Things are improving, slowly
In his own words, Hashim Kadhim shows us his life today whilst making a few discrete comparisons to life under Saddam. He is not of the elite class nor is he a raving Saddamite Ba’athist, just a simple man trying to make a life for his family.
The undertone of his comments shows what is probably true for a great many Iraqis, today, but the mass media never really get around to admitting it at all. This story should have been sharing space on the front page, shoving aside a lot of that slanted drivel they try to cram down our gullets.
Comments are off for this postMetrosexual = sissy?
A metrosexual is a straight man that acts like a gay man. It basically means that a guy is into sissy crap like facials, tanning and hair care products.
Posted by exile at October 30, 2003 11:56 AM
This comes from the comments section of Eye on the Left.
My response:
Um…er I took this quiz and I am metrosexual. I am not a bloody sissy mate, say that again and I will have one of my female friends kick your arse.
Metrosexuals are men who know how to dress, take care in their appearance and don’t like sports. Its a silly expression, but when idiots think any bloke who doesn’t like sports, can dance and dress themselves is a fag: you need it.
The implication of much of the writing I see criticising the term is that it’s not “normal’ for me to behave this way; i.e., anyone who’s acting this way is either a repressed homosexual or putting it on to seem more “caring & sharing”. Granted, there are probably men who are in these catagories, but that does not mean all metrosexuals are posing. Another critic claimed “A metrosexual is basically a narcissist”. Why? This particular statement befuddles me. Perhaps all who misuse the term to condemn others should look to themselves and ask “Why am I such a lout?”.
Update:

Picture by Jackie
Update: Dean has waded into the debate and declared me in denial. Quite about what I am in denial about I am not sure. In addition, Michele reports that Kin Du Toit is raising blogger hackles over what it means “to be a man.” Kim makes some valid points, but he hides them in a thick vaneer of machismo, swearing and downright idiocy. I mean, he praises The Man Show, one of the lamest things on TV. He lays into Queer Eye for a Straight Guy as well, obviously totally missing that its suppose to be funny!
Update II: Alex takes on this prickly issue on his blog. As always, its a good read. Stryker has written a response to Kim’s bleat as well. James has a neat round-up of those who have been unimpressed with Kim’s post.
22 commentsPledge of Allegiance socialist indoctrination?
“It’s probably too much to ask politicians to reflect a little before they lunge for a political hot-button issue. But any conservatives so inclined should think about what they’re defending. What’s so conservative about the Pledge? Very little, as it turns out. From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as ‘Jesus the Socialist.’” (11/04/03)
Via: Rational Review
Radley has created a firestorm with his thoughts on this. I happen to agree with his thoughts and the quote he uses.
Jay post his thoughts on the Pledge.
Comments are off for this postAnti-Bush driver charged
“A woman who rammed her car into an arena where President Bush had
just given a speech was charged with aggravated assault on a police officer, authorities said Sunday. Chief David Mitchell, spokesman for the DeSoto County sheriff’s department, said Betina Mixon was being held in the DeSoto County jail without bond and would be arraigned Monday or Tuesday.” (11/02/03)
Hopefully she gets done for endangerment of children as well. They were in the car when she rammed into the building. Guess holding a sign in protest is just too tough for her. Still, she is probably a martyr to the extreme-left Bush haters.
Via: Rational Review
Comments are off for this postThe government is not your cat’s friend either.
“A cat has been told by German authorities to pay for a licence to watch television. The moggy, called Maxi, was sent a letter by the German Broadcasting Licence Centre (GEZ) demanding he pays for the registration of a TV set and a radio. Pet owner Klaus Goerisch, from Freital, Saxony, said: ‘My cat Maxi loves animal films, but I am not paying for him to watch telly.’ GEZ spokesman Christian Kramer said about 13 million letters are being sent to German households every year, reminding people to pay for their licences and sometimes addresses get mixed up.” (11/02/03)
Via: Rational Review
Comments are off for this postDem Jews again…this time they knew about 9/11 and let it happen.
Is this type of rubbish piece written by a far-left blogger or on Indymedia? Alas, no, it’s published in a Scottish Sunday newspaper. It’s worth reading the whole thing to understand how bad this article really is in the end.
But did Israel know in advance that the Twin Towers would be hit and the world plunged into a war without end; a war which would give Israel the power to strike its enemies almost without limit?
Did Neil Mackay ever ponder to think that Israel is striking at their enemies because their enemies struck first? Killing and maiming civilians with car bombs and suicide bombers is probably not an act of war to this arsehat.
Via: Damian
Comments are off for this postHow Guardianista political correctness wrecks the life chances of black kids
A report in today’s Telegraph reminds us that kids who receive fewer inquiries and who, therefore, stand a lower chance of being adopted include: “Afro-Caribbean children, boys over the age of three and groups of brothers and sisters who need to stay together”. Of the three groups, the middle one has to do with perceptions about not being able to shape a boy’s personality (particularly if he has been traumatised) and the latter has to do with capacity (i.e. many adopters are simply don’t have the room or ability to take in more than one child).
But the attitudes of Guardianista social workers are to blame for the appalling situation where black kids are left in care. It’s not because adopters are racist – it’s because social workers believe that kids from ethnic minority backgrounds should be looked after by adoptive parents of the same ethnic backgrounds. Many black people live in disadvantaged areas and it is kids from disadvantaged areas who are more likely to end up in care than those from, say, the leafy suburbs.
Adopters want to give a child a home; but in many cases they also want the opportunity to become a parent. The Government should legislate against ‘racial / ethnic matching’ in adoption – and give black kids the chance they deserve.
1 comment










