Category Archives: America

Updated Again: Is Hirsi Ali the Only Lionheart In America?!

America, Islam, Israel

That blithering idiot Glenn Beck interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali (transcripts are here). In contrast to the slobbering incoherence of her host —my father has recently ventured that ours is The Age of the Idiot —Hirsi Ali was a model of lucidity. It helps that she looks like a model too. However, when asked by the hyperbolic host whether anyone in the USA was warning of the dangers of “radical Islam” —a redundancy Beck adheres to religiously —Hirsi Ali took full credit for being The Only One.

How did she do so? I repeat, when Beck asked her if anyone in the US was warning of “radical Islam,” she conceded only that we were slightly more aware of the dangers than were the Europeans, but not much.

Now that the transcripts are up, I can excerpt from the exchange:

BECK: Have you met with anyone here in the United States that you thinks — that you think really gets it and is willing to stand up next to you? Is there — is there anybody here? Is there a woman’s organization? Is there a Muslim organization that says, we’re with you?

ALI: I’ve met several individuals, several organizations and all very concerned. To be honest, I think vigilance in the United States seems to me to be today better than the one in Europe. What I haven’t seen in the United States is people who are aware of the problem here today in the U.S. Most Islam, as a foreign policy (ph), jihad in this country.

She clearly failed to acknowledge some heroic scholars-cum-warriors I’m proud to call friends: Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom. (Spencer has even been addressed by an al Qaida emissary in a propaganda broadcast.) Nor was there any mention of Bat Ye’or, who was the first to expose the Islamization of Europe, and whose terminology we all use. Hirsi Ali cannot claim ignorance of another European woman on whose shoulders she stands.
Nor did Hirsi Ali offer a nod to Daniel Pipes’ efforts (he departs from the rest, and myself, in holding to a belief in a moderate Islam). The host is too dim to know much about anything, so he just effused and gawked and demonstrated that the force of his intellect matches his social etiquette: Beck told his guest that she was “not going to die of natural causes.”

Updated: I clean forgot Paul Sperry. He has done his share of courageous reporting and has received little TV time. Read my review of his Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.
My sources also confirm that Hirsi Ali knows a number of the aforementioned individuals. That they were not credited for their indefatigable efforts was no innocent mistake. In any case, intellectual dishonestly is inexcusable and ought to be exposed.

Updated for the Third Time: Borat’s Cultural Learnings

America, Anti-Semitism, Film, Hollywood, Media

On Saturday, I caught the matinee screening of Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.” It’s well-worth seeing. The man is a great comedian.
I like the way Cohen only interviews in character, as Borat, never revealing who he is. Reviewers haven’t been hip to this tactic. Cohen’s transformation into the unattractive Borat (and equally awful Ali G and Bruno) is remarkable, considering he’s quite a dish.

This next “learning” is probably only available on Barely a Blog, but, for what it’s worth, when Borat and Azamat Bagatov (his Kazakh “producer”) talk, Borat rattles off in Hebrew. Azamat is speaking in tongues, for all I know. Cohen can speak Hebrew, but his accent is not the best.

Here’s a very funny Vanity-Fair interview with Borat Sagdiyev. In response to the question, “Who is your favorite American celebrity and why,” Borat writes:

“My favorites celebritys is dancing Negro Michael Jacksons, singing transvestite Madonna, and, of course, fearless anti-Jew warrior Mel Gibsons. We in Kazakhstan agrees with his statement that Jews started all wars and also have proof that they were responsible for Hurricane Katrina and also killed off the dinosaurs.”

Update: Those of you with a funny bone will find the following hard to believe. Around the Internet, the dour and dreary (that includes Abe Foxman) are decimating Borat for his high-wire antics, and accusing his creator, Baron Cohen:

* Of promoting anti-Semitism (“In one scene Borat insists on driving to California rather than flying, ‘in case the Jews repeat their attack of 9/11′”).
* Of libeling America as endemically anti-Semitic, even though Americans come off (as I pointed out in “Fun in Kazakhstan“) as kind, sweet, polite, and infinitely patient with “this delightful fellow,” as one of his gracious Southern hosts mischaracterizes the bumbling Borat.
* Of harboring an imperial mindset (this is by far the kookiest complaint) because he victimizes and patronizes Kazakhstan. (“In Kazakhstan we say, ‘God, man, horse, dog, then woman, then rat.'” Also according to Borat, the national sport in Kazakhstan is shooting a dog and then having a party. You can earn a living being a Gypsy catcher. Wine is made from fermented horse urine. Kazakh villages all have a Village Rapist.)

Sorry, I had to stop writing—cracked up remembering Borat’s reference to Bush as the “mighty warlord.” The guy’s a satirist—a funny, one-of-a-kind comedian. Only losers “analyze” Cohen, aka Borat, alias Ali G-cum-Bruno.

Updated Again: At last, Alvaro Vargas Llosa of The Independent Institute has a decent defense of Boart as “simply anarchic.” Here’s an excerpt:

“I have read that Borat is a left-winger in disguise. This doesn’t square with his mockery of feminists (“give me a smile, baby, why the angry face”) and of a black politician with whom he discusses homosexuality. I have also read that Borat is a right-wing fascist. It doesn’t quite square with the scene at the rodeo in where he persuades the organizers to let him sing “The Star-Spangled Banner” only to launch into an intentionally satirical tirade against Iraq (“I hope you kill every man, woman, and child in Iraq, down to the lizards”). No, Borat is simply anarchic—there is no institution, idea, cultural value or government he does not find worthy of being picked apart through humor. It’s always healthy to take a second look at the way we all live.”

Updated for the Third Time: Where did you first learn Borat was speaking Hebrew? On BAB, of course. Here’s the confirmation–in case you needed one.

Updated for the Third Time: Borat's Cultural Learnings

America, Anti-Semitism, Film, Hollywood, Media

On Saturday, I caught the matinee screening of Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.” It’s well-worth seeing. The man is a great comedian.
I like the way Cohen only interviews in character, as Borat, never revealing who he is. Reviewers haven’t been hip to this tactic. Cohen’s transformation into the unattractive Borat (and equally awful Ali G and Bruno) is remarkable, considering he’s quite a dish.

This next “learning” is probably only available on Barely a Blog, but, for what it’s worth, when Borat and Azamat Bagatov (his Kazakh “producer”) talk, Borat rattles off in Hebrew. Azamat is speaking in tongues, for all I know. Cohen can speak Hebrew, but his accent is not the best.

Here’s a very funny Vanity-Fair interview with Borat Sagdiyev. In response to the question, “Who is your favorite American celebrity and why,” Borat writes:

“My favorites celebritys is dancing Negro Michael Jacksons, singing transvestite Madonna, and, of course, fearless anti-Jew warrior Mel Gibsons. We in Kazakhstan agrees with his statement that Jews started all wars and also have proof that they were responsible for Hurricane Katrina and also killed off the dinosaurs.”

Update: Those of you with a funny bone will find the following hard to believe. Around the Internet, the dour and dreary (that includes Abe Foxman) are decimating Borat for his high-wire antics, and accusing his creator, Baron Cohen:

* Of promoting anti-Semitism (“In one scene Borat insists on driving to California rather than flying, ‘in case the Jews repeat their attack of 9/11′”).
* Of libeling America as endemically anti-Semitic, even though Americans come off (as I pointed out in “Fun in Kazakhstan“) as kind, sweet, polite, and infinitely patient with “this delightful fellow,” as one of his gracious Southern hosts mischaracterizes the bumbling Borat.
* Of harboring an imperial mindset (this is by far the kookiest complaint) because he victimizes and patronizes Kazakhstan. (“In Kazakhstan we say, ‘God, man, horse, dog, then woman, then rat.'” Also according to Borat, the national sport in Kazakhstan is shooting a dog and then having a party. You can earn a living being a Gypsy catcher. Wine is made from fermented horse urine. Kazakh villages all have a Village Rapist.)

Sorry, I had to stop writing—cracked up remembering Borat’s reference to Bush as the “mighty warlord.” The guy’s a satirist—a funny, one-of-a-kind comedian. Only losers “analyze” Cohen, aka Borat, alias Ali G-cum-Bruno.

Updated Again: At last, Alvaro Vargas Llosa of The Independent Institute has a decent defense of Boart as “simply anarchic.” Here’s an excerpt:

“I have read that Borat is a left-winger in disguise. This doesn’t square with his mockery of feminists (“give me a smile, baby, why the angry face”) and of a black politician with whom he discusses homosexuality. I have also read that Borat is a right-wing fascist. It doesn’t quite square with the scene at the rodeo in where he persuades the organizers to let him sing “The Star-Spangled Banner” only to launch into an intentionally satirical tirade against Iraq (“I hope you kill every man, woman, and child in Iraq, down to the lizards”). No, Borat is simply anarchic—there is no institution, idea, cultural value or government he does not find worthy of being picked apart through humor. It’s always healthy to take a second look at the way we all live.”

Updated for the Third Time: Where did you first learn Borat was speaking Hebrew? On BAB, of course. Here’s the confirmation–in case you needed one.

Updated: ‘Voting on November 7, 2006’

America, Bush, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Politics, The State

Walter Block has some sensible advice for freedom lovers, which I can safely second (not a given, mind you). Do as Walter says, with one caveat: Vote for your Libertarian state representative, provided—and only if—he is not a “La-Raza Libertarian“—i.e., opposes unfettered immigration and vows to stop the bleeding on the Southwestern border to the best of his abilities and commensurate with the powers delegated to him. Moreover, his avowal to do so must exclude Genghis Bush’s Guest-Worker Program.

I stated in “America’s Open House” that, “as a proponent of states’ rights and decentralization, instantiated in the Ninth and 10th Amendments, I rarely wish to see federal solons usurp the states. Local police ought to be tasked with immigration enforcement.” While immigration officially comes under federal jurisdiction, desperate localities are indeed stepping in to protect their beleaguered constituents. Libertarians ought to welcome such usurpation, especially when it’s to protect life, liberty, and property. Is this not the flip side of Jeffersonian interposition and nullification, whereby states beat back the federal occupier by voiding unconstitutional federal laws? Here, municipalities and states enforce hitherto-unenforced laws that protect lives and livelihoods.

For the rest, over to Walter:

“I really cannot support the federal Libertarian Party. For they, too, just like Paul “Stabilizer” Krugman, want to pull troops out of Iraq, but not bring them home either; instead, send them to yet other foreign countries, where, presumably, there [sic] imperialist services are in greater need… How the principled have fallen. It is one thing for the Democrats, a la Paul “Stabilizer” Krugman to support such a policy. But for Libertarians to do so? Murray Rothbard must be spinning in his grave at the prospect, after he spent so much time and energy trying to inculcate some modicum of principle into this group.

No, I cannot in good conscience ask anyone to support the federal Libertarian Party. Not, at least, until they rescind this horrid policy. (Whenever I get a fund raising letter from them, I reply that I will contribute, but only when and if they publicly climb down from this eminently anti-libertarian viewpoint.) The state libertarian parties, still, are a different matter. In my view, the rot has not set in there to anywhere near the same degree. To the contrary, at the state LP conventions I have addressed, I have found the rank and file to be pretty sensible on all issues, certainly including foreign policy.

So, two cheers for the LP at the state level, and none for them at the federal.”