Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Dishonest and Deceptive

I don't know if you heard Obama's speech yesterday. You can read the whole thing here. I think it's better to read it than to hear it as it is easy to get caught up in the spoken emotion of the performance rather than the words on the screen.

As a piece of political rhetoric I thought it was very well done. The media certainly loved it. However, I also thought the speech was dishonest, deceptive and emotionally manipulative, even a touch sinister. In the speech I find at least 4 dishonesties and deceptions.

1) Sure, Wright said some things. Obama addressed some of the statements by Rev. Wright.
"Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."
"They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -
a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with
America above all that we know is right with America..."
He acknowledged that Wright's sermons were "divisive" and "racially charged".

But this, as harsh as this may seem, is a sugar-coating of some of Wright's charges. Wright said on a DVD sold by the church itself, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." This is not merely divisive or racially charged. This is the worst kind of paranoid delusion. Wright accused the white-controlled government of waging biological warfare against blacks by inventing a fatal disease. Wright stood in a church and accused the government of essentially Nazi behavior; he accused the government of unspeakable evil. To call this divisive is not enough.

Likewise Wright said that FDR let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor to justify an imperial war in the Pacific. Again, not only is this factually wrong, it defames a man millions of Americans consider to be a hero. This kind of accusation is not merely criticism of US foreign policy, as Obama describes it. This is an extremist conspiracy delusion and an insult to a great American, someone who held the very office Obama is running to occupy.

2) But he's done a lot of good. Obama defended Wright by saying that despite his lunatic ravings he has done much good as pastor of the church.
"He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS."

All this may be true. But the he-was-wrong-but-has-done-much-good excuse doesn't seem to work for other people. Obama called for Don Imus to resign after a racially charge incident, despite the fact that Imus had entertained and informed people for 20 years on his radio show and used his fame and fortune to start and fund many charities including a camp for disabled children. Obama called for him to be fired, plain and simple. Or take the case of Michael Richards, who played Kramer on Seinfeld. The man was a talented and entertaining comic for 25 years, who entertained millions around the globe. He had a meltdown with a heckler one evening and was essentially banished from the entertainment world. These were not prepared remarks, mind you, but off the cuff insults during a moment of stress (unlike Wright he didn't put them on video and sell it for profit). Yet he did not get to use the I've-done-much-good-excuse.

Think back. Who else gets to scream in public like Wright and then excuse themselves because they've helped some other people? Please. I seriously doubt Obama would apply this standard to a white hate-monger. "David Duke is okay because he volunteers at the hospital." If I work at a soup kitchen do I get to use the word "nigger" in public? Not if I value my job and my teeth. Lots of evil men through history have started charities and orphanages, sponsored the arts, and helped their fellow men, even as they worked to fulfill their nefarious plans. Life is not a balanced ledger. You don't get to buy off your wrong-doings by helping people.

3) Hey man, blacks are angry. Oh, and whites too.
"That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. ... And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. ... But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
Obama then shifts to white anger.
"In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most
working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. ... So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."

True enough. You're angry, I'm angry, everybody's angry. Despite the eloquence, to say this is to say nothing. Anger is part of the human condition in a fallen world. Thanks for the insight, genius. Again though, Obama is using his well-written and well-delivered text to gloss over the fundamental problem. White anger is very rarely vented in public and certainly not in church. I'll give Obama's campaign $100 for every DVD the campaign can produce from a mainstream church where a white preacher screams about "lazy stupid niggers" or something similar. (Remember, Trinity is not some fringe group. It's the largest black church in Chicago with something like 8000 or 10000 members.) But the campaign won't find any such video from this century. Any white preacher at mainstream church who acted in a way remotely comparable to Wright would be dismissed. People would walk out. Some would shout back. Over the past generation whites have learned to be very careful with their anger in public. Obama is correct in that whites are angry but this anger is only expressed in the most controlled, most private settings. (Please, don't send me emails about lunatic local churches where some marginal preacher rambles in front of a dozen people. Wright preached in front of thousands and gave several services to SRO crowds on Sundays. Obama's campaign said Wright was one of the 10 most influential black preachers in America. Not marginal and not on the fringe.)

This issue is not about black anger. It's about the expression of that anger against whites in general expressed in church before thousands of applauding people. Wright spoke of "greedy whites" who "control the culture" "giving drugs" to blacks. This is more than anger. It's bigotry and if you're being intellectually honest, it's racism. Anger is acceptable. Racism isn't. What Obama seems to be saying, in a subtle way, is that it's okay for blacks to scream sheer racism in church because, well, they're black. So much for judging people by the content of their character. We've moved beyond that. Let's just judge them on the color of their skin.

4) We can't blame Wright because your white grandmother is a bigot. To me this is the worst kind of emotional extortion. This is where the speech derails and crashes. This is where someone should have heckled him.
"I can no more disown him [Wright] than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who
loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more
than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

There simply no comparison. None. Zero. His grandmother said she was afraid of black men on the street. Hey pal, Chris Rock said he was afraid of black men at the ATM. Jesse Jackson said he was relieved when the two men who came up behind him at night were white. Are these racist statements or merely honest expressions of real fears?

Moreover, private statements of bigotry by one's elderly relatives from 30 years ago cannot compare to public expressions of bigotry before thousands of people last year (recorded and sold by the church itself). Not. Comparable. This white woman helped raise him after his African father had abandoned his family and fled the freaking country and he compares her to a hate-filled spastic, gesticulating wildly on stage before an audience who applauds his racist paranoia? Maybe I romanticize my grandparents. Maybe I'm sentimental by nature but my jaw dropped when I read that. The implication of course is that we all have elderly relatives who have said bigoted things over the years so we can't sit in judgment of Wright. Well, I can and I will. Moreover, to imply that my relatives are in some way comparable to a race-baiting simpleton parading as a religious figure who thinks his malignant weekly ravings pass as sermons is profoundly insulting. Fuck you Barack.

No doubt this speech contains many more dodges and slights of hand but those are the ones that most appalled me.

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Change, Hope, Unity. And Blank-ness

Today's edition of Change, Hope and Unity focuses on Unity, by any means necessary.
African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.” [snip]...
Cleaver questioned why white superdelegates such as Massachusetts Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry weren’t being targeted to support Clinton after she carried their state.

If white people were being harassed and threatened because they were not supporting a white candidate, we’d see headlines,” he said.

Obama as Borg. You will be assimilated. New Obama slogan: Unity - You Will Join Us. Dissent Is Not an Option. But I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism? (I read that on a bumper sticker.) Wrong. Dissent from Hope can only be Despair. And despite all my efforts the Politics of Despair ain't selling. (Note to self: re-double effort.)

And on the pop culture front, here's a preview of the mass idiocy which will dominate American pop culture during the Obama Administration:
Is Fred Armisen, who is not African American, "black enough" to embody Obama on "Saturday Night Live"?
Debate over that question has been pinging around the Internet since Armisen, a veteran cast member, donned darker makeup to portray the Democratic candidate for the first time Saturday. [snip] ...
Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune put the question bluntly: "Call me crazy, but shouldn't 'Saturday Night Live's' fictional Sen. Barack Obama be played by an African-American?" (ed: Okay, you're batshit crazy.) Ryan went on to conclude: "I find 'SNL's' choice inexplicable. Obama's candidacy gives us solid proof of the progress that African-Americans have made in this country. I guess 'SNL' still has further to go on that front."

Hannah Pool, a writer for the Guardian newspaper in Great Britain, suggested the whole setup had "minstrel" overtones.
"Casting a black actor wouldn't have guaranteed the quality of the sketch, but it would have made the whole thing a lot less shoddy," Pool wrote. "Let's get one thing straight. The moment anyone starts reaching for 'blackface,' they are on extremely dodgy territory. Anyone who thinks it's either necessary or, for that matter, remotely funny to black-up needs to have the gauge on their moral compass reset."

That sound you hear in the background is Dave Chappelle and Eddie Murphy's heads exploding. Four years of this stuff. I can't wait! Guess I'll stop watching TV. Maybe with all the time saved I can learn to play the piano. See, hope lives.

Thursday's news about Obama's staff telling the Canadians not to worry, that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just for show (it fools the rubes in Ohio, don't you know?) has been confirmed. And Canadian TV is naming names:
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Whoosh! Austan Goolsbee, flushed down the Toilet of Hope.

Here's a short collection of misc items to finish the post.
The Times of London:
The problem is that there's a danger that the presidential contest between Mr Obama and Mr McCain will become not a debate but a silly battle of conflicting icons. You can be sure that, in the eyes of the rest of the world, and much of America, if Mr McCain wins it will be not because of his superior experience or the quality of his ideas, but because America is irredeemably racist.
Instead of being the welcome break with America's recent past that he truly is, he will be painted as a continuation of it. Worse, that that, he will have won by vanquishing Hope and Peace. He will be for ever The Man Who Shot Bambi.
New McCain slogan: I'll Crush Bambi. Now that's a bumper sticker

The Chicago Sun-Times:
The next day McCain mocked Obama, ''I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq." Obama fired back, ''I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets. But I have some news for John McCain. There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

So what is Obama's Iraq strategy? It seems to be that he knows al-Qaida is in Iraq but he's going to pull out anyway. But if al-Qaida establishes a base in Iraq, he will go back in. Does that sound confused to you? Me, too.
His policy, in a nutshell, seems to be this: Pull troops out of Iraq and hope for the best. And anyway, the real issue is what cowboy Bush and McCain did five years ago.
Obama vs. Angelina Jolie? At least on Iraq:
What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. [snip]...
As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq.

But what's Brad's opinion? Do Angelina and George Clooney have political discussions over appletini's while Brad plays with the kids by the pool? And won't somebody please think of poor Jennifer! [insert anguished wail]

On Nightline Hillary Quotes Obama: "Blank Screen"
"I think the best description, actually, is in Barack's own book, the last book he wrote, 'Audacity of Hope,' where he said that he's a blank screen. And people of widely differing views project what they want to believe onto him. And then he went on to say, 'I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.'"
I guess he's a leader of the Blank Community. Obama, our first blank president? The jokes write themselves, just put the comic in blank-face. (Whoops. Do I need to have my moral compass reset? I report for reeducation after lunch.)

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Muhammad Cartoons 3: Chaos in Copenhagen

Since the Danish Muhammad (Mohammed, Mahomet) cartoons are back in the news I thought I'd reprint a selection of my Muhammad cartoons, just to goose the fanatics out there. My collected Muhammad cartoons can be found here. 1. Crybaby Muhammad. I always liked this one, as a commentary on the hyper-sensitive, oh-so-fragile emotional state of so many Muhammadeans.
2. Muhammad's View of Free Expression. Not only is this one accurate, but the events in Denmark validate it.
3. Footprint Muhammad. I've read that the bottoms of feet are particularly offensive in Arab cultures. Plus, including Ali should piss off the Shi'a nutbags out there.
4. Dog Muhammad. I drew this one to support Swedish artist Lars Vilks. People seemed to like it. He is kind of cute. More on that episode here.
5. Atomic Muhammad. An homage to the famous Muhammad with the turban bomb, but with nuclear warheads and a mushroom cloud.
6. Muhammad the Skull. Muhammad, the Bearded Skull, Bringer of Death. The least amusing of the bunch.
7. Denmark Rocks. Finally, a show of support for beleaguered Denmark. We're with you, guys.

I have a few other cartoons. See Dog-Faced Muhammad! See Effeminate Muhammad! See Muhammad in Hellfire! And yes, even the Muhammad who loves cartoons.

Why do I do this? Will I apologize? Read the links. Feel free to send you comments, complaints and yes, your pathetic threats to Threats or sad little attempts to convert me to Islam may be published and subjected to ridicule and mockery. Good luck, kids.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, November 03, 2007

UK Immigration Craziness

Charles Moore, in that notorious racist hate-rag, the Telegraph UK, writes this about current British immigration "policy" (emphasis added):
The craziness consists in thinking that we can accept any number of new people without demanding anything of them, and yet leave the idea of "we" undamaged. To anyone who is not an extreme economic liberal, or a Western-hating Marxist, or a euro-fanatic, the idea of a nation is intrinsic to other ideas we care about – culture, identity, neighbourliness, community.

If we are decent people, we do not hate the idea that newcomers can join us. But we want the place we live in to be more than a populated space, especially an over-populated space. We want it to be home.

How can it easily be home – for us, or for them – when, as is now the case, 450,000 children in British primary schools do not have English as a first language? How can it, emotionally or even physically, be home for the indigenous poor if the newcomers move ahead of them in the council housing queue?

The craziness also damages immigrants, when they come too fast and, in the case of some minorities, furious. Far from integrating, they close in on themselves. Far from wanting to be British, they seek salvation in the assertion of ethnic or religious identity.

He continues, addressing the one particular school, funded no doubt, by our enemy-allies abroad:

In the King Fahad Academy in Acton, our researchers picked up a school book produced by our "allies", the Saudis. Divine Unity explains to pupils the "great requirements for hating the unbelievers". They must shun local celebrations such as Christmas.

They must not sing or dance or go to films or observe the Western calendar. The book emphasises the "impermissibility of congratulating them [unbelievers] or offering them condolences" because, if that happens, the "love towards them will become firm".

When we published, the Muslim Council of Britain defended such books by saying that it was not illegal to print anti-Western material. No, but if people preach "Hate thy neighbour", and if they are defended when they do so by the body that says it speaks for a community of perhaps two million people, who can say that our national cohesion, even our basic security, is assured?

None of this is any surprise to people who keep up with these issues. But in light of the recent Blogger Civil War, I have to ask - is Moore a racist for caring about culture and identity? Is he racist for thinking that the British government should care for the indigenous poor before the immigrants? Is he racist for wanting Britain "to be home".

Thursday, November 01, 2007

See You at the Gates

I've been posting a lot at the Gate of Vienna lately. The great Blog Civil War has been very dramatic. You can follow it all over at GoV. At first, I admit, I was stunned. Being called a racist and a Holocaust denier, however indirectly, is not pleasant. But the civil war has actually been very informative. I feel like an ice-jam has been broken in my thinking. More to come.

You can follow all the recent comment at Gates of Vienna at

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Dirty Hands

Hot Air and LGF (along with Jawa Report, Infidel Bloggers Alliance and other minor blogs) have spent the past few days repeating that they don't want to be involved in any way with bad nasty racists, religious bigots, or groups that espouse ethnic separatism.

Except that it's too late. Many of our closest allies are up to their necks in racism, religious bigotry and ethnic separatism, not to mention ethnic supremacy. For example, our NATO ally Turkey was created from a cauldron of the religiously motivated mass murder of the Armenians and the expulsion of the Greek Christians. The entire ideology of the Turkish state is based on the ethnic and linguistic supremacy of the Turks over the Kurds, as Spengler reminded us last week. Yet they've been our close ally for 50 years.

Japan, our closest ally in Asia, is a thoroughly racist state as a matter of policy. Third and fourth generation people of Korean decent cannot be Japanese citizens. They are legally Koreans despite not speaking the language or having ever set foot in Korea. This is state policy and has been since, well, since the Koreans were brought to Japan. Every year Japanese politicians including the PM visit the Yasukuni Shrine where the spirits of the war dead, including the Imperial war criminals who terrorized mainland Asia, are enshrined. Japanese textbooks, again as a matter of official policy, downplay or deny the Imperial atrocities in China and the size and scope of the so-called Korean "comfort women" (read sexual slaves). Yet Japan continues to be a valued ally.

During the Cold War the dearly departed saints of both parties, Kennedy and Reagan, worked with actual gangsters and deposed fascists in the fight against Communism in Latin America. These were not merely impolite people or mean-spirited nasties like the VB or the BNP. These were actual murders and true fascists who worked with the US government under both Democrats and Republicans. The US even worked with the quasi-fascist Regime of the Colonels in Greece as a bulwark against Communism. Again, these guys weren't Boy Scouts. The VB and the BNP, for all their faults, do work within a system of free elections. The Greek Colonels, Batista and Samoza were never democrats. They didn't even bother with the illusion.

We worked with some pretty disreputable people in the Cold War because it was a war and defeating Communism was more important than imposing a litmus test on the beliefs of our would-be allies. If, as Norman Podhoretz says ,the war against Islamofascism is World War IV, then we will need allies and these allies will not always share our very American views on 'race' (whatever that word means this week). In other words, we will have to work with people who have dirty hands. Or we can adopt a posture of self-righteousness and moral preening and wring our hands about those super-duper-mega-very bad 'racists' in Europe and isolate the people we should be engaging.

Constructive Engagement

"Constructive engagement" was Reagan's policy for apartheid South Africa. Under constructive engagement the US did not absolutely condemn the racist apartheid regime of white South Africa, but rather sought to maintain some degree of interaction in an attempt to persuade the apartheid government to mend its ways. Apartheid South Africa was the very definition of racism, yet the Republican's saint Ronald Reagan refused to utterly condemn the regime, preferring dialog.

If you suggest the same thing today with regards to the VB or the BNP you get banned from LGF or Hot Air.

Banned from Hot Air

AllahPundit has banned me from Hot Air. I assume it was for the following comment.

Krydor and others - Yes, you finally broke my spirit. I confess. I’m a die-hard fascist from way back. Each morning my wife and I bow in our Shinto shrine and pray for the eternal health of the Emperor.

I get it. You are better than me because you think that Griffin a really, really, really bad man, just as bad as Khomeini; that the BNP is equal to Hizb ut Tahir or Hamas; that the 4th largest party in Britain is truly a collection of sinister gangsters waiting for the right moment to violently overthrow Her Majesty’s Government.

Clearly I’m unworthy to engage in this discussion with my moral superiors. My most abject apologies for polluting your pristine discourse with my filth and pro-fascist propaganda. I’d have more to say but I have to go polish my Oswald Mosley statuettes.

Thomas the Wraith on October 28, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Clearly my sarcasm was not appreciated.

Update: AllahPundit kindly responded to my email. Apparently I am considered an apologist for the BNP despite my expressed statement to the contrary. So it goes.

In condemning the BNP AllahPundit relies heavily on some quotes from Griffin provided by a commenter. Note this one:
“Muslims gang rape women in Norway and other cultures. Only Muslims do this,” Griffin said.
While bigoted, this is not racist. Some may consider this splitting hairs but I think it's important to maintain the distinction between racism and religious or other forms of bigotry. (I know, you're thinking that of course I would say this since I'm a religious bigot. )
“You seek to deny the white people of the world the right to collect in their own community and self determinations; then you are a racist,” Griffin said.
This is repugnant in an American context but in England, this is more complicated. The US allows indigenous peoples to gather together separated from the rest of society. We call these Tribal Reservations and few seriously accuse these Indian tribes of being racists. The English are an ethnic group. They deserve to be recognized as such in their own homeland.

I'm certain that Nick Griffin is a thoroughly repellent individual. As a white man married to a Japanese woman I'm sure he would spit on me as a cowardly race-mixer. If he were an American I would condemn him in the harshest possible terms. But he's an English politician in England advocating for his own people and culture in their own land. I don't want to have dinner with the man. But branding him as a racist and a super-duper-mega bad man is moral posing and an exercise in self-righteousness. It does nothing to help us understand why the BNP is more popular every year or the social and political dynamics that cause ordinary Brits to join that party.

But it makes us feel good and in an American context this is all that matters, right? Yeah team.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Against a Common Foe

There's been a sort of blogosphere fistfight over the past few day at LGF, Brussels Journal, Hot Air and even at the Infidel Bloggers Alliance. Broadly speaking the fight was over the 'racist' views of the Flemish party VB and the British National Party. LGF roundly condemned the VB earlier in the week. Then tonight both LGF and Hot Air jumped on Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP.

Both LGF and Hot Air are major blogs with advertisers (through the PJM network). Hot Air is the creation of columnist, NRO and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin. These blogs are closely watched and cannot afford any taint of what may ever appear to be racism.

Nevertheless... Europe is not American and Europeans are not Americans. A Turk can move to Belgium or a Pakistani to Britain and each can gain Belgian or British citizenship. But a Turk can never be Flemish nor a Pakistani English (or Scottish or Welsh).

Europe is on the frontlines of the war against jihadism. The front runs through Brussels, London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Amsterdam and Berlin. The front runs between houses and down streets. As the struggle unfolds it will be wagged by Europeans, in Europe. Not only have reasonable, mainstream politicians and leaders proven themselves incapable of mounting an effective response to jihadism, these people are actually responsible for allowing the Muslim fighters to immigrate in the first place.

Europe faces a civil, political and social struggle between the indigenous Europeans and Muslim immigrants. We cannot realistically expect that those who'll engage in this struggle will be nice, upstanding, well-spoken young people, free of any racist attitudes or beliefs. We should not expect that they will conform to our very American views on race, ethnicity and culture. They won't.

So how do we react? Do we condemn them for this and ignore the struggle we share against jihadism? Do we naively wait for a European who will be against jihadism yet be enlightened (by our standards) on race? Or do we write off Europe as an irredeemable pit of racists and jihadists and proclaim a plague on both their houses?

This is not realistic. We will need allies in Europe and the future leaders of Europe will be much more like Franco than Blair. America has a long tradition of working with disreputable characters against a common foe. If we can free ourselves from the adolescent desire to maintain moral purity then we can revive this tradition.

The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend but that doesn't mean we can't work together.

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Dog Muhammad

Let the insanity begin!

The Swedish artist Lars Vilks made a line drawing of Muhammad (spelled Muhammed in Swedish apparently). Big surprise! Two hundred quintzillion Muslims around the world are displeased with his effort. (Background from NRO.) But the Swedes have undergone a national spine transplant and are not prostrating themselves before the OIC. A major Swedish newspaper wrote that the country would not apologize. The artist also refuses to apologize. Several newspapers have reprinted the cartoon of Mohammad (or is it Mohammed or Muhammed?) with the body of a dog. Add this to the list of 10 Million Things That Offend Muslims.

Over the next week or two Muslim activists, imams and dictators will whip up the mob. Islamic Rage Boy and his posse will get some press, no doubt in fine form, super-duper mega pissed off at the unspeakable blasphemy of a pencil drawing in a country thousands of miles away whose language they can't read. Feel the sincerity.

Well, never let it be said that I missed a chance to pile on while the piling is good. Yesterday I posted Muhammad the Dog, my variation on the original drawing, the body of a canine with the head of the first Muslim. Now I give you the Big Mo, not with the body of a dog but as a dog, complete with all the dog parts, enjoying a fine bowl of pork. He may be cute but he's not housebroken.

I have a few more planned including one extra-offensive cartoon guaranteed to give Islamic Rage Boy a stroke. While you're here you can view my cartoons from the first Cartoon War. Leave your angry sputtering crazy-talk in the comments or email me in my secure undisclosed location at As usual, those who threaten me will receive public mockery in return; those who try to convert me will get a laughter and derision. Happy typing.

Labels: ,

Muhammad the Dog

Cartoon Wars II: Sweden

This time it's one cartoon by an artist named Lars Vilks. Gates of Vienna has a round-up as well as news that Swedish newspapers and the Swedish government are standing firm against jihadist intimidation. So far Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt (all U.S. allies and recipients of billions in aid) have each weighed in with "outrage" at this "irresponsible and offensive" provocation. And it's not even a good cartoon.

To show support for my Swedish brethren I'll join the fray on my obscure little blog with more simple and stupid Muhammad cartoons. This one I call Muhammad with Dog's Head. Other cartoons will follow as I finish them.

If you like this one please copy and post it wherever you want. Or just link here.

My cartoons from Cartoon Wars I: Denmark can be found here. Feel free to leave comments or email me at Comments and emails may be posted if they are amusing, threatening or just plain weird.

Keyboard jihadists take note: I'm holding my most offensive drawing in reserve. Threats and incoherent anger in the comments only encourage me to post it.


Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Banned in Iran!

That's right - Thomas the Wraith, banned in the Islamic Republic of Iran according to Host Tracker. Must be those Mohammad cartoons from a while back. Ahh yes, the gift that keeps on giving.


Wednesday, June 27, 2007

"Or What?" Longing for a World Without Consequences

It seems to me that the US and the West in general has nearly completed the construction of a consequence-free politics, a world where we make demands but when presented with the inevitable question, “Or what?” we lapse into silence or incoherence.

On the illegal alien problem, the Senate makes numerous, tough sounding demands about “touchbacks” and visa overstays and requirements for “Z-visas”. But if an illegal doesn’t meet these requirements or fails to even apply and “come out of the shadows” what will be the consequences? The Grand Compromisers say they’ll be deported. We all know these are false threats. People who enter the country illegally or overstay their visas today are not deported, at least not in any significant numbers. If our political elite can’t stomach enforcement personnel rounding up crying and wailing illegals and deporting them today, (see Ted Kennedy and the usual sob sisters in Congress) why will they be able to do so tomorrow? Does the Grand Compromise legislation grant our heretofore spineless political overlords a spine?

The President says that it is “intolerable” that Iran develop a nuclear weapon. Or what, George? Will Bush strike the ayatollahs after they build the Bomb? Before? Wasn’t it intolerable that North Korea build the Bomb? Remind me again of the consequences there.

Repeat the paragraph above in regards to supporting terror groups in Iraq or arming the Taliban in Afghanistan. With the same results.

Darfur is supposed to be “unacceptable”, “intolerable”, “genocide.” And what are the consequences? A concert and a vaguely disapproving report from an EU sub-committee.

Last summer, when Israel tried to enforce consequences on Hezbullah and Lebanon for kidnapping its soldiers and attacking its cities with missiles, the Usual Suspects whined that the response was “disproportionate.” (Watch: if in fact the Grand Compromise passes, heaven forbid, we will hear that word or it’s synonyms over and over if the feds actually try to enforce the deportation provisions. The crybabies in the media can always find a sympathetic story of a young, telegenic mother who “is only trying to make a better life for her family”. The law be damned! There should not be consequences!)

Our rhetoric is completely disconnected from reality. We have confused Process with Results. We speak of great ambitions but perform only the most meager actions. We have inverted TR's old maxim. Now we speak loudly and carry a wet noddle. Unfortunately, we live in a real, gritty world of real, tangible consequences. We will be reminded of that sooner or later. And we will not like it.