Coulter Speech Cancelled Due To Security Threat

Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa, but was advised not to appear by organizers of the event "after about 2,000 'threatening' students crowded the entrance to Marion Hall, posing a security threat." Why is it that Liberals, who love to pride themselves on their beliefs of personal freedom and tolerance, are often the ones who are stifling debate and free speech by shouting down or threatening those with whom they disagree?

A protest organizer, international studies student Mike Fancie, said he was pleased they were able to stop Coulter from speaking.

"What Ann Coulter is practicing is not free speech, it's hate speech," he said. "She's targeted the Jews, she's targeted the Muslims, she's targeted Canadians, homosexuals, women, almost everybody you could imagine."

Oh, that's right - when Leftists and Progressives stifle speech, they aren't blocking free speech, but rather they are stopping hate speech. What a specious argument.

This was at a university, for Pete's sake! Aren't universities institutions where all ideas are allowed to be expressed, and then openly discussed and examined? If you don't like what Coulter (or anyone else for that matter) is saying, then have a debate on the merits of the points raised. Discuss what she has said, and explain your view of the issues and why you believe that she is wrong.

Instead, the Leftists silence their opponents through threats and intimidation, or by otherwise denying opposing viewpoints to be spoken. They justify these actions (actions that would be defined as fascist and tyrannical if taken against them) by attempting to define the speech of their opponents as too dangerous to be spoken in a place designed for the free exchange of ideas, and too hateful to be heard by those adults who are attending their academy of higher learning. Instead of explaining what they believe to be the deficiencies in the statements of their opponents, the Progressives choose to silence that speech altogether.

It is time to take that page from their book and use it on them. We won't threaten or intimidate, we will simply attempt to persuade them that they do not want to express their dangerous opinions. We won't shout them down, we will simply provide a simultaneous counter-point in unison. And we won't resort to violence, but we will be willing to alter their physical condition while simply defending ourselves vigorously.

USMC 9971 OUT

I Think I Found My Halloween Costume

Being politically incorrect is fun, but when that political incorrectness is making national news, well that makes it all the more entertaining.

USMC 9971 OUT

Cartoon Kerfluffle

The cartoon above was in the N.Y. Post yesterday (18 February 2009). Some are saying that it compares President Obama to a deranged chimp, and that making such a comparison is racist.

"How could the Post let this cartoon pass as satire?" said Barbara Ciara, president of the National Association of Black Journalists. "To compare the nation's first African-American commander in chief to a dead chimpanzee is nothing short of racist drivel."

The Rev. Al Sharpton called the cartoon "troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys."

First of all, President Obama did not write the stimulus package legislation. While the executive can make suggestions as to what legislation should be created by the legislature, the legislature is the organization that must write any legislation. The executive then chooses whether or not to sign legislation into law, and executes or enforces the enacted legislation. The legislature creates legislation, while the executive executes the laws; notice the etymology?

When the artist has the cartoon cop say that "they'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," he must be referring to the legislature, since it is the responsibility of the legislature to write bills. It is entirely conceivable that many people will view the dead chimp in the cartoon as representative of the U.S. government as a whole, and possibly President Obama because our president is the figure-head for our federal government. The words used in the cartoon, however, clearly indicate that it is comparing those who wrote the stimulus bill to an out-of-control chimpanzee who needed to be put down. Al Sharpton and Barbara Ciara can try to spin this differently, but the words in the cartoon clearly point to the writers of the stimulus bill. Those who wrote the stimulus bill were the members of the legislature, not the president, and as President Obama told us one year ago, words matter.

Second, let's consider why the chimp was used. One reason is because a chimp or a monkey is commonly used as a metaphor for people or institutions that are clumsy, unrefined, or smelly; that create items of poor quality; or that achieve something regardless of their ineptness. Another reason for using the chimp is because a recent news item was about a pet chimpanzee who was shot by police after it attacked and seriously injured a woman. The cartoon took a current event, and spun the ineptitude of Congress' stimulus bill around it.

Third, even if the cartoon was comparing Obama to a chimp, that is in keeping with the precedence that was set over the last eight years. President Bush was repeatedly referred to as chimp throughout his presidency. Some compared Bush to a chimpanzee because of the colloquial metaphor, and others did so because they felt that the former president's physical visage resembled a chimp.

Look at the following montage.

Those images are all intended to display a physical similarity between President Bush and a chimpanzee. Is that montage racist? I believe that most would say that it is not. Is that protected speech? Again, I believe that most would say yes.

The problem here is that the real purpose of those who are crying foul is not to decry racism. Rather, those who are claiming offense seem to be attacking the messenger instead of the message. The message is about a horrible stimulus package that could be dangerous to the financial safety of many Americans. Instead of defending the merits of the stimulus package, these detractors make a claim of racism in an attempt to squelch debate and change the subject.

Well, I'm not having any part of it. Many Americans would agree that Congress could easily be compared to out-of-control chimps at times, and the country is becoming more-and-more skeptical of the stimulus bill that Congress wrote. That cartoon is protected political speech, and it makes a provocative comparison by using two recent national news stories. It is not racist, and it is not out-of-line.

Sharpton, Ciara, and the others like them seem to find racism in everything they see. And in this situation, it seems that they are using a false claim of racism to stifle any criticism or debate. Much like a candidate said back in September of 2008, "They'd much rather have the story ... about phony and foolish diversions than about the future."

USMC 9971 OUT

Cigarettes: Now With Third-Hand Smoke!

First there was mainstream (or first-hand) smoke from cigarettes, and the government forced the tobacco companies to put warning labels on the cigarette packs so that smokers would realize how dangerous using the product is. But that wasn't enough.

Next there was second-hand smoke. The smoke that comes off of a burning cigarette was determined to be super-scary dangerous, and this led to various smoking bans on both public and private property. That's right, just being near a smoker suddenly became too dangerous to patrons and employees alike. But that wasn't enough.

Now the nanny-statists have a new scare tactic with cigarettes: Third-hand smoke. Even when a cigarette is no longer burning and being smoked, it is infecting everyone and everything with the residual nasties that were generated by the first-hand and second-hand smokes.

Third-hand smoke is what one smells when a smoker gets in an elevator after going outside for a cigarette, [Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, the lead author of the study and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School] said, or in a hotel room where people were smoking. "Your nose isn't lying," he said. "The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: 'Get away.'"

Got that? If something stinks, even after someone is done doing whatever causes the stink, it's your brain telling you to get away from the toxic stink. So, when I go into the bathroom after a fellow employee drops a deuce, am I potentially going to be able to sue my employer for allowing me to be exposed to toxic stink? When I go to the mechanic and I smell all of that residual exhaust, am I potentially going to be able to sue the wrench jockey for exposure to the toxic stink? When I'm stuck taking the bus because my car is at the mechanic's shop, and I need to breathe in all of that diesel exhaust as the busses pass by, am I potentially going to be able to sue Metro Transit for exposure to that toxic stink? When I'm winding down at the end of the day and I smell the smoke off of the neighbor's fire, am I potentially going to be able to sue my neighbor for exposure to that toxic stink?

This is just getting stupid. It is more of the nanny state trying to pry their way into our lives to force us to act how they want us to act "for our own good." The problem, no matter if the intentions are good or nefarious, is that the state will most likely be using this silly little study to further take away our liberties and freedoms.

Now, I know that this hasn't led to further smoking bans, but that is only because the study hasn't been circulated enough. Once the "common knowledge" is that cigarettes are harming (and potentially killing) kids and other non-smokers just by having been smoked, the smoking bans will move to outdoor smoking areas at public and private workplaces, and eventually the private car and the home.

I'm not sure that cigarettes will ever be banned, though. The tax revenue created by tobacco is very alluring to the politicians, and if they can allow the product to be sold legally, and then fine the smokers if they are caught actually using the product, well that would just be fiscal nirvana for these busy-bodies.

I hate nanny statists.

USMC 9971 OUT

Trooper Stops Possible Jihadi In OK

This story isn't getting national attention, although it should be. Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Sheldon Robinson subdued a man who had walked into a Burger King restaurant and stated that "he was going to kill everybody." Trooper Robinson was off-duty at the time, and had just dropped his wife and children off at the Burger King before going for an oil change. His wife called him moments later to let him know of the situation in the restaurant.

Robinson, wearing his trooper badge around his neck and carrying his weapon, parked his truck and peered in the window of the Burger King.

Inside was a man dressed in black. A Glock .40-caliber handgun and a full box of ammunition sat on the tabletop next to him. [...]

When the man briefly removed his hand from his gun, Robinson, who had approached from the man's blind side, grabbed his arm.

Now alone in the restaurant, the two men wrestled on the floor before Robinson got one of his handcuffs around the man's arm.

"The second one didn't lock in place, so we went down again," Robinson said. "He was a pretty stout guy."

Robinson had the man fully cuffed by the time Tulsa police officers arrived.

Everyone can consider themselves lucky that Trooper Robinson was in the vicinity, that his wife had the presence of mind to call him while moving her children to temporary position of safety, and that the situation was resolved without injury or loss of life.

The possible jihadi part of the title of this post comes from the fourth-to-the-last paragraph in the article (emphasis mine).

"It was one of those deals of being in the right place at the right time," Robinson said. "I believe he would have loaded up that gun and gone to town because he was praying for Allah to help him carry out his mission."

An off-duty Trooper stopping a gun-toting lunatic in a fast food restaurant would normally be the type of story that the MSM loves. Law enforcement (not John Q. Public) saves the day, and there is also the "are there too many guns out there?" angle.

But this story is different because it was a black-clad gunman, with plenty of ammunition, who was "praying to Allah to help him carry out his mission." A possible jihadi in the heartland, stopped by chance because an off-duty officer happened to be in the right place at the right time, is not the type of news that the MSM typically wants to present to the American public. That is why this story will most likely remain spiked.

America is lucky to have people like Trooper Robinson protecting their communities. Even though the MSM will probably not recognize his actions, he has my thanks and admiration.

USMC 9971 OUT

Homosexuals Attack Old Lady, MSM Yawns

The tolerance crowd wasn't too tolerant of a pro-marriage 69-year-old woman who showed-up at an anti-Prop 8 demonstration. She brought a styrofoam cross, which was pulled out of her hands and trampled by the "everyone must be tolerant of us" homosexual protesters.

An elderly woman bearing a cross who attended a gay marriage protest to voice her support of the California ban was attacked by demonstrators and may now press charges.

Carrying a large, Styrofoam cross, 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess showed up at a rally last Friday against Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage that was passed on Election Day in California.

She was there to show her belief in traditional marriage, she said.

Within minutes, however, angry protesters swarmed around the Palm Springs resident, yanked the cross from her hands and trampled on it.

You can watch the incident on YouTube here.

Now what, I ask you, would happen if a homosexual showed up with a rainbow flag at a pro-marriage rally, and the crowd pulled the flag from the homosexual's hands, trampled the flag, and surrounded the homosexual? My guess is that the media outcry would be immense, and that some dim whit anchor wouldn't be sitting back in the studio talking about "a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

It's the tolerant left, physically attacking when they can't win the argument. If they keep it up, though, they might regret the inevitable counter-punch.

USMC 9971 OUT

Stirring Up Racial Discord From An Ivory Tower

That's from Charles Ogletree, a Havard professor and a top advisor to Obama. Ogletree doesn't believe that "White America" will vote for a black candidate, and that the only reason that Obama has a chance is because he is half-white.

Top Obama adviser Prof. Charles Ogletree says 21st-century white America, as a general rule, remains racist towards Blacks, Latinos, and Asians, and racism is likely to persist for decades -- Barack Obama is an exception only because "he happens to be biracial," so that his election will not be proof that whites have moved beyond racism.

Interesting, isn't it, that the people who keep bringing up race are the people on Obama's side of the political aisle?

So there you have it from an Ivy League professor: Obama has a shot at this thing only because his mother was white. If Ogletree is right, though, then McCain should just need to point out that he is all white in order to get the mindless racists in "White America" to elect him in a landslide. It's B.S., of course, but without racial tension and a perpetuated sense of victimhood amongst minorities, the political left would lose the majority of their power since there would be no poor, downtrodden group left to save.

USMC 9971 OUT

Song Clip In Video Game May Offend Muslims

A new, more family friendly video game that was scheduled to be released today is being redesigned to avoid the possibility of offending Muslims.

Well, that's a bummer.

One of the fall's most anticipated video games for the PlayStation 3, Sony's "LittleBigPlanet," had to be yanked from shelves at the last minute Monday because it might accidentally offend Muslims.

And we all know what a bummer it can be to offend Muslims. In fact, regardless of whether or not the offense is accidental, intentional, real, or perceived, it can be an extremely fatal bummer.

"One of the background music tracks that was licensed from a record label for use in the game contains two expressions that can be found in the Quran," Sony said in a statement Monday. "We have taken immediate action to rectify this and we sincerely apologize for any offense this may have caused."

Translation: We were trying to show how multi-cultural we are by throwing in music with a little Arabic in it. Please forgive us, and don't attack us or burn down any of our international offices. We remember the Mohammed cartoon riots, and we have learned.

The piece of music in question is "Tapha Niang" by the Grammy-winning Malian musician Toumani Diabaté, who sings and plays a West African stringed instrument called the kora.

Devotional music doesn't raise eyebrows in many Muslim countries, including several in West Africa including Mali, but it's a no-no for some strict Sunnis, who frown upon instrumented music of any sort.

See, Mali doesn't have massive international holdings for some strict Sunnis to burn down world-wide. Also, some strict Sunnis have found that many Muslim countries are full of firearms, and that sometimes their victims shoot back.

"LittleBigPlanet" had been scheduled to hit shelves in North American [sic] on Oct. 21, the day after Sony's surprise announcement.

"LittleBigPlanet" had been scheduled to hit shelves in North American on Oct. 21, the day after Sony's surprise announcement spineless appeasement. There, I fixed that for you.

Sony plans to get the game back on shelves the week of Oct. 28, though quantities may be limited since the entire stock of existing PlayStation 3 discs will likely have to be junked and replacements hurriedly printed.

Undoubtedly, Sony's marketing department is working furiously to find a use for all of that now unsalable stock. One possible solution: Scrub the printing off of the printed side, buff it to a shine, and make a hanging disc mobile to sell to college students for use as a trendy decoration. As long as the kids don't get drunk and try to put any of the discs into their PlayStation 3, everything should be just fine.

The game, developed by the British studio Media Molecule, was first announced in early 2007. Players manipulate a cute sock-puppet-like figure called "Sackboy" (or "Sackgirl") around a fantasy world that they can expand upon and share with other players.

After nearly a decade catering to young, male hardcore gamers, Sony is trying to capture some of the demographics dominated by Nintendo's family-friendly Wii, which far outsells both Sony's PlayStation 3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360 by appealing to children, older players and women.

Strangely enough, as with movies, you can capture a larger part of the overall market by creating more all-inclusive family friendly products. We'll see if the executives stick with this marketing concept.

USMC 9971 OUT

Connecticut's Unholy Union

In 2004, eight homosexual couples were denied marriage licenses, and they then filed a lawsuit claiming that their equal protection and due process rights were violated. Today, in a 4-3 ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with that argument and has forced all of Connecticut to join California and Massachusetts as one of the states that permits same-sex marriage.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

I say horse-hooey!

Let's think about this for a moment. Palmer says that "...gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." If the desired partner is otherwise qualified, then that would indicate that there are other qualifications than simply the need for the people joining in marriage to be of the opposite sex. So what are those other qualifications?

There is the consanguinity or incest qualification (CGS § 46b-21). That's the one that says that people wanting to get married may not marry their mother/father, grandmother/grandfather, daughter/son, granddaughter/grandson, sister/brother, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew, stepmother/stepfather, or stepdaughter/stepson. While I think the principle of preventing problems caused by genetic disorders than can arise when procreation occurs between two closely related individuals is still considered sound, will this need to apply to homosexual unions? After all, a homosexual union cannot bear children, so I'm sure that Justice Palmer would have to concede that the genetic disorders from procreation wouldn't apply to homosexual couples; and that would most certainly lead him to find that closely related people of the same sex are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex relative of their choice. Heterosexuals would still be on the hook for most of that as well, but stepparents and stepchildren will probably need to be no longer restricted for anyone. Those aren't blood relations, and as the homosexual lobby loves to point out, you can't help who you love.

Then there is the bigamy qualification (CGS § 53a-190). That's the one that says that a person who wants to get married can't marry someone else while they are still legally married. That's all fine and good until Tom wants to marry Sally, while still married to Ann, and both Ann and Sally are fine with the arrangement. The bigamy qualification is what keeps polygamy (the Tom, Sally, and Ann marriage) from occurring. If bigamy is permitted when all parties agree, then polygamy becomes fully legal. Again, as the homosexual argument goes, you can't help who you love, and in this case some people may have more love to give. Who is the state to interfere with that love and tell them no?

Sure, there are other qualifications, but those two give a couple of basic examples of requirements that most states have for marriage.

If sexual preference is enough to change the standing law in order to be in accordance with equal protection principles, then how could the state not also find religious beliefs to be enough to invoke the same? After all, the freedom to exercise one's religion is protected in the constitution, whereas sexual preference is never mentioned once. And, to be honest, cultural mores would seem to be more established than just one's sexual preference, so the law may need to embrace all cultural customs regarding marriage in order to be in accordance with equal protection principles.

I understand that some may scoff at this slippery slope argument, but the arguments above really are not all that much different than what the homosexuals have been arguing in order to get their special privilege exemption for marriage. Make no doubt about it; gay marriage is nothing more than a special group exemption to the existing laws.

See, what it comes down to is that they can all get married as it is right now. A person from a culture that says that she may marry a relative can still get married if she would like; she just needs to follow the law and not marry those from a group of a few specific family members. A person who follows a religion that permits polygamy can marry as many women as he likes; he just needs to follow the law and not be married to more than one woman at the same time.

And a person who has a sexual preference towards those of the same sex can marry as well; it's just that the homosexual will also need to follow the law like everybody else and marry someone of the opposite sex.

USMC 9971 OUT

Jesse Jackson: What A Nut

And what will happen to the professional race baiter for his comments that he'd like to cut off Obama's "nuts?" Most likely nothing. From CNN:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for "crude and hurtful" remarks he made about Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama after an interview with a Fox News correspondent.

The remarks came Sunday as Jackson was talking to a fellow interviewee, UnitedHealth Group executive Dr. Reed V. Tuckson. An open microphone picked up Jackson whispering, "See, Barack's been talking down to black people ... I want to cut his nuts off." [...]

Jackson's son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois -- co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign -- publicly blasted his father's comments Wednesday.

"I'm deeply outraged and disappointed in Rev. Jackson's reckless statements about Sen. Barack Obama," the younger Jackson said. "His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee -- and I believe the next president of the United States -- contradict his inspiring and courageous career."

If Imus said it, he'd be fired again. If anyone white said it, their career would likely be over. Not with ol' Jesse, though. He will still rake in the money to blame whitey for all of the problems in the black community.

And people will be more than happy to let whitey continue to take the blame for the black community's woes, while Jesse continues to do to the black community what he said that he wanted to do to Obama.

USMC 9971 OUT

Boys Given Detention For Not Praying To Allah In UK

Good ol' political correctness. From the Daily Mail:

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped. [...]

"My daughter and a lot of other mothers are furious about their children being made to kneel on the floor and pray to Islam. If they didn't do it they were given detention. ... But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."

That last quote really does put the double standard of this P.C. B.S. into perspective.

USMC 9971 OUT

Car Thief Kills Woman, Somali Community Blames Police

What a screwed-up world. Two days ago, Minneapolis police attempted to pull over a driver in a stolen vehicle, and they gave chase when the car thief took off at high-speed. The chase was called off after twelve blocks due to concerns for public safety, but unfortunately the car thief kept speeding along and crashed into a car with a woman and two children in it half-a-mile after the police stopped their chase. From the Star Tribune:

As Hanna Abukar was laid to rest Monday, members of the Somali community were questioning the police chase that preceded her death a day earlier in south Minneapolis.

"There's anger and a total lack of understanding what happened and why did it happen," Omar Jamal, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, said following Abukar's funeral. "It's a very difficult situation right now."

Minneapolis police are still investigating the pursuit in which a 15-year-old boy who had been fleeing officers at high speeds in a stolen vehicle crashed into a car driven by Abukar at Lake Street and Stevens Avenue S. around 8 a.m. Sunday morning.

A police supervisor had called off the 12-block chase for public safety reasons about a half-mile before the crash that killed Abukar, 26, and injured her son and another boy as they were heading to Sunday school at a mosque. The boys remain hospitalized in critical and stable conditions, respectively. [...]

Jamal said he's received countless calls from local Somalis and others wondering if such a pursuit was necessary.

"That's what the community is asking," Jamal said. "We will deal with that soon."

The police just can't win. If the police hadn't pursued the teen who stole the car, and he caused a crash that resulted death and/or bodily harm, then people would likely be screaming about how the police should have done something to stop him. When the police do pursue the thief, and then stop the pursuit on the grounds of public safety (at 8:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning), the necessity of even beginning the pursuit is questioned.

The fact of the matter is that the police are not responsible for this; the car thief is. The teen didn't leave the private property of other people alone; he chose to steal the vehicle. The thief didn't stop when lawfully ordered to do so by police; instead he chose to speed up and flee. The thief didn't stop being reckless after the police stopped the chase; he chose to continue driving recklessly. The murderer didn't check on the victims in the car he smashed into due to his reckless behavior; he chose to run away from the scene.

One woman is dead and two children are in the hospital because to the very bad choices of one selfish fifteen-year-old, not because of a twelve block pursuit by local police who were doing their job on a Sunday morning. Period. End of story.

Of course, Omar Jamal can't make political hay from those cold hard facts, so he will do what he does best: stir up anger against, and suspicion of, the authorities in the hearts and minds of the Somali community. And, unfortunately, the Somali community and the media seem to be far to willing to go along with him.

USMC 9971 OUT

Muslim Gives Opening Prayer For Iowa Legislature

He called for a "victory over those who disbelieve" in it, too. I just caught this at the end of last week, but it's about two weeks old at this point.

Imam Muhammad Khan of the Islamic Center of Des Moines spoke first in Arabic.

"I seek refuge in God against the accursed Satan in the name of God, most gracious, most merciful," [imam Muhammad] Khan said in English. Khan made no specific mention of the war in Iraq or foreign affairs, but he called God the "master of the day of judgment" and asked for "victory over those who disbelieve." [...]

Khan was the guest of State Representative Ako Abdul Samad of Des Moines, who is also a local Muslim leader.

If this would become a major story, though I don't believe that it will at this point, I'm sure that anyone who finds this imam's prayer of concern will just be labeled an "Islamophobe." After all, why would anyone associate a Muslim asking for refuge from the accursed Satan and a victory over disbelievers with something negative?

That's what all moderate and peace-loving Muslims say, and not at all like the words that you would hear from a violent jihadi who has hijacked Islam, right?

USMC 9971 OUT

Nanny State Gets Bartender Slugged

The nanny state doesn't think that any negative health effects that may come from working in a smoking environment should be an assumed risk for a person who chose to work at an establishment that allowed smoking (which, in itself, is a rarity nowadays); they would rather hold the establishment liable instead. As such, I blame the nanny statists for the bar worker who got popped by a couple of smokers a few days ago.

A bartender was sucker-punched in New Hampshire on Wednesday by some smokers who didn't like him kicking them out after they had to be repeatedly asked to stop smoking. From the Union Leader:

Sawaya [the owner of the establishment] said three patrons ignored a server's repeated requests to stop smoking inside the 88 Market St. restaurant and club.

Bartender Pat Mills then asked the men to put out their cigarettes about 10:50 p.m., Sawaya said.

"They blew smoke in his face and told him it was their right to smoke," he said.

Mills, who is in his late 20s, asked the men to leave and escorted them to the front door, police said. When Mills turned to go back inside, one of the three punched him in the head, Sawaya and police allege.

A brief struggle ensued, with Mills holding down his attacker -- later identified by police as Daniel Devine, 29, of Manchester -- while Sawaya pulled another patron off the doorman and two off-duty doormen jumped in to keep the third man from entering the fray, the tavern owner said.

Now, for the record, I do not condone the behavior of the smokers in this instance, and I think that they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

It is too bad, though, that the bartender had to get involved as he had to. Much like the patron who has had too much to drink, you need to attempt to deal with the problem in-house. If someone had too much to drink, however, the establishment has the ability to cut off the supply of alcohol, and law enforcement can be contacted if the individual attempts to leave instead of taking a cab (third-party liability can kill your bottom line). That is not the case with patrons who choose to violate state law by smoking, though.

Sure, the establishment can stop providing any service to those who choose to smoke in violation of the state law, but a new third-party liability scenario rears its ugly head in that situation. How many attempts need to be made to get the smokers to stop smoking before the establishment becomes liable for the alleged negative health effects of the second hand smoke on other patrons? When does law enforcement need to be contacted to avoid third-party liability in smoking cases? Also, who is responsible for any additional risks that the new legislation poses for employees of establishments that may need to confront smokers who openly violate state smoking bans?

Personally, I despise smoking bans. I see them as an excuse by the state to impose undue intrusions upon personal property rights. If the excuses for the bans are public health and safety, then why allow the activity to exist at all? If smoking is as bad as some state governments claim, then why don't they protect everyone by just banning smoking and all related products outright? Simply stated, state governments won't ban smoking outright because they don't want to lose the tax revenue.

The intrusions will continue, though. If one can't smoke at a bar for fear of the effects of second hand smoke on employees and other patrons, why can one impose that same risk on one's family in the home or car, especially if minors are in those homes or cars?

I'm not giving the nanny-statists new ideas here, in case that's whay you may be thinking. For example, Louisiana banned smoking in vehicles in which children are present about a year-and-a-half ago. Don't worry, the violation won't go on your driving record, but one does wonder if social services will get a memo on the violation.

With private businesses and vehicles no longer immune from government intrusion in an attempt to look out for public health and safety, private homes can't be far off. In fact, after Kelo, I'm surprised that states didn't start targeting private homes with all sorts of "common good" type laws.

This all made me think of something that I read over at The Lair of the Catholic Cavemen a few days ago. Vir Speluncae Catholicus had a post on an issue of public health concern involving a type of staph.

A new medical study appearing in the Annals of American Medicine shows that homosexuals are spreading a new, highly-infectious and extremely dangerous bacteria amongst themselves, most probably through anal intercourse. [...]

The study's authors note that the strong link between unhealthy behavior, particularly among homosexuals, is the driving force behind the disease. "Spread of the USA300 clone among men who have sex with men is associated with high-risk behaviors, including use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs, sex with multiple partners, participation in a group sex party, use of the internet for sexual contacts, skin-abrading sex, and history of sexually transmitted infections," the authors write.

The study, which focused on clinics in the San Francisco area, found that in some cases up to 39% of patients had the MRSA USA300 infections in their genitals or buttocks, although the disease can be spread by general skin-to-skin contact and can even be picked up from surfaces.

The state will ban smoking, cell phone use, and trans fats for the sake of the common good; personal responsibility and choice be damned. Do you think that any state will consider banning any activity related to MRSA USA300, though? My guess is that the only state action on that will be more funding for free condoms and needle exchange programs.

We'll see, but it seems to me that in the nanny state, some animals are more equal than others.

USMC 9971 OUT

Pork Chop Is Offensive?

I'm just checking the news over lunch, and what do I find? Baseball Mascot Gets New Name After 'PorkChop' Is Deemed Offensive. I was surprised to find out, though, that the mascot is for the Phillies' new triple-A team, and that it's Latinos who are offended.

The Lehigh Valley IronPigs, whose mascot is a large, furry pig, had selected PorkChop from more than 7,300 fan submissions. The team, which begins play in 2008, announced Monday that the mascot will be named "Ferrous" instead. [...]

Guillermo Lopez, vice president of the Latino Leadership Alliance, said he was called "pork chop" when he worked at Bethlehem Steel decades ago.

"If my parents were alive, they'd be having fits," said Lopez, among those who complained to the team. "It meant much more to them than it does to Puerto Ricans now in the Lehigh Valley."

It was decades ago that Lopez was called pork chop, he says that his parents would be upset if they weren't dead, and Lopez even admits that, when used as a term of derision, the term meant much more to his parents generation than it does to Latinos currently residing in Lehigh Valley. What an absolute crock of bull hooey.

What was it that made the Latinos think that the team was trying to resurrect a decades old term of derision that now simply refers to a tasty pork product? The mascot is a giant pig! PorkChop makes much more sense for the name of their mascot than, say, ChickenWing or BeefRoast.

PorkChop will now be named Ferrous, because thin-skinned individuals have found a way to turn an innocuous name of a minor league mascot into a racially charged issue. It's too bad that the Latino Leadership Alliance doesn't have something more important to do other than perpetuating a state of victim-hood for those they claim to represent.

It may not be politically correct, but I have a new food-related name for Guillermo and the rest of the Latinos who complained about PorkChop: Nuts.

USMC 9971 OUT

Wire-Tapping The Terrorists

Back in December of 2005, the New York Times blabbed about a classified program that was being used to listen in on the conversations of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers without a warrant. At the time, many people complained that a warrant was not too much to ask, and they all seemed really sure that it wouldn't take that much time to actually get one of those FISA warrants. The big question posed by the opponents to the no longer classified NSA program was, "What harm could come from waiting for a warrant?"

An answer to that question may have been published in the New York Post on Monday. When three U.S. Soldiers were abducted by terrorists in Iraq in May of this year, the search for them came to a screeching halt for nearly ten hours while lawyers had to determine the legality of tapping the cell phones of terrorists in Iraq.

Why would any domestic surveillance laws possibly pertain to cell phones being used by terrorists in Iraq? Because the tap would need to take place on hubs in the U.S. where their calls were routed through, that's why.

Communications surveillance of terrorists was not being used in a search for abducted American Soldiers because lawyers need to be concerned with whether or not Democratic leaders, or any of the other "the terrorists should have all of our civil-rights" type imbeciles, would attempt to make some major case out of our tapping the cell phones of terrorists in Iraq who may have been communicating about the abduction of three U.S. Soldiers that had just taken place.

That is the harm that comes from waiting for a warrant to tap terrorists.

And, as for the Justice Department, do you think that maybe they could step-up the investigation into who leaked the information about the NSA program to Risen and Lichtblau? I understand that it isn't as glamorous as the Plame case, but for the sake of the two Soldiers who were abducted in May and never found, and for the one Soldier who was found dead, it might be nice to have the leakers of such classified surveillance programs brought to justice.

USMC 9971 OUT

When Will Political Correctness Need To Turn On Its Own?

In Oak Lawn, IL, a school district is looking at eliminating typical American holiday traditions because they are offensive to some Muslims.

So long, Halloween parade. Farewell, Santa's gift shop.

The holiday traditions are facing elimination in some Oak Lawn schools this year after complaints that the activities are offensive, particularly to Muslim students.

Final decisions on which of the festivities will be axed will fall to the principals at each of Ridgeland School District 122's five schools, Supt. Tom Smyth said.

Parents expect that the announcement is going to add to the tension that has been building since officials agreed earlier this month to change the lunch menu to exclude items containing pork to accommodate Muslim students. News that Jell-O was struck from the menu caused such a stir that officials have agreed to bring it back. Gelatin is often made with tissue or bones of pigs or other animals.

That controversy now appears to have been dwarfed by the holiday debate, which became so acrimonious Wednesday that police were called to Columbus Manor School to intervene in a shouting match among parents.

"It's difficult when you change the school's culture," said Columbus Manor Principal Sandy Robertson.

Principal Robertson says that it is a change to the school's culture, but I would argue that these are changes to our nation's culture.

Halloween and Christmas are very well known and beloved holidays in the U.S., and those holidays have become quite secularized. Christmas still may have some religious overtones attached to it, but most public displays present the secular aspects of the holiday. Halloween, on the other hand, has been almost completely secularized; so much so that it is usually Christians who are complaining about the "satanic" overtones of the holiday.

To remove these traditions in order to keep a minority group from being offended is a precedence that the multi-culturalists may want to think twice about setting. I know that it is all in the "spirit of unity and tolerance," but soon these groups will be turning on one another. When that happens, the multi-culti types will need to decide who needs to be tolerated more, or who needs to be offended less.

For example, back in July of 2005, PETA launched their "Are Animals the New Slaves?" campaign. When it reached New Haven, CT that August, the NAACP demanded that the display be immediately removed.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a national animal rights group, posted giant photographs of people, mostly black Americans, being tortured, sold and killed, next to photographs of animals, including cattle and sheep, being tortured, sold and killed. [...]

One man demanded that the NAACP get involved immediately. Five minutes later, Scot X. Esdaile, president of the state and Greater New Haven chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, arrived at the scene, surveyed the photos and blasted the organizers.

"Once again, black people are being pimped. You used us. You have used us enough," Esdaile said. "Take it down immediately."

"I am a black man! I can’t compare the suffering of these black human beings to the suffering of this cow," said Michael Perkins, 47, of New Haven. He stood in front of a photo of butchered livestock hung next to the photo of two lynched black men dangling before a white mob.

"You can’t compare me to a freaking cow," shouted John Darryl Thompson, 46, of New Haven, inches from Carr’s face. "We don’t care about PETA. You are playing a dangerous game."

When PETA complains that animal friendly and meat free alternatives must be provided for students who are vegetarians or vegans, the tolerance groups are all for them. The same can be said of requests from the NAACP for considerations for black students. But when it is PETA vs. the NAACP, then who should the tolerance groups back?

More recently, we have had Islamic cabbies refusing rides to some fares because alcohol offended their Muslim sensibilities. When it is just someone bringing in a bottle of wine, the tolerance types would likely tend to side with the cabbies. But when tolerance for Islam comes into conflict with tolerance for the disabled or for the gay, lesbian, or transgendered, then the tolerance groups have to juggle which of the actors should be tolerated more.

A large number of taxi drivers in the area of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are Muslim Somali immigrants. Many say they feel the faith's ban on alcohol consumption includes transporting anyone carrying it.

Some also have refused to transport dogs, both pets and guide dogs, saying they are unclean.

-- and --

In her bright pink hat, Paula Hare has found herself waiting on her stoop a lot lately, for taxi cabs that never come.

Not to avoid confusion, Paula even tells the taxi dispatcher she’s transgendred. But on three occasions when the taxi actually showed up, she says Muslim drivers have refused to give her a lift.

If I question why a Muslim should be accommodated for his religious beliefs, it is likely that I will be labeled a bigot or Islamophobe. While I don't agree with that, it is a fact of life in our P.C. culture.

When accommodation for Islamic religious beliefs ends up meaning that Paula can't get a ride because she was originally Paul, however, then which one has precedence? Which intolerance is worse? Is it worse to be intolerant of a Muslim's religious beliefs, or is it worse to be intolerant of a transgendered person?

How long will it be until Haji complains that acceptance of homosexuality offends his Islamic faith, and a school board is stuck with the decision of removing homosexual references from any school materials or discussions versus offending a religious minority? When the Christians complain, it is easy to call them homophobic. When Muslims complain, however, the school board is risking being Islamophobic by not complying with Muslim religious beliefs, or homophobic by not allowing homosexuality to be presented as acceptable. Eventually one has to be more equal than the other.

USMC 9971 OUT

Stop Making Concessions To Muslims

The Indianapolis International Airport is looking at installing foot-washing sinks for Muslim taxi drivers. They claim that the proposal is for safety and health reasons.

Airport officials said they are considering installing a [foot-washing] sink because of safety and health issues, not religious ones.

More than 100 Muslim taxi drivers currently use a traditional sink at the airport, leaving the floor wet and increasing the possibility of passing germs.

The Indianapolis International Airport is not the only place dealing with this issue. Three schools (New York University, University of Michigan-Dearborn, and Minneapolis Community and Technical College) have recently discussed installing special facilities for Muslim prayer rituals.

There are some people who are opposing the special sinks, and not surprisingly, some Muslims are saying that the only reason that the sinks are being contested is due to bigotry.

That is the opinion of Shariq Siddiqui. He said, "This is an issue of Islamophobia. This is not about sinks. The only difference between me and my neighbor is that we may follow different faith traditions."

B.S. Shariq. People are ticked-off because a publicly funded entity is considering giving you special facilities for your religious rites. The fact of the matter, Shariq, is that you and your fellow Muslims don't need special sinks installed.

I've got a simple solution to this issue. Muslims who use the existing sinks in bathrooms to wash their feet, and in the process create a fall risk or health hazard, should be fined for creating a public hazard or nuisance. It's that easy, and it isn't discrimination.

Muslim taxi drivers who feel that they must wash their feet before praying can bring a wash basin, towel, and water with them to perform that ritual. The same goes for students at any school. We don't need to spend public funds to add special foot washing sinks in order to accommodate Muslims who, for whatever reason, don't make basic preparations on their own for their religion's prayer rituals.

This isn't an issue of Islamophobia. It's an issue of not wasting public funds to accommodate a single faith when the members of that faith could easily bring dollar store items with them to perform the rite without creating a public nuisance or health hazard. The Muslims need to bring the materials with them to wash their feet, rather than expecting the state to provide special facilities for their religion's rituals.

USMC 9971 OUT

More Double Standards With Islam

Several newspapers decided not to run the Opus comic strip this past Sunday over concerns of offending Muslims. Many of those same newspapers will apparently continue to spike the strip when the plotline continues this coming Sunday.

A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.

The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday's installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.

So, the same thing didn't happen when another religion was the target of Breathed's satire?

[Washington Post Writers Group comics editor Amy Lago] said she didn't flag newspapers about [the 19 Aug 2007 Opus strip that poked fun at Jerry Falwell] because she didn't think readers would misunderstand the humor.

"They're not going to take it seriously," she said.

But she did alert newspapers about the Muslim-themed cartoon because there was a question about whether Muslim readers would be offended.

"I don't necessarily think it's poking fun [at Islam]," Lago said. "But the question with Muslims is, are they taking it seriously?"

Got that? Christians won't take the cartoon seriously, whereas Muslims might. Honestly, I think that the reason comes down to concerns that Muslims might erupt in violent rage over a cartoon, whereas Christians likely will not.

Take, for example, the blasphemous balls of Afghanistan this weekend. The U.S. tried to generate some goodwill by distributing soccer balls with world flags on them to the children of Afghanistan. So what was the problem?

At least one of several balls dropped by helicopter to children in eastern Khost province had a small picture of the Saudi Arabian flag. The flag features in Arabic script the Islamic declaration of faith, which contains the words Allah and the Prophet Muhammad.

Villagers were "upset and angry" when they saw the ball, said Khost Gov. Arsalah Jamal. "They wanted to demonstrate, but we explained to them it was a mistake." [...]

Last year, violent protests followed the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in the Western media. In 2005, several people were killed during demonstrations against the alleged desecration of copies of the Koran by U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo Bay.

A soccer ball has the Saudi flag on it, and the governor of Khost needs to convince the populace not to "demonstrate" over the blasphemous balls. Considering the violence involved on the part of Muslims whenever they claim to be offended, one really must wonder if the main reason for spiking the Opus cartoon was to avoid more Muslim violence.

Knowing that Muslims feel that strongly about the text on the Saudi flag, though, I probably should make sure that I screen visitors to my garage in order to deny entry to those of the Islamic faith. It's not denial of entry based upon their faith, but rather a concern for their religious sensitivities. I really don't want them to be offended if they see my new dart board, let alone what I wipe my feet on by the back door.

USMC 9971 OUT

Witnesses Ignore Woman's Cries For Help

Rage Ibrahim says that the incident was just a struggle for car keys as he tried to prevent the woman from driving drunk. Police, however, claim that Rage Ibrahim physically and sexually assaulted the woman for almost one-and-a-half hours, and that at least ten other people in the apartment complex witnessed and ignored the attack.

The surveillance video clearly showed men and women looking out their apartment doors or starting to walk down the hallway before retreating as the woman was assaulted for nearly 90 minutes, police spokesman Tom Walsh said.

Police said they responded to a call of drunken behavior and found Somali immigrant Rage Ibrahim, 25, and a woman lying unconscious in the hallway early Tuesday. The woman's clothing had been pulled up and she had fresh scratches on her face and blood on her thigh, according to the criminal complaint. [...]

Walsh said police were shocked by the behavior of the bystanders.

"(The video) shows one person looking out of her door probably three times," Walsh said. "It shows another person walking up, observing what's going on, then turning and putting up the hood of his sweatshirt."

At one point, the 26-year-old woman knocked on a door, yelling for the occupants to call police. A man inside that apartment told police he did not open the door or look out, but said he did call police — although they have no record of his call, according to court documents.

If the surveillance video shows what the police claim it shows, then Ibrahim's story has got to be bunk. Even if it was a struggle for car keys, it seems very unlikely that a struggle over car keys would continue for 90 minutes, especially considering Ibrahim's allegation that the victim was in a drunken state at the time.

As for the witnesses, I'd like to know why they ignored the incident. Maybe some of the witnesses are fellow Somali immigrants who believe that Ibrahim's actions are the way that unruly women should be dealt with by Somali men, or it could be that some of the witnesses were afraid of being accused of "post-September 11th fear and stereotyping," and they didn't want to get sued in a manner similar to the John Doe passengers aboard a U.S. Airways flight in Minneapolis who noted the suspicious behavior of several imams (a lawsuit in which the John Does are no longer listed as defendants). It is also completely conceivable that some of the witnesses did not want to have their lives disrupted by getting involved. All-in-all, I'd guess that it is a combination of the three, but since the article doesn't address the topic, this is just speculation.

I don't believe that my theory above is that far off, though. Most of the native Minnesotans that I know hate to be offensive to anyone whom it would be politically incorrect to offend, and Somali immigrants would definitely fall under that category. Also, the Somalis that I have met are not the most assimilated group in the state. The last apartment complex that I lived in had a very large Somali population, so much so that I started calling the place "little Mogadishu."

I'm not trying to say that this incident took place because Rage Ibrahim is predisposed to such behavior because he is Somali. What raises red flags for me is that he allegedly assaulted a woman for almost 90 minutes, and others witnessed it and did nothing to put a stop to it. That is what makes this incident stand out, and I think that such behavior on the part of the witnesses is likely due to a failure of immigrants to assimilate to our culture, and a fear on the part of American citizens of being accused of bigotry when confronting the actions of people from cultures different than our own.

It's time for that way of thinking to turn around. Immigrants need to use English and assimilate to our culture and values, while citizens need to stop being worried about politically correct B.S. that allows others to slide on the basis cultural tolerance and diversity.

USMC 9971 OUT