Saturday, November 17, 2007

Jesus: Target of Liberal Hatred?!?

Say it ain't so, Mrs. Bill!

(With deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson "Shoeless Joe" Jackson (Career batting av. - .356, 3rd highest), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball.)

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


I report and link. You decide. - BJon

If you still think it isn't Christ whom liberals hate, remember: They hate Falwell even more than they hate me.


From an Ann Coulter .com article, JERRY FALWELL, more follows:

JERRY FALWELL — SAY HELLO TO RONALD REAGAN! [/] May 16, 2007

No man in the last century better illustrated Jesus' warning that "All men will hate you because of me" than the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who left this world on Tuesday. Separately, no man better illustrates my warning that it doesn't pay to be nice to liberals. [/] Falwell was a perfected Christian. He exuded Christian love for all men, hating sin while loving sinners. This is as opposed to liberals, who just love sinners. Like Christ ministering to prostitutes, Falwell regularly left the safe confines of his church to show up in such benighted venues as CNN. [/] He was such a good Christian that back when we used to be on TV together during Clinton's impeachment, I sometimes wanted to say to him, "Step aside, reverend — let the mean girl handle this one." (Why, that guy probably prayed for Clinton!)

For putting Christ above everything — even the opportunity to make a humiliating joke about Clinton — Falwell is known as "controversial." Nothing is ever as "controversial" as yammering about Scripture as if, you know, it's the word of God or something.

From the news coverage of Falwell's death, I began to suspect his first name was "Whether You Agree With Him or Not." [/] Even Falwell's fans, such as evangelist Billy Graham and former President Bush, kept throwing in the "We didn't always agree" disclaimer. Did Betty Friedan or Molly Ivins get this many "I didn't always agree with" qualifiers on their deaths? And when I die, if you didn't always agree with me, would you mind keeping it to yourself?

Let me be the first to say: I ALWAYS agreed with the Rev. Falwell. [/] Actually, there was one small item I think Falwell got wrong regarding his statement after 9/11 that "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians — who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle — the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'" [/] First of all, I disagreed with that statement because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and "the Reverend" Barry Lynn. [/] Second, Falwell later stressed that he blamed the terrorists most of all, but I think that clarification was unnecessary. The necessary clarification was to note that God was at least protecting America enough not to allow the terrorists to strike when a Democrat was in the White House.

(If you still think it isn't Christ whom liberals hate, remember: They hate Falwell even more than they hate me.)

I note that in Falwell's list of Americans he blamed for ejecting God from public life, only the gays got a qualifier. Falwell referred to gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle. [/] No Christian minister is going to preach that homosexuality is godly behavior, but Falwell didn't add any limiting qualifications to his condemnation of feminists, the ACLU or People for the American Way. [/] There have always been gay people — even in the prelapsarian '50s that Jerry Falwell and I would like to return to, when God protected America from everything but ourselves. [/] What Falwell was referring to are the gay activists — the ones who spit the Eucharist on the floor at St. Patrick's Cathedral, blamed Reagan for AIDS, and keep trying to teach small schoolchildren about "fisting."

Also the ones who promote the gay lifestyle in a children's cartoon. [/] Beginning in early 1998, the news was bristling with stories about a children's cartoon PBS was importing from Britain that featured a gay cartoon character, Tinky Winky, the purple Teletubbie with a male voice and a red handbag. [/] People magazine gleefully reported that Teletubbies was "aimed at Telebabies as young as 1 year. But teenage club kids love the products' kitsch value, and gay men have made the purse-toting Tinky Winky a camp icon."

In the Nexis archives for 1998 alone, there are dozens and dozens of mentions of Tinky Winky being gay — in periodicals such as Newsweek, The Toronto Star, The Washington Post (twice!), The New York Times and Time magazine (also twice). [/] In its Jan. 8, 1999, issue, USA Today accused The Washington Post of "outing" Tinky Winky, with a "recent Washington Post In/Out list putting T.W. opposite Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche, essentially 'outing' the kids' show character." [/] Michael Musto of The Village Voice boasted that Tinky Winky was "out and proud," noting that it was "a great message to kids — not only that it's OK to be gay, but the importance of being well accessorized."

All this appeared before Falwell made his first mention of Tinky Winky. [/] After one year of the mainstream media laughing at having put one over on stupid bourgeois Americans by promoting a gay cartoon character in a TV show for children, when Falwell criticized the cartoon in February 1999, that same mainstream media howled with derision that Falwell thought a cartoon character could be gay. [/] Teletubbies producers immediately denounced the suggestion that Tinky Winky was gay — though they admitted that he was once briefly engaged to Liza Minnelli. That's what you get, reverend, for believing what you read in The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek. Of course, Falwell also thought the show "Queer as Folk" was gay, so obviously the man had no credibility.

Despite venomous attacks and overwhelming pressure to adopt the fashionable beliefs of cafe society, Falwell never wavered an inch in acknowledging Jesus before men. Luckily, Jesus' full sentence, quoted at the beginning of this column is: "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Our Unbelievably Brave New World!!!

With deepest apologies to William Shakespeare and Aldous Huxley.

O, wonder! / How many goodly creatures are there here! / How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world / That has such people in't! - Miranda in Shakespeare's "The Tempest" (V.i.181-4)

"Community, Identity, Stability" is the motto of Aldous Huxley's utopian World State. Here everyone consumes daily grams of soma, to fight depression, babies are born in laboratories, and the most popular form of entertainment is a "Feelie," a movie that stimulates the senses of sight, hearing, and touch. Though there is no violence and everyone is provided for, ... - Amazon review of Huxley's "Brave New World"


I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a Breitbart .tv AFP video clip, "Transsexual Pageant Contestants Kiss Monkeys to Warm of Global Warming",Click to view (Seeing is believing):

[Captions:] Transsexual Pageant Contestants Kiss Monkeys to Warm of Global Warming

"Global warming is one of the most serious problems the world faces today."


Much more innocent fellowship with animals and big time beauty pageantry occurs in the video clip for those whose stomachs are not particularly weak.

Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Monday, November 12, 2007

POLL ToK Bible Against Death Penalty?!?

See linked scripture below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!

Vote at Christian AAA Bible Study Forum Thread 30343!!! (Choices and link also given after article below.) - Toto of Kansas.

Scripture and Links for Poll Choices

(Text is King James Version. Links are to containing chapters. Alternate versions may be easily selected if available at Bible Gateway .com.)

1. Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

2. Matthew 22:39 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

3. Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

4. Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

5. John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

6. John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

14. Genesis 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

15. Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

16. John 19:10Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Poll Question: Bible Against Death Penalty?!? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Thou shalt not kill. / 2. Yes. Love thy neighbour as thyself. / 3. Yes. Live peaceably with all men. / 4. Yes. Put up again thy sword. / 5. Yes. Not to judge the world, but to save. / 6. Yes. Kingdom is not of this world. / 7. Yes. All or most of 1 thru 6. / 8. Yes. / 9. Possibly. / 10. Possibly. Consider present day values. / 11. Possibly. Consider moral values. / 12. Possibly. Consider personal values. / 13. No. / 14. No. By man shall his blood be shed. / 15. No. He beareth not the sword in vain / 16. No. Power to crucify was from above. / 17. No. All or most of 14 thru 16. / 18. No opinion. Scriptures on both sides. / 19. No comment. / 20. No opinion. / 21. This poll is worthless. / 22. This poll is of negative value. / 23. Other.

Vote at Christian AAA Bible Study Forum Thread 30343! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Minorities Cheating Radio Advertisers?!?

Say it ain't so, Jesse 'n Al!

(With apologies to Joseph Jefferson "Shoeless Joe" Jackson (Career batting av. - .356, 3rd highest), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball.)

Of course it is also possible that the cheating is being done by white liberals who are so conscience stricken over past injustices that they not only cheat in their listener diaries but also misrepresent their ethnicity to Arbitron.

Modern Technology (in the form of "People Meters") Marches On!!!

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Other stations with high proportions of minority listeners were similarly affected. The urban adult contemporary station WBLS 107.5 dropped from No. 1 to No. 12. The urban contemporary station WRKS 98.7 fell from No. 3 to No. 9. [/] Previously, Arbitron had used paper diaries from sample listeners to determine ratings that were used to set prices for advertising. Under pressure to provide more detailed and accurate data, Arbitron has gradually swapped human memory for computer technology, in the form of pocket-size devices that detect radio frequencies to automatically determine which station is on.

Because advertisers purchase radio time by the ratings point, declines in reported listening could have serious effects on radio stations’ incomes. [/] Vinny Brown, the program director for WBLS, said people meters were “not a friend to ethnically designed radio stations. If we get hit with 30 or 40 percent loss of revenue, it will be difficult for us to remain in operation.”


From a New York Times article, New Way of Counting Radio Listeners May Cut Ad Income, more follows:

New Way of Counting Radio Listeners May Cut Ad Income [/] November 12, 2007 [/] By BRIAN STELTER

The test of a new method for measuring radio audience in New York showed big ratings declines for stations appealing to blacks and Hispanics last week, causing considerable consternation among station owners and programmers.

Arbitron, which measures ratings for the radio industry, has been testing a new electronic measurement tool that monitors exposure to radio stations throughout the day. The results of the so-called personal people meter in New York followed the pattern set by two earlier tests, in Houston and Philadelphia, in which stations appealing to minorities also fell.

The results also seem to echo a decline in ratings for minority television programs when Nielsen Media Research switched its measurement system in 2004. The change led to an intense lobbying effort by networks and some black leaders to postpone the widespread introduction of the new ratings system.

In Arbitron’s New York test, WPAT 93.1, a Spanish-language adult contemporary station, was ranked No. 7 in Arbitron’s summer ratings but fell to No. 19 in October’s personal people meter test among 25- to 54-year-olds. Sister station WSKQ 97.9 dropped from No. 4 to No. 7.

“No format changes were made. This is the same music, the same on-air personalities, and yet we’ve seen severe shifts in reported listening,” Frank Flores, the general manager of the WSKQ and WPAT, said.

[...] The test data won’t be used to set advertising rates until early next year. Still, the drastic ratings changes raised red flags about people meter methodology, and Arbitron agreed on Friday to have an independent board review the system in New York.

Tom Mocarsky, a senior vice president at Arbitron, said the declines at individual stations are a side effect of more precise measurements. Another interpretation is that a greater number of people are listening to more stations. According to diaries, the average African-American person in New York listens to radio 13.7 times a month. According to the people meters, the average number of listening occasions rises to 20.4.

“Your total time with radio is being divided among more stations and more occasions,” Mr. Mocarsky said. As a result, he said, each radio station’s share becomes smaller.

Mr. Mocarsky said Arbitron seeks a representative sample of each local market, with specific benchmarks for ethnic groups, genders and ages. He said the sample difficulties are most prominent not among races, but among age groups. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Just How Kooky Is the Fringe Left?!?

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


I report and link. You decide. - BJon

"[W]e see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment" [,,, / ...] "[T]he netroots often argue from anger rather than reason, and too often, their object is personal release, not political persuasion."

From a WSJ Opinion Journal .com "Best of the Web Today" entry, Strange Bedfellows (scroll down), more follows:

Strange Bedfellows [/] Sen. Joe Lieberman gave a speech yesterday in which he had tough words for the left wing of his party:

There is something profoundly wrong--something that should trouble all of us--when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base--even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.


Jon Ward of the Washington Times reports on another speech yesterday that struck a similar theme:

Karl Rove teed off this afternoon on the liberal netroots, the coalition of far-left blogs and advocacy groups who are a new power bloc in the Democratic party. . . .

Mr. Rove cited the results of a study that found that writers and commenters on liberal blogs such as DailyKos.com cursed far more than writers and commenters on conservative Web sites such as FreeRepublic.com.

"My point is not that liberals swear publicly more often than conservatives. That may be true, but that's not my point," Mr. Rove said. "It is that the netroots often argue from anger rather than reason, and too often, their object is personal release, not political persuasion."


When Al Gore's running mate and George W. Bush's political strategist sound like echoes of each other, that gives you some idea of just how kooky the fringe left is.
[My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

World Financial Sky Has Fallen!?!

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


When Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reported from Washington, he was head and shoulders above the local talent in uncovering and reporting facts about the reality of Clinton moral defects. He is now reporting facts and expert opinions on the extent of the current worldwide credit debacle.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Connolly says the Fed-led pack of central banks have made such a mess of capitalism by blowing credit bubbles (with low rates in the late 1990s and 2003-2006) that they now have no alternative other than to relaunch the "Ponzi Scheme", or risk depression.

This will have political consequences, of course. "The looming threat on the horizon, or just over it, is that the socialization of risk will be accompanied, in many countries, by the socialization of wealth," he said. [/] [...] "This rescue has back-fired. The central banks don't want anything to do with it. There is a fear that the big four US banks are trying to hide their debts," said Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas.

[...] Even so, equities have not begun to reflect the reality that the 2006-2007 credit bubble has popped and cannot be easily reflated at a time of stubborn, lingering inflation. Spare me the mantra that the "fundamentals" are sound. Credit is the ultimate fundamental. [/] Woe betide Wall Street if the Fed fails to slash rates dramatically over the Winter, starting on October 31. [/] Woe betide the dollar if it does.


From a Telegraph [U.K.] blog article, The sky has already fallen, more follows:

The sky has already fallen [/] Posted by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on 25 Oct 2007 at 12:36 [/] Ambrose has covered world politics and economics for a quarter century, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. He joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels. He is now International Business Editor in London.

If you are a bear, you must accept that you will always be wrong in polite society, and you will continue to be wrong all the way down to the bottom of recession. That is the cross that bears must bear. [/] Over the last three months we have seen a rolling collapse of speculative debt and real estate across half the global economy, yet friends still come over to my desk at the Telegraph, with that maddening look of commiseration on their faces, and jab: "so when is the sky going to fall then, eh?" [/] Well, excuse me. The sky has fallen. The median price of new homes in the US has crashed from a peak of $262,6000 in March to $238,000 in September. (Commerce Department). This is a 9pc drop nationwide. [/] The slide in existing homes is catching up. They have come down from $229,200 to $211,700 in three months. (National Association of Realtors). Yet we have barely begun to see the default hurricane as teaser rates contracted in 2005 and 2006 on floating mortgages kick up venomously over the winter, peaking around in the Spring of 2008.

[...] In Britain, we have had the first bank run since the City of Glasgow Bank collapsed in 1878. The Fed has cut the interest rates a half point and vastly increased the pool of eligible collateral for Discount operations. The European Central Bank has injected over €400bn of liquidity in the biggest intervention since the euro was created. [/] Japan is in recession. Housing starts fell 23.4pc in July and 43.4pc in August. [/] The US dollar has fallen below parity with the Canadian Loonie for the first time since 1976, and to all-time lows on the global dollar index.

All it will take now for a full-fledged rout is a move by the Saudi and Gulf states to break their dollar pegs, which they may have to do to prevent imported US inflation causing havoc; or for the Asian banks stop buying US Treasuries - as Vietnam, Singapore, Korea, and Taiwan, have gingerly begun to do. [/] What more do you want? [/] It is true that stock markets have once again decoupled from the realities of the debt markets. But they did this in the early summer, when the Bear Stearns debacle was already well under way. They caught up famously in August.

Nobody I talk to in the City credit trenches believes for one moment that the crunch is safely over. Indeed, they think that we are edging back to extreme stress levels, and the longer it goes on, the worse the damage. [/] [...] Once you go down the chain, the picture changes fast. The iTraxx Crossover index measuring spreads on mid to low-grade corporate debt has jumped 100 basis points or so in the last week to around 360. It costs companies 1.8pc more to borrow than it did in the halcyon days of the credit bubble in February, if they can borrow at all. [/] The ABX indexes measuring subprime debt - those infamous CDO packages of mortgages sliced and diced, and sold to German pension funds and Japanese insurers with a lot of lipstick -- are still falling to record lows.

[...] This means that the toxic BBB tier has lost almost four fifths of its value. Even the AA has lost a third. [/] Now, remember that the total stock of subprime and Alt-A (close kin) debt issued from early 2005 to early 2007 amounts to $2 trillion. Ben Bernanke's estimate that losses would be $100bn looks wildly optimistic.

[...] These SIVs (structured investment vehicles) are 'conduits' - in City argot - that allow banks to juice profits by speculating off books on high-risk debt. They borrow short (three to six months) to invest long (five years of so), making money on the interest arbitrage. Until the game blows up, of course. [/] Some $370bn still needs to be rolled over, and there lies the rub. The strong suspicion is that Hank Paulson's $75bn SIV rescue for the big four US banks is intended to cover up the problem by feeding out losses slowly, rather than allowing firesales to cause a cascade. [/] As the Bank of England warned, the Super-Siv should not be used to prop up fictitious valuations. [/] "It stinks, as does the Treasury's sponsorship of the scheme. It seems designed to prevent price discovery." says Bernard Connolly, global strategist for Banque AIG.

Connolly says it resembles the slippery practices at the start of the Bear Stearns debacle, when creditors quickly abandoned attempts to force CDO sales by the Bear Stearns hedge funds as soon as they realized that prices were collapsing - exposing the awful truth that hundreds of billions were falsely valued on books. [/] Nauseating though Paulson's MLEV -- 'Master Liquidity Enhancement Conduit' - may be, it probably has to be done. [/] [...] 39 comments [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Monday, November 05, 2007

Cyber-Space: A False Religion?!?

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15


From a New York Times article, The Outsourced Brain:

The Outsourced Brain [/] October 26, 2007 [/] Op-Ed Columnist [/] By DAVID BROOKS

The gurus seek bliss amidst mountaintop solitude and serenity in the meditative trance, but I, grasshopper, have achieved the oneness with the universe that is known as pure externalization. [/] I have melded my mind with the heavens, communed with the universal consciousness, and experienced the inner calm that externalization brings, and it all started because I bought a car with a G.P.S.

Like many men, I quickly established a romantic attachment to my G.P.S. I found comfort in her tranquil and slightly Anglophilic voice. I felt warm and safe following her thin blue line. More than once I experienced her mercy, for each of my transgressions would be greeted by nothing worse than a gentle, “Make a U-turn if possible.” [/] After a few weeks, it occurred to me that I could no longer get anywhere without her. Any trip slightly out of the ordinary had me typing the address into her system and then blissfully following her satellite-fed commands. I found that I was quickly shedding all vestiges of geographic knowledge.

It was unnerving at first, but then a relief. Since the dawn of humanity, people have had to worry about how to get from here to there. Precious brainpower has been used storing directions, and memorizing turns. I myself have been trapped at dinner parties at which conversation was devoted exclusively to the topic of commuter routes. [/] My G.P.S. goddess liberated me from this drudgery. She enabled me to externalize geographic information from my own brain to a satellite brain, and you know how it felt? It felt like nirvana. [/] Through that experience I discovered the Sacred Order of the External Mind. I realized I could outsource those mental tasks I didn’t want to perform. Life is a math problem, and I had a calculator. [/] Until that moment, I had thought that the magic of the information age was that it allowed us to know more, but then I realized the magic of the information age is that it allows us to know less. It provides us with external cognitive servants — silicon memory systems, collaborative online filters, consumer preference algorithms and networked knowledge. We can burden these servants and liberate ourselves.

Musical taste? I have externalized it. Now I just log on to iTunes and it tells me what I like. [/] I click on its recommendations, sample 30 seconds of each song, and download the ones that appeal. I look on my iPod playlist and realize I’ve never heard of most of the artists I listen to. I was once one of those people with developed opinions about the Ramones, but now I’ve shed all that knowledge and blindly submit to a mishmash of anonymous groups like the Reindeer Section — a disturbing number of which seem to have had their music featured on the soundtrack of “The O.C.”

Memory? I’ve externalized it. I am one of those baby boomers who are making this the “It’s on the Tip of My Tongue Decade.” But now I no longer need to have a memory, for I have Google, Yahoo and Wikipedia. Now if I need to know some fact about the world, I tap a few keys and reap the blessings of the external mind. [/] Personal information? I’ve externalized it. I’m no longer clear on where I end and my BlackBerry begins. When I want to look up my passwords or contact my friends I just hit a name on my directory. I read in a piece by Clive Thompson in Wired that a third of the people under 30 can’t remember their own phone number. Their smartphones are smart, so they don’t need to be. Today’s young people are forgoing memory before they even have a chance to lose it.

Now, you may wonder if in the process of outsourcing my thinking I am losing my individuality. Not so. My preferences are more narrow and individualistic than ever. It’s merely my autonomy that I’m losing. [/] I have relinquished control over my decisions to the universal mind. I have fused with the knowledge of the cybersphere, and entered the bliss of a higher metaphysic. As John Steinbeck nearly wrote, a fella ain’t got a mind of his own, just a little piece of the big mind — one mind that belongs to everybody. Then it don’t matter, Ma. I’ll be everywhere, around in the dark. Wherever there is a network, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a TiVo machine making a sitcom recommendation based on past preferences, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a Times reader selecting articles based on the most e-mailed list, I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way Amazon links purchasing Dostoyevsky to purchasing garden furniture. And when memes are spreading, and humiliation videos are shared on Facebook — I’ll be there, too. [/] I am one with the external mind. Om. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Sunday, November 04, 2007

Has Rock and Roll Ruined Everything?!?

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Bloom distills rock lyrics into three dominant themes: “sex, hate and a smarmy, hypocritical version of brotherly love.” First the sex: “The sexual revolution must overthrow all the forces of domination, the enemies of nature and happiness. From love comes hate, masquerading as social reform. A worldview is balanced on the sexual fulcrum. What were once unconscious or half-conscious childish resentments become the new Scripture. And then comes the longing for the classless, prejudice-free, conflictless, universal society that necessarily results from liberated consciousness—‘We Are The World.’”


From a New Criterion article, Twenty years ago today, more follows:

Counterpoints: 25 years of The New Criterion on culture and arts [/] Twenty years ago today [/] By Mark Steyn

We are all rockers now. National Review publishes its own chart of the Fifty Greatest Conservative Rock Songs, notwithstanding that most of the honorees are horrified to find themselves on such a hit parade. The National Review countdown of the All-Time Hot 100 Conservative Gangsta Rap Tracks can’t be far away. Even right-wingers want to get with the beat and no-one wants to look like the wallflower who can’t get a chick to dance with him. To argue against rock and roll is now as quaintly irrelevant as arguing for the divine right of kings. It was twen- ty years ago today, sang the Beatles forty years ago today, that Sergeant Pepper taught the band to play. Well, it was twenty years ago today—1987—that Professor Bloom taught us the band had nothing to say.

I don’t really like the expression “popular culture.” It’s just “culture” now: there is no other. “High culture” is high mainly in the sense we keep it in the attic and dust it off and bring it downstairs every now and then. But don’t worry, not too often. “Classical music,” wrote Bloom, “is now a special taste, like Greek language or pre-Columbian archaeology. Thirty years ago [i.e., now fifty years ago], most middle-class families made some of the old European music a part of the home, partly because they liked it, partly because they thought it was good for the kids.” Not anymore. If you’d switched on TV at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1999 you’d have seen President and Mrs. Clinton and the massed ranks of American dignitaries ushering in the so-called new millennium to the strains of Tom Jones singing “I’m gonna wait till the midnight hour/ That’s when my love comes tumblin’ down.” Say what you like about JFK, but at least Mrs. Kennedy would have booked a cellist.

“Popular culture” is more accurately a “present-tense culture”: You’re celebrating the millennium but you can barely conceive of anything before the mid-1960s. We’re at school longer than any society in human history, entering kindergarten at four or five and leaving college the best part of a quarter-century later—or thirty years later in Germany. Yet in all those decades we exist in the din of the present. A classical education considers society as a kind of iceberg, and teaches you the seven-eighths below the surface. Today, we live on the top eighth bobbing around in the flotsam and jetsam of the here and now. And, without the seven-eighths under the water, what’s left on the surface gets thinner and thinner.

So the “Music” chapter is the most difficult one for young fans of The Closing Of The American Mind—because it’s the point at which you realize just how much Allan Bloom means it. And by “young fans,” I mean anyone under the age of Mick Jagger, who features heavily in that section. A couple of years ago, Sir Mick—as he now is—spent an agreeable hour being interviewed by a pleasant lady he’d carelessly assumed had been dispatched by one of the hip young magazines surfing the cutting edge of the zeitgeist. He was furious to discover subsequently that she was an emissary from Saga, the magazine for British seniors. They put him on the cover as the Pensioner of the Month, and he wasn’t happy about it, although one could see their point: When you think about it, “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction” makes a much better anthem for seniors than it ever did for rebellious youth. He should be grateful they didn’t send their medical correspondent: “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction.” “Well, it’s a common problem at your age. But the good news is that often it’s just psychological.” Twenty years on from Allan Bloom, this is the triumph of rock’s pseudo-revolution: elderly “street-fighting men” with knighthoods—Sir Mick Jagger, Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, Sir Bob Geldof, Sir Bono.

[...] Yet, in the course of a day, any number of non-rock-related transactions are accompanied by rock music. I was at the airport last week, sitting at the gate, and over the transom some woman was singing about having two lovers and being very happy about it. And we all sat there as if it’s perfectly routine. To the pre-Bloom generation, it’s very weird—though, as he notes, “It may well be that a society’s greatest madness seems normal to itself.” Whether or not rock music is the soundtrack for the age that its more ambitious proponents tout it as, it’s a literal soundtrack: it’s like being in a movie with a really bad score.

[...] So Bloom is less concerned with music criticism than with what happens when a society’s incidental music becomes its manifesto. The key to what’s happened is in the famous first sentence of the book. “There is,” writes the author, “one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” To quote the African dictator in a Tom Stoppard play, a relatively free press is a free press run by one of my relatives. A relative culture ends up ever shorter of any relatives to relate to. In educational theory, it’s not about culture vs. “counter-culture” but rather what I once called lunch-counterculture: It’s all lined up for you and you pick what you want. It’s the display case of rotating pies at the diner: one day the student might pick Milton, the next Bob Dylan. But, if Milton and Bob Dylan are equally “valid,” equally worthy of study, then Bob Dylan will be studied and Milton will languish. And so it’s proved, most exhaustively, in music.

[...] Allan Bloom quotes Gotthold Lessing on Greek sculpture: “Beautiful men made beautiful statues, and the city had beautiful statues in part to thank for beautiful citizens.” “This formula,” writes Bloom, “encapsulates the fundamental principle of the esthetic education of man. Young men and women were attracted by the beauty of heroes whose very bodies expressed their nobility. The deeper understanding of the meaning of nobility comes later, but is prepared for by the sensuous experience and is actually contained in it.”

What happens when, instead of beautiful men making beautiful statues, angry men make angry songs? “Keepin’ it real,” in the current black vernacular, means the rapper Nelly making a video in which he swipes a credit card through his ho’s butt. “Keepin’ it real” means songs in which men are “angry” (as John Kerry says) and violent and nihilistic, and women are “sluts, bobbing chicken heads, and of course bitches.” “Authenticity” is surely a more reductive view of the black experience than your average nineteenth-century minstrel show ever attempted. I think we can guess how Nat “King” Cole would have felt about gangsta rap. Duke Ellington has more in common with Ravel than with Snoop Dogg. Scott Joplin had far more reason to be “angry” than any hip-hopper but he didn’t put it in the music. To eliminate a century and a half’s tradition of beauty and grace from your identity isn’t “keepin’ it real,” it’s keepin’ it unreal in deeply unhealthy ways. [/] Rap is, of course, an outlier, as the statisticians say, but it illustrates what happens when pop culture becomes unmoored from its inheritance, and can only justify itself in social terms.

[...] Recall Bloom’s list of what he calls “the three great lyrical themes: sex, hate and a smarmy, hypocritical version of brotherly love.” That’s not a critique of pop music but of society as a whole. First, sex: The narcissism and self-gratification of adolescent romance—the “slavery to self,” as Professor Robert P. George called it, that Bloom asks us to rise above—is now presumed to be the only basis of true fulfillment in the modern world. Then, hate: the bogus “social reform” that’s little more than a bit of cover for trashing the past. And finally, the “smarmy, hypocritical brotherly love,” the sappy one-worldism in which we sing songs about global brotherhood in order to avoid having to give a thought to the world.

This is the heart of the Bloom critique that “such polluted sources issue in a muddy stream where only monsters can swim. It is of historic proportions that a society’s best young and their best energies should be so occupied. People of future civilizations will wonder at this and find it as incomprehensible as we do the caste system, witch-burning, harems, cannibalism and gladiatorial combats.” Confronted by these sentiments, many young readers just shrug: The old man doesn’t get it. Not his fault. He’s just old. In a way, their reaction or lack of it vindicates his final point: “As long as they have the Walkman on, they cannot hear what the great tradition has to say. And, after its prolonged use, when they take it off, they find they are deaf.” He’s mouthing away but they can’t hear. Like Britney when the lip-synching goes awry.

[...] Shorn of the other seven-eighths of the iceberg, the present-tense culture is insufficient. At my local school in New Hampshire, the music teacher eschews the classics and teaches boomer rock, much to the bemusement of her young charges for whom forty-year-old pop songs are as remote as 400-year-old sonatas. Children are asked to pick a favorite Beatle. Why would a six-year-old have such a thing? The Fab Four split up thirty years before he was born. It’s like my old music teacher asking me to pick my favorite member of Paul Whiteman’s Yacht Club Boys. [/] But she never did. And that’s the biggest difference between 2007 and 1987. What Allan Bloom observed in his students can now be found in the teachers. [/] This article originally appeared in The New Criterion, Volume 26, November 2007, on page 18 [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Monday, October 29, 2007

Election Coverage: Biased Fluff?!?

Say it ain't so, media mogulhs!

(With apologies to Joseph Jefferson "Shoeless Joe" Jackson (Career batting av. - .356, 3rd highest), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball.)

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


I report and link. You decide. - BJon

The public pines for substance. A separate survey found that 77 percent of the respondents said they wanted more solid information on candidate policies and ideas. The press did not deliver.

Instead, almost two-thirds of the coverage focused on the "game" of the political horse race and candidate "performance." Accounts of their marriages, health and religion followed in importance in 17 percent of the stories — with just 15 percent examining domestic and foreign policies. A mere 1 percent shed light on candidates' public records.


From a Washington Times article, Slant seen in '08 race coverage, more follows:

Slant seen in '08 race coverage [/] Article published Oct 29, 2007 [/] By Jennifer Harper

Campaign coverage of the 2008 presidential election has been both biased and shallow, according to a study released today by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. [/] One party dominates, and there's way too much partisan fluff.

Numbers reveal all: Democratic candidates were the subject of half of the 1,742 recent print, broadcast and online news stories analyzed in the research. Republicans garnered 31 percent. [/] "Overall, Democrats received more positive coverage than Republicans (35 percent of stories versus 26 percent), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35 percent versus 26 percent)," the study said.

The public pines for substance. A separate survey found that 77 percent of the respondents said they wanted more solid information on candidate policies and ideas. The press did not deliver. [/] Instead, almost two-thirds of the coverage focused on the "game" of the political horse race and candidate "performance." Accounts of their marriages, health and religion followed in importance in 17 percent of the stories — with just 15 percent examining domestic and foreign policies. A mere 1 percent shed light on candidates' public records.

"The press and the public are not on the same page when it comes to priorities in campaign coverage," the study said. "This disparity indicates there is room for the press to calibrate its coverage differently to make it more useful and possibly more interesting to citizens." [/] Indeed. More than half the public wants more insight into candidate debates, sources of campaign money and the lesser-known White House hopefuls. Of 18 candidates running, 52 percent of the coverage went to just five of them: Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois fixated press interest, garnering 17 percent and 14 percent of the total coverage, respectively. [/] Three Republicans followed: Rudolph W. Giuliani with 9 percent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona (7 percent) and Mitt Romney (5 percent). [/] Contenders, such as Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, were featured in only a dozen stories; Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, scored just one. Even John Edward's wife, Elizabeth, got more coverage than 10 of the candidates, the study found.

Mr. Obama was the media darling: 47 percent of the stories about him were positive, compared with 27 percent for Mrs. Clinton. Mr. McCain got the most press abuse. Just 12 percent of the stories about him were positive in tone.

The public, meanwhile, has only tepid reviews for it all, with a majority — 53 percent — rating the news coverage only fair to poor. The fault could lie in journalism's focus on insider politics. [/] "Just 12 percent of stories impact ordinary citizens," the study said. "By contrast, 86 percent of the stories were produced in a way that largely focused on how the politician's chances of election would be affected." [/] The stories were analyzed between January and May; the survey of 1,000 adults was conducted Sept. 28 to Oct. 1, with a margin of error of three percentage points. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Friday, October 26, 2007

Katrina Drives Louisiana Republican?!?

It's All Bush's Fault!?!

N.B. Italics have been used in the article indicate clearly the obvious bias. Good news for conservatives and Republicans is bad news for these folks and must be qualified by their conceits.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From an Economist .com article, Bucking a trend:

Louisiana [/] Bucking a trend [/] Oct 25th 2007 | NEW ORLEANS [/] From The Economist print edition

Some rare good news for Republicans in the shape of a governor [/] WHEN it comes to the business of elections, Louisiana likes to confound conventional wisdom. While most of its Southern neighbours were busy electing Republicans during the early 2000s, Louisiana stubbornly returned a Democrat, Mary Landrieu, to the Senate in 2002, and put another one, Kathleen Blanco, in the governor's mansion in 2003. Now, as Republican fortunes have sagged across the nation—in no small part because of the Bush administration's failure to cope with Hurricane Katrina's devastation of Louisiana's coast in 2005the [[Republican]] party is having a banner year in the state.


N.B. Amazing!!! The Republican national government messed up horribly in Loisianna's hour of need so the people closest to the event turn to the Republicans for better governance?!? Do they themselves really believe this nonsense?!?

Atop the scorecard is the Republicans' reclamation of the governorship, in a rare primary-election victory by the 36-year-old Bobby Jindal on October 20th. Unusually, Louisiana holds a combined primary for all candidates, Democrat and Republican, with the top two vote-winners going forward to a run-off. Even more unusual is for a candidate to win outright on the first round, which is what Mr Jindal managed, polling an impressive 54% of the primary vote. Perhaps most remarkable of all is that Mr Jindal, who is Indian-American as well as very young, has overturned what had been supposed to be deep-seated prejudice. Four years ago, his defeat by Ms Blanco was widely viewed as proof that the state's “Bubbas”—rednecks uncomfortable with politicians who don't look like them—had not evolved. [/] But just four years later, Bubba seems to have granted Mr Jindal, whose given name is Piyush, honorary redneck status. (Four years ago, bumper stickers appeared with the slogan “Bubbas for Bobby”, but the message has taken a long time to sink in.)

Mr Jindal is something of a paradox. He is the first non-white governor since Reconstruction; he is a Rhodes scholar; he is the nation's youngest governor. In other words, he's a breath of fresh air, a sign of progress who promises to eradicate corruption in what many say is America's worst-governed state. On the other hand, he is a religious conservative who was as reliable a rubber-stamp as George Bush had in Congress, refusing to make a fuss even when Republicans there were blaming New Orleans for Katrina. Not all of the air is fresh.

Mr Jindal's victory is only the icing on the cake. The Republicans are expected to take five of the six elected state offices in Louisiana when the run-off votes are counted next month. [/] And next year the Democrats' top officeholder, Ms Landrieu, looks like facing an uphill battle. When she was last elected, in 2002, she won in large part thanks to a landslide in her home city, heavily Democratic New Orleans. Whereas the city's predilections haven't changed dramatically, its size has, and its electoral significance along with it. In 2002 almost 133,000 New Orleanians voted in the Senate race. On October 20th less than 60% of that number turned up at the polls, a sign of the city's post-Katrina shrinkage. Ms Landrieu won New Orleans by almost 80,000 votes in 2002, twice her overall margin of victory. This time, that was more votes than all the candidates got combined in the city that was once the alpha and the omega of Louisiana politics. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Catholic Bible vs. NIV (New International Version)

(Response to a poster in a forum.)

The translations to avoid are not Catholic versions, but non-literal versions.

If one believes that each word in the original writings is inspired by God, one should avoid the NIV.

This and other recent translations are based on the notion that the ideas but not each word were inspired.

This gives the translators a lot of room to decide for themselves just what these inspired ideas are.

The additional books in the Catholic versions do not add significantly to the body of central Christian teaching.

Athough those books were used by Jews of the First Century along with Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, the traditional Protestant view seems to be that the Hebrew scriptures as maintained in Jerusalem by officials of the congregation of Israel were what Paul meant by the "oracles of God".

Romans 3:1-2 KJV What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? (2) Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The difference between Catholic and Protestant teaching is not in versions of the Bible. It has to do with the Catholic notion that revelation is ongoing through the apostolic authority handed down to the bishops. Catholic scholars will readily admit that the main teachings that differ from traditional protestantism are based on the teaching authority of the Catholic Church much more than upon scripture.

Social Versus Economic Conservatism!?!

Is this the choice for Republicans?!?

Revelation 17:3-4 KJV So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. (4) And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

It seems to me that we are better off without the government beast getting overly involved with the economic lady.

But, I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a Wall Street Journal .com Opinion Journal article, Who is Mike Huckabee?:

Another Man From Hope [/] Who is Mike Huckabee? [/] JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL [/] Friday, October 26, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Republicans have won five of the last seven presidential elections by running candidates who broadly fit the Ronald Reagan model--fiscally conservative, and firmly but not harshly conservative on social issues. The wide-open race for the 2008 GOP nomination has generated two new approaches.

Rudy Giuliani, for example, isn't running away from his socially liberal views, although he has modified them. But he is campaigning as a staunch, even acerbic economic conservative. Should he win the nomination, conventional wisdom has it he may balance the ticket by picking former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as a running mate.

Mr. Huckabee, on the other hand, is running hard right on social issues but liberal-populist on some economic issues. This may help explain why the affable, golden-tongued Baptist minister was the clear favorite at the pro-life Family Research Council's national forum last Saturday. And why Mr. Huckabee's praises have been sung by liberal columnists such as Gail Collins of the New York Times and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

U.S.: Land of Free Speech?!?

There were screams from the audience: "Fascist," then "racist" then "Osama Bin Laden is a CIA agent." The noise was getting louder and I could not speak any more. I felt that even in America I am being silenced. My response was: “Who will speak for women who are stoned and for Muslims terrorized in radical Muslim countries? It is sad that I left oppressive Sharia Muslim culture, where I had no freedom of speech, only to find myself silenced in America, by groups who claim they are for free speech.”


I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a FrontPageMagazine.com article, Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week Day 2:

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week Day 2 [/] By Nonie Darwish | 10/24/2007 [/] [The following is a speech given by Nonie Darwish, the founder of Arabs for Israel, at last night’s kickoff event at UC Berkeley for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. It is preceded by a short intro written by Nonie Darwish regarding her impressions of the events surrounding her speech.]

Intro: [/] The atmosphere required extensive security -- which made me feel that without it I would have been physically hurt at UC Berkeley. The first statement from the Al-Jazeera representative to me was: “You are the most hated woman in the Arab world.” The hatred was also felt from the far leftist American audience. My response to the Al-Jazeera statement was: “Arab media spread a hate campaign against me after my book came out. Egyptian media, without reading the book, called me a traitor to my father because I support Israel. I love my father and I believe that if he had lived he would have been part of the peace treaty that Sadat had singed with Israel.” I believe Arab media is trying to misrepresent my views in order to silence me.

A man was sitting in the audience with a black sheer bag covering his head to protest ‘Abu Greib’ when the discussion had nothing to do with Iraq. There were screams from the audience: "Fascist," then "racist" then "Osama Bin Laden is a CIA agent." The noise was getting louder and I could not speak any more. I felt that even in America I am being silenced. My response was: “Who will speak for women who are stoned and for Muslims terrorized in radical Muslim countries? It is sad that I left oppressive Sharia Muslim culture, where I had no freedom of speech, only to find myself silenced in America, by groups who claim they are for free speech.”

The sad thing about this whole event was the feeling that radical Muslims and their far Left supporters would rather never criticize Islamic culture than stand up against the culture that flogs, stones, beheads and amputates limbs. Not offending a religion has become more important to the far Left (unless it is Christianity or Judaism) than human rights of Muslims and victims of terror. Honor killing and female genital mutilation can be tolerated -- but none better dare utter the word "Islamo-fascism."

American universities are becoming tyrannical when it comes to Conservative values and to Arab Americans who dare to speak out against the culture of jihad. It does not matter how many people in my early life in Egypt suffered from honor killing, female genital mutilation and oppression of women, I must shut up on American campuses.

The Speech: [/] As an American woman of Muslim Arab origin, I cherish the freedoms America has given me; a right all too scarce in the Middle East where speaking for human rights, women’s rights, democracy and even peace with Israel, is a taboo with serious consequences. [/] In America, I learned that no ideology or religion is beyond questioning. Ideologies that don’t answer the hard questions will face intellectual bankruptcy. I would like to stress that this is not a discussion about the good and peace loving Muslims, but about an ideology of violence and hatred that has brought oppression, unrest, violence and terror to the Middle East and has now spread to the rest of the world. Radicals have made the slightest criticism, critical thinking and free inquiry an insult to Islam. Arab feminists, reformers and intellectuals are intimidated, threatened or killed. Even the late Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, was stabbed in Cairo in 1994 by a radical Muslim who claimed he insulted Islam. That is why we all must welcome an open discussion. The best weapon in the war on terror and Islamo-Fascism is the truth.

I’d like to start with my background. I was born and raised as a Muslim in Cairo, Egypt and the Gaza Strip; a time when President Nasser was committed to unify the Arab world and destroy Israel. In the 50’s, my father headed the Egyptian military intelligence in Gaza and started the Fedayeen, which means ‘armed resistance and self sacrifice’. They made cross-border attacks into Israel and caused death, damage and destruction. There were assassination attempts on my father in response to the terror. [/] One night Israel sent commandos to our heavily guarded home, but my father was not home. All the Israeli soldiers found were us, women and children. The Israeli soldiers left us unharmed.

I attended Gaza elementary schools. It is there that we learned hatred vengeance and retaliation; peace was never an option; but a sign of defeat and weakness. Jews were portrayed as less than human; I was told ‘don’t take candy or fruit from a stranger, it could be a Jew trying to poison you’. They filled our hears with fear of Jews; that made hatred come easy and terrorism acceptable, even honorable. [/] After two years of intense Fedayeen operations, my father was killed in the first targeted assassination in Gaza in 1956. I was 8 years old. In Nasser's famous speech to nationalize the Suez Canal, he hailed my father as a national hero, a Shahid. President Nasser vowed that all of Egypt would take revenge and made no mention of the heavy toll of death and destruction brought upon Israel by the Fedayeen. My siblings and I were asked by top government officials "which one of you will avenge your father's blood by killing Jews." I felt very uncomfortable with a question. We were speechless. [/] After my father’s death, my mother had to face life alone with five children in a culture that gave respect only to families headed by a man. In the 50’s few women drove cars and she was criticized and called names for buying a car to take us to school. Arab women are expected to sacrifice their family by giving up their husbands and sons to martyrdom, but are given little respect to live their life with freedom and dignity.

I lived for 30 years in oppressive dictatorships and police states. I witnessed honor killing of girls (our maid), oppression of women and female genital mutilation. We regularly heard the cursing of non-Muslims from the pulpits of mosques. As a young woman, I visited a Christian friend in Cairo during the Friday prayers, and we both heard the verbal attacks on Christians and Jews from the loudspeakers. We heard "May God destroy the infidels and the Jews, the enemies of God. We are not to befriend them or make treaties with them." We also heard the worshipers respond "Amen". I heard ‘cursing prayers’ all my life from the pulpits of mosques -- and believe it or not if you grow up with cursing prayers, it can feel and sound normal. My Christian friend looked scared, and I was ashamed. That was when I first realized that something was very wrong in the way my religion was taught and practiced.

I moved to the US in 1978. In my first visit to a mosque in America, we were told not to assimilate in America and that Islam is here to become the dominant religion. I was told to cover up in Islamic clothes; but how can I do that when I have never worn Islamic clothes in Egypt? Women in Egypt until the 1980’s did not wear Islamic clothes. [/] In August 2001, I visited my birthplace, Cairo, Egypt. I was stunned to see how radical Islam had taken over. The level of anger and hate speech was alarming. I saw extreme poverty, pollution, hazardous material and garbage along the Nile. There was high unemployment, inflation and widespread corruption. But when I read Arab media, all I saw was Israel and America bashing. Citizens were unaware of Muslim against Muslim atrocities in Iraq, Algeria, Sudan etc. As a matter of fact, the term “Islamo-fascism” was coined by Algerian Muslims and ex-Muslims to describe the Islamic fanatics who slaughtered 150,000 fellow Algerian Muslims in the 1990s. Arab media have failed human rights of the ordinary Arab citizens. They have no understanding of their role in defending the interest of the public; this mentality was created from an Islamo-Fascist environment that rejects change.Western media was also under-reporting the threat.

I was happy to return to the US on the evening of Sept. 10th. 2001. The next morning I saw the second airplane hit the twin towers, I knew ‘Jihad has come to America.’ Muhammad Attah was from Cairo, the same city I came from. [/] I called several friends in Cairo, they were all in denial and said ‘How dare you say that Arabs did this? Don’t you know this is a Jewish conspiracy?' [/] These were not radicals, but ordinary Egyptians who otherwise are very nice people. I hung up the phone and felt alone and disconnected from my culture of origin. Once again, my people are accusing the Jewish people of something we know very well, we Arabs have done ourselves. In any religion this is considered a sin, but in the eyes of radial Islam, Jews do not deserve the truth, justice or mercy. The Jews that we describe in our mosques, Arab textbooks and media don't exist. We, Arabs are fighting an imaginary Jew of our own creation. Israel is not perfect; no society is; but the way the Jews and minorities are treated by my people is tragic and a disgrace.

The global war we are fighting against Islamo-fascism and jihad is not just about bombs and hijacked planes; It’s also about tyranny and oppression of women. Oppression of women and support of terror are two facets of the same fundamentalist mentality. Islamic law – Sharia – that terrorists are fighting to impose upon the world, would create a global state of gender apartheid. [/] Under criminal Sharia, punishment could be flogging, stoning, beheading and amputation of limbs. Cruel and unusual punishment by Western and humane standards. Leaving Islam is punishable by death. If the State fails to kill an apostate, his death is guaranteed at the hands of a street mob. That makes Islam more than a religion; it is a one party state; and also an elaborate legal system, called Sharia, that can put you to death if you leave Islam. Sharia must guarantee there is no defection from the Berlin Wall of the Muslim State. Amazingly, the majority of Muslim countries don’t practice criminal Sharia because they cannot stomach it.

I have lived under Family Sharia for 30 years of my life. This is practiced in all Muslim countries; it allows only men the right to an easy divorce, having up to 4 wives, allows wife beating, half the inheritance of a man to a woman and her testimony in court is only half valid. She is respected only when she shields her body, face and even her identity. As many as seventy-five percent of women in Pakistani prison are behind bars for the crime of having been raped. Sharia codified into permanent Law a 7th century Arabian Peninsula tribal culture for every Muslim in any culture for ever. [/] Under Sharia, the Muslim Khalifa or Amir, meaning leader, is exempt from being punished under Sharia. Islamic Sharia law is a dictator’s dream handed to him by Allah.

Polygamy has a devastating effect on family dynamics, husband/wife relationship and women relationships. Many Moslem men only have one wife, but the damage to wife/husband relationship has already been done in the Muslim marriage contract itself; where a man does not pledge loyalty to his wife and the wife cannot expect his loyalty. The marriage contract has 3 more spaces to be filled out by other women if the man wishes. That is why a good Muslim woman must accept her destiny under Sharia Law for one simple reason, challenging Allah’s Law is like challenging Allah himself.

In the latest Bin Laden tape, the terror guru was calling on Muslims in the West to increase their numbers through converting as many Americans to Islam and through immigration in order to accomplish, what he called, jihad from within. That is why Islamists in the West are pushing the envelope to see how far the West can take it. Some demand Sharia Law and even claim that Sharia is comparable with democracy. [/] In a Muslim parade in New York this September, right before the 6th anniversary of 9/11, Muslims carried signs saying “Muslims against Democracy and Western Values”, “the Holocaust is a hoax” and “Ban the Talmud”. They were selling books on jihad with an AK 47s on the cover. This comes from people who are complaining of Islamo-phobia. Do they think this will bring them sympathy and understanding?

A Muslim woman in Florida insists on covering her face for a driver’s license, cab drivers in Minnesota refuse to take passengers carrying wine from the duty-free shop, the 6 flying Imams who scared everyone on the airplane and are now suing. And lately demands for special faucets at the level of the feet in American schools for Muslim kids to Wada “wash” before praying. [/] I have lived in the Middle East for 30 years and have never seen special faucets for Wada in schools or universities, except in mosques. This only exists in Saudi Arabia. The deception is phenomenal. Islamists are pushing Wahabi Saudi values in America; values that I have never even seen in Egypt. [/] I have not come to America to become a Wahabi Saudi.

On Arab TV, I once saw a Muslim preacher telling little children that lying is not allowed except under three conditions 1- Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam. 2- Lying to Muslims if it will end conflict between them. And 3rd: Lying to one’s wife to improve the relationship. [/] Lying thus has become an obligation in international relationships, Muslim relationships and family relationships. Any wonder why Muslims were silent after 9/11? Those who expose the lying game are considered traitors. By allowing lying, Muslims have created a culture unable to distinguish between lies from truth; truth has become a convoluted game of saving face for the best interest of Islam.

The Times of London reported that Muslim students in Britain are being taught to despise non-Muslims as ‘filth’. The Arabic word for this is ‘Nagas.’ That is why many Arabs believe that the existence of non-Muslims on Muslim land is a desecration or occupation. [/] US soldiers, at the request of Saudi Arabia, sacrificed their lives to protect it from Saddam. Under normal conditions that could have been met with appreciation, but instead, the Arab street reaction was “how dare the infidels desecrate Muslim land.” That is why America’s defense of the Muslims against the Serbs, the Afghani Muslims against the Soviet Union, feeding the Somali Muslims starved by their own leadership, all did not get the US any credit in the Muslim world; just the opposite, the more America tries to help stabilize the region, the more it is despised. Arab-Muslims do not want to be rescued by infidels. This is a proud culture that is easily shamed by feelings of dependency on the non-Muslims. This is the psychology of the Arab Street.

That is how the West is perceived. In the Judeo Christian culture they say: “we are all sinners” -- but in the Muslim culture “they are all sinners; but we are Muslims”. Non-Muslim are “Cafir”, non-Muslims are not innocent; they are viewed as sinners who need Islam and Islamists have given themselves the role of Allah to force Islam on the world, against their will, through the principle of Jihad. [/] Moslem clergy are constantly looking for the ideal Muslim State and cannot find it. They have failed miserably in stabilizing their society. Instead of being a source of comfort, stability and wisdom, they have become a source of hate, rage and subversion. To them, the solution is always an intifada, uprising, a coup d’etat, an assassination or violence on the streets. They have no respect for the legitimacy of any government and no government is Muslim enough for them; not even Saudi Arabia.

In this dynamic only tyrannical governments can survive. Leaders who want peace, modernity and reforms are assassinated, like Sadat. Every Muslim country is suffering from underground radical Muslim groups who are trying to overturn the government and the constitution, in their pursuit for the perfect Muslim state. That is why the Muslim world is in a constant turmoil, stagnation and conflict. Islamo-fascism is the end result.

America is very concerned since all of this is spilling to the rest of the world. In 1998 the same attitude was expressed by a Muslim leader who asked Muslims in America not to assimilate and said we are here to make the Koran the law of the land in America. What Arab leaders are suffering from is now moving to America and if that will continue our freedoms will erode. Islamo-fascist unrest, turmoil, destructive mentality and hatred of order and the rule of law is now here.

Arab governments have access to build mosques in the West, but give Americans no access to build churches or synagogues in Muslim countries. They finance Muslim and Middle East studies departments on American Universities -- but there is not one University in any of the 52 Muslim countries that have a Christian or Judaism Studies Department. They freely preach Islam all around the world, but imprison and kill Christian missionaries.

If this trend continues Bin Laden’s dreams of internal jihad within America will come true. If that happens America will never be the same again. We could see a large Muslim population congregate in London, Paris or Detroit demanding Sharia or else. If their demands are denied then they will demand a separatist movement; Chechnya can happen in the West. Islamic separatist movements are alive and well in Chechnya, the Philippines and other parts of the world. It caused India to split Pakistan away and give it to Muslims, but Islamic terrorism inside India has not stopped.

And now Islamists have caught the West in a time of political correctness and multiculturalism. By tolerating hatred and violence, the West is not doing Muslims or Islam a favor. Tolerating intolerance is not a sign of compassion; it is gross negligence.

To conclude: Religion, any religion, must adapt to the universal concept of Human Rights, freedom of choice of one’s religion, equal rights of women and minorities. As Arab Americans what are we going to do about it? Are we going to remain silent and defensive? We owe America honest answers. We need to inspire true reform in our culture of origin. There are 7 women in Iran right now awaiting death by stoning -- are we going to stand by them or are we going to fail them? Muslim converts out of Islam are in hiding; are we going to allow them to get killed under the name of Islam? Are we going to see the Egyptian Christian population continue to suffer discrimination?

If Islam is a religion of peace then we must demand better from our religious leaders. We’ve had it with the self-anointed intolerant Ayatollahs, Mullahs and Sheikhs who act like Allah and silence speech by issuing Fatwas of death. I ask the support of the American Left. You should be our natural allies because we are the reformers and defenders of freedoms in the Middle East.

Western feminists must embrace a single standard for both the West and Muslim society. Feminists and everyone else concerned with human freedom must support Muslim dissidents, both male and female, who are risking their lives in a battle for women’s rights under Islam. I ask the support of the American left. You should be our natural allies because we are the reformers and defenders of freedoms in the Middle East. [/] Thank You. [/] Nonie Darwish is an American of Arab/Moslem origin. A freelance writer and public speaker, she runs the website www.ArabsForIsrael.com. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Mrs. Clinton: Still Declaring U.S. Defeat After Surge Success?!?

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


In the midst of smoke, mirrors, and spin, I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Last week, I asked Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Clinton's presidential campaign, if she still favored withdrawing troops now that the surge is working. Oh, yes, Penn said. Clinton is as "committed" as ever to removing troops from Iraq. What about the surge? Clinton is still against that, too.


From a Weekly Standard article, The Roads Not Taken, more follows:

The Roads Not Taken [/] How we narrowly avoided defeat in Iraq. [/] by Fred Barnes [/] 10/29/2007, Volume 013, Issue 07

Last February, Senator Hillary Clinton proposed to cap the number of American troops in Iraq at their level on January 1, 2007--roughly 140,000--and begin a withdrawal within 90 days. [/] The purpose of her bill was stated in section 2:

If the President follows the provisions of this Act, the United States should be able to complete a redeployment of United States troops from Iraq by the end of the current term in office of the President.


That wasn't all Clinton had in mind. Should the Bush administration and the Iraqi government fail to meet "certain conditions" within 90 days, American troops would no longer be authorized to stay in Iraq. Clinton's conditions were tough and sweeping, including the convening of a conference on Iraq to "involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors" and the stripping of "sectarian and militia influences" from Iraqi security forces.

The Clinton measure was never voted on. But it contained the major elements--a troop drawdown, emphasis on diplomacy, pressure on the Iraqi government--of the "responsible" strategy for salvaging American interests now that the war in Iraq had been lost. At least that's how Democrats, liberals, more than a few Republicans, the foreign policy establishment, most of the media, and a majority of Americans questioned by pollsters saw the situation.

Now imagine if the Clinton plan had become law. Nine months after she submitted her bill, we can speculate about what it would have produced. Sectarian violence would probably have exploded, al Qaeda would have been left with a large, secure sanctuary west of Baghdad, Iranian interference in Iraq would have increased, the prospects for democracy and stability would have dimmed. And that's just for starters.

We don't have to speculate, however, about what Clinton would have prevented. That's not a matter of guesswork. The successes from deploying more American troops in Iraq and taking up the counterinsurgency strategy of General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, would not have occurred. If Clinton had prevailed, the surge would have been impossible.

The same is true for practically every other proposal considered by the Democratic Congress on Iraq. Whatever the goal of the "responsible" plans--to end the war quickly, set a timetable for troop reductions, remove American troops from a combat role, focus the American effort solely on training the Iraqi army, make deployment of troops to Iraq more difficult, cut funding--the effect would have been to preclude the surge.

Like Clinton's bill, the "responsible" proposals were all based on the premise that the war in Iraq was lost. Now, the surge is proving that premise wrong. But had any of the proposals been enacted, we wouldn't have known this. We wouldn't have discovered the war is winnable and indeed now is being won, thanks to the surge.

What has the surge achieved? Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq. The Sunni insurgency is rapidly waning. Sunni sheikhs have joined with American forces. More recently, Shia sheikhs have helped American troops to suppress the Mahdi Army of Moktada al-Sadr, the pro-Iranian mullah. Political reconciliation is stirring in the Iraqi provinces as sectarian turmoil eases. Oil revenues are being shared. Civilian and U.S. military deaths have fallen sharply. Iraq is less violent, more stable. These accomplishments are directly or indirectly attributable to the surge.

The surge involved three steps. The first was to secure Anbar province, declared hopelessly hostile territory by the American military in 2006 but by early this year the scene of a Sunni rebellion against al Qaeda. The second step was to take over the belt around Baghdad--exurbs, really--from which al Qaeda equipped and dispatched suicide bombers, many coming from Anbar, to Baghdad and other cities. The third was pacifying Baghdad itself.

Last fall, the idea of sending troops to Anbar and leaving them to provide security for Iraqi citizens was debated inside the Bush administration. There was strong sentiment to focus on Baghdad alone. But Steve Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, favored an alliance with the Sunni sheikhs in Anbar and urged the president to include Anbar in the new secure-and-hold strategy. Bush agreed and in his nationally televised speech last January specifically noted that 4,000 more troops would be sent to Anbar.

Had Clinton's or any of the other "responsible" plans for phasing out or downgrading the American military's role in Iraq been adopted, even this small step of seizing Anbar would have been impossible. And so would subsequent efforts to secure other provinces where al Qaeda and insurgents were strong, and to stabilize Baghdad.

Let's look back at three of those plans.[...] [/] [...] like Clinton, wanted to pull troops out of Iraq, not make it easier to send them in. Last week, I asked Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Clinton's presidential campaign, if she still favored withdrawing troops now that the surge is working. Oh, yes, Penn said. Clinton is as "committed" as ever to removing troops from Iraq. What about the surge? Clinton is still against that, too. [/] Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Thursday, October 18, 2007

U.S.: In a state of "Cold Civil War"?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a MacLean's [Canada] Mark Steyn article, The 'cold civil war' in the U.S.:

The 'cold civil war' in the U.S. [/] "The common space required for civil debate has shrivelled to a very thin sliver of ground" [/] MARK STEYN | October 22, 2007 |

William Gibson, South Carolinian by birth, British Columbian by choice, is famous for inventing the word "cyberspace," way back in 1982. His latest novel, Spook Country, offers another interesting coinage:

Alejandro looked over his knees. "Carlito said there is a war in America." [/] "A war?" [/] "A civil war." [/] "There is no war, Alejandro, in America." [/] "When grandfather helped found the DGI, in Havana, were the Americans at war with the Russians?" [/] "That was the 'cold war.' " [/] Alejandro nodded, his hands coming up to grip his knees. "A cold civil war." [/] Tito heard a sharp click [...] He looked back at Alejandro. [/] "You don't follow politics, Tito."


That's quite a concept: "A cold civil war." Since 9/11, Mr. Gibson has abandoned futuristic sci-fi dystopias to frolic in the dystopia of the present. Spook Country boils down to a caper plot about a mysterious North America-bound container, and it's tricked out very inventively. Yet, notwithstanding the author's formidable powers of imagination, its politics are more or less conventional for a novelist in the twilight of the Bush era: [...] But it's that one phrase that makes you pause: "A cold civil war."

Or so you'd think. In fact, it seems to have passed entirely without notice. Unlike "cyberspace" a quarter-century ago, the "cold civil war" is not some groovy paradigm for the day after tomorrow but a cheerless assessment of the here and now, too bleak for buzz. As far as I can tell, April Gavaza, at the Hyacinth Girl website, is pretty much the first American to ponder whether a "cold civil war" has any significance beyond the novel:

What would that entail, exactly? A cold war is a war without conflict, defined in one of several online dictionaries as "[a] state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation." In that respect, is the current political climate one of "cold civil war"? I think arguments could be made to that effect. My mother, not much of a political enthusiast, has made similar assessments since the 2000 election ...


Indeed. A year before this next election in the U.S., the common space required for civil debate and civilized disagreement has shrivelled to a very thin sliver of ground. Politics requires a minimum of shared assumptions. To compete you have to be playing the same game: you can't thwack the ball back and forth if one of you thinks he's playing baseball and the other fellow thinks he's playing badminton. Likewise, if you want to discuss the best way forward in the war on terror, you can't do that if the guy you're talking to doesn't believe there is a war on terror, only a racket cooked up by the Bushitler and the rest of the Halliburton stooges as a pretext to tear up the constitution.

Americans do not agree on the basic meaning of the last seven years. If you drive around an Ivy League college town -- home to the nation's best and brightest, allegedly -- you notice a wide range of bumper stickers, from the anticipatory ("01/20/09" -- the day of liberation from the Bush tyranny) to the profane ("Buck Fush") to the myopically self-indulgent ("Regime Change Begins At Home") to the exhibitionist paranoid ("9/11 Was An Inside Job"). Let's assume, as polls suggest, that next year's presidential election is pretty open: might be a Democrat, might be a Republican. Suppose it's another 50/50 election with a narrow GOP victory dependent on the electoral college votes of one closely divided state. It's not hard to foresee those stickered Dems concluding that the system has now been entirely delegitimized.

Obviously the vast majority of Americans are not foaming partisans. It would be foolish to adduce any general theories from, say, Mr. "Ed Funkhouser," who emailed me twice in the small hours of Tuesday: the first epistle read, in total, "who needs facts indeed. How do you live with yourself, scumbag?" An hour and a half later he realized he'd forgotten to make his devastating assessment of my sexual orientation, and sent a follow-up: "you are a f--kin' moron. and probably queer too!" No doubt. Mr. Funkhouser and his friends on the wilder shores of the Internet are unusually stirred up, to a degree most Americans would find perverse. Life is good, food is plentiful, there are a million and one distractions. In advanced democracies, politics is not everything, and we get on with our lives. In a sense, we outsource politics to those who want it most and participate albeit fitfully in whatever parameters of discourse emerge. For half a decade, the "regime change" and "inside job" types have set the pace.

But that, too, is characteristic of a cold war. In the half-century from 1945, most Americans and most Russians were not in active combat. The war was waged by small elite forces through various useful local proxies. In Grenada, for example, Maurice Bishop's Castro-backed New Jewel Movement seized power from Sir Eric Gairy, the eccentric prime minister, in the first-ever coup in the British West Indies. Mr. Bishop allowed the governor general, Sir Paul Scoon, to remain in place (if memory serves, they played tennis together) and so bequeathed posterity the droll paradox of the only realm in which Her Majesty the Queen presided over a politburo. Though it wasn't exactly a critical battleground, Grenada springs to mind quite often when I think of cultural institutions in the U.S. and the West. The grade schools no longer teach American history as any kind of coherent narrative. "Paint me warts and all," Oliver Cromwell instructed his portraitist. But in public education, American children paint only the warts -- slavery, the ill-treatment of Native Americans, the pollution of the environment, more slavery ... There are attempts to put a positive spin on things -- the Iroquois stewardship of the environment, Rosa Parks' courage on the bus -- but, cumulatively, heroism comes to be defined as opposition to that towering Mount Wartmore of dead white males. As in Grenada, the outward symbols are retained -- the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance -- but an entirely new national narrative has been set in place.

Well, it takes two to have a cold civil war. The right must be doing some of this stuff, too, surely? Up to a point. But for the most part they either go along, or secede from the system -- they home-school, turn to talk radio and the Internet, read Christian publishers' books that shift millions of copies without ever showing up on a New York Times bestsellers list. The established institutions of the state remain under the monolithic control of forces that ceaselessly applaud themselves for being terrifically iconoclastic:

Hollywood's latest war movie? Rendition. Oh, as in the same old song? [/] A college kid writes a four-word editorial in a campus newspaper -- "Taser this: F--k Bush" -- and the Denver Post hails him as "the future of journalism. Smart. Confident. Audacious." Anyone audacious enough to write "F--k Hillary" or "F--k Obama" at a college paper? Or would the Muse of Confident Smarts refer you to the relevant portions of the hate-speech code? [/] Speaking of which, Columbia University won't allow U.S. military recruiters on campus because "Don't ask, don't tell" discriminates against homosexuals, but it will invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose government beheads you if they think you're bebottoming.

It's curious to encounter the soft-left establishment's hostility to the state. Go back to that line of Gibson's: free peoples develop "Stockholm Syndrome" about government all over the world, not least in Stockholm. It seems a mite inconsistent to entrust government to manage your health care and education and to dictate what you can and can't toss in the trash, but then to fret over them waging war on your behalf. Perhaps the next president will be, as George W. Bush promised, "a uniter, not a divider." Perhaps some "centrist Democrat" or "maverick Republican" will win big, but right now it doesn't feel that way.

Asked what would determine the course of his premiership, Britain's Harold Macmillan famously replied, "Events, dear boy, events." Yet in the end even "events" require broad acknowledgement. For Republicans, 9/11 is the decisive event; for Democrats, late November 2000 in the chadlands of Florida still looms larger. And elsewhere real hot wars seem to matter less than the ersatz Beltway battles back home. "The domestic political debate has nothing to do with what we're doing here," one U.S. officer in Iraq told the National Review's Rich Lowry this week, "in a representative comment offered not in a spirit of bitterness, but of cold fact." As Lowry remarked, "This is the lonely war" -- its actual progress all but irrelevant to the pseudo combat on the home front. In Neuromancer, William Gibson defined "cyberspace" as "a consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators in every nation." The "cold civil war" may be another "consensual hallucination," but for many it's more real than "the lonely war." [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays