With the caveat that he was demented of course.Bush is sane and evil, so he’s worse than Hitler. Hot Air has audio of John Gibson speak truth to this idiocy.Â
Here’s my post on the essay that kicked this all off, if you need a reminder.
With the caveat that he was demented of course.Bush is sane and evil, so he’s worse than Hitler. Hot Air has audio of John Gibson speak truth to this idiocy.Â
Here’s my post on the essay that kicked this all off, if you need a reminder.
More proof that Americans are not taking the terrorism threat anywhere near as seriously as they should. From CBS 2 Chicago:
CBS) CHICAGO “Fly At Your Own Risk†is a CBS 2 continuing undercover investigation at O’Hare Airport, and it just got even more alarming. 2 Investigator Dave Savini reports on exclusive details.
Officials at O’Hare International Airport are refusing to interview with CBS 2 about our latest findings. The 2 Investigators have found more security breaches and a failure by authorities to investigate.
O’Hare is one of the busiest airports in the nation, and may be one of the most vulnerable.
The 2 Investigators have learned that 47 more employee access badges are missing, bringing the total we’ve discovered to 3,807 – the biggest security failure involving access badges ever to be exposed.
“Doesn’t surprise me,†said Marcia Pinkston. “I am surprised you didn’t find more.”
Airport employees are allowed to go through a back gate. All they have to do is show their access badge. They are not searched.
“It’s really scary just thinking that anyone can go into secure areas of O’Hare,†Pinkston said.
The latest missing badges belong to employees of Mesa Airlines, which operates flights for United Express. One of them belonged to Pinkston, who worked as a flight attendant.
She says she was fired for complaining about security. She says the airline never asked her to return her access badge and for months she could have used it to gain access to airplanes.
“Just anybody can go in there,†she said.
h/t Drudge
Here’s a silly alarmist tirade because I’m settling in to Hamsherland with a laptop I borrowed from someone I didn’t know was a Luddite. Expect light blogging until I’m able to install the 582 updates I need to make this cogitator productive. From The NY POST:
WHEN non-Muslims think of Islamic fashion, they usually imagine stark black dresses and plain white head scarves, or even burqas – uniform outfits that afford little room for originality.
But Saubia Arbab, like many of the city’s young Muslims, defies stereotype, making the look her own with a unique blend of old and new.
Arbab, the daughter of immigrants from Pakistan, went to an orthodox Muslim high school in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, and now majors in social work at New York University. The 21-year-old must balance the world of tradition, religion and family with the fashion-oriented world of American pop culture.
Because of this, Arbab faces criticism from both sides: from non-Muslims, who don’t understand or fear her hijab (head scarf), to Muslims who believe she strays from tradition by, say, carrying a trendy bag. But Arbab said she agreed to talk to The Post in the hope it would help people understand her culture.
“My friends were worried for a number of different reasons,†she says. “They thought this was going to make Islam look silly. There’s a fear in the Muslim community that the world is out to get us.â€
But, Arbab adds, “not shying away from the larger culture is the best way to inform people.†And “my family has always encouraged me to be open and do things like this.â€
In fact, Arbab’s combination of clothing styles often invites discussion. “Totally! I mean, a girl sitting next to me in class might say, ‘Hey, I really like that bag, or those shoes,’ or whatever, and then we’ll start talking about the hijab. Yeah, the fashion definitely serves as an icebreaker.â€
She even considers her unique mix of old and new to be a form of dawah (an Arabic term designating an invitation toward understanding Islam). “Dressing like this is in a very real sense dawah,†she explained, “it opens up dialogue, it humanizes.â€
“We’re normal,†she says of American Muslims. “We’re just human beings. We like nice things.
We’re New Yorkers. We love love New York. I love New York. We’re part of the crowd, but I still have my distinct values.â€
Those values include understanding the line between being in vogue and being disrespectful.
“You have to respect the hijab,†Arbab says. “It’s not just a fashion statement. I don’t wear it to look good. But at the same time, I’m not afraid to look good myself. I try to make it fit with everything else I’m wearing.â€
There are other ground rules, of course. Muslim women are not allowed to show their hair, their legs or their arms in public. While some find these directives unnecessarily oppressive, Arbab disagrees.
“I’m sure a lot of people look at me and laugh,†she says, “but maybe less than other women. Other women can’t walk down the street without being ogled by men. Being a woman in general is so difficult. So in that way the hijab carries you. It gives you a sense of security.â€
There’s a lot here so I bold faced the parts that should have made the reporter ask more probing questions. But of especial concern should be the Muslim concept of Dawah, which the reporter is duped into believing is a call for the “understanding” of Islam. The “understanding” Islamic theology want from non-believers is to understand that they’d better convert if they want to keep their head and shoulders intact!
Also, call me an Islamphobe but having a woman who thinks the Hijab is some sort of feminist defense against men checking out her hair becoming a social worker and making the determination as to what constitutes abuse in a household makes me nervous.
I’ve been light blogging this weekend because I’m getting ready spend the next several weeks in beautiful Middletown CT, home of everyones favorite liberal racist Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake! Sweet right?
I’ll be at Wesleyan finishing my Masters (after literally years of putting it off) and spending most of the days surrounded by hippies and “liberals” (read commies) but Middletown has grinder shops that make sandwiches so good that even being subjected hours of lefty crankery are totally worth it.
But the coup de grace of my little trip will be to get a photo of Jane either giving me the finger or holding up a sign that says “I hate Red Alerts” that I can post. Mind you I’m not going all creepy stalker like Mike Stark, I’m just putting it out there. Ms. Hamsher, would you please give me the finger. After reading the couple of posts involving her harpy’s nest of a site, I’d think she’d be glad to comply.
Plus I’ll be posting pictures of the various hippies I torment in Middletown so good times will be had by all. By all I mean me, of course.
That a HuffPo article written by a “progressive” from Hollywood would state as fact that the attempted genocide of the Jews, as well as Stalin and Mao’s atrocities, were the products of men who “meant well” is hardly as shocking as some on the right would have you believe. “Progressives” in this country have championed “well meaning” despotism since before there even was a Hitler. So this bit of Hitler apologia came as no surprise to me:
You could argue that even the world’s worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc. Only the Saudi royal family is driven by the same motives as Bush, but they were already entrenched. Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of “I’m so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends’ good?”
What exactly could you argue there? Is the point that if Hitler “meant well” he’s a better person than someone who you think selfish or greedy. Is this what anti-Bush rhetoric has devolved to? Are we to now be bombarded with “Hitler wasn’t so bad” nonsense combined with a caricature of Bush as combination anti-Christ/Dracula/rich guy from Monopoly?
And does the author, Peter Mehlman, really believe Hitler had good intentions? I’ll assume he’s never read Mein Kampf. Stalin, Hitler and Mao never meant well, not in the traditional sense anyway. They never wanted to see people happy or safe, they never cared about individual people at all. What they wanted was to fundamentally reform society into a theoretical perfect version that they could control like a queen in an anthill.
Maybe that’s why Mehlman feels he can speak for Hitler’s motives. He shares them.