ELEPHANT RAGE

Time to Redefine Islam and Stop All the PC BS

With only a few hours left of 2009, I'm stuck with the image of singed underwear in my mind, and thinking of that fake shlong that could have blown an airliner out of the sky.  Of course I'm talking about the six-inch bomb that a dark-skinned guy with a Muslim name had stuffed in his trousers on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.  Luckily he only succeeded in burning his briefs when he tried to set it off.  But someone like him may succeed in mass murder one day if we don't stop pandering to his kind.

Let's face it.  The biggest protection of terrorists is the same sort of shield that's been protecting Barack Hussein Obama from greater scrutiny -- political correctness.   We're too afraid to "discriminate" on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation, etc., to where we act like we can't even recognize a terrorist when we're staring one in the face.  Or at least, we prevent our laws from recognizing a terrorist. 

I was horrified a while back when a Muslim member of our own military started shooting at other members of our military on a base in our own United States of America.  News stories then revealed that we have a large percentage of Muslims within our military, but we are not allowed to screen them out for any purpose because that would be religious discrimination.  Screening Arabs and the like would be ethnic discrimination. 

At a time when people are at least calling for full body scans of passengers entering airplanes -- and on a day when the Netherlands has said it will require such scans for people boarding flights to the U.S. -- we must take into account that people with sex changes are actively protesting the use of full body scans.  They are afraid we might see their fake shlongs.  People like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are all for gay rights, and black rights and religious rights, so long as these rights help them avoid getting caught as they attempt to blow up whites, Christians, blacks, gays, children and everyone else.

We need to start looking at Muslims the way they looked at Communists just a few short decades ago.  Communists were perceived as the enemy.  They were tracked down and discriminated against.  You'd better believe it.  And the strategy succeeded.  Terrorists are being brainwashed and trained in the halls of mosques, and it's high time we redefined Islam as being more than just a religion -- it's a form of subversion, with "death to America" its favorite chant.  The goal is a theocracy that allows virtually no freedoms, is opposed to all rights and education, and tolerates the cultivation of poppy for opium, honor killings, and stoning to death. 

We should be screening Muslims and profiling for our own safety and for the future of our country.  Being friendly toward Muslims, as Obama hoped to do, doesn't help one bit.  To the contrary.   The countries with the most friendliness toward Muslims are the ones with the most terrorism.  Take a look at Pakistan, just for starters.  People are bombed to death there regularly, and it's a Muslim nation.  So much for friendliness achieving peace. 

We should change our laws to allow greater scrutiny of Muslims.  Certainly there are many peaceful, sincere Muslims who do see their religion as just a religion, and who are pro-American.  But we need to be able to penetrate the shield of these people -- that is to say, the shield of religious protection -- to get to the Muslim terrorists who are making life difficult for not only non-Muslims, but for the peaceful Muslims themselves.  More than that, these terrorists are threatening to snuff out life itself. 

Let's end the political correctness and take decisive action.  If we don't bend on this "freedom of religion" thing just a bit for this valid and urgent purpose, then we may find ourselves with no freedoms down the road, as Muslims use our own nuclear weapons against us, take over, and take us to hell on earth, turning our food crops into poppy crops to make opium, covering our beautiful women with black hoods, and destroying our schools.  Saving our country is worth some good Muslims agreeing to be profiled, searched and so on for the sake of weeding out the bad.  That's the change I believe in.

Men Visit Gynecologists to Treat Their 'Womenopause'

I was taken by surprise the other day when a man walked into the lobby at my gynecologist's office and signed in as a patient.  I found myself looking him up and down, and wondering what he had in his pants.  He looked masculine enough, but still...maybe he'd been changed.

Once I was called in for my appointment, I noticed two flyers on the wall.  One said:  "Hormone imbalance is not just a woman's problem...[We are] now assisting both men and women with their hormone issues."  The other one was titled:  ANDROPAUSE.  It explained this strange word as being the male equivalent of menopause.  Somehow I think this is all twisted.  Men should have womenopause if women have menopause.  Or women should have womenopause and men can have that dreaded menopause. 

So here's the deal, men, per the other flyers that I pocketed: 

Why Should Men Take Supplemental Hormones?  The Benefits of Androgen Therapy

It is no surprise that our bodies change as we age.  The hormones that stimulate the development and maintenance of "maleness" are called androgens.  Androgen levels peak when men are in their late teens and twenties.  After that, levels gradually decline...men who have the highest levels of testosterone and other androgens, frequently look, feel and perform at the top of their class.  There are other men with androgen levels at the bottom of the pack.  They may be fatigued, perform poorly sexually and may even be depressed...low androgens can be at the heart of many common male medical problems...

What problems are we talking about?  There can be muscle loss and weakness, reduced sexual desire and erectile dysfunction.  Weight gain, especially around the middle, is a common problem.  Increased abdominal fat...Prostate enlargement...Prostate cancer...thinking problems and difficult with learning new things...thinning bones.  Depression... 

Do I have to be "old" to need androgen supplements?  No!  ...Will just taking Androgens solve all my problems?  No!!  ...Proper diet is needed...Exercise is needed...Vitamins and other dietary supplements are needed, along with adequate sleep and moderation of alcohol consumption...

What are the benefits?  Improvement of mood, well-being, thinking and learning.  Enhanced libido and sexual performance.  Maintain Prostate Gland health and healthy urinary functions.  Increasing muscle mass and tone while reducing abdominal body fat.  Reducing cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar to help protect the heart.  Protection of bone strength and density...

Which hormones are we talking about?  The most important androgen is testosterone...

So, looking back on that man in the lobby, I have to think that maybe he was functioning "at the bottom of the pack" and needed help.  Which of the above problems he needed the most help with, I don't dare to speculate. 

But if you, reader, are losing your "maleness" and need some assistance, but are afraid to walk into just any gynecologist's office (after all, they can't all be in the business of helping both men and women), then you should check out Georgia Hormones, formerly known as Alpharetta Women's Healthcare at my previous visit. 

Somehow, I liked the sound of "women's healthcare" better, but I'm sure the owners like the sound of "cha-ching," and that's probably what they hear when they think of opening up their practice to millions of men.  I can tell you, there are plenty around here who are going through Andropause and need more of that androgen thing that makes them men:  testosterone. 

IN THE NEWS: Arab and Muslim Inbreeding Causes Extensive Genetic Defects

More than 900 genetic disorders have been found among Arabs and their descendants, with high rates also among non-Arab Muslims and some Hindus who commonly marry relatives, a practice known as consanguinity.  The genetic disorders from inbreeding create a host of physical ailments such as diabetes, thalassaemia (a blood disorder), muscular dystrophy, kidney disease, breast cancer and Down's syndrome, and may potentially increase psychological ailments such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or mental retardation.

Despite these possible side effects, marrying within the family clan -- most often to a first cousin -- is an acceptable and often preferred social structure in countries ranging from Africa to the Middle East and into West Asia.  Such marriages exceed 50 percent of all unions in Pakistan; 40 percent in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Mauritania; 30 percent in Iran, Oman, Qatar, Yemen and certain regions of India; 20 percent in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Palestine, Tunisia and Turkey; and 10 percent in Lebanon, Morocco and Bangladesh.  The practice of consanguinity has existed for thousands of years in that region of the world, and was even at the heart of the founding of the Hebrew people, with some of the twelve tribes of Israel originating from the offspring of Jacob and a cousin. 

Inbred family clans can become almost their own breed, with their own genetic features.  They can have intense loyalties exceeding their loyalties to a country or any other cause, making it difficult to superimpose a democracy and Western legal structures on a society with clans and tribes at its foundation.  Consanguinity keeps wealth in the family, and is especially preferred in countries where people have the least trust of non-relatives.  You can surmise then, e.g., that in Pakistan, with its inbreeding exceeding 50 percent, the people have highly connected extended families and distrust any outsiders.  Such distrust and family loyalty can foster behaviors that are frowned upon in the West, such as nepotism.

I know what you are thinking:  Time to strike up the dueling banjos.  Obviously, all this talk of marriage to a cousin makes a typical American say, "Ewwww."  (No offense to my cousins, mind you.)  It is so repulsive in the United States that about half of all states have laws prohibiting such marriages.  Less than 1 percent of American marriages are to a relative, while the rate in Europe is about 1 percent.  Historically, however, the practice of marrying a relative was common among royalty in Europe, and was quite the norm in rural areas in the U.S. 

Although the Hatfields and McCoys are now a thing of the past here, they remain a very real and entrenched part of society elsewhere.  And wherever these clans move, they take their practices with them.  European countries with large numbers of Muslim and Arab populations have tried to get these people to stop inbreeding, but to no avail.  In fact, the expatriate families have extra incentives to arrange a marriage to a cousin back home, because that can result in a visa to Europe for yet another relative, rather than for a stranger. 

So don't expect these family clans to disband just because of some genetic problems, or just because they have migrated to the West.  In some communities, the practice of marrying a relative is increasing, not decreasing.  Maintaining the social ties of a family clan is a much higher priority than avoiding genetic fallout.  The solution they envision instead is to eventually offer genetic testing and advice to potential marriage partners, to ensure that the cousin selected does not have any latent genes that would create a terrible mix in any offspring.  What will happen to the poor girl who is discovered with an unwanted recessive gene?

An excerpt from an article in The National of the United Arab Emirates follows:

Arabs suffer from one of the highest rates of genetic disease in the world, according to a research institute.

Some 906 genetic disorders have been identified in Arabs and their descendants, reports the Centre for Arab Genomic Studies (CAGS)...It warns that the problem will require research and collaboration among medical communities...These figures are thought likely to rise, too, as researchers discover new disorders in the Arab world and record them in a database being developed by the CAGS.

The centre, funded by the Sheikh Hamdan Award for Medical Sciences, has completed studies of Bahrain, Oman and the UAE.

It plans to compile extensive data on genetic disorders in every Arab country to help pave the way for treatment and prevention-based policies in the region...Several common diseases in the UAE, Oman and Bahrain have reached epidemic levels -- more than 100 cases per 100,000.  

They include thalassaemia (a blood disorder), diabetes, breast cancer and Down's syndrome.  Less common disorders in the Emirates include muscular dystrophy and kidney disease.

About 63 percent of the genetic conditions in Arab populations are due mostly to marriage between close relatives such as first cousins, clinically known as consanguinity.

Such marriages, deeply ingrained in Arab culture, are on the rise in the UAE, where the rate is the fifth-highest in the Arab world.

In Dubai, 40 percent of marriages are between relatives...

The good news is that more than half the genetic disorders in Arab populations are the result of a defect in only one gene, which means it would be relatively easy to screen for such a gene and to prevent or treat the disorder.

However...there [are] no national projects aimed at controlling genetic disorders in most Arab countries... preventive measures include screening potential spouses for defective recessive genes.

Johns Learn to Control Their Johnsons at "John Schools"

Sometimes it seems like I cannot escape prostitution.  I encounter it everywhere.

Atlanta:

My parents and nephew spent a sleepless night in an Atlanta motel once, terrified while a whirlwind of illegal sexual activity took place all around them.  A pimp stood outside their door in the walkway.  The phone rang asking for someone with a strange nickname.  Someone pounded on their door.  The women were coming and going with their Johns to neighboring rooms.  This went on all night long while my nephew, who was twelve at the time, sat wide-eyed by the window, peaking through the curtains.  Finally, at daybreak, the riffraff departed and my parents felt safe enough to escape, glad to stay in my spare room the next night.

Another time I went to pick up a visiting friend of mine from a luxury hotel, and the people in the lobby looked at me strange as we came and went.  My friend said that the man across the hall from him had just had a prostitute show up, and the people in the lobby probably figured I was one as well.  Great.  Just great.

On yet another occasion I went with a friend to collect rent money from one of his rental properties, and I commented that the tenant (in her 50's) looked like a prostitute.  How did you know? my friend asked, explaining the tenant was a prostitute when she was younger.  Well, gee, I could tell by the way she walked, because years ago I lived on Peachtree Street intown and the prostitutes would walk back and forth past my residence all night.  You kinda get familiar with the whole posture, expression and movement.

Vacations:

While flying to Costa Rica, a real estate investor told me how he was going to meet up with some business colleagues to buy land on which to build a resort.  He had traveled separately from them, because he said they wanted to spend all their time locked up in hotel rooms with prostitutes.  He said they were all married, yet they made frequent trips to Costa Rica under the guise of going on "fishing trips."  Although he was single, his friends' morals and infidelity disgusted him, so he traveled separately. 

In Indonesia, I watched while a local prostitute rubbed the jean-clad butt cheeks of an American man in front of me.  After a few minutes of cuddling they headed out the door to find a more private location to continue.  I couldn't help but notice the man was wearing a shiny gold wedding band. 

Friends:

Male friends tell me routinely about their married buddies who go once a week (once a week!) to visit prostitutes on their boys' night out, and how they travel to Las Vegas and elsewhere to spend entire weekends with prostitutes.  And it was easy for me to find an actual John to talk to about a former red light district when I did a research paper on the subject as an undergraduate. 

Celebrities:

Then of course, there is Hollywood, which continually generates news about male movie stars caught with prostitutes.  And let's not forget about the politicians.  And the preachers!

Stock Market:

Yes, you can even buy stock in a brothel!  An Australian brothel called the Daily Planet was the first prostitution business to go public.  You can buy stock and hedge your bets on whether the industry will be profitable or not.  You could even guarantee profitability by frequenting the business yourself, or taking all your buddies on a regular "fishing trip" to Australia.  And you can add "pimp" to your resume, as every shareholder is basically a pimp of sorts, profiting from the activity.

Conclusion:  prostitution is ubiquitous.  What can we do about it?  What should we do about it?

The latest trend in law enforcement has cities across the U.S. trying to put a dent in those very profits by curbing the demand for prostitution.  They are sending all the lascivious men who get caught to "John schools" where they learn about the evils of prostitution, and why they should stop paying for sex.  About 50 cities are using John schools, with another 40 communities considering them.

At the John schools the men learn that prostitutes are desperate people, often sexually abused as children and drug-addicted.  They learn that the women are "victims" who are someone's daughter.  Would they want their own daughter (or sister, etc.) to wind up in the same circumstances?  They also learn about the dangers of STD's, and the harm prostitution causes society.

If the appeal to the heart fails, then the schools also provide some more stringent incentives for the men to get their johnsons under control and stop purchasing sexual favors:  the threat of increased punishment!  Adding a jail sentence is one tactic that some cities are trying, especially for repeat offenders.  Other cities are doing even more, like posting mug shots of the guilty on a special website, or adding their names to sex offender registrations. 

The idea is that if the demand for paid sex goes down, then so will the supply. 

If the plan is successful, then selling sex will no longer be profitable because there won't be anyone to buy it, and the estimated two million prostitutes in the U.S. will then turn to _____________________ for fast cash.   All optimists can fill in the blank with something legal, while the pessimists (realists?) can fill in the blank with yet another illegal activity.  Or perhaps the prostitutes and Johns will just flee to Australia or Amsterdam or some other place where the laws are more accommodating. 

Honestly, I think the John schools are a step in the right direction toward educating society, and I think increased punishments are a step in the right direction toward justice and fairness.  No point in continuing to send the prostitutes away to prison while their customers get a slap on the wrist and a fine.  Now, in participating cities, they get a slap on the wrist and a few hours of lectures.  Okay, so maybe it's only half a step in the right direction, but I applaud the effort anyway.  What they also need to do is go after the pimps more, and shareholders, too.

Nothing has sickened me more on vacations than encountering married men who travel alone or with their buddies on "business trips," "fishing trips," "gambling trips," and other excuses for trips to go places where their ulterior motive is to spend a few nights with prostitutes.  Or hearing about men who routinely visit prostitutes on their weekly "boys night out."  Or reading about "celibate wives" who never get any because their husbands are already satiated.  Or having my friends and relatives stay in hotels where they can't even get a decent night of sleep because of all the craziness going on around them.  Or living some place where I can't even look out my window at night without seeing a sultry woman slink by.

Sadly though, I believe there is a certain "element" out there that cannot be educated out of using prostitutes.  I believe some men simply want to pay for it, even if they can get it free from a wife or a girlfriend or a pick-up in a bar.  They want sex on demand.  They want as much control over that part of their lives as when they are sitting on a couch flipping channels with the remote.  Next, next, next....

While I'm sure some men seek out prostitutes privately with a measure of guilt, I believe that many do so with great openness among other men, even boasting about their exploits, and going after prostitutes jointly with their buddies.  It's a macho thing.  They feel great about it, and proud.  Until the male culture changes to where their peers disapprove and stop joining and enabling -- covering for them in their lies to their significant others -- then the demand for prostitutes will never go down.

So the forces of good will continue with their John schools and other education and punishment campaigns, and the forces of evil will continue to legalize and normalize sex for hire.    

Why Burkinis Should Be Promoted, Not Banned

It's getting old always reading about another swimming pool or beach banning burkinis.  So far I've seen stories about such incidents in France, the United Kingdom, and Australia.  Pretty soon it's going to be in my neighborhood, so I want to think through the issues in advance.

1)  Obesity.  Has anyone been to the beach lately?  I mean, don't you just wish some of those people would cover up more, not less?  Really, the vast majority of people do NOT look like the women on the cover of Sports Illustrated.  Here's how my daughter describes a typical American in a bikini:  "Their belly hangs over the bathing suit bottom so you can't even see it.  They look naked.  It's gross."  When I've taken slim Europeans to the beach, they find they have to sneak a photo or two to take back to Europe and show everyone -- yep, the news stories about obese Americans are really true, see?  I find myself feeling completely awkward, not sure whether to gawk, look away, or feel sorry for them that they don't have a whole lot of swimwear alternatives.  I imagine that if burkinis are not only allowed but fashionable one day, there will be a HUGE market for them!  Even pregnant women may find that they prefer such modesty.  Or elderly people who no longer have the firm bodies of their youth.  Or people with various types of bodily injuries and scars.  Many women would choose to cover up while swimming if they had the option.

2)  Religion.  Let's face it.  Muslim women are not the only ones with requirements or preferences favoring modesty.  Orthodox Jewish women are supposed to have their collar bone, elbows and knees covered at all times, and also wear loose-fitting rather than tight clothes.  The burkini would suit them just fine, if only the name were changed from a Muslim-sounding one to a Jewish-sounding one.  Kosherkini, anyone?  Ultra conservative Christians could also join the mix with a WWMD(WhatWouldMaryDo)kini.  Then there could be the Hindukini, the Buddhakini, and the Unikini (for the undecided).

3)  Logic.  Can someone please explain what the big deal is?  Are burkinis so appalling because they cover the arms and legs?  So do wetsuits.  Is it because some cover the hair as well?  So do swim caps.  Are burkinis disturbing because they are loose-fitting?  So are the guys' swim trunks worn in the United States.  Do we ban wetsuits and swim caps for covering too much, or loose-fitting trunks because we can't see every detail in they guy's body?  I'm just not seeing what is so outrageous about a burkini.  The last time I recall such scandals over swimwear was when thongs became popular, and a lot of American beaches and pools banned them.  But that's because they were considered too revealing!  What has become of our society when we ban something for not revealing enough? 

4)  Health.  Okay, I admit it, the official complaint these days is that the burkinis are "unsanitary" because allegedly the women wear them around town like clothes prior to jumping in the pool, and they could spread germs that way.  But if that's the case, let's ban swimming in burkinis that have been worn around town, not place a general ban on burkinis altogether.  In fact, I can think of a lot more ways that burkinis can actually contribute to health, rather than harm it.  People with fair skin or who are already sunburned could cover up with a burkini rather than continually slathering on a bunch of sunscreen.  The sunscreen industry might lobby against this concept, but hey, it makes a lot of sense!  People who are taking medications that restrict exposure to direct sunlight might also relish a burkini.  And if there are mosquitoes, especially the disease-carrying kind, near the swimming locale, it would be prudent -- not prudish -- to cover up more.

5)  Freedom.  I think people should choose for themselves how much coverage they want in swimwear.  The more options available, the better.  I've known several women who refused to even go to a swimming pool or beach because they were not "bikini ready" and were too embarrassed to don a skimpy swimsuit -- the only kind readily available and approved of.  Maybe the real outrage over burkinis isn't the way they are made or how functional they are, but that people perceive them as something that takes away freedom from women, as something forced on Muslim women like a burka.  Yet the burkini actually promotes freedom, the freedom of women to choose their own clothing, thank you.  It's the age-old problem of society trying to control what women wear.  Under the guise of preventing domestic oppression countries are allowing societal oppression.  There are plenty of other ways to address domestic issues than banning burkinis, which hardly differ from wetsuits.  The burkini may actually be preferred by millions of women out there, not just Muslims, if only given a chance.

  Splashgear burkinis.
 
  Zehba burkini.

  Billabong wetsuits.

IN THE NEWS: Men Hide Muffin Tops with Mirdles

Just last night my sister explained to me what a "muffin top" is, so it was rather bizarre today to read about muffin tops in the news, and how men are now using girdles to hide them.  The "mirdles" are like compression tank tops -- designed to not only tuck in the tummy, but also any male boobs (you know, the kind overweight men get).

What's next?  I guess we should take a look around the women's lingerie department to see what men might be wearing soon.  How about padded shirts?  Men can just slip on some fake muscles in the morning.  Might come across like a Halloween super-hero costume, but perhaps not if it were covered up with a long-sleeve button-down shirt.  How about some padded briefs or boxers?  They could have butt-shaping contours in the back, and fake bulges in the front.  Then women can become as disillusioned about men's bodies as men are about women's, expecting perfection.

After men get used to all these new features in clothes, then they can start getting $12,000 muscle implants from the plastic surgeon, to go along with butt implants, tummy tucks, eyebrow transplants, and penile implants.  Pretty soon everyone will be as perfect -- and as plastic -- as Barbie and Ken. 

Really, in the absence of some disability that hinders exercise, there are three choices available to us all:  1)  stay as we are, and accept the imperfections; 2) disguise imperfections and create new "perfect" parts with special clothing and plastic surgery; or 3) dig deep and find the willpower to become the fittest and healthiest we can possibly be, and accept those parts that cannot be changed with proper diet and exercise -- cherish the fact the parts are there and functional.

Personally, what I find attractive about a fit person is the healthy habits and lifestyle that lead to such fitness.  One can really admire a person who has the discipline to eat right and the energy and focus to work out regularly to achieve a trim and muscular physique.  Getting fake fitness doesn't reflect much of anything except a lazy person who wants a shortcut.  Getting fake sexual parts speaks to me of a shortage of self-esteem, since I know of too many women who, e.g., got fake boobs because they didn't like their body, and then after acquiring "perfect" breasts still did not like their body, and even after multiple such surgeries still did not like their body.  Is this a sign people are craving love and affection from others?  Or is what they really need a bit of self-love and self-discipline? 

From WHAS11.com: 

You may not even know it, but some of your male friends or male co-workers could be wearing a girdle. 
<:OD>
More and more men are turning to tummytucking, chest compressing, or body shaping underwear...

Dozens of websites now sell waist eliminators, chest compressors, 'mirdles', and 'manziers'.  They go by several different names, but in the end they're 'girdles for guys'.  Respectable publications like Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal have written about them in recent issues.  They aim to help hide the muffin top, love handles, moobs, man cans or whatever name you give to the fatty areas of your torso...

If you want to buy a body shaping garment you will pay anywhere from $20 to $110...And some garments are high tech and help your posture and blood flow as they help you look leaner.

IN THE NEWS: Huge Percentage of Adult Population Unmarried, Living Alone

In "happiness" surveys around the world, Americans always rank quite low in comparison to a lot of countries where large extended families and walkable communities are the norm.  Could it be because we are lonely?  Not only must we drive everywhere, limiting our contact with people, but also once we arrive home many of us are totally alone, or living with people who have no commitment to being there for the long run.  Per today's news release by the U.S. Census:

43% of all U.S. residents 18 and older are unmarried
61% of the unmarried have never been married
45% of households are maintained by the unmarried
28% of all households are comprised of people living alone
33% of births the past 12 months were to unmarried women   

That explains the explosion in the dating service industry that makes billions of dollars a year.  Unfortunately, life is more lonely for some races here than for others, since these statistics would vary considerably if broken down by ethnicity.  For example, 85% of Asian children live with two parents, while only 38% of black children live with two parents, per another U.S. Census report.  Hmmmm...educational statistics show that Asians are consistently at the top, and blacks typically lag furthest behind.  Could there be a correlation with educational achievement and the family?

85% of Asian children lived with two parents
78% of white non-Hispanic children lived with two parents
70% of Hispanic children lived with two parents
38% of black children lived with two parents

To stop the loneliness, people could theoretically share living space more than they currently do.  In fact, with the economy in a shambles, there are more and more news stories of people doing just that to cut expenses.

However, it won't be long before people discover that the laws and local ordinances do not support the direction our society has been heading.  Many communities forbid houses to be rented to unrelated roommates, calling the houses "boarding houses," for example.  Other ordinances forbid large extended families from sharing a house, limiting the number of related people per house to a total of two per bedroom, or a certain number of people per square foot.  I found out these things the hard way when I was served with an arrest warrant for renting a house to three unrelated Latinos.  Shame on me.

All such rules seem absurd as the economy worsens, and as our society continues to drift away from the old-fashioned family unit.  Laws are slow to catch up, but I'm sure there will be many impacts across the board -- going way beyond who can share a house -- once they finally do accommodate the new realities.  There could be more support structures offered to single and unmarried parents, for instance, like aftercare with supervised homework at all schools, and less homework to begin with.   Or maybe relax the rules about working from home, or have more social clubs that are geared toward something other than dating.  Or maybe we could employ all those people in retirement homes to supervise our kids, or handle the handyman list, or simply share a meal and offer companionship. 

We won't be going backward in time to the family unit, extended family, and closeknit communities of the past, but what might going forward in time look like, if we actually prepare for the realities rather than continue to dream of a bygone era?  

IN THE NEWS: Bosnian Muslims Get Some Justice with Serb Convictions

The lovely blonde I'd known for years became very animated when I finally asked where she was from, and how she came to be in the United States.  She was from Bosnia, I discovered, and was a survivor of Europe's biggest genocide since World War II.  "People did terrible things to survive," she said.  "You have no idea."

She was about 14 when the atrocities in her country began in the 1990's.  At first, people gathered in cities, but as the supply lines were cut off, along with electricity and water, it quickly became apparent that everyone in the city would soon face starvation, so she and her family all gathered at a relative's home in the countryside.  The home was bombarded by day with shots fired from Serbs, forcing them to go out at night to cultivate potatoes, which kept them alive.  One day, huddled inside the home, a shot came through a window and killed her uncle in front of everyone. 

By far her worst experience was after the U.N. created a safe zone in Srebrenica.  They gathered there, hoping for the best.  Instead, the Dutch U.N. peacekeepers looked the other way while the Serbs separated all the Muslim men and women, and then proceeded to systematically murder the men.  It was there that my acquaintance's brother was shot, a victim of the now-infamous Srebrenica massacre of 8,000.  That event was the largest and most visible instance of genocide during that atrocious civil war, but it was not the only one.  Many other brutal killings occurred.  It is therefore somewhat ironic that now, in the Netherlands of all places, justice has been meted out to two Serb perpetrators of one such massacre. 

Feeling rejected by Europe, many of the Bosnian Muslims fled to the United States or to Muslim countries like Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.  A Pakistani wrote in 1993:  "Blonde, blue-eyed Bosnian girls sit in a circle on the floor in traditional Muslim fashion and sing a song of praise to Allah.  Their bright faces are framed by headscarves...As the girls sing, Pakistani welfare workers listen with tears in their eyes...Pakistanis have been swept by a wave of emotion for these blonde Muslims.  'We are Europeans but we were abandoned by Europe, only because we are Muslims.  Now distant countries like Pakistan have opened their hearts to us'...."

With these fair-haired Muslims in mind, it should have come as no surprise when my Pakistani friend recently mentioned blondes in her country.  Although she was referring to an ethnic group called Pathans, she could have just as easily been referring to the Bosnians:  "They were so different from us...so white with blonde hair...AAHH...they were so pretty...and the weather in Karachi was so hot...that all their perfectly white cheeks were glowing red...." 

It is worth noting that within 20th century Europe, Muslims same as Jews found themselves victims of genocide.  In yet another twist of irony, the main Serb killer who was brought to justice today was found hiding out in Argentina, the same place where a bunch of Nazis fled after WWII, and where there are now numerous blonde Latinos.

As stereotypes and ethnicities get blurred over time, you would think that genocide would disappear.  But in reality, it is not physical differences that drive such conflict, but rather economic and power disparities, cloaked in differences of religion and values.  Sadly, humans somehow lose their humanity along the way, and we get incidents like the following.

From the Associated Press via news.yahoo.com:

The Hague, Netherlands -- A U.N. war crimes court has convicted two Bosnian Serb cousins of murder and extermination for locking up scores of Muslims in two houses and burning them alive...

Milan Lukic was the ringleader...his cousin Sredoje Lukic aided and abetted....

"What the two accused destroyed in June of 1992 is far beyond their capacity to repay," prosecutor Dermot Groome told judges..."Spending the remainder of their lives incarcerated is simply a nominal token toward the loss they occasioned."

...The brutality of crimes in Visegrad, a small town on the banks of the River Drina, stand out even amid the atrocities that punctuated the 1992-95 Bosnian war. 

Groome told judges at the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal that in one massacre in June 1992, the cousins barricaded nearly 70 Muslims -- elderly men, women and children ranging in age from 75 years to just 2 days -- into a house and set fire to it.

As flames tore through the crowded rooms and the victims inside screamed in agony, the Lukic cousins stood outside shooting anybody who tried to escape, he said...

"We will never know what would have become of the 2-day-old infant burned alive in the...fire," he added.  "She would now be looking forward to her 17th birthday in a few weeks."

Milan Lukic was arrested in August 2005 in Argentina and sent for trial in The Hague.  His cousin surrendered to Bosnian Serb authorities and was transferred to The Hague a few weeks later.

Welcome to a Unisex World of FTM and MTF

Chastity Bono recently made headlines by announcing she was officially becoming Chaz, a man.  The lengthy process she has begun is known as FTM, or Female To Male.  It involves acting like a man and taking male hormones for several months before a doctor finally performs the desired surgical procedures. 

What this also means is that s/he/it will want to use the men's restroom during this time period, despite the very real fact that physically s/he/it still has female body parts.  Want to say No?  Depending on the state's laws, you may be setting yourself up for a discrimination suit.  Hence, many public places now offer a "unisex" restroom in addition to the male and female options.  Nice compromise.

Once the transformation is complete, s/he/it will likely publish a Notice of Name Change in a newspaper somewhere.  If you think this procedure is uncommon, think again -- just read the name changes in your local paper, especially if you live in a large metropolitan area.  Christine becomes Chris.  Sam becomes Samantha.  And so on.  Next the person will get their driver's license changed to reflect the new gender, and then update their birth certificate.  Depending on the state, an entirely new birth certificate may be issued, or a revised one, so it's possible that asking for documentation will never give you the truth about someone's original gender.

But what about later, when s/he/it goes through the new body scans at airports and the security workers can see that the male parts are actually prosthetics?  They will then know the truth of this person's "assigned gender at birth," as the transgender community likes to put it (disregarding exactly "who" may have "assigned" the gender!).  Not to worry.  The transgender community has thought of this, too, and is fighting to have options to walking through a full body scan.

The "T" for Transgender in the ubiquitous LGBTQ acronym refers not just to people who are undergoing a sex change, but also to those who do not intend to have surgery, but nevertheless want to look, act, and be accepted as their gender of choice, regardless of the underlying genitalia -- that means in your office, in public places, and even in schools, as is evident by all the LGBTQ youth clubs popping up at schools everywhere.  Thus, a boy should be allowed to wear a dress to school and use the girl's restroom, according to this policy, and a girl should be allowed to join the boys in P.E.  And YOU are supposed to call this person by the "proper pronoun" according to their choosing, not according to their physical traits.  It's going to get complicated.

Okay, now let's put two and two together.  The gay community clearly wants a whole lot more than just gay marriage, which in itself would potentially alter thousands of laws out there!  They want, and advocate for, acceptance of the transgender crowd, at any age, and at any stage of alteration and denial of their true gender.  

If you want to get a bigger sense of what this is all about and you are extra curious and courageous, you can view descriptions and photos of both the FTM procedure and MTF procedure, which of course is the Male To Female version.  Thank you, Dr. Harold Reed, for sharing these gory details.  Think you could never be fooled?  Check out these photos of men who used to be women, or these photos of women who used to be men.  Tens of thousands of people have already undergone these surgeries.  That does not even count the transgender community that is parading around as the opposite sex short of having surgical procedures.

If the gay community has its way, sex changes will one day be as common and accepted as getting a nose job, facelift, liposuction, or boob job.  Is that the world you want for your children and grandchildren?  Trust me, the gay community is not going to say Thanks, Thanks a Lot, and go away, if they are handed gay marriage throughout every jurisdiction in the country.  What they are really after goes so far beyond that.  It is the outright destruction of "assigned gender at birth," and everything that has meant since the beginning of human history.  It is a complete overhaul of our society's mores, families and laws.

Sure it's politically correct and easy to party with gays and applaud the Adam "Glamberts" and Lindsay Lohans of the world, and to join together in the outlandish gay pride parades.  But if you were Cher, contemplating your own child undergoing such a procedure, you might think differently.  And even if you don't have children, don't think for a minute that gay marriage has nothing to do with you.  When all the countless laws get changed in this country to accommodate the entire spectrum of the LGBTQ community, you WILL be impacted, and you might regret ever looking the other way while the gay activists fought to change your world as you have always known it. 

If people don't start fighting against these agendas with the same level of passion and conviction that the gays are putting into fighting existing norms and laws (by making people feel discriminatory and evil somehow for advocating hereosexual relations and marriage and acceptance of one's birth gender), then one day we will all wake up to a bizarre unisex world, and think it's the Hotel California.  Indeed, that's the state that is often leading the way in adopting these changes, so watch carefully to see what's in store for you down the road.  And maybe get a full body scanner in the meantime to check out your next potential date!

A Night at the Holocaust Museum

I can't escape the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.  My nights have been filled with thoughts of that place, ever since a friend wrote to me the following a week ago:

"I recently attended a field trip with my 8th grader.  We toured the Holocaust Museum in D.C.  One of the people with us was a 24-year-old woman from Brazil...She had been educated in Brazil and had never heard of the Holocaust!  Talk about a skewed education!...I'll never forget the looks of shock and horror washing over the Brazilian's face as the torture and deaths of all those innocent people were conveyed to her -- not just Jews but Catholics, gays, and gypsies."

Now we all have looks of shock and horror after learning about the old racist who walked into that museum yesterday with a gun, killing a guard before being shot himself.  Good thing the place was heavily guarded, or else some of the children touring the place and hoping to see the Anne Frank play that was scheduled might have been shot as well.  This brings to mind so many things.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION

Teachers in England have lamented that they find it difficult to teach the Holocaust when so many of the students there are Muslims who react negatively to the subject, perhaps denying its veracity as yesterday's shooter did.  As a result, some teachers in the U.K. have simply stopped covering the subject rather than face such a hostile audience.  Is that what has happened in Brazil, too?  Or has Brazil been too-long influenced by the Nazis who fled there, leading to a flippant attitude toward the carnage of WWII, as was exhibited just a year ago when a dance school prepared a float with dead Jews piled up in a mass grave.  The intent was to dance on top of this horrific float during the Mardi Gras parades.  Clearly, something is wrong with Holocaust education around the world! 

I realize my own early education was also lacking on the subject.  I originally thought only six million Jews were killed in WWII, and that their persecution started with the German Nazis.  Later in college I studied Russian, and learned that 20 million Russians died during the War.  That was news!  Practically a whole generation of Russian men gone, leaving their widows to manage on their own.  Were some of the old women who were carted off in a paddy wagon in front of me in St. Petersburg a few years ago survivors of the War?  They had been selling scarves and knickknacks on the street -- the black market -- which is against the law, but what other job could they possibly do at their age and skill level?

Still later, I learned that about 45 million people altogether died in the War, and that the Nazis systematically killed lots of people aside from Jews, including Polish intelligentsia, mentally disabled, and more.  It is these facts that lead some people -- like yesterday's shooter -- to want to "revise" the history of that time period, yet such revisionists and deniers go overboard, wanting to claim that the Jews were not specially persecuted at all, since many more non-Jews died in the War than Jews.  But that, too, is absurd.  Jews did not have a homeland to defend.  They only had their homes within Europe, and they were hunted down specifically for extermination.  I personally know such people who went into hiding to survive, and it is astonishing to think of anyone trying to deny these facts of WWII.

However, what is less known is that such distinct persecution of Jews preceded WWII.  I learned this when I bought a series of books at a Jewish museum in Amsterdam on the history of anti-Semitism, and was astonished to learn that Jews were discriminated against throughout Europe for centuries before the Nazis came along.  There were laws restricting Jews to certain occupations, confining them to areas of town called "ghettos," and forcing them to wear clothes indicating they were Jewish.  Many of the Nazi practices (short of the concentration camps) were based on such historical actions and laws throughout Europe.  Much of old European art shows Jews in their required clothing at different time periods.  You could almost say that for hundreds of years they were prisoners in Europe, wearing prison garb and let out during certain hours for work details.

The oldest Jewish ghetto in Europe is in Venice, and the lone operating synagogue there must now protect itself with military guards.  I once found it difficult for me and my daughter to get past the two heavily armed men in fatigues to attend a service there, as I didn't have our passports handy and was carrying a backpack.  Might I have a bomb?  Finally, a guard searched my bag and let us in.  Seemed strange to me at the time, but now it seems ominous.  I have a better understanding of why Jewish places in general are so heavily guarded.  They need to be!  Anti-Semitism is still alive and well!  Even if you are not Jewish but are simply a visitor to a Jewish synagogue, center or museum, your life is in danger.

Hitler and his crew might have invented the Final Solution, but they did not originate the persecution of Jews in Europe.  However, even the Final Solution was not a new idea, as people had tried genocide against Jews thousands of years ago in the Middle East -- same as Ahmadinejad promises to do at the first opportunity.  In fact, many Jewish holidays commemorate their survival of various purges and attempted genocide.  Are Jews really an inferior race?

Statistically, Jews make up only 2% of the U.S. population.  So many of them came here destitute, yet they have managed to rise to the top of our society, same as in every society.  It's typical for them to make up about 15% of the classes at Ivy league schools, and even greater percentages among law schools and medical schools.  They are, on average, far more educated and successful and wealthy than other Americans.  And they exert strong influences, staying politically active and engaged in community and volunteer work.  You could even argue that Jews are God's chosen people.  Not chosen to suffer, but chosen to survive and thrive no matter what atrocities and hardships they encounter.  Perhaps it is jealousy over the ongoing success-against-all-odds of this people -- their superiority -- that leads to persecution.

VIOLENCE TOWARD JEWS

Whatever the cause -- lack of education, miseducation, or just plain antisemitism -- it is unfortunate that Jews today still encounter the violence.  The persecution can amount to threats or property damage, like the swastikas that are appearing in greater frequency on the homes and cars of Jews in the United States, or the desecration of Jewish graves and sites in Europe.  Or, on occasion, it can amount to shootings, as was done at a Jewish center a while back, and at the museum yesterday. 

In the future, if we are not careful, it might amount to their annihilation -- or at least the destruction of Israel, where many Holocaust survivors and their descendants have made their home.  Or it could amount to the greatest attack on the United States ever, considering that for many in the world, there is no distinction between those who harbor, support and defend Jews, and Jews themselves.  The U.S. and Israel, and Americans and Jews within our borders, are all inseparable at this point, and indistinguishable to the likes of people like Ahmadinejad.

In fact, it is possible that many Americans have Jewish blood.  After all, Columbus set sail from Spain when Jews were expelled from that country.  Historians speculate that his ships, and those that later followed to the Americas, harbored many Jews.  Do you have "Black Dutch" in your ancestry?  Those fair-skinned, dark-haired people are thought by some genealogists to be Jews, giving themselves a different identity in the New World to avoid ongoing persecution.

There is no denying that Jews have made enormous contributions to society throughout history, yet some say those contributions are supernatural as well as human.  For example, Jewish writings claim that God will prosper those who help the Jews -- like the United States has prospered during the time it has offered refuge to Jews and protection to Israel, and God will destroy those who oppose the Jews -- like Hitler and his empire were ultimately destroyed.  Many Jewish scholars say this is an ongoing theme throughout history.

Whether it is God at work here or or not, and whether you like Jews or not, you should find it easy to come up with reasons to defend and guard Jews and their museums, their history, and their survival.  Perhaps it is even time to visit a Holocaust museum, as there are many around besides the one in D.C.  Knowledge is understanding, and knowledge is power.  We must educate ourselves, whether our schools properly do that for us or not. 

The reason intelligentsia are killed off by new dictators throughout history is because they are the ones who KNOW, who are educated and equipped with all the power and strength of knowledge.  We must all make sure we are educated on the Holocaust -- the entire picture -- for the future of our society and a humane world.

Time to Say 'Adios' to Birthright Citizenship

More than ten percent of Representatives in the House support a bill that would end birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.  It's about time.  The United States is one of only a handful of countries in the world that allows citizenship solely based on birth, and it is imperative to put an end to this policy.  No European countries allow birthright citizenship.  In fact, Canada is the only other developed nation in the world that allows it.

There are currently 47 co-sponsors, out of 435 total Representatives in the House, who are in favor of H.R. 1868, introduced by Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia.  The proposed law would only grant citizenship based on birth if at least one parent is an American citizen, a legal resident, or a member of the armed forces.  Nearly half of the co-sponsors come from just three states:  Texas, California and Georgia, all hot spots for illegal immigrants that have seen enormous increases in their Hispanic populations the past 20 years.   

In Georgia alone, the foreign-born population increased 233 percent from 1990 to 2000, and another 50 percent from 2000 to 2007.  Most of those immigrants are Latino, with a third coming from Mexico. 

Once here, the immigrants are popping out babies at a rate nearly double the rate for native-born women.  In 2007, nine percent of immigrant women had given birth, compared to only five percent of native-born women.  Nationally, 85 percent of children with immigrant parents were born in the United States, not in the country of their parents' origin.  Think about this.  The parents are not arriving with children.  They are arriving childless, then giving birth at an astonishing rate, making it more difficult to deport the family and allowing the children all the rights and benefits of citizenship, including access to welfare.

This puts tremendous pressure on government services.  Children with immigrant parents accounted for 29 percent of all children from low-income families in 2007, compared to only 16 percent in 1990.  For more statistics, visit the Migration Policy Institute website.

Because such statistics are shocking enough to wake up native-born Americans to the threat from within (and they say great empires can only be defeated from within), many Latinos plan to boycott the 2010 census.  They are organizing -- making appeals in Spanish-language newspapers, radio talk shows and TV stations -- to avoid being counted, because they believe that our access to numbers like those above will result in laws against them.  What's more, Hispanic churches are also organizing from the pulpit, which is a double crime, in that they are telling people to disobey the law, and involving themselves in politics counter to their tax-free status. 

Keep this conspiracy in mind.  The Latino ultimatum amounts to blackmail:  give us legal status to remain, or we won't be counted in the census.  Are these the kind of people you want to be citizens?

Birthright citizenship stems from provisions in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution intended to allow citizenship to former slaves.  The drafters of the Amendment did not anticipate the situation the country now faces with illegal aliens entering to have their offspring here.  The policy must be updated to protect the interests of the United States and its long-term survival as we know it.

Unfortunately, H.R. 1868 is unlikely to pass.  Similar bills have been introduced before and failed.  This one is currently assigned to a subcommittee of sixteen members, and only three of those members are known supporters.  People need to tell their Representatives the importance of taking charge of who becomes a citizen and who doesn't.  Things are greatly out of control now, and it won't be long before the majority influence in the country will be from people who do not share American values, who burden the system, and who do not even speak English.  And who think that the way to make a difference is to plan organized defiance of laws and organized blackmail of our government.

They know full well what they are doing by having their babies here and taking advantage of the situation.  Only native-born Americans are the ones seemingly unaware at the growing threat, and how birthright citizenship is the real source of the problem. 

Soulful Selma Is a Disgrace to American Idol and McDonald's

I was quite surprised and appalled when my daughter pulled "Soulful Selma" out of a Night at the Museum Happy Meal box at McDonald's.  Did McDonald's or American Idol ever run this by black people in market research before launching it?  And what does it have to do with a Night at the Museum, anyway?

I have a hard time believing that this is how African Americans want to be portrayed.  Even around 1970 when large Afros were in style, the female singers did not look like this.  Instead, this is a caricature of a black person, all the way from the hair to the name that they gave this figure, as if we wouldn't be able to tell it was a black person without the name Soulful Selma.  As everyone knows, soul music is black to the core, and Selma is a town in Alabama that featured prominently during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, and not in a way that whites want to be reminded of. 

When will advertisers ever learn?  Only recently Burger King had to pull its advertisement that featured a squat Mexican next to a tall Texan.  The official complaint from a Mexican official was that it's against the law to use the Mexican flag in the way it is portrayed in the advertisement.  You can guess that the unofficial complaint is the entire depiction.  The Mexican barely comes up to the elbow of the American, and is as round as the nearby wagon wheel.



I do miss the Frito Bandito from my youth, but that was from another time period.  Nowadays, it seems ridiculous that advertising agencies and their clients are not more aware.  They should at least be aware that anything even remotely offensive can result in all kinds of backlash.  Why waste money on an ad campaign that is sure to backfire?  

It doesn't take much of an IQ to realize that portraying a doll like Beyonce or any number of other stunning African Americans would come across better than Soulful Selma, and be more realistic to boot.  I can't think of a single performer that even remotely resembles Soulful Selma, except, perhaps, Soulful Selma herself.  So, is that a microphone in her hand, or a fried chicken leg?  Hmmmm, looks like soul food to me.  And she's lovin' it!

Press 2 for Spanish, 3 for Swine Flu, or 4 for Drug Gangs

I cringed at the pharmacy today when the woman standing next to me sniffled and asked where the flu medicine was.  Then I thought about all the contact with Mexicans I had recently.  Let's see...this afternoon I sat next to a Mexican woman and her coughing child in the waiting room at the doctor's office; two days ago I ate dinner at a Mexican restaurant; three days ago I conversed with my Mexican yard man while standing in my own front lawn; and a week ago I went to a Quinceanera party with a hundred or so Mexicans, and sat smiling while a mariachi band sang in my face.  I ponder these things, then count the miles between me and the confirmed cases of swine flu in the next state over -- only a couple hours' drive away.  

In reality, any containment efforts to stop Mexico and all its contents from spilling over into the United States would've needed to start about 30 years ago.  Since we decided to embrace Mexicans, wittingly or not, we will not succeed in keeping out whatever negative things they bring with them, along with the more popular things like margaritas, Latin dancing and Cinco de Mayo.   In the year 2000 alone, 290 million Mexicans entered the United States for same-day trips, mostly by car.  That amounted to about 250,000 cars and 800,000 people a day.  For overnight trips or longer stays, 10 million Mexicans entered the U.S. and 20 million Americans traveled to Mexico.  The total border crossings approached 200 million, not counting the non-stop flow of illegal immigrants, and the number of Mexicans taking up residence in the United States.

Per census.gov:

A 53 percent increase in the number of people of Mexican origin fueled much of the nearly 13 million rise in the number of Hispanics between 1990 and 2000...The Hispanic Population, showed that the country's Mexican population numbered 20.6 million in 2000 and comprised 58 percent of the nation's 35.3 million Latinos. The number of Mexicans increased by 7.1 million during the decade, accounting for a majority of the 12.9 million increase in the total Hispanic population.

Of course, you can also choose to read this text in Spanish, since it is no longer required to know English to take advantage of our government services:

El aumento del 53 por ciento en el numero de personas de origen mexicano causo el mayor incremento del casi 13 millones de personas latinas entre 1990 y el 2000...La Poblacion Hispana...mostro que la poblacion mexicana del pais era de 20.6 millones en el 2000 y constituia el 58 por ciento de los 35.3 millones de latinos en la Nacion.  La cantidad de mexicanos crecio por 7.1 millones durante la decada, representando una mayoria del aumento de 12.9 millones en el total de la poblacion latina.

So tell me, how does it help one bit if we screen bus and airplane passengers for flu symptoms, when there are millions of people crossing the borders by car or by foot?  Tell me, too, how 50 million antiviral shots the government has stockpiled will help anyone significantly beyond the millions of Mexicans living here, who will surely go line up for their shots before long.   

I don't know what concerns me more, the swine flu or the drug gangs, which seemed like the scariest thing ever before this flu threat surfaced.  You know, the gangs that annually riddle Mexican cities with hundreds of corpses, often headless or chopped into pieces.  These criminal organizations operate very systematically, training their killers for months in all manner of torture and murder with the help of former members of the Mexican military and police.  The hit men (sometimes teenaged boys) are then stationed somewhere in that country or in the United States, where they await their orders to kill.  The gangs have already infiltrated the city I live in, and are using it as a supply route for distribution of drugs throughout the region.  The DEA has documented their activities about 10 miles up the street from my house.  It's only a matter of time before the corpses appear.

Aside from the life-threatening swine flu and drug gangs, and the nuisance of continually having to choose English (!), we have the more mundane burdens of accommodating this poor immigrant group that breeds like rabbits.  Some area schools now -- among the lowest ranked, of course -- are 70% or more Hispanic.  Employees in the services sector have been striving to learn Spanish to meet the needs for interpreters in criminal court cases; for Spanish-speaking domestic violence hot-line operators; for lawyers and obstetricians and priests who speak the language and know the culture, and on and on.  You can't even find a cashier in a store who doesn't know at least a few words of Spanish, as their job depends on it.

Truly, the time for containment is long past, and our Great Wall of Mexico, aka Great Wall of America, will likely be of little effect.  Methods used so far to cross that barrier include tunnels, large ladders, hacksaws and even bungee-jumpers.  More radical long-term changes will be the only hope for improvement.  For example, stop handing out American citizenship based solely on birth in the United States, then maybe they will have less incentive to cross the border to pop out their babies.  Require tuition from non-Americans who don't own houses (i.e., who don't pay the property taxes that finance our schools), and charge them for the school lunches instead of giving five or so kids per family free food.  Etc. etc.  In other words, take away the freebies and nice incentives they have for staying here, then maybe the tide of immigrants will ebb.

Their population will continue to swell regardless with the high birth rates of the Mexicans already living here.  Blame it on the Pope if you like, since they are largely Catholic.  What to do?  We won't be restricting births like China.  Nor will we forbid them from traveling to Mexico to visit relatives, except perhaps temporarily should the flu become a pandemic.  And we won't stop trade or tourism with our neighbor to the South.  No, I don't suppose we will do much, except enroll in the next Spanish course for Gringos, pray to Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe, and squeeze a little lime wedge into our Corona before drowning our sorrows.  It's either that or flee across the Canadian border to escape.  

IN THE NEWS: Sexy Lingerie Under the Burkas in Saudi Arabia

Who would've ever guessed.  Turns out Saudi women love to wear sexy lingerie under their burkas and in their bedrooms.  Trouble is, the awkwardness of buying the stuff is causing some Saudi women to boycott lingerie stores.  Most such stores are in malls where "religious police" patrol the place to ensure men and women do not interact.  Yet in this segregated environment, the women are ironically forced to buy their lingerie from male sales staff -- a most intimate type of interaction -- because the religious authorities also do not allow men and women to work together in the same mall.  Add to this mix a ban on dressing rooms to try on the lingerie, and that leaves the salesmen ogling the women's figures through their burkas to make recommendations on what size to buy.  Want to tell a Saudi she's a B cup and not a C?  Below is an excerpt from an Associated Press story in Yahoo News. 

AP – A Saudi woman holding a child checks out lingerie at a store in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, March …

By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer Donna Abu-nasr, Associated Press Writer – 22 mins ago

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – Before her wedding last year, Huda Batterjee went abroad to buy her bridal lingerie — she just couldn't bear the humiliation of discussing her most intimate apparel with a man. She had little choice: there are almost no saleswomen in Saudi Arabia. Now a group of Saudi women — sick of having to deal with male sales staff when buying bras or panties, not to mention frilly negligees or thongs — have launched a campaign this week to boycott lingerie stores until they employ women.

It's an irony of the kingdom's strict segregation of the sexes. Only men are employed as sales staff to keep women from having to deal with male customers or work around men.

But in lingerie stores, that means men are talking to women about bras or thongs, looking them up and down to determine their cup sizes, even rubbing the underwear to show how stains can be washed out.

The result is mortifying for everyone involved — shoppers, salesmen, even the male relatives who accompany the women.

"When I buy underwear in Saudi, some salesmen say, 'This is not the right size for you,'" said Batterjee. "You feel almost taken advantage of. Why is he looking at me in this way?"  ...Heba al-Akki, a businesswoman who supports the boycott, said when she shops for underwear, "I go to a store, pick this, this and that and leave quickly. It's as if I'm buying illegal stuff."

It's not easy on the salesmen either..."Even in such open regions as the U.S. and Europe, men do not sell underwear to women," said store manager Husam al-Mutayim, a 27-year-old Egyptian. "I don't let any of my female relatives buy underwear from men. It's just too embarrassing."

...Under Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islamic law, women are required to cover themselves head-to-toe in black robes in public. But in the privacy of their own homes — and bedrooms — they can wear whatever they want, and sexy undergarments are popular.

But buying them is another story. Fitting rooms are banned in the kingdom — the idea of a woman undressing in a public place with men just outside is unthinkable... 

The aim is to push for implementation of a law that has been on the books since 2006 which says only female staff can be employed in women's apparel stores. The law has never been put into effect, partly due to hard-liners in the religious establishment who oppose employing women in mixed environments like malls, where religious police are always on the lookout to keep men and women from interacting.

The campaign calls on women to shop at the country's few women-only lingerie stores. Usually stand-alone boutiques or located in malls that have women-only sections, these shops have no windows to ensure passing men cannot look in — and giving women the freedom to actually try things on...Almost 1,700 people signed an online petition posted by Asaad on the social networking Web site Facebook. A few Saudi papers have written about it, but the campaign depends mostly on word of mouth.

Not all women support the idea. At the Riyadh lingerie shop on Wednesday, one woman — only her eyes visible through the black veil covering her face — said she is suspicious of women-only lingerie shops.

"Bad things happen there," she said.

What might that be?

Women can sneak a picture of you changing with their mobile phones, she replied and refused to give her name. 

IN THE NEWS: White Police Chief Taboo -- Reverse Discrimination Runs Rampant in the Netherlands

Statistically speaking, whites are still in the majority in the Netherlands by far.  More than 80 percent of the population has Dutch ancestry.  However, "multiculturalism" is alive and well in this country, leading to the point where today's headlines state that 50 percent of police chiefs must be minority or women, while 30 percent of lower tier police bureaucrats must be minority or women.  This news has prompted more than 700 reactions online.  The story, from de Telegraaf, is translated below, along with some of the comments.

It is important for Americans to pay attention to what is happening in the Netherlands (or Holland as it is popularly called), because that country has long lead the world in tolerance and supporting the downtrodden.  Many pilgrims themselves found refuge in the Netherlands before sailing from there to our shores long ago.  Therefore seeing what is taking place in Dutch society can be foreboding of what is in store for other countries that welcome immigrants and have growing minority populations.  By learning from their mistakes, we can better decide a course of action for the United States.

White Police Chief Taboo

A celebration for a new police chief in South Holland province has been disrupted, after discussion over the appointment of "again a white man" in the top police position. 

Minister Ter Horst (Internal Affairs) did not appoint the person who was expected to take the role of police chief.  A large celebration had already been planned next Tuesday for the naming of Teun Visscher to the position, but that must be canceled. 

The government office says that the celebration was planned "much too early."  According to an informal agreement among diverse police chiefs, the police had guaranteed that Visscher would be the last "white man" appointed to the top post for the near future.  The next person must be a woman or a person of color, despite whether they are the better candidate. 

"The police chiefs have met with the government officials and agreed that 50 percent of the heads of police must be women or minority immigrants," according to a spokesman for the government office.  "If a white man is named as police chief now, then the next police chief cannot be a white man."

The police corps in South Holland has been without a police chief for a year-and-a-half.  Two women were considered for the position, but they could not take the job, or they were not qualified.  Therefore, Visscher was considered.  The minister of Internal Affairs Ter Horst also wants "white men" removed from the lower tiers of police leadership.  These administrators must be at least 30 percent women or minority immigrants.  Highly qualified candidates must be blocked, while the demands are lowered, because there are very few female or minority candidates.  A woman has accordingly been appointed police chief of another district, with the promotion being very circumspect. 

Comments:

I didn't realize that it had become so awful in the Netherlands.  No need for me to come back.  (Comment by a Dutch person living in Germany.)

Long live the multicultural leftists.  Why not take applications anonymously, and give out the job that way.  If a woman gets the job then, great, but this way it is discrimination!  (You're a white man, therefore you don't get the job.)

This smells of discrimination, where someone's skin color is seen as unwanted, and every other skin color is acceptable.  It should go according to the capabilities and qualifications of the candidates and applicants.  Man, woman, white, tinted, Catholic, Muslim, young, old, homosexual, heterosexual -- just name it --- these should not be criteria in which to select someone or not. 

As a woman, I only want the job if I am the BEST person for it, not because I happen to be a woman.  This is what is wrong with politics in the Netherlands...We go for being average in place of being the best.

This is discrimination.  Too crazy for words.  NETHERLANDS WAKE UP!!!!!! 

Didn't we learn anything from the affirmative action of the '80's?  This brought on a lot of troubles because people were often not qualified for the jobs.

Quality must give way to integration and emancipation -- it can't get any crazier.

I am more than sick of the reverse discrimination.  Oh yeah, and a tip:  buy a pot of black face paint, then you no longer need to be ashamed of your skin color.  The Netherlands = own people last.

It's no longer about qualifications but about skin color...yeah yeah.  Rather "reverse discrimination" than appoint a good police chief.

I am no racist or hater of minority immigrants, but for this important function to put race ahead of qualifications -- something is amiss in this country!  At a time period when assaults, burglaries and murders are daily news, quality in the top position is of utmost importance! 

The discrimination of people of Dutch ancestry goes on as usual.  What a backwards place this is.  It is high time to put an end to this multicultural nonsense. 

I feel as a white person that I am discriminated against more and more in this country.   

Thus it is not about competence...this is absolutely discrimination of the same sort that was in South Africa and Zimbabwe...and the people want youth to respect the police, when you have leaders there who did not work their way up but just happened to have the right skin color.

This was to be expected over time.  Must this person be able to read and write Dutch? 

When I read the headlines, I thought it was about South Africa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

We have had enough of the miseries with the double passports.  Let's wait for a politician who will put an end to this.

How ridiculous.  Thus you prefer an unqualified candidate who is female or colored over a white man who is well qualified.  It can't get any crazier in this country.

Absurd.  Selection of a colored man or a woman is discrimination against a white man if his qualifications are the best for the position.  It has to do with fulfilling a function and doing a job, and has nothing to do with political wishes.

Reverse discrimination for this type of position is the reason more and more people will be voting for the political party that is anti-immigration.  Mark my words!

Thus white men are no longer able to be police chief??   

What in god's name is this about?  Is our country completely upside down?  We are a Germanic country where a Germanic language is spoken.  For a hundred years there wasn't a single colored person in OUR country.  And now they demand to take over even the leadership?  Today I'm contacting the emigration bureau, and looking around for somewhere else to move.  Away with this sort of nonsense here!  

Where can I turn in my Dutch nationality and passport?  I don't want to be a part of this country anymore, with its ridiculous norms and values.  Our Dutch grandparents would roll over in their graves, if they knew of all this!  Scandalous, unheard of, and totally irresponsible. 

What is important is that an adequate person for the job is chosen irregardless of skin color or origins.  Let's grow up and be adults. 

I've been warning about this since the '80's...Not long before the group that actually thought of everything, developed and made everything, is found doing manual labor.

The Netherlands is from ancient times a land of windmills, milk, cheese, and white people!!!  We tolerate up until now Moroccan mayors, a Turkish province leader...but THAT'S IT!!!  No more major functions for unqualified people in place of those who have earned their jobs.

Dear minister, are white men a discriminated group?  Only because we do our jobs well?  Is a colleague better qualified if "he" is suddenly a "she," or as you say, has color?  I want the best candidates in public functions.  You discriminate! 

IN THE NEWS: Iran Wants Hollywood to Apologize for Insults

My last blog post on My American Rights Trump Your Muslim Honor described how Muslim men feel the need to protect their "honor," and how the simplest of things can make them feel publicly humiliated and insulted.  Case in point:  Iran now wants Hollywood to apologize for all the "insults" against Iranians from Hollywood movies over the past 30 years.

One recent movie that the Iranian president's adviser finds particularly offensive is The Wrestler, because a character has the stage name The Ayatollah.  Come on.  This is laughable.  At least, it would be laughable if these people weren't like ticking time bombs waiting to go off if their demands are not met.  So what is Mr. Ahmadinejad going to do if Hollywood does not apologize?  Blow it up?  Is this all a veiled threat?  And who does he want, exactly, to apologize on behalf of "Hollywood?"  Maybe Governor Schwarzenegger?  Hasta la vista, Baby. 

The story below is just one more example of how we in the West can never fathom the minds of the Muslims, nor can our laws and lifestyles ever be acceptable to them.  Mr. Ahmadinajad's adviser even thinks that "the aim" -- the aim! -- of our films is "insulting" Iran.  Don't they understand entertainment and profits?  How best to insult Iran never crossed their minds, otherwise the insults would hardly be so subtle as to constitute the stage name of a wrestler.  Yet Muslim men think the world revolves around them and their honor.

They are absolutely opposed to all that we hold dear -- including our movie industry -- and we must therefore, of necessity, be opposed to them.  No apology whatsoever should be offered, ever, for exercising our rights to freedom of speech in our own country.  The Iranians can simply change the channel or not go to the cinema if they don't like our movies, or stay out of our country.  The nerve they have to demand that we edit our speech here because they find it insulting there is the same kind of audacity that we must be prepared to oppose, resist and defeat within the United Nations and at home.  From CNN.com's Iran Attacks Hollywood Over Movie "Insults":

Hollywood should apologize to Iran for "insults and accusations against the Iranian nation," a top aide to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a visiting Hollywood delegation Sunday.

"The Wrestler," starring Mickey Rourke was also attacked for being insulting towards Iran.

..."Representatives of Iran's film industry should only have an official meeting with representatives of the Academy and Hollywood if they apologize for the insults and accusations against the Iranian nation during the past 30 years," said Javad Shamghadri, Ahmadinejad's advisor on the arts, ISNA reported.

He singled out the 1991 Sally Field thriller "Not Without My Daughter," about an American woman who marries an Iranian and then tries to flee Iran with their child, and the comic-book-inspired action flick "300" as "two clear examples of total lies."

..."How can we sit and have a sincere meeting with American film makers while they humiliate and insult the Iranian people and the great revolution of this nation?" he asked, ISNA reported.

"The Iranian nation and its revolution has repeatedly and undeservedly been attacked by Hollywood movies," he said.

"The film "The Wrestler" is the latest among them," he said of the film for which Mickey Rourke received an Oscar nomination this year. "We know that even right now there are other films being made with the aim of insulting and accusing the great nation of Iran and its rich culture."

"The Wrestler" features a character known as The Ayatollah, played by Ernest Miller, who takes on Rourke's Randy 'The Ram' Robinson.

My American Rights Trump Your Muslim Honor

If a man in the United States kills an armed intruder in self-defense, he is not only excused for the killing -- he is also often lauded as a hero.  People cheer him on, view him with respect, or at least accept his act as reasonable under the circumstances.  No guilt or punishment is due.  Imagine a world where the same type of reaction is due a man who kills his wife or teenage daughter or sister because something about her has embarrassed the man publicly. 

That world has existed for thousands of years in the patriarchal Middle East, and it has arrived in the West in the form of mostly Muslim immigrants who bring their tradition of "honor killings" to our midst, shocking us with their ways.  It is like they have arrived by time travel from the year 500 B.C. to our modern world.  For these people who believe in honor killings, there is truly no remorse or shame attached to the act.  There is only the duty to perform it, just as an American man must defend his home and family from an armed intruder.  That Muslim man must defend his home and family from the shame brought on by the female, whether she initiated it by seeking a divorce, refusing an arranged marriage, or dressing Western, or whether she is simply the victim of a shameful rumor, affection or rape.  And thus we read of teenagers killed by their father in Texas because they were too "Western" and had boyfriends, or a young woman killed by her father in Georgia because she wanted to divorce the man she was forced to marry.

This same sense of duty and justification is applied toward the killing of just about anyone who brings public shame and humiliation on a Muslim.  For example, if a person publishes a cartoon that mocks one of his religious figures, or openly criticizes Islamic terrorism, then rioting and killing are warranted to restore honor, since a Muslim does not believe in freedom of expression any more than he believes in women's rights.  And no, I'm not just talking about Muslim "extremists."  Why?  Just a couple of weeks ago THE proponent of "moderate" Islam in the United States -- the owner of the first English-language Muslim television station broadcasting in the U.S. -- admitted to beheading his own wife because she wanted a divorce.  It was an honor killing.  His "honor" trumped her right to a divorce, and her right to live.  And that is a "moderate Muslim" for you.  So much for his goal of introducing Americans to the beauty of the Muslim culture.

Note that these Muslims are not at all embarrassed or ashamed or dishonored by their own acts of killing and terrorism.  To the contrary.  But label any of these acts wrong and appalling in a 15-minute documentary, and THAT is embarrassing!  Embarrassing enough to run riot and get Europeans to cower.  Europe is so hand-tied by Muslims and so brainwashed by their ideological pressure that a Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, is now threatened with imprisonment in his own country for making such a 15-minute documentary about Islamic terrorism.  That same politician tried to enter England last month, and was accosted at the airport and sent home, all because his presence might have upset the Muslim communities and caused public disorder. 

Try to grasp how twisted and backwards this is.  The people threatening public disorder have not been banned or expelled.  The people against freedom of speech have not been banned or expelled.  The people against women's basic human rights have not been banned or expelled.  Instead, you have Europe clamoring to suppress and ban documentaries, jokes and people that the Muslim community might find offensive.  There are now some places in Europe where you can wear a hijab but not a cross, because the cross is optional while the hijab is arguably "required" (or else the women will be murdered is the rest of the story).  And you have laws being considered or in place against defamation of religion, e.g., banning cartoons of Mohamed (or else there will be riots and killings is the rest of the story).  Or laws against "inciting hatred" via educational documentaries, especially those on Islam (or else there will be riots and killings is the rest of the story). 

The Muslims are so emboldened by their success in Europe that they are now trying to get international laws to protect their sense of "honor."  Just this week, Muslim leaders within the United Nations were trying, yet again, to promote an international law against "defamation of religion."  What they have in mind here, of course, is an international law against freedom of speech and expression, against your right to criticize or mock or document their religion.  Is anybody listening out there?  Thank God the United States refuses to meet with these leaders at their conference, as a way of showing that we value freedom of expression more than we worry about their "honor."  So far so good.

If we attempt to be politically correct -- like the Europeans have been trying to do -- we are doomed.  We have to realize the real threat to our society posed by these people whose minds we can hardly fathom. Believe me, they cannot fathom our values either, nor will they try to assimilate them over time, because to them we are equally barbaric and appalling -- infidels!  These two cultures will never mix successfully.  They are at war.  A holy war.  Jihad.  It is a war we must win if we are to maintain all the advancements in human rights we have achieved over the past 2,000 years.  We must brace ourselves to stand up against Muslim tyranny and pressure to a much greater extent than Europe has.  We must defend our country and our values and our way of life -- our basic human rights and freedoms -- internationally, within the United Nations, and within our own borders.  To win this battle, we must be willing to openly criticize, examine, document and ban all of their abuses and breaches of our laws, and then ban them if necessary.  We cannot allow them to silence us by appealing to our sense of political correctness or non-discrimination or fear. 

Everywhere Muslims are allowed to take a foothold, they work toward squelching freedoms that we take for granted, as they have done in Europe, and eventually toward instituting sharia law, as they just did in parts of Pakistan last month and in Somalia this week.  We need to view Muslims with even greater fear -- and attack their ideologies with even greater fervor -- than we did Communists and communism in the Cold War.  We were not concerned then about profiling or insulting or whatever.  We did not allow people the freedom to practice communism.  We were protecting the United States from a real threat.  We must take on that same mindset today to stop the influence of those who consider it more honorable to kill a woman than allow her the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and who consider it more honorable to terrorize the public than to allow the publishing of a religious cartoon or true documentary. 

Forget for a moment that Islam is a harmless religion.  It is not.  It is far more than a religion.  Throughout history, Islam has been a political force, seeking to change the very fabric and laws of every society it has infiltrated.  Muslim adherents do not have any loyalty toward the laws of a nation they are living in, but will choose to breach those laws without hesitation to further their own sense of justice and honor.  Open your eyes.  These Muslims jumped up and down with joy when the World Trade Center towers crashed to the ground.  We do not need to accommodate them at the U.N. or within the U.S.  Keep that in mind, because the ideological battle that Europe has already lost is only beginning to be waged here.  Just like we saved ourselves and Europe in World War II, we must be ready to save ourselves and Europe again.  Some parts of Paris are already being described as engaged in "civil war," because the police are unable to do their duties there and make simple arrests, patrol, or maintain order.  These parts of Paris are, as you guessed, the Muslim communities.  All of Europe may in future years erupt in such civil war.  

We cannot bend in order to accommodate the random kind, sweet Muslim that does not fit into this description.  I believe many Muslims practice their religion because they were raised that way and it is all they know, and it is what is esteemed among their family and peers and countries of origin.  But that still does not make their loyalty to the United States and its system of government and its freedoms superior to their loyalty to their religion.  And that is where the rub is.  We must defend our Bill of Rights, and we must be careful just HOW we defend it and apply it.  We cannot use our own laws to protect Muslims, but rather must use them to protect ourselves from Muslims.  Otherwise, we'll wind up as twisted as Europe is now, and eventually we'll all be feeling like we just rode the time travel bus back to the year 500 B.C.

IN THE NEWS: CNN International Appears to Cater to Pro-Muslim Advertisers

Wherever I travel in the world, I'm always amazed to see CNN International blaring in every public place.  I watch with interest because we cannot get CNN International here in the United States -- not even in Atlanta, Georgia, where it is broadcast from -- not without paying for special premium cable channels anyway.  Instead we get the usual CNN that is toned down for Americans, and features things like cat shows while the rest of the world is actually learning about what is going on in the world -- at least, CNN's version.  And that's what I want to talk about here. 

Seems CNN International is not exactly objective in its coverage of events, and could be a contributing factor toward (if not the major cause of) much anti-American and anti-Jewish sentiment around the world.  Perhaps in part due to the nature of CNN International's coverage of the conflict involving Israel and the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, Jews in Europe and elsewhere have recently experienced record numbers of violence directed toward them, with more than 200 incidents in Great Britain alone during the month of January.  How could CNN be at fault?  An excerpt from a letter appearing in the news today explains:

To CNN International Edition
I am an American citizen living and working in Moscow, Russia. My choice of western TV News here is limited, and I spend a fair amount of time watching the CNN International Edition. During the height of the conflict in Gaza I watched more than the usual, and became so disappointed with your unbalanced coverage, that I decided to write this letter.

If I were totally unfamiliar with the issue, by watching your channel I would have formed the opinion that Israel is a terrorist state that has no mercy for “Palestinian” women and children, and even specifically targets them. No other conclusion is possible when 90% of the coverage is devoted to pictures of destroyed houses, schools and mosques, and to funerals, without mentioning that:
· Hamas strategically places women and children in harm’s way (for your cameras)
· Hamas produces amateur weapons in residential buildings, schools and mosques
· Since Israel left Gaza, over 3000 rockets were fired at it from this Hamas-controlled territory
· Israel continues to supply Gaza with water and electricity (for free)- even during the hostilities

...I tried to understand why your coverage is so biased. Do pictures of dead people bring good ratings? Is it easier to paint Israel as the aggressor rather than Hamas? Certainly it is true in all moslem countries and most of Europe by now (thanks in part to you). My explanations seemed to be incomplete until I paid attention to the commercials between your newscasts:
· Traveling to Egypt
· Qatar Airlines
· Royal Jordanian Airlines
· Bank of Kuweit
· ORASCOM Companies

Is it a coincidence or does the fear to offend your Arab sponsors take priority over fairness and balance in reporting the truth? The answer seems obvious to me.

I hereby accuse you, CNN, of unfair reporting for the sake of your bottom line. I hold you, CNN, partially responsible for the demonstrations held around the world and for the financial support your coverage will bring to terrorists like HAMAS....

Allen.Karpman@gmail.com, February 2009

IN THE NEWS: Americans and Britons Reject Darwin's Ideas

On this 200th Anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and the 150th anniversary of his On the Origin of Species treatise, the newspapers are filled with headlines on how half of Britons do not believe in evolution, and more than 60% of Americans reject the theory.  Quite frankly, I have also always taken offense at any suggestion I evolved from an ape, especially considering we still have apes running around.  How come some evolved and some didn't?  Huh??  There are many holes in the evolutionary theory, and countless scientists are busy working on their own theories to try to fill in those gaps. 

Yet that doesn't stop the minority of people who are fanatics about evolution from controlling things, especially when it comes to our education and textbooks.  For example, it was no small outrage when a Georgia school district put stickers inside its science textbooks reminding students that the Evolutionary Theory was, after all, still just a theory, and one of many.  Despite the numbers of people who do not buy into evolution, the proponents of the theory don't hesitate to ridicule these other masses.  The biology department at Swarthmore College is one fine example, posting online its own version of stickers to put in textbooks, and urging parents to print these out for their children. 

These stickers are shown below.  Note that the sticker in the top left corner was the one put into some Georgia textbooks.  The rest are all to make fun of that one, and anyone who dares continue questioning the origins of life. 

Textbook Disclaimer Stickers

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.	This textbook asserts that gravity exists. Gravity is a force that cannot be directly seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.	This book discusses heliocentrism, the theory that the Earth orbits around a centrally located sun. Students should be encouraged to fully consider the evidence for, and the evidence against, this interesting idea.
This textbook suggests that the Earth is spherical. Because a few delusional wackos still think the Earth is flat, while others insist it is oblate spheroid, teachers are urged to skip over this controversial topic in lesson plans.	This textbook states that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. Because this fact conflicts rather directly with a hugely popular fictional account, both sides of the argument should be taught to impressionable children.	This book promotes the theory of plate tectonics, the gradual movement of the major land masses. Because nobody actually witnessed the land masses moving, teachers should refer to the theory as unprovable.
This textbook contains a chapter about general relativity, a theory that very few scientists actually understand. And because Einstein was an atheist, it must certainly be incorrect.	This textbook suggests that the origin of life was a natural event. Because this view undermines the whole point of most religions, readers are encouraged to burn this book along with the author.	This book discusses God. The existence of entities with supernatural powers is controversial, and many believe that Gods, especially other people's Gods, are fictional.
This book explains the difference between a fact and a myth. If you feel this insight would in any way undermine your belief in magic, please close it immediately.	This book claims that fossil evidence strongly supports evolution. An alternative view embraced by "local folks" is that these fossils were planted by Satan to fool scientists into abandoning Divine Creation.	This book claims an Intelligent Designer (the man formerly known as God) carefully crafted all life on earth. Please turn your head away from the book when you spew coffee through your nose.
This textbook claims that evolution is not fully accepted by scientists because it is just a theory. The author hopes to confuse you into equating scientific theory with cockamamie theory.	This text confines the topic of evolution into a small, discrete chapter at the end of the book. The author missed the memo that evolution is the unifying principle in biology. This book is therefore, "lame".	This book was anonymously donated to your school library to discreetly promote magical, religious alternatives to the theory of evolution. Please reshelve it in the fiction section.
This book contains an evolution disclaimer sticker mandated by your local school board. For fun, submit an article that analyzes the impact of weakened science instruction on students' SAT scores.	This catalog features several dozen new cultivars of flowers, living evidence that species can change over time. Creationists should never, ever order anything from this company.	This book discusses evolution. President George W. Bush said, "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth." Therefore, until 2009 this material shood be aproched with an open mind, studeed carefuly, and critcly consid'rd.

PDF version for printing.

LGBTQ: Deciphering the Code for Our Youth

With all the talk about President Obama putting an end to "abstinence only" sex education programs in schools, it is easy to overlook the bigger picture of what is going on among youth.  For a glimpse at the real world, take a look at Atlanta's YouthPride organization for LGBTQ young people -- i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth ages 13-24.  This is a United Way agency, supported by United Way funds.

Years ago, when I was in that same age category and very naive in these matters, I received an award for writing promotional materials for an IBM charitable contributions campaign that raised more than $12 million for the United Way, American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association.  I was very proud of this award, and very sold on what I was promoting.  At that time, I thought that the United Way was a shining beacon of innocence and goodness.  Yet today, I see it funds at least one club that seems to promote not just sex, but nontraditional sex, among youth.  This is shocking to me.

Yet that is the real world in which we live today.  Another look at reality:  the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) champions the cause of gay and lesbian students at high schools across the country.  Whenever a gay and lesbian club is banned by a high school, the ACLU steps in to challenge the ban.  This week the headlines are about such a challenge by the organization's LGBT (you figure it out) Advocacy Project, on behalf of a GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) at Yulee High School in Florida, but the same issue has been taken up across the country.  Does that fit your views of what high school clubs and the ACLU should be all about? 

In the face of all these clubs openly dealing with -- sex -- it seems sort of backwards and ignorant to be bickering over what the kids are taught in some sex ed classroom.  It's as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.  We worry what teachers might say to students in a classroom, when what we should be more concerned with is what students say to each other outside the classroom.  That's where the real education is taking place.  In informal conversations, club meetings, and actual lifestyles.  Our kids are not as ignorant as we might like to believe.

One last look at reality.  The sex ed goes beyond schools and into the world of mass media.  Not just tv shows, websites and other technological sources, but also your basic books aimed at young people.  Last year, when my daughter was in fifth grade, we were browsing through some books at a book store and she asked me, "What does ejaculation mean?"  I grabbed the book she was reading and looked it over.  On every page were graphic descriptions of all types of sexual acts, along with assorted four-letter words.  "This is not a child's book," I told her.  "But everyone is reading it at school," she protested.  "[Jane] even has the entire set, and she is loaning the books out to all the other girls.  I'm on the list to borrow them." 

All I could think was, does this other girl's mother know about this?  Did she buy the books for the girl without paying attention to the content?  Are the teachers noticing what the kids are reading at school, as they pass these books around among themselves?  Or does everyone seem to think these books are innocent because of the brightly colored illustrations on the cover, making them look very appropriate for 10 and 11-year-olds.  You know what they say:  Never judge a book by its cover!

I told my daughter that if she was going to read such books, she needed to do so with my awareness, so I could be the one to answer her questions and not some kid, who might tell her who knows what.  She sat there reading a few more pages, then she walked over and put the book back on its shelf.  "I don't want to grow up so fast," she said.  Wise decision.  

We, as adults and especially as parents, cannot sit back and say this or that about sex education in public schools without taking into account the much bigger picture of where kids are getting their real education on this topic.  Nor can we control all these sources of information all the time.  The better approach would be for parents to educate their own kids with the knowledge and values with which to evaluate all this stuff coming at them.  They WILL get the information and all the various societal influences, good and bad, at some point or other, even if it's after they leave the nest.  And they WILL find out what LGBTQ means.  Better that whenever the exposure happens, they are equipped with knowledge and discernment provided by their parents to help them make sense of it all. 

I'm reminded of a Christian school that intentionally only goes up through middle school and not high school.  The reason:  too many kids who go to Christian high schools wind up going wild upon graduation, because they are free at last.  When they go wild, they have already left home, and are no longer able to share their world so easily and openly with their parents to help them sort things out.  This school believes that all kids should go to a public high school rather than a Christian one, so that the exposure and temptations occur while the child is still living at home, where the parents can still impact how the child absorbs everything and responds to it.  This school believes that youth should have full exposure to the world and learn to make their own educated choices while still living with parents, rather than be sheltered and controlled until they can't stand it any longer, leave home and rebel.  Okay, so this isn't the typical view of the typical conservative Christian or other person with high moral standards (at least stated, whether lived or not).  But it's an interesting perspective.  

It's clear that parents today must do more than teach their children the ABC's and P's & Q's.  We've also got to address the S & M's and LGBTQ's.  Don't expect the schools to do this for you in a way that will please every parent out there.  If you want it done right, according to your own values and beliefs, then you must do this yourself. 

IN THE NEWS: Black Congressman Reintroduces Bill to Compensate Descendants of Slaves

HR 40, a failed bill that has been repeatedly introduced in Congress to try to get government payments for nearly ALL blacks in the United States to reimburse them for the suffering of their slave ancestors, was reintroduced by a black lawmaker in Congress on January 6th.  Apparently the "African American" lawmakers see Obama's impending presidency as an opportune moment to try to get this law passed.  Part of the text appears below, stating the main goals:

(7)  Recommend appropriate remedies...the Commission shall address among other issues, the following questions:

(a)  Whether the Government of the United States should offer a formal apology on behalf of the people of the United States for the perpetration of gross human rights violations on African slaves and their descendants.

(b)  Whether African-Americans still suffer from the lingering effects...

(c)  Whether, in consideration of the Commission's findings, any form of compensation to the descendants of African slaves is warranted.

(d)  If the Commission finds that such compensation is warranted, what should be the amount of compensation, what form of compensation should be awarded, and who should be eligible for such compensation.

Dreaded Black History Month Approaches, Raises Questions

Question from my 11-year-old:  Why do I have to read a book about a black teenager who is bullied by another black teenager, so he learns martial arts and breaks the wrists of the bully?  

Her African American teacher, in preparation for the upcoming Black History Month, is reading a series of "diversity" books to the kids about black teenagers.  Every one of the books is about violence.  "Maybe the books speak to him and remind him of his youth," I offer as the only response I can think of. 

"But why do they call this diversity?  How is it good that he broke the guy's wrists?" she continues.  What can I say?

Anyone with a child in school has had to deal with the dreaded Black History Month, which takes place in February in the United States and which originated from the Negro History Week begun in the 1920's.  Every non-black questions why we need a month devoted to studying one race, while many blacks even criticize this month as being irrelevant and misleading, and counter to their best interests.  Yet we all continue to plod through it.

The only history research projects my daughter has ever had to do -- in eight years of schooling -- have been on blacks, during this month.  I start to wonder if she is learning any "history" at all.  One year she had to do a diorama on an African American musician who drank himself to death.  She included in the display a mini bottle of booze, like you get on an airplane, only she replaced the alcohol with tea.  Another year she had to dress up like a black woman who had opposed lynchings, with careful instructions from the teacher not to paint herself black for the role.  The African American guy helping us at Home Depot could not imagine why we were looking for a rope suitable for making a noose.  I whispered to her, "I hope no one gets hung tonight, or we will be prime suspects."

I recall her very first Black History Month when she was only three years old.  She spent months thereafter asking every black person she met, "Are you an African American?"  The responses were intriguing.  One said, "No, I'm African but not American," as she had come from South Africa.  Another one said, "No, I'm American, but my ancestors are from India."  Finally, she met a woman who said, "Yes, I am," and looked up at me quizzically.

I honestly can't give any good answers to my daughter or anyone else as to why we have to tolerate an entire month of studies on one race, as if any truly history-making information does not come out any other month, or as if no other ethnic group with persecution in its past exists in this country.  ALL of our ancestors were persecuted! 

It reminds me of the failed HR 40, a proposal in Congress that would have led to apologizing to black people for taking them away from Africa, and paying them for the past harm that their ancestors endured as slaves.  Yet another handout they were looking for.  Does any "African American" in the United States truly wish that their ancestors had never been brought here, and that they were born and raised in Africa?  Would they really trade the Land of Opportunity for citizenship in any African country?  Exactly which famine do they want to experience?  Which civil war do they want to join?  What type of hut do they want to live in?

We have refugees pouring into the USA from Africa and everywhere else, happy to be here and appreciative of all that our country offers.  I talk to these people all the time, as the city I live in is one of the top refugee relocation spots.  These people have been through traumas in their OWN lifetime, not just in their ancestors' lifetimes.  Yet they manage to come here, learn our language, excel in our schools, and succeed in life.  They work hard to do this.  They do not complain or ask for handouts or special holidays or study months or the reading of "diversity" books.  They realize how fortunate they are to be here. 

Conversely, blacks on the whole continue to remain at the bottom of the heap statistically, making the lowest test scores, achieving the lowest numbers of college graduation and income, having the most teen pregnancies and STD's, and making up the highest percentage of inmates.  Could they turn their lives around and change the story of their future by changing the story of their past? 

They could look at things differently and say, for example, we got here through a turn of events that was difficult for our ancestors, but which turned out to be for our benefit, as we are now lucky enough to wake up in what some consider the greatest country the world has ever known, with the most civil rights and freedom.  They could re-paint the picture, as leading to this moment of opportunity for them that they must work hard to take advantage of.  They can start to take responsibility for their ongoing dismal statistics, and realize it is up to them -- and their own hard work and determination -- to get themselves out of the pit they're in and up the ladder of success. 

My own ancestors were also persecuted in various ways, and my parents grew up without enough to eat.  Yet they both managed to attend college and become successful, through determination and hard work.  That's the American Way.  It's what we call pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.  Being a "self-made" person.  They never looked for handouts or pity.  They never sought extra attention and sympathy because of the difficulties their ancestors went through. 

It's high time that blacks, or African Americans or whatever term du jour they prefer to be called, stop blaming the past and others for their current state of affairs, and stop whining about why they can't get ahead, and stop looking for special attention and handouts, as if making everyone study blacks for a month is going to change their lot somehow.  They will only succeed once they ditch their current mentality and actions and take on the attitude and actions of those who are successful -- once they work hard with determination and perseverance, just like every other race and ethnic group that has risen to the top in this country. 

I once read a stream of comments to an article online, in which a black person was angrily and bitterly saying that doctors and lawyers got to their position by selling drugs to blacks and by cheating.  Another time I saw a black girl walking around with a t-shirt that had a noose on it and the words, "Now they hang us with drugs."  It's the constant blame.  They think white people somehow cause them to take drugs and do poorly in school and so on, and that white people have it made.

I have news for them and every other angry, bitter black person out there who blames others for their lot and thinks it is easy to get to the top.  It isn't.  It takes years of effort and discipline and sacrifice, starting in grade school.  You don't get into college without doing well in school.  You don't get into medical school or law school without doing well in college.  You don't become a doctor or lawyer without doing well in graduate school.  And you don't succeed in your chosen career without doing well on the job. 

It takes a lifetime of constant effort.  That is something that many African Americans seem oblivious to.  They think it was easy for the rest of us.  They think our race got us where we are.   They think the peachy circumstances of our ancestors helped us out.  Wrong.  We help ourselves.  And until blacks help themselves, no amount of diversity training for the rest of society through Black History Month or whatever is going to make a bit of difference for their outcome. 

Maybe now that they have Obama as an example of success and a source of inspiration, they will start to see the very real opportunities they have in this country.  But they will achieve nothing if they merely see Obama as a chance to get HR 40 and similar laws passed to get more handouts and more sympathy and more attention.  That would be more self-sabotage. 

When blacks themselves put an end to Black History Month and vote against self-serving laws -- when they start to truly want equal treatment rather than special treatment -- then they will start making progress, realizing they have to put in the same effort as everyone else to get the same results.  Then they will start to create a history worth reading about, and the books that will be written about them won't involve violence among their teenagers, but rather the valuable contributions they make to society.

IN THE NEWS: We Stand with Israel Rallies Explain Why Hamas Is to Blame for Deaths

A We Stand with Israel rally sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta will take place this week.  Presumably similar rallies will be held elsewhere.  Below are some of their reasons to support Israel in its conflict against the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, aside from the obvious reason that Israel is the United States' closest ally in the Middle East:

Since Israel's disengagement in 2005, more than 6,300 rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza toward Israeli civilian centers in the south.  More than 3,000 were fired in 2008 alone.

A couple of weeks ago, Hamas declared an end to the six-month "lull" that had been brokered by Egypt and intensified the attacks against Israel.  Almost 100 rockets were fired on December 25 alone.

The rockets have increased not only in number, but also in range...more than 700,000 Israelis are now in range of the rockets.

Hamas' declared aim is the death of all Jews, and the destruction of Israel.

For years, the constant barrage of rockets from Gaza on Israeli civilian centers went unchallenged.  No nation should suffer thousands of indiscriminate attacks.  Israel has repeatedly called on Hamas leaders to end this terrorism.  These calls fall tragically on deaf ears.

Israel is not attacking the Palestinian people; it is attacking the Hamas infrastructure and terrorist instillations to bring an end to the attacks on Israeli citizens:  Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others.

Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties, through phone calls, leaflets, and text messages to Israeli and Palestinian citizens in and around Gaza.

Hamas fires from behind civilians and won't allow civilians to shelter in its tunnels.

The Geneva Convention states clearly that if a missile launcher or weapons stockpile is placed among civilian populations, the responsibility for civilian casualties lies with the party that deliberately put the civilians at risk.

Israel has a moral right and responsibility to defend its citizens.  Israel is reacting just as any other nation under constant attack would.  If Detroit were to be hit by Canada or San Antonio were to be hit by Mexico with 50 rockets in 50 hours, the United States would act decisively to end the threat.  The international community should not apply a double standard to Israel.

Headlines Misleading Over Protests Against Israel

As Israel bombards Hamas in Gaza in retaliation for the terrorist group's ongoing rocket attacks against Israel, the headlines across newspapers are beginning to scream, "Europeans Protest Against Israeli Attacks on Gaza."  Yet that statement is grossly misleading.  A more accurate headline would be, "Muslims In Europe Demonstrate Against Israel."  What a surprise.  But of course they do.  They want Israel wiped off the map, and refuse to accept that the country even exists.

There are more than 50 million Muslims living in Europe -- that's more than the number of Latinos living in the United States.  To the same extent that Americans feel the presence of Latinos influencing their culture, so Europeans feels the presence of Muslims.  This is especially true whenever this minority groups finds some reason to take to the streets in protest.  Sometimes the demonstration has to do with trying to squelch European freedom of the press, as when the Danish newspaper printed cartoons of Mohamed.  Other times it has to do with protesting restrictions on wearing religious head coverings.  This week, the reason to march is to lash out against Israel -- not an uncommon thing for Muslims to do, and not unexpected at all.

Perhaps the newspapers that simply say "Europeans" are protesting are afraid to state the obvious for clarification.  Perhaps they are afraid of not being PC, or of looking racist, or of profiling, or -- could it be? -- of retaliation.  I suppose it could also be plain ignorance, where the writer has not put two and two together to realize exactly who, within Europe, is doing all this marching and demonstrating.  Of all the stories I have read since the start of Israel's attack on Hamas, only one has pointed out that it was the Muslims who were taking to the streets.  All the other articles were vague and misleading.

Let's be real.  Most attacks against Jews in Europe nowadays are by Muslims, yet it shows up in a lot of statistical references as simply "European" intolerance and racism.  Also, most protests against Israel in Europe are by Muslims, yet it shows up in the news as if "Europeans" are strongly against Israel protecting its borders and attempting to stop the ongoing rocket attacks from terrorists.  

In reality, it is not *Europeans* but the 50 million Muslims of Middle Eastern origins living in Europe who are anti-Jewish and anti-Israel.  Europeans as we think of them are not so one-sided.  However, there is the frightening possibility that this false picture of Europe will one day become the true Europe, as the Muslim population continues to grow exponentially, due to both immigration and high birth rates.  In many ways, we are losing Europe as we have known it, and can look to the Middle East to get a glimpse of what it could possibly resemble in the future.  Or just look at the headlines, and imagine that they are, in fact, true of the majority of Europeans, rather than the actual minority they refer to today.

IN THE NEWS: Anti-Islam Filmmaker Gets Standing Ovation at Premiere in Israel, Plans Jihad Conference in Europe

An outspoken Dutch politician and filmmaker received a standing ovation at an international conference on jihad in Jerusalem yesterday.  The Dutch legislator, Geert Wilders, has been in constant danger from death threats and accompanied by bodyguards ever since his short movie Fitna, meaning "Strife" in Arabic, was released online last March.  Yet the fear of being murdered by a Muslim for his political views, like another Dutch filmmaker was in recent years, did not stop Wilders from being present during the first showing of his film in Israel.  It will also not stop him from trying to organize a jihad conference in Europe, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

"It's time for such an event in the Netherlands," the far-right Wilders said on the terrace of Jerusalem's Begin Center, where the event was held.  "But the cost of security would be much higher in Holland than in Israel."  Wilders -- the only one of six speakers to receive a standing ovation from the 600 people in the audience -- told his listeners that "as the terrorist attacks in Mumbai proved, there's no moderate Islam," and it is time for the West to realize it is "in conflict with the Muslim faith at large."

He sided with scholars like Haifa University's David Bukay, who averred that "moderate Islam" does not exist and that the Koran could not be reformed or modernized.  But American scholar and activist Daniel Pipes disagreed.  Quoting Egyptian philosopher Hassan Hanafi, Pipes said the Koran "is like a supermarket where one takes what one wants and leaves the rest."  This freedom of selection, he argued, provides a means for reshaping Islam...He also advocated "crushing the Palestinian's hope for eliminating Israel" and opposed the creation of a Palestine state and the ongoing peace talks.

Duke University Prof. John Lewis, pointing out that Turkey and Pakistan are not Arab countries, suggested that the fight against jihad needs to focus on non-Arab Muslim nations like Indonesia, whose populations "do not share the jihadists' apocalyptic practices of islam." 

Apparently Prof. Lewis has forgotten the Muslim terrorist attacks on Western tourists that have occurred in Indonesia. 

Wilders' film Fitna has drawn millions of viewers.  The movie highlights the increasing numbers of Muslims in Europe, and features suicide bombings, executions and Muslim clerics calling for the beheading of Jews.  Such open portrayal of radical Islam often meets with political correctness even among Jews.  "Ironically, Dutch Jews are more outspoken than local Muslims in their criticism of the...anti-Islam film by rightist legislator Geert Wilders," per Haaretz.  "The Jewish community...condemned the footage as generalizing and counterproductive to the fight against extremism...adding it had crossed the line of legitimate criticism."  

As one Jewish leader put it:  "We are never afraid to speak out in the harshest of terms against what we think is wrong, be it against Muslim extremism here in the Netherlands, or the Dutch or Israeli governments.  But this movie portrays all Muslims as The Enemy.  And this is just not true."  This Jewish response may be attributed to fear, according to a commentator from Columbia:

Fitna doesn't add anything an educated person wouldn't know by now.  Neither about the vicious Islamic anti-Semitism, nor about Jihadist bestiality.  But Dutch Jews are understandably frightened, and resort to political correctness, denouncing a rather less than noteworthy 15 min. video.  It reminds me they are not safe, and still live in the Diaspora.

Oddly enough, some claim that the relative silence of Muslims over the short film is also due to fear, indicating that all of Europe is walking on eggshells:

The Muslim community's reponse -- which the Dutch media described as "calm" -- was to say the film is not religiously insulting to Islam, and that they had anticipated more offensive content.  The government's fears of rioting never materialized. 

"They [the Muslim community] are afraid.  They have been told by the Dutch government to keep quiet and be wise about this issue, and that's what they want to do," Naftaniel [a Jewish leader] told Haaretz.  "I was surprised by the silence of the local Muslim leaders...If I were a Muslim, I would speak out and I would blame Wilders for this film.  I wouldn't stop shouting about it.  I don't understand their silence.  I really don't.  I think they are scared."

Meanwhile, just days before Wilders' standing ovation in Jerusalem, the Anne Frank Foundation released its annual Racism and Extremism Monitor, which revealed what daily headlines across Europe have already indicated:  the neo-Nazis are on the rise, with increasing acts of violence.  Within the Netherlands alone, they have increased ten-fold.  Neighboring Germany is not faring any better, with the matter grabbing headlines over the weekend when a German neo-Nazi attempted to murder a policeman.  Bizarrely, the Monitor blames Wilders and his film Fitna for the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment, and hence the rise in neo-Nazis, rather than blaming the behavior of the Muslim extremists themselves:

Anti-Muslim speeches by populist member of parliament Geert Wilders and the huge media coverage he gets may also have increased the phobia for Islam...A decision by the justice department not to prosecute some of Wilders' racist comments could also be a contributing factor.

One can only imagine what the response of European Jews, Muslims and governments will be to a jihad conference in the heart of Europe.  If Muslims react with a terrorist attack, or if neo-Nazis turn out in droves, will Wilders and other outspoken leaders be to blame?  Will governments further restrict the right to free speech to protect the right to terrorism?  Will Jews defend the Muslims, taking a stand against the very politicians who are trying to stand up for them?

A jihad conference in Europe could mean the end to walking on eggshells, and the beginning of real dialogue on how governments can grapple with their growing Muslim communities, and the corresponding growth in terrorism, attacks on Jews, and the backlash of neo-Nazis.  But this can only work if Europeans stop trying to kill the messenger, and start focusing on the message.  Just silencing people like Wilders is not going to end the Muslim suicide bombings, executions and calls for the beheading of Jews.  The real problem must be addressed head-on (no pun intended), and a jihad conference seems a good place to start.  To watch Fitna movie click here. 

Christmas Wars Represent Broader Battle of Beliefs in the United States

'Tis the season, once again, where the headlines turn to things such as, "Atheist Sign Appears Beside Nativity Scene," and the next day, "Atheist Sign Disappears from Beside Nativity Scene."  Ever since the end of World War II, the United States has been in a battle of beliefs that is in continual swing from one side of the pendulum to the other. 

During the Cold War, when the country wanted to distinguish itself from communism which considers religion the "opiate of the people," the nation injected a lot of "God" into public life that generations who were born afterward took for granted as a part of the national heritage.  After the Cold War ended in the 1980's, and with the lead of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the pendulum swung in the other direction, with increasing attacks against any public reference to God, especially as it relates to Christianity.  Now, if God is mentioned at all, it often must be in the context of inclusion.

"There was no anti-Christmas agenda until the 1980s, and at that time it was led by the ACLU. The strategy of choice was to ban the display of religious symbols, especially the crèche, on public property. This legal strategy, which worked relatively well, has been superseded by a cultural strategy. The goal now is to dilute the significance of Christmas via contrived competition. To wit: every religious, racial and ethnic heritage—including invented ones like Kwanzaa—is now celebrated in December.  It is important to note that the agenda is not a positive one; it is not designed to honor world traditions. No, the agenda is negative—it is designed to combat Christmas," according to Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League that publishes an annual record of "Christmas Wars" incidents.

Whether the motive is really to combat Christmas or genuinely seek inclusion, one thing is clear:  the country is in the midst of major change.  Where once practically every school had an annual Christmas play about Jesus resembling the play in A Charlie Brown Christmas, nowadays a typical school holiday production, if one is put on at all, is a mixed up bag of songs about Santa Claus, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa.  Where once public facilities could put up Christmas trees and nativity scenes, now they are subject to being sued for this act, unless they balance the display with representations of other non-Christian winter holidays.  Where once companies sent out Christmas cards wishing everyone a Merry Christmas, nowadays they are more likely to send a card that says Happy Holidays or Peace. 

Peace is the main message we should all get.  Peace from the war of beliefs that is raging among us.  We need a truce.  In the 1950's, Christianity or general belief in God reigned.  "President Eisenhower inaugurated that Washington staple: the prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words 'In God We Trust' on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing 'E Pluribus Unum.'...The campaign to add 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this movement," wrote David Greenberg of Slate.  "In signing the bill on June 14, 1954, Flag Day, Eisenhower delighted in the fact that from then on, 'millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town … the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.'"

Since then, we've had prayer in public schools declared unconstitutional, and replaced by a two-minute "moment of silence."  We've had displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses banned or accompanied by displays of the Koran and Vedas.  We've had repeated attempts to get "in God we trust" removed from our paper money and "one nation under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance.  And now we have atheist signs appearing and disappearing next to nativity scenes.  Everyone wants a voice and representation. 

Even though the generic "God" seemed at one time acceptable for a people that consistently expresses overwhelming belief in God in surveys, the voice of the opposition continues to battle any mention of any god in public life.  Even people who believe in a god have jumped on this bandwagon, because maybe their god is not the god of Christianity, and they infer that any such being mentioned in public life is Christian.  Who knows why they take offense.  At the heart of the matter, legally, is the Constitution.

The Constitution's "separation of church and state" philosophy was originally aimed at ensuring the country did not have a theocracy -- like many Muslim countries, and like Catholic countries effectively did historically -- where belief in a particular god and practice of a particular religion is required, and refusal to comply lands a person in jail or worse.  Yet increasingly, the goal of the Constitutional mandate is alleged to be no god whatsoever allowed in any expression related to the government.  A big difference. 

The increasing fragmentation of our society is not restricted to holiday expressions.  As we have all seen in the past two presidential elections, it is spilling over into politics, and may bode ill for the two-party system, which does not accommodate such diversity the way systems do with proportional representation.  One can only wonder where this will all lead.  At which point will people of every persuasion want their voice heard within the national government, and seek to change the very foundation of our political system?  Which approach for our increasingly diverse society is the most fair, balanced and proper?  Can we maintain unity as a nation?

Maybe we should start by changing our nation's motto from "in God we trust" back to its original motto:  "E Pluribus Unim," meaning "Out of Many, One."  I personally do not mind the references to God in our society.  But I also believe in peace, love and unity, and think that returning to the core philosophies that united our country at the outset will help start the process of uniting it again.  Maybe if people are focused on unity and becoming one, they will put aside their egos and not be so offended by the expression of beliefs that are different to their own.  Maybe then the dispute over which belief system will get the most public recognition may subside and lose significance as a moot point, bringing to an end the annual Christmas Wars and the broader faith battle that currently rages in our society.

IN THE NEWS: Party Pooper Considers Dutch Holiday Traditions Racist, Threatens to Kill Children

Families in the Netherlands had a scare recently when someone threatened to burn down schools with children inside if the schools celebrated their annual St. Nikolaas event with the usual trimmings:  white people dressed up like "Zwarte Piet," meaning Black Pete.  Black Petes accompany St. Nik to help distribute toys and candy to the children on this ancient holiday, which resembles Christmas in the United States but which occurs in early December.  It seems that people are becoming hypersensitive to anything that might hint of a racial, ethnic or religious slur, and in response to their hurt feelings they want to lash out and kill innocent people.  Who ever said that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?"  Seems that words and actions that do not touch people physically actually do hurt -- enough to spur them into a murderous rage.  People should develop a sense of humor and simply live and let live, rather than get raging mad over the fun other people are having.  Too many people in the world are on the verge of going nuts, and finding any excuse they can to justify a killing rampage.   

 

Politically Correct Divisions Pervade American Society, Cause Reverse Discrimination

Not long ago I was invited by my alma mater to join an alumni group, only the choices were baffling.  I could join a catchall group for all alumni, or I could choose from groups for women, Latinos, Muslims, young alumni, blacks, gays and lesbians, Asians, and "friends and alumni of No Strings," whatever that might be.  I wrote back the head of Interest Groups and said, "Let me know when you start a group for white heterosexuals."  I went on to suggest something that to me seemed pretty obvious:  "Rather than divide people up by their skin color and who they sleep with, I think your groups would be more effective if they were divided up by what people studied and pursued as a career."  Below is a portion of the lengthy response I got:

"Identity factors are deeper and more complex than skin color or sexuality -- they're the basis of shared culture, common experiences...and how they see themselves.  Identity is important to the individuals involved and shape their whole lives.  You suggest groups based on academic or professional commonality -- work or profession is a key component of identity for some people, just as ethnicity or orientation is for others.  Alumni interest groups have been an effective strategy in transitioning engaged students into engaged alumni who stay involved and give back to the university.  They mirror the wealth of cultural, ethnic, interest-based, and pre-professional organizations that are a part of the student experience...These groups are effective and make significant contributions to the university -- they address issues of recruitment and retention, spend time mentoring and helping students grow professionally, and are supportive of each other and the entire alumni community.  You are absolutely right that school or professionally-based alumni groups would be a great addition to the alumni community...."

All that hot air still leaves my points unaddressed.  Where does the old, white, male, heterosexual fit in here, except in the catchall group for everyone?  Is that person's "shared culture, common experiences...how they see themselves" identity not equally as important as the identity of these other people?  And who really cares when it comes to alumni?  I'd rather meet up with all alumni, or with people who studied law like I did, whatever color, sex, age, sexual orientation or religion they might be. 

In the guise of being politically correct, and of avoiding the ever-dreaded discrimination lawsuit, we Americans have found ourselves in a culture that blatantly discriminates against the perceived majority -- white heterosexuals.  There is no club they can openly join to address their own cultural and identity issues.  If they tried, it would be labeled the KKK and attacked swiftly.  To demonstrate how far we go to look the other way on this issue, just flip on the tv.  You might see, as I did, an invited guest on a show called Clean House wearing a shirt that says, "I love black people."  He was, of course, black.  And everyone on tv and in the audience is supposed to look the other way and go, Oh, his ethnicity is such a part of his identity it's okay for him to be proud of it.  But what if it was a white man on the show, wearing a shirt that said, "I love white people."  Can you imagine the outrage and backlash that would erupt, and the ensuing lawsuits and hate mail, etc.?

The day is already on the horizon when whites will be a minority in the United States.  It was predicted to happen around the middle of this century, but the date keeps getting moved closer because of the rapid population increase among Latinos, our now largest minority group.  When whites are in the minority, will they finally be allowed to address their identity openly?  Or will society have evolved by then, past all the politically correct racist and sexist divisions, to where we can address our common human heritage jointly?  I long for a return to the days when there was only one student group, and one alumni group, and one group, period -- the catchall group that accommodates everyone without regard to such superficial distinctions.  If people must divide up, they should at least do so along topics of interest, like law or business or the environment, that impact all types of humans and can accommodate all types, including the now-ignored and left out white heterosexuals.  They have been trained to consider their own color and sexual orientation irrelevant.  Maybe everyone else should learn to do the same. 

Homosexuals Squeeze eHarmony, Infringe on Rights

It was a sad day for free enterprise recently when eHarmony, the online dating Web site, settled with some homosexual plaintiffs, agreeing to offer a dating service for gays and lesbians comparable to its service for heterosexuals.  So now we have progressed way beyond ignoring what people do in their bedrooms (and public bathrooms), to insisting that private companies taylor their products and services a certain way, OR ELSE.  At which point will the homosexual lobby stop?  And what are they really after, anyway?  

Gays and lesbians seem to consider it discrimination for a company to target its products and services to a specific market.  Huh??  It's clear that eHarmony should have fought this case rather than settling, as the settlement sets a really bad precedent.  Let's see...if all dating sites must target all types of sex and marriage arrangements, or be sued, then I guess it won't be long before eHarmony offers a site especially designed for, say, Mormon and Muslim men seeking multiple wives to add to their harem.  Just think -- there would be in the questionnaire such things as, How many wives, exactly, do you have?  How old are they?  When did you marry them?  How many more would you like?

And since the homosexuals like to lump their "trait" into the category of skin color and religion, when it's convenient, they may as well go after all the dating websites aimed at different ethnic groups and religious persuasions.  Nevermind if homosexuality is against the religion.  Those discriminators must change their beliefs!!  And all their ancient scriptures as well.  Can't have anything out there that does not accommodate homosexuals.  And if these Web sites refuse to offer a comparable service for gays within that skin color or religion, well SUE THEM.  Right?

It's a disgrace for homosexuals to be infringing on the rights of others to free commerce in the name of protecting their own trumped up right to have every product and service geared specifically for them.  Another right they have recently infringed on is the right to free speech.  For example, in California, during the few months of legalized homosexual marriage, the marriage licenses were changed from designating "bride" and "groom" to designating "partner" and "partner."  When a regular old-fashioned heterosexual couple crossed out the words "partner" and filled in "bride" and "groom," their license was held invalid.  What?!  Let's re-write our dictionaries to leave out bride and groom.  Marriage as we have always known it, and its accompanying vocabulary, will be a thing of the past if homosexuals have their way.  Instead of Bride magazine, we'll have "Partner" magazine, once that inevitable lawsuit and settlement go through one day.

As much as I want to embrace my gay and lesbian friends and colleagues in their pursuit of feeling equal, I cannot endorse their attempts to infringe on other people's rights in the process.  Sorry.  I think homosexuals will face in the near future a huge backlash if their attempts at so-called equality and non-discrimination continue along these lines.