This is the perfect anecdote.  I'm sure it represents many millions of Americans who confront this issue at some point in their lives.

Kathy Ireland was a supermodel. 

Sports Illustrated covers, bikinis, then movie roles, the whole deal.  She was her generation's Christie Brinkley or Cheryl Tiegs.  She had it all, including the requisite liberal Hollywood viewpoints.

But something happened to her when she 'grew up'.  This guy people call Jesus Christ managed to get her attention, and she was 'born again'.  There is a reason He chose that metaphor to describe the process of becoming Christian; the change is so total, so absolute, that no aspect of life is left untouched by it.

In Kathy's case, one of the notable changes was in her view of abortion.  She came to realize there was no proof that 'a bundle of cells is not a human being', as the pro side claims.  She put her mind to work, did her research, and most importantly, asked every pro choice person she could find to prove or demonstrate rationally that a fetus has an early stage at which it is not a human being.

And she was shocked to find that even the scientists, in whom she had placed her faith as a young person to have the 'settled answers' to this kind of issue, had no clue what makes a human human.  Those few people who took her challenge seriously ended up offering the Bill Maher answer, "a clump of cells that doesn't look like a person can't be human, right?"

Kathy asked herself the scientific question; does a clump of cells already 'represent' a complete human being in any way?  The answer is yes, of course.  DNA, the genetic code, the 'genome', is already there, from the moment the fertilized cell begins to split into two cells.  A person's hair color, eye color, height, pattern baldness, weight gain tendencies, individual mental capacity, physical responses to allergens, inclination to become addicted to some substances, blood type and athletic ability and strength and longevity and a whole lot of a person's personality; it's all in the code.  There is a sound and solid argument just on available evidence that a fetus, even a very small one, is 'human'; it has all it needs to complete the entire process of a human life, right down to its likely natural cause of death.

I recall a story I heard in Twinsburg, Ohio, the town that hosts the annual Twins Festival.  Twin brothers, aged 67, were outdoors one sunny Sunday.  One played golf, the other cut the lawn at his home.  The two awoke on stretchers, side by side, having suffered heart attacks in the exact same hour, possibly the same minute, of that afternoon.  At age 67, then, they knew their bodies were far more pre-programmed than anyone realized.  The Genome is nowhere near being completely unlocked in this way.  Nobody knows what's in there beyond the most basic of instructions.  But we know from this story and many others that genes can carry instructions for far more aspects of life than anyone had previously thought.

Kathy concluded (as I did) that science can't prove a fetus is, at some early stage, not human.  On its own, science cannot even identify what makes us human.  We are animals with extras; "spirit, soul, imagination, self-awareness, abstract thought" and so forth.  These things are not quantifiable in any scientific terms.  This means science cannot give the day, the hour, the moment when a fetus gets that magic pixie dust of humanity, goes from the 'clump of cells' to the 'baby person'.  Without that knowledge, then, we must take the reverse timeline approach-- if a baby newly born is human, then the same baby one day before is also human, and one month, and six months, and eight months before.  There is in fact only one point in time when the 'existence' of the human being can clearly be delineated. 

The day before conception there is no person.  The day after, there is.  It is from nonexistence to existence.  No other 'stage' in the process of fetal maturation is identifiable as the stage at which 'humanity', whatever that is, arrives.

That's why nobody on the pro choice side ever goes within a country mile of this argument.  They know it's a losing proposition.  If they try to prove a fetus is not human, they'll fail, and anyone listening will realize THEY ARE WRONG, and abortion is murder.

So they put everything in the terms of women's rights.  But nobody has the right to murder a human being.  Any woman doing this will be sent to prison, just like any man. 

But now you know, beyond doubt, that a fetus IS a human being.  All logic and rationality demand this be acknowledged, and one need not know exactly what MAKES a human human, whereas the other side must point to a moment at which humanity arrives in the already living fetus in order to justify abortion 'before' that moment. 

Simple logic shows the fetus must be human, as nobody can prove, or will even attempt to prove, that it is not.  Proof is required here.  We're talking about killing.  We can't be lazy or disinterested in answers; we MUST know!  And their side will not tell us.  We are supposed to flinch and withdraw at the words "women's rights". 

Almost all abortions are for for the sake of convenience.  I realize the word can seem flippant, but putting aside its emotional overreach it simply means that a person is unwilling to go through all the enormous life changes a baby brings.  The money, the school, the relationship with parents, the respect of family, the unfortunate permanent tie with the baby's father (often a man who is best forgotten)-- serious as all these are, they still add up to 'convenience'.  If you would recoil from killing a human being standing in front of you, then rationality compels that same revulsion to apply to a human being not yet born.  Placing aspects of your own life ahead of another human being's RIGHT to be alive is, plainly, wrong.

Unless you can prove a fetus isn't human. 

The inconsistency in the expressed views of that pro side gives their game away.  Some say 'it doesn't look human', implying that when it does, then abortion is wrong.  Yet others on that same side, including our esteemed President for life Barack Ogabe, believe you can kill it with impunity right up until natural childbirth is COMPLETE.  Obama fought for and voted for the kind of measures which permit the insertion of scissors into the skull of a child whose body is still inside the birth canal.  The scissors break open the hole and in goes the vacuum to suck out the brains of this little person.  Such is partial birth abortion, and I don't hear Bill Maher saying the 9 month old fetus 'doesn't look human'. 

Because it DOES look human.  IT IS human.  The Maher argument carries an implication that its adherent is open to the idea that at some point a fetus does become human. If Maher's 'clump of cells' isn't a baby, then he must be willing to acknowledge that a fetus which DOES look like a baby IS a baby.  But interestingly, I cannot recall any pro choicer who uses the 'clump of cells' argument having any comment on partial birth abortion.  Even NARAL has a problem with partial birth abortion!  But not Our Dear Leader, The One, The Saviour, El Presidente por la vida, Barry Ogabe.  He's all for killing babies that are lying on cold steel counters, alive, healthy, survivors of botched abortions, by simply leaving them on that cold steel counter until dehydration, starvation and exposure do their civic duty.

(Aside-- I have run across one or two people with a malfunctioning or insufficient sense of humor, and if you're the third, here's why I call him Ogabe.  Zimbabwe's president for life Robert Mugabe is famous for seizing private property, and for the million percent inflation that results from printing money like newspapers and going into massive national debt.  I suspect Mugabe is a role model for Obama, so I've synthesized their names to communicate my sense of the similarities between the two men.  Hence, Ogabe.)

I await with interest the argument from that side which points out clearly at what stage a fetus becomes human.  Science, perhaps, can do it.  Science disappointed Kathy Ireland in that respect, but maybe she didn't ask the right people.  I mean, they're out there, ready with the answer, just waiting for the right person to call on them...  right?  Surely people who are so loud and insistent in defending this 'right to choose' can explain rationally, for the peace of mind of any sensible person wishing to pursue their path, how a 'fetus' isn't human......  ???

After all, we don't want to be guilty of 'choosing' to kill somebody.  If there is doubt, then it should be explained by the smart people, so we red state rednecks can be free of guilt when we bow to their superior wisdom. 

And surely those who fight so hard for the woman's right to abort would know when a fetus becomes human, right? 
.....
Kathy asked them, and came away with nothing.  Same thing happened to me, probably about the same time.  When I was young I voted for Mondale, I supported abortion rights and other liberal causes, not because I was convinced or even interested but because I was trying to impress a girl who had those views.  I had no idea what it all meant, but I knew what I had to say to impress the girl.  And yes, it worked.  I found out later that she, as many full throttle abortion rights supporters, had one herself not long before.

I knew her later in life, and I happened to be around one day when she saw a group of children at recess in the schoolyard. She actually broached the subject with me, tear in her eye, saying "my child would have been this age now".  Not the words of a woman who had a medical procedure to remove an annoying clump of cells.  She knew what she had done, and felt guilty all these years later.  But at the time, she was fully committed to the cause, believing she was on the side of right, of 'women's rights' to be specific. I wonder how many of the tens of millions of women in this category are experience that sadness, that guilt, that fear of God's retribution, over having killed their own children.  I wonder how many are lying awake at night, and are contributing to America's all time record for sleeping pill consumption.

If a hunter in a forest had his crosshairs on a visible patch of brown fur, he'd shoot, right?  Even if he thought it might be a brown jacket on a person picking truffles under a tree, the hunter ought to shoot... right?  Because a little doubt shouldn't stop him from killing.  He needs food for his family, and there is a patch of brown fur in his sights.  He has a right to provide food to family!  Who cares if it might be a person, SHOOT! SHOOT!!!

In the real world, any hunter hesitates and holds his fire when he thinks his target MIGHT be a person. 

But not the pro choice crowd.  Even though they cannot offer a shred of evidence to prove a fetus is NOT a person, they skip right past the 'benefit of the doubt' and go straight to the killing.

Sensible people, of course, give the benefit of the doubt.  Nobody wants to be guilty of killing a human being, even if they 'didn't know' it was human.  Just the thought that it might be, just that little shred of doubt, ought to be enough to stop the act of killing, at least for long enough that the doubt can be erased.

But nobody who sets out to have that doubt erased will achieve their goal, will convince sensible people that a fetus is not a human being.  Nobody is making the argument at all, let alone a cogent and compelling argument, to demonstrate that an unborn fetus is not human.

What are the arguments FOR abortion? Why, they're all about the WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. 

She has a right, we're told, to decide what happens with her body.  So do we all, actually.  But the question is, does the fetus constitute 'her body' or is it a separate human being?  If the latter, then the fact that it's temporarily residing inside her body does NOT give her the right to kill it, anymore than I would have the right to kill someone who is in my car or in my living room.  A pregnant woman is in the position of hostess here, someone who has a high level of responsibility to care for and nurture this little guest.  That responsibility continues to apply after birth and up through age 18, legally speaking. 

And in a real sense they've already exercised their right to choose when they chose to participate in the activity of reproduction.  Perhaps they used protection; perhaps they took great care to prevent pregnancy.  But they chose to do what they did, and knew at the time it carried the risk.  Only the rape victim can claim otherwise.

You might think I'm going to make an allowance for a rape victim.  No.  If a fetus is a human being, it's a human being.  It has no responsibility for its own existence, and cannot choose its father.  Killing the fetus is as much a murder as in an abortion of convenience.  It is NOT about the motive, it's about the result of the act itself.  An abortion kills a human being.  Once the human being has been killed, no reason for having made that onerous choice is going to pass muster.  I can be overwhelmed with sympathy for victims of rape, but why would the rape of one victim prompt anyone to make a second victim, one who won't even survive these events?  If it weren't for the difficulty of being certain what actually happened in most rape cases, I'd support the death penalty for rapists.  That is the extent of my revulsion for and hatred of rapists.  No human being should have to submit unwillingly to that total domination and control from another, under any circumstances.  But there are women who have abused the privelege of womanhood and made false accusations of rape in order to harm the life of a man toward whom they are ill disposed.  Because there are rarely witnesses, the truth of any such event is very hard to fully learn.  For this reason only, I"ll withhold my blessing from executions of rapists. 

But as for the fetus, if it's a baby and it didn't do anything wrong, you shouldn't kill it.  Period.  And needless to say, infants in the womb can't really do anything wrong, let alone anything wrong enough to provoke the taking of their lives as a measure of justice.  They are innocent in every sense.

There is no middle ground.  A person is a person is a person.  "Thou shalt not murder" is the eighth commandment.  To murder is to kill a person.  And yes, this means a rape victim must give birth to the rapist's child or be complicit in murder.  Life is unfair, and we have no guarantees that people will always respect our rights or treat us well, or that our lives will go as we wish them to go.

I have no stake in this.  I have never caused a pregnancy, I have no children, and I will never have them.  I'm well aware that my contribution to this debate, such as it is, means nothing to some.  I can't understand it, they'll say, because I can't experience it.  My view will be rejected with a howl of anger from one quarter at least.   Telling the truth has never been easy, least of all to the people who are suffering and who desire deeply to partake of the comfort of the lie.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad/frightening-- 

It's a section of the document sent out to the Maryland National Guard, warning them of the dangers of the Constitution-wielding
'terrorists' at the Tea Parties.  Check it out.  Those grannies in the American Flag vests, those dads who took the afternoon off from work to bring their 4 yr. olds, perched up on dad's shoulders, all those people saying the Pledge of Allegiance and praying during the invocations, the men and women quoting from the Constitution of the United States, they are the frightening scary dangerous ones...  if you're an IDIOT.

The only person who needs to think of ME as a THREAT is the person planning to do me or my family any harm, to rob us, to break into our home, to hurt us...  because to that guy I AM a threat.  But a threat to the National Guard!?!?!?

I wonder if I'd be arrested by the MDNG if I put on a turban and fake beard, charged into a tea party shouting 'allahu akbar!" and chopped some granny's head off..... ?  They'd probably escort me from the area, offer a bathroom to wash up, and drive me to the nearest mosque so I could thank Allah for the opportunity to kill the infidel. 

I put key phrases in red, just to let you know how much your government FEARS you. 
___________________________________________________

5. (U) FORCE PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS:

a. (U) Full-time personnel (i.e. armories) and recruiters need to be aware their surroundings. Contact local law enforcement when feel threaten by protesters or protesters trespass into MDNG property.

b. (U//FOUO) Commanders at all levels should establish relationship with local police in order to understand the local threats. Keep family members informed. Talk to other service personnel to share information. Practice OPSEC. Don’t provide personal information to anyone you don’t know. Avoid high risk areas.

c. (U//FOUO) Commanders are encouraged to update alert rosters and review emergency evacuation plans/rally points. Ensure all facilities have emergency phone lists posted (i.e. FBI, FIRE, POLICE, HOSPITALS, EMS, ETC…). Be aware of and avoid local protests. Report all potential protest activities to your next higher headquarters.

We have elected President Thug.

Politico dot com has a story today about what really went on in a recent meeting between Obama and some bank executives.

They tried to explain to him why executive pay has been so high.  International talent market, competition for best people, etc.  Valid arguments, although less so now that the banking biz has been hurt so badly and so many 'talented' people were caught by surprise.

In the meeting?  Obama waved off all the explanations and explained to them their predicament:

"right now, my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks".

It's a quote.  The President, whose team has been busily GINNING UP the 'mob frenzy", along with ACORN and Frank and lots of other players, has now threatened banking executives with the possibility of some sort of violence from his rent-a-mob.

In other words, "nice bank you got there... be a shame if anything were to happen to it.... "

God help us, we've elected president Tony Soprano.

Government Motors... if anybody beats a GM deal, we'll seize their company!

Here is the truth about what happened with the Irish visitor and the teleprompter in the White House recently, and it is NOT, as is now well circulated, a true mistake by Obama.

It was a clever joke by Obama, admittedly at the expense of the Irishman but in good humor and much enjoyed.

the Irishman actually began reading Obama's speech, but realized quickly what had happened, and joked "why don't these things work for ME?" as a ribbing of Obama's known dependency on the device.

Obama then began by saying "I'd like to thank President Obama--" and laughed, along with a roaring and appreciative crowd.  Give and take, with pleasure.

The problem here is the media, of course.  Beginning with the AP and made worse by some newspapers, the report skimmed the facts and made it appear as if Obama had made a mistake.  They overlooked or ignored or edited out the fact that it was a joke and that it went very well.  It was subsequently seized upon by bloggers and webfolk worldwide, and eventually went onto talk radio in the States. 

I do not blame any of them, as they were just reading the story.  The story was wrong.  The fault lies primarily with the AP.

And of course, such a mistake would not have been made if Obama had not already been known to be dependent on that teleprompter.  An understandable error, but AP owes worldwide readers a better grasp of the facts.

reminds me of "bodies stacked like cordwood' inside the Superdome, or Dan Rather's "proof" that Bush evaded duty thirty years ago.  Those stories were much more serious but the problem is the same.  Media carelessness tilting toward disregard of obligation.

I only wish that the REST of the news I hear about Obama were as false as this story. 

Here is the United States Constitutional Amendment XIII addressing the issue of non-mandatory government service--

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

At present there is a plan which is currently passing through congress in the form of a bill, as an expansion of Americorps.

It calls for consideration of “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people.”

Mandatory service.  To government.  A thing that is specifically forbidden in Amendment XIII to the Constitution.

Think about it.

A friend tricked me over the weekend...  invited me to the lake for a weekend of fishing, then when we had eaten dinner and begun watching TV he whipped out "Religulous" and loaded the player.  The other guys there wanted to see it, so I was stuck.  :-)

Don't get me wrong, I can defend myself.  In fact, my friend kept ending our discussion of it (to escape, mind you) by saying I should have my own talk show.  :-) 

Been there, done that.  Maybe some day I'll feel like trying radio again, but thirty years of broadcasting and station ownership were enough for this go-round. 

During the movie, which was largely about how smart Bill Maher is, and of course about how much SMARTER he is than anybody else in the movie, I did notice one thing---

He made a statement to one of his victims/subjects along the lines of 'a little bundle of cells isn't a human being'. 

I challenge Mr. Maher to define what IS a human being.  He won't.  He will simply insist that something "without a brain, without arms or legs, without eyes and ears" etc is NOT a human being.

Now I know, as a 'religulous' man, that humanity is a characteristic given to each new person by God, invented by the creative mind of God before our own physical existence begins, and thus that we must consider any fertilized and dividing egg to be human because that is the defining moment at which physical 'existence' comes.  Before fertilization, no person, just an egg and a sperm.  After they meet, we see something NEW that sets off on its OWN path, eventually to be born, to grow up, to become an adult, to grow old and to die, and along the way perhaps to offer its own egg or sperm for that process to begin again.

But for Mr. Maher's sake, let's do the scientific thing.  Let's ask precisely what it is about each person that gives them that 'thing' we call humanity, personhood, human-being-ness or whatever clever word the clever Bill might offer.

And that answer, strictly speaking, is DNA. 

Each human being has a double helix of 'coding' that is responsible for every moment of change, every physical characteristic, every stage in the growth process of each person.  We are software whose instructions are followed by the hardware of our bodies.  Bill Maher and other supersmart guys should be able to get a handle on that. 

Any scientist would agree that DNA is the one thing that makes each person unique, but also defines each as a person rather than a chimp or frog or bacteria.

Without questions of spirituality or religion (just as the megasmart Bill Maher would have it), we are considering only the physical, and we are asking 'at what point is it human?'

And I suggest to him that he's wrong, that the little bundle of cells IS in fact human.

You see, that little bundle of cells has unique DNA that is not its mother and not its father, but is him, uniquely him.  It is the code that instructs his development.  Inside his unique double helix is everything about what he will be at every stage of his life.  Redhead or blond?  Blue eyes or brown?  Male or female?  Six foot five or five foot six?  Efficient metabolism or prone to weight gain?  Millions of instructions that govern every physical trait, every change, even to (as some doctors believe) the general time of his death, through cellular telomeric degradation.  It's all in there. 

It's in the code.

and Mr. Maher?  THE CODE IS THERE FROM THE MOMENT THE EGG IS FERTILIZED. 

When it splits from one cell into two, the code is already at work, instructing each cell as to its next step.

So, Mr. Maher, you are dead wrong even from the 'nonreligulous' scientific viewpoint:

A bundle of cells IS a human being.  PRECISELY that. 

And if you disagree, then it's incumbent on you to say at what point the bundle of cells DOES become human, and what change causes that.  Because you're always careful to dismiss the assertions of others, to say what it's NOT, and yet you never defend your knowledge of this subject by saying what a human being IS. 

Bill Maher.  Coward.  Control freak.  Bully.  But....  not a true intellectual.  He is an ideologue, a narcissist, and an immature person. 

But a true intellectual always keeps asking, always seeks truth.  Maher uses people who sometimes ARE true idiots and sometimes are simply caught by surprise, and makes them look stupid to make himself look smart.  It is embarrassingly transparent to any real intellectual.  But Maher, predictably, is far from embarrassed; he's comfortable, genial, basking in his own good opinion of himself.

Okay, so the Porkulus bill was written in Nancy Pelosi's office, by Barney Frank, San Fran Nan and other Dems.  No Republicans allowed. 

The Porkulus bill was signed by Ogabe. 

In the bill is a specific piece of language authorizing/permitting AIG to pay executive bonuses of $168 million. 

The House of Representatives established that, although billions in tax dollars bailed out AIG, these particular bonuses were not on the table in Congress in terms of preventing their payment or seizing them.  Congress decided, in the Porkulus bill, that these particular bonuses were going to be paid with no contestation from them.

A few weeks later, suddenly, Ogabe and the Dem leadership pretend to be SURPRISED that these bonuses were paid.  SHOCKED.  ANGRY.  How DARE these greedy executives take this taxpayer money and grab their greedy bonuses!

IT'S ALL A LIE. 

CONGRESS SET THIS UP, AGREED TO ALLOW THE BONUSES TO BE PAID, AGREED TO STAND BY AND DO NOTHING WHILE THESE FUNDS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO THESE EXECUTIVES.

I do not believe this is incompetence. 

This was done in order to target these executives and drum up public anger at 'greedy Wall St. executives taking taxpayer money for bonuses'. 

This is, in short, a large battle in the war on the wealthy.  It's class warfare.  It's happening because of two things-- less important, it's to take attention off the failures of the Ogabe administration, and more important, it's to establish in the public mind that government has the right to dictate to companies how much they will pay their employees.

It's class warfare.  It's an offer to the lower class to feel like they've won some kind of victory by denying some rich guy his bonus, or lowering his pay.  It's a way of firming up the vote of the lower class, the poor, the great masses, for the Democrat party.  It's demagoguery, setting up President Ogabe as the great arbitrator of who gets how much, all in the name of economic JUSTICE.

In short, we are watching Josef Stalin's clone grow up before our very eyes.

If this continues, and it will, the end result will be the large scale destruction of many corporations, and a massive decrease in government revenue, and a concordant massive INCREASE in enrollment for social programs.  Welfare, unemployment, WIC, everything.  It will destroy the auto makers, no matter how much we bail them out.  People without jobs do NOT buy new cars.  Corporations whose decisions are dictated to them by Stalin/Ogabe will NOT stay in business for long.  Not to mention Ogabe will be DECIDING who will survive and who will not.  And if you're among the people who believe this will result in government checks coming to your mailbox, try to imagine how that will happen when government HAS no more money, because they killed the golden goose of American enterprise.

It will destroy resorts, golf clubs, entertainment companies, Las Vegas, and a hundred other economic scenarios I'm too angry to think of right now.

These AIG employees, by the way, were responsible for saving over $1 trillion for AIG just in the past year.  They almost HALVED the amount of money AIG was losing, by their superb efforts in sales and their ingenuity.  THEY PRODUCED, and they were the ones AIG wanted to keep.  These were RETENTION bonuses. 

The AIG people who LOST all the money were the ones in the risky credit default swap market, and those people are GONE.

The people responsible for AIG's failure are GONE.

The ones who made it over trillion dollars less painful to the taxpayers?  They are now THE ENEMY.  The EVIL RICH.  TARGETS. 

And Barney Frank threatened them indirectly on the house floor, saying he was going to subpoena their names and that HE would decide whether they would be 'safe' if publicized.

Piano wire around their necks.  One of the ways some creative 'angry members of the public' suggested for the EXECUTION of these executives and their wives and their children.  BallPork Frank was unmoved.

Stalin is coming.  Mobs who are made angry by government/media organized propaganda are coming soon to YOUR front lawn.

Where did America go, and when did it depart?  I suspect it began on November 4th.  Goodbye, my beloved country.

From a story in the World section of last Sunday's Dallas Morning News comes this note about Saudi culture--

Apparently, Saudi is overrun with young men who have no access to young women, or entertainment, or beer, or anything else remotely considered Western.  They are bored, and their restless energy leads them into all sorts of bizarre behaviors.

Okay so they 'drift', they race cars and skid them sideways down deserted country roads.  Not so bizarre, eh?  Teens all over the world do these dangerous but exhilarating things.

Well then, read this selection from the story:

"Drifting, which tends to attract poorer (it's all relative in Saudi - ed), more marginal men, has also been an unlikely nexus between homosexuality, crime and jihadism since it emerged thirty years ago.  Homo-erotic desire is a constant theme in Saudi songs and poems about driftingh, and accomplished drifters are said to have their pick of the prettiest boys among the spectators.  Drugs sometimes play a role, and a number of drifters have also become Islamic militants (terrorists - ed)."

It is hard for me to even imagine this 'nexus'.  Such a twisted blend of pursuits, such an alien sort of cultural milieu. 

And yet, it makes sense.  Saudi culture is famously segregated by sex.  Teenage boys simply have little to no access to teenage girls.  There is no western 'entertainment', no movies or songs or videos... no booze or beer... and the author notes that drifters are mostly young Bedouins (Arab desert dwellers, the country folk) who have recently moved to the city and whose lives are marked by suffering and self-destructive behavior.  I have read many side notes in writings on other topics which indicate that homosexual longings and behavior are, if not rampant, at least far more numerous in repressed Islamic society than in the west.  Their culture sends mixed messages, obviously.

Do not forget as you absorb this faintly nauseating enlightenment, Yassir Arafat was gay.  It's true.

I bought a book years ago by Mihai Pacepa, the former chief of intelligence for Ceaucescu of Romania who defected to the USA in the late '70's.  It was called Red Horizons, and it dealt with the things Pacepa had done and seen while running the department.  There was a lot about KGB destabilization of the west and America, including arms sales to Egypt and other provocations, but the biggest story of those years was the KGB's constant funding and supplying of Arafat and the PLO.  Arafat used Romania as the intermediary state for his travel and meetings, as he did not want to be seen in Russia itself.  The KGB monitored his hotel rooms and much of his personal life, and the men who listened to the bugs developed a disgust for Arafat.  "He's playing the tiger tonight", one drily reported as he listened to Arafat having sex with his bodyguard, presumably growling and so forth.      

The words which have stuck with me since I read the book several years ago were "never have I seen this much blood and filth in one man".

Yassir Arafat died in a French hospital famous for its advanced AIDS treatment, and of course there is no requirement in France for the cause of death to be revealed if doctors choose to keep it secret, or family members.  Arafat chose well if he wanted this to remain hidden.  It might have been a choice made years ago, as the world saw how addled and out of control Arafat was in his final days, the dementia that signals an AIDS case that is near to claiming the life of its victim. 

To this day his cause of death has NEVER been reported by ANYONE.

So the Saudi story, while disgusting and quirky to this westerner, is not at odds with other information that filters out from that part of the world.  Racing cars, acting gay, committing crimes and recruiting for jihad, in a one stop shop at the edge of town.  Ick.

In Islam we have seen the reports; Iran hangs young gay men in public places.  Egypt executes and imprisons them.  Brick walls are pushed down on them, and worse.  And yet, homosexual behavior appears to plague the more fundamental of the Islamic regimes.  I am told by an Iranian in America that Iran has a special solution to this problem.  The state pays for surgery to alter sex in a gay man.  It is one choice, and the other offered by the state is, shall we say, far worse.  So there are a LOT of genital alteration surgeries done in Iran, and the result is, in Islam's view, a WOMAN, not a gay man. 

End of problem.

Here is a great bit of news from Afghanistan, although it looks at first to be a happy face story about high tech in unlikely places.

Key points:  Afghan youth are no longer 'caught in the old circle of war', and are embraching high tech, world communication and SPORTS.

High tech was, of course, viciously banned in Taliban days, along with alcohol, uncovered women and music. 

Yet this man is a former Taliban officer, and he's happy as a kid outta school, playing with his Iphone and praising high tech and being 'modern'.

Such wonderful changes! 

Everyone knows there is still danger, half the country is not fully under government and the Taliban with help from AQ are far from surrender.  In fact it's gotten worse lately, and the President is recommending a 'surge' like the one he so vigorously opposed in Iraq not so long ago.

But did you ever dream of seeing one of those medieval creeps coming happily into the modern world, no longer burning with desire to KILL everyone who has anything like his Iphone?

Me neither. 

Read.

He who does not work, neither shall he eat--

It is the first principle of socialism, as posited by none other than Lenin.

He wrote a book called "The State and Revolution" in 1917, explaining that in a socialist society (which Marx termed "the first phase of communism") only productive individuals would be allowed to consume ANYTHING.  Food, clothing, fuel, anything.  And of course as workers, only productive individuals would have continued access to the MEANS of productivity, which is the next extension of 'consumables'; raw materials, tools, etc.

In socialism, remember, the means of production and the distribution of its fruits are controlled by "the community", meaning THE GOVERNMENT, in order to ensure increased social and economic equality and cooperation.

In the search for all this equality, the word goes out, then, from Lenin (and not coincidentally from St. Paul in the New Testament) "he who does not work, neither shall he eat".

And here you thought that was a nasty piece of fundamentalist Christian cruelty, right?  

Well the pinko commies are not entirely without sympathy.  If you are old and had worked in your youth, you could not be denied consumables; you had paid your debt to the collective when you were able.  Likewise to the lame, whose condition is presumably not of their own making, and who would be more productive if only it were within their abilities.

But if you were lazy, indolent or slothful, especially if this attitude arose out of your previous state of PRIVILEGE as a member of the bourgeoisie (the nonworking wealthy who benefit from the labor of others), well in this new regime there is no stack of consumables set aside for YOU, my infidel friend.

I found this information whilst researching the New Testament expression of social duty from Paul, vis "he who does not work, neither shall he eat".  I wanted to examine it in context and contrast and compare it with other things said by Paul, and by other NT writers, concerning the poor and the business of working as opposed to being cared for.  I wanted a clear understanding of it before proceeding in any conversations on the subject of Christianity and charity.

I had NO idea ten minutes ago that this expression had (like the means of production and the property of the bourgeoisie) been confiscated by the commies and used for THEIR benefit.

News flash to non-working poor recipients of federal largesse--

If you are enjoying a comfortable 'upper bracket poor' living courtesy of Uncle, and you are not working, have not worked and have no plans to work, you had BETTER be LAME, crippled at birth.  Because if you're not, if you're able to work but not WILLING, believe me when I tell you that a socialist, leftist, commie-ish regime will NOT be as genial about this as your previous center-right American government.  If you think things will be BETTER for you in the Obama-land of future America, you have some history books to read. 

You see, the one problem socialists and communists always encounter is motivation.  There is never enough actual work and productivity to meet all the obligations of a leftward government.  Too many mouths to feed, too little profit and reward to be found in 'producing stuff'.  People just stop.  Why would anyone work to pay 80, 90 or 95% tax rates, essentially toiling away just to hand over all youve earned? 

Don't scoff--- the british had a 97% top marginal rate on wealthy people as recently as the 1970s.  That is why so many British movie stars and pop stars like Michael Caine or David Bowie found themselves living in California or New York. 

If there is ever a time in which your vote is less valuable to the people you vote for, that is to say if there is ever a time when the Obamas of the world do not actually NEED your vote to stay in power, prepare to become something like a forced laborer.  Unless you have a state-approved disability of some sort, you will not be permitted to live without working.  It's the lefty way.  Ask Lenin.  Ask Marx.

Once upon a time, America was known for 'rugged individualism', in which each person was responsible for his own family, and was free to achieve as much as his own limits allowed him. 

OVER.

Here is a recent news story giving the ACORN side of one Donna Hanks, poor victim of evil predatory lending.  Such a sad, sad story.

"the mortgage went up $300 in one month", she complains. 

ACORN has proudly proclaimed "this is OUR house now", cut off the padlocks and ushered her back into her 'homestead', which was sold at auction last summer and whose owners had to fight for several months to get our out of it the FIRST time.

ACORN says civil disobedience is the next step in fighting the evil predatory lenders.  They're going to move in every displaced foreclosed (black) person they can find, apparently regardless of the TRUTH, which in this case is--

Donna Hanks initially purchased her home (315 South Ellwood, Baltimore, MD 21224) on 7/06/2001 for $87,000. At some date between 2001 and 2006 she re-financed the original mortgage for the amount of $270,000 with a mortgage payment of $1,662.00.   (can somebody find out what the heck Donna Hanks did with over a quarter million dollars cash that the bank paid her in order that she might pay them back?  Where is the money?  She already owned the house by the previous mortgage.  And why the huge discrepancy between the '01 price and the mortgage just a few years later?  There is MORE TO THIS STORY)

The FIRST foreclosure on this home was filed 5/31/2006. Donna Hanks filed for bankruptcy 6/16/06 (stopping foreclosure) during which a payment plan was approved for the $10,500 she was behind in her payments. When she did not meet the terms of the bankruptcy re-payment, a second foreclosure action was started in January 2008. At the time she had not made her mortgage payments since September 2007.  Bankruptcy paperwork showed her primary salaried job as $1625 monthly, and she claimed but did not document two other jobs bringing in $1275.

Also, during 2007 she was renting our her basement illegally (she was taken to court) and receiving rent while she was not making her mortgage payments.

The increase 'in one month' was actually $340, the amount that she had agreed to pay back in arrears as part of her bankruptcy resolution.

She also has a criminal record featuring theft and assault 2nd degree and possession of a dangerous weapon with intent to injure, and which now includes breaking and entering.

The house at 315 South Ellwood had already been sold at auction on 6/26/08 for $192,000. It just took them until September 2008 to get her out.

And now they'll have to do it AGAIN, only this time fighting off ACORN thugs as well as Hanks herself.

The above is all available as public information, offered by commenter Sherry at the bottom of the linked story about ACORN.  Here are my questions--

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE $270,000?  She was clearly in arrears over many months, perhaps even all of them.  She might not have made a single payment on that second mortgage!  Where's the MONEY?

WHO gave this woman a loan of that size?  Why was it approved?  The mortgage payment was more than half of her CLAIMED salary and LARGER THAN THE SALARY SHE WAS WILLING TO DOCUMENT!!!!

Is this the CRA, Fannie and Freddie, Franks and Dodd and the Dem. black caucus, the years-long engineering of a back door system to inflict socialism on this nation by having taxpayers back/buy every crap mortgage that should never have been made in the first place?

YES. 

This is DEMOCRAT POLICY.  Not Bush, not 'tired and antiquated ideas', nothing other than outright criminality, theft, book-rigging, the worst kind of partnership of corruption between aspects of government and other groups of criminals.

And under president Ogabe (remember, his namesake Robert Mugabe had as a feature of his taking power the outright stealing of people's property and giving it to his political favorite children... farms, homes, businesses, all the owners run off or killed and said property just handed over to people who were not qualified or interested in running the farms or businesses.. that's a big part of Mugabe's million percent inflation), this home seizure, this breaking and entering, this THUGGERY ON BEHALF OF CRIMINALS, will only increase.  There will be no crackdown on this, just more blaming the evil predatory lenders.

This is the kind of thing that puts savage and brutal thoughts into my head, and I have to work to beat them back.  I am not a thug.  I am a decent, generous, kind person who hasn't struck out in anger since my ninth grade year.  But I have never been closer to violence than I am right now. 

This makes me FURIOUS.

There is a counter-revolution coming, if not outright civil war.  THIS KIND OF THING CANNOT STAND IN A FREE SOCIETY.

UPDATE -- the ACORN thug, Louis Beverly, has actually been arrested by Baltimore police for B&E.  Police also say anyone found living on or in property that is owned by others will be arrested.  Now we must stay vigilant, find the others ACORN is helping, and document and report all instances.  All we are saying is, give police a chance, heh.

 

Thanks to the genius of President Obama of the United States, POOTUS, men like this are coming to a minimum security prison near you.

How long 'til every prison that holds these men becomes a target of a massive attack to free the prisoners?

Powerline carries a terrific example of celebrity superficiality today, a video of a bunch of Hollywood types (half of whom I do not recognize, and about a quarter of whom I hope I never see again on any screen) doing the self-congratulatory 'pledge to be a better person' thing in the name of the One.

I listened carefully.  I watched twice, just to be sure.  And now that I'm sure, here it is--

THERE IS NOTHING IN THOSE PLEDGES WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EQUALLY AS PASSIONATELY PLEDGED FOUR YEARS AGO OR EIGHT YEARS AGO.  The horrors of the tyrannical Bush administration in NO way impeded any of these pursuits.   People were free to use less bottled water, to get to know their neighbors and to smile more even DURING the Bush tyranny.

As when Queen Hillary announced at the age of 47 that she had learned that janitors are human too and deserved decent treatment, these Holly-woodenheads are just embarrassing themselves, and the sad thing is they don't even realize it.

p.s.  Forgot to mention the one salient comment among the vacuousness--  perhaps the reasons for this are a mixed blessing, but to see Michael Strahan, the great defensive end from the New York Giants, say he will consider himself "an American, not an African-American" was uplifting.  He is the only person in this entire video who has grasped a good, sound and forward-moving meaning from the Obama election. 

Don't get me wrong; he could still have said this in public eight years ago.  There was nothing in the Bush tyranny that isolated or oppressed American black people.  In fact,  Bush appointed the first TWO black SecStates, and the first black FEMALE SecState, along with the first black SecEd and several other colorblind moves that showed the best of America; he also spent billions in the fight against diseases like malaria and aids in Africa, saving millions of lives-- and got NO credit for any of this.

Strahan is not the kind of guy who would have stepped up during the Bush years and congratulated him for his progress against racism, I guess.  Nonetheless, he's noticed that we've elected a black President and is aware of ALL that this means, and for that I am thankful.

the rest of them are just dopes.

A very enjoyable satire on the 'benefits' of a boycott of Israel....