Friday, April 28, 2006

Ben and Jerry's --

Over at Blogh an Seanchai, we learn that Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, that bastion of tolerance and understanding, unveiled its "Irish" ice cream on St. Patrick's Day -- after naming it "Black and Tan".
The story is that America's most touchy feely sensitive ice-cream brand named its "Irish" ice cream flavour after a British militia -- comprised of convicts and shell-shocked WWI veterans --which tried to restore "law and order" in Ireland during the Irish War of Independence.

Word up whitebread, how you livin'?

The Zarkman is back, and he's hatin' the email.
Yeah, I been gettin' all your email haterade. All y'all infidels be texting and emailing, and it's all like "yo Zarks where u at? Al Qaeda cut off your TypePad account? LOL!!!"

Hey cuz, act like you know. Like the Zarkman got time to be blogging this bitch with the Q1 decapitation reports overdue, and Fatima all up in my grille wantin’ money for the kids' summer martyr camp, and Team Satan sendin’ another crew of laser-guided "downsizing consultants" every freaking day.


Okay, so a few dhimmis throw us a few bucks every month. But Holy fucking Prophet, otherwise they’re as useless as tits on an Imam. “Sorry, Zarkman, can’t help you with the wiring diagrams, my Ph.D. is in deconstructivist semiotics,” whatever the fuck that means. I mean, holy dung, how do these motards chew gum and protest march at the same time? And the ones that actually do get over here never want to volunteer for anything other than being a stupid hostage, and then they start whining for vegan meals and high-speed internet, and then they get all pissy and crying when you actually cut off one of the other’s heads. Helloooooo, Moby McMoonbeam: that’s what you fucking hostages are for. Shit, I swear the only victory we’ve had lately is when Team Satan came and took those Unitarian peace creeps off our hands. Your problem now, dawg.


And to top it all off, guess who just showed up at the back door? You got it. Those kuffar peace creeps, volunteering for hostage duty again. I’m totally curious: how come all those badass hard muthafuckin’ Wu Tang infidels end up on Team Satan, and Zarkman gets stuck with the dipshits too stoned to tune their stupid guitars?

So whuzzup wit me? Same shit, different day, and if you peckerwood email haters expect a personal reply, you can kiss my fat shrapneled Jordanian ass. I hate email, and wouldn’t use it at all if I didn’t think that Nazi Bush was tapping my phone.

Read it all, homies.

Definitely not my kind of religion

A Pakistani couple, jailed after the woman's father objected to their love marriage, appeared in court on Friday after spending five years in prison without trial.

"I have committed no adultery," 23-year-old Sodi (Eds; one name) wept in a courthouse in the southern city of Hyderabad as she recounted her ordeal to journalists.

"I was 18 when I got married of my own free will with Kashkeli. Our marriage was contracted before a maulvi (preacher) and registered," said the woman, who has been held in a separate jail from her husband.

The couple were arrested in October 2001 on adultery charges after the woman's father, a farmer, lodged a report with police accusing the man of abducting his daughter and committing adultery with her.
Shining a light on this madness, perhaps, can bring about some change. But christ, are you kidding me? 5 years in jail for not agreeing to some arranged marriage, and marrying because you love someone? This is in Pakistan, our ally--can you imagine what things are like in, say, Saudi Arabia?

I know it's been a long time since I rapped at ya . . .

but work has been a little overwhelming.

Be that as it may, here's a little ass-whippin' by Thomas Sowell on those politicians that think all of us rubes are complete idiots:
Ironically, the people who are making the most noise about the high price of gasoline are the very people who have for years blocked every attempt to increase our own oil supply. They have opposed drilling for oil off the Atlantic coast, off the Pacific coast, or in Alaska. They have prevented the building of any new oil refineries anywhere for decades.

They have fought against the building of hydroelectric dams or nuclear power plants to generate electricity without the use of oil. They love to talk about their own pet "alternative energy sources," without the slightest attention to what these would cost in terms of money, jobs, or our national standard of living.

Even when one of their pet "alternative energy sources" -- windmills -- is proposed to be built near them, suddenly it is not right to spoil their view.
Read the whole thing, friends. And remember, price is determined where supply and demand intersect--and when the government dictates price, supply shrinks to fit. What does that mean? You guessed it--shortages!!!

And here is Charles Krauthammer, piling on like the Nature Boy Rick Flair:
If you thought the Dubai port deal marked a record high in Washington cynicism, think again. Nothing can match the spectacle of politicians scrambling for cover during a spike in gasoline prices. And this time, the panderfest has gone all the way to the Oval Office. President Bush has joined the braying congressional hordes by ordering the Energy and Justice Departments and the FTC to launch an investigation into possible gasoline price-fixing.

What a disgrace.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

The Easter Bunny hates you.

More video excellence.

The president of China

is here in the US, promising to crack down on software piracy and respect intellectual property rights of American and other inventors.
Chinese President Hu Jintao arrived Tuesday in the Pacific Northwest where trade issues have been carefully massaged in recent days to put a cheery face on China's chronic problems with software piracy, an undervalued currency and a soaring trade surplus with the United States.

By kicking off his visit here, the Chinese president is focusing on a region where big-ticket trade -- for Boeing aircraft and Microsoft software -- is important to both the national and local economy. The Port of Seattle has been packed for nearly a decade with ships carrying goods to and from China.

Sweetening the terms of its trade with Washington state, China pledged last week to buy 80 Boeing airplanes for $5.2 billion and moved forward this week on a promise to crack down on the use of illegal software.
That's great, and I am all for China actually respecting international patents instead of pirating software, movie, music, etc.

But what about basic human rights, like petitioning the government for a redress of grievances? Remember this?

Read this primer, and shake your head.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Tom Cruise has lost his mind

I don't usually pay any attention to celebrity news, but you just have to read it to believe it.
The Mission Impossible star, 43, said: "I'm gonna eat the placenta. I thought that would be good. Very nutritious. I'm gonna eat the cord and the placenta right there." It is the latest in a series of increasingly strange outbursts from Cruise in the run-up to the birth.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, Mark Steyn

Writing about Iran:
You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

That's how it goes with the Iranians. The more they claim they've gone nuclear, the more U.S. intelligence experts -- oops, where are my quote marks? -- the more U.S. intelligence "experts" insist no, no, it won't be for another 10 years yet. The more they conclusively demonstrate their non-compliance with the IAEA, the more the international community warns sternly that, if it were proved that Iran were in non-compliance, that could have very grave consequences. But, fortunately, no matter how thoroughly the Iranians non-comply it's never quite non-compliant enough to rise to the level of grave consequences. You can't blame Ahmadinejad for thinking "our enemies cannot do a damned thing."
Let's hope he's wrong--but then again, when someone says he is going to kill you with a bomb, shouldn't you take him seriously? And this is priceless:
The perfect summation of the Iranian approach to negotiations came in this gem of a sentence from the New York Times on July 13 last year:

"Iran will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognize its right to do so, two Iranian nuclear negotiators said in an interview published Thursday."

Got that? If we don't let Iran go nuclear, they'll go nuclear. That position might tax even the nuanced detecting skills of John Kerry.
Read it all.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Read it all, friends, read it all

Mark Steyn at his best:
Back when nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, your average Western progressive was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute. The mushroom cloud was one of the most familiar images in the culture, a recurring feature of novels and album covers and movie posters. There were bestselling dystopian picture books for children, in which the handful of survivors spent their last days walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now a state openly committed to the annihilation of a neighboring nation has nukes, and we shrug: Can’t be helped. Just the way things are. One hears sophisticated arguments that perhaps the best thing is to let everyone get ’em, and then no one will use them. And if Iran’s head of state happens to threaten to wipe Israel off the map, we should understand that this is a rhetorical stylistic device that’s part of the Persian oral narrative tradition, and it would be a grossly Eurocentric misinterpretation to take it literally.
It's not funny, but it's true.

Monday, April 03, 2006

"Psychiatrists generally refer to this state as 'psychotic' and 'delusional'."

Read this rather long post on the problems of women in "modern" Muslim countries. A taste:
Enormous effort goes into veiling women, dressing women modestly, silencing women, covering women's bodies, punishing women, controlling women, reviling women, humiliating women, beating women, subjugating women, avoiding the dishonor of women, keeping women uneducated, policing women, infantilizing women--in short, dehumanizing women -- all under the guise of "protecting" and "honoring" them as they relegate them to animal-like status.

The women in this misogynistic Islam are brainwashed from birth into thinking that this cultural preoccupation somehow is necessary and that it "liberates" them in some bizarre manner.
Whether you buy it or not is up to you, but it seems to me that the treatment of women (and the lack of outcry against it by women in the US and Europe) in the Muslim world outght to be at the forefront of any true liberal's agenda--but it's not, and I don't get why. Perhaps the women like living that way, but then again, I don't believe a man should be able to beat his wife, kill his daughter, etc., for bringing "dishonor" on the family.

This is good, too: "Women become mere possessions-vessels/repositories of the impotent male's honor. That men and women could relate equally in every sphere of human endeavor is a concept that is so alien and so threatening; I suspect it is what partly drives the rage the males feel toward western culture in general."

Read it all, friends.

The Yale Taliban

I can't say I am happy (see here) that my alma mater has admitted the former spokesman for the Taliban regime as a special student, giving him a discount on tuition. I do think that Deroy Murdock is a bit off when he says
This affair may show that "my enemy's enemy is my friend." Yale's politically correct administrators hate that reckless Texas cowboy George W. Bush (Yale, class of 1968). How better to smack him, while preening their liberal feathers like peacocks, than to welcome one of W's enemies?
When I was there, Benno Schmidt was president, and he wouldn't have put up with this for a minute--he had this to say, and I think he is more accurate:
Former Yale president Benno Schmidt says admitting Mr. Hashemi is an exercise in "amorality and cynicism." He told me that "diversity simply cannot be allowed to trump all moral considerations." It's not as if Yale can't muster moral indignation. Yale is divesting from Sudan, responding to pressure from student activists and labor unions. But when it comes to a former Taliban official, there is a desire to move on.
And from my former dean?
Back in the early 1990s, when he was dean of Yale College, Yale history professor Don Kagan warned about what he called the university's "mutual massage" between value-neutral professors and soft-minded students. He is even more critical now: "The range of debate on campus is more narrow than ever today, and the Taliban incident is a wake-up call that moral relativism is totally unexamined here. The ability of students to even think clearly about patriotism and values is being undermined by faculty members who believe that at heart every problem has a U.S. origin." Mr. Kagan isn't optimistic that Yale will respond to outside pressure. "They have a $15 billion endowment, and I know Yale's governing board is handpicked to lick the boots of the president," he told me. "The only way Yale officials can be embarrassed is if a major donor publicly declares he is no longer giving to them. Otherwise, they simply don't care what the outside world thinks."
Ouch. Seems that things have changed a good bit since I was there.

UPDATE: The hits just keep on comin'. A former professor of mine (who did not give me a very good grade) gets quoted: "The reaction from some faculty members who were not part of the "town meeting" was swift. Steven Smith, a political science professor, said that confused and timid statements such as those at the "Town Meeting" represented a "failure to see the attack on America as an act of clear and unmitigated evil." " Indeed.