The American public seems preoccupied with court. Justice is fine entertainment. Never before were there so many shows on TV that involved court. It has become a steady diet. America has always prized cops and robbers as entertainment, but now the drama of justice, the process of nailing the criminal, the sentence itself, are all the cultural apogee of intellectual and emotional consciousness combined.
While detective stories have been around since Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849), the whole idea of courtroom-as-drama didn't come about until the age of cinema. The early films of Charles Laughton (1930's) brought out the flavor of English law, the severe, even burdensome detail being but mechanism in the drama. One of the first full-lenth courtroom features was the famous Paradine Case (1947) in which Laughton plays a stern judge, seemingly cruel in his objectivity. In 1957 there came Witness for the Prosecutionn, in which Laughton plays a wilely English barrister. There was an unusal film called Twelve Angry Men (1957) in which the decision process of the jury itself is dramatized. And there was the famous movie about the Scopes Trial, called Inherit the Wind(1960). That was a gigantic social issue, not a simple murder case.
Serena Southerlyn (Elizabeth Rohm) and Jack MacCoy (Sam Waterston)
from TV's Law and Order.
Of course, there were television shows capitalizing on courtroom drama. There was a series called On Trial (1956-1959) with Joseph Cotton, and then of course the famous Perry Mason, running from 1957 to 1966. (Raymond Burr, who played the part of Perry Mason, continued in TV court show Ironside (1967-1975), and then a series of individual Perry Mason episodes which ran from 1986 to 1993.
Today we have seeminly innumerable shows involving court. Dick Wolf's series are stellar achievements in detective/courtroom drama: Law & Order, Special Victims Unit, and Criminal Intent, are among the most popular TV shows of recent times.
Ed Green (Jesse L. Martin) and Anita Van Buren (S. Epatha Merkerson)
from TV's Law and Order.
But if fabricated court entertainment weren't enough, there are actual, live court shows, like Judge Judy, Judge Hatchett, and, Judge Joe Brown, all bringing purportedly live court cases before the TV audience, and the judges decided. No attorneys, no "process," but simply quick and explosive drama, all in the naked glory of instant and effective decision power. This is now entertainment--the personal legal problems of the common person.
And of course there are the extended cases of major interest that are carried on over main stream media networks, together with somewhat lesser significant cases included in the file of Nancy Grace and Court TV.
All this can only mean that the great American pastime is no more baseball, but the pursuit of justice. Whether the involvement is personal, or viewed vicariously as entertainment, the achievement of justice is deeply prized in the America psyche. It has almost become a emotional fix of some kind, which must be regularly, even daily procured. Someone is wronged. The wrong must be righted. There is no alternative, no walking away from it. It's all about outrage and compensatory justice, but the justice part comes out more like vengeance, or worse, revenge. In any case, Americans certainly cherish the sensation of justice, whatever the degree of intensity.
It so happens that, in the last several months, the country has also had the opportunity to witness the appointment of three judges, three men who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, making decisions about the meaning of the Constitution. This is yet another dimension of justice. This has to be the zenith of pre-courtroom drama. Indeed, the "trials" of these men (called "hearings") by hysterical Democrat leaders who have disgraced the country as well as their party, have provided another grave example of how seriously Americans take the idea of truth, justice, and the American way, just how earnestly the people desire "liberty and justice for all."
Of course, they are appointed justices, not elected, albeit they are appointed by an elected official, the president. And they are also confirmed by elected officials. It is a fact, however, that they are not to represent the people, nor the senators, but the Constitution. They are not in office by means of an electoral bribe.
This little fact is generally lost site of in the intense emotional evironment of 'jurisprudential' entertainment. And many people in the country do not understand the Constitution at all, and have been swept away in the emotionalism of Leftist lamentations and their hyperbolic cravings, solipsistic passions, and amoral outrage.
Certainly, for the believer, the person banking on biblical notions, on Judeo-Christian values, the Judgement Day is where all this ultimately leads. That will be the grand court from which there is no appeal. Thus, the biblical religion places what is basically a Jungian archetype in the future. This is extraordinary, and unique in the intellectual history of man. The sense of justice, the pursuit of justice, has not been generally recognized as a psychological need, but rather has been more or less associated with Freudian sexual energy (as has every other element of human conciousness). But, yet again, that a religious faith, indeed an ancient text, should place something like justice in a communal weltanschauung, as an apogean resolution of the Collective Unconscious of the entire human race--in a chronoligical focal point in future time, either suggests that the Freudian psychological theory is inescapable in any level of human existence, or that the ancient Hebrew idea of the Judgement Day is in fact a coming reality. Perhaps both.
Judge Samuel Alito will be the 110th Surpeme Court Justice of the United States. With his confirmation, the United States Supreme Court will have on the bench three strong male, Roman Catholic justices, two of whom are Italian. Antonin Scalia is the son of Italian immigrants. Samuel Alito's father was an Italian immigrant. Both Scalila and Alito are from Trenton, New Jersey. Chief Justice John Roberts came from a devout Catholic family of Buffalo, New York.
Chief Justice John Roberts
This is a remarkable social phenomenon.
These three men, whose personal religious beliefs honor the very institution which the founders of America eschewed and from which they fled Europe at the peril of their lives, have become the cornor stones of American conservative values. The Roman Catholic Church, which historically was associated with everything the Pilgrims and Puritans despised, has produced human beings, strong men, who have come to represent the very core values of American society. Leaders of America have clearly entrusted the future of the country to three Roman Catholics, two of which are the sons of immigrants, just second generation Americans themselves.
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito responds to a question Thursday before the
Senate Judiciary Committee. Behind him is his wife, who at one point Wednesday burst
into tears. Indeed, we know Alito was not appointed through the efforts of Catholics in
high places, like Ted Kennedy.
Dare we ask, What has changed? Has not something profound transpired here? Isn't this historically unprecedented? Is this unseemly to even frame as a question?
Something indeed has changed. It is either the Roman Catholic Church, the American Protestant Church, or American society in general. We would not want to imply that great 'evil' has transpired, but only that something greatly significant has transpired. Either way, that much should be obvious to any student of American history. It is almost as if a lost society leans on the historically strong in time of anxiety. Like the white ethnicities look to the Germans for security when the darkies of the world seem closing in, the amoral crowd looks to Rome when it fears the coming whirlwind of it's own sins. The Roman Church itself just elected a German Pope (Joseph Ratzinger) instead of one of the many Hispanic cardinals. California elected a German (Austrian) immigrant (Arnold Schwargenegger) rather than a local Mexican-American, Cruz Bustamante. And now the American government is deeply relieved to have three Roman Catholics on the Surpeme Court, one being the Chief Justice. And it is a special delight to have two Italians on the 'national board.'
Justice Scalia
It is fair to say that such appointments evince deep anxiety and foreboding. That's all that needs to be observed here. Something major has evolved in the way of social identity and function. While Sydney Ahlstrom said that "a fierce tradition of anti-Catholicism, both visceral and dogmantic, is one of Puritanism'sm most active legacies to Anglo-American civilization," (A Religious History of the American People, Yale, 1972), just thirty years later we can say that Puritanism is obviously absent in American society--at least as represented in nationally elected officials in Washington, DC, our national capital.
So, whatever Roman Catholicism has now, it supercedes whatever it was that Puritanism once had. It subsumes, we should say, all that Puritanism was.
One other observation: in American, the oppressed eventually prosper. Except for the American Indian, who has generally remained indifferent and separate from American society, other 'oppressed' groups finally rise on the social ladder. Italians were once considered untrustworthy, and criminal. They were pretenders, manipulators, and melodramatists. And now they sit on the highest posts of responsibility in the United States.
"With liberty and justice, for all," for alll who are interested, all who are willing to work, and to prove themselves. Italians have certainly done it. The Irish have done it. We might even say the American Negro has done it, (though with an unusual amount of help). Justice Clarence Thomas was certainly a token appointment, and he did have a very strong Catholic education. That was all in the vein of "civil rights," which the Catholics championed. But, these Italian appoinments, Scalia and Alito, did not achieve through social programs or legal advantages. They are what they are, alone. And they are presently greatly honorable and honored.
This report may be disturbing to some, lauded by others, but, in any case, the evolution of social history should be examined by all. This is too serious a developement to be ignored. It has to mean something, and something grand and significant. It's not that we rejoice or head for the hills, but that we be responsible, and look honestly at history. We must make the effort to be aware of what is happening.
Remember Farris Hassan? that wonderfully innocent and courageous teen-ager, that daring young man whom the news praised for ingenuity, amibtion, and accomplishment? Why, the news recognized one of their own. They lauded him as a triumphant new prospect. He was a budding journalist, on self-assignement for a highschool "immersion journalism" class. He wanted to be in the middle of Iraq, so he could write authentically about it. What noble, pure purpose for any young journalist.
Farris Hassan and loving mother, Shatha Atiya, on their
way back to their $4 million dollar home in Ft.Lauderdale,
Florida. Shatha and husband, Dr. Redha Hassan, happen
to be divorced.
BadEagle was suspicious from the start (January 1). Turns out our suspicions were well justified. Now everyone's turning over the rocks in the Hassan story, and find a lot of worms underneath. (Even Michelle Malkin, whose daily blog is usually among the top ten in the country, had to back track. She admits falling for "the feel-good holiday angle" when she originally posted on the wonder boy. Malkin is not averse to severe race-oriented dispositions, but in this case, she had shown mercy--only to have to take it all back.)
Farris Hassan was not enrolled in any journalism class. Tom Blumer (Newsbusters, January 21) now tells us that Pine Crest High School came out and said that "the boy’s father, Dr. Redha Hassan not only knew of his son’s intended travels, but authorized his absence." And Dr. Hassan actually assisted his son, arranging for his son's flight into Baghdad through his political connections. Dr. Redha Hassan was arrested by the FBI in 1985 for forging 2000 Iraqi passports and military I.D. cards and seeking to forge 2,000 more, we are told.
Blumer says Farris spent ten days in Beirut, and met with a media relations officer of the terrorist group Hezbollah at their Central Press Office. This meeting was arranged through the assistance of his hosts – the family’s friends.
So the wealthy Hassan family put on a big publicity stunt, and the American press was 'caught looking.' A real strike out, for even some heavy hitters like Malkin. She reported (Dec. 29) Farris Hassan's "father, Redha Hassan, a doctor, said his son is an idealist, principled and moral. Aside from the research he wanted to accomplish, he also wrote in an essay saying he wanted to volunteer in Iraq."
Principled and moral, eh? The kid is a professional liar already. Like his father.
Wanted to volunteer in Iraq, eh? Which side?
Farris provided a lovely essay for all to read. He manifests grand idealism, indeed. Too bad he didn't see honesty as part of his idealism or morals. Well, he said he wanted to be a journalist. Does that mean his opinion of journalists needs modifying, or no?
The Widikopedia piece says Hassan is a member of the Republican Club at Pine Ridge, but the ABC link provided makes no such statement. I'd call that a partisan approach, even for an internet encyclopedia.
There's a relation between PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), the ancient and imaginary Arcadian god Pan, and the modern porno star/exhibitionist Pamela Anderson: 1) PETA professes to defend the rights of animals. 2) Pan was half human and half goat, and played some mean pipes to exite sexual "pandemonium"--in either sex, of either species (homo-bestiality). 3) Pamela has exaggerated her most visible erotic zones to fulfill the fantasies of male voyeurists. It is a most curious vortex of sexual perversion, then, that combines social activism, imaginary pagan religion, and modern pornographic imagery.
Maybe it's even more. When I thought about PETA's attack on Colonel Sanders, I heard a song in the background: "When PETA comes marching home again, Hurrah, Hurrah!" Yes, it was all a regional attack on a beloved old Southern Colonel. Why, it was the NY liberals at it again, only they disguised the skeksied bones of their spinless souls under the silicone curves of piquant Pammie (Pamela Anderson). But surely the Southerners know it's a prejudiced attack. PETA could have picked on Tyson Foods, out of Arkansas, but, PETA knew most Americans don't know Arkansas was a Confederate state. It was taken over by Union forces early one, so it hardly stands for the South. And the Arkansas state flag (adopted 1913) doesn't pay much tribute to history. And Frank Perdue started his chicken empire in Maryland (but today the company headquarters is in Horsham, Pennslyvania). Maryland was a seriously divided state during the Civil War. No serious southern connections there. There's a lot of chickens between Tyson and Perdue, but no political pride, no historical, ideological identity. Now the Colonel, on the other hand, became a symbol of the South, Mr. Fried Chicken himself, out of Corbin, Kentucky. In 1930 the Governor Ruby Laffoon made Sanders a "Kentucky Colonel" for his contribution to Kentucky cuisine.
Old John Tyson, who eventually revolutionized the poultry
industry, beginning in 1930. Frank Purdue and one of his
stellar products in hand.
And the Colonel was honored with a bust of his likeness, placed in the Kentucky state capitol. That's precisely what gave PETA a visible target. Not that PETA's above making the same accusations of John Tyson or Frank Perdue, but these men have no "monument" to their accomplishments on display in a state capitol building. The Sanders bust gave the PETA protest the status it needed. That's all. PETA (based out of Norfolk, Virginia, by the way) called on fantasy Pam in hopes of forever linking protest to sexual excitement. That was a strange move. Pan would approve. The animal cruety issue is quite superficial. It's the association of human sexuality with animals--that's the Pamela part. That's the Freudian finish. That's the significance of the program. PETA pulled a fast one here, which may backfire in a big way.
PETA even has Pamela saying that KFC (which was not owned by the Colonel since he sold it in 1964) grows chickens in Vietnam. If that were true, couldn't we expect a lot more "avian flu" all over the world, compliments of KFC? PETA has yet to make the standard regional racist charge that the Colonel willed money to the Ku Klux Klan. That's probably rumbling in the background somewhere, yet to emerge.
At any rate, PETA has disgraced itself beyond recovery in this venture. The "vegan" (vegetarian) world they envision is supposedly edenic. Fine. It is true that in the bereshit (Genesis), the original diet of man was fruit, nuts, and vegetables. But if healthy living is the PETA goal, why associate it with pornography? Is visually exaggerated sexuality a sign of health? And if we're headed back to Eden, does that mean we return to marriage between one man and one woman, forever? (Look out Pam. PETA may need a new front person, so to speak.) Does veganism also mean the return of sabbath observance, in honor of creation? Evolutionists believe man descended from mammalian carnivores, or at least omnivores. So which is it, PETA? Are you advocating religion of some kind here? Are you not associated with evolutionary 'science'? What kind of animal status are you advocating? Is it indeed the likes of Pan you advocate? Homo-bestiality? Goats are certainly vegetarian, and very virile. Just why vegetarianism? Is this a Gaia cult call? Is this Back to the Earth?
Indeed, When PETA comes marching home again, Hurrah, Hurrah. Only this home doesn't appear to involved the social refinements of Southern Christian gentlemen.
The beloved Colonel Sanders, 1890-1980. The Colonel
was a 33rd degree freemason of the Scottish Rite,
buried in Louisville, KT. And for sure, the Glasgow
Sunday Mail noted the PETA Pam attack on their
fine brother.
The Chicken War continues. Beaks break, feathers fly, and the case is piquantly curious. One always hesitates to criticize a female. "Pick on Pammie? How improprietous!" But, no. The peremptory peck was Pam's. Even the feminist sites can't say it any other way. Pamela Anderson has 'exposed' herself to the ridiculous, ridiculously.
PETA Pam has attempted to use her artificial sex appeal to denigrate one of America's great success stories of honest, hard work and entrepreneurism. She has called for the removal of the bust of Colonel Harland Sanders, creator of Kentucky Fried Chicken, from the state capitol building at Frankfurt, Kentucky. Of course the governor, Ernie Fletcher, will never remove the statue, as spokesmen Jodi Whitaker relays, as well as the PR secretary at the governor's office which BadEagle contacted. The possibility that the KFC corporation is abusing poltry is a paltry perception, considering the cirumstances.
PETA Pam, the intellectual, complete with glasses, struggling to hold
her lips straight. And now age, and the seasoned thinker.
Moving further into the surreal, we notice more irony. What about Tyson Foods? Tyson chickens seem completely flown over in Pammie's PETA chicken attack. Yet the Tyson chicken history is similar to KFC, and by 1998 the John Tyson's corporation was the top poltry producer in the world. Tyson has been protested, not because of mishandling chickens, but employees. (The $23.4 billion food industry put their chicken workers lowest on the pay scale.) Why has PETA Pam passed by Tyson?
PETA Pam, possibly "off camera"? Then definitely "on camera," as close to real
fashion as possible. Very lovely, except for the tatoo.
Is it because Tyson hires so many American Negroes? Al Sharpton thought so, until he found out that 12 Negro employees were suing over nasty and blatant racism in a Tyson workplace.
Is it because Don Tyson (CEO of Tyson) smuggled cocaine in the rectums of chickens? (See, "The Dixie Mafia," in The Secret Life of Bill Clinton [Regnery, 1997], by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard). Is it because Tyson Foods, which owns 25% of the chicken market, was a big donor to the Clinton machine? Company pilot Josepsh Hendrickson allegedly carried cash deliveries to Governor Clinton. (In 1978, Hillary had a brokerage account that went from $1,000 to $99,537.)
PETA Pam would rather hit up the ol' Southern Colonel, rather than stir the real hen's nest. But it can't be because Tyson doesn't contribute to Republican campaigns. Tyson, KFC, and Perdue chicken companies all give heavily to the Red. (Maybe Tyson modified its former position, rather than suffer further federal investigations.)
In a Dalian meltdown, the irony morphs yet further. Pam protests the pecker's beak-removal (see video) because it disallows the natural pecking order of fowl. Naturally, one apparenlty lip-enhanced person would be very conscious of 'lip' removal. But that's not the real irony. It's the fact that white women seem to think that fattening their lips makes them more sexually attractive, while black men think removing fat lips makes them attractive. Or is this an illusion?
Puffy Angela Jolie, and a couple of unusually thin, stiff upper-lip black men, Lester Holt and Anthony Williams
But a chicken without it's beak hardly involves any more cruelty than de-clawing a house cat, or neutering a male dog. Now, PETA is outraged at stem cell research with animal cells, but not on humans. And PETA is completely unconcerned about human abortion on demand. So, we're left with Pamela, with fake lips, fake breasts, and no doubt fake claws (finger nails). This it PETA Pam, who picked a pack of de-beaked peckers to pick on. That is, she's picking on the de-peckers, the pluckers, and the pushers. And she picked on ol' Colonel Sanders. That's over the line.
It's a case of the bosom calling the breast white. Pamela Anderson, Miss Silicone implant herself, protests the breast enhancement of chickens! She has taken up the cause of removing the bust of Colonel Sanders from the Kentucky state capitol, because she protests the mistreatment of chickens by the KFC Corporation--part of that treatment being the hormonally-induced enlargement of chicken breasts, to the point that the hens cannot stand up straight, and develop crooked or broken legs. Of course, she's protesting for PETA on this one. (Well, maybe she should also campaign for Bowflex. Bowflex exercise machines are advertised on some Pamela sites. Maybe she could recommend they develop an exercise machine for the chickens, to keep them in such fabulous "shape" as herself.)
So, it's bust removal, by the bust-enhanced, to bust the chicken business--for bust-enhanced chickens. A buxom bank role is involved, no doubt. That's the bosom of the matter.
Pamela Anderson, the silicone kid.
In the stomach-wrenching video she narrates for PETA, delineating all the abuses of the mass chicken production process, there is a point about the way the young hens' beaks are actually cut off, to prevent them from pecking each other. Close ups of the hens are shown. Perhaps Pamela could recommend some lip implant procedure, since she's obviously familiar with that, too. Where are the recommended adjustments here, Pamela? Like the one's you use. Never mind the KFC adjustments.
Removing the bust of Colonel Sanders? A "monument to cruelty" she calls it. Harland Sanders is a monument to service of humanity. Think of the jobs, the meals, the social impact of this old man, who used a $105. social security check to start a little fried chicken business. Why not remove the busts of George Washington because he cut down a cherry tree? Why, he was no tree hugger. Away then with monuments to one so careless with the envirnoment!
Ah, well, Pamela wants a vegan world anyway. She's been promoting vegetarianism for some time. All part of the "back to Eden" approach. Hollywood righteousness, of course, but it's convenient for the silicone kid.
The poor old Colonel, attacked beyond the grave. Are PETA ghosts
doing the cruelty on the 'secret' videos at the KFC plants?
But this isn't just about inconsistency and hypocrisy. This is about irony. This is about an "enhanced" woman objecting to the "enhanced" chicken. It's about a woman given to the visual, whose false appearance is supposed to stimulate objection to animal cruelty. This is a horrible convergence of emotion. A pornographic icon is being used to merge the human emotion of conscupiscent sexual indulgence with righteous indignation at the sight of cruelty to birds, birds with enhanced breasts, like hers. This is a remarkable sociological news event. What can Pamela Anderson justifiably recommend, besides false sexual appearance and physical exercise--as it contributes to visual attraction? This is what she is all about. For PETA to use her (for a price, no doubt) for animal rights causes is making a complete animal out of her. This is beyond the 'dumb blonde' syndrom. In fact, this is cruelty to dumb blondes.
What we need now is Janet Jackson, in the name of her bare breast, to call for the removal of the bust of George Washington from the nation's Capitol. After all, the man had slaves. And she certainly doesn't stand for the values he did. This whole bosom business may become a new social onslaught. A new cultural war. The use of the breast to make a point, so to speak. To use sexual excitation to provoke reaction to totally unrelated reactions. It's sexualization of all emotion. How animalistic. Indeed, in its quest to advocate the rights of animals, PETA itself has sunk lower than any animal.
At the very least, Pamela is encouraging a new genre of monster films: The Attack of the Breast. Human Against Chicken. Yes. That's it. This is all about misplaced breast envy on the part of the producers. Or worse, it's a big breast contest, only Pamela won't allow any competition. Not even from chickens!
Mehmet Ali Agca, the man who attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II (1981) has just been released from prison. John W. Hinkley, Jr., the man who attempted to assassinate US President Ronald Regan (1982) has just been freed from a mental hospital, having never even gone to prison. But Sirhan B. Sirhan, the man who allegedly assassinated Robert F. Kennedy (1968) has been in prison ever since, with no parole. Why? Where's the grand liberal cause here? Where's the ACLU? Where's the protest crowd? Many don't believe Sirhan even committed the crime.
Lately, main stream media has tried to pawn Sirhan off as a "Palestinian immigrant." Even the Wikipedia entry presents Sirhan as the son of "Palestinian" parents. Apparently they thought that might open up some sympathy. But the fact is Sirhan is Jordanian. In the mid-'80's, when Sirhan was desperating trying to obtain parole, all the AP articles refer to him as Jordanian. Janet M. Knight's Three Assassinations (NY, 1971) says Sirhan is Jordanian (p.189). The family was Greek Orthodox by religion, living in the Armenian section of Jerusalem. He was a violent, abusive family. The UN Relief & Welfare Agancy and the World Council fo Churches brought the family to the United States, but the father "returned to Jordan" shortly thereafter. It was King Hussein of Jordan who expressed condolences, and urged that Sirhan had no connection with Jordan since "he left here as a child."
Sirhan B. Sirhan, March,1986, at a Soledad, CA parole hearing.
All the papers have said Sirhan has been a model prisoner, albeit never submitted to the psychicatric evaluation or treatment recommended. Sirhan has apparently changed his story, as well as his religious denomination, from time to time. (Confinement often produces a variety of perspectives. The prisoner must entertain himself.) He has exressed remorse, regret, in tears, pleading for deportation and liberty. He wanted to return to Jordan. In 1985 an AP report (June 27) said Sirhan was "shocked" that the parole board took only three minutes to say "no." (It looks like three very patriotic Mexican Americans, Rudolph Castro, Ray Jauregui, and Joseph Aceto just thought there was no way they were going to let an Arab go free after killing a good Catholic boy.)
So why wasn't Sirhan executed? In 1969, a Los Angeles jury convicted Sirhan of murder and recommended the death sentence. In 1972, the California Supreme Court over-turned the state death sentence, and reduce the penalty to life in prison. But that's as liberal as they got for Sirhan. About all that came out of it was an anti-gun law passed in October, 1968. Liberals decried the violence in a grand chorus of celebrated published statements.
Sirhan was developing ties to the local Communist party, though his ACLU attorneys kept all that secret at the time. So, where are all the liberal, Communist, ACLU advocates now? Why aren't they demanding the release of Sirhan B. Sirhan?
You can shoot the pope, an obvious conservative; you can shoot a Republican conservative president; but if you shoot a Democrat, forget it. Your in prison for life. They won't give you the dignity of death, much less freedom. Even Tookie Williams managed to procure death, despite the noisy lackeys of the Left.
All kinds of protests have been raised for the freedom of other murderers, but, maybe it's who they murdered that determines their outcome. Who knows? Puerto Rican Juan Antonio Vega shot a woman in New Haven, CT, 1983, just for fun. Susan Iezzi was just selling cosmetics at a charity tag sale. Vega shot her for no reason at all. Just for the fun of shooting with a rifle at a distant target. Five years later, he was free, working full time at a pizza parlor.
With this kind of system, keeping Sirhan in prison not only insults every innocent victim, but keeping Sirhan alive insults the victim twice. Sirhan has life in prison because of who he killed. This implies that other victims are unimportant, or not as important.
I say: Sirhan B. Sirhan, give him liberty, or give him death. Why insult him? American liberals are freeing Islamic murderers left and right. Sirhan claims to be Christian. Is this yet another anti-Christian gesture?
Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish muslim to shot Pope John Paul II, attempting to assassinate the pontiff, has been released from prison, after more than 25 years. He was incarcerated in Italy for more than 20 years, and then five more in Turkey. Agca attempted to murder the Pope on May 13, 1981. He murdered a left-wing columnist, Abdi Ipekci, in 1979. He is hailed by other Islamic Turkish terrorists, like Mustafa Akmercan, one of two Turks who hijacked an Air Malta jetliner in 1997, as a role model.
Pope John Paul "forgave" Agca. One must wonder at this gesture. Was the Pope under pressure to "live up" to the Christian standard? After all, it was a world event. The world was watching. Effectively, what did the Pope's attitude accomplish? Certainly no change or improvement in the Muslim murderist community. So, how exactly is this incident to be regarded? As a political expression of personal Christian principle?
Mehmet Ali Agca, Islam's grand showman.
Certainly, many people of Turkey are appalled. Turkey is one of the few Muslim countries in the world with a secular government. Turkey has been trying to establish itself in the European community for decades. There are people there who wish to move forward. Yet, Islam does not wish to move forward. Islam wishes only to make all people, and all nations, Islamic.
Is there such a thing as secular Islam? There is the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society. Is this a misnomer? An oxymoron? Iranian professor Mehrzad Boroujerdi, of Syracuse University, believes there is hope of altering Islam. "I believe the prospect for Islam's secularization is not as futile as one may surmise." Prof. Boroujerdi offers historical evidence to support his theory. However, Amil Imani feels that secular Islam is simply not Islam. Terrorists are the true sons of Islam. Anything less is socialized Islam, superficial Islam. It is essentially non-practicing Islam.
So, Mehmet Ali Agca is indeed the greatest hero of modern Islam, even more than Mohammad Atta and the WTC attackers. Agca focused on the central issue of "political,' "literal," and "historical" Islam: Christianity. The history of Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, no doubt shaped the motives of Agca. Islam is the enemy of Christianity. The Pope, in Agca's mind, represented the enemy personified. Agca did what every Muslim must dream of doing, if sincere in his faith. Agca was a "conservative" for his faith, a "conservative" for the historical identity of his country. Agca represents what Muslims are supposed to be. No? Dare we believe differently? Dare we trust the "moderate" or "secular" Muslim? Are not Muslims all potential terorist mass murderers? Or, is that an evil thought? What are the consequences and risks of not thinking it? WTC attacks?
Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish gunman who shot Pope John Paul II
in 1981, holds up an issue of Time magazine, outside a military re-
cruitment center after being released from prison in Istanbul, Turkey,
on Thursday. Agca served more than 25 years behind bars in Italy
and Turkey.
And what should Christians make then of the Pope's "forgiveness?" Is it indeed to be emulated? How? What is the realistic application? Lie down and die? Let your enemies kill you? I say this is personal. The Pope's act was that of a human being, a personal act. It was John Paul's personal act, his personal application of the Christian faith. It was not a political act. It was not intended to be applied as a national policy.
And now I want to know why lovely liberal America hasn't freed Sirhan B. Sirhan. Why hasn't the liberal and "forgiving" Catholic Kennedy family procured his release? (Some people don't even believe Sirhan murdered RFK. No one ever doubted the proud Agca's act.)
Sirhan B. Sirhan, convicted of murdering
Senator Robert F. Kennedy, on June 5, 1968.
These are troubling times. Times that try men's souls. Who values what? Who is willing to risk what? Why? It is a daily inquest of every person's most intimate, personal constitution. It is a time to seek the truth, surely, the truth about oneself. It is not a perfect world. People kill each other, for one reason or another. What is the best way of avoiding this? There are people who hate freedom, and will kill to destory it. What is the best way of stopping them?
BadEagle.com has just posted an extraordinary opinion/editorial by a well-known Iranian American, Amil Amani. The title of the piece is Ignorance: America's Worst Enemy. It is an indictment of Islam. There is great risk in publishing this piece, in that it has to be considered greatly inflamatory. Yet, Mr. Amani considers Islam to be greatly inflamatory. He is free to say so. BadEagle.com is free to allow his opinion. Because Mr. Amani's article represents an indictment of an entire religion, it will no doubt prove extremely offensive to many people. Moderate Muslims will decry it as the position of extremism, and equally as faulty as the position it condemns. Of course, Islamic murderers ("terrorists) will no doubt condemn Mr. Amani to hell. Other former Muslims, "recovering Muslims," will agree with Mr. Imani entirely. Mr. Imani was born into a Muslim family, in a Muslim country. He is perfectly free to express his opinion openly, at least here in America.
So why should BadEagle.com publish such a work? The original article is twice as long, and this 750w op/ed form was prepared for American news media. BadEagle.com has addressed a variety of volatile issues regarding race, religion, and gender. In that sense, printing Mr. Amani's work is not radical, however aggressive the article itself may be. BadEagle.com has sincerely sought to address very sensitive issues in an open, honest manner.
No person appreciates being condemned for that which is beyond his control, such as the religion he was born into, the race he was born into, or the gender he was born as. No person appreciates being faulted for that which he is not responsible. Therein lies the sensitivity.
Yet, in this world of ever-increasing multiculturalism, transsexualism, and religious pluralism, the elements of one man are juxtaposed to those of another, and sometimes violently. Some people believe in multiculturalism; others don't think it's such a good idea, at all.
With the publication of this most radical of opinions, BadEagle.com anticipates radical reaction. In such anticipation, let it be understood, a priori, that BadEagle.com welcomes the expression of opposing opinions. The indictment of an entire race, an entire religion, or an entire gender, is intensely provocative. Obviously, there is room of differing beliefs and attitudes. However, sometimes radicalism provokes discovery of truth. For that cause, radical words are sometimes quite useful. Radical action, of course, is another matter.
Let it be understood that sincerity is not under indictment. Sincerity is the last position to advocate violence. The sincere believer acts radically only as the very last resort. Those who act violently, from the start, are insincere. Their thoughts are not deep enough to qualify them as sincere.
With that in mind, Muslims of all intensities are welcome to respond to this article. Islam is challenging the world. There is no escape from it. It must be addressed, one way or another.
The New York Times has now presumed to define what it means to be a man, and more pointedly, a young man. The self-idolizing media professionals, so completely smug and solipsistic, have now offered as examples to the world "adventuresome young heroes," naming Farris Hassan, Mathias Rust, and Keron Thomas, comparing them to Albert Einstein and Charles Lindbergh.
Mathias Rust, 19, the young German pilot
who flew from Hamburg to Moscow, elud-
ing the Soviet air defences and landing in
Red Square near the Kremlin.
An illustrious list of professional psychologists are referenced in Tamar Lewin's NYT article, naturally. Who could be more decisive and authoratative but back seat, Monday night quarter-back commentators?
But the obvious truth of the matter is, the media will praise anyone who gives them a good-selling story. That's all media is about. The story. It can't be about anything else. It is not possible for media to be otherwise. This is not a fault in an of itself, but it quickly becomes a fault and a fraud when it professes to be something more, or even other.
Keron Thomas, 16, the kid who took over
a NY subway train for a 45 mile round.
The news provides a false sense of accomplishment for those who otherwise may be insignificant people. If they do something impressive enough, they'll get themselves in the paper--and that means they're worthy of the world's attention. That's what they think, and that's obviously what the reporters think.
But there are some mechanisms involved that may molify the culpability of the media. Media is a professional, daily, hourly operation. The minutes have to be filled with something. The number of news stations has mushroomed to the point of distraction. Anything and everything can be made into a story, but, as every writer knows, the story that will distinguish you as a writer is the story about the unusual, the spectacular, and the dramatic. The more outragious, the better the sell, the more "stimulating," and "educatory." That's the standard justification of it all.
So be it. It is simply important to remember that this is a business. A competitive business. There must be stories. People know that. Youth know that. Criminals know that. Al-qaeda knows that. The media is like some profound social whore, used by any and all. No moral integrity at all. There can't be. It is not in the nature of the news business. There can be standards for quality of writing, conduct, etc., but nothing in regard to what can be written about and what can't be. Theamoral generally tends toward the immoral. That's the obvious. The immoral is exciting and better-selling.
Farris Hassan, the news story hound
who craftily created a great story him-
self. Perfect servant of the profession.
Sure, boys will be boys. But, it's harder and harder to be so in good conscience, when there's a all-absorbing, all-watching media around. No one is innocent anymore. The existence of the media won't allow innocence. Motives are sullied. People do things to get in the news. Politicians are old, tired users. Child abuse is old and tired also. But, dare-devil boys--now that's a new one for today's news. (Why, the only thing daring a young girl can do is have sex and get pregnant. That's old news.) We need young boys to do wild and crazy things. That's it. That's the new fodder.
Only, the youth of the Khmer Rouge weren't recognized as youth, but as professional Communist soldiers. Where was the "daring boys" story? Where was the news when we needed it, then? Why wasn't that dramatized at the time? Would it have hampered the Leftist media's attempts to validate Communism? Boys took over a country. That wasn't news?
So the Democrats finally caught the Republicans in a clease case of unfathomable fraud, eh? What a relief it must seem to know the opposition has at last been found indisputably guilty of what the Democrats have been doing for decades. Makes you wonder whether or not lobbyist Jack Abramoff was an undercover Democrat, working to damage the Republican Party. It's either that, or certain Republicans are just not very good at being crooks. They need more practice, to compete with the Democrats.
Jack Abramoff, center, leaves the Federal Courthouse in Washington Tuesday after
pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud and agreeing to
cooperate with prosecutors. At right is his attorney, Abbe Lowell. AP Photo/Gerald
Herbert
I speak from an American Indian point of view here. Democrats, together with multi-national (read "anti-American) businessmen, money launderers, and Leftists have been using Indians for years. The casino business was a major cash cow for the Democratic Party. The Republicans couldn't beat it, so they began dipping into the pot, apparently. But, in this Leftist political world of "I can, you can't," the Republican Party may pay a price for the naitvete, or should we say stupidity, of certain Republican senators. Abramoff was paid by Indian casino operators to push key senators to block legislation that would hamper the Indian business. Indian Lefists, of course, call this ripping off Indian tribes, especially now that it is a Republican problem.
The Leftist Indian version neglects entirely the fact that Indian casino operators used Abramoff to influence legislators in DC to kill legislation that would hurt their individual tribal casinos and businesses--even if the legislation was for the benefit of other Indian tribes, as in the case of US Rep. Pete Sessions (Dallas) and a casino for the Jena Band of Choctaw. The Coushatta Tribe paid Abramoff to influence legislation against the Choctaw casino plans. In fact, "The Coushattas paid Mr. Abramoff roughly $34 million over several years. The tribe is suing in Louisiana court for repayment."
Leftist Indian news outlets have been on Abramoff's case a good while, always painting him as the bad guy, and failing to point out the role he was playing for corrupt Indian casino operators.
Indian casinos are the problem here. Abramoff is just a player. Indian casinos, as I have noted before, are a vortex of international money laundering, fraud and crime of global proportions. Most Indians freely acknowledge the corruption of their own tribal governments. In my own tribe, the Comanche Nation, we operate four casinos, and to this day, there is no report of revenue made available to tribal memebers; there is no way for tribal members to obtain the knowledge; and there has never been a per capita payment. The December issue of the The Comanche Nationa News (arriving at members' homes a month later, if arriving) featured the reponse of our new tribal attorney, John Plata, who "explained" why there was no per capita payment this year, and why there is no foreseeable payment. This, after the General Council (the tribe) has repeated voted in favor of receiving a per capita payment. The tribe is kept in the dark. The alleged $27 million revenue of 2004 was allocated in ways unaccountable to the tribe, and most members are intensely frustrated. The leaders keep telling us the money goes into our social services. The tribal members believe it goes into huge salaries for individual friends and family members of the leadership. It goes into their perks, their travels, their lives. The same problems exist for many tribes, not just Comanches.
Abramoff? Small potatos. Congress? Not our propblem. The problem with Indians is Indians. Our own leaders. (Russell Means thinks it's our superimposed BIA governments.) For Leftist Indian news agencies to sound forth righteous indignation over Abramoff shows just how shallow fronts they really are for the Left. They display the same hypocrisy and double dealing, but worse. Indian news writers are two steps away from the truth. They're used twice by the Left, once to promote the wrong values, and twice to complain when they are manifested.
"All of my remaining days, I will feel tremendous sadness and regret for my conduct and for what I have done," Abramoff told the court. You'll never here an Indian say that. Whether Abramoff was a 'agent' of the Left to wreak havoc in the Republican Party, easily using Indians to that end, we don't know yet. We know he used Indians, willing Indians--who thought they were using him.
"I hope I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and those I've wronged or caused to suffer," Abramoff said. Not the words of an Indian. Indian leaders never apologize to their tribe, nor to anyone else. At least Indians are ahead of hypocrisy in that regard.
[UPDATE, Jan.7: I was told by Comanche Business Committee Member Clyde Narcomey that as of Jan. 6, 2006, allocation for a per capita payment was approved, and that monies were transferred to the bank, in preparation for dispersement. Tribal members can expect our first 'casino' money in hand, any time soon. We'll see.]
Now the big story in West Virginia has gone where we knew it would: blame. The business, the Sago Mine, is being made out to be the culprit, yea, the murderer of the 12 miners. The mine has been "cited for hundreds of federal safety violations since it opened in 1999, government records show." Thus reports USAToday. The headlilne implicates the company, as well as the government--which knew of the violations, but had not shut down the mine.
But Bush already called for an investigation, so at least the White House is "clear." The federal government wants to be cleared, too. Even the media wants to be cleared of the egg on it's face for getting the story wrong about the miners, saying they were alive when they were dead.
AP collage of erroneous headlines.
The one under-rated fact in the story, however, is that mining is dangerous. Always has been, always will be. All miners know that. Sago was a dangerous place. They knew that. Mining is a hazardous profession. This creates the opportunity for intense blame when anything goes wrong. But it's almost like a volunteer soldier blaming the White House if he gets shot in battle.
People need jobs. People need money to live on. People work at what job they can find. A dangerous job, with good pay, who can refuse?
An unsafe mine? Is there a safe battlefield?
The blame is already coming in, heavily, on George Bush. "The Bush administration in Washington has been undercutting mine safety, says a Charleston Gazette editorial. Blogger Jordon Barab posted a lengthy malignment of the government yesterday. Scott Schields posts, "How Bush Failed the Sago 13." A Pittsburgh editorial says, "No More Sagos," and quotes totals of violations and fines imposed on Sago. "In 2005 the mine had 208 citations and $24,000 in fines from the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, a huge leap from the 68 citations and $9,515 in fines in 2004. The only encouragement is that ICG took over the mine from its previous owner in November, and there were fewer citations in the fourth quarter (46) than in the third (70)."
This isn't a new kind of story. Four years ago, the Quecreek mine in Pennsylvania saw an incident that almost ended the lives of miners. The story turned out to be what the government knew, and what the mine bosses knew. Why, it all could have been prevented.
But the real issue is necessity. Does a man have to take the mining job? Circumstancial pressure is enormous. But, legally, does he have to take the job? Mining, again, is dangerous. It is in flux, always. The more mining that is done in a mine, the more unstable it becomes, and the more need for renewed precautions. It is in a state of flux, continually. Violations? Steady, and especially depending on the nature of the individual mine. Mining is not a cut and dried business. Levels of danger are constant, from less to greater, usually greater.
There's a wonderful old black & white movie called The Miracle of the Bells (1948) with Fred MacMurry and Alida Vali. It's about a poor coal miner's daughter who became a actress, and at the point of success, came down with lung disease, and died. It's a heart-breaker, but the film, like many others, shows the nature of mining towns, and the hazards concomitant.
Alida Valli, the first "coal miner's daughter" in Hollywood.
The business cannot be made perfectly safe. Ever. That's why in the ancient days, mining was a form of punishment. In Justinian's Institutes IV. xviii. 1-2, we find that "condemnation to the mines" was one of four forms of capital punishement.
But today, mining can be a good paying job. A man willing to take the risk is conpensated. Yet, the way the story is told in today's liberalized media, the miner's risk is never to be a liability to him. It is the fault of someone else, a priori. And with the legal profession being what it is to day, there is institutionalized blame available to the miner. Add that to insurance companies, and we have quite a different picture than in the ancient Roman days. The miner is to be rewarded for mining. We've come a long way, baby--in every way except preventing danger in the profession of mining. Some things simply will never change. Mining is dangerous. So is firefighting, police work, soldiering, and just driving. Life is dangerous. Let's not demean the glory of living with the legalities of life and institutionalized cajoling. Let's not rob a man of his courage in attempts to protect from the very challenges that demand it. Mining is apparently necessary, and we can be grateful that men are willing to work the mines. They shold be treated well, indeed. But let's not make pansies out of them to suit some political theory.
Another media disaster. A cave-in/explosion in a West Virginia mine, a false story that 12 men were alive, when they were dead. The reporters wanted to report, and be the first to report, the exciting news that the men were alive, and that the rescue was going to be a success. The reporters did not varify the third-person hear-say story, but instead went immediately to the national news. CNN covered it.
Unidentified family members celebrate outside of the Sago
Baptist Church Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006 in Tallmansville, W. Va.
after hearing the report indicating the trapped miners are alive.
AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari
The the truth came out. After three hours of false joy, the tragedy was made unbearable when it was known that the men were dead. The CEO of the mining company took the fall, in a heroic fashion, rather than blame the media for anything. The people began blaming the media right away, as well as the CEO.
Unidentified family members leave Sago Baptist Church early Wednesday, Jan. 4,
2006 in Tallmansville, W. Va. after learning that 11 of the 12 coal miners who were
initially thought to have survived an explosion in a coal mine have died.
AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato
"We've been wronged!" the cry has gone up. "Grief, Anger," the CNN headlines read. "We had a miracle taken away!" (CNN, homepage, Wednesday, January 4, 2006). The churches went from blessing to cursing, from rejoicing to rage. CNN has really tried to keep out on the front edge of the story, as if it had no part in the false hope story.
The media is now making a story out of the story of the wrong story. In this way, the media covers itself from it's unspeakable irresponsibility. It must stay with the story of how the story was wrong. Now the story is about anger.
Ben Hatfield, Chief Executive Officer of mine owner
International Coal Group Inc., pauses after announc-
ing during a news conference in Tallmansville, W.Va.,
Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006, that the body of one unidenti-
fied miner has been recovered by rescue crews.
And the White House is already promising an investigation! (A preemptive defense of big business? Playing the investigation card, eh? Maybe the Republicans have learned something from the Dems after all.) That's the tradition now. Everyone investigates everyone. Someone did somebody wrong. There must be a hanging! There must be justice. Whoever accuses someone else first is innocent. No matter what happens, the template is the same. Till now it's been an exclusive liberal forumla: blame. It is a veritable scorched earth policy. Run the gamut, suspect all those involved. Look for the largest social entities, big business, politicians--
but never look for media. Never look for Communists. Never look for fraud in poverty pimps, anarchists behind save the earth movements, nor money behind negative news. Look for anger, in the guise of righteous indignation. Look for accusation, for the purpose of undermining the government, and all persons in power.
Miscommunication, indeed. Sounds like routine mass communication to me.
The media marvelled at the story of Farris Hassan, the American-born Iraqi teenager from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, who decided to make a bold and daring trip to Baghdad. The young man has been lauded for his courage, albeit reprimanded for his naivete. Yet, the media, which always loves the exitement of the story, rather than the truth about it, has completely avoided the most important matters of the story, and the most obvious concerns.
Farris Hassan, 16. A deceptive, manipulative liar? Good candidate for a newsman?
How did this underaged young man get his passport? Anyone who has ever travelled internationally knows how carefully these things are examined, or at least supposed to be. How did he stage this trip without his parents knowing? In fact, they knew he wanted to go. They just didn't believe he was going to do it, and made no effort to prevent him. It makes a better story to say, "Why, the kid ran off on an adventure without his parents knowing!" A lot of money was involved in the expenses of the trip. What kind of 'officials' allowed all this to happen? What kinds of stories did Farris tell them? Why did they believe him? The details of the story are revealing, yet no one seems concerned. No appropriate reprimand has been pronounced.
Shame on all. Shame on the stupidity of the media for not investigating the important details of the story. Shame on the "adults" who approved of Farris' trip at every step--and there were many steps. Shame on Farris' parents--who knew he was dying to go to Baghdad for some time, and had given him money. Shame on Farris and his parents for allowing this farse of a story to be paraded in the media, without telling the whole truth. Shame on the two high school friends who did not report immediately what they knew of Farris' plans.
This is a story of lies, really. Was Farris never questioned at the airports? Were his belongings never examined? Was there no thought that this whole trip was a wreckless endangerment? Are Arab people to never be suspected of anything? Ever? Do they own the travel business of the world now? Are all things subject to their whims and indulgences?
The way this story is being told is as a positive propaganda piece. Says the AP article:
But underneath that Mideast veneer was full-blooded American teen, a born-and-bred Floridian sporting white Nike tennis shoes and trendy jeans. And as soon as the lanky, 6-foot teenager opened his mouth -- he speaks no Arabic -- his true nationality would have betrayed him.
That's what the media story is all about. Making Iraqi Arabs into "Americans." Perfectly normal, perfectly assimilated, perfectly "belonging" to American society. Why, there's no Islamic problem in this story. No terrorism. No plot against America. Why, Hassan is a prefectly innocent young Iraqi-American. Why, born and bred right here. No religion, no politics. Just media. The kid wants to be a newsman. Therefore a wonderful news story he provided for the newsmen of the world. He has in fact revealed anew all that is ill in the media, the distortion, the bias, the irresponsibility, the carelessness, and the insult the media offers the public.
"He seemed unaware of the international stir he had caused," says an NBC6 report. "''He's very overwhelmed. I don't think he had any idea about all the media coverage,'' his mother said. Never were more false impressions ever created. Farris is a sharp kid, and knew exactly what would happen. That's why he did it.
Editor's Note: Please forgive the dysfunction of MoveableType software, which cannot accommodate letters from foreign alphabets. Also, the site address, badeagle@badeagle.com is dysfunctional. Please use badeagle1@yahoo.com in lieu of the BadEagle contact button. Thank you.
It is not to be found in main stream American press, but apparently New Year's celebrations in France involved the torching of 425 automobiles. Yet this stunning display did not meet the expecations of the police, according to L'Exress. What kind of headline is this?
Des CRS dimanche matin au pied de la Tour Eiffel, a Paris..
La nuit de la Saint-Sylvestre a ete marquee en France par 425 incendies de vehicules mais le regain de violences que les autorites redoutaient, moins d'un mois et demi apres la crise des banlieues, ne s'est pas produit. It wasn't as bad as they expected? Is that how the media plays down such riotous destruction?
It looks like we've been missing a lot of French news along these lines. The police were "out in force" during the 2003 year's end. Over 320 cars were burned then, according to a January 1, 2004 report. And even that report then said that it wasn't as bad as they expected!
In the Paris region alone, 128 cars went up in flames. Thirty-four cars were burned in Strasbourg and its suburbs, which authorities there said was considerably less than in past years. (January 1, 2004).
The report is careful not to mention any ethnicity involved, only that the violence occurred in poorer districts.
So what have we been missing here? Were the Muslims riots of October and November of 2005 something the young Muslims picked up from the French countryside? Is burning cars simply what you do in France? Did the Muslims simply anticipate the night of Saint-Sylvestre (New Year) by a couple of months? The Islamic New Year was February 10, 2005, and there were apparently no Muslim riots then. After all, the Islamic New Year is not a religious day, and there are no celebrations associated with it. In fact, the Islamic month in which it occurs (Muharram--"forbidden") is a time that war and fighting are actually forbidden. (Guess a lot of Muslims in Iraq have forgotten that little detail.)
But this Muslim 'anticipation' of the French New Year celebrations, with the burning of cars, was never described as something that was carried on every New Year. Car burning came out as a particularly Muslim menace, when it apparently was something the Muslim youth learned from French traditional new year's celebrations.
We've been cheated out of an important part of the story here. Even l'Humanite's top article, "2005 zone de turbulence" doesn't mention last nights normal New Year's riots, probably because the car burning thing is a social custom by now, like fireworks. The the article also does not mention the Muslim affair, not directly. In a typically French manner of philosophy, abstraction and distance, even to the point of the poetic, the article describes all the chaos in some delicious 'salade agitee' and accents the flavor with a spice of criticism for the conservatives, quoting, "L'extreme droite parle de 'guerre ethnico-religieuse'." Not one use of the word "Muslim," or "Islam."