49ers Mascot: Is he Gay?

The San Francisco 49ers mascot, Sourdough Sam (that is right fucking Sourdough), has been with the team since the late 1990s. Besides being a left-wing nut (favorite actor is Robin Williams), his appearence leaves a lot to be desired. Let's face it, Sam is about two spritzers away from heading down to the your local gay bar and finding himself a young buck. Not only that, but his nicknames are Sammy, Samster, Sammiester, and Samarama. What the fuck? How can a mascot strike fear into the hearts of an opposing team with names like that. I know I for one would be fearful of the Samster.

I officially place all the blame on the horrible seasons the 49ers have had on this gay mascot. His gayness has rubbed off on the 49ers and he must go!

Overheard in DC

Museum of Natural History information desk:

Two women: "Where here can we find the baby Panda?"
Information Clerk: "You have to go to the zoo to see the pandas. This is the Museum of Natural History."
Two women: "Oh? The zoo?"

Democrat Opposition to a black page in the Senate

Back in 1965, after the civil rights bills of 64 and 65, New York Republican Senator Jacob K. Javits requested that a New York kid become the first black to be a Senate page. Democratic Southern Senators were outraged by this plan, but Republican minority leader Everett Dirksen quietly informed them that if they denied the black youth the job, Javits would make a floor speech about the situation. The kid was quietly approved and the Senate's age-old color line was finally broken.

South Park and Muhammed

On July 4, 2001, Comedy Central did air a South Park show which despicted Muhammed.

South Park Censored?

Short note on the lastest South Park show. Yes, Comedy Central did censored it. After watching the re-air I thought it a nice touch to censor Mohammed; yet, show Jesus pooping on Bush, the American Flag, and a bunch of other people. I can deal with the pooping Jesus, but if that is ok then it is all ok. What is the deal with the one religion bad the other ok stuff? I understand the issue with the cartoons, but if you are going to censor that, then censor the other as well. Sure depictions of Jesus and depictions of Mohammed are not the same because of the intrinsic belief. However, I'd say pooping Jesus is a bit contrary to Christianity.

Update: It's clearly censorship, but it's not government censorship. Comedy Central is within their rights to show or not show whatever they wish, and others have the right to criticize their judgement. No one's accusing Comedy Central of violating anyone's rights, just have having poor judgement.

In this case, and assuming that CC did in fact censor the episode, CC has allowed a depiction of Jesus literally being defecated on, but an image of Mohammed just standing there was unacceptable. The obvious conclusion is that their censorship was not motivated by some highminded desire to avoid offending people, but was instead coerced by a fear of violent consequences from offending Muslims.

Does the fact that violence is being rewarded strike you as a problem? It does to me.

Fuck Allah!

The hijackers ... jerked the plane violently to the left and right during the struggle. They tried to cut off the oxygen as passengers banged on the cockpit door. In the end, as the passengers were either in the cockpit or moments from entering it, the hijackers turned the plane upside down -- and crashed it.

"Allah is the greatest!" one screamed nine times as the plane went down. The recording then went dead.

No one, no matter how hard they try, will convince me to accept that most Muslims aren't anything more than thugs and monsters. They are all to blame because indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil. Each, in their own way, gave into a culture of terrorist menality.

There is a useful quote about indifference that I would like to use: "When they came for the socialists I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. When they came for the homosexuals I did not speak out because I was not a homosexual. When they came for the Jews I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. When they came for me there was no one left to speak for me." This sums up a society that allows horrible teachings and actions to go on without good people lifting a finger to prevent them. In truth, they are not good people because indifference to pain and suffering turns them into something else.

Terrorism must be outlawed by all cililized nations -- not explained or rationalized, but fought and eradicated. Nothing can, nothing will justify the murder of innocent people and helpless children.

I will end by noting that everyday I remember 9/11, I will always remember the victims, even as I struggle to invent a thousand and one reasons to hope that the world will someday be without terrorism.

Some Songs to celebrate Passover

Who let the Jews out?

Jib Jab Matzah Video

Matzo Man

Another Reason Why McCain will not be Presidnet and is an a-s

[Speaking to the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, McCain took] questions, including a pointed one on his immigration plan.

McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.

Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain's job offer.

"I'll take it!" one man shouted.

McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."

How can this assertion of his possibly be right? Fifty dollars an hour is $100,000 per year. I suspect the lettuce-picking season is shorter than a year, but it's still $50,000 per six months, assuming a 40 hour/week pace. It's possible that no-one in that particular crowd would think this is a good deal; among other things, they already had jobs that likely pay pretty well, and perhaps most of them were older and not terribly fit (McCain saw the crowd and I didn't). But surely there must be some substantial number of current American citizens who would be quite willing to engage even in highly strenuous physical labor for an annualized wage of $100,000 per year, no? Even if 99% of all Americans would be unwilling or unable to do the job, the remaining 1% should be plenty to fill those hypothetical jobs.

Now perhaps Sen. McCain should have just chosen a lower number; maybe his claim would have been plausible at that number, though I'm not sure. But it seems odd that he would choose a number that is so clearly out of place for his argument — that he would seemingly deliberately engage in such pretty patent overstatement.

Update: The "jobs Americans won't do" meme is shocking in many ways. It's false, bad economics, and (I think) racist. What's even more surprising is the way the use of the term breaks through party lines. You have Bush, McCain, and Moran throwing it around, while you have others arguing fiercely against it and the ideas that underlie it. There's something different going on here than normal party politics. I hope it shakes the parties up and realigns them to some extent.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to hire these upstanding young men and women

Future Voters...Maybe, but lots of future criminals and people who will drive down wages.

Best Biking Trail in DC

The Capital Cresent Trail is a great place to go walk, jog, run, or bike. Peaceful place with nice views of the water and right in the middle of a wonderful wooded area.

F.Y.I.

I have been hearing and, yes, reading about the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) during discussions about boarder security and illegal immigrates. I want to point out that there is no INS! It was reorganized by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and is currently called the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE).

The best 1st Round Picks in 49er history

1. WR Jerry Rice, 1985: The 49ers traded up to get him after winning Super Bowl XIX the season before, and he became the greatest receiver in history while extending the 49ers dynasty until the end of the 1990s. Never have the Niners gotten more value for their placement in the first round of the draft, where they were able to pluck Rice with the No. 16 overall pick.

2. DT Leo Nomellini, 1950: The very first draft choice in the team’s NFL history, “The Lion” became a 10-time Pro Bowler who now resides in the Hall of Fame as one of the greatest 49ers ever.

3. DB Ronnie Lott, 1981: Perhaps the greatest safety ever to play the game, the nine-time Pro Bowler starred at three secondary positions for the 49ers on his way to the Hall of Fame.

4. HB Hugh McElhenny, 1952: The five-time Pro Bowler earned a place in the Hall of Fame after establishing himself as one of the greatest multiple threats of his era.

5. CB Jimmy Johnson, 1961: The five-time Pro Bowler was one of greatest cornerbacks of his era and also made it to the Hall of Fame. Is second to Lott among 49ers' career interception leaders, and was second on team in receiving in 1962 before locking in as a full-time corner.

6. QB John Brodie, 1957: 1970 NFL MVP led the 49ers to three consecutive NFC West championships and ranks second in team history with 31,548 passing yards.

7. QB Y.A. Tittle, 1951: Went to three Pro Bowls with the 49ers before completing a Hall of Fame career with the New York Giants.

8. RB Ken Willard, 1965: Four-time Pro Bowler led 49ers in rushing seven consecutive seasons and ranks third in team history with 5,930 yards and 45 touchdowns rushing.

9. DT Bryant Young, 1994: Four-time All-Pro still going strong with team after 12 seasons as one of greatest defensive tackles of his era.

10. DE Cedrick Hardman, 1970: Two-time Pro Bowler is team’s all-time leader with 112.5 quarterback sacks.

11. C Forrest Blue, 1968: Made it to Pro Bowl in four consecutive seasons, starting for the NFC in three of them.

12. DT Dana Stubblefield, 1993: Three-time Pro Bowler was NFL defensive player of the year in 1997 and had a second effective stint with team in the twilight of his career.

Gospel of Judas and its implication for Christianity

The Judas Gospel has been reported as if it should be shocking to believe for Christians. Yet Chrisitans, and Catholics in particular, should be well aware that the early history of the Church consisted in large part of refuting and expelling heretics of one stripe or another and, in turn, developing doctrine more fully and precisely in response to these attacks. Most of Christology was developed in response to the Arian heresy (a belief that Jesus was lesser than G-d). Much of the free will doctrine was developed in response to the Pelagians (original sin for non-Catholics).

I think this story may be a bigger problem for Protestants than Catholics. Catholics believe that the Bible has authority and is what the Church says it is because the Church posesses teaching authority and is endowed with inerrancy (belief that the Bible is without error) when speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. So when the Church says Tom has two natures in one person, or that there is a Trinity, or that the Gospel of Thomas is heretical while the Gospel of Mark is not, Catholics can (and must) believe it. Catholics need to believe in errancy because the fountain of their faith is Christ and they believe he left the Church as his voice on earth.

But what of Protestants and the Gospel of Judas. How can they believe the Counsel of Nicea and the other early counsels that defined doctrine (including the doctrine of which texts are inspired or not)? The Bible did not come down from heaven, ready-made, and in codified form. Numerous texts floated around the early Christian Church. They were only fully codified some 300 years later, where numerous gnostic texts in particular were expelled. It's true the Gnostics thought they were Christians, but the Church said they weren't after an ecumenical (general) council (meeting of bishops). I'll explain what I mean this way -- my girlfriend believes in the Bible because she believes in the Church, therefore she must believe that excommunication was meaningful as well (as a result the Judas revelation has no impact on her religion because the Gospel was expelled centuries ago).

The real question remains: what of Protestants who have no theological basis for believing as Catholics do? Who tells them what to do about the Judas Gospel (I am not saying Catholics are told, more to the point that they take a leap of faith that many do not)? In the end, it seems, they must decide for themselves.

Jews for Alla?

This has got to be a joke website. Pretty funny before and after pictures on it.

Pope Bendict and "reciprocity"

Pope Benidict XVI has recently taken a harder line stand against Muslims than his predecessor John Paul II. Benidict feels there is an "imbalance" in the way Muslim countries treat minority religions as opposed to the way Western countries treat Muslims. The new Pope wants equal treatment of Christians in Muslim countries where they can practice freely without the heavy hand of an abusive state. Here is the article laying out the "reciprocity" policy:

There is, however, one intriguing area of contrast: Islam. To put it bluntly, Benedict is more of a hawk, pursuing a kind of interaction with Muslims one might call "tough love."

The new climate has in part been driven by widely publicized incidents of anti-Christian backlash in the Islamic world, most dramatically the Feb. 5 slaying of Italian missionary Fr. Andrea Santoro in Trabzon, Turkey, a small hamlet on the country's Black Sea coast. A 16-year-old Turk entered St. Mary's Church in Trabzon and pumped two bullets into Santoro's lungs and heart, shouting Allah akbar, "Allah is great." He later said he had been agitated by the controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons.

Though the teenager's father told reporters his son is psychologically disturbed, most senior figures in the Vatican, where the Santoro murder made a deep impression, saw it as part of a rising tide of anti-Christian sentiment in fundamentalist Islamic circles. That impression was underscored by the recent death sentence for Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert from Islam in Afghanistan.

In his March 23 session with cardinals, much conversation turned on Islam, and there was general agreement with Benedict's policy of a more muscular challenge on what Catholics call "reciprocity." In essence, it means that if Muslim immigrants can claim the benefit of religious liberty in the West, then Christian minorities ought to get the same treatment in majority Muslim nations.

To take the most notorious example, if the Saudis can spend $65 million to build the largest mosque in Europe in Rome, in the shadows of the Vatican, then Christians ought to be able to build churches in Saudi Arabia. Or, if that's not possible, Christians should at least be able to import Bibles, and the Capuchin priests who serve the Arabian peninsula ought to be able to set foot off the oil industry compounds or embassy grounds in Saudi Arabia without fear of harassment by the mutawa, the religious police. The bishop in charge of the Catholic church in that part of the world recently described the situation in Saudi Arabia as "reminiscent of the catacombs."

It's the kind of imbalance that has long stuck in the craw of many senior figures in the Catholic Church, but these complaints were largely suppressed in the John Paul years as part of the pope's Islamic Ostpolitik. John Paul, who met with Muslims more than 60 times over the course of his papacy, and who during a 2001 trip to Damascus became the first pope to enter a mosque, believed in reaching out to Islamic moderates and avoiding confrontational talk.

Benedict XVI clearly wants good relations with Islam, and chose to meet with a group of Muslim leaders during his August trip to Cologne, Germany. Yet he will not purse that relationship at the expense of what he considers to be the truth.

No doubt, Benedict intends this tougher line as a stimulus to Islamic leaders to take seriously the challenge of expressing their faith in a multi-cultural, pluralistic world. Whether it's received that way, or whether it simply reinforces the conviction of many jihadists about an eternal struggle with the Christian West, remains to be seen.

I certainly agree that Christians ought to be allowed to worship freely in Islamic countries, but I can't buy Benedict's notion of "reciprocity." This idea seems to suggest that the religious freedom extended to Muslims in the west ought somehow to be contingent on the behavior of the governments of Muslim countries towards their religious minorities.

This is a dangerous and irrational idea. We are not negotiating trade deals here. We are talking about rights based on principles of individual liberty that we consider part of a just society. Religious freedom is not a concession in a negotiation, as Benedict would have it. It is something we value in our society for its own sake. To imply - as Benedict seems to - that if the Saudis, for example, do not grant religious freedom to Christians we should restrict the freedom of Muslims is to miss this criticial point.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, I think the Pope's notion of reciprocity is an attempt to secure religious freedom for Catholics in Muslim lands. The Church seeks to preserve freedom of religion as a politcal right so that it may go about its mission and that its members may practice the faith. I do not disagree with this end, but I just don't agree with the fundamental implications for such a policy. What do you do when Muslims tell the Pope to shove it? He cannot very well ask them to not practice their religion in Western countries.

Could one compare Islam to Communism?

I would say, "yes." The only thing Islam lacks is a Stalin, other than that it is an equal opportunity murderer. One edge it has over Communism is it's longevity, give them time, as if they haven't had plenty, and the comparisons will continue to blur. It's interesting that many Soviet citizens held Stalin blameless for their situation as many Muslims remain yoked and faithful to a religion that subjugates all to doctrine.

Braves Notes

Blaine Boyer was sent down to Richmond and Joey Devine was called up. Boyer clearly wasn't ready after his injury and Devine was great in Spring Training. There's a good chance Devine will be the closer at the end of the season.

Alan Dershowitz's response to the "Jewish Lobby" Paper

Much has been written about the Stephen Walk and John Mearsheimer "Lobby" paper. To summarize, it depicts old sterotypes of Jews often seen on hateful websites. Alan Dershowitz debunks the Walk and Mearsheimer paper and offers a challenge to them. I ask anyone who enjoys the entertainment value of my blog to please read the "Lobby" paper and Dershowitz's response.

Danish Moslem: Arise and Protest

This is a great article by Ibrahim Ramadan who writes about the negative impact of some Muslim leaders on the Muslim religion. Although great to see, this gentleman may be the only voice of moderation that will speak out against the hateful leaders who run his religion (into the ground I will add).

My religion is threatened in this country.

Not because I am a part of a Moslem minority in a Christian country. Not for lack of Mosques. And not by the Danish People’s Party and their stereotypical depiction of Moslems.

My religion is threatened by people who claim to belong to the same faith as I do. Threatened by organisations such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and by people such as Ahmed Akkari, Abu Laban and Raed Hlayhel who all claim to work to spread the word of God. In reality, they’re working towards another goal entirely - to control what other Moslems should believe, think and do.

Some Moslems in Denmark have accepted the Danish Imams’ words and take strong exception to Naser Khader. They think he has sold out the Arab cultural heritage and that he’s shed Moslem values to become accepted by the Danes.

But what few Moslems in Denmark understand is that Naser Khader more than any other works to ensure that we qua Moslems are seen as assets and aren’t looked down upon as a problem in Denmark.

Is it really so heretical when Naser Khader dares say that to achieve that, we Moslems must embrace Democracy and Freedom of Speech and that it must mean that we reconsider some things in our cultural and religious background.

Lately this had some inhuman consequences for Naser Khader and his family. Some fanatical fellow Moslems have tried to threaten him into silence because they would rather not have other Moslems critically analyze the context in which our religion is seen.

But it’s time that we - the great silent majority of Moderate Moslems in Denmark - let our voice be heard and take our watch as champions of Democracy. We can’t let Naser Khader carry that burden by himself.

Because what we are witnessing at this moment in Denmark, of all things resembles most an inquisition, one which doesn’t leave out much from the horrors the unorthodox thinkers of the Christian world had to go through during the Middle Ages. In the year 2006, Moslems who don’t approve of authoritarian Islam are condemned as heretics with no right to call themselves Moslems.

Many of those who like Naser Khader champion the idea of integration of Islam and Moslems are marked by co-religionists as bad Moslems. But how did we freethinking Moslems allow this to happen?

“Read!”, was the first word of God which was revealed to the prophet Muhammed in the 7th century. But what we as Moslems do in the 21st century is the direct opposite.

Instead we turn off our brains and let ourselves be dictated to by people who call themselves religious scholars and who claim that only their interpretation of Islam is the right one.

What they omit to say out loud is that they have another agenda: to transform our religion into a political movement. The French documentary about the Danish Imams proved to be a frightening example of that.

As Moslems in Denmark we have a unique opportunity which isn’t given to our Brothers and Sisters in most of the Islamic world. We have every opportunity to get an education. For free. We’re even being paid to educate ourselves.

There is therefore no excuse in Denmark for not using the opportunities we have to seek knowledge. Here we are allowed critical questions and here we have a constitutionally secured right to speak our mind.

If we don’t use that opportunity - well, we’ll be doing the opposite of what god dictated to us. And that makes our future prospects frightening.

Not only will that entail that we as Moslems close in around ourselves, isolate ourselves from the society in which we live and passively let ourselves be led in chains back to the Dark Ages. It will also entail that we increasingle will be hated because of the words and actions which are practiced in the name of Islam without protests from us.

Naser Khader has long been a single lighthouse, leading the way in the dark, while many of us who either came by ourselves or are descendants of those who came here looking for a better life for too long have acted as if Democracy and Freedom are a matter of course which places no demands on our persons.

But its time for us Moslems to choose sides. Do we want to live in this country with all that that entails of Freedoms, opportunities and Rights - or do we really want that the intolerance, the dictatorship and the limitation of the personal freedom which we have left must also be part of our lives in the country we’ve come to?

If the latter is the case, we must take the consequence and go home the the poor neighborhoods, the refugee camps or the persecution which most of us left but which many - of both the first and the second generation - apparently have a tendency to remember in a softer light.

But if the former is the case, if we as Moslems really want this country and its principles, we’ll have to wholeheartedly and unambigously say, in a way which will leave noone in doubt, that those who speak for intolerance and fundamentalism have only a small following among Moslems in Denmark.

I clearly remember my time at the University of Cairo in the 1980s. Then there was also a small group of Islamists who tried to terrorise all of us who had an ordinary, relaxed attitude to the religion. Islamists crashed parties, destroying everything because there was music and dancing. Young men and women who were seen holding hands were beaten, humiliated and portrayed as amoral. And those who who dared criticise the actions of the Islamist students were beaten brutally.

At the end of the 80s and the start of the 90s, the Islamists took to more drastic measures. Primitive nail-bombs in the metro, in cafés and outside schools in Cairo.

Innocent children, women and men were were killed and mutilated. They were almost all of them Moslems. But for the Islamists, the goal sanctified the means and the killing of innocents was the price to pay to overthrow the ‘infidel’ governments of the Middle East in favor of the ‘true’ Islamic state.

In the years following, the Islamists’ fight was escalated to a head-on confrontation with the intellectuals who dared speak out against them. The chairman of the Egyptian parliament was mowed down with a machine gun. He had worked dilligently to modernise the Egyptian divorce laws, which had till then been run by the Sharia principle.

The aging Egyptian nobel prize winner of literature, Nagib Mafouz, was stabbed in the street. He had dared speak against fundamentalism in his hard-hitting columns.

The writer Faraq Fouda was shot dead outside his office. In books and in a debate programme he had dared suggest seperating church and state in Egypt.

The argument the Islamists made in all three cases was that they were apostates or bad Moslems who deserved death for their heretical thoughts.

We, the majority, who opposed the Islamists strongly, chose to stay silent. We bowed our heads and went about our lives out of fear of suffering the same fate. But we were many who had clouded consciences because we didn’t speak up in time.

While the Islamists were spewing hate, violence, fear and chaos, their organisations ran and organised a number of charities, free clinics, feeding the poor, school projects in blighted neighbourhoods and more. Projects which helped where the government failed and created an enormous amount of goodwill among the poorest and least educated.

But Islamism always has two faces - a mild and caring one which claims to be the protector of the poor and the true guardian of Islam and another, which in ideological phrases open to interpretation preach hate and violence, murder for the infidels and the overthrow of existing society.

That is why it is uncanny to see that the same methods employed by the Islamists in the Middle East in the 1980s and which were used to spread terror in the United States, in Madrid and in London are also being used by Imams here in Denmark.

They’re speaking with forked tongues - on one hand, the impression is conveyed that all they want to do is help those who can’t help themselves. On the other, thunderous hate speeches and calls for defending the Prophet, Islam and the Moslems in terms that by the wrong kind of people can easily be seen as a call for Holy War and killings, securing the high status of Martyr.

But the most uncanny thing is that the same unwillingness to stand up and protest this abuse of the religion which I saw in the Egypt of my youth, is predominant among the majority of Moslems in Denmark today.

The Imams who went to the Middle East with the single purpose of arousing the wrath of the Islamic World under cover of defending the Prophet have too long been allowed to be seen as representing the Moslem majority and portray all who disagree with them as deviants.

Naser Khader and the people who’ve supported his union of Democratic Moslems are generally spoken of by these Imams and their supporters as bad Moslems, as rats, as apostates, even atheists who one should warn one’s children, friends and co-religionists against associating with.

To be an apostate is one of the worst things to be in Islam. Something which is comparable to a brand, which gives every true Moslem the right to murder the apostate. So accusing the protesting moderate Moslems of being apostates is a method which makes most keep their protests low profile.

Several members of Democratic Moslems have received death threats, have been spit upon by Moslem ‘brothers’ and have been threatened to be excluded from their Moslem communities if they don’t distance themselves from Naser Khader and the cause he champions. And in the long run, the most dangerous thing about the Muhammed crisis is the consequences it will have for how we as Moslems associate with each other and our fellow Danish citizens in the future.

It’s hard to explain to people who haven’t lived in the Middle East how liberating it is to live in a country such as Denmark. A country where you’re free to say whatever you like, read whatever you like, act however you like, believe whatever you like and join any organisation or party with no repercussions for your life, career or family. But some seem to want to deny us Moslems that right and therefore we must now stand together and denounce these Men of Darkness.

The vast majority of us, the almost 200,000 Moslems in Denmark, have a relaxed and moderate attitude to our religion. Most of us have been passively observing during the Muhammed crisis, many have - rightly so - felt offended by the cartoons’ defamation of the Prophet. But few have realised that it isn’t the caricatures but those who have wielded them as a lever who threaten our religion.

It time for us to choose our sides. Will we as Moslems silently keep accepting that a herd of power-hungry people have taken Islam and the World as fearsome hostages? Or do we want to take back our religion and our right to practice it and live in peace and harmony with the surrounding world?

Our Prophet is not diminished by a handful of caricatures. But we are diminished and crippled as human beings by the hate the fanatics have tried to instill into us as a consequence of the cartoons.

The tone of the immigration debate may be hard and degrading. But have we ourselves done enough to abolish the stereotypical image of Islam as a religion of hate and the image of Moslems as people who have no wish to integrate into and much less accept the West which is persecuting us?

To become accepted and integrated in this country first and foremost demands that we as Moslems must stop pretending we are victims. Though we may be the victims of prejudices, they are prejudices which some Moslems by their behaviour have helped create and they are prejudices which all the rest of us with our passivity and lack of protests have helped keep alive.

The image of Moslems we thus help solidify is far worse than anything the Danish People’s Party have ever said.

To do well in Denmark has as a precondition that the rules of the land are supported - to educate yourself and play an active role in the community and the debate and to not only take from, but also give something back to society.

And to do that, you can’t just watch from the sidelines when someone tries to reintroduce the abrogation of our personal freedom and our freedom of speech which I think all of us left behind with a sigh of relief in the countries we once considered home.

There’s only one solution for us Moslems — use the first words that were revealed by God to the Prophet: Read! Study, be critical and take exception to those who abuse Islam.

And get out of your couch, participate actively in the Democracy because it’s not something that is just given to you along with your Danish passport. Support Naser Khader as the man who is guarantor of us and our children living as an accepted and appreciated part of this country in the future. Help make sure that our children in the future with pride in their voices can say that they are Moslems.

As Moslems we have to loudly insist that religion for us is also a personal matter between ourselves and our God. It’s not the job of any earthly being to go around with a ruler, measuring who are bad and who are good Moslems.

That measurement only God can make on the day of judgement, where all of us will answer for our deeds.

Do one brave thing today ... then run like h-ll!!!

Cool Picture

Ok, tried to weigh myself today and look what the scale said!

Don't have much to say about TO except ...

America ... Fuck Yeah!!!