Quick Roundup 24

Geek Love

Reader Adrian Hester digs up yet another hilarious tee shirt. In case you can't read it:

Roses are #FF0000
Violets are #0000FF
All my base
Are belong to you

Don't get it? Go here. Or here.

Surprise!

Clerics of the "Religion of Peace" say that using nuclear weapons is OK.

The spiritual leaders of the ultra-conservatives [in Iran] have accepted the use of nuclear weapons as lawful in the eyes of shari'a. Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of [Ayatollah] Mesbah Yazdi [who is Iranian President Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor], has spoken for the first time of using nuclear weapons as a counter-measure. He stated that "in terms of shari'a, it all depends on the goal."

It seems that if you are an Islamic cleric that as long as that voice in your head your imaginary friend Allah approves of that goal, whatever you want to do is all right by him.

And remember: What the term "counter-measure" means will be decided by people in a country which seems proud of the fact that

... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad managed, in a very short time, to get the world to forget all about bin Laden. Now all eyes are on the Islamic Republic, and everyone is talking about the danger it [poses]. Two weeks ago, the strategy of assaulting [foreign] embassies was formed as well. America regards Iran and Syria as being behind the recent violent incidents, including the setting fire to embassies in Islamic countries. Mr. Ahmadinejad has managed to take the place of bin Laden...

Quick! Someone let Mr. Bush know that we won't offend the Moslems if we decide to employ some "counter-measures" of our own.

Houston 1836 Update

Myrhaf recently reported that the multiculturalists have apparently succeeded in getting the owners of Houston's new professional soccer team to change its name to something else from the date of the city's founding, 1836, because it might "offend" Mexicans. Texas won independence from Mexico that same year.

A commenter there noted that this might be more of a business decision dressed in multiculturalist garb to "look good" as the owners hoped to please a major portion of their fan base. Houston is split about evenly three ways among whites, blacks, and Hispanics, and the last are far more likely to attend games. (A crowd at a friendly match I attended between the national teams of the U.S. and Mexico was about 70% Mexican.) This sounded plausible, though still cowardly, to me until I read the following.

When the name 1836 was announced, not many people were crazy about it.

It was unorthodox for the American sports scene, which made it unique.

It was a fit for a city and a state proud of their history and where a visitor is likely to spot more Texas flags than U.S. flags flying from homes, cars and businesses.

Team president Oliver Luck said the name was never intended to be offensive to the Hispanic community, and those who are offended should believe him.

It's no secret that many influential Hispanics were, from the beginning, consulted about the name, and no objection was made then.

The name fell victim to a strong push by some in the corporate and political communities. It also fell victim to a drive by some within the media.

In the end, it was less about those who felt offended by the name and more about specific agendas set forth by some. [bold added]

I didn't much care for the name, but I care far less for the craven attitude displayed by the owners of the team formerly known as 1836. Certainly, one doesn't want to alienate a major part of the fan base, but it is obvious that reasonable steps were already taken in that direction. Once again, multiculturalism shows that it is about anything but political tolerance. If I ever attend a game, maybe I'll wave a placard labeled "1836".

A Carter Masterpiece of Evasion

Last night, I found myself in a foul mood and in need of comic relief. How fortunate that ex-President Jimmah Carter had decided to weigh in on the recent elections in Hamastan!

This piece would be nearly Swiftian but for the fact that its writer believes every word he wrote. Carter basically ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary that Hamas and the people who elected them are savages, looking instead at that molehill of commonality with the West, the mechanics of their parliamentary government, to claim deliriously something to the effect of "They're just like us, so let's trust them. And give them money."

I guffawed when he expressed hope that Hamas might "propose moderates or technocrats for prime minister". A technocrat? Why does this make me think of Michael Dukakis wearing an oversized turban and strapping on explosives?

And then there's his schtick about what a great bulwark against abuse Mahmoud Abbas presents to Hamas.

Abbas also has the power to select and remove the prime minister, to issue decrees with the force of law when parliament is not in session, and to declare a state of emergency. As commander in chief, he also retains ultimate influence over the National Security Force and Palestinian intelligence.

I guess -- until Hamas decides to assassinate him or threatens him enough to transform him into a rubber stamp in human form. Does Carter even know what a terrorist is? Or could it be that what Hamas wants is so obviously "true" to him that he can't imagine Hamas needing to force anyone to toe the line?

Most ludicrous, though, was Carter's whole basic point, which is captured best in the following paragraphs.

Abbas informed me after the election that the Palestinian Authority was $900 million in debt and that he would be unable to meet payrolls during February. Knowing that Hamas would inherit a bankrupt government, U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel.

...

This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies.

...

It would not violate any political principles to at least give the Palestinians their own money....

Sure, Jimmy. Let's please let the Hamastanis have what is theirs, provided we get to keep what is ours. They're nearly a billion in debt and the United States is merely ceasing to continue forking over the money of its own citizens to these brutes. And the idea that continued aid will "induce" a moderation in anyone's policies has already been shown farcical by the fact that the Hamastanis elected terrorists bent on the destruction of Israel while receiving aid.

To allow the Hamastanis to reap what they sow is not to "punish" them, but to permit them to suffer the consequences of their own actions. If there is one thing that would either remove them as a threat or help them grow up, this is exactly it. We should be talking about a total blockade of Hamastan, not a relaxation of a minor curtailment of aid.

As always, Carter, our nation's elder doddering statesman gets things completely wrong.

-- CAV