32 thoughts on “Farewell to Fat Beats (Video and Mix)”

  1. Craze is the best turntablist of all time and a-trak is my second favorite.

    those two guys raised the bar in turntablism. pete you should set up an

    interview for nardwaur with a-trak being that he’s from canada. i still

    remember the day i got that obscure disorder back in 99. r.i.p.

    fat beats.

  2. A letter to Peter Rosenberg: Please forward.

    Do you know the meaning of the name “Cordoba”?
    Cordoba was, of course, the seat of the caliphate established in what is now modern Spain after the Islamic invasion from North Africa in the 8th century A.D. There is no question that the mosque at Cordoba represents a history of conquest and reconquest that, from the perspective of Islamists, is at an unfinished stage as of today. The caliphate of Cordoba was the geographic high point of Umayyad Muslim rule – that is, of the original caliphate that succeeded Mohammed – on European territory. It represents a glory that Islamists intend to restore. “Cordoba,” in Islamic symbolic terms, means Islamic rule in the West. It does not mean “coexistence,” unless coexistence is interpreted as referring to Islamic rule. Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs cites the article (original in Arabic) published by Iraqi-American Khudhayr Taher on 18 May, in which Taher explains the following: We must note that a hostile and provocative name [Cordoba] has been chosen for this mosque…Choosing the name ‘Cordoba House’ for the mosque to be constructed in New York was not coincidental or random and innocent. It bears within it significance and dreams of expansion and invasion [into the territory] of the other, [while] striving to change his religion and to subjugate him…
    “Cordoba” is not a name that evokes peaceful coexistence of Islam and the West. Perhaps a contest should be held to come up with a name that does; I don’t know that I can think of one offhand. That shouldn’t surprise us. Our own lifetimes all began less than a century on from the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the entity that shifted over the centuries of its existence from fighting against Europe to buffering it from the restive tribes and sheikdoms in its hinterland. Most of us today don’t have much of a cultural memory of Islamic invasion; the peoples of Southeast Europe would be the exception. But the rest of us have grown so accustomed to the absolute character of the Pax Americana that we tend to dismiss, out of our privileged disconnectedness from history, the implications that the peoples of other times and places would have recognized – with greater wisdom – as meaningful.
    A mosque at Ground Zero is something intelligent people can dispute honestly and in good faith. But honesty is essential, and it would be dishonest to dismiss the implications of proposing to name it Cordoba House. Let’s propose naming it instead Tours House, after the Battle of Tours and the defeat of the Umayyad Muslim forces there in 732; or Lepanto House, after the naval battle in the Eastern Mediterranean in 1571, in which the Western forces broke the maritime power of the Ottoman Empire; or Vienna House, after the battle of 1683 in which the Western armies broke the siege of Vienna by the Ottoman invaders.
    Heck, let’s tell the mosque’s backers they can have a mosque there but its name will be Baghdad Bob House. If these seem like bad ideas because they send the wrong signal – well, exactly. So does “Cordoba House.” We should not passively accept that name out of fear of being ridiculed or second-guessed, any more than we should accept a mosque at all for such a reason.”

    Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind Cordoba House, the giant mosque and Islamic cultural center planned just two blocks from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan, speaks of tolerance. Yet he promotes one of the most intolerant sociopolitical systems on the planet: Shari’a law.
    In 2009, Rauf’s organization, the Cordoba Initiative, launched a program to measure how closely various nations conform to Shari’a. An article quotes him musing about the criteria to be applied:
    What are the principles that make a state Islamic? We can say among them is justice, protection of religion and minorities, and elimination of poverty, and so on.
    Interestingly, the rest of the piece is far more open about what Shari’a actually entails, citing such freedom-crushing derivatives as outlawing religious satire and criminalizing adultery.
    Three possibilities: 1) Rauf believes that Shari’a is all flowers and rainbows and that modern-day Islamic states exhibit Western-style justice, protection, etc.; 2) he thinks the same of Shari’a, but maintains that Iran, Sudan, etc. have failed because their version of it is corrupted; or 3) he knows the unsavory truth about Shari’a and consciously dissimulates. None is comforting: the first two qualify as self-delusion; the third, as taqiyya. Place your money on the second or third.
    Of course, any of them could explain his assertion that principles underlying the Declaration of Independence and secular U.S. law are “similar” to those of Shari’a. Indeed, Rauf argues:
    Many Muslims believe that what Americans receive from their government is in fact the very substance of what an Islamic state should provide. American beliefs in individual liberty and the dignity of the individual are Islamic principles as well.
    However, Rauf also has spoken of his desire to see Shari’a incorporated more explicitly into Western law. Because British Muslims apparently do not find their “beliefs in individual liberty and the dignity of the individual” sufficiently codified in that benighted country, he supported Archbishop Rowan Williams’ 2008 call for adopting aspects of Shari’a. Rauf contends that this is needed to “guarantee more, not fewer, adherents to [the UK's] legal system”:
    The addition of Shari’a law to “the law of the land,” in this case British law, complements, rather than undermines, existing legal frameworks. The archbishop was right. It is time for Britain to integrate aspects of Islamic law.
    Whether taqiyya or self-delusion, the bottom line is identical: Rauf loves Shari’a. Added to his claims that U.S. policy provoked 9/11 and Christians invented attacks on civilians, his dubious funding sources, his doubletalk, and so forth, there is reason enough to doubt that Cordoba House will facilitate post-9/11 healing, as he insists — rather than just adding insult to injury.
    Jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism and jihad.
    Shahzad’s forthright statement of purpose stands out because jihadis, when facing legal charges, typically save their skin by pleading not guilty or plea bargaining. Consider a few examples:
    • Naveed Haq, who assaulted the Jewish Federation building in Seattle, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
    • Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway Snipers, explained that “one reason for the shootings was that white people had tried to harm Louis Farrakhan.” His partner John Allen Muhammad claimed his innocence to the death chamber.
    • Hasan Akbar killed two fellow American soldiers as they slept in a military compound, then told the court “”I want to apologize for the attack that occurred. I felt that my life was in jeopardy, and I had no other options. I also want to ask you for forgiveness.”
    • Mohammed Taheri-azar, who tried to kill students on the University of North Carolina by running over them in a car and issued a series of jihadi rants against the United States, later experienced a change of heart, announced himself “very sorry” for the crimes he committed, and asked for release so that he can “re-establish myself as a good, caring and productive member of society” in California.
    These efforts fit a broader pattern of Islamist mendacity; rarely does a jihadi stand on principle. Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11′s would-be twentieth hijacker, came close: his court proceedings began with his refusing to enter a plea (which the presiding judge translated into “not guilty”) and then, one fine day, pleading guilty to all charges.
    Shahzad, 30, acted in an exceptional manner during his appearance in a New York City federal court on June 21. His answers to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum’s many inquisitive questions (“And where was the bomb?” “What did you do with the gun?”) offered a dizzying mix of deference and contempt. On the one hand, he politely, calmly, patiently, fully, and informatively answered about his actions. On the other, he in the same voice justified his attempt at cold-blooded mass murder.
    The judge asked Shahzad after he announced an intent to plead guilty to all ten counts of his indictment, “Why do you want to plead guilty?” a reasonable question given the near certainty that guilty pleas will keep him in for long years in jail. He replied:
    I want to plead guilty and I’m going to plead guilty a hundred times forward because – until the hour the U.S. pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
    Shahzad insisted on portraying himself as replying to American actions: “I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attacks,” adding that “We Muslims are one community.” Nor was that all; he flatly asserted that his goal had been to damage buildings and “injure people or kill people” because “one has to understand where I’m coming from, because … I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”
    When Cedarbaum pointed out that pedestrians in Times Square during the early evening of May first were not attacking Muslims, Shahzad replied: “Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same.” His comment reflects not just that American citizens are responsible for their democratically elected government but also the Islamist view that, by definition, infidels cannot be innocents.
    However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness. Shahzad’s willingness to name his Islamic purposes and spend long years in jail for them flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy, preferring such lame formulations as “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters.”
    Americans – as well as Westerners generally, all non-Muslims, and anti-Islamist Muslims – should listen to the bald declaration by Faisal Shahzad and accept the painful fact that Islamist anger and aspirations truly do motivate their terrorist enemies. Ignoring this fact will not make it disappear.

    Some observations:
    • Cordoba House (or Park51) was announced in early April; that it remains an item of debate over four months later, and not just locally but nationally, points to Islam in the United States becoming a populist issue.
    • Politicians who support the Islamic center, notably New York’s mayor Michael Bloomberg, are paying a political price for their stand.
    • As in the case of French hijabs or Swiss minarets, this is a case of going after a very visible but merely symbolic problem. What would victory achieve, exactly? I’d rather focus, say, on Islamist penetration of security services.
    • Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan proved not ready for prime time; ongoing investigations increasingly reveal what unsavory Islamists they are.
    • As Raymond Ibrahim points out, the huge debate over this Islamic center has done significant damage to the lawful Islamist cause.
    And my position on this controversy? While Muslims have every legal right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, this initiative carries the unmistakable odor of Islamic triumphalism. More importantly, Abdul Rauf’s dubious background and associations give reason to worry that his center will spread Islamist ideology. Therefore, it should be barred from opening.

    I listen to your show every morning on my drive to work from 8:15-8:45. I hope I’ll hear some acknowledgement of my letter to you on it. I highly suggest you look online at “Daniel Pipes.org” and “Islamist watch” for some deeper insight on these issues.

    Thanks for your time,
    Kimberly Wolfe

  3. yo PMD, keep doing what you do!

    one small request for the next Juan Ep, whenever that may be….Please address/explain the rico situation? like how did that go down?


Comments are closed.

Hip Hop | Wrestling | Sports | Life

© 2014 Rosenberg Radio