Perri Nelson's Website 

The Limits of Multiculturalism

SVC Alumnus over at NWBloggers.com has a great summary of some of the more important points in Tony Blair's recent speech. If only American politicians had the guts to speak out like this instead of towing the politically correct multi-cultural line...

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other faiths have a perfect right to their own identity and religion, to practice their faith and to conform to their culture. This is what multicultural, multi-faith Britain is about. That is what is legitimately distinctive.

But when it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British. At that point no distinctive culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom.

...

Partly the answer lies in precisely defining our common values and making it clear that we expect all our citizens to conform to them. Obedience to the rule of law, to democratic decision-making about who governs us, to freedom from violence and discrimination are not optional for British citizens. They are what being British is about. Being British carries rights. It also carries duties. And those duties take clear precedence over any cultural or religious practice.

...

But we protect this attitude by defending it. Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed.

If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us. Then you, and all of us, who want to, can worship God in our own way, take pride in our different cultures after our own fashion, respect our distinctive histories according to our own traditions; but do so within a shared space of shared values in which we take no less pride and show no less respect. The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it.

SVC Alumnus concludes his post with this...

You can arguably substitute many - if not all - references to Britain and replace them with America.  I encourage you to read the whole speech.

While you're at it, go give the post on NWBloggers.com a read!

Where are the American conservative politicians that have the guts to speak out like this? I'd happily vote for such a man, or woman, if they only would show themselves openly, with a consistent message of conservative values. I wonder if we'll ever see a true conservative leader again in this age of political correctness and "moderates" who are simply a stealth version of liberal socialists.

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Permanent Floating Ping Festival, third world county, The Bullwinkle Blog, bRight & Early, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Sea-Tac Christmas Tree kerfuffle...

Michael Medved brings some balance to the story of Rabbi Bogomilsky and the Sea-Tac Christmas Tree kerfuffle. Earlier, I said that I thought Rabbi Bogomilsky had deliberately provoked the controversy. After reading more on this both from Michael Medved and Woman Honor Thyself,  I've changed my mind...

Those of us who are comfortable and secure in our own religiosity (which would surely include the rigorously observant Rabbi Bogomilsky) don’t feel threatened by public displays of faith by our Christian neighbors. Generally, it’s secular fanatics (of both Jewish and Christian background), militant separationists, who have waged war on Christmas trees, ten commandments monuments, crosses, and other benign symbols of the nation’s religious heritage.

So what went wrong with this whole miserable affair?

After two months of indecision from the Port of Seattle (the quasi-governmental agency that runs the airport) concerning the request for a menorah, the rabbi’s lawyer made the mistake (yes, it was a mistake) of threatening a federal lawsuit and the airport people panicked and ordered the removal of the trees. “We’re not in the business of offending anyone and we’re not eager to get into a federal lawsuit with anyone,” said Craig Watson, chief lawyer for the Port of Seattle. Patricia Davis, head of the Port Commission said, “We didn’t have other cultures represented and rather than scramble around to find representations of other cultures at this late date, we decided to take them down and consider it later.”

This is ridiculous, of course. “Other cultures” do not observe popular holidays at precisely this time (the Islamic month of Ramadan is over) and in thousands of public and private locations across the country the abundant, prominent and very beautiful Christmas decorations are harmlessly complemented (if hardly balanced) by menorahs.

Of course, in the current climate of hyper-sensitivity regarding public expressions of religious commitment, Rabbi Bogomilsky and Harvey Grad should have avoided the chilling, unnecessary phrase “law suit” at all costs --- even if the Port of Seattle refused to give them a timely answer on their menorah request. As a result of the threatened litigation, the whole world is witnessing a horrible situation in which the religious enthusiasm (however well intended) of one individual has led to the removal of decorations enjoyed by literally hundreds of thousands.

The threat of litigation was what prompted the removal of the trees. Thanks to the ACLU threats of lawsuit over "holiday displays" have conditioned local officials across the country to remove "offensive" displays rather than opt for more inclusiveness.

Couple that with the extremely quick "out of the gate" rush to fight the war against the war on Christmas from so many out there, and it's easy to see how this could quickly become a "national" issue.

While I'm reasonably sure now that Rabbi Bogomilsky never intended for things to go this awry, it serves as a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. I think that the true villain in all of this is the ACLU. Without their constant attempts to eradicate every reference to God and religion in the public square this whole incident might never have happened.

Germans Investigate Russian in Poisoning

From the Washington Post, more news in the ongoing investigation into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. 

HAMBURG, Dec. 10 -- German prosecutors said Sunday that they are investigating a Russian businessman for the illegal handling of a radioactive substance in the days after he flew to Germany from Russia and before he left to meet a former Russian internal security agent in London. The development is the strongest indication so far that the plot to poison Alexander Litvinenko in London originated in Moscow.

At a news conference in this port city, German officials said Dmitry Kovtun, who reportedly lies sick in a Moscow hospital, flew to Hamburg from Moscow on Oct. 28 before heading to London on Nov. 1, the day he met Litvinenko at a bar at the Millennium Hotel.

Hamburg's chief prosecutor, Martin Koehnke, said traces of radioactivity found in and around Hamburg and linked to Kovtun's movements before Nov. 1 suggested that he carried the substance to Germany. Koehnke said it was still possible that Kovtun was merely present when polonium-210 was "packaged in Moscow," but German investigators are convinced that he was in contact with the deadly isotope before he met Litvinenko.

So it's looking more and more likely that this is actually about silencing Kremlin critics. German investigators are reasonably certain that Kovtun didn't return to Hamburg after meeting with Litvinenko, and the amount of polonium-210 that was used to poison Litvinenko could only have been obtained from a nuclear installation.

Putin's denials to the contrary, this is looking an awful lot like a pattern of behavior from the Kremlin that dates back several years. 

Earlier posts:

• Who's killing Kremlin critics?
• Russia promises to block extradition of Litvinenko's murderer
• Ex-spy's death to be treated as murder
• Russian security service 'led poison plot'
• Yushchenko, Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, and Gaidar?
• Radiation found on London-Moscow route planes
• Litvinenko victim of "state-sponsored" assassination
• Did Vladimir Putin have Alexander Litvinenko silenced?

The Iraq Study Group Report Is a Misleading Fantasy

Youssef Ibrahim at the New York Sun has an interesting take on the Iraq Study Group's defeatist report... 

It took nine months and a huge amount of propaganda, but the Iraq Study Group's report neither presented a solution to the American dilemma in Iraq nor raised a single serious alternative to the present course.

Virtually every recommendation from the bipartisan group is unrealistic, misleading, fantastical, whimsical, and fanciful.

Downsizing American combat troops from the present level of 140,000 in favor of "embedding" American military personnel as advisers or trainers with Iraqi troops is insane. It only means delivering those troops who remain into the hands of Iraqi and foreign insurgents, kidnappers, and Iranian operatives.

... 

Linking an American withdrawal to the performance of a nonexistent Iraqi military is a nonstarter. These security structures have failed repeatedly to materialize, despite numerous attempts to create and train them. Even when they are established, they quickly disintegrate.

...

Equally absurd is the group's recommendation for a regional "diplomatic offensive" to build an international consensus about stability in Iraq.

Neighboring countries have competing and conflicting agendas for the outcome in Iraq. Iran and Syria are actively supporting factions to shape an Iranian-style theocracy or a Baathist autocracy, while Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates are advocating for the Sunnis to destabilize Shiite-dominated Iraq further.

...

Incongruous recommendations, by group participants such as Vernon Jordan, to promote interfaith "healing" between Sunnis and Shiites would be laughable were they not so cynical. Such psychobabble betrays a deep ignorance of Islam. A 13-century-old feud between the two main branches of Islam is not about to he healed by an American initiative for dialogue among Muslims. (emphasis added)

...

But the one that takes the cake is the recommendation for America to hold talks with Iran and Syria.

These two governments' goals are diametrically opposed to those of America, which seeks to leave a country capable of defending its borders and sovereign in making its decisions.

What more really needs to be said? The Iraq Study Group has been appropriately called the "Iraq Surrender Group" by many on the right. Their recommendations fall neatly into line with the recommendations of just about everyone that wants to see Iraq be another Viet Nam.

We can't afford to let that happen. Surrender in Iraq will ultimately mean dhimmitude in our own country as the Islamic terrorists that are tearing up the world become emboldened and eventually overcome the world while the West plays at "healing".

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Permanent Floating Ping Festival, The Random Yak, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Bullwinkle Blog, Pursuing Holiness, and bRight & Early, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling "not final word"?

Apparently that's the way the New York Times wants to spin this anyway. In The New York Time's Homepage RSS feed the abstract for the article on today's unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme court says this: "The Supreme Court ruling, however, may not be the last word on the issue of spectator conduct."

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 — The Supreme Court today unanimously upheld the conviction of a California man who had contended that he was denied a fair trial because people sitting in the courtroom were wearing pictures of the man he killed.

The justices ruled, in a case that addressed the relationship between federal and state courts as well as the conduct of courtroom spectators, that Mathew Musladin was not entitled to a new trial in the 1994 slaying of Tom Studer outside the San Jose home of Mr. Musladin’s estranged wife, Pamela.

Mr. Musladin admitted that he shot Mr. Studer to death, but he claimed that he did so in self-defense. After a two-week trial in which some of Mr. Studer’s relatives sat behind prosecutors while wearing small pictures of the victim, the jury found Mr. Musladin guilty. He was sentenced to more than 30 years in prison.

In today’s ruling, the justices overturned a finding by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, which had held that the California state courts and a federal district court erred in rejecting Mr. Musladin’s bid for a new trial. Today’s ruling revolved around the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, by which Congress curbed the power of federal judges to grant habeas corpus petitions to review state court convictions.

So there you have it. A convicted, murderer can't claim that pictures of his victim prejudiced the jury against him.

The Ninth Circuit is overturned yet again. And of course the New York Times trots out its favorite liberal justices to indicate that this unanimous opinion won't be the final word on this.

Rabbi shocked at results of Christmas Tree lawsuit.

In today's Seattle Times, we learn that Seattle Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky is "shocked and appalled" at the results of his [threatened] lawsuit against Seattle-Tacoma International Airport...

The departure of Christmas tree displays at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport — the Port of Seattle's response to a local rabbi's insistence that an electric menorah also be put up — is accelerating into an international spectacle in the so-called "war on Christmas."

And that is not what Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky wanted.

"I am devastated, shocked and appalled at the decision that the Port of Seattle came to," he said Sunday. As news coverage about the airport's trees spread from CNN to ABC to the Paris-based International Herald Tribune, Bogomilsky on Sunday began to receive hateful messages from people holding him responsible for the removal of the trees.

What did he expect them to do when he [threatened to] filed the lawsuit? In today's overly sensitive, politically correct climate the ACLU has prompted local officials across the country to remove displays that might be somehow interpreted as having anything to do with Christianity on public property. Threatened with a lawsuit, the Port of Seattle may have overreacted, but their reaction makes sense in today's litigious climate.

The displays were removed from the airport's main arrival hall and various entries overnight Friday.

Port staff members were first contacted in October by Mitchell Stein, a consultant to the Port for the past five years, who wanted to install a menorah this year. Stein is also affiliated with Chabad.

"We thought the Port was going to make the right decision to support diversity and Hanukkah," Stein said. "The lawsuit was only a way to get their attention."

It certainly got attention. My earlier posting on this has been by far the most popular posting I have written on this blog yet. The Seattle Times has received nearly a thousand comments on the topic.

The airport has no policy governing the longtime holiday display because no one has ever challenged it before, Betancourt said.

"What we have are holiday trees," she said. "If we are going to display symbols representing other cultures, we have to think what that means and what's respectful and what would make a good display. Maybe it would be 'Holidays of the World.'

"Or maybe it's snowmen."

Or maybe it's just Christmas. After all, it is a National Holiday.

Grad (Rabbi Bogomilsky's Lawyer) said he cautioned officials that they were about to make a mistake by removing the trees.

"I told them that this story would have legs, that it would go national," Grad said. The publicity fallout is regrettable, Davis said.

...

Bogomilsky said he wants the Port to apologize for statements on Saturday that he says passed blame to him.

"I would hate to think it was just a way for them to cover up their poor call," the rabbi said. "This was totally a Port of Seattle decision. The Port should step up and say that."

Or maybe this is exactly the result he wanted and he's surprised at the amount of ill will it has generated? Rabbi Bogomilsky is responsible for this mess because he's the one that threatened the Port of Seattle with the lawsuit.

Earlier Postings:

• What does a tree have to do with religion?

Trackposted to Wake Up America, Perri Nelson's Website, Permanent Floating Ping Festival, The Random Yak, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Bullwinkle Blog, Pursuing Holiness, and bRight & Early, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Also linked at Basil's Blog.

UPDATE: As far as I can tell, the Rabbi only threatened to file a lawsuit. No actual lawsuit was filed. The post above has been edited to reflect this.

UPDATE #2: I no longer believe that Rabbi Bogomilsky intended for this to go as far as it did. I remark on that here.

Feeding the world causes global warming!

According to the Independent Online Edition, eating meat is the cause of global warming.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Excuse me, could someone explain to me how a basic chemical can cause acid rain? If this is actually in the report, it's no wonder these alarmists can't be reasoned with. They don't understand basic chemistry, let alone science.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.

So what's the solution according to the U.N.? Well obviously it's to stop eating meat. PETA will probably get behind this.

At least I can start driving again.

Hat Tip: Sister Toldjah

Trackposted to Wake Up America, Perri Nelson's Website, Permanent Floating Ping Festival, The Random Yak, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Bullwinkle Blog, Pursuing Holiness, and bRight & Early, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Open Trackback Monday: 12-11-2006

Another weekend has come and gone. Here's your open trackback post for today, Monday, December 11, 2006. If you have something interesting you'd like to share, please go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.

As always you're welcome to link to this post and ping for a trackback. Just remember to follow the trackback policy.