August 20, 2011

Why Do Muslims Act Like..... Muslims?

My daughter has spent considerable time in Muslim countries, a year in Egypt and nine months in Afghanistan. Her opinion of Muslim countries and their constituent populations is rather droll; loves the children, views the adults as cretins. Planck's Constant helps sheds some light on this.

Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world, yet leading hi-tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Intel do their most advanced research in tiny Israel.

But let me ask this, "Why not in Saudi Arabia?" it's not as if the Saudis don't have hundreds of billions they could spend on research. For those who don't know the answer, consider:

Planck's Constant, Oil Rich Muslims Are Science Poor
the oil monarchies of the Gulf spend about 0.2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on science while tiny, teensy-weensy, itsy-bitsy little Israel with no oil revenues spends 25 times as much.

But why do the Saudis spend so little on science and the Jews so much? The simple answer is that Islam breeds stupidity because the Quran is immutable and uncreated and therefore cannot be questioned. Their religion cannot be questioned, their way of life is immune from criticism. In fact, Muslim countries have petitioned the UN to make criticizing Islam a crime.

As well, Mohammed is the perfect man and a model for all Muslim men. Jews on the other hand, present their kings and prophets with all their blemishes. King David in the Old Testament is an adulterous lech. Jews are allowed to ask King David, "Who the hell do you think you are?"

Jews were brought up to question, to debate, to deny, to argue, to challenge the accepted wisdom. Put two Jews in a room and you end up with three different opinions.

Jews and Science - they go so well together. How well? More than 173 Nobel Prizes have been awarded to Jews (not counting those worthless Nobel Peace Prizes).

The Islam apologists like to claim that Muslims are responsible for much scientific knowledge through the centuries. This is just not true. Muslims conquered other nations and aggregated their collective knowledge base. This is still a praiseworthy achievement, but is really more of an administrative task rather than a creative outpouring.

The rigid Islamic belief system gradually eliminated scientific inquiry because as we all know, you have to question the status quo before you can investigate it. And Islam means "Submission" not "Just What The HELL Is Wrong With This Picture?"

Again from Planks's Constant:
For the first 600 years during its great conquests Muslim rulers allowed the non-Muslim populations to be creative and industrious because Muslims were a tiny minority in these lands and feared revolt if they forced conversion to Islam.

It was mostly these non-Muslims who contributed the accomplishments usually attributed to Muslims.

Islam was a new religion and Islamic scholars did not yet put in place the restrictions on learning and intellectual pursuits that Islam has today. But as Islam became more and more repressive, infidels found it unbearable to live as dhimmis and converted in mass numbers to Islam. Where once Muslims were a minority, they soon became the majority, and so Islamic rulers were no longer in fear of insurrection of the minority religions. They were free to impose true Islam into every facet of life, thus killing the spirit of inquiry and free thought.

The Golden Age of Islam was actually the Golden Age of Arabs, Jews, Persians, Hindus and others who through sharing of knowledge brought to the world great learning and advancements in science, humanities, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, zoology and geography.

Once Muslims were in the majority, the histories of the conquered peoples were no longer of interest; anything that occurred before Mohammed came on the scene was not important.
The Golden Age of Islam ended in the 13th century with the invasion of the Mongols.

August 19, 2011

Say what you will, she seems normal and genuine to me. I think I'm gonna like this primary season.

You Won't See This In England

I don't like to pick on England. I wish England was the strong, vibrant, vigorous ally of the past. But it isn't so. It used to be that England and America were two countries separated by a common language; but to that separation add a common law for England's criminal justice system has become truly bizarre. Besotted with liberal coddling, England's criminal procedure laws seem designed to punish victims instead of criminals.

The Powerline has a column by historian Joyce Malcolm who comments on the recent mass disorder in London.

The most amazing thing about the reaction of English MPs to last week’s terrible violence was how surprised they were. For a country whose criminal law is invariably sympathetic to offenders, nearly always harsh on their victims, and unwilling to pay for adequate policing the surprise is that they were surprised.

In some respects, not all mind you, America has been traveling this same path for years. In Heller v. District of Columbia the right to keep and bear arms was re-affirmed. This was an incredibly important decision for it maintains the right of American citizens to defend themselves. Not so in England.

Since at least 1953 the English government has insisted that citizens depend on the police for protection and not try to protect themselves. The Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 prohibited anyone carrying an article in a public place with the idea it could be used for protection if they were attacked. If discovered they are charged with carrying an offensive weapon.

Since 1964 self-defense has not been considered a good reason to keep a handgun, even if for those who lived in a remote area. Then in 1998 all handguns were banned. Toy or replica guns are also illegal. A man was arrested for holding two burglars with a toy gun while he contacted the police.

More recently knives with points have been made illegal. A list of prohibited weapons, possession of which carries a 10-year prison sentence, includes not only machine guns but chemical sprays and knives with a blade more than three inches long. An American tourist from Arizona who protected herself from attackers in the subway using her penknife was arrested for carrying an offensive weapon.

The government does not permit even someone who is unarmed from acting forcefully when attacked if his or her assailant is harmed in the process. If a citizen is attacked in the street he is to flee. If a citizen is attacked in his home he is not to injure the attacker beyond what a court later considers a reasonable use of force. If a citizen harms his assailant he will be accused of assault, or, as the cases cited above illustrate, murder or attempted murder should the attacker be killed.

In another article posted in Ricochet, Rioting for Fun and Profit by Paul A. Rahe, the author makes the following observation concerning the state of English laws:

There are two dimensions to the British story. First – although what we call the right to bear arms had its origins as an English right, guaranteed in the 1688/89 Declaration of Rights and Bill of Rights – that right was gradually abrogated in the course of the twentieth century. Second – although the right to self-defense, the right to defend one’s person and property when the authorities cannot in a timely and effective fashion provide protection – is a natural right and had always, until recently, been recognized as such in Britain – that right, too, was abrogated in the course of the last century.

Whenever someone accuses us of being overreactive to the infirngemnet of our rights no matter how minor, remember England. Erosion is a slow process but in the long run it destroys whatever it touches.

August 18, 2011

PeeWee Obama's Big Adventure

This stupid son of a bitch and his butt ugly wife are riding their Schwinns in Cape Cod while the US economy is in free fall.

Emboldened by lack of US leadership, Israel is once again beset by homicidal Mohammedans and President Sparky packs a PB&J in wax paper and goes for a spin.

Europe is tottering on the brink of insolvency and O'Fumblenuts has the Secret Service check to make sure that his tire pressure doesn't exceed 70 psi.

The stock market is heading over a cliff, every American owes almost $47,000 of the $14.6 trillion national debt, 17% of the workforce is either looking for a job or has given up looking for a job and President Putz is pedalling his lame ass around looking for a Sno-Cone.

They oughta drape a condom over this prick, stuff him back on that Made-By-Canadians bus and send him on his "I Screwed America Tour."

August 17, 2011

The Hollies

"Bus Stop," one of my favorite hits from the sixties. And forty-three years later they are still good.

But where's the guy with the tambourine?

The Cycle Of Chemical Dependency

During my career I have taken more than a few photographs similar to this one, a deceased drug addict. She died on her face and was rolled over hours after her death. The purple discoloration is post mortem lividity where the blood pooled once her heart stopped beating. Her name was Rachel Whitear. She was 21 years old.

From bad to worse to bad again - Opium, Morphine, Heroin, Methadone. The best medical science can do for the addict is substitute one bloody crutch for another. And when one crutch turns out to be a disaster, create another one.

In 1895, the German drug company Bayer marketed diacetylmorphine as an over the counter drug under the trademark name Heroin. The name was derived from the Greek word "Heros" because of its perceived "heroic" effects upon a user. It was chiefly developed as a morphine substitute for cough suppressants that did not have morphine's addictive side-effects. Morphine at the time was a popular recreational drug, and Bayer wished to find a similar but non-addictive substitute to market. However, contrary to Bayer's advertising as a "non-addictive morphine substitute," Heroin would soon have one of the highest rates of dependence amongst its users.

In the final analysis, if the addict cannot remain drug free on his own, let him suffer the consequences. Bring a halt to the endless cycle of drug use, treatment, relapse, treatment, relapse... Not only do we have to pay for their treatment, now we must give them decent jobs on top of it or face possible federal prosecution under a ridiculous law.

Nothing beats treating addicts as an endangered species - no wonder we have so many.

Last year, "Vicar Ψ" , ThebloggerformerlyknownasNickieGoomba, posted an article written by a NY reporter about heroin addiction and how the Big Apple works to address this scourge here. Revisit it if you will.

August 16, 2011

More Federal Insanity

Things that make me go "Grrrrrrr!"

Feds sue Raleigh insurance office for not hiring an ex-addict

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission today sued a Raleigh insurance office for not hiring a recovering drug addict who tested positive for methadone in his system.

The federal anti-discrimination agency's Charlotte office, which filed the case, said that United Insurance Company of American violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by rescinding a job offer to Craig Burns, a Raleigh resident, after he failed his drug test.

According to the suit, Burns applied for an opening as an insurance agent in December 2009 and was hired conditionally the next month, pending the outcome of the drug test.

Burns, 30, had methadone in his system because he is a recovering drug addict who has been enrolled in a supervised treatment program since at least 2004, the suit says.

"We have to set aside our personal feelings and do what the law dictates," said Lynette Barnes, the EEOC's regional attorney in Charlotte. "That's why he's covered by the ADA. He has this impairment that requires him to take the methadone."

Barnes said that "recovering addictions" are protected by the ADA as disabilities. The suit seeks back pay and lost income, as well as damages.

EEOC rarely sues over discrimination against recovering addicts. Earlier this year, however, the agency won an $85,000 settlement in a similar case in Pennsylvania after a factory rescinded a job offer to production laborer whose drug test came back positive for methadone.

Burns had been delivering pizzas for about five years when he applied for the job with United Insurance. After the insurer withdrew its offer, Burns went back to delivering pizza, Barnes said. He has a wife and a child.

Let's settle a few things. Methadone is a narcotic, a pain reliever used to treatment heroin and morphine addicts, but it it still an analgesic and if you are using it you are still an addict, not an ex-addict. You become an ex-addict when you are no longer using drugs. For the jackasses in the EEOC to pull this crap is unbelievable. Let this addict deliver pizzas until he can come clean, really, seven years of methadone (since 2004) and he's still hooked on this crap?

Let him go off on his own and OD quietly in some back alley. If he wins a settlement that is probably exactly what he will do. Buy an ounce of something and stuff it up his nose all at once. Good riddance.

Sounds harsh? Not as harsh as the costs of maintaining him on a program that promotes his dependency. And no mention of how many times he has been re-arrested and the crimes he has committed because of his addiction. Let him die.

August 15, 2011

More Strudel, Mein Führer?

BRITAIN hatched a bizarre plan to win the Second World War by turning Hitler into a WOMAN.

The Allies secretly schemed to smuggle female sex hormones into the Fuhrer’s food in an attempt to curb his ­aggression.

If the plot – like something out of TV comedy Blackadder – had gone ahead, it could have turned Herr Hitler into Her Hitler.

It was just one of a number of outlandish ideas to break the war’s stalemate, according to a new book by a leading academic.

Others included ­dropping glue on Nazi troops in an attempt to stick them to the ground and disguising bombs in tins of fruit being imported to Germany.

The hare-brained schemes are revealed for the first time in Secret Weapons: Technology, Science And The Race To Win World War II. They have come to light now because of the recent publication of documents not ­previously seen because of their ­sensitive nature.

The book by Professor Brian Ford, a fellow at Cardiff University and pioneer of popular science, revealed that the British Government was serious about giving Hitler a sex change.

He said: “There was an allied plan that they would smuggle oestrogen into Hitler’s food and change his sex so he would become more feminine and less ­aggressive.

“Their research had showed the importance of sex hormones – they were beginning to be used in sex therapy in London.

“The plan was to give sex hormones to Hitler and counterbalance his ­unnecessary aggression.”

Professor Ford said the plan was perfectly feasible because British spies were in place to lace his food.

He added: “There were agents who would be able to get it into his food – it would have been entirely possible.