Something I found on the KXLY web site. Somebody must be practicing.
Looking Back
2 weeks ago
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
More Hate Mongering
In today's Spokesman Review, Cal Thomas informs us that Major Hasan's attack on his fellow soldiers proves that our country is blinded by tolerance.
By now, the script should be disturbingly familiar. Whether in the Middle East, or increasingly in America, a fanatical Muslim blows up or goes on a shooting spree, killing many. This is quickly followed by “condemnations” from “Muslim civil rights groups,” like the Council on American-Islamic Relations. We are then warned by the president and some newspaper editorials not to jump to conclusions, or to stereotype.
Should we jump to conclusions or stereotype? Cal doesn't explicitly say.
People claiming to know Hasan told interviewers he made frequent statements against the wars and the U.S. presence in Islamic countries. Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican, told reporters after he was briefed on the shootings that Hasan “took a lot of advanced training in shooting.” Why would a psychiatrist need advanced training in shooting unless he believed in murder as therapy?
Shouldn’t that, coupled with his statements about “the aggressor” and other actions – including his preference for Muslim clothing – have alerted someone in authority that he might be a time bomb waiting to go off?
I've learned to shoot a lot of weapons, but I've never heard of "advanced training in shooting." Should we be concerned with people who exercise their Second Amendment rights--especially if they wear Muslim clothing?
How much longer will we tolerate fighting this war as if it were a minor crime wave? Our enemies are fighting to win and they are fighting everywhere, including within our borders. People trained to appear nonthreatening, until the threat becomes obvious and it is too late to do anything about it, are infiltrating our government and society at every level.
What do we do about these nonthreatening-appearing people?
It is irrelevant that some have put the number of radicalized Muslims worldwide at 10 percent. Even if that figure is accurate, 100 million jihadists can cause a lot of damage, as they plot the destruction of Western democracies. Other wars have been won with far fewer soldiers and far fewer dupes.
Cal doesn't offer a solution other than we should do something. But his intent is clear.
His comments also make me wonder. What other ethnic, religious, racial or cultural groups are we being too tolerant of? American history is replete with acts of violence committed against groups and individuals. Some in the name of a religion. People like that have been infiltrating our government and society for years.
From Cal Thomas's point of view it appears you should make sure you are born into the right group of people in the first place, lest we be blinded by tolerating you.
By now, the script should be disturbingly familiar. Whether in the Middle East, or increasingly in America, a fanatical Muslim blows up or goes on a shooting spree, killing many. This is quickly followed by “condemnations” from “Muslim civil rights groups,” like the Council on American-Islamic Relations. We are then warned by the president and some newspaper editorials not to jump to conclusions, or to stereotype.
Should we jump to conclusions or stereotype? Cal doesn't explicitly say.
People claiming to know Hasan told interviewers he made frequent statements against the wars and the U.S. presence in Islamic countries. Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican, told reporters after he was briefed on the shootings that Hasan “took a lot of advanced training in shooting.” Why would a psychiatrist need advanced training in shooting unless he believed in murder as therapy?
Shouldn’t that, coupled with his statements about “the aggressor” and other actions – including his preference for Muslim clothing – have alerted someone in authority that he might be a time bomb waiting to go off?
I've learned to shoot a lot of weapons, but I've never heard of "advanced training in shooting." Should we be concerned with people who exercise their Second Amendment rights--especially if they wear Muslim clothing?
How much longer will we tolerate fighting this war as if it were a minor crime wave? Our enemies are fighting to win and they are fighting everywhere, including within our borders. People trained to appear nonthreatening, until the threat becomes obvious and it is too late to do anything about it, are infiltrating our government and society at every level.
What do we do about these nonthreatening-appearing people?
It is irrelevant that some have put the number of radicalized Muslims worldwide at 10 percent. Even if that figure is accurate, 100 million jihadists can cause a lot of damage, as they plot the destruction of Western democracies. Other wars have been won with far fewer soldiers and far fewer dupes.
Cal doesn't offer a solution other than we should do something. But his intent is clear.
His comments also make me wonder. What other ethnic, religious, racial or cultural groups are we being too tolerant of? American history is replete with acts of violence committed against groups and individuals. Some in the name of a religion. People like that have been infiltrating our government and society for years.
From Cal Thomas's point of view it appears you should make sure you are born into the right group of people in the first place, lest we be blinded by tolerating you.
Monday, November 9, 2009
You Go First
One can only imagine why this warning was attached to the curling iron. Did someone try to curl their eyebrows or eyelashes?No, the curling iron is not mine.
Speed Demon
Over the weekend I finally bought a watch to replace the one my sweat killed during the summer. A nice, cheap Timex Ironman Triathlon watch--perfect for a poseur like me. And it was on sale!
Looking at the Spokesman Review clock at the beginning and end of a run is okay for a rough estimate but it's not enough to answer the question, "Am I running faster?" My marathon training last year involved a lot of running (duh, Hank!) and I'd have to say that was my best year for running--except for the part where I had to train for and run a marathon. BTW, I am still on track for running one every 51 years.
Using my Bloomsday results as a guide--I've done the last 14--my fastest time ever was 1:01:45 and that was in 2008 which kind of confirms my "best year" hypothesis. Yeah, I'm getting all scientific here. My last three Bloomsday finish times are in the 1:01:45 to 1:12:08 range. For five years before that I was accompanying Steph so those times don't count. But before that, I was in the same range. I think it's safe to say I can consistently run an 8:30-9:00 minute mile pace for 7.46 miles of Bloomsday. Heck, for the first half of the marathon I kept a comfortable 9:00 mile pace. I don't want to talk about the second half.
Anyway, today I ran for four miles and got my split for each mile. I took my shoes off at the 2-1/2 mile mark which took a minute so I had to subtract a minute from the third mile, which also afforded me a minute to catch my breath so that's kinda cheating, but hey if I was to go totally Type A I'd be out there measuring the exact distances and marking them off with spray paint and I'd be wearing a heart monitor complete with GPS and an avalanche transponder so I think I'm allowed a little leeway here.
Mile 1 - 7:36
Mile 2 - 7:36
Mile 3 - 7:38
Mile 4 - 7:47
Total - 30:37
I find I need to warm up during the first 2-3 miles and then I get into my rhythm. During the fourth mile I was breathing easy and running comfortably at a pace I felt I could continue for...um...well...at least another mile. I guess the test would be to check my mile splits during a run to work.
I think the answer to the question is, "Yes, I am running faster." Now if I brought my weight from the upper end--but still in the normal range--of my allowed Body Mass Index to the lower end--a twenty pound difference--I could probably pick up the pace a little. But I love my mint chocolate chip ice cream. And beer.
Regardless, next year will bring my first under-an-hour Bloomsday finish.
Looking at the Spokesman Review clock at the beginning and end of a run is okay for a rough estimate but it's not enough to answer the question, "Am I running faster?" My marathon training last year involved a lot of running (duh, Hank!) and I'd have to say that was my best year for running--except for the part where I had to train for and run a marathon. BTW, I am still on track for running one every 51 years. Using my Bloomsday results as a guide--I've done the last 14--my fastest time ever was 1:01:45 and that was in 2008 which kind of confirms my "best year" hypothesis. Yeah, I'm getting all scientific here. My last three Bloomsday finish times are in the 1:01:45 to 1:12:08 range. For five years before that I was accompanying Steph so those times don't count. But before that, I was in the same range. I think it's safe to say I can consistently run an 8:30-9:00 minute mile pace for 7.46 miles of Bloomsday. Heck, for the first half of the marathon I kept a comfortable 9:00 mile pace. I don't want to talk about the second half.
Anyway, today I ran for four miles and got my split for each mile. I took my shoes off at the 2-1/2 mile mark which took a minute so I had to subtract a minute from the third mile, which also afforded me a minute to catch my breath so that's kinda cheating, but hey if I was to go totally Type A I'd be out there measuring the exact distances and marking them off with spray paint and I'd be wearing a heart monitor complete with GPS and an avalanche transponder so I think I'm allowed a little leeway here.
Mile 1 - 7:36
Mile 2 - 7:36
Mile 3 - 7:38
Mile 4 - 7:47
Total - 30:37
I find I need to warm up during the first 2-3 miles and then I get into my rhythm. During the fourth mile I was breathing easy and running comfortably at a pace I felt I could continue for...um...well...at least another mile. I guess the test would be to check my mile splits during a run to work.
I think the answer to the question is, "Yes, I am running faster." Now if I brought my weight from the upper end--but still in the normal range--of my allowed Body Mass Index to the lower end--a twenty pound difference--I could probably pick up the pace a little. But I love my mint chocolate chip ice cream. And beer.
Regardless, next year will bring my first under-an-hour Bloomsday finish.
If We Could Only Tell Them Apart
Bryan Fischer, AFA Director of Issues Analysis, of the American Family Association tries to convince us that after Major Hasan's attack on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood Muslims should be barred from the U.S. military. Why? Because
It became evidently almost immediately that the mass murderer in yesterday's killing spree at Fort Hood was a Muslim who was motivated by jihadist impulses.
You could feel the impulses from here.
The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday's massacre is living proof. And yesterday's incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.
There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States. There are between 10,000 and 20,000 Muslims in the U.S. military. You'd think that with all the "jihadist impulses" there would be more massacres, more so among the civilians. But he continues:
Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers.
No shit.
Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve.
Them danged Muslims all look alike. Hmmm, but the yellow stars were all used up. You'll have to use something else.
You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms.
Trust no Muslim. Watch every Muslim. Children, turn your parents in. Especially if you're Muslims. I thought we had a jihadi-detector. Isn't that an inclined board and a bucket of water?
This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.
Of course it is.
While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.
Just look at how peaceful the Christian United States is.
And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.
Just as Christ taught, Fischer is turning the other cheek? And Hasan, imitating the Prophet, chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and plundered merchant caravans?
How do you talk to a person like Fischer?
It became evidently almost immediately that the mass murderer in yesterday's killing spree at Fort Hood was a Muslim who was motivated by jihadist impulses.
You could feel the impulses from here.
The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday's massacre is living proof. And yesterday's incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.
There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States. There are between 10,000 and 20,000 Muslims in the U.S. military. You'd think that with all the "jihadist impulses" there would be more massacres, more so among the civilians. But he continues:
Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers.
No shit.
Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve.
Them danged Muslims all look alike. Hmmm, but the yellow stars were all used up. You'll have to use something else.
You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms.
Trust no Muslim. Watch every Muslim. Children, turn your parents in. Especially if you're Muslims. I thought we had a jihadi-detector. Isn't that an inclined board and a bucket of water?
This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.
Of course it is.
While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.
Just look at how peaceful the Christian United States is.
And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.
Just as Christ taught, Fischer is turning the other cheek? And Hasan, imitating the Prophet, chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and plundered merchant caravans?
How do you talk to a person like Fischer?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Jammin' On The STA Again
My ancient iPod has returned to the living. Just for grins I connected it to my computer and the recharging symbol showed up on the display and then froze. I disconnected and reconnected. No change. I was ready to give up on it.Steph dinked around with it and hooked it back up again and the displayed showed it was charging. After a bit I tried it out and it played. And then I dropped it again and it still worked. Whoo-hoo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
