Kabul's Bare-Legged Woman.

To paraphrase the Frank Zappa song, Big Leg Emma, there's a big dilemma about a barelegged woman, uh-huh, oh yeah .

The photos of Kabul's barelegged woman, taken by Afghan journalist Hayat Ensafi, hasn't caused so much as a ripple in the U.S., but the Australian news sites appear to be in love with the story.

I first came across the story of the young woman who has sent shock waves through Afghanistan, via The Sydney Morning Herald, but a Google search of 'Hayat Ensafi' reveals the story has found a home on news.com.au, 9news.com.au and dailylife.com.au as well.

According to the Afghani journalist who took the photos, the woman was walking very quickly and would not speak to him when he tried to engage her in conversation. The talk in Afghanistan is whether the woman was making a political statement, or merely mentally unbalanced.

The Australian news sites maintain that the photos have gone 'viral', but I'd have to question that. Although everyone in Kabul is talking about the woman, the photos certainly haven't gone viral in Afghanistan, where internet usage is practically non-existent.

The Answer to Everything.

According to Washington Post Editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, On climate change, the GOP is lost in never-never land.

Maybe.

Both sides of this never-never land of global warming climate change debate are occupied with legions of propagandists. It was, however, one of the comments to Hiatt's blog that prompted this post.

From jameschirico we have this:

"400,000 year old Antarctic ices cores give a timeline going through a few ice ages and warming periods. The scientific evidence is clear. Nature has it's adjusting controls, more snowfall on Antarctica and jet stream change from pole to Canada. Those adjustments will take far too long leaving us with reduced krill population in the ocean and the possible true hypothesis of additional continental shifting from the weight redistribution caused by warming. Japan moved 13 feet with the last earthqua... ke."

It was the "continental shifting from the weight redistribution caused by warming" line that caught my interest. One of the problems I have with global warming climate change is that everything we do causes global warming climate change and global warming climate change is the cause of everything in the world.

The argument says that global warming climate change makes massive amounts of ice melt, which in turn, causes pressure on the tectonic plates, which in turn will cause more earthquakes and tsunamis. To this non-scientist, that sounds reasonable enough, but I don't know if the idea is backed up by real scientific evidence.

On the subject of everything being caused by global warming climate change we have A complete list of things caused by global warming where I learned that Freak weather destroys Afghan poppies and Rising carbon dioxide levels lead to higher concentrations of opiates in poppies.

In the first story, we're told that an especially cold winter caused by global warming is thought to have stopped millions of poppy seeds from germinating in Afghanistan, whereby some farmers will lose half their crop.

In the second story , we find out that the current crop of poppies is twice as potent as those grown at carbon dioxide levels seen in 1950.

If projections hold, the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase morphine levels three-fold by 2050 and by 4.5 times by 2090.

If this is to be believed, we'll have fewer poppies which will be more potent than ever.
(the article goes on to say that the increased CO2 levels that make opium poppies more potent, make for lower levels of nicotine in tobacco).

Hum........

As I said, everything we do causes global warming climate change and global warming climate change causes everything that happens to us.

Time for a nap.

My Personal Voter's Guide.

As I mentioned in an earlier post [There's One in Every Crowd] my wife and I are part of a small group that comes together on the first Saturday of each month to pray the rosary. After the rosary, we'll (over) eat and eventually, the women will gather in one part of the house - the men in another.

This past Saturday, the group came to our home. The women took over the kitchen with the men in the spare bedroom/family room/computer room. As is often the case, our conversation turned to politics. Because we've been brought together due to our wives having come to this country from Philippines and not from a common outlook on life, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the husbands don't always agree on politics. As luck would have it, this particular Saturday, I found myself out-numbered....the only political Conservative in the group.

It was a lively discussion, with constant interruptions from both sides. With these types of debates, it's practically impossible to get one's point across completely. That's where this blog post comes in. In this post, I hope I can explain how I go about picking the political candidates I do when it comes time to cast my vote.

I take my religious faith seriously. The teachings of the Catholic church are the primary influences in my decision making. I'm not going to try and convince anyone who isn't already Catholic that he or she should convert. That's a conversation for another time. The point is, the closer a candidate, or political party, is to authentic Catholic teaching, then the more likely that person or party will get my support.

As Bishop Charles Chaput points out in his book Render Unto Caesar , neither of the two major American political parties completely aligns with Catholic teachings. Often times, I've had to hold my nose while voting for the lesser of two evils.

My problems with the Republicans, basically, center around the issues of war and security. Although I realize that radical Islam is the greatest problem facing the world today, I have a difficult time supporting the empire building put forth by many Republicans. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have argued that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not acceptable under Catholic understanding of the Just War Doctrine.

Likewise, far too many Republicans excuse the use of torture ( water-boarding) on enemy combatants and/or terrorists. The same goes for the overwhelming support of capital punishment by Republican "pro-lifers".

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is far and away worse, vis-à-vis Catholic teachings, than the Republicans.

It should go without saying that the Democratic Party's support of abortion, embryonic stem cell research and the Party's love affair with Planned Parenthood, disqualify the Democratic Party from any consideration what-so-ever. Sadly, when other areas of Catholic teaching are considered, the Democrats sink even lower. The Church has spoken out against Socialism since , at least, the days of Pope Leo XIII and Rerum Novarum . Democrats often accuse Republicans of greed, but they should remember that envy is a sin as well.

If these issues aren't enough to turn one away from supporting the Party, the Democratic Party's passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State seriously conflict with the Church's teaching on the principle of subsidiarity.

I could go even further.... I could discuss the history of the Democratic Party concerning it's treatment of Native Americans, the sins of slavery and racial segregation. I believe I've more than proven my point concerning the evils of the Democratic Party.

SPIEGEL TV's 'Kill Team' Documentary.

I doubt I will gain many friends - from either the Left or Right - by posting a link to this video from Der Spiegel, but it should be viewed, never-the-less.

SPIEGEL TV's 'Kill Team' Documentary.

More Thoughts on Burning the Qur'an.

Prior to writing yesterday's post ,I went to the website for Terry Jones' Dove World Outreach Center to get his take on burning the Qur'an. I had read innumerable articles voicing criticism of Dr. Jones and I wanted to get his side of the story.

While visiting the website, I sent an email to Jones - pointing out something which he may not have been aware of. As I told him, translated versions of the Qur'an (or Koran, as he puts it) are not considered to be the Qur'an by devote Muslims. An English translation, for example, is not the Qur'an ..... that book would be referred to as "the meaning of the Qur'an". For it to be considered authentic, the book must be written in Arabic. I explained to Dr. Jones, that should he wish to actually burn a Qur'an, he must use a copy written in Arabic.

I have no idea what, if any, reaction Jones had to this tidbit.

I went back to the Dove World Outreach Center website this morning only to find that the website is down.




Did it crash? Was it hacked or did Jones and his group take the site down intentionally? I doubt if Jones had anything to do with the removal of his website. He obviously likes the attention he's getting.

President Obama - who is not a Muslim, by the way - has now come out against the planned burning.


In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Mr Obama called Jones' "stunt" a "recruitment bonanza" for al-Qaeda. Obama went on the say that, should Jones carry out his threat, it would endanger American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as innocent individuals in Pakistan. Obama worries that this could increase the recruitment of individuals who are willing to blow themselves up in American or European cities. The President said that Jones is engaging in a destructive act.

How can this be? We all know that Islam is a Religion of Peace. Is the President suggesting that Muslims would kill innocent people because of the actions of another individual? I do not recall Obama, or Hillary Clinton or Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking out so forcefully when P.Z.Myers (a professor at the University of Minnesota Morris) pledged to desecrate the Eucharist. Are they telling us that Muslims would react more violently than Catholics would under these circumstances?

Tell me it ain't so.

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Recently, I have been accused of intolerance and bigotry because I admittedly do not subscribe to the premise - as laid out by the likes of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama - that Islam is a religion of peace. I've been told that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and it is only a small group of extremists who carry out acts of violence. Extreme acts of religious violence are also carried out by a minority of Christians and Jews, I'm told.

Search as I might, I have yet to come across a single case where Christians or Jews have beheaded Jehovah's Witnesses as Muslims did in Philippines in August 2002. Kidnappings and beheadings by Muslims aren't restricted to Jehovah's Witnesses; farm owner Doroteo Gonzales in April 2009 and school teacher Gabriel Canizares in November, 2009 are two examples off the top of my head, so to speak.

There are examples of murder committed by Christians - such as the killing of abortionist, George Tiller. However, I have yet to read of any Christian minister or scholar who justifies Tiller's murder as Muslim scholar and preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi justifies suicide bombings by Muslims.

In an example of Muslim religious tolerance, during this past Ramadan, a group of Sunni Muslims killed at least 59 ".....Shiite apostates who sold their faith for money to be a tool used in a war against Iraqi Sunnis."

While Christians have protested and boycotted the works of Dan Brown, as well as the films of Ron Howard, because of "The Da Vinci Code", so far as I know, no Christian has called for a fatwa against Brown as Muslims did against Salman Rushdie nor was Howard killed by Christians as Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by Muslims because of his film concerning the topic of violence against women in some Islamic societies.

Perhaps we could ask Abdul Qayuum and his lover, Siddiqa how peaceful the followers of Islam are.......oh no, we can't. The two were recently stoned to death for trying to elope.

Lastly, we might ask Aisha Bibi her thoughts on the so-called peace loving religion of Islam.

Time to Keep Disgruntled Democrats on the Reservation.

The following quote is from an article that appears in the Aug. 9, 2010, print and iPad editions of TIME magazine.

"The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband's house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn't run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose."

Does this cover photo put an end to the debate over whether we should continue the war in Afghanistan?

Will Obama's increased dependence on Predator drones and the, so called "targeted killing" improve the lives of Afghan women?

A blogger going by the name "Sara" points out in What Happens Even When We’re In Afghanistan,

"The implication that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan would lead to more cases like Aisha’s, or that it is exclusively the U.S. military presence in the country that prevents these egregious human rights abuses, is specious at best (especially because Aisha’s “punishment” was meted out last year, while significant strides were being made for Afghan women–not prior to U.S. involvement in 2001). So not even our presence in the bruised nation entirely prevented the violence that the cover suggests would continue if we withdrew."

In the New York Times article referenced to above, it's noted that,
"..........the lack of apparent progress in the nearly nine-year war is making it harder for Mr. Obama to hold his own party together on the issue."

Can there be any doubt that Time is using the cover of the magazine to keep those disgruntled Democrats in line? The essence of the Democrat Liberal mindset is emotion. The propaganda machine at the magazine is predicting the emotional response to this horrible image of a disfigured, Afghan teen aged girl will persuade many Progressives to get with their President on this.

No More “General Betray Us”.

When I first learned of Obama's dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal and his replacing him with General David Petraeus, I immediately thought of the 2007 Moveon.org ad which referred to the General as "General Betrayus".

I wanted to refresh my memory - I wanted to be certain of the facts before putting my thoughts down on (virtual) paper, so to speak. Step one: Google the phrase "General Betrayus". Unfortunately, any link to the original moveonorg ad proved to be a dead end; it's as if the advertisement criticizing the General was merely a figment our collective imagination.

I wasn't the first to notice this. The website Weasle Zippers documents evidence that references to the ad has been removed from Moveon.org after Petraeus was chosen as Obama's man in Afghanistan.

Fortunately for us, the ad has been preserved in other locations.

Yesterday, the Left ridiculed General Petraeus, but now, the question is being put forth "Is the Petraeus Decision the Most Widely Praised Thing President Obama Has Ever Done?"

Obama's decision is now being hailed as "a masterstroke", "a stroke of brilliance, an unassailable move, politically and strategically". One writer, Victor Davis Hanson, calls the move "workmanlike and wise in its emphasis on continuity of strategy".

Hanson also notes;

"It is one of ironies of our present warped climate that Petraeus will face far less criticism from the media and politicians than during 2007–8 (there will be no more “General Betray Us” ads or “suspension of disbelief” ridicule), because his success this time will reflect well on Obama rather than George Bush."

While Obama's toadies are calling his latest decision a surprisingly brilliant move, I, on the other hand, view this choice as the obvious one for Obama. Petraeus is, most probably, the only other General our President has heard of.

Protesting Girl’s Mom Charged with “Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor”.

I first came across this story from progressive.org:
Protesting Girl’s Mom Charged with “Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor”.

On April 7, 12 year old Frankie Hughes and her mother, Renee Lynn Espeland accompanied Christine Gaunt on Gaunt's third sit-in protest at the federal building where Sen. Harkin and Sen. Grassley of Iowa have their offices.

The three are part of the Peaceable Assembly Campaign which seeks an end to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and end the Israeli "occupation" of, so-called, Palestinian land.

After the Senators' offices had closed for the day, police were called in when Gaunt refused to leave. Although she claims not to have encouraged her daughter, Espeland allowed the 12 year old to stay behind in the office where Gaunt and Hughes were subsequently arrested for trespassing.

The following day, Espeland was ticketed by Des Moines police for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Police say Espeland "knowingly encouraged and contributed to her daughter's arrest."

According to reports in the Des Moines Register, Police Sgt. David Murillo said: "I understand and fully appreciate a person's constitutional right to free speech. However, this was a case of bringing a child into a criminal arena."

I believe the arrest of the 12 year old and the ticketing of the mother was entirely appropriate under the circumstances.

Of course, we have freedom of speech and the freedom to lawfully assemble and protest the actions of our government officials, but we do not, however, have the right to trespass in a Senator's office after hours.
Had the arrest occurred on the sidewalk outside the office, I'd agree that the situation was uncalled for. Protesting - whether the protest is against abortion or the war in Afghanistan - is admirable, but there are limits. We can not take over government offices in protest.

Would the Progressive be as sympathetic towards the 12 year protester had she been staging a "sit-in" in the Senator's office to end abortion ?

Something's Burning...and I (Don't) Think it's Love.

In an article written last October, Darnel Tanksley wrote this, concerning Obama;
"He is our President, Barack Hussein Obama: The most loved man in the world."

I don't think Mr. Tanksley could say the same thing today......especially not in Afghanistan where rioters recently burned Obama's effigy.

From Google News:
"JALALABAD, Afghanistan — Protesters took to the streets in Afghanistan on Wednesday, burning an effigy of the US president and shouting "death to Obama" to slam civilian deaths during Western military operations.
Hundreds of university students blocked main roads in Jalalabad, capital of eastern Nangahar province, to protest the alleged deaths of 10 civilians, mostly school children, in a Western military operation on Saturday."

The isn't the first time the Afghans burned an effigy of Barack Obama. Rioters, this past October, burned his effigy in in reaction to rumors that U.S. troops had desecrated the Quran.

It seems a bit odd that "the most loved man in the world" should be so hated in "The Friendliest Country in the World, Possibly the Universe".

Norway? No Way!

Last year, Barack Obama won the election, in part, because many felt he could magically turn around opinion of us on the world stage and make America popular again.

Now, after his trip to Oslo to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama's approval rating in Norway is even lower than it is in the U.S..

The guardian.co.uk is reporting that Obama "has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre."

He has even canceled the traditional lunch with the King of Norway that goes with the Nobel Peace Prize. This has the collective Norwegian panty in a wad. A poll shows that 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his lunch with King Harald - only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

It seems odd that Obama would turn down this opportunity to bow down to yet another foreign potentate.

It had been reported earlier that 5000 demonstrators were expected in Oslo to protest the fact that a war President would be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

Not only are the Norwegians unhappy with the One and his plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, but as this video shows, he isn't the most popular person in Afghanistan either.

Barack Obama - War Criminal.

I am not a fan of war. Like nearly everyone else, I would love to wake up one day soon to a world where war is no longer an option. However, I am realistic enough to know that as long as the world remains as it is and humans remain as we are, we will never be able - on our own - to achieve world peace.

I am realistic enough to understand that sometimes war is, unfortunately, necessary.
Evidently, President Obama feels the same; he doesn't oppose all wars, he's been quoted as saying - he's opposed to dumb ones.

One more than on occasion, Obama has said that the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity.

In his now famous Berlin speech, candidate Obama said,
"This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets.
No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe’s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done.
America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now."

Again and again, Obama has said that we need to fight the good fight in Afghanistan. Obviously then, if we need to fight this war, common sense tells us we need to win. Why would any rational person engage in a war that he has no intentions of winning?

Obama is not a military strategist. He has never served in any armed service; he did not study military strategy and tactics in college. If he wants to win this war, he is obliged to follow the military advice of his commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, who has requested between 30,000 and 40,000 more troops.

Obama has not seen fit to send the troops McChrystal needs.

Keeping the troops in Afghanistan - to kill or be killed - without putting forth an all out effort to win, is nothing less than a war crime. To uselessly prolong this war, to sit on the side lines while more people (both military and civilian) die, is unconscionable.

It is ironic beyond words that the President has been awarded a Noble Peace Prize while people die uselessly in Afghanistan because of his indecision.

If this war is a war of necessity, as he as said, it is criminal to fight without fighting to win.
If this war is not a war of necessity, it is criminal to leave the troops there one day longer.