What In God's Name Are They Thinking?

It never ceases to amaze me what people do in the name of God. There is of course the group of Baptists that protest profanely at military funerals. It turns my stomach.

Now it seems a "church", the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville Florida, plans to burn Korans on September 11 . A dismayed General Petraeus fears the idea will catch on across the country putting U.S. troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq in extreme danger of retribution.

Talk about unintended consequences! Or would it be? I don't exactly know what the 50 people who belong to this organization call themselves - are they Christians? I should hope not.

For a General to speak out about such an action is rare. Therefore you can be sure Petreaus means what he says.

The burning has been denied a permit but that seems to make little difference to Terry Jones, who is pastor of this organization.

Fifty people. Fifty people who feel they have the right to do what they want regardless of the consequences. Funny, how similar it seems to Congress! That aside, millions of Muslims consider the Koran their holy book. They all do not hate the west in general nor the U.S. in particular. An action such as this will certainly change the minds of many. What are they to think?

The dove is supposed to be a symbol of peace. Promoting hatred aimed at Muslims on 9/11 will certainly desecrate the image of the dove and disgrace America as a whole. Fifty people.

The Messianics Among Us

I had to chuckle when I read where Kathleen Parker described Glenn Beck as messianic. She was equating him to the typical recovering alcoholic, which he freely admits. I put it in terms I'm more familiar with. There's nothing worse than a reformed drunk. Or a successful dieter. Having been neither, I can't speak with any authority except to look around me at the people who strike me as similar to Beck.

How many time have you hear Obama described as messianic, or the anointed one. It's manner. Is it good or bad? If you like him you probably think of him a s regal. If you don't you probably think of him as arrogant. Messianic? That denotes passion and I haven't seen him portray any of that since the campaign.

Let's look at Beck's peers however. Here's my short list of messianics. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Beck and Keith Olbermann. Beck has the oratory of an evangelist, the other two strike me as little more than pompous.

Then there are the wannabes. Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity top that list. I'm not sure which is lighter in the gray matter. My guess it's Hannity. Deciphering their babble makes it difficult. They both talk over their guests way too much adding nothing.

There are dozens of also rans like Greta and Laura. Lightweights in comparison.

Do you learn anything from any of them? Mostly what not to take to heart.

I'm sure there are others and oddly enough there are actually some pretty good pundits on both sides of the fence. The problem is they can barely be heard above the din the others make.

Obama, I'm sorry to say, does not live up to bombastic expectations. It's a shame however, that young man in the fiery chariot leading us to hope and change during the campaign seems to have relinquished it to squeakier wheels!

What Is A Moderate Muslim?

A faithful reader/commenter never misses a chance to let me know she has a very good friend who happens to be Muslim and that she is not a violent nor hating person what-so-ever. I have no doubt. After all, being Muslim and a woman begs one to be non-violent. Complacent even. Especially among her own as is our notion of her own.

On the other hand, just who is she and what does she believe? There is Islam as religion, there is Islam as law. How do they meld? How do you pick and choose which parts you ascribe to? That being asked, this Wall Street Journal article from today's paper should be required reading for everyone asking the same question.

The commentary in the article is enlightening and for the most part forthcoming about one very definite issue. The "moderates" themselves must sort out among themselves just what the term "moderate" means then get on the world stage and explain it to the rest of us. Right now the entire western world is made up of those who doubt all of them. We cannot be blamed.

A couple of weeks before the 9/11 anniversary is of course an opportune time for these articles to be appearing, yet it is by no means enough. If we are to believe there is a moderate strain who abhors the violence as much as we do they need to become the squeaky wheel and have the courage to speak out.

As much as I found the WSJ article of interest, it gets far too little readership by the majority of skeptical westerners to make much of an impression.

You tell me you are out there. Tell me. Show me. Take action. That's all any of us ask.

9/11 Redux - Paranoid Or Prudent

There have been a lot of instances lately where I believe the Islamists who would destroy us are getting their fill of belly laughs. The reasons for such have been making the headlines far more frequently as 9/11 once again approaches.

First we have the continuing flap over building a Muslim cultural center a couple of blocks from "ground zero" coupled with less than comforting remarks by the Imam and his wife. Then there is the young man who is the financier who refuses to answer any questions. You'll note everything is carefully couched so it could mean anything.

Then there is the incident where two men of Yemeni descent, supposedly unknown to one another, got separated from their luggage which contained curious devices. They ended up in Amsterdam, their luggage in Dallas. If there is anything typical about this story it's the luggage part. Getting separated from the owners. This happened far too frequently long before the original 9/11. It's just gotten worse since.

Today there was an
incident in Tampa where nine Pakistanis were removed from a flight due to an inappropriate comment that made a flight attendant feel uneasy.

One common thread running through these "incidents" has been no clear cut evidence of wrong doing or even the idea of it has surfaced. Still. The frequency. The nationalities. The actual actions. How can one not be edgy? At times I feel they are laughing at us while doing their research, knowing full well we can only surmise.

One thing that can be said with certainty is that all the airport security, body scans, pat downs, luggage searches, etc. haven't done one thing to eliminate dangling the carrot in front of the hare! And laughing when the hare can't quite reach it.

What Manner Of Candidate Have We Chosen?

As you may know, I've become intrigued with The Modern Whig Party. Reviewing the current batch of primary results is the reason why. I don't think we have a clue as to who or what we've elected just to boot out the incumbents.

John McCain we of course know. He won. But it's $20,000,000 later! Look at some of the other's who have prevailed. Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite in Kentucky. My assessment of him is that he's a bit odd. The same goes for the very unlikely Alvin Greene from South Carolina. Where did he come from? What do either of them stand for - or against?

There's the race in Alaska where incumbent and no friend of Palin, Lisa Murkowski, is on the ropes against a total newcomer, attorney Joe Miller. Some have had Palin and Tea Party backing, some not, but all are enigmas!

Let's look at the Tea Party types. You don't know from state to state exactly what it is they stand for. No sure bet there. Then there are the Parties themselves. In my state, Idaho, Palin endorsed and the party chose one Vaughn Ward to be their boy. He lost. Raul Labrador won and is now being denied Party help because he wasn't the one the Republicans wanted. They are literally giving the seat to incumbent Walt Minnick, who is a bit of an enigma himself, being a Blue Dog.

A similar situation has occurred in Washington for Cathie McMorris Roger's House seat. They have a "top two" primary. Rogers is Republican, the number two is Democrat yet the party is denying him help because he isn't "their boy". The whole scenario is weird.

We have a prime situation here where the Modern Whigs could make inroads. We have a member of the State House who is afoul with the law for big time tax issues. As in he doesn't pay them. He was unopposed in his primary. A shoo in. Finally a concerned citizen has thrown his hat in the ring as a write in. At least it's opposition of sorts though he hasn't a prayer of winning unless some people get behind him and get him known.

This is where the progressives have the right idea. Never let a seat go unchallenged no matter the chance of winning. If nothing more it gets a potentially good candidate exposure. It's also where the Modern Whigs could make inroads. Recruit someone to run under their banner no matter how unlikely a win. People would begin to know the name. People would begin to learn there is an alternative to just about everything that is wrong with politics as is .