"Innocence of Muslims"

Now, that film, in all its despicable entirety, will be posted on Public Occurrences.  Friends may want to avoid the casa de me when that happens. 

Oh my God, this is great, evil-great:  the leader of one of Islam's terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, has thrown down against Susan Rice and Barack Obama. Islam has been demanding that the president apologize for Innocence of Muslims. He, of course, has refused, although Rice and Secretary Clinton have come close. Obama has also refused to put pressure on Google and Youtube to take the film down, protecting and defending the constitution of the United States, which he, like, took an oath to do, and which, like, allows for free speech. The problem for the Obamas is that only the trailer to the film has been released so far, not the whole film. Islam is now demanding that Obama block release of the film in its entirety.  Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah above said today that if the whole film is released,

"America, which uses the pretext of freedom of expression...needs to understand that putting out the whole film will have very grave consequences around the world."  

Now what are the Obamas going to do?  Rice has already said the trailer was the "proximate cause" of the murder of the Americans in Libya, now the administration is put on notice that if it allows the whole film to be released there are going to be further attacks by Islam. So Ambassador Rice, if President Obama doesn't block the release of Innocence of Muslims wouldn't he be at least an accessory to the "proximate cause" of the murder of more Americans? And if Obama does block the release of the whole film (Can he do that?  Would that be constitutional?)  then Sheikh Nasrallah and Islam have made him their bitch.

Mr. President, may I ask a question, do you have a full supply of Imodium in the White House?

No, she doesn't have game, she's got bone in brain.
Ambassador Rice, have you ever been to Uzbekistan?  Ma'am just answer the question: are you now or have you ever been Uzbek?  Are you related to anyone from Uzbekistan?  How about Penn State, did you ever attend Penn State?  Huh?  Ever been there? Huh?

Mr. President, does Ambassador Rice, if you know, have a bone in her brain?
Do you, sir, if you know?

"In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated."

                                   -Susan Rice, United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

"What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region...was a result -- a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting."

                                                     -Susan Rice.

"But there is no question what we have seen in the past with things like Satanic Verses and cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad

there have been such things that have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause."

                                                     -Susan Rice. 

9/11 2012 Attacks.

Good morning Mr. President, how is the debate preparation going?  Mr. President, how would you answer the following questions, if asked?:

 Do you agree with Susan Rice, your Ambassador to the United Nations, that the Libyan protests were "spontaneous" and then were "hijacked by extremists?"

Do you agree with Ambassador Rice that the Islamic protests were not an "expression of hostility in the broadest sense to the U.S. or its policies?"

Ambassador Rice said yesterday that the U.S. was "not even less popular"  within Islam than when you took office, a direct contradiction with a Pew survey taken in June, 2012; Sir, do you know the basis for Ambassador Rice's statement?

Are you going to ask Congress to forgive the $1 billion debt relief loan made to Egypt that is due shortly?

Seeking the Soul.

Republished courtesy of Dr. Weimin Mo from his blog http://weiminmopaintings.blogspot.com/.

When I browsed the paintings I recently did, I was surprised to notice that there are quite a number of paintings which have bridges in them. Then I came to think that probably I have been doing a bridging job of which I am not consciously aware of myself. I am trying to bridge art and life, Chinese and American culture, individual and society, etc. One thing always puzzles me is the fact that sometimes, human beings are so much similar with each other but in other times we are so different. For instance, tolerance is generally considered to be a virtue in this country. However, in reality, what is happening in the world has enabled us to see many different sides of the concept. How would we call this when someone made a film you consider offensive, you just pick up your gun and mow down other innocent people because they share the same nationality, culture, religion, ethnicity, etc with the film maker? Of course, Florida doesn't lack fanatics like that, either. It reminds me of a quote form Bertrand Russell:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts."
Today I came across a very good article which shows sort of Chinese side of tolerance. I can never trust Google translating software to do the job. Maybe it works well in translating within the linguistically Germanic family or even between Germanic and Latin language families. However, I don't think technology has developed to such a sophisticated level as to be able to translate Chinese into English without causing errors which would make you laugh till you hold your sides. One of my friends once shared with me what he got from Google translation. Believe me, those errors are good raw material for late night talk show. So I took the time to translate the article. I include its original version, too. This is part of my bridging work.

Easy to Stoop down but Difficult to Stand up

By Hong Huang*

Several days ago I was asked by Group M Advertisement, Inc. to give a speech on “Embracing Changes”.Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to go there, so I made a video of the speech and sent it to them. Group M President Li Qianling is my good friend. She asked me more than half a dozen questions – all about how to face changes in our lives.
I grew up as an obedient child. I didn’t say anything when my parents sent me to a boarding school at the age of 9. I was placed by mistake in a class in which I was one year younger than my classmates. I didn’t complain. I was bullied in the dorm, but I didn’t tell. When I reached the age of 12, I was sent to America, away from home. I took it as an honor. In America I didn’t understand what people were talking about but I blamed myself for lack of vocabulary. Therefore, I tried hard to memorize English words. I felt I was really a good child for being able to tolerate so much. As far as I remember, I never thought of making a fuss to my parents.
For that reason, my first answer to her question was like this: "The Chinese attitude about changes is, usually, trying to resign yourself to adversity, that is, to go on with your life as you can and never mind about other things." I felt that was our great strength. I had done the same thing myself in the past.
So that was the hole I unconsciously dug for myself and I even had the audacity to identify with the forces of“reactionary feudal” culture, asking other Chinese to go on with that kind of tolerance.
I did not realize my answer in the video was “reactionary feudal” till last night when I watched Meng Jinghui’s drama To Be Alive, which suddenly dawned on me about the nature of my answer. I like Meng’s dramas. His artistic expression is always trend-setting. He manipulates dramatic skills naturally like fish in water. Watching his drama work makes you feel it is familiar but refreshing, enjoyable but not superficial.
I watched the show at China Grand Theater, which I liked.
Way before I watched the show, I had read the story in book and watched it in movie but didn’t remember a lot of details. The story is about how a Chinese spendthrift resigned himself to adversity, a kind of Chinese version of Les Miserable story. Meng intertwines the tragic ups and downs of the story with modern-time singing and dancing, even mini episodes so that in the midst of the overwhelming sadness suddenly you get a chance to catch your breath and you temporarily forget the sadness. I thought of the videoed speech I sent to Group M when I was watching the show. Then I felt like wanting to slap myself on the face. How could I teach people to follow the teaching of meek submission to oppression like that? Was I crazy?
Probably this was the moment when the idea popped into my mind: the protagonist of the story was happy to realize that if he had not gambled away all the land and wealth he inherited, most probably the person who was executed as a landlord during the land reform movement would not be his gamble buddy Long Erye, but himself instead. It was at that time when I felt enlightened: We are always ready to find a self-deceiving excuse for sufferings and keep telling ourselves, “Tolerance of sufferings is a disguised blessing.” Anyway, we consider the attitude to be a virtue.
However, is meekly submitting to oppression a virtue?
There is another fundamental reason why I cannot tolerate picturing sufferings in Chinese art. That is because all the pains are not to be sublimated into anything and what we do is only struggling painfully in the deep water to keep our heads out of it.

Victor Hugo’s Les Miserable is a sad story, too. However, due to the compassion and protection by Bishop Myriel, the protagonist Jean Valjean transforms from a victim who submitted to adversity at beginning to a man who controls his own destiny toward the end. His adopted daughter Cosette falls in love with young revolutionary Marius, whom Jean Valjean rescues when he is wounded in the uprising. In the end when Cosette’s voyage comes to a safe and sound ending, Jean Valjean redeems himself with love. His attitude tells us that the experience of his sufferings is eventually sublimated into wisdom and value.

If you think Jean Valjean is too dramatized, then you may like John Steinbeck’s The Wrath of Grapes. In the story, Tom Joad is not an easily tolerant person in the first place. Otherwise he would not go to jail. He is forced to go to the West, looking for jobs during the Great Depression. Intolerant of exploitation, he doesn’t mind being on the run a second time.

To be Alive, Les Miserable, and The Wrath of Grapes are all stories about human sufferings. And they all have screen versions (more than one) and stage versions. The greatest difference between them is that in To be Alive, there is no deliverance for sufferings, and that all the sufferings the protagonist has experienced do not bring about a little bit of rebellious spirit. When the historical turmoil turns his initial bad luck (the loss of 100 Chinese acres of land) into an inadvertent luck (evasion of being executed as landlord), he simply believes he gains something. He does not stand up and protest against the injustice; the only thing he does is putting up with anything coming his way. That is the difference between Chinese-style sufferings and French- or American-style sufferings. We have a higher level of tolerance of sufferings than any nations in the world!
Is it a good thing to be tolerant like that? Isn’t it an encouragement to tyrants? Isn’t it true that this kind of submissiveness equals giving up life itself?
Did we get it from Buddhism? Or from Confucianism? What has made us to be so subservient, so easy to stoop down but so difficult to stand up, so meek to oppression, so obedient, so yielding?
If such terrible sufferings fail to let us achieve sublimation like Jean Valjean or to rebel like Tom Joad, unless we are destined to be rich and powerful, the sufferings truly serve us right.

Source: Southern Capital Weekly

*Hong Huang is a well-known Chinese public figure. She is from a privileged family. Her mother was Mao’s English teacher and interpreter. Her stepfather was China’s foreign minister. They had a close relationship with first President Bush and his wife. After the 10-year-long havoc of Cultural Revolution was over and Deng Xiaoping came to power, the couple was accused of being involved in the Gang of Four’s conspiracy and put in jail for some years.
Recently Hong Huang appeared and commented in the documentary film Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry.

能屈不能伸

洪晃

几天前 Group M 广告公司开全体大会，要我去发言，题目是“拥抱转变”。由于不能前往，只好做了一段录像发过去。公司老总李倩玲是我一个好朋友，给我提了七八个问题。都是问我怎么面对生活中的变化。

　　我从小就是一个逆来顺受的好孩子，9岁时父母送我去住校，我没反对。插班插错了，我比同班同学都小一岁，我没吭声。宿舍里受欺负，我从来没告状。12岁又给弄去美国，背井离乡，我只当光荣，听不懂英文，我只当单词不够，接着死记硬背。我觉得我其实是个好孩子，这么多变化我都忍过来了，似乎从来没有跟父母抱怨过。

　　所以我的第一个答复是：中国人对付变化的态度通常就是逆来顺受，埋头过小日子。不去想其他的。我觉得这是我们的一大优点。我也一样。

　　就这么不知不觉地我给自己刨了一个坑，居然和那种“反动封建”的文化势力站在一条线上，要求中国人继续忍下去。

　　我当时并没有意识到我的话“反动封建”，直到昨天晚上，看孟京辉的话剧版《活着》，我才恍然大悟。我喜欢孟京辉的戏，他的艺术表现手段永远那么当代，他是在玩戏剧，而且玩得如鱼得水。看他的戏总是觉得不陌生，但是又新鲜，很享受，但是不肤浅。

　　演出是在中国大剧院。我喜欢。

　　《活着》的书我很早看过，电影也看过。但是细节已经忘了。《活着》的话剧很好看，讲了一个败家子逆来顺受的故事，是中国版的“悲惨世界”。孟京辉在波浪般的悲情中穿插了一些当代情节的歌舞和小品，于是苦海中突然就有了喘气的机会，就不觉得那么苦了。我在看这个话剧的时候，想起了我给广告公司的录像，我开始想抽自己嘴巴子，我怎么能提倡逆来顺受哪？我疯了吗？

　　大概在看到这个情节——剧中主人翁高兴意识到，如果他没把家里最后的田地输光，那么在“土改”中被枪毙的“地主”就不是他的赌友龙二爷，而是他自己了——的时候，我就发现了：我们很会给自己的苦难找自我麻醉的借口，总是跟自己说“吃亏是福、吃亏是福”，我们认为这是美德。

　　但在苦难中逆来顺受真的是一种美德吗？

　　我看不得中国艺术中的苦难还有一个最根本的原因——我们所有的苦难不能升华，我们就泡在一池塘的苦水里面来回扑腾。雨果的《悲惨世界》也很惨，但是有了主教的怜悯和保护，主人公冉阿让也从一个逆来顺受的人变成了一个主宰自己命运的人。他的养女爱上了革命青年马洛斯，马洛斯在起义中负伤昏迷，冉阿让救了他。最后在女儿有了好归宿之后，冉阿让带着赎罪的爱离开人世。冉阿让的态度告诉我们，他的苦难已经升华到一种智慧和价值观念。

　　如果《悲惨世界》中的冉阿让太戏剧化，那你也许喜欢斯坦贝克的《愤怒的葡萄》。

　　在《愤怒的葡萄》里面，约德本来就不是一个善于忍受的人，不然就不会进牢房了。美国的经济萧条使他被迫去西部当长工，而最后，他因为反抗剥削而第二次出逃。

　　《活着》、《悲惨世界》、《愤怒的葡萄》都是叙述人间苦难的文学著作，都被拍成电影（甚至不止一版），也都被搬上舞台。但其中最大的不同是，《活着》的苦难是没有解脱的，主人翁的一切不幸永远不会带来半丝反抗的精神，而当历史的变迁，把他原来的不幸（丢了100亩地）变成了后来的侥幸（没把他当地主枪毙）。他还觉得赚了。他不会反抗，他只会受着。这是中国式苦难和法国、美国式苦难的区别，我们对苦难的承受力比任何民族都强大。

　　这是好事吗？这么能忍受，难道不是去纵容暴君吗？这么听话，难道不是放弃生命吗？

　　是佛教？是孔子？到底是什么让我们这么老实、这么能屈不能伸、这么逆来顺受、这么乖、这么听话？

　　如果那么大的苦难都不能让我们获得冉阿让的升华和约德的反抗，那也许我们这群人就是富贵的命，真的也就活该了。

来源: 南都周刊

Make that 62-7, now near the end of the third quarter. Colorado should give up the sport or at least just play Penn State. 

of all things Islam to bring you a report from the world of American sports. Two of the preeminent junk institutions of higher education in America are playing tackle football this evening, the Fresno State "Raisins" ("My maid graduated from Fresno State" was the reaction of U.S.C. fans when they were forced to play the "Raisins" in a bowl game some years ago (the "Raisin Maids" beat the "Prophylactics" in that game)). Tonight the "Raisins" are playing another member of the glamorous Pac12 conference, the Colorado "Ward Churchills" and the "Raisins" are... leading the "Ward Churchills" 55-7 at halftime.

55-7 at the HALF.  That  is an astonishing score. Maybe Colorado will make it respectable but to be behind Fresno State 55-7 at the half...No, the "Ward Churchills" will never live this down.

Go Raisins!

The War is with Islam.

"According to a June 2012 Pew survey, just 15% of those in Muslim countries held a favorable opinion of the United States, compared to 25% in 2009." -BBC

Voices from Neville Chamberlain's tomb.

"We have made significant inroads in demonstrating that the U.S. is not at war with Islam..."
       -Benjamin J. Rhodes, deputy national security adviser to President Obama. New York Times, today.

True..Well...

"We have made significant inroads"

 "in demonstrating"

"that the U.S."

"is not at war"

"with Islam."

That Benjamin has utterly convinced this Benjamin that the U.S. under President Obama is not at war with Islam. I think that Benjamin and his boss have convinced everybody of that.

Well...not Islam, though, right? That's who that Benjamin is talking about, right?  So his statement is "The Obamas have made 'significant inroads' in demonstrating to Islam that the U.S. is not at war with Islam."

No. Off the events of 9/11 2012 and their aftermath, that cannot be considered to be true, meaning accurate.  But wait...That Benjamin's statement is one-way, it only concerns what the "U.S." has, blah-blah-blah. It doesn't say "we are not at war with Islam,"  it doesn't say "Islam is not at war with us. "  It is a one-way statement. If we reverse the nouns we get "Islam has made significant inroads in demonstrating that Islam is not at war with the U.S."  That, that Benjamin did not say and that of course would not be true.

That Benjamin's statement could be literally true: the Obamas have made significant inroads in demonstrating to Islam that the U.S. is not at war with Islam---and Islam doesn't care.  That is, Islam is saying "You chumps, sure fooled you! We know you don't think you're at war with us but we are at war with you. Ha-ha, stupid Americans."  That Benjamin's statement could be true in that way. That would really be bad because that would mean that that Benjamin and his boss are stupid. It would mean that they are fools who got played and four of their own, Ambassador Stevens and the three others, just got murdered--on 9/11 too--by people who are at war with them and that Benjamin and his boss didn't even know.

Oooh. That would not be good for that Benjamin and his boss. 

The War is with Islam.

Islam-Egypt has cleared protesters from in front of the U.S. embassy in Cairo. Islam-Tunisia has condemned the U.S. embassy invasion there. Yesterday German and British embassies were the subject of protests and today at the U.S. embassy in Australia Islamic protesters are clashing with police.Obama, Obama, we like Osama. That is the chant in Sydney. In Morroco yesterday it was Death to Obama, in Jordan Listen Obama, We're all Osama here, and in the aforementioned Tunisia Obama, Obama, we are all Osamas.

Neville Chamberlain's Tomb.

This surely is shattering for President Obama, Secretary Clinton, the New York Times, so many others.  As wrong-headed as they were, as insouciant, they meant well and thought they had done well. On National Public Radio this morning an expert said that there always has been more anti-American sentiment in Egypt than in other of Islam's countries in Arabia. More. Munich killed Neville Chamberlain but before he died, after the Nazi betrayal, there was no Briton more committed to war. 9/11 2012 and the aftermath will not kill Obama, Clinton or Thomas L. Friedman, et al, it may not even kill Obama's chances for reelection. I hope, but I do not believe, that, as with Chamberlain, it kills their naivete and that they now are just as committed to war as was he.

Churchill eulogized Chamberlain:

"It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour."

...

"Herr Hitler protests with frantic words and gestures that he has only desired peace. What do these ravings and outpourings count before the silence of Neville Chamberlain's tomb?"

The War is with Islam.

"Anti-American Protests Widen to Much of the Muslim World:"*
Egypt.

Sudan.

Iraq.

Palestinian territories.

Bangladesh.

Afghanistan.

Lebanon.

Yemen.

Kuwait.

Qatar.

Libya.

Pakistan.

Tunisia.
Jordan (Sept. 14)
Israel (Muslims in Israel, not Jews. Sept. 14)
Australia (Muslims in. Sept. 15)
Indonesia (Sept. 15)
Iran (Sept. 14)
India (Muslims, not Hindus. Sept. 14)

*Lead headline, New York Times, 10:17 am.

9/11 2012 Attacks.

Good morning Mr. President, Madame Secretary, friends, enemies and all the ships at sea.  As we peruse the overnight news this “misguided individual” resolves today “to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” secure in the righteousness of this course that “the Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns” me.  And I welcome their condemnation.

Islam continues its anti-American protests near the American embassy in Cairo, hurting the feelings of President Obama, who placed a call to Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi.  Morsi, hurting the feelings of the New York Times, had not condemned the 9/11 2012’s attacks.  Here are how Obama’s and the Times hurt feelings have been expressed. This is written by Helene Cooper and Mark Landler for the Times:

         “While the violence there did not result in any American deaths, the tepid response from the Egyptian government to the assault gave officials in Washington — already troubled by the direction of President Mohamed Morsi’s new Islamist government — further cause for concern.”

 “[Obama] found less reason to be pleased with Egypt, the second-largest recipient of American foreign aid after Israel, at $2 billion a year. Mr. Morsi issued only a mild rebuke of the rioters — and on Facebook — while his movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, has called for a second day of protests against the lurid anti-Muslim video that set off the riots. And though the Egyptian police coordinated with American officials, Mr. Morsi waited 24 hours before issuing his statement against the militants who stormed the embassy; Libyan authorities issued immediate, unequivocal statements of regret for the bloodshed in Benghazi.”

Facebook, that’s pretty funny, he doesn’t have twitter?

“Mr. Obama seemed to indicate that the American relationship with Egypt is evolving. ‘I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,’ he said in an interview with Telemundo…”

That statement is right: Egypt is not an ally of the U.S. but this misguided individual agrees that Egypt is not quite yet an enemy. Maybe soon.

“For the United States, ‘politically the bigger issue is Egypt,’ said Martin S. Indyk, a former United States ambassador to Israel. ‘On the one hand, you didn’t have Americans getting killed, but this was the fourth time an embassy was assaulted in Cairo with the Egyptian police doing precious little,’ Mr. Indyk said. ‘And where was President Morsi’s condemnation of this?’ ”

“Several foreign policy experts said they worried that Mr. Morsi was putting appeasement of his country’s Islamist population ahead of national security.” [emphasis added]

There is appeasement going on in the Obama administration, not in the Morsi administration.

“What makes Egypt’s uncertain course so vexing for the White House is that Mr. Obama, more than any other foreign leader, has sided again and again with the Arab street in Cairo, even when it meant going expressly against the wishes of traditional allies, including the Egyptian military, the Persian Gulf states and Israel.”

You can really sense Obama’s hurt feelings there.  Oh well.  Neville Chamberlain’s feelings were crushed by Hitler.  Appeasers get their feelings hurt.

“For anti-American unrest to erupt in Egypt after all that could reflect a deeper divergence of a once-staunch ally from the United States. Mr. Morsi’s belated reaction came after other actions that have troubled American officials, from his decision to attend a meeting of nonaligned countries in Tehran to his choice of China for one of his first overseas trips. Mr. Obama has pledged to forgive $1 billion in Egyptian debt.

‘How does the president go to the Hill and say, “We need to forgive $1 billion in Egyptian debt?” ‘said Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.”

Good point. How does he?

The report above and others draw a distinction between the conduct of Islam among our not-friends-not-yet-enemies in Egypt and the conduct of Islam in Libya. In the latter, the government swiftly and unequivocally condemned the attacks and murder of Ambassador Stevens and pledged assistance in bringing the perpetrators to justice. President Obama is taking them up on their offer and has sent a team of Marines and two destroyers to the area.

Elsewhere in Islam attacks on America occurred in Yemen today where protesters of hurt feelings again invaded sovereign U.S. territory, breaching the embassy walls and, let’s see, what would they do, oh yes, burned the American flag.  According to Nasser Arrabyee and Alan Cowell for the Times:

“The protests came hours after a Muslim cleric, Abdul Majid al- Zandani, urged followers to emulate the protests in Libya and Egypt, Sana residents said. Mr. Zandani, a onetime mentor to Osama bin Laden, was named a ‘specially designated global terrorist’ by the United States Treasury Department in 2004.”

“President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi of Yemen said in a statement that he ‘extends his sincere apologies to President Obama and to the people of the United States of America’ for the attack.”

This misguided American accepts President Hadi’s apology as I am sure another misguided American, President Obama, does. The problem is President Hadi does not have control of his people.  The protesters must be hunted down and imprisoned; al-Zandani and his close followers must be killed; al-Zandani’s mosque must be destroyed; and any gathering of Muslims in Yemin or elsewhere in Islam protesting should be bombed. If Hadi agrees to do all of that we should accept.  If not, President Obama should do it.

In Iran 500 hurt feelings gathered in front of the Swiss embassy (which handles U.S. affairs) in Tehran, chanting “Death to America.”  Obama should have bombed the protesters, killing them.  And in Iraq, Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia there were also protests by Islam.  I would not bomb the Hurts yet in those last four countries. If no American was killed, let them continue to protest. They will turn violent soon enough. Iran is different, its hostility to America so virulent and so long-standing that we should attack now.

There is no media consensus today on the role played by Innocence of Muslims in all of this. Yesterday the undersigned misguided individual cited to a USAToday report that the 9/11 2012 attack in Cairo had been planned by Egyptian Salafists. The charge against the Salafists has not been picked up by others that I have seen.

Several mainstream news outlets are now reporting that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks on the Libyan embassy. Here is CNN:

“A London think tank with strong ties to Libya speculated Wednesday that Stevens was the victim of a targeted al Qaeda revenge attack. [emphasis added]

The assault ‘came to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al Qaeda's second in command killed a few months ago,’ the think tank Quilliam said Wednesday.

It was ‘the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault,’ the think tank said, noting that rocket-propelled grenade launchers do not normally appear at peaceful protests, and that there were no other protests against the film elsewhere in Libya.

‘Jihadists will want the world to believe that the attack is just a part of the protests against an amateur film produced in the U.S., which includes crude insults regarding the Prophet Mohammed. They will want the world to think that their actions represent a popular Libyan and wider Muslim reaction; thus, reversing the perception of jihadists being outcasts from their own societies,’ Quilliam president Norman Benotman said.”

9/11 2012 Attacks.

"A number of Libyan security guards died trying to save the Americans, and Libyan leaders have condemned the killings and promised to work to apprehend those responsible. Egyptian leaders, inexplicably, have not followed that lead."
                                      -The New York Times editorial.

The New York Times, like the United States State Department, are Islamaphobes.  It is fear that led the State Department to issue that appeasing statement yesterday in the previous post. It was fear that led Neville Chamberlain to make his "peace in our time" treaty with Hitler. And it is fear that produced the above statement in the Times editorial. "Inexplicable?"  What is inexplicable about Egypt not condemning the attacks: they were planned in Egypt.  The 9/11 2012 attack in Cairo was planned days in advance, days before the film Innocence of Muslims made the rounds in Islam. The Cairo attack was planned by the Salafi Party which holds 25% of the seats in Egypt's parliament.  The attacks are "inexplicable" only to those so Islamaphobic that they have their heads buried in Egyptian sand, so Islamaphobic that they omit any mention of the anniversary of the 9/11 2001 attacks on their front page.  

On August 19, 2012 the New York Times published an opinion piece by Robin Wright titled "Don't Fear All Islamists, Fear Salafis."  Three weeks ago.  The New York Times does not remember, they do not want to remember. They are too afraid. 

9/11-2012 Attacks.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims, as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions...Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”  
                                                     -Yesterday, before the attack on the embassy in Cairo had started.

Do you stand by those statements of appeasement Madame Secretary?  Mr. President?  Were you trying to achieve "peace in our time?"

"Deadly Embassy Attacks Were Days in the Making."

"The protest [at the American embassy in Cairo] was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam's prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy."  -USAToday.

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." 
                                                                                 -President Barack Obama today.

The President was wrong if Eric Trager is right. The despicable Innocence of Muslims film was NOT the reason for either of the attacks in Cairo or Benghazi.

Is that right, Mr. President?  If so, what are you going to do about it?  Will you respond militarily to two attacks planned on American embassies for the anniversary of 9/11? Two attacks resulting in the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador? It wasn't Innocence of Muslims, it was just Islam being Islam, isn't that so, Mr. President?

"U.S. Suspects Libya Attack Was Planned."

According to the New York Times. Similar headlines in USAToday, and Reuters.

9/11 2012 Attacks.

The Muslims who invaded the American embassies in Cairo and Benghazi yesterday and today should be captured. Many are easily identifiable, like the man below with the cell phone in his mouth holding the body of Ambassador Stevens. He is guilty of murder.  President Obama should send military teams to Egypt and Libya, like the team he sent to Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. The man with the cellphone should be killed on sight by the American military team. Any Libyans who resist or oppose the U.S. military team should be killed also.

Many of these Egyptian protesters are likewise easily identifiable, easily captured and imprisoned. The Egyptian security forces who permitted the storming of the embassy should also be captured.Since, that I know of, no Americans were murdered in Egypt, these Muslims should not be killed. Any Egyptians forcibly resisting American attempts to capture the protesters and Egyptian security should be killed.

Obama will do nothing.

9/11 2012 Attacks.

Another photograph supposedly showing Ambassador Stevens after his murder by Islam.

9/11 2012 Attacks.

This photograph purports to show the body of American ambassador J.Christopher Stevens being carried through the streets of Benghazi after his murder by Islam.

9/11 2012 Attacks.

I have just watched, not listened to, the trailer to Innocence of Muslims, the film that apparently triggered the protests in Cairo and Benghazi that resulted in the attacks on American soil and the murder of four of American nationals, including the ambassador to Libya. The film truly is detestable, it opens with the Prophet Muhammad performing cunnilingus on a woman. That is not the kind of provocation of Islam that I support. I do support burning copies of the Koran, Islam's Mein Kampf, which is a more detestable tract than this is a film. Burning the Koran is also more likely to provoke Islam.

9/11 2012 Attacks.

It feels like old home week here at Public Occurrences. In the beginning I was just an idiot blogger writing about Islam. My, how things have changed.

Back then I remember writing a post entitled “For Verbal Provocation of Islam.”  I believed, and I believe, that “Islam has bloody borders,” that wherever that hateful ideology cum religion comes into contact with “unbelievers” there is going to be bloodshed; that we are a world largely without borders, that we, for instance, have embassies in Islamic countries. I believed, etc. that violence against Americans would occur wherever, in this borderless world, we had contact with Islam. I believed, as I also wrote, that “The War is with Islam” and advocated that the U.S. attack and overthrow Islam's regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two biggest Islamic enemies of America.

No. Immediately after 9/11 the Bush administration proclaimed the war certainly was not with Islam. Whom it was with was never clearly defined. “Islamic fundamentalists?”  “Islamic extremists?”  We went to war against Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans had barely the stomach for those two wars; there was no support for a wider war with Islam. Eventually the Bushies settled on Al Qaeda as the enemy.

It was during those early years that I advocated verbal provocation of Islam. Neither the American government nor the American people would countenance a wider war “just” because of the attacks of 9/11. They needed further violence by Islam against America. So I proposed provoking Islam to attack again so that Americans would see that the enemy was broader than Al Qaeda. I proposed actions like that of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard’s “turbanbombistan” caricature of the Prophet Muhammad on the header, like the film or films, it is unclear, that were produced recently mocking Muhammad, Islam, and the Koran. I believed, I knew, that Islam would show its violent soul, would react as Pavlov’s dog, to such provocation. And I believed that America, its government and citizens, would retaliate and expand the war as I believed we should.

All of those things have happened except the last. Yesterday, Egyptian Muslims attacked the U.S.embassy—sovereign American territory—in Cairo, shredding the American flag, hoisting in its place one frequently used by Al Qaeda and other “exremists,” and scrawling Osama bin Laden’s name on an embassy wall.  And earlier this morning Libyan Muslims, “inspired” by their Egyptian brethren, attacked the American embassy in Benghazi and killed the American ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others.

President Obama’s response: 

“While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

That is appeasement. The Obama administration should hunt down and kill those Muslims who attacked the American embassies in Cairo and Benghazi. The administration should denigrate the Islamic religion by killing the clerics who preach violence and by destroying their mosques. And when Muslims in those and other Islamic countries gather to protest these American attacks, as surely they will--as Palestinians gathered to celebrate the 9/11 attacks--America should bomb the gathering protesters, killing every one of them, man, woman, and child.  Obama won't do it. He will do nothing beyond issuing his statement of appeasement today.

Pollia condensata is an African plant. Plants need to have their seeds spread by birds to keep the species going. Plants attract birds by making their seeds attractive to birds, often having the seeds double as bird food. Pollia condensata does it just with color, its seeds are inedible. It really does it with color. The blue of the Pollia condensata seeds is the most "intense" ever found by scientists in nature. Here, intensity means the degree of reflected light. It's 30% in p.c., more than in any other living thing. P.c. does this through "structural coloration" that uses cellulose rather than pigment. The result is not only intense color but longer-lasting color. P.c. blue does not fade. Scientists say this could revolutionize how we humans use color, for our crayons, cars, football helmets, nail polish, maybe wedding gowns I don't know...This was all in the news yesterday, really.

That concludes this science report. 

"Egyptian protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy on Tuesday, tore down the American flag and burned it during a protest over what they said was a film being produced in the United States that insulted Prophet Mohammad...Many Muslims consider any depiction of the Prophet to be offensive." -Reuters.

Jerry Brown says Mitt Romney reminds him of Tom Dewey.

Mitt Romney says he’s in better shape after the political conventions than he was before because voters know him better now.

The governor of California has a point and Romney is wrong on both counts.

Thomas E. Dewey was the Republican nominee for president twice, once against Franklin Roosevelt and once against Harry Truman. It is the latter election for which Dewey is remembered for he was considered the favorite right up until election day when the victorious Truman held up a copy of a Chicago newspaper with the banner headline “Dewey Defeats Truman.”

Dewey was caricatured as “the man on top of the wedding cake,” stiff, humorless and unable to connect with the common man.  Romney is stiff and humorless and is having trouble connecting with people because he won’t let us get to know him. To the average American Romney is two things: extremely wealthy and Mormon and Romney won’t tell us much more about those two things. He won’t release his tax returns so we can see what he did with all his money, he won’t talk much about his Mormonism, and he’s changed his position on issues like abortion and health care.

The American people do not believe that they know Mitt Romney.  He is not “real” to them.  Real.  A bumper sticker from the 2004 presidential election was “Bush is Real.”  As opposed to John Kerry. Kerry was also a distant man, Americans wondered how “real” his marriage to the former Teresa Heinz was. Kerry said “Who amongst us does not like NASCAR?”  He didn’t like NASCAR and everyone knew it. He was trying to connect with Southern voters, who don't say "amongst," and it wasn’t real.

The incumbent president is half-African and has a funny name but most Americans are half-something, a lot of us have funny names and more and more of us have a skin complexion nearer Obama's. Americans feel they know Barack Obama: married, two kids, lawyer, Christian, basketball fan, sense of humor. We know people like that, we work with them, they’re our friends, we are them.

Mitt Romney says “trust me,” look at how successful I’ve been in life, I will be just as successful as president. It is hard to trust someone you don’t feel you know.  The first polls since the end of the political conventions are starting to come out and Mitt Romney is not in as good a position as before. The president has gotten a bigger “bump.”  For Jerry Brown, for Newt Gingrich who drew the identical parallel to Dewey, for a lot, a lot of Americans Mitt Romney remains the unknown “man on top of the wedding cake.”

"This Republican Economy"

Ninety-six thousand new jobs created in August.

96,000?  That's so bad it's insulting. It's like leaving a $1 tip. Ninety-six thousand is 95,500+ more jobs than Bain Capital has employees. Eight-thousand+  fewer than the readership of this blog in the last three years (+).