9.29.2006

Turn That Frown Upside Down

Wow, has Al-Qaida been chatty lately. New comments today target Bush. No "converted" Americans appeared on this video, though. Although, there was a small, stylish lamp and a pretty neat model cannon in the background sitting on a table. Kudos to the prop folks.

_____

The Islamic fundamentalist's favorite news source, Aljazeera, has an article in their on-line edition entitled "10 Questions To The Zionists."
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12091
Supposedly written by a Jewish Rabbi, it is worth a read if you want to see what kind of attack the Jews are under from Muslims. Especially the part about the Jewish people accepting the gas chambers instead of relinquishing rights to Palestine. All untrue, but if you read this in the New York Times, and you knew very little about the history, it would sound almost believable.

Thus, this is why so many uniformed and introspective Americans buy into the far left (and far right for that matter) deceit and misuse of information and historical evidence to perpetuate agendas and political motives. Sad.

And it's only getting worse.

9.24.2006

Elmo New Muslim Goodwill Ambassador


Sept. 24, 2006

Mecca, Saudi Arabia (AP) - In an effort to develop a more favorable public image, Islamic leaders today announced the hiring of lovable Muppet, Elmo, as their "Goodwill Ambassador."


Well known the world over, Elmo, who got his start in 1984 as a minor character on Sesame Street, became an instant celebrity upon the release of the Tickle-Me-Elmo doll for Christmas 1996. Adding to his popularity were his appearances on the talk-show circuit, including The Rosie O'Donnell Show, Martha Stewart Living, and The Tony Danza Show.

The late 90's saw Elmo star in several feature films, mostly aimed at children. He even dabbled in politics, appearing in 2002 before the House Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Service, and Education.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad officially introduced Elmo to members of the media, praising him for his work in "binding relations with all children, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. Except, of course, the Jews, who have repeatedly tried to tarnish his image with false accusations."

Ahmabinejad was referring to the 1995 controversy surrounding Elmo's self-help book, Potty Time With Elmo, when a mother, reportedly with ties to Israel, complained publicly that pressing certain buttons on the interactive book caused Elmo to say "Uh oh. Who wants to die?"

Moshe Katsav, President of Israel, when questioned by reporters about Ahmabinejad's claims, responded by saying "The people of Israel, and, I believe I can safely say, all Jewish people, have never said or done anything to tarnish the image of Elmo, or anyone associated with Elmo. In fact, we look forward to working closely with him in his new role."

After the long introduction by Ahmabinejad, during which Elmo appeared to fall asleep several times, the lovable red puppet took the podium and made a short statement, noting "Elmo loves Islam!" and "When you've done the best you could you feel really really good." When asked about the strategy he would take to boost the popularity of Islam, he said "Happy's such a neat emotion. It'll give your feet a happy notion. If your toes get tired rub in some lotion, and they'll feel swell, so come join Elmo!"

Following the press conference, Elmo boarded an airplane assumed to be bound for Afghanistan, where he reportedly will meet with Osama bin Laden at a secret location. On the tarmac, when asked where he was going, Elmo had a quick "Elmo has no comment." But added, "Took off in Elmo's jet. A ride we won't forget. And bailed out just below a huge tall mountain. We climbed for hours and hours. Then found some spooky towers. Inside we helped a fellow with his counting."

U.S. President George Bush released a statement about the Elmo appointment, noting that "Elmo has been an ambassador of love for many years, raising the spirits of all children, including Muslims." Bush also challenged Elmo to turn the "axis of evil" into the "axis of Elmo."

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed his country's willingness to "sit down face-to-face with Elmo."

Hifikepunye Pohamba, President of Namibia, released a short statement, in which he asked, "Who's Elmo?" and reaffirmed the desire of the Namibian people to lift the U.S. trade embargo of Cuba.

Fidel Castro, Cuba's President-for-Life, on his weekly 10-hour radio address, called Elmo a "hero" and reminisced about his joy while playing with the toys Let's Pretend Elmo and Limbo Elmo; both, he noted, reminded him of himself.

Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, alleged that the idea of using Elmo had been his, and that it came to him in a vision. ""I saw an Elmo in the sky," Farrakhan said, after which the UFO "brought me back to Earth and dropped me off near Washington; over to Tyson's Corner and Fifth Street I think..."

Even Bill Gates, Founder and President of Microsoft, expressed his pleasure with the Elmo appointment. "This is the best thing to happen to the world since the United Nations."

Most Muslims seemed to be happy about the effort to change people's perception of their religion, though one Islamic group, Hezbollah, issued a terse statement, imploring Muslims not to fall for "the Great Satan's toy."

One notable American seemed dismayed with the idea of Elmo altogether. Colin Powell, former U.S. Secretary of State, pointed out "Elmo is three and a half years old. I mean, he's a red toy. I don't get it."

9.19.2006

New Look for Islam

I am convinced that Islam is getting a bad rap because it does not have a user-friendly spokesperson. If you look at all of the major religions of the world today, each one has at least one positive member who represents them well.

Look at Buddhism, for example. Is there a more laid back dude than the Dalai Lama? This guy is the real deal. He's humble ("I am just a simple Buddhist monk - no more, nor less.") He hangs out with cool Hollywood stars like Richard Gere. He's got stylish glasses. And, he never pisses anyone off except the bad guys (i.e. China). Who wants to be friends with the Chinese anyway?

How about Christianity? What bad can you say about Billy Graham? The guy is without fault. He's also humble, hangs out with Presidents and foreign dignitaries, but lives in a log cabin. Plus, his wife really digs him.

Catholicism is led by a guy who also socializes with world leaders, and he has a huge house. Plus, he's got the guts to wear red robes in public. Who, besides Hugh Hefner, could pull that off? To top it off, there are Catholic (and Christian) missionaries around the world helping needy people.

Judaism? They're all over and are known mainly for their hard work and religious fervor. Plus, most people (READ: everyone except Muslims) are horrified by what was done to them by the Germans during the Holocaust.

And there's Confucianism. Does anyone think Confucius was anything but a wise man? He never even hit anyone.

Taoism? Yin Yang, man. Balance that positive energy. Taoists believe that people are good by nature. Sounds like someone you want to invite to your next cocktail party.

Then there's Sikhism. The "I love everyone!" religion. They believe all people all equal in God's eyes, and they are led by a bunch of meditating Gurus. Gurus don't even know what AK-47's are.

Compare all of those with Islam:
Osama bin Laden: He's never going to live that whole "World Trade Center" thing down.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President of Iran): hates America and wants to enrich uranium that can be used to build nuclear weapons.
Louis Farrakhan: goofy, baffling idiot surrounded by yes-men. Spews out laughable quotes and continuously tries to stir up conflict between blacks and whites (i.e. The White House bombed the levees in New Orleans to kill black people.)
Yasser Arafat: sole purpose and calling is to wipe Israel (READ: all Jewish people) off of the face of the Earth.

Let's face it, even the Communists have better representation, and they have to work with Stalin and Lenin, who had some real PR issues of their own.

So, I have decided to donate my time and effort into finding a new spokesperson for Islam. Since Islam is a religion of love, this needs to be someone who exudes that quality to the public. Someone to cut the ribbon at the openings of children's hospitals; someone you would trust to babysit your kids; someone that you'd want living next door to you; a coach of your son's baseball team.

In truth, I have already identified this individual. Please stay tuned for the official announcement. This could be a real turning point.

Can Dish It Out, But Can't Take It

Without having to comment on the irony that surrounds the reaction of Muslims to the Pope's comments on Islam, I just wanted to point out that these are the very same Muslims who decried the reaction of Israel to the terrorist group Hezbollah as "disproportionate."

I think one can read the quotes below, pulled from various world news sources, and see what we are up against. The quotes come from different Muslims, and I won't take the time to list each name, although I assure you they are not fabricated. Just take a look at the news and you'll see that. Pay attention especially to the last quote. Doesn't the religion of love make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Me too.

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world,"

"If this person were really someone reasonable, he would not agree to remain at his post one minute, but would convert to Islam immediately,"

Muslims "should not look for charity from the infidel... but should fight Islam's enemies who attack the faith and the Prophet Muhammad".

"We say to the pope - whether you apologise or not is irrelevant, as apologies make no difference to us."

News Story:
An Italian nun was shot dead at a hospital by Somali gunmen Sunday, hours after a leading Muslim cleric condemned Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks on Islam and violence.

"We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion. Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim."

9.18.2006

Lost in America

"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
Ferris Bueller

I have to admit that I "missed it." I am just now getting caught up on the Pope's remarks and subsequent (and politically correct) apology, as well as the autopsy results of Anna Nicole Smith's son.

So, please be patient as I reacquaint myself with the world.

Cheers.

9.14.2006

Deep Thoughts

Remembering Jack Handy:

If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let them go, because, man, they're gone.

To me, its a good idea to always carry two sacks of something when you walk around. That way, if anybody asks, "Hey, can you give me hand?" you can say, "Sorry, got these sacks."

One thing I like is to be tricked. For instance, I was going to take my nephew to Disneyland, but instead I drove him to an old burned-out warehouse. "Oh no!" I said. "Disneyland burned down." He cried and cried, but deep down he thought it was a pretty good joke. I started to drive to the real Disneyland, but it was getting pretty late.

If you ever catch on fire, try to avoid seeing yourself in the mirror, because I bet that's what really throws you into a panic.

I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. And, since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and hand it to him.

Broken promises don't upset me. I just think, "why did they believe me?"

One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is not to run with a wooden stake.

It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.

Fear can sometimes be a useful emotion. For instance, let's say you're an astronaut on the moon and you fear that your partner has been turned into Dracula. The next time he goes out for the moon pieces, wham!, you just slam the door behind him and blast off. He might call you on the radio and say he's not Dracula, but you just say, "Think again, bat man."

I bet the main reason the police keep people away from a plane crash is they don't want anybody walking in and lying down in the crash stuff, then, when somebody comes up, act like they just woke up and go, "What was THAT?!"

When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing to ask is if they ever press charges.

Most people don't realize that large pieces of coral, which have been painted brown and attached to the skull by common wood screws, can make a child look like a deer.

If you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and you friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag would be to pretend you were swimming.

When I was a kid my favorite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school we'd all go play in his cave, and every once in a while he would eat one of us. It wasn't until later that I found out that Uncle Caveman was a bear.

A funny thing to do is, if you're out hiking and your friend gets bitten by a poisonous snake, tell him you're going to go for help, then go about ten feet and pretend that you got bit by a snake. Then start an argument with him about who's going to go get help. A lot of guys will start crying. That's why it makes you feel good when you tell them it was just a joke.

9.13.2006

No Fences

As we are plodding along the same path we have seen dozens of times between Israel v. Arab conflicts, the Middle East has been largely taken out of the news, replaced by hurricanes and September 11 anniversary pieces.

However, don't think for a moment that there is not a lot going on in the region. Here are some highlights.

Saudi Arabia
While not widely reported, and not new news, Saudi Arabia announced in April that it was going to erect a electrified fence along their 560-mile border with Iraq. The irony of course is that Saudi Arabia is concerned about insurgents from Iraq upending their political system and creating a new terrorist state, not unlike Afghanistan or even Sudan.

Lebanon and Iraq
Dangerously close to becoming states ruled by extremists. Again, ironically, Iraq is acting as a real-time battlefield training ground for young radicals, while in Lebanon, Hezbollah is obviously driving the boat.

Afghanistan
Not in the news at all, Afghanistan is seeing it's worst fighting since late 2001, and is beginning to resemble Iraq in many ways, including the rising trend of suicide and roadside bombings.

Syria
Islamic militants attempted an attack on the US Embassy in Damascus yesterday.

So, why does it all seem to be falling apart? Is it the Bush administration that is to blame? Is the region inherently unstable, and beyond repair? Is the draw of Islam so powerful and corrupting that it seeps deep into Arab governments, making political change impossible?

The question of why the failure of the US and allies to plant a peaceful democracy is complicated, but when considering the answer, one should take into consideration these things:

1. Liberal Power. Let's face it, liberals hate Bush. Like extreme Islam, this kind of hate drops a fog over dissidents, preventing them from applying logic to anything Bush. Unfortunately, these hatemongers control most of the media, so your average Joe and Jane, who probably couldn't even point to Iraq or Israel on a map, are subjected to extremely biased news coverage and commentary. Let's face it, unless you spend a lot of time looking, there is no unbiased news out there. Jane and Joe have no time to look for real news, so they take at face value what CNN (Clinton News Network) has to say.

2. Bush Failures. There are a lot of really good things about our President. He is a man of his word, he does not back down, he calls a spade a spade, and he is, I believe, doing his very best to try and protect the U.S. from another 9/11. Can you imagine Al Gore or John Kerry dealing with the hand that Bush has been dealt. Scary indeed. To top it off, Bush has had to fight for every inch of ground, as the Democrats disapprove of every move he makes, whether it is best for the U.S. or not. However, Bush has done himself no favors for not reaching out more to his detractors, simply for the sake of greasing the pole in the interest of national security. And, it looks like the Bush administration continues to be surprised by the way the ball bounces in the Middle East. The administration was completely taken aback that the demise of Saddam Hussein wasn't the yellow brick road to a stable Iraq. No one expected the insurgency to be so strong and lasting.

3. You and I. Talk to anyone who has been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan and you see the sad truth of the widening gap of support for this war on terror. The troops are all for it. They are there and see the need. Very few of them, and maybe none of them, see this as Bush's war for the control of oil. They are engaged in a battle between good and evil, and they are on the front lines. Yet, we continue to back-seat QB this conflict, and question every step made, capitalizing on every failure. Some of us even scream "Viet Nam" with righteous indignation, comparing apples to oranges in an attempt to drum up even more support for the anti-war movement. In truth, the only way this war compares with Viet Nam is the brazen lack of support our troops are receiving from the average American. Would it surprise you to see John Dean or Cindy Sheehan waiting for the troops to come home so they can protest, spit on, and ostracize them? Just wait. We should all be standing on chairs, waving our arms back and forth in support of what those soldiers go through everyday. When was the last time someone shot at you, or that you saw your colleague's arm blown off by a roadside bomb? How many days have you spent living in a tent with 30 other sweating men as the heat tops 120 degrees? How many days did you spend away from your loved ones in the past year? How many of your children were you not able to see born? Do you have to carry a gun around with you all of time, as well as full body armor?

The troops are the real heroes, and we are all guilty of not supporting them as we should. Wave a damn flag for them, for goodness sake! They are dying for a cause, and if they weren't, there would be more of us dying at the hands of Islamic nutballs who believe that killing you and I is a free ticket to Heaven.

Get past the politics and get in the game.

9.08.2006

It's not the Heat, It's the Humidity

The late summer months have a long history of producing uprisings and violence.

August 22, 1831
Osama bin Nat
OK, his real name wasn't Osama, but Nat Turner led 40 fellow slaves on a murderous spree through Southampton County, Virginia, killing nearly 60 whites in one day. Turner, also a preacher, conspired for months before taking advantage of the lax controls on slaves in rural Virginia to bring his plan to fruition. Had they not been caught, the Turner-led group may have been able to escape and take refuge in the Great Dismal Swamp, as was their plan.

Turner and his flock didn't just kill the whites, they massacred them. At their first stop, they hacked four white occupants of a farmhouse to death using axes, hatchets, and knives. After leaving the scene, someone remembered that they had forgotten the family's baby, and they promptly returned to the farmhouse and chopped it to bits.

September 8, 1781
Uh, Over Easy Please
America's most infamous traitor, Benedict Arnold, led British troops on a sack, loot, and burn mission in the town of New London, Conneticut.

August 24, 1970
Protesting War with Bombs
Four Vietnam protestors detonated a van filled with explosives (2,000 pounds of explosives, by the way) at the University of Wisconsin. Strange place for an anti-war protest? Maybe not. The Army Mathematics Research Center, located in the university's physics building, was rumored to have produced the technology to find and assassinate infamous Latin American rebel Che Guevara.

August 19, 1981
Top Guns
U.S. Navy fighter jets return fire and shoot down two Libyan fighter planes over the Gulf of Sidra. Libya was the axis of evil at that time, and claimed the entire Gulf as its territory, while the U.S. insisted the water and the airspace above it was international territory.

October 6, 1981
It's Only A Flesh Wound
Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, was assassination on this day in Cairo while attending a military parade. Religious fundamentalists (read: Islamic Terrorists) sprayed Sadat with machine-gun fire and lobbed hand grenades into the crowd. While the president was most likely killed instantly, initial reports coming out of Egypt said that he had survived with minor injuries. However, by noon, EST, it became clear that he was dead.

9.03.2006

Peace, Love, or War

Al-Qaeda issued another infomercial this week, informing Americans that if they did not convert to Islam, they would suffer the consequences.

Is this the same religion that insists it's main tenet is love? Where's the love in insisting non-Muslims convert or be punished? Especially when al-Quaeda's form of punishment seems to be violence and the killing of innocent people.

To make the 48-minute video interesting, American Muslim-covert, Adam Yehiye Gadahn (please see the irony in his first name being Jewish, and that his pre-conversion name was Adam Pearlman), added some colorful commentary, spicing up the usually dull, rhetoric-filled past videos from al-Quaeda.

Here are a couple of quotes from Adam:

"Instead of killing yourself for Bush ... why not surrender to the truth (of Islam), escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. Time is running out so make the right choice before it's too late."

"You know that if you die as an unbeliever in battle against the Muslims you're going straight to Hell without passing 'Go."'

"We send a special invitation (to convert to Islam) to all of you fighting Bush's crusader pipedream in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever else 'W' has sent you to die. You know the war can't be won."

"It is time for the unbelievers to discard these incoherent and illogical beliefs. Isn't it the time for the Christians, Jews, Buddhists and atheists to cast off the cloak of the spiritual darkness which enshrouds them and emerge into the light of Islam?"

No Muslim should "shed tears" for Westerners killed by al-Qaida attacks.

OK, no direct threats in Adam's sermon, but just check out the news each day and we see Islamic radicals killing innocent "infidels" all over the world. His organization was also behind 9/11 (remember that?).

Parading their new propaganda star around will not likely win many converts, but I'm sure Adam is enjoying the spotlight and cozying up to the top brass in al-Qaeda. His resume is going to look great in a couple of years! That is, if the FBI doesn't catch up with him first, since he is wanted by them in connection to terrorists attacks. If he does get nabbed, chances are he'll be spending his life at Club Guantanamo.

Sadly, Adam's comments above could easily be cut and pasted into many Protestant sermons. The comment about going straight to Hell without passing go in particular. Yes, Christians should work to convert non-Believers, but threatening fire and brimstone does little but create an atmosphere of fear, and it pigeon-holes God into a fierce and heartless judge intent on holding us by the ankles over a lake of fire until we give in.

Instead, we should be potraying God as He is, a loving and merciful Lord who longs to have a relationship with us and to use us for His work. I believe God weeps over each of His children who does not put their trust in Him, for He knows their punishment is eternal separation from Him. As a parent, I can understand that kind of love.

In June, we were on our annual beach trip. My wife and I were taking turns watching our kids, and suddenly we realized we could not find our daughter. Scanning the water, I caught a glimpse of what I thought was her floating under the water.

We sprinted into the surf, but when I got to where I thought I had seen her she was not there.

Words cannot describe the terror and anguish I felt as I tried desperately to find her. Minutes passed and my desperation grew. I kept calling her name, over and over, as people from all over the beach joined us in the water, searching. I heard someone say that 911 had been called, and I found myself wondering how long she would be able to survive underwater.

Long minutes passed. What was probably five minutes seemed like 5 hours. The last words I remember screaming were "Where is my baby girl?? Someone help me find my baby girl!!!"

Then, my father was there, yelling to me from the beach that my daughter had snuck past us and was safe in the house.

From desperation to complete relief and joy. That night, after putting her to bed, I must have gone in to hug and kiss her six or seven times, just grateful that I could.

In my image of God, I see Him desperately wading through the water, frantically trying to find his lost children, screaming "Where is my child?? Where is my baby??"

The God I serve mourns each of his lost children. Instead of throwing around the threat of eternity in Hell, we should be talking about the benefits of eternity with a loving and caring Father who is desperate to hold onto you.

9.02.2006

Iran as Peacemaker?

In an attempt to reconcile with the UN, Iran has offered to support the cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel. This comes in the wake of the deadline two days ago for Iran to halt all uranium enrichment.

Of course, as noted in my earlier posts, this deadline by the UN means absolutely nothing, and the EU and the UN have already offered to continue diplomacy with Iran on this matter. And, as expected, the EU wants to give no timeline for the talks with Iran to produce results.

To add to the insanity, Iran has asked the UN to adopt "new approaches towards Iran's nuclear case."

I find this maddening. This is deja vu, as the UN prattled on for years with Iraq as it continually defied UN deadlines and did not allow UN inspectors into their country.

The UN is already backing down from their original threat to impose sanctions against Iran. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, noting that diplomacy was the only way to negotiate with Iraq, said he hoped sanctions could be avoided so as to keep from adding to tensions in "a region already subjected to a great stress."

Why the US continues to be a part of an organization with absolutely no credibility or power is a mystery.

9.01.2006

Farrakhan on Katrina

Just to place some "perspective" on Louis Farrakhan, here are some quotes from him regarding incidents surrounding Hurricane Katrina. I challenge anyone to prove these comments are correct.

"Mayor Nagin told us that those poor brothers and sisters that went to the Superdome, these were the ones who made it out of their houses but didn't have any money or means to get out of the city . . . So when the water began to rise around the Superdome, Mayor Nagin told them to get out and start marching over the bridge, the I-10, and get out of here. So they started marching. And when they got over that bridge into the next parish, which was white, they were met with attack dogs and machine guns."

"This is Mayor Nagin talking to us. They fired the machine guns over the heads of the crowd. They accepted any white people that were there, but no black people."

"Divers inspecting the ruptured levee walls surrounding New Orleans found something that piqued their interest - burn marks on underwater debris chunks from the broken levee wall."

"Mayor Nagin told us there was a 25-foot crater under the levee. [He] didn't say there was a bomb. He just said there was a crater. I say they blew it [up]."

Katrina Debate

I received a rather lenghty comment about my last post "Katrina and the Plot to Kill Black People." It's certainly interesting. I have included it below with my comments in bold face.

Enjoy.

"There is no perspective," a friend of mine living outside of the United States wrote to me in an e-mail, a few weeks back. He was referring to the American media coverage regarding Hurricane Katrina, as well as the reaction and thinking of many in response to the disaster. In that, and subsequent e-mail exchanges he has placed emphasis on relevant examples, analogies, parallels and precedents from recorded history – all over the world, that he believes help to place what happened in the Gulf Coast and across America over the last 40 days in perspective.

Three meanings of the word "perspective" according to yourdictionary.com are: 1) The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole 2) Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view and 3) The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance.

I often find that most people with deep emotional attachments to political ideologies, among other worldviews, lack "perspective", as the word is defined in its first and third meanings above. One such influential group within the much larger body of those who ardently subscribe to political ideologies, that many of us are familiar with, are political talk show hosts – on both cable and radio. The recent ‘explosion’ of conservative talk radio, in particular, and its influence on public opinion and the decision-making of American elected officials is an interesting study, related to this concept and word – perspective.

Recently, as it relates to the controversy that has erupted over Minister Louis Farrakhan’s suggestion and hypothesis that a levee breach, or crevasse, in New Orleans was intentionally affected by an explosion; I have noted that much of the public discussion and ‘uproar’ over the Minister’s publicly expressed thinking has been heavily influenced by opinion leading talk show hosts. (Most sane Americans do not need talk show hosts to convince us that Farrakhan's insinuations were absurd) Those, within that group that I have paid closest attention to over the last two weeks are Mr. Sean Hannity and Mr. Larry Elder. I have listened periodically to both of their radio shows for several years, and in terms of their profession, I see both of these men as talented, interesting, and successful. I do not consider them to be journalists and I do realize that their public expressions take place as much in the context of entertainment and a broadcasting industry business model, as they do in the spheres of ‘politics’ and ‘news.’ As a result of this, and their rigid attitudes and thinking, I expect them to be selective in their research process and limited in how broad and deep of a context they provide in discussing current events. Although they frequently speak truths accurately, as many of us do, I do not expect them or any of their peers to be purely motivated by a desire to a) search for facts b) make proper interpretations; and c) draw accurate conclusions, that can be tested and verified by any reasonable and rational person.

However, for many, talk radio is often the first and only, if not most trusted source of news, information and analysis on current events and politics. I have several associates and acquaintances who have impressed me with how deferential they are to what they hear on such programs. It is as if they do no independent thinking outside of what they hear Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder, Glen Beck, Michael Savage and Laura Ingram say. For liberal or progressive ideologues, perhaps the same is becoming true of their relationship with National Public Radio (NPR), and Air America talk show hosts. (I would add CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS to the list of liberal media, meaning that the majority of what the American people think is journalism is, in fact, politically motivated, lacking the a) desire to search for facts [i.e. ABC using a fake National Guard document to report George Bush did not show up for his service times while ignoring the facts surrounding John Kerry's deplorable service in Viet Nam], b) make proper interpretations, and c) draw accurate conslusions that can be tested and verified by any reasonable and rational person)

I have been struck by this reality as it relates to the quality of the discussion, in not only talk radio, but all forms of media regarding Minister Louis Farrakhan’s statements. To me, the most noticeable factor missing from this conversation and debate - other than a serious effort to get the premise, motive and context of his actual remarks - is that of historical perspective.

Although Minister Farrakhan has mentioned historical information in all of the public statements he has given regarding his suggestion and hypothesis regarding the levee breach; I have not heard a single talk show host; Sunday morning news program; or newspaper article that has addressed the Minister’s view or that of other Blacks who share it - in part or full - deal with some of the historical information presented or alluded to by the Minister in any of his talks in question. Nor have they, of their own, presented a relevant historical context in which to weigh his remarks.

Minister Farrakhan’s teacher, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, wrote, in part, beginning in the 1930s, "Of all our studies history is the most attractive and best qualified to reward our research, as it develops the springs and motives of human actions and displays the consequences of circumstances which operates most powerfully on the destinies of human beings." His statement has been repeated over the years by many of his students, perhaps most famously by Minister Malcolm X.

History takes us into the motivation of human beings and consequences of their thinking and action. It also provides perspective for events that take place in the present, allowing us to weigh events, things, institutions, persons, ideas, and scenarios in relation to one another, across space and time. It elevates our view of what we are currently looking at, above and beyond its "face" or most superficial aspects. With the light of history we can deepen and sharpen our perception of an actual reality, and its relationship to the law of cause and effect.

Although it is hard to estimate and verify such things, I am convinced that the most referenced book utilized by the media since Hurricane Katrina is the historical work, Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 And How It Changed America by John M. Barry. As a consequence, I also hold the opinion that, thus far, Mr. Barry is the media’s most respected opinion leader on the wide impact, implications and ramifications of floods that have hit the Gulf Coast region of the United States, over the last 100 years. He has been quoted extensively by journalists in mainstream and alternative media and has been interviewed by a wide range of talk show hosts – from Tim Russert, on the respected mainstream political talk show, "Meet The Press" to Matsimela Mapfumo and Dick Gregory on the popular Black talk radio show, "Make It Plain." Mr. Barry and his book, provide historical perspective for those who would wish to better understand Hurricane Katrina, and think through its real and potential impact.

Yet and still, as widely referred to as Mr. Barry and his book are by members of the media, I have not read in print or heard on radio, a single reference to a major, if not central theme of his book – the decision to intentionally destroy the levees in the Flood of 1927, in order to save one part of New Orleans at the expense of another. I find it hard to imagine it possible for anyone who has read this book to miss this prominent subject. And even for those who only skim, glance or glean, the book’s index even includes a section under the heading: "levees: the intentional destruction of." It then lists the following page numbers as dealing with that particular subject: 168, 222, 227, 229, 231-232, 234, 238- 258, 339, 408. Under the index heading of "Herbert Hoover" one finds a sub heading of "levee dynamiting and." The page numbers listed for this are 246, 252-253, 255, 340. (Even Minister Farrakhan makes an appearance in Rising Tide's index under, "Farrakhan, Louis, 128").

So why, in light of this subject’s prominence, in such a widely respected and referred to book, has it received so little attention in all forms of media? More specifically, why have those who have spoken so apparently freely on the subject of Minister Farrakhan’s comments, not mentioned the material in Rising Tide which describes not only the intentional destruction of levees, but also how the decision was made and who made it, in chronological order? Is it a mere oversight or accident that not one person in the media to the best of my knowledge has explored a relationship to what Minister Farrakhan is suggesting happened in 2005 with what is documented to have happened in the 1920s, in this book?

In my "E-Letter To Mike Dunne and The Advocate Re: "LSU Storm Expert Rejects Levee Failure Explanation", I wrote that there is a rational and reasonable basis for suspecting that there is more to the reality of what caused the levee(s) to break during or after Katrina, than what has been publicly offered by government and the mainstream media. I also mentioned that there were five salient points to that basis.

The fourth of those points was the possibility of a historical precedent. To support that basis I quoted two brief excerpts of Rising Tide, pages 222 and 231 to be specific.

In order to provide more perspective related to that basis, here, below, are some more excerpts, with brief notes of introduction, related only to the planning phase of the intentional destruction of levees during the 1920s.

-*Note: In 1922 a flood hit New Orleans and intensified a decades-old debate among those who favored a policy of using levees only to protect the city from flooding, and those who believed that "spillways" – outlets that allow water from rivers to escape, in order to relieve water pressure on levees – should be built somewhere in the city. The leading advocate of "spillways" was James Kemper who was supported by a major New Orleans newspaper publisher, Jim Thomson, a man with high level Washington, D.C. connections. When a levee breach or crevasse took place in a place called Poydras, 12 miles below New Orleans, in St. Bernard Parish, although it caused widespread damage in that area, it resulted in a decrease in rising water levels in the river at New Orleans. The Poydras crevasse and its effect was used by "spillway" advocates as support for their approach. Those lobbying for spillways made their case at the local, state and federal level and received support as well as resistance. The discussion of "spillovers" evolved into one over whether or not it would be helpful to destroy levees that had already been built

Excerpt From Rising Tide, pgs. 167-168: More than ever, Kemper was convinced New Orleans needed a spillway for emergencies. He believed the experience of the Poydras crevasse proved his case. He began to fight, hard, for his beliefs, and was joined by far more powerful allies. Jim Thomson threw his weight behind Kemper. Long interested in the river, Thomson owned two New Orleans newspapers, the Morning Tribune and the afternoon Item. He was also well connected in Washington; he had worked in several presidential campaigns and, using family like a medieval potentate cementing alliances, became the son-in-law of the Speaker of the House and the brother-in-law of a senator, with a niece married to a senator. He contacted the presidents of every bank in the city, the Cotton Exchange, the Board of Trade, the Association of Commerce, and union leaders, then formed them all into the Safe River Committee of 100. Together their connections stretched from Washington to Wall Street. For the next five years Thomson pushed Presidents Harding and Coolidge, the War Department, and the Congress to require the river commission to build a spillway. General Beach, head of the Army engineers, responded by charging that New Orleans’ interests wanted a spillway only to save money. The city’s port infrastructure – docks, railroads, grain elevators, cotton warehouses, wharves – had been built to the old Mississippi River Commission standard. Raising it all to the new commission standard would cost millions o dollars, and the federal government would pay none of it. Beach also warned, "Some one has apparently started a propaganda, judging by the letters which are reaching this office...Indiscriminate accusations against adopted methods can only result in harm." When the criticism did not stop, he threatened the city, subtly intimating that he might advise "capitalists" to invest in competing ports like Mobile or Baton Rouge instead of New Orleans. But his critics persisted. Finally, at a meeting on spillways in August 1922 in New Orleans, Beach told the businessmen present, "If it were my property, I would rather blow a hole in a levee, if conditions became serious, and let the water take care of itself, rather than [pay to] build it and pay $250,000 a year continually in interest charges [for bonds] and the additional cost of maintenance." The chief of Army engineers was recommending that his audience blow up a levee and flood its neighbors. It seemed an astounding position for him to take. In taking it he was conceding that they were right, that a spillway would work.

Excerpt From Rising Tide, pg. 222: After the 1922 flood the chief of the Army Corps of Engineers had advised the New Orleans financial community that, if the river ever seriously threatened the city, they should blow a hole in the levee. In the years since, those words had never left the consciousness of either the people in St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes, who would be sacrificed, or those who dealt with the river in New Orleans

-*Note: On pg. 225 of Rising Tide, John Barry writes, "Three men determined what went into newspapers in the city." He describes how New Orleans-area and Louisiana media coverage was determined by three men, Robert Ewing, owner of the States and papers in Monroe and Shreveport; Esmond Phelps who controlled the board of The Times Picayune; and Jim Thomson, owner of The Morning Tribune and the Item. According to Mr. Barry, a Mr. Issac Cline, head of the U.S. Weather Bureau’s New Orleans office, who was watching the media’s coverage of the flood, became displeased with it. The local coverage of the flood, as he felt it ignored or understated its severity for some. In this next excerpt Mr. Barry describes Mr. Cline’s position and continues with more of the discussions regarding the intentional destruction of levees – an emergency meeting among the city’s establishment. Referred to in this excerpt are Rudolph Hecht, president of Hibernia Bank and Lonnie Pool, president of Marine Bank and Trust Company.

Excerpt From Rising Tide, pg. 227 Cline was not worried about New Orleans itself. He agreed with Kemper that a great flood – and this already looked like a great flood – would break levees hundreds of miles upriver and relieve the city. But people in vulnerable areas read and relied on New Orleans papers; the lack of warning there would create a false sense of security. His angry protest was conveyed to Thomson, who relented somewhat, printing that afternoon, "Heavy Rains Raise River; Weather Bureau Advises of Rising Stages…The bureau urged ‘all persons interested to take necessary precautions against still higher stages during the next two weeks.’" The story did not satisfy Cline. Late that afternoon he met with business leaders to demand honesty in future stories. They assured him of it. They were lying. Nor did they tell him that Thomson had already called an emergency meeting about the river. Butler had been out of the city and had sent Canal Bank Vice President Dan Curran, a close friend of LeRoy Percy, as his representative. Hecht and Pool had attended. In that meeting, for the first time, Thomson had talked seriously about dynamiting the levee. If the situation worsened, he said, he would travel to Washington and see the president himself. No one had protested against the enormity of the act Thomson was suggesting. It was illegal, and it would destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people. Nor had anyone questioned the authority, right, or ability of those in the meeting to perform this illegal act. Nor, although they had been discussing the most public business, business that involved federal, state, city, and parish governments, had anyone protested the fact that no public official had been present. After the meeting, Thomson had informed levee board president Guy Deano, who in turn privately advised Klorer, the city councilman and river engineer, "The Emergency Committee had conferences...and plans have been worked out by them."

-*Note: A second emergency meeting was held to discuss the intentional destruction of levees in New Orleans. Referred to in this excerpt is James Pierce Butler, head of the Canal Bank, the largest bank in the South with intimate ties to Chase in New York. Also referred to is the Board of Liquidation, which was created in 1880 by New Orleans bankers to handle the debt left over from Reconstruction. It had enormous powers including handling all of the money New Orleans collected in taxes and authority over the city’s issuance of bonds.

Excerpt from Rising Tide's picture section. Under a picture of Mr. James Pierce Butler, Jr. appears the following caption: "...Butler was president of the South's largest bank and of the elite Boston Club. He manipulated the state and federal governments into dynamiting the levee outside New Orleans - flooding out thousands of people - to relieve pressure on the city."

Excerpt From Rising Tide, pg. 228 With the torrents were still falling, Marcel Garsaud, a former Army colonel and levee engineer who was now manager of the Dock Board, called Hecht, the board president, and said they needed to discuss the river situation immediately. Hecht also asked Butler, Pool, who that year headed the New Orleans Clearing House Association, several other bank presidents, and General Allison Owen, president of the Association of Commerce to come to an emergency meeting. Thomson was not invited. Possibly Hecht kept him out because he was not a member of the inner sanctum. Possibly Garsaud objected because of Garsaud’s bitter feeling toward Kemper, whom Thomson might have brought. Garsaud was prickly, bristled at any offense, and although the two engineers agreed on policy Kemper had recently rebuked him for his mistaken calculations on the industrial canal, and for playing "politics" and creating discord, writing, "I have been in this game, Colonel, much longer than you have. For a long time I fought a lone fight...You have set us back several years." Those who did belong to the inner sanctum gathered in Hecht’s office at the Hibernia Bank. Outside, the rain lashed the windows; the wind shook them. Hecht, a cigar aficionado, lit one. So did several others. The smoke filled the room. The windows were opaque with condensation, isolating them from the world outside. Garsaud announced that he had just talked to Cline. The rain could continue for hours. "If the levees up river hold, the Mississippi could reach a stage of 24.5 feet here," Garsaud said. "In my opinion a stage above 24 feet could well cause a crevasse." Then Garsaud suggested that they could eliminate any doubt about the safety of New Orleans by dynamiting the levee elsewhere, if the men present deemed it wise. Everyone present knew that Thomson had already begun planning for this eventuality, but it was not his decision. It was theirs. They were bankers, mostly. Bankers had a history of taking charge in city crises. During the 1905 yellow fever epidemic, the U.S. Surgeon General refused to help the city without a guarantee of $250,000. The mayor had lacked the authority to make any such commitment. Charles Javier, then president of the Canal Bank, a member of the Board of Liquidation, and chairman of the state Democratic Party’s Central Committee, had made two telephone calls, then gave the guarantee, and federal resources had poured into the city to fight the outbreak. Now all of the bankers present had received wires from correspondent banks in New York and elsewhere, inquiring about the city’s safety. Implicit in the inquiry was the question of investment risk, a life-and-death question to them. Butler had replaced Janvier at both the bank and the Board of Liquidation. Nothing could be done if he opposed it. Butler was the key.

Excerpt From Rising Tide, pg. 231 Butler turned to the men in the room and said they needed information on several issues, some legal, some technical. Addressing Garsaud, he said, "You say "if the levees above us hold." There is little chance of that, is there?" "They will probably not hold," Garsaud conceded. "But the pressure will be intense here in any event. It is possible that water could flow out through any levee breaks and return to the river." Hecht raised another point. Even if no river water entered New Orleans, the flood could destroy the city financially. People were building boats, tying them to their porches, stocking groceries. To liquidate inventories, wholesale suppliers were cutting prices in half and begging customers around the country to buy. Daily, hundreds of thousands of dollars were being withdrawn from banks. If the fear grew great enough, if a run developed on a bank, it would hurt, and perhaps even destroy, weaker banks. Short-term credit was disappearing, period. Long term, if the nation’s businessmen lost confidence in the safety of New Orleans, serious damage could result. Rival ports were hungry. The Illinois Central recently had – for the first time – shipped a load of molasses from Gulfport, Mississippi. U.S. Steel was planning to ship exports out of Mobile, Alabama. Pool’s bank was the most vulnerable in the city; he had aggressively loaned money to sugar planters. A crevasse on the river’s west bank could destroy them, and his bank. Dynamiting the levee on the east bank might also relieve them. Pool argued: "The people of the New Orleans are in such a panic that all who can do so are leaving the city. Thousands are leaving daily. Only dynamite will restore confidence." Butler knew the power of the river. As a boy, he had watched his father cut a canal from St. Catherine’s Creek on their property to the Mississippi. It had been a mistake. The creek quickly grew into a powerful river itself and scoured out acres of their plantation. The creek had awed him, and the Mississippi had seemed like God. He knew what floods were. Now they were discussing purposefully loosing the Mississippi River on their neighbors. It was a horrible thing, a thing that ran against everything he had been raised to believe. How real was the threat to New Orleans? The threat to its business was real enough, but how real was the threat of the river? Or did it matter? "I believe," Butler said coolly, not explicitly deciding but allowing momentum to gather more force, "the appropriate step at this point is to involve the authorities."

Eventually the decision to explode the levee was made and actually executed. It involved the highest levels of government and commerce. According to Mr. Barry, it was an unnecessary act and one that had tremendous negative consequences - some less obvious than others. The book, Rising Tide contains this story in great detail, as the above excerpts should indicate. The actual explosion is described in Chapter Twenty. The destructive process took place for ten consecutive days, using 39 tons of dynamite. It destroyed the St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes.

Why isn’t that story being told today, in light of a supposed interest, expressed by many in media, to understand why so many Black former residents of New Orleans believe that levees were intentionally exploded - that certain parts of the city may be saved at the expense of other parts?

Shouldn’t the account of levees dynamited in New Orleans in 1927, contained in a popular book - arguably the most respected in the media since Katrina - be included in any discussion of Minister Farrakhan’s belief that a levee might have been blown up, in 2005, to save some portions of the city, at the expense of others? (I have read and reread these excerpts and can find nothing that says that the city leaders blew up the levees to sacrifice the homes and business of blacks for the good of the white population. I also fail to understand why an event in 1922, and decisions made by local politicians and businessmen who are no longer in office, and probably not even still alive, should be the basis for assumption in 2005? To add to that, the 1922 decision was made on a local level, not a federal level. If one were to use that scenario to justify a possible 2005 scenario, one would have to take into account that the majority of political leaders in New Orleans are Democrats, and that the Mayor is indeed black. Using this author's logic, then, would be to assume that Democrats and blacks bombed the levees.)

What Minister Farrakhan has presented - that levees were intentionally exploded so that certain parts of the city may be saved at the expense of other parts - has been mocked as a ‘conspiracy theory’ by many. None of those that I have heard making a caricature out of the Minister and his suggestion - using the "straw man" argument technique - do so with any reference to history, not to mention the history of levees in New Orleans or the Gulf Coast. And none of them use Rising Tide to refute what he has put forth. (Because Rising Tide and the facts of that situation simply do not apply to the facts surrounding Katrina, and anyone who tries to tie the two together is making a huge leap past logic into science fiction)

Regardless to what the term ‘conspiracy theory’ has come to mean in today’s lexicon and colloquial expression, what is described in Rising Tide, as it relates to the deliberate dynamiting of levees, clearly reads like a widening conspiracy. It would not be difficult to prove this, I don’t think. If that is the case, then those who mock and ridicule Blacks for considering the possibility that the levee breach near the Ninth Ward was deliberately created, do so without perspective, or while concealing or omitting it. (Again, why should blacks think this, unless they are coerced by someone with the sole motivation of further driving the wedge between blacks and whites, democrats and rebulicans, and the black population and the president)

There are a lot of factors involved in an individual or community accepting as possible or probable, the suggestion that Minister Farrakhan has put forth. Not the least among these factors is historical precedent. (If the author is concerned about history, and wants to make an argument for Farrahkan's claims, then I would be welcome to review any pertinent historical documents and facts that actually argue the case. He has yet to present any)

Perhaps that is why "no one" is talking about a major aspect of the book, "Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood Of 1927 And How It Changed America."(No one is talking about it because it simply does not apply. If it did, the liberal media would be all over the connection in an attempt to bury Bush)

Maybe it provides too much perspective, in a climate that has too little. (Or the accusation comes from a man with absolutely no perspective)

Cedric Muhammad Monday, October 03, 2005