Here’s a good example of why the drive-by media can’t hold a candle to the blogosphere when it comes to news or analysis.

The story in this case is Venezuela’s threat to sell its American-acquired F16 fighter jets to Iran. This is merely saber-rattling with empty scabbards but you’d never know it from reading the bored and boring account in the Chicago Tribune:

Venezuela’s military is considering selling its fleet of U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to another country, possibly Iran, in response to a U.S. ban on arms sales to President Hugo Chavez’s government, an official said Tuesday.

Gen. Alberto Muller, a senior adviser to Chavez, said he has recommended to the defense minister that Venezuela consider selling the 21 jets to another country. Muller said he thought it was worthwhile to consider “the feasibility of a negotiation with Iran for the sale of those planes.”

The Iranian Embassy in Caracas said no such deal has been formally proposed.

The U.S. State Department warned that Washington would have to sign off on a sale of the F-16s, a possibility spokesman Sean McCormack suggested was highly unlikely.

The article, no doubt written by a journalism major who spent lots of time and money on J school credentials, goes on for several more space-filling paragraphs. However, the article is a puff — no substance in the writing, and no military or political information in the head of the journalist. Or at least none he is willing to share.

Now, look at the same story as told by Spook 86 on his blog, “In From the Cold”:

Hugo’s Used Fighter Sale

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is taking another poke at the Uncle Sam. He’s threatening to sell his nation’s small fleet of F-16 fighters to Iran, apparently in retaliation for a U.S. ban on arms sales to his government.

General Alberto Mueller, an advisor to Chavez, has recommended to the defense minister that Venezuela sell its 21 F-16s to another country. Mueller said he thought it was worthwhile to consider “the feasibility of a negotiation with Iran for the sale of those planes.” The comments came one day after the U.S. announced a ban on additional arms sales to Venezuela, which totaled $34 million last year. Before the ban was announced, Washington had been putting a slow squeeze on Venezuela’s access to American military technology. Previously, the U.S. had refused Caracas’s request for upgrades to its F-16s, the most capable fighter in the Venezuelan inventory. Members of the Chavez government have also suggested that Venezuela might “share” its F-16s with Cuba, in response to the U.S. arms ban.

Short of military action, there really isn’t much we can do to block the F-16 transfer to Iran or Cuba, if Chavez decides to go ahead with the deal. But careful observers will note that neither Tehran or Havana is exactly jumping up and down at the prospect of obtaining Yanqui F-16s.

And with good reason. The F-16 is more than a sleek, 80s-era fighter jet. It’s a complete weapons system. If you plan to operate the F-16, you’ll need simulators, extensive training, infrastructure upgrades and a massive inventory of spare parts, among other things. Needless to say, those “extras” don’t come cheap. Beyond that, there’s the question of where you can actually obtain the stuff you need to operate an F-16 squadron. Limited quantities of spare parts and munitions can be purchased on the gray market, and Venezuela could provide some assistance in flight and maintenance instruction; but to make the jets fully operational, a customer needs access to U.S. contractor support and technical data, which (in turn) requires approval of the U.S. government. Obviously, George Bush and Don Rumsfeld aren’t about to sign off on an F-16 transfer to Iran or Cuba.

What about other countries who have F-16s? Well, if those countries want continued access to U.S. military hardware, they can’t afford to get caught in an illegal arms transfer involving a pariah state. True, there are some exceptions to this rule (Israel’s transfer of F-16 technology to China in the Lavi/F-10 program comes to mind), but it’s doubtful that any current U.S. customer–especially those with a desire for future arms sales–would accept the risks entailed in supporting an illegal sale of the Venezuelan jets.

Additionally, the Iranians and Cubans already have access to fourth-generation fighter technology, thanks to their acquisition of MiG-29 FULCRUMs from Russia. The FULCRUMs in the Iranian and Cuban inventories are, in some ways, more sophisticated than the early-generation F-16s that Hugo is trying to unload. Iran and Cuba have something else in common, too: both have had difficulty in keeping their FULCRUMs in the air, despite full access to Russian training and technical support. Without similar assistance for the F-16s, those jets would become little more than ramp decorations at some Iranian or Cuban base, slowly rusting in the sun.

Case in point: remember those Iraqi aircraft that were flown to Iran at the end of Operation Desert Storm? To date, only a handful of those fighters have returned to operational service, and only with support from the Russians. French-built Iraqi aircraft (notably Mirage F-1s) have fared even worse, spending years on the tarmac before the Iranians managed to get a few airborne. Today, most are back on the ramp, grounded by a lack of spare parts, maintenance and qualified pilots.

It’s also worth remembering that simply having a fourth-generation fighter doesn’t give you state-of-the-art employment capabilities. Tactically, Iranian and Cuban fighter pilots are no match for their western counterparts, and that axiom holds true for whatever airframe they might operate, including the F-16. It takes years of effort to develop the doctrine and tactics required to maximize the F-16’s combat capabilities, and that’s something the Venezuelans simply don’t have.

Mr. Chavez may be having a fire sale down at the ol’ used fighter lot, but he’s going to find a dearth of serious buyers, even among our adversaries. Havana and Tehran may kick the tires a few times, but they’re unlikely to conclude a deal to acquire the F-16s. Like other countries, Cuba and Iran want useable combat systems–not expensive toys that simply fill up an aircraft parking ramp. One year from now, you’re likely to find Hugo’s F-16s in the same spot they currently occupy–on the tarmac at a Venezuelan Air Force base.

I don’t often cut and paste a complete post, but this time you needed to see the wealth of information about the skills and technology needed to make this deal realistic — not to mention the excellent style, and the opinion about the final outcome based on his knowledge of the recent history of the fates other aircraft in the Middle East.

See what I mean? You yawn over the instantly-forgotten MSM account. The blogosphere version sticks in your memory and gives you some insight into egomaniacal tyrants and their gyrations. You also learn a bit about the complexity involved:

It takes years of effort to develop the doctrine and tactics required to maximize the F-16’s combat capabilities.

In other words, we’re not talking cellphones here.

As I said, MSM scrapings and empty scabbards.

Ali Eteraz has written an important and thought-provoking post, “The Problem Of Mecca”, in which he struggles with the issue of fractiousness and internecine violence in the Islamic world. The problem, as he sees it, is the status of the holy city of Mecca, and the fact that the House of Saud has control over it.

Perhaps we would have never had to battle one another over Mecca (or over “Mecca”) if the Prophet would have left a clergy in place. Or if he would have left a political structure in place. Or if he would have left angels to rule us in his stead. However, given that he did no such thing, given that he left us to our own individual devices, it meant that each and every one of us felt that we were the true guardians of Mecca, that each one of us in his own capacity, was the true guardian of God’s Arabian Abode. In each of our desires to assume this responsibility we turned against one another. We killed one another. We separated from one another.

…In other words, Muslims have believed that what unifies them is the specter of a political empire called the Caliph, when, quite obviously, what truly unifies them is a political actor who has dominion over Mecca. It is Mecca, as I stated, which is the locus.

In the context of the modern nation-state, the centrality of Mecca to all Muslims has been the cause of immense trouble. It has meant, that whether Muslims like it or not, the House of Saud is now the presumptive leader of Islam. Why? Because they have dominion over Mecca. Out of respect, the balance of Muslims in the world cannot decry the House of Saud, for they are the “Guardians of The Two Holy Mosques.” The majority of the Muslim nations simply consent to the notion that the House of Saud is our presumptive leader and neither break away from its propaganda and disinformation, nor prevent its scholars from trampling them under foot. The deep-seated respect for Mecca provides the House of Saud with religious legitimacy in the entire Muslim world, such that everything that comes from Saudi Arabia is considered to be the truest expression of Islam (even if it is clearly anti-Islamic). It is not Saudi oil which sells Wahhabi theology. It is the weight of Mecca which gives it gravity. Take away Mecca and the theology of regression follows suit.

Eteraz is, from the point of view of this blog, a rare bird: a truly moderate Muslim. He wants Islam to come to its senses and come to terms with modernity. He wants it to accept a place as one religion among other world religions, instead of the rightful ruler of the whole world.

To this end, he wants to remove power over Mecca from the Saudis, so as to de-legitimize the baneful Wahhabi theology. He acknowledges the difficulty of such a project; Mecca cannot be taken by violence, and wresting it from the House of Saud will not be easy.

The only possible solution is for a collection of Muslim nation-states to begin a movement using international legal remedies and diplomacy to make Mecca (and Medina) either independent nation-states unto themselves (as is the Vatican), or to have them rendered international protectorates, the task of their protection and maintenance falling upon the Muslim world jointly. …Muslims, by having a Mecca that is no longer identified by its ethnicity, but by its religion, can all compete to become better Muslims, as opposed to competing to become the pawns of Saud.

It’s an interesting idea, and I have no idea of its practicality. But an important difference between Islam and the Catholic Church is that there has never been the Islamic equivalent of the Pope, a religious leader with a plausible claim to universal legitimacy. If Mohammed had had the equivalent of St. Peter in his entourage, and handed over the keys of Mecca to him… But he didn’t, and nothing can change that fact.

In any case, I hope other Muslim intellectuals take up Eteraz’ cause, and start discussing it. We need a counter-meme to compete with the Great Jihad. For those of us who still hold out a shred of hope for “moderate Islam”, it’s an absolute necessity.

Some Gates of Vienna readers believe that the “moderate Muslim” is a myth, and that a twilight struggle against the entirety of Islam is our only option.

And Eteraz? Well, in their view he’s simply a sophisticated practitioner of taqqiya, of the stratagem of deliberate deception practiced by believers against the infidel.

They must think he’s really good at it.

Fjordman has sent along a newspaper article, unfortunately in Swedish, whose subject is the thesis of Madeleine Sultán Sjöqvist, a doctoral candidate at Uppsala University. The whole thesis is available in Swedish, but the précis has been translated.

Fjordman snips and translates part of the news article before sending us on to look at the précis on the thesis page:

They convert to protest against the fixation with looks in our modern society. The tougher living conditions for women, who are supposed to both have a career and do the housekeeping, play a part, too. Many of the women feel that their lives lack a sense of purpose, but that Christianity does not seem like a relevant alternative to them.

Then they experience some special moment and meet an angel, or some equivalent religious vision, and they realize that they have actually been Muslims all their lives. After a while they do experience that somebody tries to lure them away from the true religion, and abandon Islam. This could be mom or Satan.

The attraction of the Islamic family life seems to be a common feature among women converts. Several of them state that in Islam, the man is more rational and logical, while the woman is more emotional and caring. This means that the woman should be the one to take care of the children and do the housekeeping, while the man should be the one to work and provide for the family.

Leaving any analysis of this newspaper clip, let’s look at the thesis page itself itself. The title, again only in Swedish, looks typically and universally doctoral-sounding and dense:

“Vi blev muslimer” Svenska kvinnor berättar: En religionssociologisk studie av konversionsberättelser. Your guess is as good as mine. It seems to begin with a quote about Muslim belief from one of her interviews and then continues with a sociological-religious studies theme of conversion. In this case, conversion of Swedish women to Islam.

Theses from Uppsala University
Department of Theology, Sociology of Religions
“Vi blev muslimer”
by , Madeleine Sultán Sjöqvist

Abstract [in English] :

The material of the thesis consists of interviews of Swedish women who have converted to Islam, with the aim of gaining knowledge as to how the informants create meaning around their religiosity. Questions have been asked about how the women understand their conversion and their religious involvement as well as what it means to live as a convert in a secularised western society.

In the interpretation and description of their religious engagement, the informants’ conceptions about Muslim family life are closely linked to their understanding of what the religious belonging means. The informants particularly stress that Islam represents equality between people in general and between men and women in particular, that Islam represents the good patriarchal family life and that women should obey their husbands. The informants’ narratives contain both more open and reflexive interpretations of what Muslim engagement involves and a fundamental striving towards the “right” answers, a determination of what sex, family, society and religion “are”. There is, in addition a tension between being a part of what is understood to be “correct” Muslim tradition and religious involvement understood as a gender equality project. In addition there is a tension between being a part of “correct” Muslim tradition and the establishment of a religiosity on “womanly” premises.

I would love to know what interview questions she formulated, and how she went about choosing the women for her interviews. When you look at her own name — Madeleine Sultán Sjöqvist — it would appear she has some Muslim background herself; Sultan does not seem a Swedish name. While this would not preclude the “objectivity” that sociologists long for in order to define their discipline as science, it would call into question her agenda. But then perhaps she does state her disclaimers in her introduction. However, finding a Swede willing to translate a doctoral thesis seems a bit far-fetched. Life is hard enough.

It would also be of interest, sociologically and religiously, to interview and compare the Swedish female victims of Muslim male rape and physical assault to these women who have found refuge in Islam. In fact, it would make for a far more interesting thesis, but somehow I doubt such a project, fraught as it is with the possibility for stepping unwittingly into politically incorrect potholes, would be a good idea. At least not for someone hoping to be on the tenure track in academia – in Sweden or anywhere else.

Let’s look at what the newspaper article says about the women. First, the dissatisfactions:

• They convert to protest against the fixation with looks in our modern society.
• The tougher living conditions for women, who are supposed to both have a career and do the housekeeping, play a part, too.
• Many of the women feel that their lives lack a sense of purpose, but that Christianity does not seem like a relevant alternative to them.

Does the first reason not strike you as strange, given what we know about the strictures re Muslim women’s dress and demeanor? There are indeed “fixations” with women’s looks in modern society…as there has been in every culture. Only in Islam is this part of man’s nature so repressed and his desire therefore so hypertrophied, that he feels impelled to cover up his women.

Women have “tougher living conditions” than men? Who makes these career/homemaking decisions for women anyway? Is converting to Islam a comfortable excuse to stay home because your religion forbids you to go out alone? Depending on the age of these women – if they are in their twenties, let’s say – this is nothing more than a fearful foreclosure on having to make adult decisions.

As for Christianity not seeming relevant to them, C.S. Lewis said of the western world that we are inoculated with such a mild version of Christianity that we are immune to the real thing. I wonder how much Muslim theology, or Christian theology, these women really know. And how much history, for that matter.

Read the rest of the article. See it as a swing of the pendulum for a post-modern culture that demands freedom and refuses the obligations that go with it. One which is imbued with irony, detachment, and ultimately a grotesquerie of dress, mode, and manners. These women are looking for transcendent meaning, for family life, and for rules by which to live. Looking around, they don’t see any of this in everyday life in Sweden, but they do see it – on the surface at least – in Islam.

But you could twist this a bit and come up with the description of Jewish family life, only there would be equality between the partners and women would expect (okay, “demand”) that men contribute to family life. But Judaism doesn’t proselytize and we know what Swedes think of Jews.

Theodore Dalrymple noted that in his work with British male prisoners, Islam was an attractive alternative for them because a Muslim man dominates women. He saw the degraded position of repeat offenders who used the mantle of Islam to cover a deep sense of inadequacy and rage.

Now we have this thesis on the phenomenon of Swedish women converting to Islam. God pity them when they start having children and discover that under Islam, children belong to the father. Only then will they know the devil’s bargain they have made for themselves and their babies.

Well, you heard the speech. The question is, which parts do you find credible?

They are going to send six thousand National Guard troops to the borders — not for interdiction or military action. It seems they’re going to train the people already there. Right. Six thousand men and women for how many thousands of miles of borderland?

So who pays the National Guard? The states? I didn’t hear any fiscal relief for the southwestern border states. And they’re going to stay a year to solve a generations-old problem? Why not just be honest, Mr. President. Tell us, “they’re staying till 2008, and then I’m outta here.”

[oops. They are getting some help: “Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities. So we will increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants.” Still no mention of the other costs, however…]

Someone over at the Corner said he sounded more like Mr. Rogers than Mr. Reagan. I’m afraid so. We need someone leading us who says “we’re finished putting up with your lawlessness. Get out of Dodge or we’ll put you out. Pronto.”

I am tired of statesmanship practiced with the likes of corrupt Mexico. We ought to copy their immigration laws, line for line. For example, these are the people permittted to settle in Mexico, right off their page:

· Retirees
· Investors
· Professionals
· Scientists & Technicians
· Artists and Sportspeople
Ummm…no peasants? No riff-raff? Oh, right — they’re sending them all northward.

Well, what’s sauce for the goose, etc…Here’s what you need to do/have in order to get your fine self inside the borders of Mexico, per the link above:

Immigrant, Active: – i.e. you do want to acquire permanent residency in Mexico AND work there:

You will need to satisfy the requirements for entry (e.g. professional, sponsored by a company, etc), or be able and prepared to invest at least 40,000 times the minimum daily wage in Mexico City.

Immigrant, Non-Active: – i.e. you do want to acquire permanent residency in Mexico but NOT work there:

If you are of retirement age (50+), and have at least US$1,500 or equivalent income per month, then a Retiree permit will be your easiest route.

If you are not of a retirement age (below 50) and want to live but not work in Mexico, you will need to contact the Mexican Consulate. Provided that you can prove a permanent steady income in line with the regulations, you may be granted an FM3 permit to live in Mexico, which would be eligible for conversion to an FM2 in 5 years. You will need to state what you intend to do there, e.g. early retirement due to health, etc.

Let’s play Immigration By Mexican rules. Remember the email that American Digest validated? Here’s how it goes if you want to get into Mexico:

”I spent five years working in Mexico.

I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara’s [his wife]was the same except hers did not permit her to work.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:

1. Birth certificates for Barbara and me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.

6. A letter from The ST. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was “a citizen in good standing.”

7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our “I am the greatest person on earth” letter. It was fun to write.

All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.

Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences.

We could not protest any of the government’s actions or we would be committing a felony.

We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and gratuities to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Loredo Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.
We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company’s Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually.

The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.

Leaving the country meant turning in the FM 3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.”

I want immigrations laws like Mexico’s. I don’t want the President’s half-measures. I want citizen arrests. I want lots and lots of money paid to our government for any Mexican who wants to live here. I want what agri-business and people who hire servants don’t want: an austere immigration policy that says we respect our own sovereignty and we respect those we hire to work for us.

Will that be tough on the poor Mexicans? Initially, yes. But it may literally kill Vicente Fox as his country implodes and the corruption currently holding that cesspit together finally blows.

UPDATE: “In From the Cold” calls the speech ‘tepid’. In a post entitled Boots on the Ground, he says in part:

…the “boots on the ground” coalition won’t apply the same principle to securing our southern border. President Bush’s tepid plan to assign 5,000 National Guard members to border duties (on a temporary basis) has been met with predictable “concerns” [from Senator Hagel] about our over-stretched military, and calls to further strengthen the Border Patrol, rather than deploy military personnel…

[…]

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I do seem to recall something about ensuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense in the preamble to the Constitution. And, given the chaos that exists along our southern border, some sort of military presence seems essential to satisfy those constitutional requirements. But folks like Senator Hagel would prefer to spend a few more years recruiting (and training) more Border Patrol agents. By the time we achieve that goal, or more accurately, if we achieve that goal, another 3 or 4 million illegal immigrants will have crossed our borders, and making the crisis even worse.

Hagel’s concerns actually seem premature, since President Bush will apparently propose the use of military personnel in support roles, including surveillance of the border. The work of actually trying to stop the influx of illegals will remain in the hands of overtaxed border patrol agents. In other words, we may have better information on the location and numbers of illegals attempting to enter our country, but we still won’t have the necessary resources to stop them. And this is an improvement?

Hell, no, it’s not an improvement! It’s a stopgap measure as we bleed from every orifice until 2008, when it becomes someone else’s problem.

Let’s face it, President Bush is worn out, and who can blame him? Even Lincoln only had one war to think about. And better advisors, too.

From Paul Belien’s website:

Following last Thursday’s Antwerp massacre the Belgian authorities have announced zero tolerance for racism. Belgian journalists, lawyers and politicians (including Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt), say that I am responsible for creating the atmosphere of hatred that led to the massacre. Some people even demand that I be prosecuted.

Belgian television and the Brussels papers say that the Antwerp shoot-out is the result of my writings. Regular readers of The Brussels Journal know my view well enough: I have repeatedly defended the view that Muslim immigrants are not to blame for Europe’s predicament. The latter is entirely of our own making. Europeans have foolishly replaced God by the State as the one on whom they rely to take care of all their needs from cradle to grave. The religious vacuum has led to a demographic vacuum, because those who lose faith in God lose faith in the future as well. A civilization that has created a religious and a demographic vacuum is bound to perish.

The lights are turning out for Europe. If America follows Europe’s example Christendom is lost.

So an eighteen year-old kid goes Goth, shoots up the place because he doesn’t like “foreigners” and one lone journalist is to blame? Not only is Belgium a grimly Orwellian place, but it also has lost its powers of reasoning. Since when could ONE journalist have that much power?

In America, we would have used the incident to do a lot of breast-beating. Grief counselors would have been called in. Bullies would have been singled out for admonition. Re-education classes would have started and people would be giving hard looks to the parents of the killer.

But that is not how it seems to work in Belgium. And as sand-poundingly stupid as our reflexive response to raving adolescent lunatics is, we can now see there are worse reactions. It is hard to respect the elites in a country who choose to take advantage of the crazy behavior of one homicidal kid in order to silence those who disagree with them. Talk about a leap of faith! It surely isn’t a leap of logic we’re dealing with here.

Mr. Belien is right: it’s damned dark in Europe. They can’t even grope their way to the light of reason anymore. In fact, one could say they stomped on the torch a long time ago and have enacted laws forbidding any one to light it again.

What a pity, to die in the dark, killed by your own scared stupidity.

A reader sends the email address for the Belgian embassy. Let them know, respectfully, what you think:

E-mail: washington@diplobel.org

Should you prefer to write (using your best bond stationery and black ink, please), fax or phone, here is that information, too:

Mr. Leo Cortens, Counselor and Consul
Embassy of Belgium
3330 Garfield Street NW
Washington, DC 20008

Consular office hours 9:30 AM – 12:00 PM:

Phone (202) 333-6900, Fax (202) 338-4960

If you are particularly fired up, why not do all four?

In an email, Paul Belien says he’s going on holiday for a fortnight. We can only hope by then the know-nothings will have turned their attention to something else.

A reader emailed me today to wish me a happy feast day. It is, after all, the commemoration day for Dymphna and for her confessor, old Saint Gerebemus, who was killed with her.

Most of our readers know I took the blog nic of Dymphna in honor of the saint of that name. Actually, I would’ve preferred to use “Saint Dymphna,” but someone had taken it.

A little background: I’d never heard of this particular saint before, and believe me I know dozens of obscure saints’ days from my parochial school education and the years in the orphanage. We were always celebrating the feast of some virgin or martyr – including the cool ones like St. Christopher, who sadly ended up on the trash heap when they started seriously culling the lists during post Vatican II.

I still like the idea of saints’ days. It gives you an appreciation that we are part of a larger tapestry, “a canopy woven by the ages.” And sometimes there is a synchronicity in their appearance in my life. For example, my first and second grade teacher in the orphanage, Sister Francis de Sales, was the substitute for my mother. I loved her dearly and she was kind to all of us, this very young nun fresh over from Ireland and probably suffering horribly in the Florida heat under that black wool habit of hers. Years later, I learned that de Sales was the patron saint of teachers (and of journalists, but never mind). Whatever the impetus, Sister Francis instilled in us a love of learning.

And then there is Dymphna. I’d never heard of her until several years ago when I ordered a book from ABE books — probably another copy of Hafiz since I tend to give his books away with great enthusiasm. At any rate, a bookmark came fluttering out from between the pages.

When I picked it up, there was Saint Dymphna, with the usual Catholic iconography designating her position as a virgin martyr (lilies). On the other side of the card was a prayer for those suffering from mental illness (I’d never known there was any saint dedicated to lunacy. If they’d let me pick, it would’ve been St. Anthony of the Desert. That guy had some amazing halllucinations). On an impulse I sent the card to a friend, a mathematician and programmer, who was in the throes of a manic episode of bi-polar disorder. She said later that her children loved the card and it helped them make sense of Mommy’s crazy times.

A few years later while visiting a doctor’s office, I recognized ol’ Dymphna standing still as a statue on his mantle. Startled, I asked where he’d gotten her. It turns out one of his patients had given him the statue and he rather liked her pink and blue outfit, so he kept her around. Later, I ordered one for myself and now she stands on top of a tall bookcase, her crown almost touching the ceiling. Obviously, in this image, she’s changed clothes.

When it came time to pick my blog nic, the Baron suggested Saint Dymphna. It fit somehow: a saint for a crazy Irish woman.

You can read the story of St. Dymphna here, on Neighborhood of God. Meanwhile, here is a prayer I wrote then, thinking of all the women I’d counseled who had suffered at the hands of those who claimed to love them:

Prayer to Saint Dymphna

Ah, girl, you who knew how to be still in the thin places,
To hide in trepidation, to weep scorching shame,
Please come to the aid of those who beseech the heavens
For surcease from their undeserved pain.
Stay the hand of their abusers and soften the hearts
Of those who proclaim to love them.
Grant great courage of heart to the children who call on you,
And firmness of purpose to the people who invoke your story.
With your lily, with that sword, and with the strength of your heel,
Vanquish the inner demons who haunt our days and dreams
Blocking the path to freedom.

Update: Live-blogging Tammy. I just sent this note to Fjordman:

Fjordman,

I realize that you probably don’t know who Tammy Bruce is, but she’s a national talk radio personality. Right now she’s reading excerpts from your post on the radio, and talking to Dymphna about it.

From my point of view, this is really cool.

I hope y’all are listening, because Dymphna and Tammy are hitting all the high spots on the immigration topic.

Her scheduled time is 11:30 a.m. on the Left Coast, or 2:30 p.m. UVT (Universal Virginia Time).

I’ll leave this post at the top until air time. Look for new posts below it.

Tammy’s program can be heard on Talk Radio Network. Go to the site and click on her image.

Check out Tammy’s blog. She’s got a post about the Indonesian volcano, which is my favorite story, too; unfortunately, it’s outside our mission statement. She’s also blogging on Al Gore’s hilarious performance on SNL, and God’s last warning to Ted Kennedy.

In addition, she’s posting a babe photo every weekend now — did she get the idea from the Infidel Bloggers Alliance? That alone is reason enough for you to check out Tammy’s blog!

The famous imam of the cartoon jihad, Danish Islamist Ahmed Abu Laban, is at it again. Not content with biting the hand that feeds him, he’s ready to take it off at the elbow: this time he’s insulting the intelligence of the Danes, the poor ignorant folk among whom he has magnanimously consented to live.

According to Sugiero:

Danish Imam Abu Laban had great fun during his weekly Friday Prayer in The Islamic Society’s mosque in Copenhagen, calling his Danish fellow citizens lazy, non-educated, racists and ignorants who let themselves be manipulated by the media.

According to Laban, via the Danish newspaper Ekstrabladet, that description fits one of every five Danes: “If you believe education is expensive, try being ignorant. Living as an ignorant is expensive. I feel sorry for the Danes that fit to this description. They let the media form their opinion,” he shouted from the pulpit.

In Laban’s opinion, the lack of education and knowledge are the main reasons for racism and islamophobia.

He’s right, you know. Anybody who keeps up with current affairs, who educates himself against a tendency towards illiteracy and ignorance, will be free of Islamophobia. We all need to stay well-informed. Just to pick an article at random, look at this one in World Net Daily:

Imam Ahmed Abu Laban, leader of the Islamic Society of Denmark, said in his Friday sermon days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that he shed no tears for the victims, reported the Israeli daily Maariv.

There. You see? Don’t you feel your Islamophobia just melt away as you read those words? I know mine does.

Sugiero has plenty more on Abu Laban.

Baldilocks reports an amusing encounter on the phone with a haughty leftist demanding that PJM remove any links to his posts. From the sound of their conversation, John Aravosis was most indignant, even playing his “I’m-a-lawyer-card” to impress her with the seriousness of PJM’s transgressions. And, of course, he wanted to talk to someone higher up on the food chain than a mere office flunky, right? D.C. lawyers don’t talk to lesser beings.

After listening to his run-on rant, and being reprimanded for responding instead of letting him talk, Baldilocks reassured this mighty being that he would be placed on a “no-post” list and hung up.

Judging from this conversation it is clear that Mr. Aravosis wasn’t Raised Right. Someone should talk to his mother.

Why is the left so rude? So narcissistically certain that courtesy is not required when dealing with obviously cretinous conservatives? I thought their multi-culti religion demanded that they give a more-than-even break to victims…are not conservatives ipso facto victims of their political delusions?

Eeyew…Pajamas Media has cooties. And Condi is a liar.

And Bushy stole the election…twice — does that mean since he’s never been elected he can run again? Somebody ask a lawyer.

See a need and organize a way to fill it; that seems to be the American Credo. It used to be barn-raising, way back when we needed barns.

But now there is a need to counter what has become an on-going, ugly problem at military funerals. Family and friends gathering to honor their beloved fallen soldiers have been met by members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas. This congregation, led by the Reverend Phelps, pickets at military funerals.

Are they anti-war? Peaceful protestors? Not exactly. Their signs proclaim gratitude for dead soldiers, all of whom are simply God’s retribution to the American people for permitting homosexuals to join the military. At a website called “God Hates Fags” they proclaim their poisonous mission — to degrade and disrupt the funerals of soldiers who die in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Free speech? Yes. But like other “loaded” free speech, where you are permitted to have your say has its limits. Obvious to everyone but the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, their heckling has gone way beyond the bounds of anyone’s scripture but their own. It has become their mission to show up and sing loudly “God Hates America” at military funerals, to the distress of family and friends of the soldier.

Before the war, this group had a history of disrupting other funerals:

Phelps and members of his Westboro Baptist Church have caused such a fuss that at least 14 states are considering laws aimed at the funeral protests. During the 1990s, church members were known mostly for picketing funerals of AIDS victims, and they have long been tracked as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project in Montgomery, Alabama.

Keeping track of haters is a good thing, but who is going to counter them? Who steps in to ameliorate the damage?

That was the question for a problem-solving group from the American Legion in Kansas in August 2005, as they met to strategize ways to counter the picketing and harassment of dead soldiers’ families at the funerals. What grew out of that meeting has become The Patriot Guard.

Imagine Reverend Phelps and his group showing up to disrupt and upset the funerals. Imagine also the presence of the Patriot Guard, motorcycle riders carrying American flags and making enough engine noise to drown out the hate-filled songs. That’s what’s been happening, even when members have to ride hundreds of miles in freezing rain.

The idea has spread quickly. By October they had motorcycle groups in other states, and an official website:

The growth has been phenomenal. Within a week their membership included many riders from associations like the VFW, American Legion, Rolling Thunder, ABATE, Combat Vets Motorcycle Association, Intruder Alert, Leathernecks Motorcycle Club, and almost five hundred individual riders… the PGR website had received almost 566,000 hits in the first two weeks! Patriots from all over America and several foreign countries responded. Emails were pouring in from people wanting to support and join the newly formed PGR.

Now soldiers and their families have some protection. An honor guard which originated because hatred was showing up where it didn’t belong. And simply because it has always been a man’s duty to protect the vulnerable.

I predict the group will continue to grow, and continue to move, as long as there is need of their services.

Go here to see who rides.

Hat tip: And Rightly So

For the past few days there has been intense fighting behind an alliance of warlords and the Islamists in Mogadishu. The Voice of America reports:

Hundreds of residents of Somali’s lawless capital are fleeing as militia groups battle for control of the city.

The death toll has risen to at least 133.

Witnesses say fighters have begun looting homes in Mogadishu in between intense fire fights.

Islamic militias and an alliance of warlords have been fighting for control (mainly in the northern Sii-Sii neighborhood) for the past six days.

Gates of Vienna has posted previously on the situation in Somalia. It’s worth noting that, although the news stories don’t mention it, the Islamic militias are an “alliance of warlords”, too. It’s just that their alliance is based on Islam, and represents the coalescence of an Islamic force around the shari’a courts and the institution of Islamic-based justice. Their enemies have formed an alliance against them, based on the shared interest of a common defense.

It looks like a two-sided civil war is coalescing here, with the Islamists against everyone else. The Islamists have the natural advantage, since their rule is slightly less corrupt than that of their rivals, based as it is on the austere precepts of Islam. In addition, they are the known enemy of America, which gives them an undeniable cachet in the streets of Mogadishu.

The VOA continues:

Many Somalis, including the interim president, Abdullah Yusuf Ahmed, say the warlord alliance has U.S. support, a belief that has fueled anti-American sentiment in Mogadishu.

U.S. officials say they are working with many Somalis to support the establishment of the interim government. But officials have declined to comment on any relationship with the warlords.

Well, of course we back the “warlords”! The alternative is to stand by and let a Somali version of the Taliban take over and make Somalia into Afghanistan South.

But as long as the media frame the conflict as one between “Islamic militias” and an “alliance of warlords”, we’re going to have to appear to keep our hands off the situation. The usual equivocations are in order: condemning “all violence”, deploring “excesses on both sides”, etc. etc.

Words matter. It would be just as accurate to refer to it a battle between “Al Qaeda-affiliated gangs” and “secular militias”. That description has just as much truth in it. But don’t expect to read that in the media, not even in the Voice of America.

Next thing you know, Michael Moore will be referring to the Islamic gangs as “Somalia’s Minutemen”.

Zonka has provided more translations concerning the Danish Islamist Ahmed Abu Laban:

In two interviews with Jyllands-Posten Abu Laban states:

JP: Are you saying that it is only a matter of when? That you have already made the decision?

AL: Yes, yes, yes, yes. It is our conclusion and decision..

And on May 10:

JP: We want to write an article in the newspaper about that you have decided – that you have made your decision. I would like to ask you to be certain: Have you made your decision, and it’s not just a consideration: Have you actually decided?

AL: Yes.

Jyllands-Posten have both conversations on tape!

And on May 11:

AL: I have never said that I will leave Denmark voluntarily. However, if the law says I must leave, naturally I will leave!

Conclusion: Never believe a two-faced liar — Once a liar always a liar!

Sugiero is covering the same topic, and adds this:

Another imam, Abu Bashar, says radical imams from Hizb-ut-Tahrir could appear if Abu Laban leaves. “That would be dangerous for Denmark because a cooperation with the radicals would be difficult. Fatwas would be issued every day”, he states.

Don’t you just get fed up with these guys? And threatening with fatwas!

The Danish soap opera continues. Stay tuned…

Reader Zonka translates the following story from today’s Internet version of Jyllands-Posten:

Boy chased by 50 angry schoolmates

From: Jyllands-Posten, May 12, 2006

Chased by up to 50 angry school mates, armed with sticks and iron rods, a pupil in one of the first grades at the Hans Christian Andersen School in Odense, had to flee through the schoolyard.

The reason for the anger was that the boy had used strong language against Islam.

The parents of the 378 pupils at the school, have in an insistent letter from the school been encouraged to talk to their children about how the situation could have gotten so much out of hand.

The trouble started at the school’s playground, when a small boy said “f**k the Qu’ran” and then got into a fight with a group of first and second graders.

Shortly after the boy had to escape with a large number of angry school mates after him. Some of the pursuers had, according to the schools letter, picked up sticks and iron rods.

The school staff were able to stop the pursuit before anybody was hurt.

“The pursuers were a mixed group of Danish and foreign origin, so there were no unambiguous ethnic or religious conflict,” says Jørgen Schaldemose, who is School Chief in Odense municipality.

The school chief considers the episode as an example of that even very young children wants to test limits, and that he is satisfied with the school’s resolute reaction.

The school have stated to the involved parties that it will no longer accept such statements or the ensuing reaction.

Nothing “unambiguous”, indeed. Nope. Not a bit. All the “involved parties” are to blame. As we know, all kids “test the limits”. Boys will boys.

We deem such behavior to be “unacceptable”. There! That’ll take care of it.

Nothing to see here, people; just move along.

The two winners this week spotlight the national dissatisfaction with President Bush and with the Republican Party. It is a synchronicity of great significance for this year’s elections. These posts are sad portents of an eclipse of what started well and has ended in poor governance and a lack of vision – not to mention a massive lack of communication.

Part of the problem, though not addressed here, is the extreme virulence of the Bush-haters. One cannot know if they drained the Republican party of its energy or made it lose any sense of direction or excellence. But post-Bush, there is no one of stature to take his place. This does not bode well for the immediate future of our country.

The Council Pick

Here’s how Callimachus puts it in the White House Rules:

This is what Bush has done, more than any other wrong turn, to drive me out of the camp of people who support him without really liking him. He’s failed to grow in the office, failed to transcend the limitations of the hard-driving, dirty-fighting Texas politician (as LBJ did). When I voted for him for the first time, in the 2004 election, I was voting in favor of the vision he articulated, and crossing my fingers that he’d grope his way to the skill set and mental energy to make it work.

We’d reached a point where patience was required in Iraq, and I was willing to give it patience. But Iraq was supposed to be a campaign in the wider war, not the whole thing. Where is the rest of it? Where is the serious, sustained, thoughtful effort to explain ourselves to the world. Where’s the push to get Osama? Afghanistan is backsliding into Taliban and al-Qaida control. Where is the awareness that dependence on oil is the root of all this mess.

Excellent questions.

Non Council Winner

The winner this week is David Frum’s essay in Cato Unbound, Republicans and the Flight of Opportunity:

Whether you interpret these facts, as say Bruce Bartlett does, as a deliberate betrayal of the Goldwater-Reagan-Gingrich limited government agenda – or as an unfortunate series of unintended consequences—the result is more or less the same:

The fairest chance to achieve the limited-government agenda passed with only very limited conservative success.

The state is growing again—and it is pre-programmed to carry on growing. Health spending will rise, pension spending will rise, and taxes will rise.

Now I still continue to hope that the Republican Party will lean against these trends. But there’s a big difference between being the party of less government and a party of small government. It’s one thing to try to slow down opponents as they try to enact their vision of society into law. It’s a very different thing to have a vision of one’s own.

And the day in which we could look to the GOP to have an affirmative small-government vision of its own has I think definitively passed.

Is he right? It certainly seems to be the case. With a larded Congress and a president who never met a bill he wouldn’t sign, the disgust of the Republican base is growing.

Which is worse, a party claiming it wants to rescue everyone by confiscatory economic policies, or a party which betrays its own principles till it looks more or less the same as the opposition? The latest ignorance displayed by our elected representatives over the rise in oil prices is a perfect illustration of this sad question.

The rest of the posts are at Watcher’s Place.