -- focus instead on the 'moral dilemma' that has religious conservatives quivering in their pews. As Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute says: "It is a mistake to try to appease religious conservatives on this issue. What they are opposed to, fundamentally, is science . . .". I started this post with the suggestion that this country is being "controlled" by a religion and while controlled may be too strong a word TODAY . . . it may be just the right word tomorrow.

2006-08-22T01:16:00.000-05:00

Listen to The Moose! For those of you who have not discovered him, I'd like to introduce the Bull Moose and his latest post. The Bull Moose writes with a certain aire that may turn you off, leave you confused or fascinated but by Jove the man is common sense personified. The moose ends this (linked) post with these words:

"More than ever, what our nation needs are leaders, regardless of party or even independents, with the will and wisdom to persevere and win."

My take on what he is saying is this: Political parties will never resolve our country's problems; political parties will only work to glorify themselves and only exist to garner power. It is individuals who have the guts to stand up against their political parties who will, in the end, keep our government from growing into 'the bureaucracy from Hell' and who will keep our government functioning as a servant to the people rather than a manipulator of the people. People like Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain come immediately to mind. You may not agree with every stand they take on every issue (I certainly don't) but these two men are clearly leaders who have their OWN minds and who put their considered judgement and their concern for their constituents ahead of the 'party line.' Bravo to them and here's hoping that we elect many, many more like them in November.

2006-08-06T11:11:00.000-05:00

"One Nation, Indivisible . . . "

". . . with liberty and justice for all." That phrase, many years ago, when I learned it through daily recitation, had a specific meaning to me. This nation, my United States, it taught me, was a rock solid entity that guaranteed "liberty and justice" to me and to all those who honored the American way of life.

That guarantee was apparently not enough for some Americans.

In the 1950s war was raging! On the heels of the Korean War (June 25, 1950 to July 27, 1953), that most ominous (if least deadly) "Cold War" pitted world Communism and it's missiles against our Democratic Republic and against other free countries around the world.

Enter the opportunists at the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic mens group. No doubt in the grip of the insecurity that is a byproduct of religious fervor, the KofC decided to use the fear generated by that Communist threat as an evangelistic opportunity. Starting in 1951, they bombard the U.S. Congress with a total of fifteen resolutions, all of them calling for the insertion of the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance.

Apparently the Knights of Columbus looked at the Communist system and saw only one thing that differentiated it from our American system of government; the Communists were avowed atheists.

It's quite amazing really: the Knights of Columbus saw what the whole world saw: a system of government that denied basic freedom to its citizens, denied individual ownership of property or goods, denied them a fair system of justice or any method to redress their grievances, a system that treated its citizens like slaves and sent them to gulags for punishment -- and all the Knights of Columbus could see wrong was that the Communists didn't allow their citizens to attend church on Sunday.

It took three years of badgering (and, no doubt threatening) but finally on June 14, 1954 (Flag Day) President Eisenhower (the same president that started the tradition of "prayer breakfasts" in the White House) signed a bill into law that authorized the insertion of the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance after the words "one nation." Suddenly, with the stroke of a pen, the power of that phrase "one nation, indivisible" was lost forever; it became conditional. After June 14, 1954, if you did not believe that the God of the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic Church was as powerful a force in this country as are the concepts of freedom and liberty you had just drawn the short end of the stick.

We are not now, nor were we then, a nation under God! Granted, we were and are a nation where the majority of the citizens have been raised since childhood on biblical fairy tales; a nation where the majority of its citizens are too insecure to live their lives without constant reassurances of a "forgiving God" and "a land of milk and honey" awaiting them after death. But it became a matter of public record on the 14th of June in 1954 that those who did not believe themselves to be "under God" . . . those who did not live in that fantasy world, were somehow excluded from the full benefit of the promise of "liberty and justice for all."

2006-07-30T10:07:00.000-05:00

Optimism in the Face of Reality It was heartening Saturday to see an Israeli spokesman on TV saying that Israel will not negotiate with Hezbolah until Hezbollah is disarmed. Why is that good? Simply because Israel, as the only truly Democratic country in that part of the world, should not rush to commit suicide by giving in to unreasonable demands by unreasonable people, for a cease fire. Suicide is what you call it when you turn your back to a knife-wielding madman or when you attempt to negotiate peace with a party who's only negotiating demand is your surrender and eventual demise. Late last week Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran said it openly, publicly and loudly: he said that there will be no peace in the region until his religion (a bastardization of Islam) reigns supreme in the Middle-east. I don't know if he is Hezbollah's puppeteer or if the actual strings are being pulled in Damascus but either way Israel cannot give in to the optimists who, in the face of the plain-spoken reality of Ahmadinejad's words, expect a lengthy cease fire or a permanent peace. In spite of your high-minded thoughts about innocent civilian deaths and platitudes about how Hezbollah could never literally "destroy" Israel; put yourselves in the Israeli's shoes. Israel got out of Lebanon several years ago and then, a few months ago, removed itself from Gaza. What gratitude for these undebatable gestures for peace: they get Hezballah rockets killing innocent Israeli citizens and attacks on their troops inside their own borders. Ask yourself: what would you do if your neighbors invaded your home and threatened your family? Call the police (or in this case the United Nations)? Not if the police are known to be as impotent as the UN. What do you do then? You fight back!! It's the only option!! It's Israel's ONLY OPTION. Today the Israeli UN Ambassador admitted that they made a mistake by hitting the wrong target and made the statement that they (Israel) deeply regretted the loss of any innocent life in Lebanon. He then pointed out -- very accurately -- that Hezbollah has NEVER apologized for their murder of innocent Israelis; to Israel any dead innocent is a tragedy, to Hezbollah every dead Israeli is a victory. This doesn't mitigate the damage done by Israel's mistake but it does illuminate the main difference between the opponents in this battle -- one is worthy of civilized society, the other is clearly not. Every innocent Lebonese will be in jeopardy as long as there is a Hezbollah and if the self-important Lebanese president truly wants to stop the unnecessary death he needs to supervise the removal of Hezbollah from Lebanon or, better yet, help toward it's extinction.

2006-07-28T09:57:00.000-05:00

Exxon Criticism Is Obscene . . . Not Their Profit Yesterday was filled with commentary and criticism of ExxonMobil's $10.4 billion second-quarter profit and then shockingly (at least to me) Bill O'Reilly jumped on the 'Beat Up Exxon' bandwagon. I very seldom disagree with Bill O'Reilly's even-handed, thoughtful take on news and world events but yesterday he was wrong, Wrong, WRONG!! First of all: Oil companies don't set the price for oil, they buy it, refine it and sell the final product for a profit. ExxonMobil Corp. and every other company has an OBLIGATION to their shareholders to maximize their profits. Simple as that! This is an ESSENTIAL fact of American life. Secondly, as pointed out in this article in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, their profits are not at all excessive: "Consumers who look at the $10.4 billion second-quarter profit reported Thursday by ExxonMobil Corp. and scream "obscene" need to step back and take a second look, experts say. "Compared to Microsoft Corp., PNC Financial Services Group, General Electric Co. and others, ExxonMobil profits when measured as a percentage of revenues are near the low end. ExxonMobil's profit margin was 10.5 percent -- or 10 1/2 cents on each dollar of revenue -- compared to more than 23 cents for Microsoft and 21 cents for PNC." (emphasis mine) In a free market, EVERY company that tries to "screw" the consumer gets screwed themselves by a consumer backlash. If the consumers in this case are presented with the facts and not just the hysterical reactions of a few they will appreciate the fact that Exxon has a job to do and they are doing it very well.

2006-07-25T23:34:00.000-05:00

Lessons Learned From Rabid Dogs Before it was too late, modern-day leaders of an ancient tribe finally came to understand several important things about rabid dogs (and other predators): I You cannot make peace with a rabid dog. II A rabid dog is not able to comprehend kindness, goodwill or compromise; it sees them as signs of weakness III The innocent and guileless are simply targets of opportunity to a rabid dog. IV A rabid dog cannot be cured it must be killed or it will kill. V During a confrontation between sane men and rabid dogs both sides will have sympathizers.

2006-07-22T11:20:00.000-05:00

The Human Element A June 26th article in Scientific American titled "The Political Brain" suggests that all people in all fields of endeavor, when making decisions, should emulate the scientific method. The scientific method, as it appears it would have to apply to non-scientific endeavors, simply means that before making a decision on things like which business policies to adopt, which side of a social or political issue to support or even which candidate for office to choose, only facts should be considered; emotions or preconceived notions should be ignored and, most importantly, all personal biases should be removed from the decision making process. Making a well informed, unbiased, unemotional decision appears to be the perfect way to make a decision but is this possible . . . or even desirable? The article describes a scientific test that took place before the 2004 Presidential elections:

"During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men--half self-described as "strong" Republicans and half as "strong" Democrats--were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook."

Why did the Republicans find justification for Bush's self-contradictions and the Democrats for Kerry's? Its because of how the brain works when it runs into a decision. In less scientific terms than the original article used: the brain scan results showed that the part of the brain that is most associated with analyzing information was not even used but the parts of the brain that fuel the emotions, resolve conflicts and make moral decisions were very active. The bottom line is: most decisions are made based on emotion and existing beliefs -- not on facts. The article's author calls this "confirmation bias" and describes it as our ability to ". . . seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence." Call me crazy but . . . . . . I have this Pollyanna side of me that realizes that it may be an irrational hope, but I none-the-less maintain a hope that someday all of us human animals will evolve. Evolve into "ideal humans" who consistantly make rational, well-informed, unbiased decisions while, at the same time, applying societal rules and norms (what religious types would call morals) to the equation. Why apply societal rules and norms to perfect logic and reason? Because science is cold, hard and unemotional and, in the human arena, we call that 'sociopathic.'

2006-07-21T01:07:00.000-05:00

Government vs. Science . . . . . . is the title of a press release from the Ayn Rand Institute and, as usual, their point-of-view is right on. The press release criticizes the President's veto of the embryonic stem cell research bill passed by Congress. Following is the "money quote" from that press release:

"The government should get out of the business of funding science.
But so long as it is involved, it must scrupulously respect the
separation of Church and State. Its funding decisions must be made
on rationally demonstrable, not faith-based, grounds. Bush's veto
clearly violates this principle."
Two points:

Why should the government get out of the business of funding science?
Because their funding (or should i say OUR funding -- since we are
paying the bill)dilutes scientific research and makes scientists
answerable to politicians. Aside from the ridiculous concept of putting
lawyers in charge of scientific progress, you're putting people in
charge who's decisions will be tainted by a never-ending quest for votes,
not the never-ending quest for knowledge.

Before anyone 'reminds me' that the phrase "separation of church and state"
appears nowhere in the Constitution; I know that! But the Constitution
clearly forbids the government from "establishing" a national religion and
Bush's veto of legislation on "moral grounds" (his words) speaks loudly for
itself and states, in no uncertain terms, that the President is governing
as a religious leader, not as a secular head-of-state. President Bush's
personal religious beliefs are, obviously, steering the 'ship of state.'

2006-07-19T09:58:00.000-05:00

Patriotic Nuance Independence Day was two weeks ago yesterday . . . did anyone notice? As usual there were fireworks and speeches . . . the President's speech was, also as usual, a 'bland' speech with no fire, no emotion and, most of all, with only a nuance of good old-fashioned patriotism. If I had heard even one fiery, flag-waving, Rah Rah America speech, July 4th might have been more memorable. It may be the perspective! A person who moves here to the United States from some other country has perspective and has the ability to contrast and compare the United States with the 'other place'. I, on the other hand, am a third-generation American so there is no 'other place' for me -- no basis of first-hand comparison. I don't even have stories of my parents or grandparents 'getting off the boat' at Ellis Island. They, as far as I know, never left American soil. While in the Navy, I visited many other countries, mostly Asian countries, and was, without exception, happy to return to America. It wasn't that these countries repulsed me in any way it was just a feeling of discomfort I get when I'm 'out of my element' without the requirement for me to stay there for a prolonged period. So, aside from the 'comfort' factor and the 'perspective' problem am I proud to be an American and do I love my country? A resounding YES to both questions but pride and love are emotional issues and I find it hard to intellectualize them. You might say my response to hearing the Star Spangled Banner or watching a military parade and having the flag fly by is an almost Pavlovian reflex of patriotism. Or, you might say my security blanket is red, white and blue with a field of white stars. Escaping from the emotional; intellectually, I do know that there is no better country on this planet; no other country with our level of freedom and opportunity. I also know how fortunate I am to have been born and raised in this great country. Think about it! A mere quirk of fate could have had me (or you) leading the hard-scrabble life of a farmer in a third-world country or a blind beggar on the streets of Calcutta. One other thing: I know I would, without hesitation, take up arms and lay down my life for America, whenever and wherever I was needed. Perhaps that will suffice as patriotism!

2006-07-17T11:44:00.000-05:00

Equality and Freedom: Daily Challenges Reading this article at All Headline News just reinforces my distaste for the current Republican Majority. The catch is, I used to consider myself more Republican than Democrat; now I cling to the title Independent. What GOP leaders, according to this article, are calling their "American values agenda," is very scary stuff. What's so scary about marriage being between a man and a woman? Nothing at all! What IS scary is the fact that the Bush Administration has elevated the question of who can and can't be legally married into a National Agenda leading toward a proposed Constitutional Amendment. From my perspective that's something to be VERY worried about (even if, as some say, this is just election year rhetoric). I have nothing personally invested in the issue of who can or can't get married but I have a whole lot invested in the two primary concepts that make this country so very different from dictatorships and theocracies: equality and freedom. I view this "American Values Agenda" as a large step away from equality and freedom and a large step toward a theocracy. Go ahead and call me a reactionary if you will but take a step back and ask yourself where this is all going. Yes, Christians are, or so the media tells us, the majority in America but Christiam dogma and Christian morality, as beneficial as they are in church and in the 'community,' really have no place in the Constitution. Beyond that, I firmly believe that the government, at any level, has no business regulating marriage or personal relationships of any kind. Take equality and freedom away from any group and you've changed the basic structure of America -- no one says that is what they want to do but yet every day it seems that is exactly what's happening; every day we seem to loose a little more freedom and equality to extremeists (extremists on the Right AND on the Left). No answers here . . . just questions and concerns. Irrationality deserves no respect!

2006-07-16T12:40:00.000-05:00

Economist's Immigration Debate: Missing The Point In last Sunday's (7/9/06) NYT Magazine, Roger Lowenstein has a piece titled The Immigration Equation. In it, he begins by discussing the two different economic theories that are being debated in regard to immigration -- specifically "poorly educated" immigrants and, even more specifically, Mexicans. One theory, espoused by George Borjas, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, holds that "immigrants hurt the economic prospects of the Americans they compete with." The other theory is, simply stated. "on balance, immigration is good for the country." So far, so good! It's a factual discussion of the impact of immigration on the economy . . . but then Lowenstein, in true New York Times fashion, twists the issue when he relates Borjas' theory to the debate in Washington.

"It lies," he states, "at the heart of a national debate, which has been encapsulated (if not articulated) by two very different immigration bills: one, passed by the House of Representatives, which would toughen laws against undocumented workers and probably force many of them to leave the country; and one in the Senate, a measure that would let most of them stay."

Yes he casually mentions that the debate in Washington is over "undocumented" workers but he glosses right over that inconvenient fact . . . that inconvenient fact that IS the topic of debate. Most Americans have no problem if economists and politicians reach a rational decision over how many immigrants from each nation the United States should allow into the country; what 'bites my butt' and the butts of most Americans, is that our government has allowed this country to be overrun by millions of ILLEGAL immigrants. That, Mr. Lowenstein is what is at the heart of the national debate. It's UNCONTROLLED immigration that has caused the problem not immigration numbers.

2006-07-14T11:37:00.000-05:00

Religion, Culture and Nationalism vs. Logical Thought and Rational Action I guess it makes perfect sense to people in some parts of the world (from the BBC link in the title):

"Greengrocer Azhar Nazir, 30, and his cousin Imran Mohammed, 17, stabbed Samaira Nazir 18 times at the family home in Southall in April 2005.
"The 25-year-old recruitment consultant was killed after she asked to marry an Afghan man - instead of marrying someone in the Pakistani family circle."
(This pair of nuts have just been sentenced to life in prison -- if they were back in Pakistan they would probably have been given a parade.)

In my mind, this type of behavior is simply the insanity that is brought about by putting religion, culture (in this case "family honor") and, to some extent, nationalism ahead of rational thought. This insanity happens, in one form or another, in all religions and all cultures but some of the followers of Islam seem to have perfected the insanity to the level of an art form. These extremists apparently (or should I say 'obviously') care nothing about human life when it conflicts with their religion and/or culture.

Religion, culture, and to some extent nationalism, when you think about it, are all pretty much the same mental disorders; each one sets up an artificial standard that displaces logic and reason.

I have reason to believe, in fact, that the majority of people in the world are, to some degree, under the influence of at least one of these mental disorders and , to illustrate my point, I will freely admit that I am affected by one (and fortunately only one) of the three, the mental disorder called nationalism. Here are my symptoms: I truly believe that my country, in spite of it's faults, is the absolute best in the world; I would never, ever consider leaving it (if I had any choice in the matter) and I get monumentally upset when our government moves in what I perceive to be the wrong direction for the national good.

Irrational and illogical? Probably so, but my mental disorder makes it all seem so normal.

Uncommitted Moslems At Risk

2006-07-13T11:38:00.000-05:00

(From WCHS6.com) Brent Matthews, a resident of Lewiston, Maine says it was "just a joke" when he rolled a frozen pig's head into a Moslem Mosque during their prayer service. Lewiston city officials, of course, weren't laughing when they slapped the cuffs on him and the 200 or so "political and religious leaders from across southern and central Maine" weren't laughing at their rally Wednesday (7/11/06) to show support for the "city's muslim immigrant community." To be honest, I couldn't help laughing when I read the story! Not, of course, because I think it's funny to disrupt a worship service but just because of that mental image -- it was kind of a Monty Python moment. In all seriousness however, this type of thing is probably something we'll be seeing (and reading) more and more. It's perfectly understandable that Americans are upset with the sub-human Muslim radicals they read about every day in the papers and see on the tube -- but they have no outlet for all that pent-up hostility so they take it out on Moslims in general. It's not acceptable, you understand, but understandable. Now if more American Moslems would commit themselves: start getting vocal and active and start letting their communities know in no uncertain terms that they absolutely do not approve of the behavior of those who practice the radical versions of Islam and beyond that that they condemn that behavior -- they would have a lot less to worry about as far as American backlash is concerned.