Featured Articles

This piece by David Ignatius supports the argument in my last post.This should be the Democrats' moment: The Bush administration is caught in an increasingly unpopular war; its plan to revamp Social Security is fading into oblivion; its deputy chief...

Carried Away

This WaPo coverage of looting in the wake of Hurricane Katrina has more than a little sympathy, rationalization, and justification for much of the looting going on.

...as we are also learning from the post-Katrina chaos, what we think of as looting may be more complicated than it seems.

No, it's NOT complicated, moonbat. Stealing stuff, is stealing stuff. And most of the stuff being taken is NOT survival supplies!

Benigno E. Aguirre of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware has been watching and reading about looters in Louisiana. "It may look from the outside as if they are stealing or breaking the law," says Aguirre, "when in fact some of them are trying to survive."

Yep - it DOES look that way, maybe because what's happening IS bad. If some ARE trying to survive, this isn't the prevailing behavior. For instance when a Wal-Mart was invaded by the latter-day barbarians, the guns, and electronics were the FIRST targets of opportunity, followed by other consumer items. The food, and (non-alcoholic) beverages were largely ignored. Yep, survival is insured by a new plasma HD TV!

On the other hand, he says, some of the thieves are garden-variety crooks. "There is always a very small number of people that are predisposed to crime, and they see a disaster as an opportunity to act." There are the disenfranchised who jump at the chance to get even with those who have more stuff than they do. "Disasters can become opportunity for class warfare, and that kind of appropriation of other people's property should be prosecuted," he says.

"Class warfare"? Sounds like our academician has been imbibing wisdom from the fountain of Marx. At least he concedes that they should be prosecuted, thanks be for small favors.

Many may be people taking drastic measures required by drastic times. And some, he says, are the in-an-emergency equivalent of hunters/gatherers, foraging for food, fresh water, medicine, matches, batteries, everyday essentials that are just not available. Not at home, not at shelters.

Again, the Wal-Mart case (as well as others) would be a counter-indication of the validity of this statement.

The images are played on TV over and over: Windows are smashed. Huge dudes muscle into an abandoned store and hustle out with stolen TVs and boomboxes. Women hoist unwieldy packs of diapers and cartons of baby formula. Run-amok hooligans snatch up jewelry and electronic gizmos. Other things are stolen: shopping carts of soda pops and snack foods, clothing, bicycles. There are survivors, scavengers and criminal looters, and it's hard to tell the difference.

No, the distinction is too fine. If someone breaks in to get some bottled water, or food to survive, the Chief would say OK. ANYTHING else - including "scavengers" are thieves. That's it. Comprende?

Seth, of the CCK, is whining about blog bickering regarding Ellsworth and we are suppose to stop it:Seriously, I?m reading the South Dakota blogs and I?m getting sick. It?s generally a bunch of East River people so entrenched in partisan...

Time for a Katrina blogburst. Instapundit wants a post recommending relief efforts to donate to, and here are the two I like: The American Red Cross. Soldiers' Angels, which has set up a special fund for servicepeople in the disaster...

Here is another article from the Washington Times entitled Thune wins big in base's survival....

Somehow, unimaginable as this is, my fellow bloggers will have to get along without me....

Islamists, get out!

A GREAT column from JWR by Daniel Pipes this AM:

As the full implications of the London's terrorism by domestic jihadis sink in, Westerners speak out about the problem of radical Islam with new clarity and boldness. The most profound development is the sudden need of the British and others to assert what it means to be British, Australian, or some other nationality. In the face of the Islamist challenge, historic identities taken for granted must now be explained and codified.

What a concept! Give rules to immigrants: "You want to live here with US, this is how you can do it. If you don't like the rules of our society, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way back to wherever you came from!"

This can be seen on a diurnal level, where Islamist assertion has provoked a new European willingness in recent months to stand up for historic customs ? as seen by the banning of burqas in Italy, requiring a German school boy to attend co-ed swimming classes, and making male applicants for Irish citizenship renounce polygamy. When a ranking Belgian politician cancelled lunch with an Iranian group after it demanded that alcohol not be present, his spokesman helpfully explained that "You can't force the authorities of Belgium to drink water."

One can hear the moonbats already protesting the lack of inclusiveness and diversity in these policies.

As shown by two statements on the same day last week (Aug. 24), leading Western politicians are going beyond these minor specifics to address the civilizational heart of the matter. David Cameron, the British shadow education secretary and one of the Conservative party's bright prospects, defined Britishness as "freedom under the rule of law," adding that this expression "explains almost everything you need to know about our country, our institutions, our history, our culture ? even our economy." Peter Costello, the treasurer of Australia and regarded as heir apparent to Prime Minister John Howard, asserts that "Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs - democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty." Cameron also spoke with a bluntness unique in four years of politicians' discourse since 9/11: "The driving force behind today's terrorist threat is Islamist fundamentalism. The struggle we are engaged in is, at root, ideological. During the last century a strain of Islamist thinking has developed which, like other totalitarianisms, such as Nazi-ism and Communism, offers its followers a form of redemption through violence."

Back to basics - definitely a good move!

Most striking are the growing calls to extrude Islamists. Two politicians have advised foreign Islamists to stay away. Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, Quebec's international relations minister, retracted the welcome mat from those "who want to come to Quebec and who do not respect women's rights or who do not respect whatever rights may be in our Civil Code." Bob Carr, premier of New South Wales, Australia (which includes Sydney), wants would-be immigrants to be denied visas if they refuse to integrate: "I don't think they should be let in." Costello goes further, observing that Australia "is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Shari'a law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you." Islamists with dual citizenship, he suggests, could be asked "to exercise that other citizenship," i.e., leave Australia.

Likewise, Brendan Nelson, Australia's education minister, also on Aug. 24 urged immigrants to "commit to the Australian constitution, Australian rule of law." If not, "they can basically clear off." Geert Wilders, head of his own small party in the Dutch parliament, similarly called for the expulsion of non-citizen immigrants who refuse to integrate. But it was the British shadow defence minister, Gerald Howarth, who went the furthest, suggesting in early August that all British Islamists must go. "If they don't like our way of life, there is a simple remedy: go to another country, get out." He directed this principle even to Islamists born in Britain (such as three of the four London bombers): "If you don't give allegiance to this country, then leave."

Phew! I think THOSE guys get it, but...:

These statements, all dating from the past half year, prompt several observations. First, where are the Americans? No major U.S. politician has spoken of making American-based Islamists unwelcome. Who will be the first?

Who indeed? They would get MY vote!

Second, note the consistent focus on the law and legal issues. This correctly picks up on the fact that ultimately, the Islamist project concerns the application of Islamic law, the Shari'a. And finally, these comments are likely to be leading indicators of a broader campaign to restrict and remove Islamists ? a move that comes none too soon.

Amen!

Life in the Super Dome in N.O. -- where many of the fleeing people went who had nowhere else to go -- may get ugly. This is all worst case scenario type stuff, and I really hate to indulge in...

A Message from tdaxp

Send feedback to danhabbott@gmail.com

Browse the Archives

What's New with the Blogs

South Dakota Blogs

American Blogs

Pro-Freedom, Anti-Terror

South Dakota Blog Alliance

RadioActive Chief, Ryen McClaren, Sibby Online, South Dakota Politics, Straight Talk

tdaxp Blog Network

Jim River Report, tdaxp, Bloglines, Cobuyitaphobia, Junk Politics

Breaking News

South Dakota Mainstream Media

American Mainstream Media

British Mainstream Media

Everyone Else

Jim River Report Archives

1. today
2. this month
3. this year

How Popular is the Jim River Report?