"A Muslim Student Association is hosting a "scarves for solidarity" program where all women will get a free hijab to wear in solidarity for battered women."
Because nothing says "womens' rights" like the peaceful religion of Islam, which:
- Makes women wear oppressive clothing
- Doesn't let women learn much besides cooking, cleaning, and serving men
- demands that the woman be killed if she commits adultery or has extramarital sex of any kind
- demands that a woman who is raped be killed
- ...basically makes women 100% subservient to men at all times
Islam as it is practiced in most of the world is about as anti-feminist as you can get. I'm surprised anyone takes this seriously.
* * *
By the way, I happened to read an opinion piece in the paper today which discussed some of the things Barak Hussein Obama supporters have said about McCain. But I am used to morons like Rockefeller et al running their mouths without thinking about what they're saying, and the tripe which oozes forth is nothing new--I've been hearing that nonsense from the Left since the 1970s and it has never changed.
But apparently some McCain supporter comitted the horrible sin of repeatedly referring to Barak Hussein Obama by his whole name, "Barak Hussein Obama", and for that McCain had to denounce him.
Let it be known that from now on (or at least as long as I remember to) Atomic Fungus will refer to him as "Barak Hussein Obama", or at least "B. Hussein Obama", because that is his freaking name.
WTF! Since when is it worthy of condemnation to refer to someone by his actual freaking full name?
The man's name is "Barak Hussein Obama". It's not "Barak Niggerbaiter Obama" or "Barak KikeJew Obama" or "Barak WhiteTrash Obama"; it's "Barak Hussein Obama". So what's wrong with his middle name?
I'll tell you what's wrong with it; "Hussein" is a muslim name, the same as "Barak"--only "Hussein" is more obvious, and the last thing the Demokrats want is for anyone to think, "Gee, Barak Hussein Obama has two Muslim names; might he be sympathetic to the motivations of Islamofascist terrorists?"
Barak Hussein Obama's stated intentions regarding his policies for prosecuting the war on terror--ie "lose it as quickly as possible"--do not mitigate the fears of people who wonder about where Barak Hussein Obama's loyalties lie. I for one would like to think that he would take national security seriously, but I've seen how seriously Demokrats take the issue of national security and have to conclude that he means every word when he says he's pulling out of Iraq pronto.
* * *
I also read a piece about the American Airlines snafu. If I am correctly reading between the lines, it appears that the Demokrat-controlled congress has leaned on the FAA which some people have criticized for not being tough enough on airlines. The article I read merely touches on the issue of congress and focuses mainly on the FAA, so I am writing primarily about my impressions.
The FAA has historically--at least, since the Reagan years--taken a "cooperative" approach, understanding that if the planes don't fly the airlines disappear. But a lot of people with government careers don't like that approach; they think the point of government regulation is to regulate, not to help the regulated ensure that the thing being regulated is in compliance. In other words, being a hardass for the sake of being a hardass because those nasty corporations are trying to make money.
(These same people will naturally get really upset at being pulled over for making an improper stop at a stop sign, or for going "only" ten over the speed limit, and will later angrily tell their friends about "the Nazi cop" who was "such an asshole about it".)
The track record of the cooperative approach is excellent. How many major airline crashes have we had since 2002? I can't think of any. The last major crash was an Airbus in New York in October of 2001, when there was a problem with an elevator jackscrew that caused a crash.
Anyone who's a private pilot who commits a violation--or who has even witnessed such an event--will attest, however, to how the FAA regulates and prosecutes violations of the Federal Air Regulations.
But given an environment where government tries to work with carriers to ensure that the rules are followed while allowing commerce to continue, the required maintenance intervals will be obeyed and the work will get done.
Contrast that with the current "hardass" mode, where the FAA demands that American Airlines ground most of its fleet while inspections are carried out. This is what it looks like when the regulations are enforced by-the-book and to the letter: planes which are basically safe to fly aren't allowed to fly until and unless the right box on the right form is signed by the right person.
Which do we prefer? Do we want 100% compliance with 250,000 stranded passengers, or do we want 99.997% compliance and business as usual?
In today's hyper-regulated ultra-safety-conscious culture, a 0.003% chance of suffering an in-flight failure leading to a premature landing (not a crash) is apparently regarded as "unsafe", and so a major airline must be made to pay for its slipshod maintenance.
...I guess. But I'd bet money that none of this had to be handled this way, and that the only reason the FAA is doing it is due to congresscritters.