Monday, August 23, 2010

Greece might once again defeat tyranny -- by bringing down Brussels

By Panayotis Theodoracopulos

As everyone knows, Greece became a member of the eurozone on the back of a lie. The colonels’ regime had collapsed, Greek politicians were nervous, and that pseudo-French aristocrat Giscard promised entry to a country that is more Middle Eastern than European, but with olive oil. Entry meant no more tanks surrounding Parliament at midnight—rather a pity, actually, because they kept some semblance of law and order. So from 1980 onward, the Greeks began to spend other people’s money, the chief spender being the present premier’s father, known to us Greeks as Ali Babandreou.

Thirty years later the Greeks have managed to bring the European Union to the brink of collapse—again, not necessarily a bad thing, but looked upon by bureaucrooks in Brussels as the greatest disaster to befall Europe since the Black Plague. Recently, a rather dumb and pompous Euro MP remonstrated with me for expressing delight at the prospect. Pigs that feed in the trough would, wouldn’t they?

The Greeks, however inadvertently, might bring down the whole shebang. That is the good news. The bad is that the rich-as-hell Germans and the garlic-smelling French are fighting as never before to keep the pseudodemocratic union going. The reason is simple: The Greeks are in hock to German and French banks to the tune of one trillion euros. The global elites who believe in Brussels and seek to reduce nations to “ethno-cultural enclaves in a new world order run by these same bloodless bureaucrats,” as Pat Buchanan rightly put it, are as undemocratic as they come. In fact, they make the Greek colonels look like Thomas Jefferson by comparison. Countries that rejected certain E.U. treaties, such as Ireland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden, and even France, were told in no uncertain terms that they would have to vote again, and again if necessary, until the will of Brussels was met. If that’s democracy, I’m Monica Lewinsky.

In my recent peregrinations around Europe it was obvious that the euro was never purely an economic construct. It was a political one. It was to ensure total control for the bureaucrats uniting 500 million people speaking 30 different languages under little ole Brussels. Well, they got close to pulling it off, the tiny tinpot dictators, but then the Hellenes screwed up.

If the Greeks had any brains, of course, which they don’t (they are like people on welfare in Britain—too well off to get off), they would quit the European Union, default, restore the drachma, and watch every manufacturer in Europe and America rush to establish factories in Athens and its environs. Billions in tourism alone would enrich Greek coffers. But as I said, they are too weak and too dumb to do it. Like a mistress who has gotten used to her monthly stipend and is too lazy to go out and find new blood, the Greeks will now tighten their belts, blame Germany and America, and go to the beach until mid-September, when things will really get hot.

The great oracle of Delphi was typically ambivalent when I asked her whether the European Union would survive. She gave me three choices: The first was that the rich countries will prop up the poor ones by continuing to bail them out until . . . That’s when her voice trailed away. The second was that the euro might be abandoned, and the rich northern countries who avoid the beach will set up their own currency. The third was that the PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Spain, and Greece—will get their act together through reforms and pay back their debt. The oracle laughed out loud as she pronounced this third choice, but by now she was quite stoned.

So there you have it, dear readers. A few farsighted men got together in Rome more than 50 years ago and decided to turn Europe into a free-trade zone in order to avoid war in the future. It was a good idea, but like many good ideas the principle of peaceful trade and cooperation was hijacked by fat, faceless men who believed they could achieve power not at the barrel of a gun but through stealth, lies, and doublespeak. They flooded Europe with African and Muslim immigrants who refused to integrate, sold out Christianity to Allah, and rejected any loyalty to the land and people whence they came. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, and I, for one, am delighted.

But I am not getting my hopes up yet. The faceless ones are vicious and sly. They have the bankers, the press, and most of the politicians on their side. The pro-E.U. propaganda has drowned out the few responsible traditionalists who believe in individual freedom and their nations. My only hope is my fellow Greeks. Perhaps I will lead a midnight coup myself—but when was the last time a yacht sailed into Piraeus and Athens surrendered?


British Airways changes 'discriminatory' seating policy for men

But it took a court case to budge them

British Airways has changed its seating policy after a businessman complained of being treated like a "child molester" when sitting next to a boy he did not know. The airline has confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph it has altered its procedures to protect unaccompanied minors – the aviation industry term for children flying without a parent or guardian.

It follows the case of Mirko Fischer, a hedge fund manager who was told to move seats by cabin crew under an internal rule that prevented adult males sitting next to unaccompanied children.

Mr Fischer ended up sitting next to the boy on the BA flight from London to Luxembourg when he switched seats with his pregnant wife, so she could be by the window.

The 35-year-old told staff he believed the airline's policy broke the Sex Discrimination Act and later said he felt he had been treated as a potential "child molester". He later won a compensation order at Slough County Court, in which BA admitted sex discrimination in his case and agreed to pay him costs of £2,161 and £750 in damages.

BA, which carried out a review of its policy following the case, now says "seating of unaccompanied minors is managed in a safe but non discriminatory manner".

Mr Fischer, who lives in Luxembourg, said he was "absolutely delighted" by the policy change. He has donated his compensation money to Kidscape and Orphans in the Wild, two child protection charities.

Tom Otley, editor of Business Traveller magazine, also welcomed the ruling, but added: "The end of discrimination is good news but most business travellers usually want to sit as far away as possible from unaccompanied children so this is unlikely to have a big impact on where people sit on-board."

Airlines are free to set their own seating policies regarding unaccompanied minors. Virgin Atlantic said it did not have a similar policy and easyJet said passengers were free to sit where they liked.

A spokesman for BA said: "We carry tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors every year and take great pride in the service that we provide to them and their parents. "We have offered this service on all flights for many years for children aged between five and 11 years old, who are travelling alone.

"Given that some of these flights last up to 13 hours and are overnight, we take the responsibility of caring for these children, whose safety and security has been entrusted to us, extremely seriously. "There is a specific seating department that has a range of guidelines to ensure that we place in an appropriate seat. "On some services, this will be in a specially created Unaccompanied Minors zone within a short distance of the cabin crew in the galley.

"We have recently changed our internal advice to our seating and airport teams to ensure that the seating of unaccompanied minors is managed in a safe but non discriminatory manner."


Muslim dress at issue in Disneyland

A Muslim woman who works as a hostess at a restaurant in Disneyland has filed a discrimination complaint against the world-renowned California theme park, saying officials at the park violated the law when they told her she could not appear in front of customers while wearing a religious head scarf.

Imane Boudlal, 26, of Anaheim, Calif., has filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming Disneyland violated her rights when it ordered her either to remove her hijab or agree to work where customers couldn't see her at Storyteller's Café at the resort's Grand Californian Hotel & Spa.

Boudlal, a Moroccan immigrant who wore the traditional head scarf in observance of Ramadan, said she went home on Sunday after being told of her options, and she was given the same choice when she returned to work on Monday and Tuesday.

Disneyland spokeswoman Suzi Brown said the park "continues to
work" with Boudlal to find a compromise that allows her to wear the head scarf within company guidelines.

"Disney is an entertainment company -- our theme parks and resorts are the stage and our costumed cast members are part of the show," Brown said in a statement to on Friday. "All cast members in costumed roles, regardless of their diverse beliefs, are expected to comply with our dress codes. When cast members, regardless of their religion, request exceptions to our policies for religious reasons, we work hard to make reasonable accommodations. These have included modifications to costumes where appropriate, placement in different roles when needed, and consideration in scheduling for religious services and holy days."

Brown's statement continued, "Examples of costume modifications include accommodating religious head wear with hats, substituting skirts for pants and lengthening skirt hems to cover ankles. We have also provided many cast members with roles that do not require them to wear a costume."

Boudlal was unavailable for comment Friday.

Ameena Qazi, an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who is consulting with Boudlal, said she has worked at the restaurant for more than two years, but only realized she could wear her hijab to work after studying for her U.S. citizenship exam in June.

Two months after asking supervisors if she could wear the hijab at work, Qazi said Boudlal was told she could, provided it was designed by Disneyland's costume department to comply with the park's look.

Boudlal was then fitted for a Disney-supplied head scarf, but was not given a date when the garment would be finished. In the interim, Qazi said, she was told she couldn't wear her own hijab.

"After these two months and this complicated process, she decided to come forward," Qazi said. "She really wanted to be able to wear it on Ramadan."

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said he found Boudlal's allegations particularly ironic given Disneyland's popular "It's a Small World" attraction, which features themes of unity and global peace. He cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination by employers on the basis race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

"I don't think merely wearing a head scarf [at the restaurant] could in any way produce an undue hardship for Disney," Hooper told "The request that she hide herself in the back, away from the view of customers, I think is an unreasonable accommodation and one that nobody would accept."

Hooper likened the "particularly disturbing" allegations to that of hotel officials telling minorities that they cannot work the front desk because of complaints from guests.

"It's not a reasonable thing to do," Hooper said, adding that Boudlal has offered to wear her hijab in a Disney theme or

Leigh Shelton, a spokeswoman with Unite Here Local 11, the union that represents Boudlal, said union officials support the woman and dismissed allegations by a Disney official that the union is distorting the facts in the case to distract from key issues in an ongoing contract battle for hotel workers. "There's absolutely no correlation," Shelton said.


Sleazy Songs of Summer

Ever wonder what those teenagers are listening to while wearing those iPod earphones? Maybe you'd rather not know. You will be horrified.

The Culture and Media Institute recently reviewed the top pop songs from May through July. To say that hedonism is in the air is an understatement. Of the 22 songs on the charts, a whopping 64 percent made at least one reference to sex, drugs or alcohol, or contained profanity. All 22 songs had music videos, and 68 percent of them featured sexualized dancing, alcohol, violence, or partying scenes.

The "anthem" of the summer seems to be the song "California Gurls" by Katy Perry, the ex-Christian singer who kick-started her career with the hit "I Kissed a Girl (And I Liked It)" in 2008. She's so "mainstream" this year that she hosted the Teen Choice Awards on Fox.

Her "Gurls" song is catchy and raunchy, starting with the boast that she and her girlfriends are so hot "we'll melt your Popsicle." That phrase is hot slang. Please imagine 7-year-old girls learning and reciting the lyrics to these songs -- because they do. Perry sings about "Sex on the beach / We don't mind sand in our stilettos / We freak in my Jeep" to Snoop Dogg, who also raps on the song. Snoop calls out the men to "kiss her, touch her, squeeze her buns." The boys hang out to "all that ass hangin' out," watching the girls in "bikinis, tankinis, martinis, no weenies."

Shakespeare he is not. Romantic sonnets are not in season. Getting sex quickly seems to be the only aim.

The hottest new star is named Ke$ha, and her song with pop band 3OH!3 (No, I don't understand it either) is called "My First Kiss." It sounds innocent, but innocence isn't allowed. The lyrics include a request for sex: "Lips like licorice, tongue like candy / Excuse me, Miss, but can I get you out of your panties?" Another song, "In My Head," is sung by Jason Derulo and features the lyrics "Instead of talking, let me demonstrate / Yeah / Get down to business, let's skip foreplay."

Would you like more song sheets for the kiddies?

Rihanna is another princess of pop. Her song challenges a boy to make a move: "Come here, rude boy, boy / Can you get it up? / Come here, rude boy, boy / Is you big enough?" She also promises to "give it to you harder" and "turn your body out." The video matches the theme, with Rihanna holding one breast, putting her finger in her mouth and constantly rotating her hips as she asks her beau to "take it, take it, take it." Is this woman a singer or a stripper?

Just one version of this song's video has 90 million plays on YouTube -- just in case you'd think no one really pays attention to these things.

Rihanna also sings in "Rude Boy" that she likes the way "you pull my hair." The most controversial song of the summer is her duet with the rapper Eminem called "Love the Way You Lie." In between Eminem's rapping, Rihanna repeatedly sings, "Just gonna stand there and watch me burn / But that's all right because I like the way it hurts / Just gonna stand there and hear me cry / But that's all right because I love the way you lie."

There is no shame in this industry. Consider that Rihanna was physically abused by fellow pop star Chris Brown. So she milked the attack to pump up her star power. But what message do young people take from this? The Chicago Sun-Times reported the video (starring actors Dominic Monaghan and Megan Fox) shows "an ugly cycle of domestic abuse --- graphically loving, fighting, drinking, shoplifting and ultimately burning down the house."

Burning down the house? That's because Eminem raps, "I just want her back / I know I'm a liar / If she ever tries to f---ing leave again / I'ma tie her to the bed and set the house on fire."

Like most rappers making no attempt at anger management, Eminem loads his songs with profanity and dares the radio programmers to try and bleep them all out. On his first new single "Not Afraid," Eminem used six F-bombs and three S-words in four minutes. That includes an "F-you for Christmas," an "F the world" and an "F the universe." That doesn't include the bonus usages of countless other vulgarities.

It's clear that the major "music" companies, desperate to ring up sales as their market collapses due to technological change, are refusing to exercise any restraint of any kind on these "artists" they sell. It travels way beyond hipster rebellion into a dark, loveless, violent underworld.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: