Thursday, October 11, 2007

Does anybody know how many students and alumni of St. John's University were affected by the events of 9/11?

I would assume, being that St. John's three campuses are in Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island, that the number must be significant.

Therefore, what can be almost understood in a California college, makes me shudder when it happens in New York.

I'm simply aghast at the idea that St. John's University has determined - in what one can only think to be a bad joke - that a major grant is to be given to explore historic and contemporary notions of the houri, the female companion awarded to a Muslim male upon his entry into paradise, according to Islamic tradition.

That's right. In the shadow of the Twin Towers, students will be learning about their friend's and families murderers and their so-called 72 virgins.

I kid you not.

Regardless of what President Bush confesses, Islam is NOT a "religion of peace." Is it peaceful to hijack airplanes and ram them into skyscrapers? Is it peaceful to slice peoples heads off and drag their bloody carcases around town? Is it peaceful to bring thousands of people to the town square to shout "Death to America", or "Death to Israel?" Is it peaceful to target innocent children while learning in school?

What exactly is peaceful about the "religion of peace?"

I have supported this administration and the war it has waged because I believe it is better to kill them before they kill me. I know, based on words and deeds, that the intention of modern-day (and older-day, as well) Islam is for the destruction of the Jewish people and of all things modern. Anyone who can still sit there and believe that if we just give in to the demands of the Islamists - I no longer will refer to them as Islamofacists because it ridicules their real danger - is clearly demented, or has been living under a rock.

We live in a time of great danger. Unfortunately, too many Americans have fallen for the sweet talk of "Clinton years." Even today, Hillary Clinton urges voters to remember the "good times" we had when Bill was in charge.

Well, even the good times come with a price tag, my friends. For eight years, we sat around and blamed all our troubles on Rush Limbaugh or Kenneth Starr. The first World Trade Center attack was "police matter". Remember? The bombing of our embassies and the the attack on the U.S.S. Cole was just an individual episode. No need to worry, my fellow Americans, the world is good.

But big, bad George Bush stole the election from poor, defenseless Al Gore, and then LOOK what happened!!! The big meany made such a fuss that we were at "war" and that if you are "with us" you are our friend, but if you are "against us" you were our enemy.

No, Bill Clinton and his people played nice. She nice Madeline Albright shaking hands with that guy from North Korea? See that nice Mr. Berger shoving stolen documents into his pants? I'm sure they weren't very important. Certainly not as important as that mean George Bush outing a CIA agent who wasn't covert and was someone everyone knew. No, that was the story.

And now, after all this time, even Mr. Bush has become confused. Who can blame him? I mean, here we are - in 2007 - and two well-respected professors in Chicago are the toast of the town because they wrote a sequel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In fact, Academia in general has become nothing more than a sewage of anti-Semitism, defeatism and self-destruction.

But to grant money to study the issue of 72 virgins that a suicide bomber gets in Paradise? That's beyond sick.


You know, it doesn't bother me in the least that Barack Obama doesn't wear an American flag on his lapel. I don't either.

But his answer as to why he doesn't bothers me a great deal. When approached about it, here is what he said:

"The truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," the Senator admitted. But "that became a substitute for . . . true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security." And so, he declared, "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

My first reaction was, "what a load of crap." But then I considered the comments further and I wondered...

Is Senator Obama insinuating that those who do wear an American flag do not have true patriotism?

Of course not. However, by showing nuance to the simple question, instead of just saying he doesn't think a pin makes him a patriot, he fell into somewhat of a John Kerry-esqe mode of obfuscating the truth. Now, because of his answer, he will have to answer his critics and the media as well over a silly issue that would have played no difference to his campaign. instead, it leads to a bigger question of his legitimacy as a candidate.


Yes, my Dallas Cowboys are very lucky to have faced such a horrible opponent as the Buffalo Bills Monday night. You can say what you will about them, but keep in mind that they won the game. In years past (certainly since 1996), these were the kind of games they would easily lose.

Yes, Romo was shell-shocked and threw poorly. But the defense was outstanding - no only holding the Bills' offense to just 3 points, but having to stop numerous drives that started in Cowboy territory due to Cowboy turnovers.

But then again, it was the Buffalo Bills. One thing I have noticed over the many years I've followed the Cowboys - every team that plays them comes with their "A" game. Because of their obscene popularity, opponents chomp at the bit to dethrone "America's Team". I'm not just talking about the division rivals either. Look at Buffalo, for example. Those fans (and players) didn't just want to win, they wanted to "beat the Cowboys".

Another thing came to mind while watching ESPN the other day...

When I was a kid, there wasn't a 24-hour-a-day sports network, and certainly no 24-hour-a-day NFL network. When it came to coverage of the team, you relied on the three locals (ABC, NBC and CBS), or the local newspapers.

Now, with all the media coverage on TV, radio and the Internet, football is everywhere. I can only imagine how the teams back in the 70's with Roger Staubach, Fran Tarkenton, Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris and the rest of them would have been portrayed. I mean, these were back in the days before parity.

This week, the Cowboys are hosting the also unbeaten New England Patriots in what is being called the game of the year. But back then, there were the same 6-8 teams always in the hunt for the championship. Back then, we had dynasties. For instance, every year - from 1970 to 1979 - every NFC championship featured either the Cowboys, the Minnesota Vikings or the (then) Los Angeles Rams. And in the AFC, it was either Oakland, Pittsburgh, Miami, Denver or Baltimore.

Imagine how all of those teams would have been covered in these days of ESPN.

No comments: