As mentioned below, I am now ''multi-blogging''. One person, multiple blogs. There are times when politics/islam/immigration/culture rot are just not what I want to blog about. I only post to YIH if I have unique things to say on a subject. I'll quote others, but I'd perfer to avoid just grabbing something someone else posted and posting it here. If I think something will be taken down or blocked from general view I will post it verbatim. Otherwise I won't do blatant plagerism. It's why I don't post much about illeagal immigration from Mexico, because there are others such as Vanishing American, ParaPundit and VDARE that do a better job than I can in dealing with that subject.
When it comes to islam these days I feel more dismay than anger about it. The President and his cheerleaders claim ''we are winning in iraq'' but I can't belive that. Not with (as the President acknowleges) at least 7,000 ''iraqi refugees'' headed to America. If ''the surge'' was stabilizing ''iraq'' there would be no need to bring ''iraqi refugees'' here!!!
The debate over moslim cabdrivers in Minneapolis continues, with the moslims screaming ''racism'' over making them merely do their job regardless of their faith. Let's say for the sake of argument I was a devout Jew and a cabdriver and I pick up a fare at a supermarket who bought a live lobster to take home to eat. Devout Jews cannot eat lobster (literally ''it CANNOT be kosher''). Would I refuse the fare citing ''religious reasons''? Belive it or not, I CAN do that! It's a live animal (biologically, it's an insect) THAT IS NOT ''an assistance animal''. That's what chafed me about the moslims, THEY ARE DEMANDING SPECIAL RIGHTS to override OUR laws.
If I were a devout Jew and a cab driver would I refuse the fare? As noted above, I'm allowed to by law. But no, I would not. I would do my job and transport my fare (and my fare's lobster) from point A to point B. I don't have to look at the lobster, touch it, or eat it.
I have the same problem with Mexico. Mexico has extremely restrictive laws when it comes to those who live there or even visit if they were not born there. But even suggesting that our laws be equalized to Mexico when it comes to those Mexicans who live here (legally or not) to be treated EXACTLY like Americans get treated in Mexico and the howls of protest come up loudly!
Just like moslims, Mexicans don't want equal rights, THEY WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS!!!
And that's what ticks me off, equal rights (for citizens and legal immigrants) I have no problem with. Demand SPECIAL rights and you'll have one ticked off YIH.
I have heard those who think the NAU is coming fast and those who think the NAU is pure bunk.
I think the NAU is coming but not on the timetable of the NAU ASAP folks. It will be slower (10-15 years) and there will be no ''Amero''. US currency will replace the Canadian Dollar and Mexican Peso.
That said, I OPPOSE IT!!! Because I know where it will lead, to ''the lowest common demoninator'' with Mexico's third world culture openly raping both America and Canada. As ''a way to get even''...

Labels: Immigration, Random thoughts

posted by YIH @ 12:45 AM on Monday, February 26, 2007  : 

Music videos were around many years before MTV!

[Warren(Central,FLORIDA)] 10:05 pm: Fifty Names to Hide Your Cover (Apologies to Paul Simon)

The Slick One came to Sandy in the darkest part of night (Saying)
"Got to get those documents before the Feds indict
We have to be so careful as we slip them out of sight (we need)
Fifty ways to Hide your Cover"

So instead of Sandy I will give you fifty names (mmmm)
Kind've like a secret code to cover up our game
If you're caught you know that you must shoulder all the blame (here are)
Fifty Names to Hide Your Cover

(Refrain)
Stick 'em in your pants, Lance
Hide 'em in your shirt, Bert
Slide 'em up your sleeve, Steve
Just get 'em to me...

Under the truck, Chuck!
You won't have to lie much!
Down in your shorts, Mort
Just shred 'em for me...

Stick 'em in your pants, Lance
Under your lapel, Mel!
Hide 'em in your shoes, Luis
Just get 'em to me...

Under the truck, Chuck!
You don't have to lie much!
Shove 'em in your vest, Wes!
Just shred 'em for me...

You must play it cool if someone sees a tell-tale bulge
Remind them you have private rights and nothing to divulge
This is serious business do not pamper or indulge (Use those)
Fifty Names to Hide Your Cover
Fifty Names to Hide Your Cover

(Refrain)
Stick 'em in your pants, Lance
Hide 'em in your shirt, Bert
Slide 'em up your sleeve, Steve
Just get 'em to me...

Under the truck, Chuck!
You won't have to lie much!
Down in your shorts, Mort
Just shred 'em for me...

Stick 'em in your pants, Lance
Under your lapel, Mel!
Hide 'em in your shoes, Luis
Just get 'em to me...

Under the truck, Chuck!
You don't have to lie much!
Shove 'em in your vest, Wes!
Just shred 'em for me...

[Andrea(WDBO - Orlando,FLORIDA)] 10:09 pm: karaoke time!

Labels: humor, music, politcs

posted by YIH @ 11:11 PM on Sunday, February 18, 2007  : 

There have been times when I think ''I would like to post about [subject] but it really doesn't fit the overall 'theme' of YIH'' (which has become our affairs in ''iraq'', immigration, the clash of cultures, and US politics in general).
Currently I take a ''grab bag'' approach to this blog (when you pull up YIH you have no idea what I will post about next). That is also the approach that Rick Darby takes. And while I like and respect Mr. Darby the next time I visit it might be spiritulaity, psychical research or poetry. Which are topics I have little interest in.
(NOTE: I am NOT critisizing Reflecting Light or Rick Darby, I'm using his blog as an example. Nothing more)
The other approach is to have multiple blogs divided be overall theme. That is the approach that Randall Parker (ParaPundit, FuturePundit, StoryPundit, TechiePundit) takes.
In short, I'm thinking of developing a ''spinoff'' blog not unlike what Randall has done. YIH will focus on it's primary subjects and a second blog (working title ''Your Image Here: The Next Generation'') for humor, music, anime, tech and whatever does not fit the mold YIH has become.
I tried this as an expireiment already with the QWIK HITZ! (also a working title) window in YIH.
Updating the seprate QWIK HITZ! window proved to be more trouble than it was worth.

So what do I do? While I was writing this post I went into Blogger and created another blog: http://qwikhitz.blogspot.com. I was merely wondering if the URL was available. When I discovered it was, I jumped! (VA, as you can see, I'm quite capable of ''shooting from the hip'' as well!) Meet the new blog, not the same as the old blog:

Sometimes my mind works so fast that even I can't keep up. I was thinking of creating another blog and dadgummit, that's exactly what I did. I was thinking ''I wonder if 'qwikhitz.blogspot.com' is available?''. As of 2/18/7, NOT ANYMORE!!!
Right now it has a ''generic blogger'' template, ''the Orange B'' icon, and no Haloscan.
Not a problem, all of these are quite fixable. Time consuming, but fixable.
Your Image Here just gave birth to a new blog, now let's see what kind of parent it will be...

Qwik Hitz! WILL be a different blog, but everything I've learned doing YIH applies there as well...

Labels: blogging, new blog

posted by YIH @ 2:11 AM on  : 

And if Rep. Dr. Weldon (R-Florida 15^th congressional district) had the guts to say this I would be jumping for joy!!!

Dr. Weldon is my congressman. And NO, I did not vote for him. I abstained. Had Ric Keller ran in the FL 15^th I still would have abstained.
On the way to work I heard this on Orlando radio. The local Orlando talk host was blustering that Congeressman Keller is a ''traitor'' and a ''turncoat'' who ''does'nt support the troops''. I disagree with that former local TV anchorman.
I CANNOT disagree with what Congressman Keller said. And he had every right to say it on the floor of the House.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that those who furiously defend ''Operation iraqi freedom'' are merely doing it so THEY can 'go with clean hands' as ''their savior from the America-hating left'' PROVES to be an utter failure.
He has already stated his intention to bring 7,000 random ''iraqis'' to America as ''refugees''.
''The troops'' call them IED's or 'roadside bombs'. When they come home to find that their Commander in Chief BROUGHT those who were attacking them TO AMERICA WITH THEM will YOU ''support the troops'' THEN???
TODAY they are being called ''insurgents'' and ''al-quida in iraq''.
TOMORROW The President will be calling them ''iraqi refugees''.
THANKS A WHOLE LOT...

Labels: ''iraq'', Ric Keller

posted by YIH @ 4:59 AM on Friday, February 16, 2007  : 

I find myself agreeing with Jhon Hawkins! ''McCain's Insane New Regulatory Burden On Internet Service Providers''.

"The proposal, which Sen. John McCain is planning to introduce on Wednesday, also would require ISPs and perhaps some Web sites to alert the government of any illegal images of real or "cartoon" minors. Failure to do would be punished by criminal penalties including fines of up to $300,000.

Think ''McCain-Finegold'' here.
When it comes to ISP's what the hell are they supposed to do? Assign someone to monitor everything each and every one of their customers do online?
That would be like requiring 'the phone company' to have operators listening into each and every phone conversation. And as soon as they hear something they think is illeagal, to comply with this proposed law they would have to report it as soon as they were aware of it.
I'll use myself as an example, it would be like having my ISP read each and every thing I write to an online chatroom that I'm a regular of. In a recent session I talked about everything from the current weather, to responding to what the hostess was saying, to just greeting others in the chatroom! Not even any naughty language there! All to make sure they comply with the law that McCain proposes.

The more I know of McCain, the more he gives me the creeps. If it winds up McCain v. Hillary, I vote 'third party'. One is as horrible as the other...

Labels: McCain, tech

posted by YIH @ 2:26 AM on Wednesday, February 14, 2007  : 

I'm witholding judgement on the SLC mall shooting. Already there are those who are stating both moslim attack and ''columbine-style'' attack. As I write this I'm thinking ''inconclusive, could be either one'' (it fits both profiles). At this point real info is rather scanty.
But there is indeed an actual 'Hero' here:

Meet Ken Hammond, the off-duty cop who was carrying and dropped the sicko. He ''stopped the bleeding''. I'll comment further as more comes to light.
UPDATE: ''Today, several Utah papers are reporting that the killer’s name was Sulejmen Talovic, and he was a Bosnian Muslim refugee''. That is actual bias-free reporting; ''Just the facts ma'am''. WND has also reported it this way.
Of course the FBI has already tossed out the ''it was not terrorism'' statement.
Myself, I have not changed my opinion, I still say ''inconclusive''.
My reasoning is there are parts of the M.O. that do not fit the profile of a moslim attack. There is no indication that a koran was found on the body of the shooter.
There have been no witness accounts of any moslim-related statements from the attacker (that itself causes me doubt, moslims tend to be very plain about what they are and what they are doing). And the targeting appears to be random. Islam tends to not target randomly.
This better fits the ''go postal'' type assault where the shooter fires upon anything human until taken down or commits suicide. That's why I'm taking 'a wait and see' approach in this situation.
To put it bluntly, I'm unconvinced either way. Which means I won't rule out either M.O. until enough comes to light to clarify things. The reason I won't 'jump on a bandwagon' is if it turns out to be a ''columbine-style'' assault HAMAS-CAIR will eagerly use this as a way to discredit Americans who oppose them.
I'm just glad there was someone there that could take the SOB down. And did so...

Labels: mall shooting, moslims

posted by YIH @ 1:43 AM on  : 

Just got done from another visit to the ASK Show chatroom. I just mentioned what my policy about how to deal with moslims. Which is ''Separationism'':

We separationists affirm the following:

Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

But we cannot destroy Islam.

Nor can we democratize Islam.

Nor can we assimilate Islam.

Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Allowing non-US citizen moslims (US citizen converts to Islam are a small and managable amount) to either stay in America or come here is the problem. There is a push to bring 20,000 ''iraqi refugees'' here. That cannot be allowed to happen. We are beginning to see the sunni-shi'ite blood fued not only in ''iraq'' but in Dearborn MI as well!!!
Robert Spencer put it in perspective:

Doesn't it occur to anyone who reads stories like this that it might not be a good idea to import this problem?

Italics mine. From the Washington Times link above:

Supporters of the existing policy have warned that hostile elements such as al Qaeda terrorists might try to enter the United States posing as refugees. Mr. McCormack did not say what steps might be taken to screen the applicants.

Again, italics mine. From what I've already seen of our so-called immigration policy the 20,000 would merely be the first 20,000 that apply. That would be the ''screening''. If an ''iraqi'' is #20,001 he or she won't get into America. If an ''iraqi'' is #19,999 he or she will.
Doesn't matter if he was Madhi Army or a so-called ''insurgent'', if that application gets stamped ''OK'' before the cutoff count, he wins and we lose. Regardless of what we do in ''iraq''.
UPDATE: Have we lost in ''iraq''? If you belive our actions in ''iraq'' were to ''To open another front in the War on Terror by helping to bring about a stable, prosperous, free and friendly Iraq.'' then we have indeed.

Labels: ''iraq'', Immigration

posted by YIH @ 11:04 PM on Sunday, February 11, 2007  : 

And I wish I hadn't. For a year I was PROUD of the fact that I could remove what I dubbed ''The Blogger Bar''. [swearing like a sailor]
Great, now I have to find a way to turn it off again. And I will. My simple little hack to remove it no longer works. [still swearing like a sailor]
UPDATE: All it took was a quick Scroogle search. Damn I'm good. And here is how you can remove ''The Blogger Bar'' if you would like to:
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-to-hide-blogger-navbar-in-new.html
UPDATE ''is it legal?'': Let's see, I ''shut off the navbar'' FOR A YEAR with no problems whatsover. Google flipped the switch to ''ON'', I found it and flipped the switch back to ''OFF''.
Yeah, that simple. I ACTUALLY SPENT MORE TIME griping about my problem than I did acutally solving it. DAMN I'm good.
When I find out how I'll let you know. If you're wondering, my blog's template has not changed in the past two weeks.
UPDATE: Great, ''Labels for this post:'' screw up my formatting. [swearing again]
I put quite a bit of time and effort to make YIH look like it did and I was hoping I was done for a while.
Then all I did was click on ''try the new Blogger'' signed into it with my gmail accout, clicked ''I Accept'' and promptly screwed the pooch. It doesn't seem to be reversable either. I don't have a ''restore from Recycle Bin'' option here. It's a done deal. [and much more swearing ensues]
BEAR WITH US; A Technician is working on the problems.
Normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Not to worry, this blog is still fully functional.

Labels: blogging, removing the blogger bar

posted by YIH @ 10:56 PM on Friday, February 09, 2007  : 

UPDATE: I said the Colts would win.
This will be one post this time. The Colts kick off. 92 yard TD return by the Bears. 14 seconds, 7-0 Bears. Third down and Manning is intercepted. YIKES! Three and out by the Bears, punt goes to the end zone. I'm suprised that The Borg is not a primary sponsor. Third and long and the Colts ''go long''. TD Colts. The weather (light rain) has become a factor, the holder could not place the ball for the PAT. YIKES! The Colts get the ball away from the Bears on the kickoff. The next play the Bears get the ball from the Colts. Second and Goal Bears. On Third and Goal TD Bears. PAT sucsessful. Current score 14-6 Bears. I can't keep up with this game!!!
So when is Manning going to get up under Center? He faked it, but went back to ''shotgun'' formation. OMG, the ball goes back to the Colts. In field goal range. The game is progressing faster than I can ''write''. The Colts punt and down the ball on the Bears 4. The Bears punt and dowm the ball on the Colts 42. The 1^st Quarter ends with a Colts first down on the Bears 42 and the first .com ad during the game. The Colts drive to field goal range and get it. 14-9 Bears. 0 Borg ads. THAT'S QUITE A SUPRISE!!! Both Apple and The Borg HAVE advertised during the SB. Second .com ad. It's still raining on the Dade/Broward County border (the 50-yard line of Joe Robbie Stadium) currently 16-14 Colts.
FINALLY A SB WORTHY AD!!! The GM ''all by myself'' robot ad.
I'm quite suprised that Sprint still uses that name. They bill me as Embarq.
Back-to-back fumbles AGAIN.
The Colts missed the end of the Half field goal. Now for the artist formerly known as ''Prince''.
I like Dan Marino, I liked him when he up against the Bills. I liked him on the field of Joe Robbie Stadium as the Dolphins QB. I was glad the NFL chose him to do the honor of the opening coin toss. He's an awful football commentator.
The prince halftime show. A lame rendition of ''Let's go crazy'' and even lamer cover of ''Rolling on the river''. And an even lamer cover of The Foo Fighters ''The best of you'' STEVE GROHL has got to be wincing. And finally ''Purple rain'', with such a horrid guitar solo that I was shouting at the TV ''Pull his cord!!! Pull his cord!!! Pull his cord!!!'' (yank the cord from his guitar to the amp. Either end, just break the connection). A very disappointing halftime show. Face it, CBS is incapable of doing a good SB halftime show. This should be THE LAST SB on CBS. Other Networks can cover the SB. Maybe even CW can do a better job, I will not watch another SB on CBS. I'll leave THE TV OFF next time ''Local 6'' shows the SB. I MEAN IT. posted by YIH @ 6:27 PM on Sunday, February 04, 2007  : 

A recent column by Leonard Pitts Jr. helps make the case for ''seperationism''. In it he says:

Three-quarters of the drivers serving the airport are Muslims, most from Somalia and, in recent years, many have refused to carry passengers carrying alcohol because Islam frowns on liquor. Dozens of passengers have reportedly been left stranded. Occasionally, even blind people using seeing-eye dogs have been refused passage by drivers citing Islamic teachings that the saliva of dogs is unclean.

Which moslim land are such restrictions imposed? Saudi Arabia? *BZZZT* WRONG! But thanks for playing. Here's the correct answer:

OK, let's say you fly into Minneapolis-St. Paul. Let's say you're carrying alcohol -- rum from the Caribbean, a Merlot you found in Napa Valley. Let's say you try to hail a cab while carrying said alcohol.

Good luck. You're going to need it.

YES, Minneapolis-St. Paul IS in America. It's the largest city in the State of Minnesota. Ever heard of the Minnesota Twins? The Minnesota Vikings? YES, that city!!!
He is quite properly miffed that moslims are trying to impose their lifestyle on kuffar with strong-arm tactics. He notes that ''Occasionally, even blind people using seeing-eye dogs have been refused passage by drivers citing Islamic teachings that the saliva of dogs is unclean.''.
Minnesota Law:

MINNESOTA
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 256C, Sections 256C.01 through 256C.06, amended 1992; Section 363.03(10). Minnesota statutes guarantee a blind person the legal right to be accompanied by a dog guide in all public accommodations and on all public conveyances. A dog guide user also is guaranteed the right to equal accommodation in housing. No extra charge can be levied because of the dog's presence, but the dog guide user is liable for any damage the dog guide causes to the premises. A landlord is not required to modify his property or maintain a higher standard of care than that provided other persons. Minnesota's state policy also ensures equal employment opportunity to blind persons in its state public schools, and in all employment supported in whole or part by public funds, except when the particular disability prevents performance of the work involved. Public accommodations include hotels, public buildings, restaurants, places of resort and amusement, stores and all other places to which the public is invited. (Sect. 256C.02) Public conveyances include airplanes, boats, taxis, trains, buses, and all other modes of transportation offered for public use. (Sect. 256C.02) Housing includes any real property offered for rent, lease, or compensation. (Sect. 256C.025) The service dog must be capable of being properly identified as from a recognized school for Seeing Eye dogs or dog guides. (Sect. 256C.02) Violation: Any person or agent thereof who interferes with the above enumerated rights is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable therefore under Minnesota law. (Sect. 256C.05)

Boldface mine. Florida Law:

FLORIDA
Florida Statutes, Section 413.08 (1) through (8), enacted 1971, amended 1973, 1974, 1977, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998 Florida statutory law guarantees a blind person the legal right to be accompanied by a specially trained dog guide in all public accommodations and on all public conveyances. Florida statutory law also guarantees a dog guide user the legal right to equal accommodations in all housing. No extra fee can be levied because of the dog's presence, but the dog guide user is liable for any property damage the dog might cause. Landlords are not required to modify the premises nor are they responsible for maintaining a higher standard of care than that provided to other tenants. Housing accommodation covers any real property or portion thereof that is offered for rent, lease or compensation as a residence or sleeping place, but does not include private single family dwellings in which the occupants have offered no more than one room for rent. (Sect. 413.08(4)(a)-(c)) Public conveyances include all common carriers, airplanes, boats, trains, buses, taxis, and any other mode of transportation offered for public use. (Sect. 413.08(1)(a)) Public accommodations include hotels, lodging places, restaurants, stores, places of resort and amusement, and any other place to which the general public is invited. (Sect. 413.08 (1)(a)) Any trainer of a dog guide, while engaged in the training of such dog has the same rights and privileges with respect to access to public facilities. (Amendment Sect. 413.08 (7)) Violation: Any person, firm, corporation, or agent thereof who denies or interferes with the above enumerated rights is guilty under Florida law of a second class misdemeanor and punishable in accordance therewith. (Sect. 413.08 (2))

Again, Boldface mine. Note how similar the two State Laws are. I only address the laws as they apply in Minnesota (which is what Mr. Pitts uses as an example) and Florida (the State that both he and I live in). Both make it quite clear that barring someone with a seeing-eye dog is a violation of State Law and punishable by such. And quite properly should be.
The point that Mr. Pitts does not want to make is the point that I have no problem making: We cannot ''fix'' Islam, it is fundementally different from the way we in ''the west'' live.
At what price ''multiculturalism''? And it does indeed have a price.
Should the basic civil rights of blind people be sacrificed on the altar of ''multiculturism''? What's next? ''You can't ride in my taxi because you're in a wheelchair''? And if someone draws and has published a mild editorial cartoon that states quite plainly that Islam IS Islam should that person face death for it? As an American the idea that the 1^st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression does indeed trump the ''freedom of religion'' clause.
Even the 1^st Amendment cannot be used as ''a blanket protection''. The most well-known example is ''you cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater'' and call it ''free speech''. Nor can Islam be allowed to override our laws under the guise of ''freedom of religion''.
By not arresting and filing criminal charges under Minnesota (or Florida) Law against the moslims that are here we allow the moslims to implement THEIR sharia Law UPON us.
The moslims see OUR NATION as a land to conqure and we are not doing anything to change their minds. That includes our operations in ''iraq'', we are trying to social work ''a new iraq'' while allowing moslim INVADERS to stay in OUR NATION.
Yes, we are losing, and our President (and his cheerleaders) are doing everything they can to make sure we lose. If we allow America to be colonized BY INVADERS we are truely ''Native Americans''. And I doubt our new moslim masters will allow us to build and operate casinos. Gambling is haram (forbidden) under Islam. Just like seeing-eye dogs.
UPDATE: Sorry bushtard,

Muslim Taxi Drivers vs. Seeing-Eye Dogs

November 14, 2005
From ''danielpipes.org''. Any moslim illegal alien who seeks to override FL law should be arrested and deported to ''iraq'' ASAP. Allow moslims to be moslims where they belong... posted by YIH @ 3:52 AM on  : 

From Vox Day's blog:

Of course, this is the woman who is dumb enough to think that Americans are pining for a third Bush in the White House. Sure, Jeb talks a good game, but the problem is that after the lies his father and his brother told to get elected, no one with more than half a brain, conservative or liberal, believes anything that comes out of the mouth of anyone named Bush.

And I left this as a comment there:

I doubt JEB (his initals) Bush will seek nomination for President. He was overall an OK Govenor of FL but he demonstrated that he can indeed be 'rattled'. By the time 'francis' hit JEB in his public demeanor was quite clearly a shaken man. Granted, that was a stressful time for all of us (in FL) but showing it during an annoucement of moblizing the State to deal with another hurricane was not confidence inspiring.

As Govenor of FL appearing 'shaken' during a period of stress in public is forgivable. For a President it would be seen as distrubing. And would likely make a bad situation worse.
Many attacked President Bush for continuing to read to kindergarteners after the first plane hit the WTC. What they overlook was until the second plane hit it was assumed that this was an airliner crash and nothing more. It's generally assumed that 'red-alert status' is not to be invoked until the situation warrants it. By the time the second plane hit he had finished reading My Little Goat. That was when the teacher was informed to clear the classroom and it turned into a makeshift situation room. At that point Bush went 'into CINC mode'.
That is one of the few things I will defend the Bush administration on. The decison to launch attacks on Afghanistan is another.
I WON'T defend the decision to begin ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' because there were clearly doubts about either the involvement of Saddam's Government in the 9/11 attacks or the threat it actually posed to America. A common critsism of me is to lump me in with those jackasses in DC last Saturday or that 'greving mother as career' Cindy Sheehan.
The critical difference is that they are ''anti-war'' as far as a America is concerned. In truth they are actually PRO-war on 'the west'. And the way they see it 'the west' should not respond to attacks on it in any way. They seek to destroy 'the west' in order to save it. With the mindset that anything would be an improvment over 'western civilization'. That explains their silence in the face of moslims who seek to dictate what is and what is not acceptable in any form of expression. Note that nearly none of these ''liberals'' were willing to take a stand against those WHO OPENLY AND PLAINLY desire to kill those who merely drew a dozen cartoons in reference to Islam and it's founder.
So where does that put me? I have stated repeatedly that over 100,000 of ''the troops'' are being misused in ''iraq'' and should be evacuated from there immediatly. I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald that a sunni-shi'ite ''civil war'' in the entire Middle East is not a bad thing but in fact a good one. And in fact should be encouraged not discouraged.
MAKE the rest of the world see the hatred, violence, and primitivism that is the basic foundation of Islam without expending further American lives in a pointless effort to ''reform'' moslims. About three years ago a local talk radio host was wondering on the air if we (the USA) will be able ''to tame iraq''. Clearly the answer is NO, WE CANNOT ''tame iraq''.
I think of it as like a large-scale forest fire, one that cannot be drowned or smothered. Putting 100,000+ Americans in the middle of it to try to extinguish such a conflaguration from within is pointless and counterproductive.
The correct way to deal with Islam IS NOT ''to try to put it out'' (which cannot be done) but to contain the fire and allow it to burn itself out. Force the fire to consume itself.
That is a fudemental tenent of what Lawrence Auster has dubbed ''Seperationism'', what moslims do to each other is not our concern. Our concern is to do everything to prevent the basic destructiveness from spreading. That would involve removing as many moslims from civilization as possible and quaranteeing it to The Middle East as much as possible.
THAT is why I call for the removal of ''the troops'' from ''iraq''. ''Healing iraq'' is impossible, making ''iraq the model'' is impossible. Our President says that 21,500 more ''troops'' will accomplish what 150,000 have been unable to do, namely ''teach the pig to sing''. The pig is not singing. Nor will it ever.
In my Blogger profile (and on my blog) is a photograph of my cat. I love my cat, but no matter how much effort and expense I could undertake could I turn him into a gaurd dog. No amount of ''training'' will change him from what he is (yes, cats CAN be trained). It's impossible to change the fact that he is a cat. In fact if I paid my vet enough money he could surgically change my cat from anotomically male to anotomically female.
Yet ''he'' could never get pregnant, nor have kittens. So it would be pointless for me to try to make my male cat female would it not? A hubris of 'the west' is the idea that ''anything is possible if we only try''. But no matter how hard we ''try'', 2+2=4. We cannot 'remodel' the Middle East. You can root for ''da Bears'' all you want, that won't do a thing to stop the Colts from winning.
BTW, I use this as an example. As I write this SB XLI is tomorrow, the outcome is unknown to me. This time I don't even have a pick, I honestly belive it could go either way... posted by YIH @ 6:25 PM on Saturday, February 03, 2007  : 

To start off, it's not a bad film. But despite the gushing praise of Steve Sailer (who gets paid to crituqe movies) it's NOT 'A great moment in American cinema' either.
I won't 'bash' Fox for giving it limited release, they did so legitimately. It would've likely been an embarssing flop at the box office. Fox likely broke even in the costs to distribute that film to a limited number of theaters. Paying to plug it would've likely been ''a negative cash flow''.
I'll put it bluntly; Have you ever seen MTV's Beavis and Butthead? It's how Mike Judge made a name for himself.
Fox wanted another The Simpsons and got it in the Judge created and voiced King of The Hill.
I suspect the only reason this film 'got green lighted' at all was to keep Mike Judge under contract.
They wrote off about $10 million to keep Judge happy. Both sides got what they wanted.
Once the film 'was in the can' Fox test marketed it. And chose to go with the results of the tests.
If Fox had budgeted and spent the money to promote this 'in general release' it would have likely been wasted (I also suspect Mike Judge was not eager to do the media tour to promo this film).
All that said, the flick itself is not bad at all. Mike Judge has some talent and it shows.
The problem I had with Idiocracy is that I was expecting better than I saw and it failed.
It DOES make the point that America is becoming ''The Jerry Springer Show'' (Hell, it clubs you over the head with that observation) but it seems to have no problem with that.
The one question Mike Judge fails to address in his dismal future is ''Who keeps the lights on?'' (perhaps with ''Propane and Propane Accessories'')
And that's where the movie fails for me. It wanted to be the next ''Soylent Green'' but even if Mike Judge had hired Charlton Heston for the lead role the movie still fails.

My overall assestment? I actually liked the flick. It would have been perfect for Mystrey Science Theatre 3000. NOT a waste of time. If you're in the video store and see this RENT IT.
Not worth watching in a movie theater... posted by YIH @ 2:51 AM on  : 

I saw my own shadow. That means I'll post my first movie reveiw soon... posted by YIH @ 11:39 AM on Friday, February 02, 2007  :