Recently in my web wanderings I came across mention of the 2004 documentary film "Born Into Brothels", by Zana Briski about her experiences working with children in the worst depths of the Calcutta slums.  She, the filmmaker, put quite a lot of work into trying to improve the lives of the children she studied, but in the wake of the film's moderate success was attacked by both Indian and politically correct Western intellectuals for supposed racism in exposing the underbelly of Indian society, and daring to be a Westerner while trying to do something about it.

One of the kids in her film, Avijit Halder, is now a freshman at NYU.

It seems no good deed goes unpunished.

Meanwhile, a similar defensive reaction from the same stripe of academics has appeared in the wake of the spectacular critical and financial success of the fictional Slumdog Millionaire, which also depicts the harshness of slum life, this time in Mumbai.  The same pattern emerged: nationalistic Indian academics wanted to pretend that their society had no problems, other than perhaps those imposed by evil Westerners, and a few anti-nationalistic westerners wanted to do the same.

Where am I going with this?

I am reminded by all this that in most times and places, the majority of intellectuals are curses upon their own societies.  This is tragic, or perhaps farcical, since intellectuals of all sorts are also vital to a healthy civilization.  Unfortunately, far too many are drawn to bad ideas, vast in their range of details, yet most sharing certain universal threads.  International Marxist socialism, national fascist socialism, luddite agrarianism, blood-and-soil tribal nationalism, neo-primitive environmentalism, and religious theocracy all share a common hostility towards the traits associated with success in any society: freedom of word and deed, integrity of person and property, individual initiative and reward for individual effort. 

What do bad ideas offer the intellectuals?

Generally either the prospect of power (what is the Iranian theocracy but the ultimate modern triumph of an unworldly intellectual class?), or barring that, the vengeful destruction of those who fail to conform to whatever utopia a particular visionary imagines would be superior to the actual messy, constantly renegotiated and renewed world people build when left to their own devices.

So as we round the bend and return to our starting point...

By and large, those with collectivist-utopian ideas about how the problems of the world can be solved have no idea how to get there, and in fact likely doubt that they ever can, because their ideas have failed when tried in the past.  Their ideas don't work, in fact CAN'T work. Rather than face this, how much easier to cover things up and deny there are any problems?

Really, what would the defensive sniffy critics have done for Avijit, or anyone like him?  What have they ever done but create and reward dependency?  The pitiful and grateful are after all much more gratifying than self-made upstarts.

Whether nationalistic third-worlders attacking a woman who did some small good in their country, or American left-liberals trying to defend some disastrously failed government program while pitching for more of the same, it is the same pattern.

One brave woman, on her own initiative and faced with traditional social inertia, bureaucratic indifference, and the disdainful criticism of largely upper class "advocates" for the poor, opened a door for one talented young man, a door which all the collectivist utopias of the world would have kept shut, and thereafter his abilities and initiative took, and are taking him, far, in living disproof of the critic's ideas.

From the Sirat Rasul Allah, or Life of the Messenger of God, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad and another component of the Sunnah, come insights into the style of warfare favored by the religion of peace:

"Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."

Which as a whole, is a sort of Churchilian "We shall never surrender" speech, except inverted, as if given by Goering while preparing for the attack.

And:

"The Apostle prepared for war in pursuance of Allah's command to fight his enemies and to fight the infidels who Allah commanded him to fight."

"Get out of his way, you infidel unbelievers. Every good thing goes with the Apostle. Lord, I believe in his word. We will fight you about its interpretations as we have fought you about its revelation with strokes that will remove heads from shoulders and make enemies of friends."

"Crushing the heads of the infidels and splitting their skulls with sharp swords, we continually thrust and cut at the enemy. Blood gushed from their deep wounds as the battle wore them down. We conquered bearing the Prophet's fluttering war banner. Our cavalry was submerged in rising dust, and our spears quivered, but by us the Prophet gained victory."

Feel the love.

From the Hadith of Bukhari, part of the core of the Sunnah and generally seen in Sunni Islam as the second most authoritative text after the Quran itself, comes this series of traditions regarding the prophet's conquest of the Khaybar oasis in Northwest Arabia in 629 AD, and his treatment of the Jews who lived there:

"The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaybar when it was still dark. He said, 'Allahu-Akbar.' Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a hostile nation to fight, then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.' Then the inhabitants of Khaybar came out running on their roads. The Prophet had their men killed; their children and woman were taken as captives."

"So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered Khaybar home by home. The first stronghold defeated was Naim. Next was Qamus, the community of Abi Huqayq. The Messenger took some of its people captive, including Safiyah bt. Huyayy, the wife of Kinanah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself."

"The Prophet had their men killed, their children and woman taken as captives. Safiyah was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dihyah but later on she came to belong to the Prophet. Muhammad made her manumission. The captives of Khaybar were divided among the Muslims. Then the Messenger began taking the homes and property that were closest to him."

Equally as important as the events themselves are that unlike some of the less pleasant incidents in the Old Testament and the Talmud, these and other similar actions by Muhammad are still seen as guides for behavior today  and worthy of emulation by serious Muslim scholars today as well as a not insubstantial portion of the general Islamic populace.  Nor is this a new development, but rather has been ithe case for the entirety of Muslim history, even if not always with equal intensity.

Ok... so maybe this blog WAS dead, for a time, but now it rises again from the depths, called from its eons-long slumber by the powers of the the Obamessiah.  It lives, still dreaming of getting its own fatwa, it shambles forth craving the taste of living flesh... well, of pork - so richly available with the passage of the Porkulus package.  Now it must FEED!

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Just very, very busy.  On the off chance I GET some time, I'll type up a real post.

Being my loveable self, I've engaged in quite a few internet political flame wars over the past couple of years.  One of the things lefties were always especially touchy about was anything that implied that their opposition to regime change in Iraq meant that they loved or supported Saddam.

Well, on the day of the Saddam verdict (DEATH! - yes) here is what the lefties at the Huffington Post REALLY think:

(courtesy of Little Green Footballs)

* * *

Saddam is a far better man than George W. Bush ever thought about being.

By: shrike on November 05, 2006 at 07:58am

[...]

wow are bush, cheney, rumsfield and rice next?seems to me the killed about as many innocent iraqis as saddam did, and about as many innocent , trusting troops as civilians we lost on 9/11

By: stamper on November 05, 2006 at 07:35am

[...]

Now how about going after George Bush.

By: waxxx on November 05, 2006 at 07:36am

[...]

The number of innocents massacred by the neo-con zionist regime directing the Bush administration dwarfs those attributed to Saddam

By: FUBush on November 05, 2006 at 07:41am

[...]

I don’t know of anyone who thinks this was a “fair trial”.

By: Dillon on November 05, 2006 at 07:58am

[...]

If Bush was hung side by side with Saddam it would certainly help the cause of a better Iraq. Add Cheney and Rumsfeld and that would placate everyone.

By: BushCoSatanIncarnate on November 05, 2006 at 08:44am

* * *

And (also via LGF) is what they thought of a group of families of fallen Iraq war GIs going on a fairly secret (for security reasons) visit to Iraq itself:

* * *

“psst...it ain’t a secret anymore. i’m posting this article on every islamist and anti-coalition message board i can find.”

-> Posted by jar jar / Nov 04, 2006

“it would be such an ironic tragedy if these hacks died on their trip...hahaa”

-> Posted by jar jar / Nov 04, 2006

* * *

But, oh yes, they "support the troops"...

As I've pointed out before, today's left has become so intellectually moribund and morally corrupt that they will support anyone, literally ANYONE who hates and wants to destroy this country, and will attack anyone who tries to suppor or defend it.  There are a very few exceptions... old-style FDR liberals like Joe Lieberman... but most of the left have become traitors at heart, and gone completely bonkers as well.

Remember the Thai Coup?  A few perceptive commentators noted that it was lead by Thailand's first Muslim army chief, and wondered whether that fact would prove significant.

Well, now it has:

PATTANI, Thailand - Thailand's interim prime minister publicly apologized Thursday for the former government's hard-line policies against an Islamic insurgency, promising an investigation into allegations of human rights abuses by the administration deposed in a recent coup.

In an unexpected initiative, Chulanont Surayud also said he would urge the limited use of Islamic law in Thailand's Muslim-majority south to settle some disputes, especially over inheritance and family affairs, he said.

Surayud was accompanied by army chief Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin, a practicing Muslim who led the Sept. 19 coup. Previous governments have shown little acceptance of Muslim culture.

In other words, after overthrowing the democratically elected government of Thailand, the new government, overshadowed by a Muslim general, is going to apologize to the murderous Muslim insurgency in the South, punish those who resisted it, and give in to some of the demands of the insurgents.

There is a warning for the rest of us in these events.

Another claim of a methodology to rank the states by intelligence has appeared on the scene.  I quote the following bubbly little Foxnews article in its entirety:

 

The fine folks at Morgan Quitno Press are out to prove what many of us have suspected for a long, long time: some of this country's great states are just a few sandwiches short of an intellectual picnic basket.

According to the private research and publishing company's new survey, when they were handing out smarts, Arizona (dead last for the second year in a row, no less) was hanging out with California, Mississippi and Nevada at the back of the line, Central Florida's Local 6 reports.

Beg to differ?

The folks in Vermont probably don't. The Green Mountain State was ranked the smartest of them all, followed by Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and Maine.

The survey has Texas as the Lone Star of mediocrity at No. 25, New York making an appearance at No. 16 and Florida chilling with the other underachievers at No. 29.

The annual rankings are based on 21 elementary and secondary education indicators, ranging from test scores and graduation rates to class size and teacher's salaries.

Want to see where your state ranks?

Click here for the complete list.

 

As one would, cynically, expect, some of the deepest blue states rank near the top.  Though not as blatant, this is similar to the state IQ hoax that appeared shortly after the 2004 elections. 

However, note that two of the "indicators" are class size and teacher's salaries.

Teachers SALARIES?

As if the relative success of a state teacher's mafia, er...  union had anything to do with how intelligent the inhabitants are.

In fact, even graduation rates are useless as an "indicator" since administrators can increase them simply by diluting standards.  Only test scores might partially approximate a measurement of intelligence.  In the end, however, only a nationally administered IQ test with large, representative, and proportional (to overall state population) sample sizes could come close to measuring the relative "smarts" of the states.

However, IQ tests are quite politically incorrect and have long been out of favor as a tool of research or public policy.

So, those who want to claim that their favorite parts of the nation are "smarter" than those they dislike will continue to have to rely on bullshit.

Yipee.

As evidence begins to mount that the North Korean nuclear test was a tad bit... er, smaller... than initially thought, let us consider the dear leader, the great one, the man behind the magic himself...  KIM JONG-IL!!!

Although his official biography official biography claims that he was born in 1941, the son of North Korean dictator Kim il-Sung, we know better.  After all, his official biography also claims that "his birth at Mount Paektu was foretold by a swallow, and that his birth was heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens."

The crack investigative team at the Raging Capitalist has discovered that Kim Jong-il is in fact the result of experimental genetic splicing between Henry "Eraserhead" Spencer and Leisure Suit Larry.

Given his obvious superb qualifications as the boss's son, Kim was rapidly promoted through the ranks of the North Korean communist party.   By the 1970s (see above) he was a powerful official second only to his father, and had, as befits a holder of absolute power, acquired a number of concubines.  We can be sure they were attracted to his stunning good looks and charm.  These rakish qualities were put to good use after the death of his father and his own ascension to power... as even former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright was unable to resist him.

He, being a man of honor, gave her his word that he wouldn't continue to pursue nuclear weapons... in return for a few concessions from America of course.  Secretary Albright and her boss (rumored to be quite a ladies man himself) were impressed.  After all, if you can't trust the word of an isolationist communist dictator, who can you trust?

In addition to ensuring that his socialist worker's paradise is prosperous and well fed, Kim has also found time to become the world's greatest military strategist and it's most prolific author.  He rides a noble white stallion wherever he goes and the heavens shake when he shouts!  If you doubt his achievements, just ask brilliant, well-informed western progressives.

Let us congratulate glorious comrade Kim Jong-il, hero of all socialist revolutions everywhere!

The Democratic party, these days devoid of any ideas other than the lust for power, chimes in on the Nork Nukes.   I think you can guess what they have to say...

All too predictable.