That dude HAS to be high.

Sent to you by Byron via Google Reader:

Fjordman, On Sweden
via Daily Pundit by Lastango on May 02, 2007

His new article is notable for its assessment of Swedish totalitarianism.

Fjordman’s discussion also includes this striking declaration of Sweden’s national death-wish:

Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affairs, Integration and Gender Equality from the Social Democratic Party said during a debate in Swedish radio in 2004 that “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

That’s why I consider Sweden to be an already-vanished, already-destroyed nation. The Sweden we see today is a standing ruin, inhabited by the walking dead.

******************

THESE DP POSTS link to other Fjordman writings about Sweden:

Fjordman, On The Swedish Welfare State

Fjordman’s Portrait Of Sweden

Fjordman’s Parting Shot

Sweden. Tubes. Down.

Plus two more, not by Fjordman:

It’s The Socialism, Stupid

In Sweden, Plus Ca Change

alt: More music from the master !

Copyright Jonathan Ian Mathers – iLL WiLL PreSS

alt: Foamy writes a letter to good ol’ Saint Nick…

Copyright Jonathan Ian Mathers – iLL WiLL PreSS

Check Out The New Bydio Blog Site At www.Bydio.com

From:

Dm3t_3mr

Subject:

hi

I looked at your works in flickr
I was thinking that all of us like one family
Even there we are different in religion
But really I got sad when I saw the photos about our prophet Mohammed I m not sending u an email because I m angry
No wallah I m just sad because u think that our prophet like this
I just want u to remember that not all muslimes are the same
In all religions there are good and bad people and if some body hurt you, you should be mad at them because what they are doing is not related to our prophet
Please don’t think that our prophet like this
They are using the name of islam in bad ways

To:	Dm3t_3mr
Subject:	Re: hi
	Ideally, you are right, everyone should be judged on their individual merits. I know for a fact there are peaceful Muslims and hateful Muslims. However, how is one to judge on first impressions? When some people draw upon their faith to justify killing, no matter the faith, then everyone of that faith becomes suspect. If it were Buddhists who had bombed embassies, bombed nightclubs, beheaded journalists and hijacked planes to use as missiles, then there would be little chance I’d trust a Buddhist on first meeting. I would consider them all suspect based on the acts of their ideological bretheren. I could be certain that some Buddhists would not hold the same values as those who suicide-bomb, but I couldn’t be sure which is which. I’d have to assume the teachings they all had learned could breed the same mindset as the murderous ones. So now wariness becomes the rule of thumb when someone proclaims themself a Muslim. I can wish it were different, but the only way to eliminate the wariness is to have more Muslims condemn the violent acts of their ideological bretheren. Little is publicly heard from the Muslim community against these acts; the loudest voices are the ones of praise for the attacks. When the crashing wave of damnation for these acts of violence is heard from the Muslim community, that is when the tide of opinion about Muslims will start to change. Asalaam Alikum.

Update (20061111): Other people see this, too:

But despite a great deal of bluster, there is no large-scale organized movement of Muslims countering the jihadists, and no coherent moderate Muslim theology that teaches against jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers on Islamic grounds, with the possible exception of academic constructs that have no roots in Islamic tradition and no following among Muslims, and the certain exception of deceptive pieces that make unbelievers feel great but likewise have no acceptance among Muslims.

Many people who know me know that I don’t drink.  I mean I do, but I don’t do it often.  I’m not really a social drinker, just an experimental drinker.  When bad times befall me, I don’t turn to the bottle.  It’s just not my thing.

But here lies adventure.

Artists, literary giants… hell, a whole continent was swept up with this stuff in the late 1800s to early 1900s.  Alcohol, herbs and wormwood creating a powerful (possibly hallucinogenic) effect when heavily imbibed.  But I’m told the effect is like clarity, an other-worldly sense, which I’m eager to experience.

With its popularity came profit-driven sales, then quality decreased to the point of public harm.  The poor bought the wood alcohol versions of this popular liquor.  Dementia and death ensued, and the libation known as Absinthe was banned almost everywhere.

The harm wasn’t in the drink itself, it was the substandard ingredients used to sell more of it.  Never trust a politician.

Now, luckily, it’s reemerging.  It’s been seen in movies (which is probably where I first heard about it) such as Alfie and EuroTrip (Michelle Trachtenberg is unseasonably hot). It’s ugly green head is not so ugly anymore, and I’m going to find out how naughty or nice it is.  Just call me Santa Flaws.  I’m willing to experiment on myself.

Okay, let’s get down to the nitty gritty.  I purchased two bottles of Absinthe, two glasses and two spoons from OriginalAbsinthe.com on October 27, 2006.  Twelve days later (November 8, 2006), I found it lying on my doorstep after the mailman left it there.  For me, this is good, because the mailman won’t wait for me to get to the door (I’m usually at the other end of the house) and if I had to wait to sign for it, then I’d probably have to go to the post office and get it.  So, I’m happy camper.

I hear it sloshing around in the glass bottles and pray to bacchus nothing’s broken.  I get out the trust swiss army knife knock-off and dig in.

It’s well packed.  The box is sealed well, and when I open it, the contents are all heavily bubble-wrapped.  Score!  One by one I open the contents.  The first bubble-wrapped glass… good.  Second bubble-wrapped glass… good. *sigh of relief*  Now on to the bottles.  Cut, slash, unwrap… perfect.  Second bottle, just the same.  Spoons in the box?  Check… or Czech, if I’m being cheeky.  It’s all there, it’s all good.

I bust out the camera.  You can see one of the many pictures above.

So there you have it.  It wasn’t cheap, and I had that typical worry of buying something from eastern Europe (it’s actually sold through a UK company, but it’s a Czech Republic product), but it’s turned out well.  I expect it to be an experience I could only have by shelling out the cash.

Wish me luck.  If I survive, I’ll tell you all about it.  I’ll try to get pics, too.

Update 20061113: I tried a little of the absinthe tonight, maybe a half ounce, straight, without anything added. I wanted to see what it was like without anything added, so I could get the real taste of the drink. It’s very strong, 140 Proof (70% Alcohol), so I let it breathe a little in the glass so the alcohol could dissipate a bit. Smooooooth. It’s actually quite tasty, though. Somewhat fruity and floral, tastes of orange, corriander, sage, cinnamon, and other things I simply can’t discern. Overall, it was very pleasant. I only had a little bit, but it was enlightening. Thumbs up for absinthe!

As they say in the article, there’s no way to make fiscal responsibility into a sexy and pallatable topic for politicians.  Reform has to come from the people, not from the entertainers we elect to office.

Medicare already costs four times as much as it did in 1970, measured as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product. It currently comprises 13 percent of federal spending; by 2030, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will consume nearly a quarter of the budget.

Here I have to speak to the baby boomers.  Any government medical benefits will come to your demographic first, and it will bleed the nation like a 17th century physician.  It is unconscionable, irresponsible, and untennable.  There’s no way we can keep adding social benefits and maintain a dominant position on the world stage.  We’re borrowing money from foreign countries to maintain this way of life right now, and that obviously can’t last.

Can you honestly see yourself going to your children and demanding a 25% allowance from their paychecks?  Damn their future, damn their children and how well they live, it’s “give me 25% of what you earn, right now, hand it over, love ya, buh-bye.”  Could you do that to their face?  Could you really demand that from them?

If you can’t do it to their faces, then you can’t do it through taxes.  It’s like asking a mobster to demand money from them — for protection y’see — instead of you asking them directly.  It’s wrong.

Remember, all the money you put into Social Security has gone to your now-elderly parents and to whatever feel-good pet projects your federal representatives could endorse.  There’s no lock-box.  None.  It’s spent, gone, non-existent.

[Social Security] currently pays for itself with a 12.4 percent payroll tax, and even produces a surplus that the government raids every year to pay other bills. But Social Security will begin to run deficits during the next century, and ultimately would need an infusion of $8 trillion if the government planned to keep its promises to every beneficiary.

Eventually someone’s going to have to bite the bullet and take the cut.  I highly doubt the boomer generation will be able to bring themselves to take the pain.  Gen-X will probably just complain a lot (like me) and take what they can get; reluctantly voting to reduce benefits little by little.  Gen-Y?  Same thing.  Maybe by then the future generational block will have developed a stronger sense of personal responsibility and cut harder and deeper than before, bringing boondoggle social programs down to nothingness.  Maybe… but I doubt it.

Unaviodable catastrophe seems to be the only thing that teaches us monkeys a lesson.  Until the repercussions of our ill-actions are put in our faces — like house training a pet — we feel invincible, like nothing can harm us.  Just ask the people who’ve been in car accidents; they didn’t think they were going to crash, so they continued recklessly until their actions resulted in catastrophe.  Then they learned… or died trying.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/

Thanks to Paul Farrell, we learn that “Quietly hidden in Adams’ groundbreaking work is a financial formula so simple it rivals Einstein’s E=mc2. In its original form Adams’ formula was apparently so heretical and so explosive that no major house would touch it when he proposed publishing it as a one-page book. After initial rejections, he announced sadly that “if God materialized on earth and wrote the secret of the universe on one page, he wouldn’t be able to find a publisher either.”

Fortunately for America’s 95 million investors, Adams’ secret nine-point formula was finally revealed in “Dilbert and the Way of the Weasels.” Notice its simple brilliance in the exact reproduction of his formula:

1. Make a will

2 .Pay off your credit cards

3. Get term life insurance if you have a family to support

4. Fund your 401k to the maximum

5. Fund your IRA to the maximum

6. Buy a house if you want to live in a house and can afford it

7. Put six months worth of expenses in a money-market account

8. Take whatever money is left over and invest 70% in a stock index fund and 30% in a bond fund through any discount broker and never touch it until retirement

9. If any of this confuses you, or you have something special going on (retirement, college planning, tax issues), hire a fee-based financial planner, not one who charges a percentage of your portfolio

Adams boldly states that this is “everything you need to know about personal investing.” In just 129 words, nine simple points, one page you have the unabridged “Unified Theory of Everything Financial.” That’s it. Everything!

Thanks to Adams’ formula, the average irrational investor can ignore Wall Street: “Everything else you may want to do with your money is a bad idea compared to what’s on my one-page summary. You want an annuity? It’s worse. You want a whole life insurance policy? It’s worse. You want to invest in individual stocks? It’s worse. You want a managed mutual fund instead of an index fund? It’s worse. I could go on, but you get the point.”

Source:
‘Dilbert’ deserves the economics Nobel:
‘Unified Theory of Everything Financial’ wins in parallel universe
Paul B. Farrell
MarketWatch, Last Update: 7:46 PM ET Oct 9, 2006