Welcome To Teletubby Land!

After the Shock & Awe carpet-bombing of Republicus by Bargholz, Lee Harvey Jeff slithers back in and takes the opportunity to stroke and soothe the ruffled feathers of "The People" with his faux-folksy Hillaryesque "Gosh-By-Golly-Be-Darn" hokey manner by assurring "everyone": "Now-now, children, don't worry, he's just a big ol' mean ogre who's a 'sick, psychotic fuck' who only Republicus thinks is funny but who we all now know has proven that conservatism is dangerous and scary, as I've been warning you all along. Me? I'm just a sweet ol' liberal who likes to play footsies and loves everyone--except, of course, the evil conservatives, who brainwashed my good ol' friend poor John who I'm nevertheless hoping will come around and join us in our united front against Bargholz, even though he's 'far gone.' But just ignore the one and humor the other, while we take the liberal high road and be nice to each other. Don't worry, I won't bite. Here, taste this, you'll like it. :) :) :)."

And Kelly, like Eve in Eden drawn to the snake in the pretty fruit tree, with its reptilian smile and a forked-tongue darting in and out, rhetorically asks:

"Does that mean that nice people aren't conservative?? ;)"

And the snake slyly--but quite seriously--answers:

"Why yes it does Kelly, didn't you know that??"

And the snake slips:

"It's part of the secret liberal radar we have to identify each other with while out in public."

M-hm. It takes one to know one, and conservatives are just so clueless to the "wink-wink" understanding and the "us" versus "them" collaborative attitude liberals harbor.

But Kelly didn't ask about some secret "radar" or sign that liberals use to wink-wink identify each other (and therefore admitting that they need to hide their identity--and an agenda-- when out in the open), nor invite the implication that Lee Harvey "identifies" her as a secret liberal, to be hooked and slowly reeled in to his liberal world (though Bargholz himself called Kelly a "liberal Mormon," which may have whetted Lee Harvey's appetite for recruitment potential).

What Lee Harvey is trying to do, in the wake of Bargholz's Shock & Awe, and as a contrast, is to slyly present himself as some non-judgmental, universally-tolerant, loving, and well-mannered gentleman who holds doors open for ladies and gives up his place in line-- simultaneously implying that meany conservatives don't do that, and that, furthermore, such conservative protocols of chivalry and graciousness are the hallmarks of liberalism!

They're not. Gentlemanly behavior such as holding the door open for ladies is a definitively conservative behavior and is considered condescending by liberal feminists (who are at or near the vanguard of liberalism).

And conservatives don't budge in front of people and ignore other courtesies like liberals do, as impelled by angry, egotistical self-entitlement.

Behold liberal representative Congressman Patrick Kennedy's scuffle with airport security screeners.

What did the lowly airport personnel think they were doing?

Their job?

Well, he was a Kennedy, and had a plane to catch!

And liberal representative Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinnon's scuffle with U.S. Capital Security personnel.

What did that lowly U.S. Capital Security screener think he was doing?

His job?

Well, she was a Congressperson! And a black female, too!

Yes, liberals, as Lee Harvey "reminds":

You know, the person who holds the elevator door for you when you scream 'hold that door.'

Yes, Kelly is just screaming to get away from conservatives like Bargholz, and, by extension, Republicus, and go for a ride in Lee Harvey's own magic Wee Willy Wonka elevator (which goes sideways and backwards).

Look what he does here:

Ok Kelly and Sanjay, I'm again with you guys. Yes Kelly I know...

Yes Sanjay and Kelly--"again"-- you're all on the same team (and yes Kelly, "he knows.").

The same team against Bargholz and:

But honestly, John, this guy is immature as all get out, he is huimorless, and yet you howl out loud laughing?

Oo! What can that mean?

Let's see, Bargholz is a "sick, psychotic, fuck," so therefore JOHN...

I'm not really sure at what? I haven't really seen anything very funny come from him, he just seems really sad to me, like something is just not quite right inside there.

What's Lee Harvey's deal?

He's like Orson the Pig from Orwell's Animal Farm.

"Sadness"--or pity--was not your original reaction.

It was hate (Bargholz is a "sick, psychotic fuck").

He's just taking the opportunity now, with the dust settling, and with the attention on Bargholz, to sneak back in and pose as a high-minded "nice" guy (who "hopes Bush gets assassinated") who can only feel "pity" for poor Bargholz.

He is now not just "sad," but "really sad," and "something ain't just right in there, folks."

i.e. "Bargholz is mentally ill."

That's what Lee Harvey does (like most liberals): He extends a "caring" hand but uses the other one to slip a knife into the character on the World Wide Web.

Then, with smiles around, :)Lee Harvey :), after patting the seat next to him, now holds open the door...

...to Teletubby Land, the Land of Liberalism-, a rainbow-colored cutsey-wootsie place where the leader of the commune is a purse-carrying purple freak with a triangle radar--or "gay-dar"--on his head, a thyroid problem, and an ambiguous sexual identity.

Several years ago, a prominent televangelist (Robertson? Falwell?) told his viewing audience that the Teletubby creators were subliminally transmitting a liberal, homosexual agenda into the minds of children, and he claimed that Tinky Winky, in particular, was gay: He carried a "magic purse," had the symbol for Act-Up on his head (i.e. a triangle), and so forth.

Of course, the televangelist was ferociously ridiculed for that, and the creators denied it.

But the Left often gives itself away by protesting--or ridiculing--that much more vociferously against something that hits too close to home.

Republicus believes that the creators of the Teletubbies are indeed cunning liberals going after the impressionable minds of young children.

The Teletubbies all resemble aliens, and none of them can speak a word of coherent English.

They have a robot vacuum cleaner for a nanny, always cleaning up after their messes with the stressed-with-worried eyes of a beleaguered mom.

But everything is just so cute and happy and, of course, "nice." :)

The God of Teletubby Land--the Land of Liberalism--is the sun in the sky, superimposed by a spluttering, giggling baby-face.

Indeed, the God of Teletubby Land is one of infantile imbecility: an egocentric, tabula rasa that is kept entertained and distracted by meaningless drivel (like the stuff on the televisions that the Teletubbies have pasted on their bellies).

He--or she, or he-she--is utterly ineffectual and inconsequential.

But so cute! :)

But there are religious symbols, though: The ubiquitous rabbits, which are pagan symbols of fertility.

The green teletubby has a long rod on his head.

The little red female has a ring.

And they all love to wiggle their buttocks.

The show is symbolically obscene but packaged saccharin-sweet for child consumption.

But who made the little hobbit-holes for the Teletubbies? Not the Teletubbies. They can't even eat ice-cream without making the robot nanny's existence a robotic hell.

There is an authoritarian there, the only adult voice, a disembodied one, but not the kind of serious baritone voice one associates with a Law-giving Deity.

There is no Law-giving Deity.

There is no Judge.

That would be no "fun."

There is only a soothing, patronizing, and controlling tenor that tells the Teletubbies what they're feeling, when it's time to play, eat, and sleep, and when one of them makes a boo-boo.

And that voice would be the liberals--like Lee Harvey-- in the ideal, liberal world: The Voice of the State.

And the Teletubbies would be "The People"--who, in elitist Liberalspeak, are ultimately interchangeable with "The Children."

Just listen to Lee Harvey's patronizing, condescending tone, and his assurances that he "knows."

That attitude and tone is not peculiar to Lee Harvey.

Just listen to Hillary.

The antiwar Left loves to refer to our fighting men and women of the armed forces as "Our kids" and "Our children."

If that is how they refer to America's warriors, then what do they think of the average Joe & Jane?

Yes, the liberals love Teletubby Land for "everyone"--except themselves...because someone has to be the babysitter.

The "environmentally-conscious" liberal can rail against "corporatism" and "Big Oil" and scolds private citizens--the Teletubbies-- for driving SUVs, while they themselves receive dividends from Exxon-Mobil and fly on private jets.

The "Pro-Choice" liberals attack the policy for School Choice for the Teletubbies and sing the praises of the public school system of Teletubby Land--but send their own offspring to elite private schools.

The liberals attack the "secretiveness" of the Bush Administration (because there just has to be evidence on all the wrongdoing they're accused of commiting somewhere!) while the presumptive Democratric nominee for the presidency attempted to hijack 1/7 of the nation's economy behind closed doors in an attempt to socialize the healthcare industry for the Teletubbies.

The liberals attack the tax-cuts for the Teletubbies while having their cash in tax-sheltered investments.

The liberals bewail the privatization of Social Security for the Teletubbies--which would be simply offering the same options they themselves have and exercize.

Bargholz rails against the culture of the enemy our nation is at war with and who are killing our soldiers.

Liberal Lee Harvey calls him a "sick, psychotic fuck" for disturbing Teletubby Land.

(using racial epithets does not make one "sick" or "psychotic," just loutish)

The liberals want to control everything. They think they know what's best for everyone, because everyone is a cute little Teletubby who can't think for themselves and who can barely speak English.

And they--"We The People," the Teletubbies-- must rely on "The Know-Better Adults"--i.e. the liberals, the State --for their very existence, and to tell them what to do and when to do it.

Don't worry: A robot nanny will be provided to clean up after us-- although, like any socialist program, it's not the most efficient nor effective contraption.

And into Teletubby Land stomps the ogre Bargholz, who grabs an edge of the artifial turf and yanks it out from under the feet of the Teletubbies, sending them and the rabbits airborne head over heels.

And he YELLS: "WAKE UP! You're NOT TELETUBBIES! Pay no attention to the voice behind the curtain!"

And that's why liberal Lee Harvey hates Bargholz like no one here does, calling him a "sick, psychotic fuck" from behind his curtain:

Because Bargholz may be many things, but he will never be a Teletubby, and Lee Harvey knows that.

And Republicus thanks Bargholz for breaking a few plates and throwing some furniture--drunk or sober--because, really, the blog of Republicus IS NO PLACE FOR TELETUBBIES.

And he thanks him for respecting Republicus enough to speak his mind freely and not care what other people think as opposed to using transparently low-level weasel words and hiding what you really think and are for the sake of slyly discrediting your host and shmoozing his guests.

Like I've said before, Lee Harvey, you're a fool if you don't think I see right through your words.

The Liberal Samurai Is Running Away?

Sanjay said:

John: Seems to me you jump all over Jeff for comments like Bs. There was a time when was a place for respectful dialogue. I'm outta here.

Dear Sanjay:

I just the caught the exchange.

The difference is that I "jumped all over" Jeff (Bush-hating liberal Jeff) not because he had launched all sorts of ad hominem attacks against me and turned the excellent blog of Republicus into an episode of the Jerry Springer Show while calling me all sorts of character-assassinating names in the process, like "bigot" to "racist" to "fascist" to "friggin' fascist" to "anglo-fascist" to "Christo-fascist" to "blind" to "moron," and "standing proudly behind each and every word" (like "I hope Bush gets assassinated!") but because he had refused to abide by two simple, reasonable rules:

I evicted him forever several times because he (1) wouldn't stop importing and postering the walls of the commentary section with lengthy, lefty screeds written by his intellectually drug-dealing gurus, and (2) because he offended the sensitive Kelly and caused her to leave.

As far as I can tell, Samurai, you're not a conservative mother of five kids who's on the board of the P.T.A...

...unless that really is you up there in the pic? :)

Do you really expect me to make Bargholz apologize to you?

Come on. More scata flies back and forth on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives (or at a European soccer game).

This whole thing's amusing to me.

Bargholz is a friggin' daisy-cutter--if not a MOAB.

Unfortunately, he's causing a lot of collateral damage with his Shock & Awe, and that includes unloading on you.

Bargholz, you were wrong about Sanjay's character.

Sure, he spouts a lot of nonsense, but that's just his transfused liberalism talking. :)

(He's been victimized by Paul Begala and Al Franken.)

But he's--hitherto, anyway-- an active guest, friendly, and overall courteous to everyone.

He is nowhere near the "troll" category.

There's a lot of crossed signals here, but you are wrong about your presumptuous conviction that he was a terrorist apologist (from what I understand, he wanted Zarqaowi executed).

From what I can tell from his own words, he's an apologist for Islam, and simply thinks that bin Laden doesn't know his Quran.

That he--along with others--refuse to acknowledge the demonstrable AND self-evident fact that Islam--as a whole--is undergirded by aggressive militancy is not the point here (though is at the crux of the debate).

You were wrong that he attacked you personally, at least to any extent that deserved a bazooka blast.

In fact, his response to you--from what is gathered, though the timeline of commentaries from post-to-post and back again is difficult to ascertain -- seemed quite calm and impersonal (with a touch of sarcasm and ribbing that is quite tame compared to the obligatory snideness I get from the usual lefty detractors):

You're gonna have to enlighten me on how our enlightened friend Jeff B. isn't contradicting himself. Or do I have to use a little nuance to read between the lines?

Just out of curiousity, do you let that guy hang around to make yourself look sane :)

You're response to that squirt-gun (well, he called you insane, but...) was this bazooka blast:

Libertine-sucks-a-guy (Liberal Samurai-takes-it-in-the-eye,)

I suspected that you were a Muhammadan pedophile who takes it up the ass by diseased monkeys, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and made some polite overtures.

You attacked me like a rabid dog with a turd wedged in its ass, which is about ten steps up from a musloid, of course. You distorted everything I wrote, and lied flat-out when distortions wouldn't suffice. Your felch-breath must have rotted what few parts of your minuscule brain that the syphilis didn't. Congenital cretinism is a bitch. Don't blow your nose too hard or you'll lose what brains you have, dune-coon.

In fact, Sanjay is not a Muslim.

You were wrong again.

Is it possible that you were wrong on other presumptions, as well?

Consider:

I'm not a lying apologist like you, who posts idiotic propaganda with the sole intention of white-washing islame (not SIC John!).

In fact, it was Douglass who used the first "sic" for "Islame," indicating a misspelling. If in fact I did follow that up with a "SIC!" of my own (I really don't remember if I did, and I'm not about to go looking for that needle in that haystack), it was only to vociferously support the spelling of Islame.

And yet you assumed I was spell-checking you.

Also, you've made it clear that you do not support white-on-black racism:

I never excused anything the KKK does.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt when you were addressing guest Douglass that you were accusing him of stealthily projecting his own (as alleged by you) racism:

Give me a reason not to label you as a nigger cock-sucker. Oh! Did I mean African? That's what you wrote, when you REALLY meant NIGGER.

That more than crosses the line of decency, Mr. Bargholz, and is an unwarranted presumption. Are you a mind-reader? Republicus is not, so he will only assume that you were accusing Douglass of projection-- though undeservedly; Douglass has not demonstrated any racist tendencies in his language or argument--yes, I'm well-aware that racism goes both ways, but I found nothing "anti-anglo" in his arguments, either.

But as for you, what is this "dune-coon" business?

An Indian-American--i.e. Sanjay-- who is not even a Muslim and draws a hard-line against Islamic terrorists (again, he wanted Zarqaowi executed) is a "dune-coon?"

Republicus wouldn't condone such racist language even against any Bedouins who are terrorists, as neither skin-color nor topography cause the embracing of a violent ideology on their own, but to level a racially-loaded epithet like "coon" against Sanjay is unacceptable, Mr. Bargholz, and you distract from--and discredit--the excellent points you made, such as these (which warrant the rousing of righteous anger):

You excuse everything islame does--genocide, gang-rapes, murdering your daughter, mother, sister, wife and other female relatives, thievery, lying...but Christians are BAD. Yeah, right.

Yes, as I properly contrasted in my "Christian Vs. Muslim" series--and igniting a storm of controversy from those who begged to differ in the process, and, yes, attempted moral equivalence to level the playing field.

The Liberal Samurai was one of those who begged to differ, and said I was flirting with bigotry. I argued the fallaciousness of that conclusion--a non sequiter-- based on what was presented and what I repeatedly clarified.

Moving beyond Sanjay and referring to a general consensus reached among my knuckle-headed lefty detractors, how two posts that contrasted the behavior and words of two sets of African-Americans--one Christian, one Muslim-- of roughly the same age and same occupation from the same era and in the same ring led first to across-the-board bigotry...and then to racism is very strange indeed.

But contemplation of the reasoning behind the charge leads to a disturbing--and disgusting--revelation of the racist, anti-Christian liberal mind:

"Jesus is for whites, Muhammad is for blacks."

Is that it?

Right, so the Reverend Martin Luther Ling Jr. and the Born-Again Evander Holyfield are...Uncle Toms?

Go to hell (those who think that way).

Jesus is for everyone.

Muhammad for Muslims and Muslims only.

Anyway, Bargholz, cease and desist with the racially-loaded epithets, and, again, please point that bazooka of yours in the direction of the whiny and pesky "Fact-Master" Houstonmod (if he dares to show up again)...

...and Jeff, who is the one who actually attacked you on a personal level in his characteristically character-assassinating liberal way:

Psycho nut John B says...And Johns response to this psychotic fuck is...John, that’s what I was referring to you as being on board with this guy with. But apparently, if the paranoid psychosis fits………………….

Bargholz, he was the one who took your quotations out of context.

And notice how petty Liberal Jeff is: Uncomfortable with the association by first name with Jeff Bargholz, he decides to call him "John" B.

Yeah! So there!

Let's just clear up the confusion right here: Bargholz is Bargholz, and Jeff is Lee Harvey.

And I hope Sanjay gets out from under his bed and comes back to play. ;)

"Heart of Glory" Part Two

Defend America
U.S. Department of Defense News About The War On Terrorism
Posted on 09/20/2005 10:24:21 PM PDT by SandRat
By Cpl. Ken Melton2nd Marine Division

HIT, Al Anbar, Iraq (Sept. 20, 2005) -- As a young boy growing up in Pakistan, Lance Cpl. Sajjad H. Rizvi, witnessed terrorists killing people of his faith and terrorizing those who wouldn’t comply with their way of life.

More than a decade later, with memories of his past weighing heavy on his mind, Rizvi has dedicated himself to bringing terrorists to justice as a United States Marine.

Rizvi is a fireteam leader with 1st platoon, Company “L,” 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, recently participated in Regimental Combat Team 2’s Operation Sword.

“I’ve always wanted to be a Marine to help people who were suffering like my people were,” said Rizvi who is a Shia Muslim. “I wanted to be a part of a warrior tradition like those of my religion.”

Rizvi was born in the United States, but his family moved to Karachi in the southern part of Pakistan when he was seven.

For ten years, he watched religiously-motivated killings and discrimination from members of different faith backgrounds.

After graduating from school in Pakistan, he moved back to America and graduated from Westerville South High School in 1998.

He joined the Marine Corps in 2003 while attending college at Columbus State University. Soon after, he found out he was deploying. “I saw this as a chance to give back to my country (America) and my religion,” said the 25-year-old. “I believe in this mission and I have no regret about being over here.”

As he walks along the streets of Hit and other cities in Iraq, he passes Mosques he cannot enter due to sensitivity concerns. Although he understands the rules, he would love to experience visiting the local holy sites.

“I often tell occupants of the home I’m searching that I’m a Muslim and it puts them more at ease,” Rizvi said.

Rizvi speaks Urdu, a variation of Arabic, and assists the Marines in operations and is learning how to speak basic Arabic.

Being an Islamic Marine has really helped break down barriers between people who want to learn more about the Islamic way of life.

“I joined after the 9/11 tragedy and I was never discriminated against because of my nationality or religious background like I had been before,” Rizvi said. “Many people have this misconception that the Muslim community is like what the insurgents portray it as, which is totally untrue.

"I often explain to many of my fellow Marines the customs and sayings of other Muslim people so that they can respond in a respectable manner,” he said.

Even with Rizvi’s positive experience in the Marine Corps, it has not been without tragedy as he has lost several fellow Marines in battles. He said it reminds him of the slaughter of innocents when he was younger.

“I saw some of my brothers die, but I continue to fight not only for them but for my religion,” Rizvi said. “Because, through my actions, I can bring peace between two of the most important things in my life ... my country and my religion.”

[Note by Republicus: Lance Corporal Rizvi is a real-life Lieutenant Worf! And truly a good Muslim: Westernized, modernized, and still true--faithful--to Islam, though understanding it as it should be in the 21st Century. Why? Independent thinking. Made in America.]

"Heart of Glory" Part One

Lieutenant Worf (above) was the Security Chief aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 D of the Federation of Planets in the long-running sci-fi television series Star Trek: The Next Generation (or the acronymTNG, as known in Trekkie lingo).

Worf was an unusual Klingon.

The Federation and the Klingon Empire had been in a Cold War of sorts in the days of the first Enterprise (naval construction contract 1701) under the command of Captain James T. Kirk a century or so before in the Star Trek timeline (a state of hostility which had been intentionally analagous to the real Cold War conflict that the nation had been in the thick of when the original series aired in 1966-1969), but had reached a truce of sorts by the time TNG rolled around (because rather than taking advantage of weakness and destroying them, the Federation's instead assisted the Klingons after a planet crucial to the empire's sustainment exploded).

Nevertheless, you wouldn't find a Klingon serving on a Federation starship--except on the Enterprise D.

The story goes that Worf's parents were killed by Romulans, and the little orphan was adopted and raised by a human couple, the Rozhenkos from Minsk, Belarus (that's on planet Earth, for all you geographically-challenged out there).

Perhaps raising the Klingon Worf in a former republic of the Soviet Union (i.e. Byelorussian SSR) was an inside tribute to the former Cold War dynamic between Klingons (i.e. communists) and the Federation (i.e. NATO) from the vintage series (known as "Classic Trek," or "TOS"--"the The Original Series"--in Trekkie lingo), but the elaborated development of the Klingon culture throughout TNG reflected the post-Cold War international realities, and the Enterprise-D resembled less a Cold War United States aircraft carrier and became more a space-faring United Nations ambassador (albeit carrying quite serious enforcement powers for violations of any treaties and resolutions), so the Klingon ethos became less of an aggressive, Marxist economic imperialism, and more a cultural, religious one.

The studio's development of the Klingon culture was intended to make it resemble that of the Japanese Samurai (or a least Western imaginations of them), i.e. a culture centred on honor and combat.

They followed the Way of the Warrior, the religious belief system developed by Kahless the Unforgettable, and value honor above all else.

Those who die with purpose and honor are said to join Kahless, who had been the first Klingon emperor, and a messianic figure in the Way of the Warrior.

So we have Worf, who is raised the human way and becomes an excellent, well-assimilated federation starship officer aboard an intercultural federation starship.

Yet he has profound, unresolved, inner conflicts.

His adoptive parents-the Rozhenkos-- were respectful of his heritage and new that, one day, he would feel compelled to seek out his full identity, and did not begrudge that, and, indeed, Worf did not go by "Worf Rozhenko," but by "Worf, son of Mogh."

Worf was self-conscious of his Klingon "otherness," and indeed often struggled to reconcile his Klingon heritage with his duty as a Federation officer.

It created paradoxes: Was he being dishonorable by serving aboard the Enterprise with humans (who were still sneered at contemptuously by generic Klingons)?

Was he betraying his heritage?

His religion?

His birthright?

His people?

But how could forsaking his loving, adoptive parents, and his oath to his uniform, be considered honorable?

That inner conflict made for some great story-lines, and the Klingon warrior yearning to howl free amidst suppressive, Federation discipline made for some classic one-liners:

"What are his rights in this century? Will there be a trial, or shall I execute him?" (from "A Fistful of Datas," TNG episode)

"If you were any other man, I would kill you where you stand." (from the movie Star Trek: First Contact, to Captain Picard)

"Assimilate this!" (from Star Trek: First Contact, to Borg Drones)

"Definitely feeling aggressive tendencies, sir!" (from the movie Star Trek: Insurrection)

"Death to the opposition!" (said while playing baseball)

"Then perhaps today is a good day to die! ... Prepare for ramming speed!" (from Star Trek:First Contact)

However, although he remained true to--and indeed pursued and cultivated the best aspects of-- the Way of the Warrior, like honor, and valor, when push came to shove, Worf rejected the "War for War's Sake"zeitgeist of the Klingon Culture and reconciled himself to the superior ethos of the Federation, which operated not multiculturally, but interculturally, that is, they embraced a uniting theme: Life for Life's sake.

Live and let live.

[The Borg, of course, were what happens when even that philosophy is taken all the way unmodified, the lines become too blurred, and jars everything--yes indeed, Star Trek makes for excellent intellectual exercises]

For example, one of the emblems on Worf's sash is the crest of the House of Mogh.

He continued to wear that despite the fact that the Klingon Chancellor Gowron stripped the House of Mogh of its title and properties when Worf refused to join in the Klingon invasion of Cardassia, in the Deep Space Nine (DS9) fourth-season premiere "The Way of the Warrior."

Worf didn't care that the Klingon purists "officially" stripped him of his noble birthright.

He defined himself, and his Klingon honor was no less compromised, but indeed exalted as it rose above exclusive ideology and tribalism, and honored--and indeed improved--the integrity of the United Federation of Planets.

But that DS9 episode was not the reconciling epiphany, but more a confirmation of a conviction that Worf embraced way back in the first season of TNG, in the excellent episode "Heart of Glory":

The Enterprise beam aboard three injured Klingons from a damaged freighter.

They explain that the ship was attacked by the Ferengi (pirates), and are given hospitality.

They are actually outcasts who despise the Klingon-Federation alliance and are now fugitives.

One of the injured Klingons die and the ritual howl over the deceased stirs something primal within Worf.

At this point, early in the series, Worf still has yet to learn much about his heritage, but his search--and inner conflicts-- leaves him very open to suggestion, and this is the first time he comes into any intimate contact with purists of "The Way of the Warrior."

They passionately tell him of the Klingon's true path, and the glory of fighting--and dying--in combat while pursuing the destiny of Klingon conquest and galactic supremacy.

They lament the "weakness" and "cowardice" of the Klingon government and their betrayal of Klingon principles in accepting the unholy alliance with the federation.

The words sing to Worf's warrior spirit, and his conscience is torn.

We then learn that the two Klingon fugitives plan on hijacking the Enterprise--a galaxy-class starship-- and blaze a trail of glory across the quadrant, for the sake of Klingon "honor."

As the hijacking commences, mayhem breaks loose and one of the terrorists is killed. The remaining one gains control of engineering and threatens to blow up the dilithium crystal warp-drive chambers.

Worf asks permission from Captain Picard to allow him to go talk to the terrorist one-on-one.

Picard agrees in his firm, "Make it so" way.

As Worf enters engineering and begins climbing the ladders up to the terrorist, the terrorist is overjoyed, thinking that Worf has come around and wants to join him.

Afte realizing that Worf is there as an officer of the Federation, the Klingon passionately pleads with him to be true to his heritage and join him.

Worf, just as passionately, explains that the sign of the true warrior is not without, not fought against another, but waged within, in the heart.

Therein lies the true battle.

Therein lies the glory.

Therein lies the honor.

The Klingon, stunned speechless, lunges at Worf, but Worf is always prepared for any action, and kills the fugitive with a phaser blast.

Captain Picard walks in, and witnesses Work howling over the body of warrior he slew--in honor of the warrior.

Meanwhile, a Klingon battle-cruiser on the trail of the fugitives had arrived on the scene (which triggered the hijacking) and had been waiting on the transport of the fugitives for execution-- which is a disgraceful death for any Klingon.

They are informed of the deaths of all three terrorists.

The Klingon captain asks Worf how they died.

"They died well," he assures him (i.e. fighting).

Impressed by Worf's skills, the Klingon captain offers Worf a position on his ship.

He politely replies that he'll think about it, and the Klingons warp out.

Worf then turns to assure Picard that he plans to remain with the Enterprise.

Picard is glad to hear that.

American Terrorists

Tuesday, May 23, 2006
(Associated Press)

ROCKVILLE, Md. — Lee Boyd Malvo, who as a teenager embarked on a sniper spree that terrorized the national capital region in October 2002, testified Tuesday against his former partner and father figure, John Allen Muhammad, and described plans for a far more extensive terror campaign.

Malvo testified that Muhammad told him in July 2002 that "we're going to terrorize this nation" and outlined a plan for six sniper shootings a day for 30 days, to be followed by a bombing campaign that would target schools, school buses and children's hospitals.

[Note by Republicus: John-Allen-Who? Oh, right, nevermind]

The Insider

On Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Republicus published the post "Western Intellectual vs. Islamist Shiek" (http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/western-intellectual-vs-islamist-shiek.html).

It consists of excerpts from the February 21, 2006, MEMRITV release of a clip featuring an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera TV.

During the interview, she debated Dr.Ibrahim Al-Khouli, who accused Sultan of being a "heretic" for attacking current aspects of Islamic society.

Republicus has excerpted pertinent passages from the posted excerpts and republished them here.

The exchange is very interesting and informative. It smashes some stereotypes while re-enforcing others.

Republicus does not expect--nor demand--any apologies for being called "ignorant," a "bigot," etc. from ignorant, conceited fools.

Rather, he is providing this for those who have been rationally following along and have not allowed liberal, PC mind-control and ego to morbidly compromise both their common sense and higher reasoning faculties.

Republicus, once again, presents Mrs. Wafa Sultan (italics by Republicus):

Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations.

It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras.

It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century.

It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship.

It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand.

It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings.

What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

[...]

Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.

[...]

Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger."

When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war.

In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs.

What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves?

Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma; another time he calls them the "People of the Book"; and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath."

Who told you that they are 'People of the Book?'

They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books.

All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking.

What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

[…]

Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up? How and why does he blow himself up in a bus full of innocent passengers?

In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight.

Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources - I am referring to scientific sources - to play a role.

It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not [the terrorist] who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.

When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse "They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off" - regardless of this verse's interpretation, and regardless of the reasons it was conveyed or its time - you have made the first step towards creating a great terrorist...

Welcome To Saudi Arabia!

Welcome to Saudi Arabia, home of Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and the birthplace and childhood home of global celebrity Usama bin Laden!!

Welcome, and enjoy a culture that revolves almost entirely around the great religion of Islam!

The food is great (although pork products are banned): Arabic unleavened bread, or khobz, is the main staple and is eaten with practically every meal.

Other staples include cooked lamb, grilled chicken, felafel, (deep-fried chickpea balls), shwarma (spit-cooked sliced lamb), and fuul (a paste of fava beans, garlic, and lemon).

[Republicus has had all of those at one Late-Nite time or another at the popular M-Street restaurant Fast Fetoosh in Georgetown, and can attest that they are all delicious.]

The custumary tea is black and has herbal flavoring that comes in many variations.

By law, alcolohol is prohibited.

By law, men usually wear an ankle-length shirt woven from wool or cotton--the thawb-with a large checkered square of cotton held in place by a cord coil--the shimagh--on the head (or a ghutra when it is a plain square made of finer cotton).

By law, women are covered head to to toe in black, with only their eyes showing.

(Over a millennium of that, through natural selection, may account for the spectacular, ravishing eyes of the Middle Eastern woman.)

The law does not apply to foreigners to such an extent, but men and women are told to dress modestly.

Each and every day, five times a day, Muslims are called to prayer by the muezzins up on the minarets of the ubiquitous mosques.

Citizenship is restricted to Muslims, and non-Muslim common worship is punishable by law.

There is zero religious freedom.

The government maintains 50 Call and Guidance centers to encourage foreigners to convert to Islam.

Western consumer products and media (e.g. games, toys, various Western musical groups, and television shows) are banned.

Public theatres and cinemas are prohibited, as Wahabbi tradition deems those institutions to be incompatible with Islam.

The place is crawling with the Mutaween, the religious police, the vice cops, also known as the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

It is made up of 3,500 officers assisted by thousands of tattle-telling volunteers, whose job it is to spy on each other and enforce Islamic doctrine.

The Mutaween had recently launched a website where narcs can file anonymous tips about "un-Islamic" activities.

Saudi courts impose capital punishment and corporal punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for serious robbery, and floggings for lesser crimes such as "sexual deviance" (e.g. homosexuality), and drunkenness.

The number of lashes is not clearly prescribed by law and varies according to the discretion of the presiding judges.

The number ranges from dozens to several thousand, usually applied over a period of weeks or months.

Shari'ah (i.e. Islamic law) is the foundation of its legal system, based on "legal traditions" held since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago.

The Qur'an is the constitution of the country.

Enjoy.