Hiding Behind Mohammed's Skirt

It's been a while since I ranted about a New York Times editorial and today is as good a time as any to reverse that trend.

The Times has shown predictable, though loathsome, cowardice in pandering to the radical Muslims vis a vis the Danish cartoon issue. As we all know by now, the Times decided to not reprint the cartoons out of respect for Islam. Of course, they then went on to reprint a photo of the infamous work consisting of a bastardized version of the Virgin Mary, covered in elephant shit, out of disrespect for Christianity.

So while today's editorial is not surprising, it is amusing in the way that the Times' editors show no hesitation in demanding that others take the risks that the Times refused to take. Here's the editorial:

February 25, 2006
Editorial
Silenced by Islamist Rage

With every new riot over the Danish cartoons, it becomes clearer that the protests are no longer about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of Islamic extremists. The demonstrators are undeniably outraged by what they perceive as blasphemy. But radical Islamists are trying to harness that indignation to their political goals and their theocratic ends by fomenting hatred for the West and for moderate regimes in the Muslim world. These are dangerous games, and they require the most resolute response.

It is not the West that is most threatened in this crisis. The voices of moderation in the Muslim world are the ones that are being intimidated and silenced. Those few journalists and leaders who have spoken out against the rioting have been vilified and assailed, and even jailed. According to a report by Michael Slackman and Hassan M. Fattah in The New York Times, 11 journalists in five Islamic countries face prosecution for printing some of the Danish cartoons, even when their purpose was to condemn them.

In most of these cases, the legal action represents attempts by cowed authorities to appease the Islamists. But the effect in Yemen, Jordan and other countries has only been to give extremists a dollop of legitimacy, and to encourage them to turn up the heat. That, in turn, increases the perception of a "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West.

It is time for moderate Muslims to abandon the illusion that they can placate the Islamists by straddling the fence. It is they who must explain to their people that the cartoons were an isolated incident, and not the face of hostile crusaders. It is they who must make it clear to their people that blowing up mosques, beheading hostages and strapping on belts of explosives are far, far greater evils than a few drawings in a distant paper. They must do so because their future is at stake, not Denmark's.

Incredible, isn't it? The Times cowered in the face of radical Islam, going along with the terrorists' agenda of silencing anyone who would dare question Islam, yet the editors now tell the so-called "moderate" Muslims to confront the very radicals that the Times fears so much that it gives up its right of free speech.

Perhaps it would be better for the Times to lead by example, rather than by exhortation, and simply refuse to be silenced by the radical Muslims itself.

Of course, all of this is predicated on the belief that there really is a core of "moderate" Muslims. I'm not so sure they exist. If they do, where were they after 9/11? I didn't see any protests against the Islamic terror attacks on the United States. I didn't see them taking to the streets to protest the beheadings and other executions of Americans and other westerners.

As far as I can tell, the existence of "moderate" Muslims is a fiction created by the Times to avoid having to admit that Islam itself is religion of extremism.

Equal Time

One of my dear friends, whose name I can not share other than to say it rhymes with Few Knee, sent me his own take on the cartoons of the Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him. My friend is a very progressive person without a political agenda and he is probably one of the most skilled purveyors of porn, especially scatalogical porn, extant. He doesn't agree with that description, but trust me, when I want to see good, raw porn, he's the guy with the links.

For reasons known to all wise men, my friend decided to mix scatalogical porn with the Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him, and the following was the result.

I warn everyone that these are a bit graphic...

The first is tame and is titled "The Prophet shows his high school geometry abilities by solving the Pythagorean Theorem"




And this one needs no title but is a paean to my friend's favorite website, www.pissmops.com


"The reincarnation of the Prophet"



Speaking of Pissmops...



And this is the most graphic...

This one is titled "The Prophet kneels towards Mecca for prayer as he readies himself for a hearty meal" (though I think he's really eating a French buffet meal)

Sinking ships

I was making my weekend rounds through the local news and came across this story in the Contra Costa Times (originating in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch). The story explains that the explosion of housing development is setting many people up for the next flood or landslide or whatever. Here's the quote that caught my eye:

Flood-plain development is also stirring controversy in California, said Jeffrey Mount, a geologist at the University of California Davis.
"If we knew about Katrina 200 years ago, would we have done the same thing again in New Orleans?" he asked. "Well, in California we are reinventing our own Katrina as we speak."
Developers want to build 130,000 new homes near the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in the Central Valley, Mount said. Further north, Sacramento stands as one of the most at-risk for flooding among large metropolitan areas in the country because of its location near rivers and the condition of its levees, he said.

So I admit that I'm not the most gifted number cruncher around. But from what I can tell, the population of the United States has not been increasing so fast as to warrant all of the new housing development.

I've owned and I've rented places to live and my strong preference is to rent. I've heard all about the pride of ownership and the financial rewards of owning and I just haven't been convinced. I don't get much pride out of my house. It's a nice house, has a pool and we've recently remodeled it, but for the amount of money we've spent on it I just don't see where it's been worth anything near what we put into it. When I come home at night I don't admire the house or reflect on how proud I am that I have a mortgage.

And even though we bought a house before the housing market boom of the 2000s, we really didn't make that much when we sold. Four years after we bought the house for $750k or so we sold it for a bit over $900k. A $150k profit sounds nice, but when you figure in all the expenses over the years (that we wouldn't have had if we had rented), the costs of the sales transaction (commission of $50k+, staging expenses, etc.), we walked away with about $80k profit over the four years. That's a $20k return per year on a $750k investment and I don't care how bad I am at math, it looks like an annual return of about 2.6% to me. I'm pretty sure that I could have beat that return in the stock market or even just holding a treasury bond.

Yes, I know, we only put $300k or so down on the house, so our real return was somewhat higher, but when you start making those adjustments you then also have to add back in to the costs the interest expenses, the property taxes paid ($12,000 a year) and all the other things that I haven't added back in. Any way you cut it, the return just wasn't that good and we live in one of the hottest housing markets around.

So back to my point...why are we destroying our little remaining open space (or our farms, as is happening in parts of California) to put up housing? I know why the developers do it...they make a massive profit. But if you believe Wikipedia, the population of California only increased 13.8% from 1990 to 2000. That's an annual increase of about 1.4% per year in the state. My guess, simply from my own observations, is that there have been a hell of a lot larger increase in the housing stock inventory than 1.4% per year.

What's going on? Where are the people buying these houses coming from? Do my eyes deceive me and is the amount of new construction really not keeping pace with the population increase?


Whatever the case may be, I just don't understand the allure of owning a house.

And what I really don't understand is why Adobe can't make a fucking PDF reader program that works without slowing down or crashing every fucking computer I use!

A Day At The Range

I took the new old Garand to the range a few weeks ago for the first time and, due to the extreme winds (over 40 mph), I couldn't really get a sense of how accurate it was. So today, with the weather gorgeous (70 degrees and no wind), I went for a second trip.

I didn't expect the old Garand to be sub MOA rifle, and it wasn't, but I was pretty impressed with what it could do. On the first clip of 8 rounds, from 100 yards, this is what it did (click the picture to enlarge):



Not bad at all for an open sight Garand using factory ammo and firing standing up using the sling as a brace. The first clip was all in the black. You can count, if you click on the picture and look closely, 9 shots in the black (there are two at the 4 o'clock position that are in almost the same hole), with five inside the Shoot N' C target at the 7 and 8 rings, and the other four on the outer black ring. The 9th shot on the outer ring was part of the second clip I shot. The first clip was to see what a group, aimed at what I thought was the same point, would do. The second clip involved me messing with the windage and elevation knobs to see how much each click would change the placement of the round, which is why they tended to scatter around on the right side of the target.

I'm pretty impressed, though, to get a group of 8 rounds in the black with a rifle I've never fired. I look forward to getting these groups tighter as I use the rifle more. It's a VERY sweet shooting weapon.

But since I was out at the range, I also put a few rounds through my beloved SigArms SHR 970 7mm Magnum. The results are below (click to enlarge).



Not my best shooting ever, but considering that these rounds were not the ultra-accurate Nosler Ballistic Tips that I usually load (they were the basic Remington soft points, which are good enough for hunting but they have flattened noses and they tend to get slight deformations in the exposed lead point, which makes them a bit less accurate), the groupings were acceptable.

I took ten shots with the 7mm Magnum and the first two were the flyers up at about 11 o'clock. Then I settled down and put four so close to each other that it looks like one big hole (they're right outside the 10 ring on the Shoot N'C at 11 o'clock). With the final four shots, something popped into my mind...I had read a story this morning about the president of Iran popping off again. Here's what he said:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations" will eventually remove Israel from the region.

Addressing a mass demonstration in Tehran - one of many organized throughout Iran to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution - he once again questioned the Holocaust "fairy tale".

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them," Ahmadinejad said in a ceremony marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

So when that came to mind, I thought to myself...I have four rounds left, I have a shot at Ahmadinejad, can I put them all through one of his eyeballs in 30 seconds?

As you can see, three of those final four shots were in the 10 (with two of them on the bullseye), with the fourth touch the 10 ring.

Not the extreme accuracy I would have wanted, but given that they were not the good Nosler bullets and I took the shots in under a half minute, I was pleased. Now if I could only get the opportunity for real...

And to cap off a great morning, I put another clip in the Garand and aimed at the upper right corner of the target and shot the 8 rounds as fast as I could pull the trigger. A bit of a shotgun like pattern, but certainly acceptable...

Iranian Idol

While I still don't understand the connection between the Holocaust and the publication of cartoons depicting the pig fucker Mohammed as a terrorist, I couldn't resist making a submission to the contest being sponsored by the Iranian newspaper, Hamshari. In what it claims is a test of the limits of freedom of expression, Hamshari is offering some amount of gold to the best cartoons mocking the Holocaust. Given that I'm always up for a challenge and, since I'm a Jew, given that I am always game for free loot, I hereby submit my cartoon to Hamshari.



I apologize for the crude quality of the cartoon, but I am working fast to try to get this in before someone else comes up with my idea.

So does this prove anything? Does it help that I am a Jew, the son of Holocaust survivors, whose extended family were slaughtered by the Nazis?

While I honor the memory of those who were killed by the Nazis, there's no way on earth that the moronic Iranians are going to score any points by outraging me. Far from it, I happily submit my cartoon as a sign that I understand what is at stake. I send this cartoon in to Hamshari with a hearty FUCK YOU.

Keeping Tabs On Media Hypocrisy

Because I'm sure that there will be a point, likely in the near future, where the media run images, cartoons or stories that are offensive to people other than the protected classes (i.e., liberals and Islamic terrorists), I am going to use this post to document the statements the various media outlets have made with regard to why they aren't running the cartoons of the pig fucker, Mohammed. The first entries are the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN, all of whom have refused to run the cartoons out of fear of offending the Islamic terrorists. Rather than copy and paste text, I am putting up screen prints of the stories to ensure that there can be no claims later on that I doctored the words. As always, click on the images to enlarge them. More screen prints will be added as I find them.

Deafening Silence

What's that you're asking? Why the Zhid hasn't commented on the New York Times outrageous editorial position in defense of the Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons featuring images of Mohammed?

It's not that I'm being lazy, I assure you. And it's not that the psychotic Islamic masses haven't been doing enough violence, as usual, to warrant coverage of this story. No, dear reader, the reason that I haven't commented on the New York Times editorial position on the story is that the New York Times has not published an editorial on the issue.

Shocking, really.

Here we have acts of war being perpetrated (the attacks on the embassies of Norway and Denmark by Islamic "militants") and questions of freedom of the press being raised and the New York Times is nowhere to be found.

Hmmm. Very interesting.

Given how obsessed the New York Times has been since, oh, 9/11/01, with defending the Islamic world and upholding freedoms of expressions, it's quite curious, indeed, that we're going on a week now and they haven't had a single defense of whatever position they're taking.

What position IS the Times taking?

It's hard to know, because the Times will not even publish the cartoons. It's interesting to note that the Times will publish photos of things that are offensive to Christians (such as "artwork" that features the Virgin Mary covered in elephant shit), photos of disfigured American soldiers, photos of caskets of American soldiers and photos of so many other hate filled things (just imagine any liberal protest and the signs and slogans and you'll have an idea), on the theory that only with images can the American people understand what is happening, yet they won't publish images of things that Muslims may find offensive, like pictures of corpses at the street level of the World Trade Center on 9/11 or images of Mohammed.

What an ever so curious double standard.

If there ever were a need for a NY Times editorial to explain why they aren't running the pictures or whether they support the right to press freedoms and individual expression as much now as they did when, say, it was Christians angry about artwork in Brooklyn, now is the time.

But no, it appears in the grand tradition of the left, the New York Times editors are going to hide. They know that they are going to lose either way...if they come out supporting the right of the other newspapers to run the cartoons, they will anger the Muslims (and the Times has already shown that they care more about protecting the sensibilities of Muslims than in being responsible journalists). If they come out in opposition to the cartoons having been published, they will find themselves having to explain all of their prior positions on the primacy of a having no limits to the freedom of expression and the press.

My guess is that if they do finally get the courage to take a stand, they will qualify it as much as possible with notions of responsibility and balance between being thought provoking and not offending others, but ultimately they will side with the Islamic extremists and say that the cartoons are offensive and shouldn't be protected by concepts of freedom of the press.

I say this because I think the New York Times cares more about coddling Islamic terror than about being consistent to its principles.

Speaking of which, it also amuses me that the same "culture" that goes absolutely fucking nuts over the handling of a book or the content of a cartoon, and will riot in the streets and kill people over perceived insults as a result of such things, has no problem with burning our flags or beheading our people. The fucking Iranians have painted the flag of Israel on their streets to show their contempt for Jews and these people think that a fucking cartoon is worth going to war over????

Anyway, just in case anyone is interested, here are the two editorials the New York Times ran when Mayor Rudy Giuliani wanted to withhold funding of the Brooklyn Museum of Art due to an exhibition featuring a painting of the Virgin Mary that was covered in elephant shit. As you'll see, even though elephant shit on the Virgin Mary is far more offensive than a wick in a turban, the New York Times didn't mince words in attacking those who claimed offense at the art:

But ''art'' is not an honorific title. It is not given only to works that confirm or assuage the outlook of a busy, pugnacious, campaigning politician. Art is the name of a perpetual human struggle with the limits of perception. The Mayor's most valuable esthetic role is to defend the autonomy and artistic freedom of the city's museums. This week he is failing dramatically in that role in a fashion that makes him and the city look ridiculous.

Will they be as harsh on the Islamic thugs who are trying to silence the press? Will they call the papers that print the cartoons "courageous", as they did the Brooklyn Art Museum of Art when it offended Christians? Or will they mirror the bizarre message they included in today's coverage of the story, where they dropped a hint that exercising the freedom of the press by publishing the cartoons was REALLY a provocation by the right wing?

But this did not take place in a political vacuum. Hostile feelings have been growing between Denmark's immigrants and a government supported by the right-wing Danish People's Party, which has pushed anti-immigrant policies. And stereotyping in cartoons has a notorious history in Europe, where anti-Semitic caricatures fed the Holocaust, just as they feed anti-Israeli propaganda in the Middle East today.

WOW! The NY Times compared the images of Mohammed as a terrorist with the Holocaust!!! FUCKING OUTSTANDING!

I fear that the Times will be more interested in bashing conservatives, somehow, with this story than covering the story of Islamic intolerance, the need to preserve speech freedoms and the double standard of the American left (including the NY Times itself).

***************************************************

EDITORIAL DESK


The Mayor as Art Censor
(NYT) 705 words
Published: September 24, 1999

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has expressed his personal outrage by publicly criticizing the contents of an exhibition called ''Sensation,'' a collection of recent British artworks scheduled to open at the Brooklyn Museum of Art on Oct. 2. The show contains highly controversial works by Damien Hirst, including a partially decomposed shark and a bisected pig preserved in formaldehyde, as well as a dung-stained, faux-naive portrait of the Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili. After seeing the exhibition catalogue, Mr. Giuliani called these works ''sick stuff,'' which, indeed, is a phrase that may have been uttered by many of the visitors -- critics and ordinary art lovers alike -- who saw the exhibition in London or Berlin.
But the Mayor has also threatened to withhold city financing from the Brooklyn Museum unless it cancels the exhibition. In doing so, Mayor Giuliani has grossly distorted the First Amendment, whose very purpose is to insure freedom of speech without intrusion by legally constituted authority. ''If somebody wants to do that privately and pay for that privately, well, that's what the First Amendment is all about,'' the Mayor said about the exhibition. ''But to have the government subsidize something like that is outrageous.'' This has been the classic point of division over the sponsorship of controversial art in the past decade, the reflexive response of almost anyone who is offended by artwork displayed at an institution that receives public money.


Government has no obligation to finance art. But the Supreme Court, while upholding the right of Congress to legislate ''advisory'' standards of decency, has nonetheless affirmed that once government decides to provide funding, it has no right to impose ''a penalty on disfavored viewpoints.'' Clearly, this action amounts to such a penalty.

The Mayor's rationale derives from the fact that the city owns the Brooklyn Museum of Art and provides nearly a third of its operating budget. He also argues that the city's lease with the museum requires the institution to remain open to the public, including schoolchildren, unless the mayor grants permission to close part of it. As it turns out, the exhibition is not closed to anyone. Children under 17 will be admitted to ''Sensation'' if acccompanied by an adult. Hanging his stance on an access issue merely reveals the weakness of the Mayor's argument.

The Mayor's threat plainly violates the tenor of the 1998 Supreme Court ruling in a case brought by several artists. If he persists in stopping payments to the Brooklyn Museum, he will have succeeded mainly in engendering another losing lawsuit that the city will be required to defend at taxpayer expense.

Mr. Giuliani will also have done serious harm to New York's reputation as a world center of culture. The Mayor's threat implies that all city-financed art in New York exists only with the tacit approval of his office and at the discretion of his own sensibility. It implies that he believes he has the power to shut down a museum's entire operation, including all of its exhibitions and educational programs, at will. This is intolerable at any level of government and in any place, but it seems especially egregious in New York.

There are many reasons to be skeptical about ''Sensation,'' reasons that have as much to do with the politics of the art world as they do with esthetics. But ''art'' is not an honorific title. It is not given only to works that confirm or assuage the outlook of a busy, pugnacious, campaigning politician. Art is the name of a perpetual human struggle with the limits of perception. The Mayor's most valuable esthetic role is to defend the autonomy and artistic freedom of the city's museums. This week he is failing dramatically in that role in a fashion that makes him and the city look ridiculous.

and

***************************************
EDITORIAL DESK


The Museum's Courageous Stand
(NYT) 538 words
Published: September 29, 1999

The Brooklyn Museum of Art announced yesterday that it will stand by its plans to open the exhibition called ''Sensation.'' It also began litigation to prevent Mayor Rudolph Giuliani from fulfilling his threat to withhold financing and possibly take over the museum board. This is unequivocally the right action, one that deserves the support of all of New York's cultural institutions. The Mayor's retaliatory announcement that the city will immediately end its subsidy of the museum is an authoritarian overreaction that deserves a swift hearing and repudiation by the courts.
Meanwhile, the heads of many of New York City's most important cultural institutions, public and private, have also released a joint letter to Mayor Giuliani. The letter, which ''respectfully'' urges the Mayor to reconsider his threat, is signed by people whose respect, in this instance, seems partly forced by the financial hammer the Mayor wields and by the aggressive personality that leads them to believe he might use it, on the Brooklyn Museum if not necessarily on their own institutions.


The joint letter makes all the right points. The Mayor's threatened actions, including taking over the board of the Brooklyn Museum, would indeed be a dangerous precedent. Even a mayor who is not busy playing constituent politics in a Senate race, the way Mayor Giuliani is, might find it tempting to intervene in cultural policy from time to time. But one of the cardinal realities of New York City is that this is a place where artistic freedom thrives, where cultural experimentation and transgression are not threats to civility but part of the texture and meaning of daily life. The letter to the Mayor speaks of the chilling effect his actions against the Brooklyn Museum might have. That is an understatement. A threat as blunt and unreasoned as the one the Mayor has leveled at the Brooklyn Museum promises to begin a new Ice Age in New York's cultural affairs, at least until Mr. Giuliani leaves office.

The museum directors who have signed the joint letter have made a politic appeal to Mr. Giuliani. It was not the forum in which to lecture him on the nature of artistic freedom and the subtleties of public financing of the arts. But no matter how you assess the art in ''Sensation'' or the motives of the Brooklyn Museum or even the fatigue that the thought of another skirmish in the culture war engenders -- a rock-hard principle remains. Public financing of the arts cannot be a pretext for government censorship, not on behalf of Roman Catholics or anyone else. The Brooklyn Museum and its lawyer, Floyd Abrams, have found a fittingly aggressive way to make this point in the face of Mr. Giuliani's unremitting attack. Their suit argues that no one can be punished for exercising First Amendment rights. The courts should respond by affirming that those rights belong to the museum and the people of New York no matter how deeply the Mayor is mired in constitutional error.

Extreme Extremism

Back to local politics for a moment, especially for the benefit of some of my non-local readers...As many of you know, I used to live in Oakland, California. I didn't choose to live there on my own; my wife, bless her naive and apolitical heart, lived in Oakland before I met her and has always had an affinity for the place. So being the open minded person that I am, when we moved from New York to California in 2000, though I would have preferred to buy a house elsewhere, we bought a house in Oakland.

It was a horrible mistake, on so many levels, not the least of which was that I am a fairly conservative person and the politics in Oakland are extreme liberal/left. After four years of living under the environment destroying, America hating, racist left wing regime in Oakland I insisted that we get the hell out.

I didn't really care where we went as long as the local politics were more moderate. I was tired of having a left wing city council (a group that never saw a tax it didn't like, a developer bribe it wouldn't accept or a way to destroy the quality of life of its constituents that it didn't embrace) with a left wing mayor and a left wing Representative (Barbara Lee) along with the left wing Senators (Ignorant Cunt Feinstein and even more ignorant cunt Boxer).

I knew that I couldn't get away from Feinstein and Boxer without leaving California, but I wanted to at least have a local government that wasn't leftist and a Representative who didn't carry around Das Kapital.

So I moved out to eastern Contra Costa County, where my Representative is Republican Richard Pombo and most of my neighbors (I live in an unincorporated area, so there are no mayors or city councils) are good conservative Republicans.

I got exactly what I wanted..there's plenty of preserved open space here (unlike Oakland), the streets are clean and in good repair (unlike Oakland), there's virtually no crime (unlike Oakland), city services, such as parks, landscaping, schools, fire and police are ample (unlike Oakland) and I am not living under politicians who do everything possible to attack America. People here fly American flags (unlike Oakland), don't have ridiculous, hate filled bumper stickers on their cars (unlike Oakland) and are genuinely nice people (unlike Oakland). It's been a great move on all levels.

So that's why I got a chuckle when I read a recent article by Uber-lefty (and Oakland/Berkeley resident) Jon Carroll in the left wing San Francisco Chronicle. Carroll is about as typical of the knee jerk, hate filled left wingers in Oakland as you'll find. He's a smarmy, self important racist who could write Osama's speeches in his sleep. But even a shitbag like Carroll had enough sense to write a column about how over the top Cindy Sheehan has become and how she is actually doing more harm to the left than good. Carroll urges Sheehan to crawl back into her cave.

He also makes a comment about the upcoming mayoral election in Oakland, which is the real point of today's post. As you likely know, the current mayor of Oakland is Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. He's done pretty much what one would expect of a brain dead liberal in charge...he's destroyed quality of life in Oakland for decent people, allowed crime to run rampant, let the infrastructure of the city collapse into third world standards and run good taxpayers, like me, out of town with his failed policies.

What Oakland needs is someone who will do something different from the tried and failed liberal policies that have destroyed the city. So who is now the front-runner in the mayoral election? None other than the mad scientist that created the treasonous Frankenstein of politics, Barbara Lee...RON DELLUMS.

Here's how Jon Carroll described Dellums:

In other news: In my actual life, I have had occasion to be grateful to Ignacio De La Fuente. When my neighborhood fought the city of Oakland, he carried our water, and we won. When the nonprofit organization on whose board I sit needed help coaxing some money out of the city, he was there to help. I am also aware that he is not without luggage, a lot of it with the pirate logo of the Raiders stenciled on it.

It looked pretty good for De La Fuente in his race for mayor, but now it doesn't. Ron Dellums has decided, for reasons not yet clear, that he wants to be mayor of Oakland, and Ron Dellums walks on water around here. I have heard him give off-the-cuff remarks that have beaten anything delivered by someone with milelong cuffs. His voting record in Congress was impeccable, he's as handsome as anything, and he knows how to fire up the troops.

It's kind of sad to see De La Fuente get blindsided that way, but make no mistake: The other truck owns the road.

Ron Dellums admits that he's a socialist. If you want to know the real story about Ron Dellums and his extreme leftism, take a look here. Here's a snippet:

In January 1971, only a few days after assuming his House seat, Representative Dellums organized a so-called “war crimes” exhibit in an annex of his congressional office. The atrocities, allegedly committed by U.S. soldiers, were featured on four large posters embellished with red paint to simulate blood. Needless to say, there was no suggestion that communist forces were engaging in terror and torture as policy. Dellums demanded Nuremberg-style trials only of U.S. officers responsible for supposed "war crimes." A few weeks later he publicly discarded his military medals.

So this is the piece of shit that Oakland residents are apparently going to elect as their leader. Imagine the political ladder for a typical Oakland resident. Your councilmember is an extremist liberal. Your mayor (Dellums) is a socialist with among the most extremist left wing views of anyone in office in America. Your Representative (Barbara Lee) is the fetid spawn of your mayor, a vile left wing bitch who didn't hesitate to embrace al Qaeda after 9/11. And then you go up to your two Senators (Feinstein and Boxer), ignorant liberal cunts of the highest order.

Who can possibly want to live in a city like that? It's funny that my former neighbors in Oakland consider themselves so open-minded. They are about the most closed minded, isolated extremists around. They have no balance and no interest in hearing anything other than the sounds of their own treasonous voices. I'd go so far as to say that even in the most conservative parts of the country, there is nothing to match the political whitewashing that Oakland will have after the next election. You'd have to have the klan for a city council, David Duke as mayor, Richard Butler as Representative and Robert Matthews and Dennis McGiffen as Senators.

And then MAYBE you'd have something as extreme right wing as you have extreme left wing in Oakland.

When I think of Oakland and what goes on in that disgusting shithole, I always think of that good old negro spirutal..."G-d gave Noah the rainbow sign; no more water, the fire next time."

Well, Oakland's already had a good fire.

I wonder what comes after fire...

The only thing that scares Chuck Norris

How can anyone not have empathy for Bill Clinton?