Shoes for evening wear

Shoes to wear when going for a ride with Ted Kennedy.

Thanks to Jimmy M who called them "Midwest Shoes."

I like mine better!

Tax Rebate

Fooled you, eh? This was just a test to see what a good title does.

Here. Click on this for a link to the real thing.

And I haven't received mine either.

Sometimes I wonder.

After watching young people swoon over first Sinatra and then Elvis and now Hussein you start to wonder. What have we raised? Worse, we read of people practicing witchcraft, reading their astrology signs daily and claiming that ghosts exists.

Whatever happened to the belief that man would keep improving the world through science and that logical thought was necessary for a successful and happy life?
I mean we have gone to the Moon, stamped out or controlled numerous diseases that had devastated mankind, improved crop yields, increased the ability to communicate while reducing the cost to a fraction of what it was just 20 years, made entertainment available in multiple forms 24 hours a day and yet we have this.

MEYRIN, Switzerland (June 29) - The most powerful atom-smasher ever built could make some bizarre discoveries, such as invisible matter or extra dimensions in space, after it is switched on in August.

But some critics fear the Large Hadron Collider could exceed physicists' wildest conjectures: Will it spawn a black hole that could swallow Earth? Or spit out particles that could turn the planet into a hot dead clump?

Well, according to an AOL poll, 61% say doing this basic research is not worth the risk.

Even more startling, or let's say more indicative that modern America is full of under educated and over propagandized people, 72% say that mankind will destroy the earth versus a natural disaster doing the trick... That there is a third position.. nothing happening for billions of years is not even considered.

Perhaps science and its child, engineering, has done too good of a job. At one time to communicate to people around the world you had to use letters, newspapers, telegrams, telephone or broadcast over a commercial radio. All of these required education and skills acquired in formal settings. The nearest thing to the Internet was amateur radio which was licensed to insure the user didn't interfere with others. Said license required passing a test that proved the applicant was technically astute, could send and receive in Morse code and understood the rules of broadcasting over a shared medium.

Contrast that with a teenager today hopping on the Internet, joining a chat group and blabbing to the world. But I won't pick on just teenagers. There are plenty of adults doing the same thing. And I have no problem with this.... except it seems to lead to people thinking that the ability to type the right commands and produce desired results on a Mac or PC means that the person is technically smart.

Wrong. They know how to drive the bus, but not how to build one. They can't write the code or design the hardware. Yet they think they are smart....

These are the people who think mankind can stop the natural cycle of the sun and ocean currents to control the weather.

These are the people who won't allow the third world to use DDT to control Malaria, leading to the deaths of millions.

These are the people who fight man made genetic changes in food crops that resist disease and increase yields, feeding millions.

These are the children of parents who, in the 60's, opined, "Food is."

These are the future.

Haven't we educated them well??

Beating a dead horse

The Left is still trying to prove, somehow, that Bush lied.

The latest is written by Cy Bolton for the LATimes.

Consider first the implications of the famous Downing Street memo from July 23, 2002. Briefing Tony Blair about his recent talks with Washington, Britain's top intelligence officer stated that U.S. "military action was now seen as inevitable. ... But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Nice short declarative sentence. Problem is, it leaves a few things out.

The document was written by British national security aide Matthew Rycroft based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of Mr. Blair and his advisers, including Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had recently met with Bush administration officials.

CSMonitor

And this is from the Londontimesonline.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route,

Note that it was written by a low level aid based on notes of what MI-6’s Richard Dearlove had to say…. It is, at best, third person.

And note the “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

That makes no sense. If the intent was to accuse Bush of doing something wrong, it would have read:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. And the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy

Also note that the writer uses the word “facts.” What does that mean? Again, of the writer wanted to claim that Bush was being misleading, wouldn’t he say something different?

No, I think it clear that the writer was merely noting that the National Security Council…NSC…had had it with Saddam’s violations of the UN sanctions, Bush wanted to do the same based on the available intelligence…therefore the “intelligence and facts were being applied to….fixed (to)…. around the policy..

Terrible writing, but remember, the memo is not a transcript, but written from his notes based on a second party’s memory and comments in a meeting.

And that’s why it didn’t go anywhere.

Then we come to this.

Another example is the now infamous nuclear reference from Bush's 2003 State of the Union address: "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Not only was this refuted twice in early 2002 -- by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV…

Again we have short declarative sentences. Let’s first see what Bush said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Let’s not ignore the first sentence, although it usually is.

“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program…” Now there was no reason, even if you believed that Saddam had destroyed all his WMD’s that since he had had a development program and had a design, he could not get back in very rapidly IF he had uranium ore.

Now, the British have never dropped their claim, and rightly so. And even if the CIA did, at the last moment, say that Saddam had not tried to purchase, who should you, if you were responsible for the defense of the country, believe??? Remember. The CIA had it wrong before 9/11. In this instance the tie went to the offense. That works for me. Every time.

But what of Joe Wilson’s claim? What did he say? Actually, if you will read his NYTimes article you will see that he said that Saddam had not purchased any uranium. Which, of course, was not claimed by the British. He also said that:

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

NY Times

The problem with this is that it doesn’t match what the CIA said he said to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Let’s first look at what someone else told the Committee.

The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,( ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

Then we have this.

The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, ( ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective. SENTENCE DELETED The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

The question then becomes, what made Wilson change his mind? Remember. The CIA debrief took place late February 2002. His comments to the Department of State was on 1/29/2003, almost a full year.

Senate Intelligence Committee

The question then becomes, what made Wilson change his mind? Remember. The CIA debrief took place late February 2002. His comments to the Department of State was on 1/29/2003, almost a full year.

So no matter what, we find that the Left's claims do not hang together. And they may try and try, but thoughtful people interested in the facts will be around to point out there errors.

Put down of the century..

Quite a bit has been written in the Internet about this absolutely perfect example of the venom and hatred from the Left, but I think we are missing acknowledgeing the put down of the century.

DELAHUNT: Was waterboarding one of them?

ADDINGTON: That's what I'm answering, because I know where you're headed. As I indicated to the chairman at the beginning of this thing, I'm not in a position to talk about particular techniques, whether they are or aren't used or could or couldn't be used or their legal status.

And the reasons I would give for that, if you'll look at, I think, Exhibit 9, the president's speech of September 6, 2006, explains why he doesn't talk about what particular techniques...

DELAHUNT: Oh, I can understand why he doesn't talk about it.

ADDINGTON: But you've got to communicate with Al Qaeda. I can't talk to you. Al Qaeda may watch "C-SPAN."

DELAHUNT: Right. Well, I'm sure they are watching and I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. .

ADDINGTON: I'm sure you're pleased.

DELAHUNT: Given your penchant for being unobtrusive.

Take a bow Mr. Addington. Your wit and intelligence shine like a beacon in that utter display of ignorance, hatred and politics by the Left.

Outside of the fact that the New York Times

is in the tank for Hussein, you would have to wonder why the actions of a 19 year old would rate a 1000 or so word article.

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.

“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

William Katz over at Urgent Agenda accurately notes:

How chic, how stylish, how adolescent.

Further along in the article...

...when her father saw her new online moniker, he was incredulous.

“He actually thought I was going to convert to Islam,” Ms. Nordling said.

Worse, Mr. Nordling, she has joined Husseinism. For which there is no known cure.

In the interest of Science, can you tell us when she first lost the ability to reason and think logically??

But you may take solace that it is nothing you have done, but resides in the family genes.

Ms. Nordling’s uncle liked the idea so much that he joined the same Facebook group that she had

Great Britain just can't surrender - redux

I have received three comments regarding this post that I thought worth using as a separate post.

Anonymous said...

Salaam

London School of Islamics is an educational Trust. Its aim is to makeBritish public, institutions and media aware of the needs and demands of the
Muslim community in the field of education and possible solutions.

Slough Islamic school Trust Slough had a seminar on Muslim education and...

Stops and then continues in the following comment.

Salaam

There are four state schools in Glasgow with 90% Muslim children. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools.

From what I have read regarding charter schools in the US I can't disagree. Schools are driven, to an extent, by the parents of the children attending them. A 90% Muslim population results in a school teaching, if not "religion" then certainly Muslim culture and "values."

The problem, of course, is that if assimilation is to occur, then the culture and values that should be taught is British. Is that happening? Perhaps the following article answers the question.

The following may or may not be from the above writer(s).

Anonymous said...

From The Sunday Times
June 29, 2008

Learning to be British and Muslim

In a controversial report, Cristina Odone argues that traditional Muslim schools are the best means of keeping Islamic girls in education – and preventing extremism
It’s 3pm and the girls at Madani high school in Leicester are trooping out of the gates. They wear white scarves over dark blue djellabas – a shapeless coat worn over trousers. No sign of the boys: they don’t leave for another half an hour.

Boys and girls operate on a different timetable, carefully calibrated to keep the sexes segregated. The architecture at Madani high conspires to do the same: there is a girls’ wing and, in mirror image, a boys’ wing – the two separated by an elegant Arabic-style courtyard with a fountain.

Segregation of the sexes is crucial to the traditional Muslim families who send their children to this state-funded school. Once girls reach puberty, their honour has to be jealously protected, and exposure to the opposite sex limited. To shield them from the drugs, sex and violence that mar British playground culture, traditional Muslim parents will often simply pull their daughters out of nonsegregated schools.

“Each year, hundreds of Muslim girls disappear from the state system,” acknowledges Idris Mears, an educationist and fundraiser for the Association of Muslim Schools UK.

“The drugs, sex and rock’n’roll scene is not an option for Muslim girls,” says Humera Khan, co-founder of Al-Nisa, which offers a wide variety of faith-based services to the Muslim community. “So there is a huge pressure to marry them off early or send them home.”

The parliamentary home affairs committee recently collected statistics on the number of children “not in suitable education” in local authorities with large Muslim populations: 385 in Manchester, 294 in Leicester, 250 in Birmingham. According to Mears, most of them are girls.

In the US if you pull your child out of school the government will come after you. Evidently that is not the case in Great Britain. By not demanding that the children receive a traditional secular education the government is surrendering to some in the Muslim population. That is no way to defend a culture and change the values of the first generation of immigrants.

How, then, are Muslim girls to be properly educated so that they have a chance of becoming self-confident members of British society? Madani high is one of a small number of Muslim state schools that fuse cultural tradition with a full education under the national curriculum.

State Muslim faith schools give traditional parents who cannot afford private schools the confidence to keep their daughters in school. They raise the chances of Muslim girls going on to higher education. And they give boys as well as girls a sense of belonging to this country, its institutions and values. There are not enough of these schools, however. Although central government claims it wants to provide British Muslim children with a culturally acceptable – but socially empowering – form of education, it is not putting its money where its mouth is. Far from “fast-tracking” Muslim state schools, it is dragging its feet: it took Mohammed Mukadam, head of Madani high, five years to obtain state funding.

Mukadam, who has a daughter of his own, told me he believes passionately in education as the best route to get girls “out of the kitchen and into university”. But he also respects the feelings of those parents who don’t want their children to lose their religious identity or cultural legacy. Muslim state schools, he says, are the solution; traditional Muslim parents feel comfortable keeping their daughters at a school where they can learn to be “British and Muslim”.

As part of the state-school sector, Madani and the six other Muslim schools that receive government funding must pass Ofsted inspections. All seven schools do well in league tables; and, crucially, the proportion of girls in Muslim faith schools who go on to higher education is more than twice as high as in secular state schools.

Mukadam also ran Leicester Islamic academy, one of the oldest independent Muslim schools in Britain. When he started out there, “not one girl went on to higher education”. From Madani high school, “more than 95%” now do so.

Traditional Muslims do not worry only about their daughters. Many are also wary of keeping their sons in state education. Differences can surface in a mixed gym class or an arts lesson in which they are asked to draw a human body. An ICM poll of British Muslims in 2004 showed that nearly half wanted their children to attend Muslim schools. But, as so few maintained Muslim schools exist, the great majority of the 500,000 Muslim school-age children in England and Wales have to attend secular state education.

Their parents also worry about the Islamophobia that, since the September 11 and July 7 bombings, can creep even into primary schools.

“Everywhere they turn,” says Mears, former head of the Association of Muslim Schools, “children find stereotypes of the Muslim.”

This is a difficult subject, and I am sure troublesome for parents. But since 9/11 Great Britain has had three instances in Muslims were involved in terrorist activities and/or plots. Such things will create stereotypes.

Madani is the perfect vehicle for fighting that stereotype. The building is spanking-new (construction finished last year) and dazzlingly high-tech, with interactive white boards and sophisticated IT equipment in most classrooms. A huge gym caters for basketball and badminton. The grounds are free of litter, the walls of graffiti; and when visitors are guided through the school, the children greet them with the traditional “Salaam alei-kum” (Peace be upon you).

Despite the scarves, the djellabas, the beards and the skullcaps, Madani has its feet firmly planted in British culture: a pink bra stuck on a bulletin board highlights a Breast Awareness campaign.

That has nothing to do with culture, but merely a medical one. Remember the school is segregated.

In one room, a group of girls is waiting to begin extra studies in the school’s own madrasah (supplemental religious school). The take-up is not big but Mukadam is not surprised: traditionally, a madrasah is attached to a mosque and it will take some time before the more devout Muslim families regard a layman’s teaching to be the equal of an imam’s.

So? This is still religious instruction.

Currently, the 700 or so madrasahs in Britain are not inspected by Ofsted, and this has raised fears of child abuse and extremist indoctrination – both in the Muslim community and outside it. However, spokesmen for the Muslim community are wary of criticising the imams who run these schools – their spiritual influence remains enormous in the community.

Mukadam says he has found himself acting as ambassador to the local imams, making the case for girls’ education. “I appealed to the imams: ‘Look, divorce is out there, in high numbers. We must educate our daughters so that they can stand on their own two feet always.”

He dismisses claims that Muslim schools are divisive. Madani’s 570 students are taught that “they’re Muslims, they’re British, and there’s no conflict between the two”. When their faith is treated as a force for good rather than a problem, he feels, students develop a strong sense of identity and self-esteem.

In the end, there is conflict because of the influence of Sharia law. And it is not going away until religion is removed from the schools. And even then it will linger for a generation of two.

“It is not the school that offers proper teaching of Islam which proves a training ground for terrorism, but the one where Islam is misunderstood or misinterpreted,” says Taj Hargey, who runs the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford.

Hargey this year launched a supplementary school – he won’t call it a madrasah because of the negative connotations – where children are taught the syllabus plus religious education.

“We highlight the passages in the Koran that talk about tolerance and pluralism; reinterpret the passages that we believe have been twisted out of their real meaning,” he says.

Mr. Hargey's point seems to be that there are passages in the Koran that are used by radicals to inflame, and that his answer is to teach Islam in a different manner.

That is a nice thought, but what it means is that at some point in time the student may be caught between Mr. Hargey's teaching and the teaching of a radical teacher. The outcome then will depend on many things in the life of the student as well as the talent and abilities of the radical teacher. Remember that the latest terrorist activities were carried out by second generation of thoroughly middle class Muslims.

I seems to me that the answer would be to teach the students the traditional values of the West. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, democratic values, etc. I see it as an inoculation against the ravings of radicals who want to infect the minds of young men and launch them on suicide attacks against innocent men, women and children.

To that end these "new" schools add nothing. Let the student see all sides and decide for themselves which offers them the best future.

Sadly, I don't see Great Britain having the courage to do that. Even worse, I see America following dumbly the same path that brough Great Britain to this point.