The Fog of War

Israel to Halt Bombing for 48 Hours - Los Angeles Times: South Lebanon Civilians to Be Evacuated After Airstrike Kills Up to 56, By Paul Richter and Laura King, Times Staff Writers, July 31, 2006

JERUSALEM. Israel agreed to halt bombing for 48 hours and allow besieged civilians safe passage out of southern Lebanon, U.S. officials said Sunday, a concession granted under intense pressure after one of its airstrikes hit a house full of women and children, killing as many as 56 people.

What happened in Qana was as inevitable as it was tragic. These are sad days for the world.

One factor is that Hezbollah has turned out to be better prepared for war than anyone expected. This has caught the Israeli army and public off guard, and led to a split in planning counterattacks against Hezbollah. Hezbollah is claiming victory, and rightly so.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, it appears, is not up to the task of defending Israeli at this crucial moment in their history. He is no Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister, founder of their Kadima Party, who now lies in hospital in a coma.

Sharon would have done what American military commanders feel is the best Israeli option, which is to send in a massive ground force to Lebanon and wipe Hezbollah out. Since the Israeli army met stiffer resistance than expected, including huge underground complexes, sophisticated mine placement, and advanced weaponry, supplied by Iran, the Israeli soldiers and commanders were actually stunned. This led to half the planners opting for mostly an Israeli air offensive, which will not wipe out Hezbollah.

Add this fact to the Hezbollah tactic of using civilians as human shields, and you have the recipe for Qana, and disaster. The Israelis tape every mission. They have video of Hezbollah firing missiles and then retreating back to civilian populations. The dilemma for Israel is that the Hezbollah are launching thousands of rockets into Israel, but then retreating to places where families are forced to stay. Hezbollah won't allow relief supplies to arrive, nor medical help.

So, Israel is left with a Hobson’s choice. Let their own civilians be murdered, strike Hezbollah by air and leave Hezbollah intact, or force a bloody ground invasion.

Striking only by air will lead to more Qana's. Without troops on the ground to verify what is and what isn't a military target, Israel will make mistakes. Plus, Hezbollah will ensure that as many Lebonese civilians die as possible, and they'll be there with their video cameras, along with mobile phones to alert the media.

The Islamo-facists love what happened in Qana, calling it with glee the Qana holocaust. It seems they miss the subtleties of the word “holocaust,” which implies deliberate, massive genocide. Hezbollah deliberately sends 4,000 plus missiles into Israel, aimed squarely at civilians, and the world is silent. Israel makes a tragic mistake in Qana and the world is aghast.

The only rational choice for Israel is to send in ground troops. The world will condemn them, as usual. This way, though, they can really hurt Hezbollah, deny them their victory, and prevent more Qana's. Israel understandably is afraid of this option. They know they will pay a heavy price, with the dead bodies of their young soldiers.

Israel can’t be blamed for demurring at this time, but it is a mistake.

The world continues to show its callousness for the death of innocent civilians. It keeps worshipping brutality. Israelis are scorned. The Hezbollah are pitied, or even honored.

What is likely to happen is a ceasefire sometime soon. The masses don’t like seeing pictures of dead children. Unfortunately, there will be many more pictures like this unless Hezbollah is dismantled.

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

This Post’s Technorati Tags: Qana, World, Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, terrorism, Islamo-facism, Al-Queda, Israel, Hobson’s choice, truth

Support this site! Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way!

Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

The Problem with Wayne Dyer

I grew up strictly Catholic in Munster, Indiana.

I became politically aware in the 60’s, which was the most thrilling decade in American political and cultural growth. First at Catholic Creighton University, and then at Indiana University, I transformed into an agnostic liberal, and even a longhaired hippie, minus the drug abuse. I protested against the Vietnam War. I chanted against Richard Nixon.

Fast forward to my time in the Middle East, where I was a psychologist, actor and singer (some combination, huh?). There, I became New Age.

Many of the ideas of the New Age movement are elements of older spiritual and religious traditions, from both east and west, melded with modern ideas from science especially psychology and ecology. Out of the movement have come a wide-ranging literature on spirituality, new musical styles and even crafts - most visible in specialty shops and New Age fairs. The name "New Age" also refers to part of the LOHAS market segment in which its goods and services are sold to people in the movement.*

Now, I believe in God, but I’m not thrilled so much with organized religions. I still keep in my heart many Catholic teachings, some Jewish wisdom, and several New Age principles.















Three prominent teachers of New-Age popular philosophies have been Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, and Marianne Williamson.

Wayne Dyer is one of the most widely known and respected people in the field of self-empowerment, affectionately called the "father of motivation" by some of his fans. He first attained popularity with his book Your Erroneous Zones.*

Deepak Chopra, M.D., is a medical doctor and popular contemporary writer in the United States on spirituality, synchronicity, integrative medicine and Ayurveda. He writes about holistically treating the body and promotes Ayurveda, the traditional Indian system of medicine. He claims Hinduism as his main influence, specifically the teachings of Vedanta and the Bhagavad Gita. In 1989 he became famous for his work Quantum Healing: Exploring the Frontiers of Mind/Body Medicine.*

Marianne Williamson’s earliest renown was for her talks on A Course in Miracles, a step-by-step method for choosing love over fear.

I love all three of these gurus.

I also think they are missing something in their outlook. There is something wrong with Wayne Dyer and his philosophy. Ditto with Deepak and Marianne. This is the same thing, I believe, that is wrong with liberals, feminists, the Democratic party, other New-Agers, and with much of America today, as a matter of fact.

The answer lies in the concepts of yin and yang, the polar opposites which must be in balance to lead a healthy life.

Yin, the darker element, is passive, dark, feminine, downward-seeking, and corresponds to the night; yang, the brighter element, is active, light, masculine, upward-seeking and corresponds to the day; yin is often symbolized by water, while yang is symbolized by fire.*

The trouble with Wayne Dyer, Deepak, and Marianne, is that they devote all their philosophy only to yin. They not only neglect yang, they devalue and omit it entirely.

The opposite of Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, and Marianne Williamson are the characters Nicolo Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.

Niccolò di dei Machiavelli (May 3, 1469 – June 21, 1527) was a Florentine political philosopher, musician, poet, and romantic comedic playwright. Machiavelli was also a key figure in realist political theory, crucial to European statecraft Renaissance and early Protestant Reformation, which shaped the contemporary diplomatic behavior of nations. Machiavelli was one of the first people to objectively study the practice and implementation of politics and government.*

Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War, a Chinese military treatise created during the 6th century BC. Composed of 13 chapters, each of which is devoted to one aspect of warfare. It has long been praised as the definitive work on military strategies and tactics of its time.*

These folks represent the darker side of human coping, the ultimate yang proponents. While Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King could be said to be effective preachers of yin, Mohammed, Machiavelli, Tzu, and Malcolm X were the gurus of yang.

A healthy, effective life must include both—yin and yang.

The answer is provided by King Solomon in Eccles. 3:1,8,11,

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven... a time for war and a time for peace... He has made everything beautiful in its time.

I paraphrase a certain rabbi:

Peace is surely a magnificent thing, but only when its time comes. As with any other trait, G-d "made everything beautiful - IN ITS TIME." To apply a trait in an inappropriate time or place is a foul deed. It is just so with war and peace. Each has a time, and that time is learned from the laws of war and peace scattered throughout the Torah.

The problem with Wayne Dyer, Deepak, Marianne, other New Agers, liberals, the Democratic Party, and 50% of America at this time, is that they devalue and omit all yang. Ultimately, this leads to a weakened country, unruly children, criminal activity, and worldwide bloodshed. Wayne Dyer is promoting an unbalanced life.

The terrorists have the opposite, but still similar problem. They embrace only yang. They are just as unbalanced as we are. It’s the imbalance that leads to horror.

We have become a feminized culture. We devalue the masculine. Some of us would shirk our responsibility to wage war when it is necessary. Anti-war advocates of today are unhealthy proponents of only yin. These “peace advocates” seek peace at any cost, and this inevitably leads to more war than is necessary. “Peace advocates” bring bloodshed and misery to the world.

To win the war on terror, and climb back to a healthy culture, we need more balance between yin and yang. There will be a time for peace again in America, and in the world. At this moment, however, we are in a season of war. When the season for peace comes again, I’ll join Cindy Sheehan in calling for it. At this time, though, I shun her as a perfect example of an unbalanced loon.

Wayne Dyer remains Wayne Dyer, an unbalanced guy whose total answer to life’s problems are flowers, peace, love, joy, acceptance and goodwill, and singing kumbayah. Sounds nice, but it’s only half complete. He also needs to stand up to bullies, fight for his children, battle evil, and wage war on terrorists. Then, if he also keeps his yin intact, he’ll be a complete, effective man. A real man of peace.

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

This Post’s Technorati Tags: war, peace, yin, yang, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, Marianne Williamson, New Age, Mohammed, Sun Tzu, Malcolm X, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Ecclesastes, truth

Support this site! Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way!
Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Ten Ways to Become a Liberal, For Dummies

1. Listen only to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC news. Then, believe everything you see and hear on them. Never listen to FOX. If you are forced to watch a show or two on FOX, cover your ears and go “La, la, la, la.”

2. Read only the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, Time and Newsweek. Believe everything you read in them. Never read the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, New York Post, the Manchester (NH) Union-Leader, nor the Daily Oklahoman. If one of these is mistakenly delivered free to your door, use it for kindling.

3. Learn to chant. Good things to chant are “Bush is evil.” “Republicans are racists.” “Corporations are bad.” “Down with Capitalism.” Choose anything that sounds melodious to you and slams America or its president, our economy, our national spirit, and so on.

4. Whenever America is attacked, try and figure out what made the enemy hate us so much, and what we can do in the future to avoid offending them.

5. Attend liberal colleges and universities, with liberal professors, and write down every word they say.

6. Surround yourself with liberal friends who know how to chant, like you, and take breaks from your chanting to complain about pollution.

7. Attend Bruce Springsteen concerts and cry about poverty in Africa.

8. Take every good person in the world, and demonize them; and every villain, and make them a saint. For example, make Castro your hero and George Bush the devil. Praise Hugo Chavez and vilify Tony Blair. Remember Stalin fondly, but curse the memory of Ronald Reagan.

9. Learn to be anti-Israeli. You can throw in anti-Semitic for good measure. After all, Israel doesn’t deserve to exist. It has the nerve to defend itself, which is a violation of all liberal principles.

10. Don’t worry about people who die in the world because of your anti-war, “peace” propaganda. It doesn’t matter if there is blood all over the place as long as you are standing up and saying you are a good guy or girl. Just keep telling the bullies of the world that you are their friend. Remember, every dictator is good. Every defender of freedom is a monster.

There are other rules you can follow, but these ten will get you a long way towards becoming the kind of person that other liberals will love. You will also be welcome in rich people’s homes, the ones who feel guilty about being rich. Plus, you’ll probably even get an invitation to Osama Bin Laden’s 25th daughter’s wedding, where you can say hello to Jane Fonda, Alec Baldwin, and Al Franken. You’ll have a grand time, and rest easy knowing you’re doing your part for world peace and prosperity.

Practice your chanting now, “Get Out’ the Bushes!” “Get Out' the Bushes!”

This Post’s Technorati Tags: liberal, Castro, Hugo Chavez, Stalin, Ronald Reagan, Israel, Osama Bin Laden, Jane Fonda, Alec Baldwin, Al Franken, truth

Support this site! Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way!

World War III?

Newt Gingrich's declaration on Meet the Press that World War III has already started, brought a quick demurral from Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), who was also a guest on the show. According to Jay Bryant, though, Newt is Right: It's World War III, Yahoo News.

Gingrich is dead-on right, no matter how incendiary his language may be. The events of the intervening weeks, mostly around the Israel-Lebanon border, lend credence to his position. What's more, these events also suggest that the good guys are no more assured of winning World War III than they were, at the outset, of winning either World War I or World War II.

Gingrich's warning is, for many, a very inconvenient truth. But the failure to recognize this truth, and act accordingly, will lead to the downfall of Western civilization long before global warming even has us breaking a sweat.

Is Newt right? Are we in WWIII?

I think it’s important to characterize the present struggle accurately. The reason is that in order to fight it effectively, the American public, and the publics of other countries who are struggling with us, need to know what to expect, and what is required of them to win.

There is a difference between a war and a battle against insurgencies, or against terrorists. War is what happened with Napoleon, and in the Spanish-American War, and with World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. It is two or more armies, wearing uniforms, openly fighting.

An insurgency is an armed uprising, revolt, or insurrection against an established civil or political authority. Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents, and typically engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land.*

Insurgencies are what has happened in the Philippines, as with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Insurgency took place in Vietnam in the south. Vietnam is interesting in that it was both a war and an insurgency. There were two armies in open conflict, but there was also an insurgency among the people in the south. Insurgency also occurred in Cuba, and in El Salvador.

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence targeted against non-combatants to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands. The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. The broader influence of terrorism in the modern world is often attributed to the dramatic focus of mass media in amplifying feelings of intense fear and anger.*

Terror is what is going on in Spain with the Basques. It took place in Ireland with the IRA. It is happening in Iraq with Al-Queda. Notice that many of the fighters for Al-Queda are not Iraqis. They can hardly be called an insurgency.

Both insurgencies and terrorism are examples of asymmetric warfare.

This is a term that describes a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal strength interact and take advantage of their respective strengths and weaknesses. This interaction often involves strategies and tactics outside the bounds of conventional warfare.*

The reason for asymmetrical warfare is that one side is overwhelmed by the military might of the other. The Palestinians cannot defeat the Israeli army toe-to-toe. Al-Queda cannot battle the Americans army-to-army. So, they resort to asymmetrical warfare, in this case, terror.

What does Al-Queda want? A country? Yes, but more.

Al-Queda, and other Islamic fundamentalists, hate infidels. They don’t just want to take over the government of Iraq, they want to terrorize the populace away from the West and Western values and democracy. Yassin Musharbash, in an article for Spiegel Online, August 12, 2005, entitled What al-Qaida Really Wants, refers to Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, who has good contacts with Al Queda. He not only spent time in prison with al-Zarqawi, but has also made contact with many of the network's leaders. Based on correspondence with these sources, he has now brought out a book (still written only in Arabic), detailing the organization's master plan, which involves seven-steps to establish an Islamic caliphate by the year 2020. This caliphate would stretch from Spain to the Middle East.

So, is Newt Gingrich correct? Are we are entering World War III? Considering all the definitions, and the intentions of the enemy, the answer is no, not exactly.

This will not be a “war,” in the sense of two or more armies, wearing uniforms, openly engaging each other. It is not an insurgency, as it is not localized. It is not the mere struggle to overthrow a government. On our side, it is a “war” against terrorism as a tactic. Plus, it is a “war” against Islamo-facism. Yet Islamo-facism is not a country, and has no standing army. They don’t wear uniforms.

What we have, basically, then, is a clash of civilizations—the values, religions, and culture of the West versus the values, religion and culture of the fundamentalist Islamic radicals.

We are in a war, if you want to call it that, but it is an asymmetric war, and against a civilization, not a nation. There will be no armies to defeat. The enemy aren’t guerillas in the traditional sense of the word. Still, it is global. The enemy won’t be satisfied with the overthrow of a single government. They want their far-flung caliphate.

We in America, and Europe, must prepare to fight this new kind of asymmetrical warfare. We lose the advantage of our mighty army. We must use all the tactics granted us by the Patriot Act, and more. We must learn new tactics. Our war colleges need to study insurgencies, terrorism, all kinds of asymmetrical warfare, and to develop better intelligence. Plus, we need to explain our case to the world, and win hearts and minds. This does not mean we hold back from defending ourselves because the world won’t like us. Rather, that we defend ourselves vigorously, while at the same time articulating why we are doing what we must do.

Finally, we must attack terrorism at its source. We must go after Syria and Iran, and even Saudi Arabia, in whatever way is prudent and necessary, to stop the funding of terror, and eliminate the indoctrination of whole populations, and especially of young minds. We can’t be liaise faire about this. We must present a reasonable, well-argued alternative to the hatred that is being taught in Islamic madrasahs.

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

This Post’s Technorati Tags: Newt Gingrich, World War III, war, insurgency, terrorism, unconventional warfare, Al-Queda, Basques, MILF, asymmetrical warfare, truth

Support this site! Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way!

Special Treat

This is just a special treat for one of my commenters. A picture of truth.






Have a good day.

Rock

Macintosh Kind of World

What do the Macintosh computer, operating system, and software, have to do with the way the world is run? To my way of thinking, plenty.

A long time ago I read a great New Age book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig. It was about a father son motorcycle trip across America and the exploration of the concept of Quality. In the sequel, An Inquiry into Morals, Pirsig expands his exploration of Quality into a complete metaphysics which he calls The Metaphysics of Quality. He defines quality as the pursuit of intimate knowledge of anything, in this case, motorcycle maintenance. The intimate knowledge comes out of love for the thing itself. In other words, a good motorcycle mechanic is one who tinkers. He builds and takes apart his motorcycle a thousand times. He can't learn about his motorcycle from a book, or from a course. He must get in there and explore.

I'm a Macintosh guy. There are always PC guys and Macintosh girls or guys. PC's rule the world because Steve Jobs made a mistake a long time ago, which he has recently corrected, of not sharing the Mac platform for programming. So, PC's eventually had many more applications than Macs. This, despite the fact that Macs have always been easier to use.

We Macintosh people are devoted. I've used both Macs and PC's, and I can say there's no comparison. Macs win hands down. PC's are for geeks who love to be amateur programmers, because they've got all those subdirectories and slash this and “(/.damnthisthing*/*/=ii_)" that's. Macintosh's are point and click. Mac's are the original what you see is what you get, WYSIWYG.

I'm setting up websites now, and I'm struck by how easy the Mac sites are to create and maintain versus the PC sites. Still the same old distinction. PC sites take days, and even months to build. Mac sites can be up in a day.

What's the difference? PC people, the geeks, set their programs up until they work. Which is fine. Then, they stop, which is not fine.

Mac system and software programmers believe in quality. They go the extra mile. They tinker and tinker until they get it right. Mac people first get their programs to work. Then, they keep tinkering until they add user friendliness. They work their butts off to make a button which takes care of all the slash this and “(/.ican'tbelievethiscrap*/*/=ii_)" that's. Just click the button and you don't have to worry about subdirectories anymore.

Computer help shows are predominately for PC's. Why? Because they have to explain all the “(/.goingoutofmymind*/*/=ii_)" that's. If something goes wrong with a Mac, just fix it with a utility, which is user friendly.

Quality. Caring enough to love your job, computer, motorcycle, or country. Building and taking them apart a thousand times. Giving of yourself one hundred percent.

The problem is that this principle works with every kind of endeavor. I know you'll think this is a stretch, but not in my mind. The Islamo-facists who are attacking us now, love terror. They are a culture of death. They spend all day tinkering with their IED's, playing with fuses and shrapnel and gunpowder. They experiment where is the best place to place their marvelous creations. They try a road near a hospital, a school cafeteria, an open-air market. When they are successful, and they blow up a group of 60 infidels into a bloody mess, they jump up and down and cheer that "Allah is good." They really love their job. It is said that the Israeli Palestinian problem will end the day the Palestinians love their own children more than they hate the Israelis. The terrorists tinker every day with their bombs, and their hatreds. They are a culture using quality in the service of death.

In the end, the question will boil down to who wants it more. Who loves their cause more? Quality. I judge that we can win the war on terror only if we are fanatically devoted to our mission of peace. We must tinker with war too, war against terrorism and insurgencies. We must tinker with communicating our values to the world. We must tinker with staying good and pure while doing the dirty job of defending ourselves. Then, we have a chance of prevailing. If we do, if we ultimately love our cause more than they love theirs, I believe, quality will be used to serve goodness.

Zen this. To win the war on terror, but also for a better quality of life, I'm for a pure heart in a Macintosh kind of world.

(Note: Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

This Post's Technorati Tags: editorial, opinion, Macintosh computers, PC’s, quality, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance , Robert M. Pirsig , fanaticism, Islamo-facists, truth

Snow Job

I've only been doing this blog for a little over a month now, and still get excited about reading other people's blogs, commenting, writing my blogs, and getting responses. I enjoy all the differing points of view, and even the negative comments, really. No, I'm not a masochist. I'm just learning to be a true democrat (not Democrat). I watch my heroes like Bill Crystol and Larry Elder take strong neo-con stands on the issues, with good humor, cogent arguments, and persistent self-confidence. It's not that they know better than anyone else. They are open to being proven wrong. They just take the time to educate themselves, and really see the truth amidst the chaos. This is my goal, and to do it with as much class as I can muster, as much humor, self-confidence, and humility as is possible for me. Unfortunately for some of you, and I do say this with great humility, I am right about most issues. Don't worry, if I discover I am wrong about something, I'll admit it, and even retract. I consider this to be an act of strength, not weakness.

By the way, I’ll be changing the look and feel of the blog a bit in the coming weeks. Any feedback in the future will be welcome. I do want it to be a serious political blog, although I don’t mind being somewhat personal, and unique also. So bear with me while I try a few things out. Any suggestions at getting Adsense to target correctly?

Anyway, today's topic. Someone at the White House is doing a snow job, and you know who I mean. Tony Snow. He's doing a great snow job, and I mean this as a compliment. By snow job I mean "Snow" job, which is his usual brilliant, yet low key approach to the most important issues of our day. He continues having to dodge spears flung by the ubiquitous left-wing ignoramuses of the White House press corps, but he handles them like no other presidential press secretary I've ever seen. He doesn't take their bullshit. He even puts loony Helen Thomas in her place. I find myself cheering every time he speaks.

See this great video clip of Snow vs. the she’d be considered vicious if she weren’t so unintentionally funny Thomas, snow-vs-thomas.

When the White House chose Snow to replace the ineffective Scott McClellan, it was thought to be a move to a “less insular” administration. This has turned out to be true. Snow is open to almost any question, and he’ll give you a straight answer. Plus, he knows what he is talking about. He not only grasps the issues, he is able to explain the administration’s viewpoints, and even argue them effectively.

A typical press conference is the left trying to zing him, and he zinging right back. Then the room goes silent. Then they muster up their left-wing vacuousness again, and come up with another non-sequitor accusation or implication. Then, he handles it with poise and logic, redirecting them to sanity.

The current left-wing bias of the week is that Israel is the bad buy and Hezbollah are just the snakes, and what can you expect from a snake? Snakes bite, and they kill. The Israelis, though, are the real bullies. They are “disproportionate” in their response. Snow does a wonderful job of redirecting these press corp airheads back to the realities that Hezbollah started all this violence. Hezbollah continues the violence. Hezbollah wants the state of Israel to disappear. You cannot negotiate with Hezbollah, since you’ve got nothing they want, except your death. So, you must kill Hezbollah. You must wipe them out, and extract their venom.

Snow won’t succeed in converting the Helen Thomas’s into rational human beings. He won’t transform the anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, pro-tyrant, anti-American press corps into good Americans. He will, though, speak the truth calmly, and with good humor, and some people will hear him. Magnificent snow job, Tony!

This Post's Technorati Tags: editorial, opinion, Tony Snow, White House snow job, White House press corps, Helen Thomas, Israel, Hezbollah, truth

An Ideal World

No More Foot-Dragging - New York Times: "What the people of Lebanon and Israel urgently need is a cease-fire followed by the swift deployment of a well-armed force with a mandate to aggressively keep the peace. That must be accompanied by an international guarantee that Hezbollah will be forced to halt its attacks on Israel permanently and disband its militia so Lebanon can regain control of its borders and its sovereignty."

I'm not dumb enough or naive enough to think we could ever live in an ideal world. Sometimes I dream, though, what it would be like.

In this present crisis of the Middle East in Lebanon, the world would join together to solve the root causes of the problems. First, terrorism would be outlawed in practice as a technique of political persuasion. If Hezbollah would bomb an Israeli market, then the United Nations would join Israel in disarming Hezbollah and destroying their capability to make mischief. The United States would go into Lebanon alongside Israel and help them finish the job quickly and forever.

Second, the Arab and Islamic states would pressure the Palestinians to accept a two-state solution to the problem of Palestine. If the Palestinians would flaunt any peace agreement, the Islamic states would cut off economic aid to them. The United States would follow suit.

Third, then the United Nations could get on with other trouble spots in the world, like Darfur.

I think all this would be easy as pie. It would mean peace in our time.

Instead, Hezbollah attacks Israelis civilians. Israel, alone, defends itself. The world condemns Israel. The United States is "big enough" to allow Israel to defend itself, this time. At least Condoleeza Rice and the Bush administration are talking root causes, which is something new.

This Post's Technorati Tags: ideal world, opinion, Israeli, Palestinian, war, peace, Hezbollah, root causes, two-state solution, truth

Global Warming

I watched a TIVO of Tom Brokaw's "Global Warming: What You Need to Know." I was afraid to see it, as lefty Tom, I would expect, would present the usual biased view on one of the left's major issues. There is no way I'm going to attend Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," as I know it will be full of Gore self-aggrandizement, bad science, and alarmist propaganda. I was pleasantly surprised with Brokaw, however. Though he sprinkled the piece with plenty of the usual leftist alarmism, he also presented at least some of the truth, which is what I am all about.

A couple things I still disagree with, however. First, no leftist piece, and this one was no different, presents scientists from the opposing view. Second, well, I'll get to this at the end.

After seeing this piece, with all the glaciers melting and such, I buy the fact that we are in a period of global warming. I also buy that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen along with the temperature. I saw no proof, however, of a causal relationship, at least as it was presented. In other words, are rising CO2 levels causing global warming, or is it a result of it?

The question arises, and Brokaw did at least try to deal with this, are we just in another natural cycle of warming, or is mankind affecting it for the worse? I’m almost convinced that we do have something to do with it. Again, though, I’d like to hear from the scientists who disagree with this.

If we are causing global warming with our emissions of greenhouse gases, I am willing to go green to a certain extent, as I love nature and the quality of life as much as any liberal. I don’t want the polar bears to go extinct. I will not be happy if Katrina becomes a recurring event.

The Brokaw piece, though, hinted that none of the scientists knows for sure the future course of global warming. A slight tilt in the earth’s orbit can even lower temperatures worldwide 1 degree, which could start a cycle of events leading to another ice age. To me, this means that global warming would then be a good thing. It could save us from going the way of the wooly mammoth. Still, the consensus of scientists, they say, is that global warming is real, and will continue to get worse. So, fine, let’s go green. But let’s do it rationally, without panic. We don’t need to go all the way to Kyoto. Also, the U.S. might be the major culprit in the warming now, but China and India will become major players in this very soon, and we’ll have to figure out what to do with them on this issue. You can’t very well tell them to stay in the Stone Age.

Lastly, no one on earth seems to realize, except me it seems, that there is another factor in all this. Population. Do the math. How much CO2 will be pumped into the atmosphere when the U.S. census reaches 600 million, as opposed to 300 million? Even if you get 80 miles per gallon, average, 600 million people will throw out a lot of greenhouse gases. Plus, expanding human populations are largely responsible for the disappearance of the Amazon rain forest, the extinction of animal species in Africa, and even the diminished populations of the Atlantic salmon.

The right pooh-poohs the harm of over-population. The left won’t tackle this issue because it would offend some of its constituents, like the burgeoning Hispanic base. Capitalism, in fact, in order to grow, needs an ever-increasing number of people. This is one of the major flaws of the system.

What are the solutions? Fine, let’s go green to an extent, but we don’t need to go hog-wild. Second, and this is Rock’s contribution, we need to worry about overpopulation. This planet might seem big to us at times, but there is a limit to intelligent growth, capitalism notwithstanding. Plus, remember that global warming might save us when the next ice age comes a threatening. Let’s hear from all the scientists, not just the lefties.

This Post's Technorati Tags: environment , global warming, greenhouse effect, CO2 levels, overpopulation , extinction, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, truth

Letter To A Terrorist Getting Ready For His Day of Blowing Up Babies

Yes, of course I’m being deliberately provocative. I’m not exaggerating, though, not a bit. You, Mr. Terrorist, are, somewhere in this world, getting your bomb ready to deliberately blow up babies, in Iraq, Israel, and maybe even in the United States. Women, children, old people, and babies. Innocents.

Yes, I’ve heard your rationale for what you’re doing. “They’re not innocents. They support Israel.” I think you’re right, most American and Israeli babies support the state of Israel. This is a fact that can’t be denied. Every baby I’ve ever talked to said he or she are Zionists.

I know also that you say that America is just as bad, and Israel. After all, we carpet bombed Dresden, Tokyo, Vietnam, and even dropped a nuclear weapon, twice, on innocent civilians. You’re right. We stopped the Nazi’s and the Japanese, who, at that time, were committing atrocities and trying to take over the world.

Israel, too, at one time committed terrorist acts. They blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem in 1947, after warning people to leave.

Israel doesn’t use terrorist acts anymore, nor does the United States. It would be nice if no nation ever used them again, period.

I realize too that you have a difficult time distinguishing between the terms "target" versus "collateral damage." Let me say it slowly to try and help you and your friends in the liberal media understand. When you target innocent people that is terrorism. It is evil. Collateral damage is when an army goes after a military asset and unavoidably kills civilians. The fact that you, Mr. Terrorist, and your cowardly friends hide your military assets in the middle of civilian populations does not make the collateral damage that results from military action into a terrorist act. You are the terrorist. The United States and Israel are going after military assets.

I know, you are a “freedom fighter,” not a terrorist. Those nasty Jews came in and took your land. Of course, Jews had lived in Palestine for thousands of years, and the State of Israel had existed there several times in history, but that doesn’t count.

Plus, they took your land only after you tried to annihilate them. In 1947, you went to slaughter them and drive them into the sea. It didn’t work. They won some of your land, legally, in a defensive war. The same thing happened again in 1967, and 1973.

I know also that it doesn’t matter to you that Israel has given back territories it won legally in defensive wars—to Egypt and Lebanon. Recently, Israel surrendered the Gaza strip, and large parts of the West Bank. How did you thank them? You bombed their babies.

You still just want one thing, don’t you? To slaughter Israelis and drive them to the sea.

So, because you can’t defeat the Israelis and the Americans directly, you fight an asymmetrical war. You blow up babies.

I know I can’t reason with you. You are in a trance. You’ve been brainwashed your whole life. Your Imams at your hate-spewing mosques and schools have filled your heart with darkness. You think Americans and Israelis are evil.

Look in the mirror to see the real evil. I have no sympathy for you, nor for your cause. I don’t think you have a shred of humanity left. If I could get you to consider the enormity of what you are about to do, I would. How did you arrive at such a level of hate? When you reached a certain age, weren’t you capable of independent thought? Are you just an automaton?

I’m afraid that you are a lost cause. My goal, therefore, Mr. Terrorist, is to kill you, before you blow up that baby. Since I am not a soldier, this won’t happen.

When you die, though, either by blowing yourself up in a crowded outdoor market, near a family out for a day of fun, or are killed by your enemies, or die of natural causes—you’re going to get a surprise. Don’t expect 72 virgins to be waiting for you. Allah’s not going to be happy with you either. He’s going to be very unhappy with you. Very unhappy.

This Post's Technorati Tags: editorial, terrorism, terrorist, Islamo-facism, freedom fighter, truth

On Being a Conservative in Southern California

Before I started blogging, my only connection with conservatives had been vicarious. I listened avidly to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Larry Elder, Michael Savage, Dennis Prager, Bill Crystol, Fox News, and others, and cheered or argued with them in my imagination. I also jeered and argued the same way with all the network news outlets, CNN, Bill Press, Al Franken, Katie Couric, and so on. Plus, living in L.A., I got to decide whether to "come out" as a conservative in this rabidly liberal territory.

I did come out. It has been rewarding to do so, but quite a battle, let me tell you. The first time I did it, jaws actually dropped. Being in the film business, every party was a Bush-bashing affair. The first time I dared disagree with the vicious Bush-hating, it was like I farted loudly at an Enya concert.

I've learned to speak up now at every opportunity. This doesn't make me popular, but it at least lets my liberal friends know who I am and where I stand. It also forces them to use logic once in awhile, instead of relying totally on the liberal mantras they recite every day of their lives.

I do feel I've made a difference. I haven't scored any converts, but I've at least got these liberals thinking, which is something they're not used to.

I know it's my fault that I've had no connections with conservatives in La-La Land. There surely are conservative groups here that I could join. I'll do exactly that one day. One of the things that has been stopping me, I know, is that I'm not a religious right kind of guy. I'm also left wing on several issues, like the environment, science, some social issues, and maybe even health care.

Plus, I'm radically right wing on other issues, like the economy, affirmative action, immigration, and defense.

I wonder if there's a home for me? I continue to believe that I am what they call a neo-conservative. Maybe this is my political nest.

Anyway, blogging has been a blessing. Not only do I get to read the blogs of like- and unlike-minded people, I have the opportunity to tell the world what I think. And, miracle of all miracles, the world responds!

I read and listen to various news sources, liberal and conservative, and I explore blogs with many viewpoints. I get responses from those that agree and disagree, from fans and detractors. It's wonderful. It feels like I live in a democracy, and I guess I do. Nobody yet has shown up to imprison me for anything I've said so far. I continue to try to be open, honest, and respectful.

I was right to come out of the closet in L.A., and in Hollywood. I was right to begin blogging. Being a conservative in Southern California is still a lonely occupation, but not so much anymore.

This Post’s Technorati Tags: politics, political, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, editorial, opinion, Hollywood, society, truth

I Bear Witness to the Truth

I received an important comment to one of my posts, and feel obligated to clarify my views on the issue of religion. Some who consider themselves fervent believers in one or another organized religion feel that God wants them to bear witness to His Word. Those of us who believe in God, but mistrust the fallibility of the human beings who run organized religions, stand meekly by, afraid to say what we envision as the truth. We are anxious because we are iconoclasts, isolated and without support for our views. I want to be the first to say that it is our obligation to "witness" too, and that there are probably enough of us around to form our own religion.

I’m not a libertarian, as my commentator has defined me, as I believe in government intervention, and even “big government,” with such things as the environment, food and drug safety, support for science and medicine, and defense. I am libertarian on some issues. I don’t want the government in my personal business. I want them out of my bedroom and morals.

I think that I am basically a neo-con. My commentator is, I believe, a right wing, conservative, fundamentalist Christian. What I don’t like about fundamentalists, of any religion, and about most organized religions, is their intolerance. I don’t like people having the gall to think they have a direct pipeline to God and that I don’t. I don’t respect anyone who is not open to God speaking to him or her now, right now, and instead relying on what people a long time ago said about God speaking to them.

I also do not like fundamentalists because of their moral certainty. They consider their values as “facts.” As my reader said, it is a “fact” that a unique human life begins at conception. I know that even the Catholic Church has a long-standing debate about the moment when the human soul enters the body. Some say it’s at conception; others believe it’s at birth; and still others think it happens somewhere in-between.

The fundamentalist Muslim “knows” that Allah wants him to blow up women and children; the fundamentalist Jew is certain that Yahweh has set aside Ha Aretz for the Jews; and the fundamentalist Christian has been told by God that anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ is going to hell. Fundamentalism has caused jihads, the blowing up of mosques, the Inquisition, and 9/11.

If you are religious, I respect you very much, as long as you respect me. I know that you are trying to listen to God, striving to live a good life, and working to be decent to your fellow human beings. These are all good. I stop respecting you when you believe God is talking to you and not me, that you are better than me because of your beliefs, or that God is telling you to hurt me.

Religion has been a force for great good in the world, and great evil. The evil, in my opinion, always comes from the fundamentalists. The good comes from people struggling to know the truth, straining to know what God wants, in humility. My advice for you is: yes, listen to what is written in the Quran, the Torah, the Bible; heed the teachings of your mosque, synagogue, or church; but don’t turn a deaf ear to what is happening at this moment. God is talking to you now. Do you hear Him? Is He speaking just to you? Or is He talking to me too?

God bless you all.

Rock

This Post's Technorati Tags: religion, opinion, fundamentalism, right-wing, conservative, Christian, Israel, Jew, Bible, Quran, Torah, Ha Aretz, God, Jesus Christ, Allah, truth

Our Moral Dilemma

Bush Blocks Stem Cell Bill - New York Times: "WASHINGTON, July 19, 2014 President Bush vetoed a bill for the first time today, using his constitutional power to reject legislation passed by Congress that would expand federal research on embryonic stem cells, a step he said would be crossing a 'moral line.'"

President Bush today at the White House with children born as a result of an embryo-adoption program.

"'This bill would support the taking of innocent human life,' Mr. Bush said at the White House, surrounded by scores of children born as a result of an embryo-adoption program and their parents.' Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value,' Mr. Bush said. Looking at the children around him, he said to loud applause, 'These boys and girls are not spare parts.'"

The study of stem cells began in the 1960s after research by Canadian scientists Ernest McCullochand James Till (Wikipedia).

This issue shows a great divide in our nation, which almost mirrors the political divide between Republicans and Democrats, split right down the middle. Many of our newest residents, Hispanics, being largely Catholic, agree with the president.

I want to be respectful to both sides.

Religious fundamentalists believe, simply, that using human embryos for research is wrong. At the very least it’s tampering with the stuff of God. I grew up Catholic and certainly understand the prohibition against the taking of life. I also get the idea of the slippery slope, where granting stem cell research now might eventually lead to cloning human beings for spare parts and such. None of us wants this.

“Medical researchers believe stem cell research has the potential to change the face of human disease by being used to repair specific tissues or to grow organs. Yet there is general agreement that, ‘significant technical hurdles remain that will only be overcome through years of intensive research.’” (Wikipedia)

Nancy Reagan and Michael J. Fox are in favor of stem cell research, as was the late Dana Reeve. Ms. Reagan, of course, thinks it could lead to a cure for Alzheimer’s. Mr. Fox is interested in alleviating Parkinson’s disease. Ms. Reeve wanted to help spinal-chord injury patients walk again.

I’ve considered both sides carefully. I respect where each is coming from. My decision is, I am firmly pro stem cell research, for two major reasons:

First, if you are concerned with life, think how many lives will be saved from this research.

Second, I can’t believe that God is only concerned with life itself. I believe He must care also about the quality of life.

This Post's Technorati Tags: editorial, opinion, stem cell research, conservative, liberal, Catholic, Nancy Reagan, Michael J. Fox, Dana Reeve, George W. Bush

God Bless Joe Lieberman

Lieberman Rival Seeks Support Beyond Iraq Issue - New York Times

By PATRICK HEALY, Published: July 19, 2006, GREENWICH, Conn., "Ned Lamont has become a political sensation in Connecticut by being a multimillionaire who wants the troops out of Iraq. But he would love, love to get people talking about other things than his wealth or the war.

Mr. Lamont breezed past Iraq the other night at a fund-raiser in Stamford for his campaign against Senator Joseph I. Lieberman. Instead he delved into Israel, jobs, Terri Schiavo, and his beef with Don Imus, the radio talk show host, who recently called Mr. Lamont a 'bug-eyed pencil neck geek." Imus is incredibly popular here in Fairfield County, so I have to deal with that.' Mr. Lamont said in an interview afterward. 'People need to know the real me, not just the war and the money, if I'm going to pull this off.'"




Ned Lamont also wants to be known for his positions on education.





God bless Joe Lieberman. He's the only Democrat in the United States, besides Zel Miller, with cajones (spelling?). I'm glad that Hillary Clinton appears reasonable on the Iraq issue, but Lieberman has gone further in emphasizing the real need to win there. He is also willing to admit the obvious truth, that no matter what, Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein.

Left-leaning on a whole host of issues, Lieberman qualifies as a genuine liberal. He is anathema, though, to radicals like John Dean and George Soros.

Independents and neo-cons, like me, respect and love him. He is not so liberal that I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him. He is a good man. God bless you Joe Lieberman.

This Post's Technorati Tags: Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Zel Miller, politics, conservative, right wing, liberal, left wing, leftist

Chicago Weighs New Prohibition: Bad-for-You Fats

New York Times, July 18, 2006, By MONICA DAVEY. "Edward M. Burke, who has served on the Chicago City Council since 1969, when cooking oil was just cooking oil, is pressing his colleagues to make it illegal for restaurants to use oils that contain trans fats, which have been tied to a string of health problems, including clogged arteries and heart attacks.

If approved, nutrition experts say, the ban will be the first in a major city, following the lead of towns like Tiburon, Calif., just north of San Francisco, where restaurant owners have voluntarily given up the oils. In truth, while the proposal’s prospects are uncertain, Chicago officials have been on a bit of a banning binge these days in what critics mock as City Hall’s effort to micromanage residents’ lives in mundane ways."

Now here comes out the liberal in me. I love this stuff. Boo to tobacco companies. Boo to trans-fats. Yeah to the environment, health, and well-being of all kinds.

If the government is going to micro-manage, I want them to do it for health reasons, and for a greater quality of life. Stay out of the bedroom, you nasty Republicans. Don't mess with stem cell research! Put your Bibles away, and pick up a good science book.

This Post's Technorati Tags: health, environment, conservative, liberal, quality of life

Sunnis Want U.S. to Remain in Iraq

New York Times, BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 16 "As sectarian violence soars, many Sunni Arab political and religious leaders once staunchly opposed to the American presence here are now saying they need American troops to protect them from the rampages of Shiite militias and Shiite-run government forces.

The pleas from the Sunni Arab leaders have been growing in intensity since an eruption of sectarian bloodletting in February, but they have reached a new pitch in recent days as Shiite militiamen have brazenly shot dead groups of Sunni civilians in broad daylight in Baghdad and other mixed areas of central Iraq.

The Sunnis also view the Americans as a 'bulwark against Iranian actions here,' a senior American diplomat said. Sunni politicians have made their viewpoints known to the Americans through informal discussions in recent weeks."

This is an amazing development. What does it mean? Two things.

First, after getting blown up while shopping, going to their mosques, and at their funerals, the Shia have decided to act in kind.

Second, the Iraqis are not familiar with democracy. They know only control by violence. Saddam Hussein was so nasty he could keep the Iraqis from killing each other.

Democracy demands a sophistication. It "took" in Poland after the fall of Soviet Russia. It "took" in Russia, at first, but now they are sliding back into totalitarianism.

The lure of absolute power is undeniable. It takes a mighty big person, like George Washington, to resist the temptation to become a king, or a dictator, especially when the people are demanding you do it. It takes mighty big people to resist vendettas and orgies of revenge.

We cannot impose democracy on Iraq. We’ve given them the chance for it. We can advise them, if they are willing to listen. This is all we can do.

The Chinese say, “May you live in interesting times.” I guess we’re lucky.

This Post's Technorati Tags: editorial, opinion, news, Shia, Sunni, war, democracy, Iraq, totalitarianism, truth

A Modest Proposal—My Solution for World Peace

The Washington Times, America's Newspaper: Israeli planes strike Beirut, by Sam F. Ghattas, July 16, 2006. "Israel intensified its air assault on Lebanon yesterday, bombing central Beirut for the first time and pounding seaports and a key bridge as it tightened a noose around this reeling nation."

The only thing that world leaders want at a time like this is "restraint." They wish things would "calm down." They hope the parties will "negotiate."

One of the indications of insanity is when a person continues to try the same ineffective solution for her problems, over, and over, and over. The world is behaving insanely.

Case in point—Israel gives back all territory in Lebanon, and now Gaza. It stops all hostilities. It tries to "negotiate" a peaceful solution. What did it get for this effort? World scorn, kidnappings of its soldiers, bombs in their open-air markets, and rockets in their bedrooms.

My modest proposal for world peace is this. The United States needs to do what it promised after 9/11—attack terrorists wherever they are, including those who harbor them, and those who support them financially.

This means we need to strike Iran, Syria, and anyone else who is behind this bloodshed in the world. This could even mean Saudia Arabia, which may be funding terrorism and radical Islamic schools. This does not mean we send troops. We can do it with air strikes. The object would not be to overthrow governments. Rather, we would want to cripple these countries economically. Practically, President Bush would announce to Iran and Syria et al, “Stop supporting terrorists in any way, or we will attack you.” He would give them 30 days to comply. Then, if they had not cooperated, we would strike.

Would this lead to an escalation of violence? Yes. Would it lead to recession and even economic depression? Yes, it could. I'm aware that we would face a wide war, with oil embargos and the whole works. We would also face worldwide condemnation. What else is new? Bush would lose even more in the polls. Hysterical Democrats would probably win in the next elections. All this is the price of war. War is ugly.

What I believe most people are missing is that we are already at war. This war will go on indefinitely the way we are waging it. We will pay for it one way or another. Look at gasoline prices.

It is insane to think that Islamo-fascists will give up their hatred for the West if we are nicer to them. It is delusional to think that Palestinians will accept Israel as a legitimate state if Israel tears down their wall and opens their checkpoints. We’ve tried these solutions over, and over, and over.

We need to fight this war the way we fought WWII, with enough breadth of force and staying power until the economic back of terrorism is broken.

Deal with it. As long as we are at war, we ought to win it, and we can. Anything less is insane.

This Post's Technorati Tags: editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, war, peace, Israel, Palestinian, Islamo-facism, truth

Who is a Better Person, Don King or Jane Fonda?

Don King was convicted of manslaughter and is suspected of having underworld ties. Jane Fonda sat in an enemy tank and laughed with the folks who were slaughtering our boys in Vietnam. Don King has been sued by 7 of the boxers he represented. Jane Fonda is hated by veterans and other Americans.

Has Don King turned his life around? I can't be sure. All I know are the rumors and how he presents himself. The worst you can say about him now is that he is heavy-handed with his boxers, and perhaps gives them a raw deal. On the other hand, he is a great promoter, and his boxers get top billing and publicity. Anyone who signs with King needs to be careful of the dotted lines. Yet, they will be seen. They will get their golden opportunities.

Has Jane Fonda turned her life around? She has apologized, if half-heartedly. She won't be sitting in Al-Queda tanks (if there were such a thing), that's for sure. She went on to a distinguished career in film.

In the end, though, I believe that Don King is the better person. My reasons are that he is unabashedly patriotic, waving those flags, proclaiming, "America is the best!" Plus, he is a Bush supporter, and a proponent of the Iraq war.

Jane Fonda won't be encouraging enemy soldiers to kill our boys anymore, but she continues to hate America. She demonizes any president who has the gall to defend our country. She is still a leftist, socialist, ungrateful limousine liberal.

Give me Don King any day.

This Post's Technorati Tags: politics, political, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, news, current affairs, media, society, culture, democracy, Don King, Jane Fonda

Chaos in the World

Israel Blockades Lebanon; Wide Strikes by Hezbollah - New York Times: "BEIRUT, Lebanon, Friday, July 14. Israel imposed a full naval blockade on Lebanon on Thursday and put Beirut's international airport out of commission, and the militant group Hezbollah loosed a hail of rockets and mortar shells that killed two Israelis and sent thousands into bomb shelters."

So many things are happening on the international fronts that it makes one's head spin. The Middle East is on fire. Russia is turning despotic again. Russia and China are allowing Iran and Korea to develop nuclear weapons. Al-Queda is bombing innocent civilians worldwide. Iraq and Afghanistan remain dangerous and chaotic. Hugo Chávez is cutting deliveries of oil to American gas companies.

A lot of this is beyond control. There is no ready answer. The only solution is to deal with the world as it is, stay clear on priorities, and act on principles no matter what the results will be. The focus must be on process. Remain calm and steer in the right direction.

We must stay the course in Iraq. We must acknowledge the rising power of China and deal with it. We should coax, not coerce, Russia back to democracy. We must allow Israel to defeat Hamas and Hezbollah. We should develop alternative sources of energy, like ethanol. We must deal with leaders like Hugo Chávez and Kim Jong-il like schoolyard bullies, with calm strength and wise resolve.

Bush gets a bad rap on his international capabilities, I believe. When I think of the steps mentioned above that we must do—he's pretty much on target for all of them. Quite a feat for "the worst president in history," as several pundits on the left are now starting to call him.

Closing the Black-White Economic Gap

Indianapolis Recorder - NATIONAL NEWS: Shortly after the defeat of the bill that included the minimum wage increase, Congressional Black Caucus member Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), expressed her disappointment. "It is unacceptable that the Republican Majority in the House will vote today to give a tax cut to the heirs of millionaires while blocking an increase in the minimum wage for millions of hardworking Americans," said Lee. "This Republican-controlled Congress already approved an average tax cut of $42,000 this year to those making more than a million dollars annually. Instead of rewarding the hard work of Americans struggling to make ends meet, Republicans are hard at work making sure the heirs of the wealthy few get an enormous tax break." House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement last week, "At the same time as energy prices are going up, the minimum wage has not been increased in nine years; it is still $5.15 an hour. People can hardly afford to fill up their car to get to work at $5.15 an hour. In our discussion on this issue in the last couple of days, Democrats are saying to the Speaker, Mr. Speaker, until there is an increase in the minimum wage, we will not support any raise in congressional salaries."

Democrats think that raising the minimum wage will decrease the economic gap between Whites and Blacks. I'm not opposed to raising the minimum wage, but it won't go to the core of this problem.

The real issues are education and globalization.

Blacks need to make a cultural transformation so that they value education, and hence get better jobs. For example, they need to stop stigmatizing Black kids who do well in school as "acting white." They need to discourage their children from spending most of their lives on the basketball court. This transformation is easier said than done. Still, this is what is needed. A raise in the minimum wage won't affect this.

Globalization is a problem that affects us all, Black and White. For example, computer programming is now outsourced to India. So, the wages of computer programmers are lowered in the United States. Plus, there are fewer computer-programming jobs here.

Globalization is a fact. We can't roll back the clock on this one. What can we do about it? I have no idea.

What I do know is that we must be resilient. We will make some sort of adjustment where we can benefit. For example, we can become the users of outsourcing. We can form companies that send work overseas.

Other adjustments will be: creating new technologies, new business concepts, and new kinds of services. We are not just competing with the boys and girls on the block anymore—we are up against Wall Mart, India, China, and the rest of the world. It is important, though, not to lose hope. There are ways to get around this, and even to thrive with it.

The 10 Greatest Sins of the Left

As I've said before, I could understand or even support the left of the past—which had heroes like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and John F. Kennedy. The liberals of today, though, are a different matter. I could write 100 greatest sins of the current left, but here are 10:

1. They build their philosophy on hatred. They hate Bush, Christians, corporations, the military, and whites, especially the white male. Most of them even hate their own country.

2. Facts don't get in the way of their theories. Michael Moore's garbage films and Oliver Stone's groundless conspiracy theories (JFK) are their religion. Noam Chomsky’s anti-American pronouncements, without basis in fact, are scripture.

3. They are weak on defense. They don't realize that their right to spout their goofy theories is protected only by a strong military. They are "anti-war," peace advocates, like Neville Chamberlain—whose "peace at any cost" philosophy, ironically, always leads to war. They are weak in character and don't realize that "There is a time for war, and a time for peace."

4. Most of them are unabashed communists now, or at least socialists. They can't see that socialism has failed as an economic system—witness Soviet Russia.

5. They supposedly are big on the environment, while riding in limos, air-conditioning their homes, and supporting the decadent energy-wasting Hollywood crowd.

6. They can dish out criticism, but they can't take it. They cry "blacklist" when confronted.

7. They hate anyone who speaks the truth. They punish any idea that is not politically correct, whether it is true or not.

8. In my opinion, they are racists. Though it is by now a cliché, I believe they are guilty of the soft bigotry of low expectations. In other words, they pander to minorities, so that they will be liked.

9. They want everyone to like them, and they want to be seen as good guys and girls. They are not willing, though, to really do good things. They'd rather give a man a fish, and look like a great person, than teach that man to fish.

10. They shamelessly engage in class warfare.

The 10 Greatest Sins of the Right

I am mostly a conservative. I suppose you'd call me a neo-con. But I have some strong disagreements with the right, and here are a few of them:

1. Conservatives manage to court Hispanic voters, but neglect African-Americans.

2. They cede groups of people, like the young, the old, the Blacks, the hip, Hollywood, and the Universities.

3. They are too religious.

4. They worry too much about pornography.

5. They are too much in our private lives. Get out of the abortion debate.

6. They are ignorant of science, as in stem cell research.

7. They defend the indefensible, like tobacco companies.

8. They defend their crooked buddies, as in Ken Lay.

9. They want to seem like nice guys. They don’t know how to take the gloves off.

10. They spend at least as much money as the Left.

Hollywood Nitwits

Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon's Hollywood Hunger Strike:
"Some left-leaners in Tinseltown believe they have found a way to promote their anti-war cause without skipping a gourmet beat.

Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover, and Ed Asner are a few of the Hollywood celebrities who believe they can wage a hunger strike and get compassionate credit while having someone else do the fasting for them.

Now, that's the kind of hunger strike a limousine liberal can embrace."

                                                                                     Sean Penn, the number one  
                                                                                     Hollywood nitwit of all time.

The anti-American Hollywood airheads are at it again. These folks rail against environmental waste while they ride in gas-guzzling limos and cool their mansions with dozens of electricity-gulping air conditioners. Like Barbara Streisand, they advocate that the "peons" save energy by hanging their wash on the line, while they themselves buy the latest energy-slurping washers and dryers. They spread hatred by demonizing our President. They endanger America by bad-mouthing the necessary Iraq war. Now they have "peasants" like gullible Cindy Sheehan fast, while they, the royal celebrities, do a "rolling fast," fasting one day then passing on this "sacrifice" to another of their goofy friends.

They don't have a brain cell in their collective heads, nor a conscience, nor any semblance of character. They are vacuous dimwits.

Compare them with the Hollywood stars of WWII, like Jimmy Stewart, Betty Grable, and John Wayne, who supported the war effort vigorously, helped sell war bonds, entertained the troops, and even joined the armed forces.

I hope that there are other Americans who, like me, will resist seeing the movies, buying the songs, and reading the books of Hollywood airheads who rant against America. I will not stop myself from attending an especially good event or film, but I'll find it easier to go if they star professionals like Tom Selleck, Brittany Spears, Dennis Miller, James Woods, or Gary Sinise, who are good Americans.

Why am I so harsh? What about freedom of speech? I am harsh because these Hollywood nitwits have the blood of Americans on their hands. They have the right to speak, but in my opinion they are responsible for what they say. Because of the power they wield, they need to educate themselves on history and geopolitics, and avoid knee-jerk liberalism, which endangers America. They have the right to speak, but so do I. I have the right to respond to what they say. When they call Bush evil, that's okay, but when someone calls them evil, that's not okay? We have free speech too.

They are selling a product, themselves. They are insulting at least half of America when they demonize the war effort and the President. You'd think, just from a business standpoint, they'd at least be diplomatic. If they persist in being dumb by opposing the Iraq war, then they at least can say "It is my opinion that," instead of calling the U.S. murderers and so on. They cry "blacklist." Yes, I advocate a kind of boycott, but not one imposed by the companies or studios—rather, one lead by those American consumers who are offended by the Hollywood airheads' actions.

Whose Country Is This?

Immigration -- and the Curse of the Black Legend - New York Times: "Forget for a moment the millions of Indians who occupied this continent for 13,000 or more years before anyone else arrived, and start the clock with Europeans' presence on present-day United States soil. The first confirmed landing wasn't by Vikings, who reached Canada in about 1000, or by Columbus, who reached the Bahamas in 1492. It was by a Spaniard, Juan Ponce de Leon, who landed in 1513 at a lush shore he christened La Florida. Most Americans associate the early Spanish in this hemisphere with Cortes in Mexico and Pizarro in Peru. But Spaniards pioneered the present-day United States, too. Within three decades of Ponce de Leon's landing, the Spanish became the first Europeans to reach the Appalachians, the Mississippi, the Grand Canyon and the Great Plains. Spanish ships sailed along the East Coast, penetrating to present-day Bangor, Me., and up the Pacific Coast as far as Oregon."

Native Americans occupied the United States for thousands of years. Then came the Europeans. The Spanish competed with the French and the English for domination. Hegemony swung back and forth between these forces until finally the English prevailed. English language, custom and law ruled.

The Spanish, though, conquered many other territories, including Mexico, which was populated by the same stock as the Native American tribes.

English rebels set up our democracy and guaranteed, through immigration, a European America for over 200 years.

In the 1960's, though, and thereafter, America became a fairly liberal country in many ways, and including immigration policy. We slowed European immigration and became more "egalitarian." Then, in the last 20 years, the Mexicans realized they could invade. They did. Since we are still a fairly liberal country, and we're "nice guys" now, we allowed this to happen.

Now, the Mexicans have voting power, and the game is over.

The United States of America will finally be a Hispanic nation. Spanish will be our primary language. Who knows what will happen to our political system? Will the Mexicans treat the Europeans as well as they have been treated, or will we revert to 1950's style racism—against Caucasians?

The irony is that the Native Americans, or rather their cousins, will have taken back their country, without war.

We, the Caucasian Europeans, will become the new Indians—disenfranchised from power, from our land, our language, our customs, and our culture. I don't mean to exclude Blacks from this either. African Americans will become even more of a minority.

While this is happening, Europe will transform into a Muslim nation.

Alarmist? Not at all. These are facts, considering demographic trends. Deal with it.

The causes? Liberal immigration policies, and democracy, with its one-man one-vote policy.

The solutions? Have more babies? Open the floodgates to European immigration? Civil war? Dictatorship?

Or, learn Spanish (and buy a prayer rug for those trips to Europe).

Remember Star Wars?

Bush Says U.S. May Have Been Able to Intercept North Korean Missile - New York Times: "CHICAGO, July 7, 2006 - President Bush said Friday that he believed the nation's nascent missile defense system would have had a 'reasonable chance' of shooting down a long-range missile launched by North Korea had it come close to the United States, and he said he was determined to use the United Nations to set 'some red lines' for future behavior by the North Koreans."

Isn't it interesting that the U.S. is now capable, or on the brink, of being able to shoot down enemy missiles? Remember what the hysterical, anti-defense left used to call this program? Star Wars.

Since Vietnam, America always has at least two enemies to fight in every war—the enemy, and the hysterical anti-war left. I suppose this hurdle is a good thing overall, since it shouldn't be easy to enter wars. On the other hand, it means that our wars must remain popular, and must appear winnable. This standard might rule out another WWII, even if it were necessary.

I believe that the Iraq war is vital to peace in the world. It is a beachhead against Islamo-facism in the Middle East. If successful, it will transform history, making life safer for Israeli's, the U.S., Europe, and even for the moderate Islamic nations.

Unfortunately, most of the American and European public at this time are not wise enough, or interested enough, to see this. As Neville Chamberlain learned, peace and freedom are not natural, and not free. They must be defended.

Once again, loony peace advocates like Cindy Sheehan, Susan Sarandon, and Michael Moore hold us hostage. They don't want us to defend ourselves. They eschew silly weapons systems like "Star Wars." They think we ought to "negotiate" with nasty people like the Nazi's and Al-Qaeda.

We'd better pray that they don't prevail, or we'll have conflagration and catastrophe nonstop for the next fifty years, including a nuclear bomb blast in New York City instead of airplanes crashing into towers.

A Bush Flaw

Bush: Ken Lay Was 'A Good Guy', NewsMax.com July 6, 2006: "Bush called Lay, who was a friend of the Bush family and a large donor to the president's campaign, 'a good guy.' He said he was shocked to hear both about the Enron scandal and Lay's death this week from a heart attack at age 64."




This is one of the things about President George Bush that I dislike. It plays right into liberal fears. He can't remember a donor, a business executive, or a dinner circuit Republican that he doesn't think is a good guy.





Bush's defenders will say that he is a loyal friend. Yes, but he is also insensitive. He ignores the thousands of people that Ken Lay hurt, like the little old ladies with their now worthless pension funds. Besides, Ken Lay was set to go to prison, probably for the rest of his life. He was not a good guy.

For my taste, Bush seems too loyal. He isn't discerning enough. He defends crooks like Ken Lay, and holds on to flawed characters like Rumsfeld.

While I support the Iraq war totally, it appears to me that we are fighting there with the wrong strategy, with our hands tied behind our backs—a politically correct war. Rumsfeld and Cheney are responsible for this.

Rumsfeld needed to go a long time ago. But Bush is loyal to his friend and colleague. He puts loyalty and being a good guy himself above the interest of the country. Bush needs to be tougher, like George Patton, or Simon Cowell. He should call a crook a crook. He ought to express sympathy for the folks that Ken Lay damaged. He needs to be more like Donald Trump and learn to say, "You're fired!" and even "You're not a good guy anymore!"