Jihadis Going for Armageddon

Full speed and full force

"Twin Towers" by Dolores Wesnak, 2002

This was it. This really was the beginning of the war. The Armageddon. Jihad in full force, in full speed, fully intentional. Islam entered the United States in the most dramatic of ways. It was not creeping sharia, or even stealthy jihad (whatever that is). It certainly wasn't hijra.

It was Jihad, in all its glory and all its euphoria. In the name of Allah, for the sake of Muslims, to purify the world of the apostates and infidels and render it immaculate for Islam, the jihadis bombed the iconic towers of America. They were going for the jugular.

We should have got this by now. Some of us do, others are stuck on categorizing Islam and Muslims into various unconnected parts. But Islam is united and Muslims are one. They take apostasy and contradiction of the Koran very seriously.

I don't know when they'll strike again, these jihadis - the avant-garde of the Muslims. Hijra and creeping sharia will work for a while, but after so many centuries, Allah is impatient. That is perhaps his greatest weakness. Yes, he's waited for twelve hundred years (well, six hundred after being kicked out of Spain), in the sidelines with thuggeries and violence here and there. But, his violence betrays his agitation. He is not a calm god.

Now he wants the big prize. The whole Western world is wavering under the anticipation of his wrath. Will he wait, or will he strike again?  

"No," he says, "not those interminable twelve hundred years. Not that tortuous wait, not that endless patience, it goes against my nature! But now I have that stooge in Iran, he’s mad enough and smart enough to start with my nemeses, those Jews, right across from his god-forsaken country. We’ll then just go from there."

"What's taking them so long to get it?" he chuckles to Mohammed who sits across from him, still in shock at what turned out to be paradise.

Oprah, the Most Powerful Every Woman in America

Throws a big bash in her honor

Criss Angel, the Mindfreak illusionist

Oprah hosted a block party to send off her 24th season in her hometown of Chicago. She closed off a whole street and opened up her bash for the public. Her crew worked 24/7 to pull off the spectacle of a "flash mob" with hundreds of people dancing in unison to a song by that multi-culti group the Black Eyed Peas.

Did Oprah dance? Well, yes. But she mostly jumped up and down in her chirpy yellow sweat shirt/black pants combo, her ponytail bopping like a young girl's. Oprah is embracing her body, like she tells everyone else to do, because that is the only explanation for her unflattering get up. This leaves us wondering when she'll start one of her weight loss programs again.

Jennifer Hudson, another Chicagoite, came on to sing "I'm every woman" which Oprah mouthed the words to. Hudson later talked to Oprah about her new baby. This every woman, this every Oprah woman, the representative of Chicago, is actually a single mom, with a "fiancé" conveniently standing by. Don't hold your breath for a wedding, and if that, for a long marriage. Single motherhood is after all second only to sainthood.

Oprah has to think of her audience, which is mostly middle class, and middle America. So she brought in James Taylor who sang his ballad "How sweet it is to be loved by you," as Oprah shouts out to the crowd "Chicago!" Of course, everything revolves around Oprah, everyone loves Oprah, especially this 20,000 strong crowd. And there were the hip (not hop) Rascal Flatts who cover a lot of ground with their country rock pop style.

Oprah has to bring in the magic, the angels, the mysticism. After all, she is a great proponent of the spiritual movement The Secret. Magician Criss Angel (not a real angel) did the trick for her, by channelling his Mindfreak TV act to make random word guesses.

So, why Chicago, and why this huge block party on the 24th season and not the 25th silver anniversary? My own, non-mindfreak, guess is that this is "The year of the Chicago." Barack is from Chicago after all, and Oprah alienated her loyal female followers when she openly campaigned for him. But, everything is always about Oprah first. With Barack successfully in the White House, Chicago still belongs to Oprah, who is the most powerful every woman in America.

Ms. Palin

Not much of a revolutionary

Sarah Palin's family at the Republican National Convention

Former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin has an article on the Wall Street Journal where she talks about health care. There are many interesting things about this article - I won't go into the content, but rather the style.

Firstly, it contrasts with many of her Facebook articles, which are like short research pieces replete with footnotes. Her WSJ article is almost a call to action for "ordinary" Americans. Yet, Facebook is a networking website, more in line with the type of article she wrote for WSJ. So, unpredictable Sarah is going against the grain once again, using an informal setting to distribute her more formal articles.

I think this is a clever strategy, since it pulls in many ordinary readers who would not be attracted to WSJ. And it also gives credibility to Palin, since she's using Facebook more like the WSJ than an informal networking site.

But, the more interesting part is this. At the end of her WSJ article, her name is signed off as Ms. Palin. I suppose there are very few options left. "Former governor" reminds people of her strange resignation from state politics. She is no longer a vice presidential candidate, nor is she the Vice President, thus calling her "Former vice presidential candidate" would again remind people of the negatives.

But, why not Mrs. Palin? Why resort to the Ms. title which is more liberal than conservative, more feminist than traditional? Well, Ms. Palin is neither conservative nor traditional. In fact, she is a member of an organization titled "Feminists for Life" whose anti-abortion platform also supports single motherhood (including single mother college girls), and motherhood and careers, amongst other things. In keeping with that membership, Palin became the focus of a strange video called "I am Sarah Palin" taped by prominent "conservative" women of the non-MSM. For anyone versed with feminist history, this "slogan" strongly resembles the hard-core feminist song "I am woman, hear me roar," with lyrics like this:

If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman

So, why not Mrs. Palin? Well, a Mrs. Palin would not have the frazzled family life that Palin clearly has, with a daughter who is a single mother. The father of this grandchild was recently interviewed on Vanity Fair and voiced his experiences – mostly negative - with the Palin family. I don’t know how true or false his statements are, but surely Palin contributed to this young man’s anger (and betrayal) when she used him to placate her daughter, allowing them to do many things including sharing a bedroom together in her mansion in Alaska. The ironic part is that the article is titled (tongue-in-cheek, perhaps, and referring to other pop culture moments) "Me and Mrs. Palin."

A Mrs. Palin would have concentrated more on her family than her career, give or take our human tendency to err even in the best of conditions. As bloggers and even a few MSM conservative writers have noted, a Mrs. Palin would have most likely avoided the difficult family circumstances which now seems her lot. In fact, there are regular circulating rumors that her marriage is not as stable as it looks.

But, even if she had taken family first, and run for these political positions later in life after Track, Trig and Willow are grown, keeping a Mrs. before her name would give her a different approach to politics than a Ms. I can imagine she would actually be more conservative, more traditional, and with fewer contradictions between her label as a conservative, and her behavior as one. She might even have been a truer role model to the women who are trying to grapple the incredible pressures they face as working women with young families in tow. She might have been a true conservative.

Using a Mrs. would actually be a revolutionary act, which would alter her (and women’s) state of mind, liberating us out of the feminist hole which we’re all trapped in. Imagine, liberation and revolution, all in one sentence, and having nothing to do with feminism or the 1960s.

For more blog posts I did on Sarah Palin go here, here, here, here,  here, and here. And my article at the American Thinker is here. It looks like I took her seriously from the beginning.

Are You a Paul or a John Guy?

Or a Beatles or a Rolling Stones...

"English Tea," from Paul McCartney's 2005 album 
Chaos and Creation in the Backyard

I've always somewhat acknowledged that the Paul and John duo made the Beatles into a genius band. But, I've always liked Paul best.

Recently, I wrote a post on Paul's rise from the depths of his band Wings' mediocrity. I specifically reviewed Paul's 2005 album, Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, where I was surprised to find the Beatles style reawakened. Perhaps I made too rash a conclusion in defying what is commonly accepted about the brilliant Paul/John duo. But, Paul's witty and lyrical songs much later in his life somehow meant to me that he was the leader (please note that I didn't write genius) behind the duo.

I think that Paul's musicality was derailed by his over-possessive and omnipresent wife, as I wrote in my previous post. Paul seemed to have regained some of his Beatles greatness after her death (and during her illness with cancer, as I explain later on). Perhaps I'm still giving too much credit to Paul, and if John had outlived his own intrusive wife (or just lived longer), he might have improved on his disappointing solo years. But, I will continue to be biased and say that I doubt that John would have risen to these expectations.

"Little Willow" from Paul McCartney's 1997 album 
Flaming Pie

Paul's wife Linda was diagnosed with cancer in 1995. As harsh as this may seem, I think this left room for Paul to compose his songs undisturbed - hence the lovely "Little Willow" from his 1997 album Flaming Pie.

Here is an interesting, and eye-opening, discussion on the Paul/John duo and genius. When will we get a group now that could surprise us like the Beatles did, with fresh new takes on life? Such an absence is a heart-aching loss to humanity, I think.

Indians Will Be Indians - Comments at Bad Eagle

Rules of engagement


David Yeagley has put up my blog post on Indians both on the Op-Ed section and in the forums of his website Bad Eagle. This includes comments I made to questions he and other readers asked me about my post.

I know my post was severe. But, perhaps, the more you expect from people, the tougher you are on them. Perhaps David is right that indeed we project a lot onto Indians.

But, Indians are making large, and sometimes, uncontested demands here in Canada on land rights, historical reparations, and other very important cultural and social issues. I don’t think we should hold them at arms length, relating to them on some nebulous spiritual level. They make concrete demands, and we should respond with concrete rebuttals (or acquiesces). No one is exempt from our rules of engagement as a nation. No one gets to write his own methods of interaction, all by himself based on some untouchable premise. Indians are no exception.

Like Clockwork: Update On Mercer IV

Mercer as the nihilistic Usual (Ultimate) Suspect


I have a post up at Our Changing Landscape, continuing with my theme of critiquing non-liberal writers. Once again, Mercer is at the receiving end of my words.

Hosta Leaf

Watercolor study in green