Mostly Filler

Christopher Hitchens, writing in the June issue of Vanity Fair (Londonistan Calling):

In the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, which killed 52 civilians (including a young Afghan, Atique Sharifi, who had fled to London to escape the Taliban) and injured hundreds more, I found that American television interviewers were all asking me the same question: How can this be? Britain is the country of warm beer and cricket and rain-lashed seaside resorts, not a place of arms for exotic and morbid cults. British press coverage struck the same plaintive note. One of the murderers, Shehzad Tanweer, was a cricket enthusiast from Leeds, in Yorkshire, whose family ran a fish-and-chips shop. You can't get much more assimilated than that. Yet Britain's former head of domestic intelligence, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller (and you can't get much more British than that, either), said last year that there are more than "1,600 identified individuals" within the borders of the kingdom who are ready to follow Tanweer's example (including those in whose honor we now all have to part with our liquids and gels at the airport). And, according to Manningham-Buller, "over 100,000 of our citizens consider the July 2005 attacks in London justified."

[…]

In the 1960s, many Asians moved to Britain in quest of employment and education. They worked hard, were law-abiding, and spent much of their time combating prejudice. Their mosques were more like social centers. But their children, now grown, are frequently contemptuous of what they see as their parents' passivity. Often stirred by Internet accounts of jihadists in faraway countries like Chechnya or Kashmir, they perhaps also feel the urge to prove that they have not "sold out" by living in the comfortable, consumerist West. A recent poll by the Policy Exchange think tank captures the problem in one finding: 59 percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under British law rather than Shari'a; 28 percent would choose Shari'a. But among those 55 and older, only 17 percent prefer Shari'a, whereas in the 16-to-24 age group the figure rises to 37 percent. Almost exactly the same proportions apply when the question is whether or not a Muslim who converts to another faith should be put to death …

As usual, Hitch nails it…and damns multi-culturalism as the principal “prime mover” in turning London into Londonistan. I know I’m preaching to the choir, Gentle Reader, but do go read.

And lastly (on this particular subject), I’ll offer you this: The “Islamization” of London has been going on a lot longer than most people think. One small piece of anecdotal evidence: when The Second Mrs. Pennington and I arrived in London in 1980, all wide-eyed and positively amazed at our great good fortune to be assigned…for three whole years!… in the crucible of our cultural inheritance, one of the first things we noticed was the amount of graffiti written in Arabic. And there was lots of it. We then began to notice other things…such as women dressed more appropriately for Riyadh than the West End (no burkhas, but lotsa veils) and many, many more than one or two men walking about in jalabiyas, and certainly not last…the HUGE numbers of kebab stands and shops where English was spoken only to customers, but not amongst the help. (We patronized those kebab stands willingly and often, too, food being what it was—or wasn’t, more appropriately—in 80’s London.) Other than considering the phenomenon(s) passing strange enough to remark upon, we gave them no further thought. But, 1980 was indeed a different time. It all begins in the most innocuous manner, now doesn’t it?

(h/t for the link: Chap)

Dang! I just glanced at my watch and it’s now 1137 hrs (as I type) and my self-imposed posting deadline of “sometime before noon…usually” is hard upon me. And, aside from the one paltry entry above (paltry, in terms of quantity…not quality), I have nothing to show for the last three hours of link-chasing and reading. So, that said, Gentle Reader, you could do a lot worse than clicking on the “Chap” link above…as the greatest part of those three hours of which I speak was spent chasing links from his site. Great, good stuff in great quantities.

Apropos of nothing, and simply to fill space, as it were… I’d be interested in knowing how all y’all blog. Your mental and physical processes of blogging, that is. Most folks post single entries on discrete subjects, one at a time, and make several entries over the course of a day. I do what I call “omnibus posting,” which is to say I usually put up a single post a day with several discrete subjects, all included in the same post. If I come across something that just won’t wait until tomorrow, I’ll post again…but that’s not too common.

So anyway…My modus operandi, in condensed form, goes like this:

1. Open my monthly blog file in MS-Word, if’n it isn’t already.
2. Open a new tab in Firefox and begin my daily reads, usually with Lou, Laurie, Lex (that does it for the ells), the two sons, and the rest of the blog roll as I see fit. Most days I don’t come close to hitting them all.
3. Open new tabs in Firefox to chase linkies.
4. Cut ‘n’ paste excerpts and linkage from interesting stuff into the aforementioned Word file.
5. Write my comments to said linkage.
6. Save often.
7. Rinse. Repeat.
8. Open my image editor and peruse the photo galleries for a candidate for “Today’s Pic.”
9. Agonize greatly over the lack of good pictures and swear I’ll take a bunch of new ones, today.
10. Select something, anyway (most of the time).
11. Or not.
12. Copy from the Word file.
13. Paste into Bogger and publish.
14. View post.
15. Edit. (I always miss something…)
16. Close it all out and go do something meaningful, like finish the coffee and smoke a cigar or small portion thereof. Or go riding. Or do laundry. All of which are on today’s agenda, by the way.

Did I say “condensed form?” Yeah, I did. Disregard.

So…how do you do it?

1157 hours…time to POST! (Insert smiley-face here.)