Katrina holds many lessons for America, if we want to learn them. These are the lessons that this compassionate conservative takes from this natural disaster.
First, human nature leads us to look to blame someone for everything, even for acts of nature. I have this same tendency, so I’m equally as guilty. The truth is, though, Nature was the main culprit. We could have been better prepared, and we could have handled it better, but in the main, Nature slapped us upside the head, and it hurt. It still hurts.
That being said, who does the liberal media blame? Bush. Bush first, Bush second, Bush last. It’s all Bush’s fault.
Who do I blame, an honest man much wiser than any liberal? I blame first, Mother Nature, second Mayor Nagin, third, Governor Blanco, fourth FEMA Director Michael Brown, and finally, I blame Bush. I also blame the stupid liberal media for never getting any story of any import correct. I blame Spike Lee, for politicizing the event. And, I blame the dumb American public. Yes, you are dumb America, and I think it’s about time you smartened up.
Why do you continue to buy the crap that the liberal media constantly puts out?
You know, I look at the historical heroes of the left. One of them is Edward R. Murrow. I can agree that he was a hero. He might even be a hero to me. What makes him admirable, though, is not that he was anti-government, or anti-establishment. What makes him a great man was that he relentlessly pursued the truth. Liberals mistakenly believe that their heroes of the past were great because they were rebels, or politically incorrect gadflies. On the contrary. They were icons, like Edward R. Murrow, because, again, they told the truth. If the truth is on Bush’s side, then telling it is the stuff of heroism. If the truth is against Bush, then saying that is heroic. Liberals have come to believe that simply being anti-Bush is heroic. It’s not. It’s cowardly, and stupid.
Tell the truth about Katrina. Busses sat unused. Whose fault was that? Mayor Nagin, the affable black mayor of New Orleans, the “chocolate city.” Whose state government was clueless in this disaster? Governor Blanco’s, another Democrat. What about Bush? Yes, he did a miserable job in this disaster. They all did.
What about racism? Again, the racism, in my mind, lies in not being honest about the whole thing, the pandering to political correctness. There was no racism involved. There was incompetence, not racism. Why was New York cleared and rebuilt faster than New Orleans? Because private industry was involved. Governments are incompetent, you liberals, don’t you get it? Don’t you see why we choose conservatism? Private industry works better than government programs. Billions were given to New Orleans. The incompetent Nagin isn’t spending the money correctly, nor is the incompetent Blanco, the great Democratic bureaucrats. New York, on the other hand, is a beehive of capitalism. Private companies are vying to rebuild left and right. So, their rubble gets cleared. Their structures and economy will recover. New Orleans, though, is left to struggle, as all Democratically controlled places are, with the blame game racists who cry “Woe is me, nobody is helping!” Help yourselves, you idiots. You’ve got the money, do something with it! Stop glad-handing and politicking, and get to work! Give the money to the lowest bidder, to the best capitalistic geniuses out there. You’ll have your levies, then, and busses that run, and a plan for the next disaster.
Wise up, America.
New! Rock’s Truth Forum. Talk with each other! Talk about me. Talk to me when I’m there. Rail, rant, compliment, disparage. No censorship. No comment moderation. Even igor is welcome!
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Getting Inside Other People's Minds
This is my first guest-blogger post. I believe this is a good idea, because we all are contributors to the fabric of truth. Lynn has definite ideas, and her comments are well thought out. Anyone who takes time or effort to express themselves is appreciated by this blogger. If you are a frequent contributor, intelligent and passionate, even if I disagree with you, I might ask you to contribute a post one day. Your opinion counts in this world and we are all big enough to hear different perspectives from our own. To me, it’s a part of listening to God. After your post, however, we will comment, but you can handle that.
Rock, I really do not believe that inside of every compassionate conservative there lies a liberal just waiting to get out. I can sympathize and appreciate that your interests include 'doing right' for everyone, but in actuality, you are imposing your value system on others. Clearly, your value system includes having a home, having proper medical care, and medical coverage. These ideals are simply not the same ideals that everyone has in America. Not everyone wants a "home" or a responsibility. Some people actually want to fail, to disconnect. Of all people, I would think that you would realize this since you have a background in psychology.
Placing your values on others and assuming your value system is the same as all other value systems, is wrong. You are calling this 'compassion' but this is something that you are showing personal bias to. Your feelings/compassion are formed by your value system and it shows bias. I feel that this is inappropriate and is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why extreme liberals are unable to fathom why their ideology is not well received by everyone.
Some homeless people actually choose homelessness as a lifestyle. Some people on-the-system are on self-destructive courses, while others are willing themselves to succeed. Some people choose to disconnect, to fail, to have no responsibilities. Another segment of our population believes in taking care of themselves and their responsibilities.
America provides people with many choices and opportunities. America can also provide people with the means to barely-survive, to go rock bottom, if they so choose. People, being unique individuals, have a variety of influences that form the human foundation. This you know. There is no way that anyone, any group, or political party can "save everyone". There are too many variables.
Humans are a species that, like many other species, are a combination of genetic material that is individually exclusive for each organism within the same species. Our biological reproduction is not yet a cloned/identical process and until then, we are a population that is comprised of unique beings. Unless geneticists begin tampering with controlled DNA to create clones or selective breeding techniques, we will always have a subset of our species that represents the weaker population. This is nothing more than basic genetics.
If we were to "save everyone" we would need to implement a genetic "breeding program", because it is the most realistic and most scientific method to enable our population to become a more viable population. It is about biological control. Would you REALLY want this? (And let's please not even bring religion here -- that is a huge issue to itself.)
If genetic breeding were to be entertained/pursued, we would need to determine what factors would be bred OUT of our human species. Then we would clone asexually. To do that, what would constitute those 'weak' genetics? So here we are back at the idea that homeless people are weaker and need to be tended to and cared for and coddled. Or people who do not have the means to obtain medical care are weaker and need to be tended to and cared for and provided for. See where this is leading, Rock?
To define the weaker segment of the population, one must determine what constitutes that scientific value (not including personal value systems as you are doing, but objective, numeric quantifications). Then, through selective breeding, our species could HOPE for a 100% outcome of successful candidates to represent the human species.
Until then, we all begin as an organism, a neonate, and are nothing more than a genetic luck-of-the-draw, the combinatorics being the contributing factors to our very unique creation. After our birth, our environment will shape our perceptions and we will be formulated into the maturing human.
You know this, Rock. Why not get out your textbooks again and consider science? Let "survival of the fittest" actually take its natural course. Our government needs to stop tampering with human biology by continuing bailout programs everywhere. Any other species unable to provide for themselves, will perish. This is natural law and natural selection is everywhere around us. We accept this biological process with every other species on Earth, but when we look into the eyes of a fellow human who seemingly has "less" than we do, we sometimes get irrational. Some people call it 'compassionate'. Too many people forget that we humans are just another species on this planet.
Rock, I really do not believe that inside of every compassionate conservative there lies a liberal just waiting to get out. I can sympathize and appreciate that your interests include 'doing right' for everyone, but in actuality, you are imposing your value system on others. Clearly, your value system includes having a home, having proper medical care, and medical coverage. These ideals are simply not the same ideals that everyone has in America. Not everyone wants a "home" or a responsibility. Some people actually want to fail, to disconnect. Of all people, I would think that you would realize this since you have a background in psychology.
Placing your values on others and assuming your value system is the same as all other value systems, is wrong. You are calling this 'compassion' but this is something that you are showing personal bias to. Your feelings/compassion are formed by your value system and it shows bias. I feel that this is inappropriate and is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why extreme liberals are unable to fathom why their ideology is not well received by everyone.
Some homeless people actually choose homelessness as a lifestyle. Some people on-the-system are on self-destructive courses, while others are willing themselves to succeed. Some people choose to disconnect, to fail, to have no responsibilities. Another segment of our population believes in taking care of themselves and their responsibilities.
America provides people with many choices and opportunities. America can also provide people with the means to barely-survive, to go rock bottom, if they so choose. People, being unique individuals, have a variety of influences that form the human foundation. This you know. There is no way that anyone, any group, or political party can "save everyone". There are too many variables.
Humans are a species that, like many other species, are a combination of genetic material that is individually exclusive for each organism within the same species. Our biological reproduction is not yet a cloned/identical process and until then, we are a population that is comprised of unique beings. Unless geneticists begin tampering with controlled DNA to create clones or selective breeding techniques, we will always have a subset of our species that represents the weaker population. This is nothing more than basic genetics.
If we were to "save everyone" we would need to implement a genetic "breeding program", because it is the most realistic and most scientific method to enable our population to become a more viable population. It is about biological control. Would you REALLY want this? (And let's please not even bring religion here -- that is a huge issue to itself.)
If genetic breeding were to be entertained/pursued, we would need to determine what factors would be bred OUT of our human species. Then we would clone asexually. To do that, what would constitute those 'weak' genetics? So here we are back at the idea that homeless people are weaker and need to be tended to and cared for and coddled. Or people who do not have the means to obtain medical care are weaker and need to be tended to and cared for and provided for. See where this is leading, Rock?
To define the weaker segment of the population, one must determine what constitutes that scientific value (not including personal value systems as you are doing, but objective, numeric quantifications). Then, through selective breeding, our species could HOPE for a 100% outcome of successful candidates to represent the human species.
Until then, we all begin as an organism, a neonate, and are nothing more than a genetic luck-of-the-draw, the combinatorics being the contributing factors to our very unique creation. After our birth, our environment will shape our perceptions and we will be formulated into the maturing human.
You know this, Rock. Why not get out your textbooks again and consider science? Let "survival of the fittest" actually take its natural course. Our government needs to stop tampering with human biology by continuing bailout programs everywhere. Any other species unable to provide for themselves, will perish. This is natural law and natural selection is everywhere around us. We accept this biological process with every other species on Earth, but when we look into the eyes of a fellow human who seemingly has "less" than we do, we sometimes get irrational. Some people call it 'compassionate'. Too many people forget that we humans are just another species on this planet.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
God Check
Tomorrow, if she is still speaking to me, I’m going to go with a post from my first guest-blogger, someone with whom I agree sometimes and disagree sometimes. I think it’s kind of cool to let other people speak from this pulpit who might see things differently than I, and add to the fabric of truth.
Today, I’m doing God Check. I keep saying that my pipeline to God is just as clear and open as any religious person’s. And it is true that I constantly try to listen to what He is telling me. Unfortunately, He doesn’t whisper in my ear, or perform miracles for my edification, or even give me obvious signs. He speaks to me, I think, like He talks to most people, through the events of my life, the challenges I face, and the people in my life space.
He communicates with me through my new job and its challenges, and through this blog, by what I am led to say, the reactions I get, the challenges it offers, the people I meet. He has chosen to immerse me, for the time being, in liberalism. Yes, I know now Lynn, you aren’t a liberal. When we disagree, however, I’m on the conservative side, and you’re the liberal. So there.
What is God telling me? I’m listening hard, listening hard, listening hard. I think He is telling me to stay humble, but stay honest.
Don’t expect to be loved for speaking the truth. After all, don’t you know that no good deed goes unpunished? You must tell the truth, Rock, because it is the right thing to do.
But, God, I want to be loved.
Rock, so did Jesus.
Yeah, but I’m not as strong as He. I’m not in His league.
You’re telling me? Ha! Forgive me for laughing.
All right, I get it. You don’t have to rub it in.
What do you think of liberals, Rock?
I think they’re idiots.
Yes, you’re right about that, but I created them.
I know, that’s what’s so confusing. How could you be so mean?
Rock, everyone has a purpose in life.
Even liberals?
Yes.
Jesus Christ, oh, I’m sorry.
No problem. He knows you didn’t mean it.
Well, this means I have to … love liberals?
I wouldn’t go that far.
Tolerate them?
Engage them.
Convince them they’re wrong?
No. Sometimes they’re right.
Not often, though.
Yes, that is accurate.
Do I have to invite them to dinner?
They make great pasta prima vera.
I’ve heard.
I think you’ve got it now.
I guess. What if they say something stupid?
You’ve got two choices.
Let me guess, I can confront them, or let it slide?
More like slap them upside the head, or hug ‘em.
Got it.
Go in peace.
Peace be unto You.
All right, who’s the next liberal in line?
Today, I’m doing God Check. I keep saying that my pipeline to God is just as clear and open as any religious person’s. And it is true that I constantly try to listen to what He is telling me. Unfortunately, He doesn’t whisper in my ear, or perform miracles for my edification, or even give me obvious signs. He speaks to me, I think, like He talks to most people, through the events of my life, the challenges I face, and the people in my life space.
He communicates with me through my new job and its challenges, and through this blog, by what I am led to say, the reactions I get, the challenges it offers, the people I meet. He has chosen to immerse me, for the time being, in liberalism. Yes, I know now Lynn, you aren’t a liberal. When we disagree, however, I’m on the conservative side, and you’re the liberal. So there.
What is God telling me? I’m listening hard, listening hard, listening hard. I think He is telling me to stay humble, but stay honest.
Don’t expect to be loved for speaking the truth. After all, don’t you know that no good deed goes unpunished? You must tell the truth, Rock, because it is the right thing to do.
But, God, I want to be loved.
Rock, so did Jesus.
Yeah, but I’m not as strong as He. I’m not in His league.
You’re telling me? Ha! Forgive me for laughing.
All right, I get it. You don’t have to rub it in.
What do you think of liberals, Rock?
I think they’re idiots.
Yes, you’re right about that, but I created them.
I know, that’s what’s so confusing. How could you be so mean?
Rock, everyone has a purpose in life.
Even liberals?
Yes.
Jesus Christ, oh, I’m sorry.
No problem. He knows you didn’t mean it.
Well, this means I have to … love liberals?
I wouldn’t go that far.
Tolerate them?
Engage them.
Convince them they’re wrong?
No. Sometimes they’re right.
Not often, though.
Yes, that is accurate.
Do I have to invite them to dinner?
They make great pasta prima vera.
I’ve heard.
I think you’ve got it now.
I guess. What if they say something stupid?
You’ve got two choices.
Let me guess, I can confront them, or let it slide?
More like slap them upside the head, or hug ‘em.
Got it.
Go in peace.
Peace be unto You.
All right, who’s the next liberal in line?
Monday, August 28, 2006
Smartest and Dumbest Democrats and Republicans
Who are the five Smartest and Dumbest Democrats and Republicans?
Here are my lists. What are yours?:
Democrats
Smartest:
1. Joe Lieberman. He realizes the importance of Iraq in the scheme of things. No other Democrat is smart enough to figure this out.
2. Bill Richardson. He is so intelligent he could be a Republican, and he’s the only Democrat besides Lieberman I could vote for president.
3. Barack Obama. He is clever to spout enough liberal nonsense to get elected, but maintains some connection to reality.
4. Zel Miller. He is smart enough to know what is good for our country, and willing to stand up for it.
5. Hillary Clinton. Though she is an idiot on politics, and is a socialist and everything bad about the Democratic Party that exists, I have to admit that the woman is brilliant, like her husband.
Dumbest:
1. Nancy Palosi. She doesn’t have a brain cell amongst all the air in her head.
2. Ted Kennedy. All his brain matter is in his crotch and his drinking hand.
3. John Kerry. His brain voted for John being able to think before it voted against it.
4. Al Gore. Gore has been breathing too much carbon dioxide.
5. Jimmy Carter. When they announced “brains” Jimmy thought they said “trains” and he missed his.
Republicans
Smartest:
1. George Bush. He remains the only leader in America who really gets the Middle East.
2. Carl Rove. Not only a brilliant campaign strategist, he gets America.
3. Colin Powell. His strategy would have won the Iraq war for us.
4. Condoleeza Rice. She is one of the most intelligent women in America.
5. Jeb Bush. He is as smart as his brother, and he can talk too.
Dumbest:
1. George Bush. His inability to communicate has hurt his presidency, and the nation. His immigration policies are a disaster. He has run the war in Iraq poorly. He is the dumbest brilliant man I have ever seen.
2. Donald Rumsfield. His strategy of a streamlined fighting force in Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi army, leaving weapons caches unguarded and so on, led to the mess we now have in Iraq.
3. George Allen. He has macaca’d himself out of the presidency.
4. John McCain. Two weeks ago I would have made him one of the smartest Republicans. He’s blown any chance at a Republican nomination now, however, by echoing Democratic criticisms of the Iraq war. The issue is timing. He needs the nomination first before he strikes out on his own. Piling on against George Bush will not win him the nomination, and, therefore, is stupid. Before this, he had a chance of becoming our next president. Now, he is on the dumbest list.
5. Tom DeLay. Why did Mr. DeLay think he could get away with criminal wrongdoing and remain in the House, and at the leadership position? He was dumb to misbehave. He was dumb to stay after he was discovered misbehaving. And he was dumb to underestimate the American public, and especially his Republican constituents. We threw the dumb bum out.
Here are my lists. What are yours?:
Democrats
Smartest:
1. Joe Lieberman. He realizes the importance of Iraq in the scheme of things. No other Democrat is smart enough to figure this out.
2. Bill Richardson. He is so intelligent he could be a Republican, and he’s the only Democrat besides Lieberman I could vote for president.
3. Barack Obama. He is clever to spout enough liberal nonsense to get elected, but maintains some connection to reality.
4. Zel Miller. He is smart enough to know what is good for our country, and willing to stand up for it.
5. Hillary Clinton. Though she is an idiot on politics, and is a socialist and everything bad about the Democratic Party that exists, I have to admit that the woman is brilliant, like her husband.
Dumbest:
1. Nancy Palosi. She doesn’t have a brain cell amongst all the air in her head.
2. Ted Kennedy. All his brain matter is in his crotch and his drinking hand.
3. John Kerry. His brain voted for John being able to think before it voted against it.
4. Al Gore. Gore has been breathing too much carbon dioxide.
5. Jimmy Carter. When they announced “brains” Jimmy thought they said “trains” and he missed his.
Republicans
Smartest:
1. George Bush. He remains the only leader in America who really gets the Middle East.
2. Carl Rove. Not only a brilliant campaign strategist, he gets America.
3. Colin Powell. His strategy would have won the Iraq war for us.
4. Condoleeza Rice. She is one of the most intelligent women in America.
5. Jeb Bush. He is as smart as his brother, and he can talk too.
Dumbest:
1. George Bush. His inability to communicate has hurt his presidency, and the nation. His immigration policies are a disaster. He has run the war in Iraq poorly. He is the dumbest brilliant man I have ever seen.
2. Donald Rumsfield. His strategy of a streamlined fighting force in Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi army, leaving weapons caches unguarded and so on, led to the mess we now have in Iraq.
3. George Allen. He has macaca’d himself out of the presidency.
4. John McCain. Two weeks ago I would have made him one of the smartest Republicans. He’s blown any chance at a Republican nomination now, however, by echoing Democratic criticisms of the Iraq war. The issue is timing. He needs the nomination first before he strikes out on his own. Piling on against George Bush will not win him the nomination, and, therefore, is stupid. Before this, he had a chance of becoming our next president. Now, he is on the dumbest list.
5. Tom DeLay. Why did Mr. DeLay think he could get away with criminal wrongdoing and remain in the House, and at the leadership position? He was dumb to misbehave. He was dumb to stay after he was discovered misbehaving. And he was dumb to underestimate the American public, and especially his Republican constituents. We threw the dumb bum out.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Racism versus Culturalism
Understandably, we are all sensitive, at this time in history, about race, and racism. Some Blacks are so sensitive that they see racism in everything. Some Whites are so nervous that they pander to Blacks and Hispanics. Nobody is ready yet to start speaking the truth. I think it’s time. I think we are all mature enough to face it. I think the truth is healthy, for all races.
There is a difference between racism and culturalism. One is okay and one is not. Racism is not okay, but culturalism should be allowed, and even encouraged.
Racism is prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races, and/or the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior.
Culturalism, however, is the belief that some cultures are better than others. Different races can share a similar culture, or the opposite—different cultures can be shared by a single race. Racism is based on genetics, on how people look, on the color of their skin, on the shape of their eyes, on their hair, and so on. It can also be an assumption of traits or stereotypes for a given race. For example, that Whites are racists, or Blacks are lazy, or Jews are greedy.
One area of perceived racism, I believe, does ignore the truth. There are some physical differences among the races, and we are not allowed to say this. White Men Can’t Jump is based on a nugget of truth. While it’s not true in all cases, African-American musculature for its elite athletes does seem to give them an advantage with speed and jumping ability. It’s not a coincidence that African-Americans dominate the NBA, the speed positions on professional football teams, and the 100-meter dash.
The problem comes, I think, when you make the leap into behavior. You assume, for instance, as was done in the past, that Blacks cannot play quarterback, because they don’t have the mental capacity to think on their feet and see the complex dynamics of an ever-changing offense versus an ever-changing defense. Many Warren Moon’s later, this theory has been laid to rest, as have the assumptions that Black’s could not coach or manage or play golf or chess, or anything else that requires mental acuity, like head a corporation successfully. Blacks can do anything any other race can do. Still, percentage-wise, they maintain an advantage in running and jumping, and we ought to be allowed to say this. I’ve just said it. Again, though, don’t make the leap into generalizing about intelligence, morals, industry, or any other mental or spiritual ability. Here, you are being racist.
Culturalism is another matter. Some cultures are better than others, and we ought to be allowed to say so. Culture may be associated with race at certain points in history, but it is not determined by race. A culture that has outlawed slavery is superior to a culture that has not. A culture that has banished cannibalism is superior to a culture that has not. A culture that honors females is superior to a culture that treats females as second-class citizens. A culture that protects innocents is superior to a culture that slaughters them. A culture that allows its citizens to adapt to the modern world is superior to a culture that keeps its citizens mired in 14th-century barbarism.
Beyond this, judging which cultures are better than others gets dicey. Here, subjectivity and relativity do start to play their role.
Which culture is better—African-American or Anglo-American? For this question, I don’t think there is a clear answer. For one thing, there are several African-American cultures, not one, and the same goes for Anglo-Americans. There are, for example, African-American blueblood cultures where all the children go on to Harvard and belong to exclusive polo societies. And, there are the opposite, African-American cultures that seem stuck on welfare. There are Anglo-American cultures where the children are malformed because of inbreeding. Or, the opposite, Anglo-American cultures where the offspring usually become important members of society.
Real African-Americans, and here I am going to get in trouble, those who come from Africa as immigrants, are superior in some ways to some American-born African-Americans, in one sense. They enter this country without a chip on their shoulders. They have no pre-conceived notions about prejudice against Blacks. They arrive with a good attitude, study, work hard, and, as a result, usually do well in America. Economically, though they are clearly Black, sometimes even darker than American Blacks, they achieve more on average because they just do what successful people do everywhere–study, work hard, develop good relationships with their coworkers, smile, have good senses of humor, and keep on plugging. This is the formula for success, regardless of race.
Of course, in America, a lot has to do with family, family values, education, money, class, and opportunities. I realize this.
Still, considering all this, if you make a blanket statement about African-American culture versus Anglo-American culture, then you probably are entering into racist territory. Your judgments are most likely stereotypes based solely on race, and not on the facts.
Where you can make comments safely, though, is when you get back to true culturalism (as in comparing African-Americans from Africa versus native-born African-Americans). You can critique movements, or leadership. You can talk about the Black Panther movement. You can discuss the Ku Klux Klan. You can judge Jesse Jackson, or Martin Luther King, or Malcolm X, or Gandhi, or Al Sharpton, or George Bush, or George Allen. These are fair game.
You don’t have to be brave to enter this territory. It is time, however, for Blacks and Whites to be brave. We need to be honest in every area that is allowed. Then, we must expand what is allowed, in the interest of peace and racial harmony.
It should never be allowed to be racist. It should be permitted to be culturalist, though.
Let me end with an example I use as a personal litmus test for intelligence and objectivity. This is an example that will illustrate what ought to be allowed. If it is not, then we will not advance as a nation in the area of race-relations.
O.J. Simpson—guilty or not? I say this. Black or White, if you don’t see that O.J. is guilty, then you are either stupid, or blinded by feeling. Can Whites be stupid? Yes. This is not a racist opinion. Can Blacks be stupid? Yes. Can intelligent Whites be stupid in one area, or about one thing? Yes. Ditto with Blacks.
I repeat. If you think O.J. is innocent, then you are either stupid, or blinded by feelings. These feelings might be based on paranoia, or racism, or a rage against the system, whatever. They are clouding your thinking, and you ought to examine this.
For you Whites, if you know that O.J. is guilty, and you are afraid to say so, because you want to be seen as nice guys or girls and you don’t want to be considered racists—you are cowards. You are not helping Blacks by this. You are not furthering race relations. You are pandering. You are wrong if you think that Blacks even want this. Honest, intelligent Blacks want to be treated as your equals. They want a legitimate debate and sincere feedback.
Here is the truth about a few things, as I see them. O.J. is guilty. Poverty pimps are abominable. Racism still exists, but with Blacks and Hispanics as well as Whites. Racism against Blacks in America is at an all-time low. Our country has evolved into a pretty decent place with regard to this issue. Racism against Whites, on the other hand, is on the rise, and qualifies as a real problem.
Most Republicans are not racists. Most Whites are not racists.
Yes, as opposed to my generalizations, I know there are parts of the country where race is still a serious problem for Blacks. For this, I am deeply sorry. Anything I can do to help eliminate this, I want to do. To my African-American friends, I am at your service on this problem. What I ask of you, is stop seeing racism everywhere. Stop blaming all your problems on racism. Life is tough, for all of us. Plus, please help me fight racism of all kinds, including against Hispanics, and against Whites.
The worst thing you can be called in America at this time is a racist, which is, in fact, evidence that our country is not racist. There is no racism in our media anymore. So, the charge now is that racism is “covert.” This is absurd. There are some public figures who are racist, but they are not White. Blaming Katrina responses on racism, for example, is racist—against Whites. We’ll get into this in another post, where I’ll address the racist Spike Lee.
Enough food for thought? Bring it on.
There is a difference between racism and culturalism. One is okay and one is not. Racism is not okay, but culturalism should be allowed, and even encouraged.
Racism is prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races, and/or the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior.
Culturalism, however, is the belief that some cultures are better than others. Different races can share a similar culture, or the opposite—different cultures can be shared by a single race. Racism is based on genetics, on how people look, on the color of their skin, on the shape of their eyes, on their hair, and so on. It can also be an assumption of traits or stereotypes for a given race. For example, that Whites are racists, or Blacks are lazy, or Jews are greedy.
One area of perceived racism, I believe, does ignore the truth. There are some physical differences among the races, and we are not allowed to say this. White Men Can’t Jump is based on a nugget of truth. While it’s not true in all cases, African-American musculature for its elite athletes does seem to give them an advantage with speed and jumping ability. It’s not a coincidence that African-Americans dominate the NBA, the speed positions on professional football teams, and the 100-meter dash.
The problem comes, I think, when you make the leap into behavior. You assume, for instance, as was done in the past, that Blacks cannot play quarterback, because they don’t have the mental capacity to think on their feet and see the complex dynamics of an ever-changing offense versus an ever-changing defense. Many Warren Moon’s later, this theory has been laid to rest, as have the assumptions that Black’s could not coach or manage or play golf or chess, or anything else that requires mental acuity, like head a corporation successfully. Blacks can do anything any other race can do. Still, percentage-wise, they maintain an advantage in running and jumping, and we ought to be allowed to say this. I’ve just said it. Again, though, don’t make the leap into generalizing about intelligence, morals, industry, or any other mental or spiritual ability. Here, you are being racist.
Culturalism is another matter. Some cultures are better than others, and we ought to be allowed to say so. Culture may be associated with race at certain points in history, but it is not determined by race. A culture that has outlawed slavery is superior to a culture that has not. A culture that has banished cannibalism is superior to a culture that has not. A culture that honors females is superior to a culture that treats females as second-class citizens. A culture that protects innocents is superior to a culture that slaughters them. A culture that allows its citizens to adapt to the modern world is superior to a culture that keeps its citizens mired in 14th-century barbarism.
Beyond this, judging which cultures are better than others gets dicey. Here, subjectivity and relativity do start to play their role.
Which culture is better—African-American or Anglo-American? For this question, I don’t think there is a clear answer. For one thing, there are several African-American cultures, not one, and the same goes for Anglo-Americans. There are, for example, African-American blueblood cultures where all the children go on to Harvard and belong to exclusive polo societies. And, there are the opposite, African-American cultures that seem stuck on welfare. There are Anglo-American cultures where the children are malformed because of inbreeding. Or, the opposite, Anglo-American cultures where the offspring usually become important members of society.
Real African-Americans, and here I am going to get in trouble, those who come from Africa as immigrants, are superior in some ways to some American-born African-Americans, in one sense. They enter this country without a chip on their shoulders. They have no pre-conceived notions about prejudice against Blacks. They arrive with a good attitude, study, work hard, and, as a result, usually do well in America. Economically, though they are clearly Black, sometimes even darker than American Blacks, they achieve more on average because they just do what successful people do everywhere–study, work hard, develop good relationships with their coworkers, smile, have good senses of humor, and keep on plugging. This is the formula for success, regardless of race.
Of course, in America, a lot has to do with family, family values, education, money, class, and opportunities. I realize this.
Still, considering all this, if you make a blanket statement about African-American culture versus Anglo-American culture, then you probably are entering into racist territory. Your judgments are most likely stereotypes based solely on race, and not on the facts.
Where you can make comments safely, though, is when you get back to true culturalism (as in comparing African-Americans from Africa versus native-born African-Americans). You can critique movements, or leadership. You can talk about the Black Panther movement. You can discuss the Ku Klux Klan. You can judge Jesse Jackson, or Martin Luther King, or Malcolm X, or Gandhi, or Al Sharpton, or George Bush, or George Allen. These are fair game.
You don’t have to be brave to enter this territory. It is time, however, for Blacks and Whites to be brave. We need to be honest in every area that is allowed. Then, we must expand what is allowed, in the interest of peace and racial harmony.
It should never be allowed to be racist. It should be permitted to be culturalist, though.
Let me end with an example I use as a personal litmus test for intelligence and objectivity. This is an example that will illustrate what ought to be allowed. If it is not, then we will not advance as a nation in the area of race-relations.
O.J. Simpson—guilty or not? I say this. Black or White, if you don’t see that O.J. is guilty, then you are either stupid, or blinded by feeling. Can Whites be stupid? Yes. This is not a racist opinion. Can Blacks be stupid? Yes. Can intelligent Whites be stupid in one area, or about one thing? Yes. Ditto with Blacks.
I repeat. If you think O.J. is innocent, then you are either stupid, or blinded by feelings. These feelings might be based on paranoia, or racism, or a rage against the system, whatever. They are clouding your thinking, and you ought to examine this.
For you Whites, if you know that O.J. is guilty, and you are afraid to say so, because you want to be seen as nice guys or girls and you don’t want to be considered racists—you are cowards. You are not helping Blacks by this. You are not furthering race relations. You are pandering. You are wrong if you think that Blacks even want this. Honest, intelligent Blacks want to be treated as your equals. They want a legitimate debate and sincere feedback.
Here is the truth about a few things, as I see them. O.J. is guilty. Poverty pimps are abominable. Racism still exists, but with Blacks and Hispanics as well as Whites. Racism against Blacks in America is at an all-time low. Our country has evolved into a pretty decent place with regard to this issue. Racism against Whites, on the other hand, is on the rise, and qualifies as a real problem.
Most Republicans are not racists. Most Whites are not racists.
Yes, as opposed to my generalizations, I know there are parts of the country where race is still a serious problem for Blacks. For this, I am deeply sorry. Anything I can do to help eliminate this, I want to do. To my African-American friends, I am at your service on this problem. What I ask of you, is stop seeing racism everywhere. Stop blaming all your problems on racism. Life is tough, for all of us. Plus, please help me fight racism of all kinds, including against Hispanics, and against Whites.
The worst thing you can be called in America at this time is a racist, which is, in fact, evidence that our country is not racist. There is no racism in our media anymore. So, the charge now is that racism is “covert.” This is absurd. There are some public figures who are racist, but they are not White. Blaming Katrina responses on racism, for example, is racist—against Whites. We’ll get into this in another post, where I’ll address the racist Spike Lee.
Enough food for thought? Bring it on.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Clarification of My Comment Moderation Policies
I am probably going to post twice today.
This post is a clarification of my Comment Moderation policies. I am doing it because evidently I inadvertently deleted one of my Commenter’s comments. I so much value the time and care people take in posting their comments to my site, that I want to make it clear why I have Comment Moderation turned on at this time, and what could cause me to reject a comment.
I have purposely deleted comments from only 1 commenter. This person has written repeated comments that are racist, anti-Semitic, rude, name-calling, and hate-filled. The main reason I delete this person’s comments is the hatred that emanates from them. I choose not to be confronted with repeated anger and hatred. All of my other commenters have been respectful and rational, even when they passionately disagreed with me.
I will never reject a comment because I disagree with it. I will never reject a comment because it seems to attack me or my ideas. I am open to disagreement, and even attack, and even to a certain amount of ridicule. You can call my heroes names, and even express hatred for them. I will still not reject your comments. This means all you Bush-haters are welcome.
I will not accept racist remarks, however. Like calling Jews “filthy pigs.” I will not accept a continuous stream of hatred, as when someone seems so angry that they want to hurt people, or hurt me.
I went out of my way to personally instruct this person on what I will and will not accept, and this person openly defied my guidelines. Therefore, this person is not only full of anger and hatred, he is patently rude. I don’t like people who hate, people who are deliberately hurtful, or people who are so full of anger that they can’t engage in civilized conversations.
Racism is a touchy subject with me. I won’t accept it. One form of racism I will tolerate, though, because I must confront it head on. This is reverse racism. Racism against whites. I will allow anti-white comments on my site, because I want to reason with the people who hold these views. Most of those who hold these views are not, anyway, hate-filled people who want to harm whites. They just have views which I believe are mistaken, and it’s okay and even good to talk about this issue. If you are anti-white, I will not reject your comments. Say any and every outrageous thing about whites that you believe. I think you feel this way, anyway, because of white complicity, which “enables” you to remain in your mistaken beliefs. We whites are so timid about defending ourselves that we allow the world to define us. So, go ahead and call me a racist. Go ahead and complain about how bad whites treat other races. You are wrong, and I want the opportunity to explain why.
Likewise, I will call you a racist if I think you are. Touché.
So, in short, the only thing I want to ban on this site is racist hatred and intent to harm innocent people, like the Jews, and hatred towards me. If you hate me, please just tone it down in your comments. Tone it down to anger or disgust or ridicule, just not an intent to harm me.
Can I promise the same in return? Here I get subjective, and I know it. I hate terrorists, people who deliberately harm or murder innocents. There is no such thing as a race of terrorists. There is, though, a culture of terrorism, and a culture of terrorists. These, mostly, at this period of time, are Islamo-fascists. I hate Islamo-fascists, therefore. If you are an Islamo-fascist, I will express hatred about you, and even directly towards you. Otherwise, if you are a member of the human race, which terrorists are not, I do not hate you—even if you disagree with me, even if you ridicule me, even if you hate me.
I have a low opinion of Islam at this stage in their development, much as I would have had a low opinion of Christianity during the Inquisition. I don’t, however, hate Muslims. There are millions of good Muslims in the world, even though their religion is the fount of hatred, terrorism, and evil in the world today. If the good Muslims would confront the Islamo-facists in their midst, they could effect a Reformation, and then we could learn to love Islam, which I know has many wonderful aspects to it. Islam, however, does not have a central authority, and good Muslims are intimidated from speaking, so the radicals are the only ones we hear. This must change. Good Muslims must risk their lives to change the direction of their religion. Then, they will be listening to Allah.
So, in the meantime, I love Muslims, and I hate Islamo-fascists. If you support Islamo-fascists, then you are supporting evil. I will not hate you for this, but I will be hard on you for it.
To the Commenter whose comment I inadvertently rejected, I did it in one of two possible ways. Either I punched the Reject link by mistake, instead of the Publish link. Or, I did it that day when I purposely deleted some of my posts when I was trying to fix a problem on my site. I reinstated my posts, but discovered that their comments had been erased. I tried to reinstate these comments, and was successful, I thought, but maybe I missed one. I apologize for this accidental deletion. I’ll try to be very careful so it doesn’t happen again. I know how much time, care, heart and spirit go into making a comment, and I certainly will never reject any comment unless it is racist, profane, or hate-filled.
I will also try to find that post I must have inadvertently deleted by looking in my old emails, today or tomorrow, and try to reinstate it. I will report in my next post whether I was successful in retrieving it or not. First, I have to find it.
Thank you for your understanding.
This post is a clarification of my Comment Moderation policies. I am doing it because evidently I inadvertently deleted one of my Commenter’s comments. I so much value the time and care people take in posting their comments to my site, that I want to make it clear why I have Comment Moderation turned on at this time, and what could cause me to reject a comment.
I have purposely deleted comments from only 1 commenter. This person has written repeated comments that are racist, anti-Semitic, rude, name-calling, and hate-filled. The main reason I delete this person’s comments is the hatred that emanates from them. I choose not to be confronted with repeated anger and hatred. All of my other commenters have been respectful and rational, even when they passionately disagreed with me.
I will never reject a comment because I disagree with it. I will never reject a comment because it seems to attack me or my ideas. I am open to disagreement, and even attack, and even to a certain amount of ridicule. You can call my heroes names, and even express hatred for them. I will still not reject your comments. This means all you Bush-haters are welcome.
I will not accept racist remarks, however. Like calling Jews “filthy pigs.” I will not accept a continuous stream of hatred, as when someone seems so angry that they want to hurt people, or hurt me.
I went out of my way to personally instruct this person on what I will and will not accept, and this person openly defied my guidelines. Therefore, this person is not only full of anger and hatred, he is patently rude. I don’t like people who hate, people who are deliberately hurtful, or people who are so full of anger that they can’t engage in civilized conversations.
Racism is a touchy subject with me. I won’t accept it. One form of racism I will tolerate, though, because I must confront it head on. This is reverse racism. Racism against whites. I will allow anti-white comments on my site, because I want to reason with the people who hold these views. Most of those who hold these views are not, anyway, hate-filled people who want to harm whites. They just have views which I believe are mistaken, and it’s okay and even good to talk about this issue. If you are anti-white, I will not reject your comments. Say any and every outrageous thing about whites that you believe. I think you feel this way, anyway, because of white complicity, which “enables” you to remain in your mistaken beliefs. We whites are so timid about defending ourselves that we allow the world to define us. So, go ahead and call me a racist. Go ahead and complain about how bad whites treat other races. You are wrong, and I want the opportunity to explain why.
Likewise, I will call you a racist if I think you are. Touché.
So, in short, the only thing I want to ban on this site is racist hatred and intent to harm innocent people, like the Jews, and hatred towards me. If you hate me, please just tone it down in your comments. Tone it down to anger or disgust or ridicule, just not an intent to harm me.
Can I promise the same in return? Here I get subjective, and I know it. I hate terrorists, people who deliberately harm or murder innocents. There is no such thing as a race of terrorists. There is, though, a culture of terrorism, and a culture of terrorists. These, mostly, at this period of time, are Islamo-fascists. I hate Islamo-fascists, therefore. If you are an Islamo-fascist, I will express hatred about you, and even directly towards you. Otherwise, if you are a member of the human race, which terrorists are not, I do not hate you—even if you disagree with me, even if you ridicule me, even if you hate me.
I have a low opinion of Islam at this stage in their development, much as I would have had a low opinion of Christianity during the Inquisition. I don’t, however, hate Muslims. There are millions of good Muslims in the world, even though their religion is the fount of hatred, terrorism, and evil in the world today. If the good Muslims would confront the Islamo-facists in their midst, they could effect a Reformation, and then we could learn to love Islam, which I know has many wonderful aspects to it. Islam, however, does not have a central authority, and good Muslims are intimidated from speaking, so the radicals are the only ones we hear. This must change. Good Muslims must risk their lives to change the direction of their religion. Then, they will be listening to Allah.
So, in the meantime, I love Muslims, and I hate Islamo-fascists. If you support Islamo-fascists, then you are supporting evil. I will not hate you for this, but I will be hard on you for it.
To the Commenter whose comment I inadvertently rejected, I did it in one of two possible ways. Either I punched the Reject link by mistake, instead of the Publish link. Or, I did it that day when I purposely deleted some of my posts when I was trying to fix a problem on my site. I reinstated my posts, but discovered that their comments had been erased. I tried to reinstate these comments, and was successful, I thought, but maybe I missed one. I apologize for this accidental deletion. I’ll try to be very careful so it doesn’t happen again. I know how much time, care, heart and spirit go into making a comment, and I certainly will never reject any comment unless it is racist, profane, or hate-filled.
I will also try to find that post I must have inadvertently deleted by looking in my old emails, today or tomorrow, and try to reinstate it. I will report in my next post whether I was successful in retrieving it or not. First, I have to find it.
Thank you for your understanding.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Racial Discrimination Against Whites is Impossible
My reply I just gave to a comment is an important rant, I believe. So, I’m publishing it as a post. It is in response to the idea that Whites cannot be discriminated against because we have all the power. This is one of those liberal myths that drives some of us conservative Whites nuts, and illustrates how crazy making our situation has become. We are demonized as the racists in a society that has become racist against us. Unbelievable! Here’s my rant, polished a bit:
I think it's amazing that people just keep living in the myths they have developed for themselves. I reside in Los Angeles. Los Angeles now is officially an Hispanic city. I walk into any grocery store, anywhere, and I mostly hear Spanish, all day long. Many people who serve me don't understand me the first time I ask for something. I can go for hours without seeing a White face. Fine, I don’t mind diversity, but …
The last job I had the company started out as a diverse one, with Whites, Blacks and Hispanics in equal thirds. It evolved, rather quickly, into an Hispanic-dominated company. Then, the Hispanics took over management. Then, they started discriminating against Whites and Blacks. Because of this, they are being sued left and right at this time. When I say discrimination, I mean overt—with Hispanics being promoted over Whites and Blacks, with actual comments being made about Whites and Blacks, with any complaints by them being ignored, and so on. I'm talking Deep South in the fifties type discrimination tactics.
The idea that Whites can’t be discriminated against is a joke. I am the minority in Los Angeles now. I am often the only White at the bank, at the grocery store, at the City Council, you name it. Liberals talk about power? Where have they been? Our mayor is Hispanic. Our governing bodies are Hispanic and Black, with the number of Whites dwindling. Whites in Los Angeles no longer have power. And, we are being discriminated against.
If you are White, your chance of getting into a top California University is about zero, even if you have, let's say, a 3.5 GPA. How do I know? I worked with youth for years, and saw the differences. My Hispanic and Black kids got into Berkeley et al with 2.8 GPA's and my White kids had to go to Junior Colleges with 3.8 GPA's. This kind of thing is rampant. Minority businesses have preference. You have a better chance of getting hired if you're "minority." Business loans are granted to “minority-owned” businesses easier than to Whites. Construction crews are all Hispanic, and speak only Spanish. White construction contractors have been driven out of business.
Wake up, liberal America. Discrimination is discrimination. Even Hispanics tell me they are aware of racial discrimination within the Hispanic community. I am not trying to demonize any race or people. I just think that all races are as guilty or innocent of racial discrimination. In my life, in my hometown, in my schools, among my friends, I have never once directly seen racial discrimination against Blacks or Hispanics, and I’m being honest. I know it exists, but I’ve not had an actual contact with it. I have, though, in recent years, seen rampant discrimination against Whites, and been the direct victim of it, several times.
I said before that we (Whites) are the new American Indian (Native American-like). I meant it. We have been invaded. Our culture has been overwhelmed. We are robbed of our jobs, our language, and our power. And this is only the beginning.
I think it's amazing that people just keep living in the myths they have developed for themselves. I reside in Los Angeles. Los Angeles now is officially an Hispanic city. I walk into any grocery store, anywhere, and I mostly hear Spanish, all day long. Many people who serve me don't understand me the first time I ask for something. I can go for hours without seeing a White face. Fine, I don’t mind diversity, but …
The last job I had the company started out as a diverse one, with Whites, Blacks and Hispanics in equal thirds. It evolved, rather quickly, into an Hispanic-dominated company. Then, the Hispanics took over management. Then, they started discriminating against Whites and Blacks. Because of this, they are being sued left and right at this time. When I say discrimination, I mean overt—with Hispanics being promoted over Whites and Blacks, with actual comments being made about Whites and Blacks, with any complaints by them being ignored, and so on. I'm talking Deep South in the fifties type discrimination tactics.
The idea that Whites can’t be discriminated against is a joke. I am the minority in Los Angeles now. I am often the only White at the bank, at the grocery store, at the City Council, you name it. Liberals talk about power? Where have they been? Our mayor is Hispanic. Our governing bodies are Hispanic and Black, with the number of Whites dwindling. Whites in Los Angeles no longer have power. And, we are being discriminated against.
If you are White, your chance of getting into a top California University is about zero, even if you have, let's say, a 3.5 GPA. How do I know? I worked with youth for years, and saw the differences. My Hispanic and Black kids got into Berkeley et al with 2.8 GPA's and my White kids had to go to Junior Colleges with 3.8 GPA's. This kind of thing is rampant. Minority businesses have preference. You have a better chance of getting hired if you're "minority." Business loans are granted to “minority-owned” businesses easier than to Whites. Construction crews are all Hispanic, and speak only Spanish. White construction contractors have been driven out of business.
Wake up, liberal America. Discrimination is discrimination. Even Hispanics tell me they are aware of racial discrimination within the Hispanic community. I am not trying to demonize any race or people. I just think that all races are as guilty or innocent of racial discrimination. In my life, in my hometown, in my schools, among my friends, I have never once directly seen racial discrimination against Blacks or Hispanics, and I’m being honest. I know it exists, but I’ve not had an actual contact with it. I have, though, in recent years, seen rampant discrimination against Whites, and been the direct victim of it, several times.
I said before that we (Whites) are the new American Indian (Native American-like). I meant it. We have been invaded. Our culture has been overwhelmed. We are robbed of our jobs, our language, and our power. And this is only the beginning.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Inside Every Compassionate Conservative
Inside every compassionate conservative, I believe, like me, lies a liberal just waiting to get out. In my case this is literally true. As you may know, I was a long-haired, mantra-spouting, anti-Vietnam, anti-Nixon, pot-smoking liberal airhead in the 70’s. I was a good person. I was a bright airhead, just young and naive. My heart was in the right place. I cared. Maybe I was even correct in my views at the time. Looking back on the Vietnam thing, though, I don’t think America was necessarily wrong in fighting that war. But I do believe we fought it in the wrong way—politically correct, with our hands tied behind our backs, instead of the Harry Truman way, which is to win.
I care deeply about the homeless, the destitute, the mentally challenged, the people who are discriminated against (which, in my opinion are now mostly whites), and those not blessed by fate, good health, good genes, nor wealth. So, I want to be liberal. I want to give homes to the homeless, medicine to the ill, sanity to the insane, justice to the discriminated-against. I want to make love not war. I want to bring peace to the world. I want to cherish a Muslim and bring him home to dinner (which I’ve done, by the way. I’ve also been a guest, many times, in some wonderful Arab homes).
I want to be a liberal, but I can’t. Because liberalism, as defined by the current left today, doesn’t work. I do believe in the social safety net that Roosevelt created, including welfare, disability and unemployment insurance, MediCare and MediCal, etc. I do not, though, believe in the “Welfare State,” with unending handouts, fiscally irresponsible entitlement programs, nor in stealing from the rich with higher taxes. Socialism and communism just don’t work. Peace advocacy leads to war. Appeasement leads to bloodshed. I do not believe in open borders. I do not believe in multi-culturalism that abandons the unity of being an American, speaking English, and loving freedom. I do not believe in hugging a terrorist. So, I remain just your regular ol’ compassionate, hard-ass neo-con, with a stymied liberal inside.
Unfortunately, the liberal idea that all people are good is just plain wrong. Some people, and some nations, are evil. George Bush? Good. The U.S.? Good. Al-Queda? Evil. Martha Stewart? She’s not evil, but she aint pure either. Al Franken? Dumb and on the side of evil. Not evil himself probably, just a hod-carrier for the devil, without realizing it.
Me? I’m a saint, a genius, and humble about it.
Salam Aleichem, Shalom Lachem, Peace Be Unto You. Я хочу вас иметь мир.
Rock
I care deeply about the homeless, the destitute, the mentally challenged, the people who are discriminated against (which, in my opinion are now mostly whites), and those not blessed by fate, good health, good genes, nor wealth. So, I want to be liberal. I want to give homes to the homeless, medicine to the ill, sanity to the insane, justice to the discriminated-against. I want to make love not war. I want to bring peace to the world. I want to cherish a Muslim and bring him home to dinner (which I’ve done, by the way. I’ve also been a guest, many times, in some wonderful Arab homes).
I want to be a liberal, but I can’t. Because liberalism, as defined by the current left today, doesn’t work. I do believe in the social safety net that Roosevelt created, including welfare, disability and unemployment insurance, MediCare and MediCal, etc. I do not, though, believe in the “Welfare State,” with unending handouts, fiscally irresponsible entitlement programs, nor in stealing from the rich with higher taxes. Socialism and communism just don’t work. Peace advocacy leads to war. Appeasement leads to bloodshed. I do not believe in open borders. I do not believe in multi-culturalism that abandons the unity of being an American, speaking English, and loving freedom. I do not believe in hugging a terrorist. So, I remain just your regular ol’ compassionate, hard-ass neo-con, with a stymied liberal inside.
Unfortunately, the liberal idea that all people are good is just plain wrong. Some people, and some nations, are evil. George Bush? Good. The U.S.? Good. Al-Queda? Evil. Martha Stewart? She’s not evil, but she aint pure either. Al Franken? Dumb and on the side of evil. Not evil himself probably, just a hod-carrier for the devil, without realizing it.
Me? I’m a saint, a genius, and humble about it.
Salam Aleichem, Shalom Lachem, Peace Be Unto You. Я хочу вас иметь мир.
Rock
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
The One Major Flaw in Capitalism
Ageing and obesity plague China - Aljazeera.Net, 21 August 2006
China is facing the prospect of an increasingly ageing and obese population that could adversely affect the country's economy, according to new reports.
The second flaw of capitalism, though, is one that only I see, as far as I am able to tell. I’ve not noticed any economist, socialist or capitalist, who will bring this up. It has to do with capitalism’s need for population growth. The big word in any economic report, whether it be that of a company, or of a country, is growth. Economies always have to be growing. GNP must be rising. Profits must be rising. A large component of growth, aside from productivity increases, comes simply from growth in population. GNP will rise as the population of a country rises. Profits will rise as a company enlarges its customer base. The more people, the better.
Now, two “nations” have been having their “problems” with population growth, China and the European Union. China imposed their one-child rules in order to stem population growth. It was their solution to one billion people. The unwanted side-effects, besides the ungodly invasion of privacy and dignity, were the murder of female babies, since males are favored over females, and now this trouble for China’s labor force. China has successfully transitioned, like few other nations, from communism to a form of capitalism. Their success, though, has been largely based on their supply of cheap labor, now threatened.
Europe has had a similar problem. Europe’s declining population growth, though, came from the “middle-class syndrome.” This is the seemingly natural phenomenon where upper income families have fewer babies than the lower classes. The same thing happened in the United States.
The U.S. solved its cheap labor problem through increased immigration. The capitalistic beast is fed by the honest labor of Mexican illegals. The result for the United States is a booming economy, but all the problems of a foreign invasion—including loss of jobs and wages for Americans, and the creation of a bilingual nation. In Europe, they solved their cheap labor problem by importing millions of Arabs. The problems for Europe include an ever-increasing Muslim population that will one day change Europe into a fundamentalist Islamic “nation.” The Muslims in Europe already have so much political power that they are able to affect national decisions, like whether to enter the war in Iraq, policies toward Israel and Palestine, Europe’s attitude about America, and even its feelings for George W. Bush.
Capitalism can be given a heart, through watchdog policies and regulation. The need for population growth and cheap labor is another matter, though. This is my one major gripe against capitalism. I think population growth should have a limit. I believe too many people drain the world’s resources, lead to pollution and overcrowding, clog our freeways, and will one day lead to a disaster, like when there is a world drought and millions will starve. The need for cheap labor also drives countries like America and Europe to rely on rampant immigration for growth. This unruly immigration does not allow for assimilation. Thus, America is bilingual, and Europe is bicultural. The unintended results are, Mexicans will take over the United States politically, and Muslims will do likewise in Europe.
My solution? My solution will never happen. It goes against nature, and capitalism is so very natural. My solution is to accept a lower growth rate in the economy. I suggest that we limit our growth aspirations in the economy to that part of growth which will come exclusively from productivity gains. Forget about population growth as an engine, and cheap labor. Give up this part of capitalism. Yeah right. And bluebirds will turn back into dinosaurs. I’m not dumb enough to imagine this will ever happen.
So, America will become a Mexican nation, and Europe will become a Muslim nation. China will just pass a law to start having babies again. And the world will grow and grow and grow, until the day our rivers turn black, and traffic on our freeways will start to go backwards.
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
China is facing the prospect of an increasingly ageing and obese population that could adversely affect the country's economy, according to new reports.
A newspaper report on Monday blamed the Communist government's one-child policy for labour shortages that could undermine the so far endless supply of cheap workers that has underpinned China's extraordinary economic boom. A report, produced by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a top government think tank, said industry had yet to face up to the fact that incomes have not risen fast enough to support pensioners.Capitalism, the best economic system the world has ever created, has, in my opinion, two major flaws. One is the flaw that every socialist agrees on, that capitalism has no heart. It can stomp all over the poor, the weak, the homeless, and the ill-equipped. It will also, left unregulated, lead to pollution, unnecessary danger, and fraud. It is basically a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest system. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of capitalism. It’s the only system that leads to economic prosperity. It just needs regulation and incentives to work for all the people, and for Mother Earth.
“In the not too distant future there will be a day when there is an end to the unlimited labour supply,” the state newspaper which quoted the report, the China Youth Daily said. “It is this that had been one of the most basic advantages of China's recent economic development.”
Family planning policies started in the late 1970s have prevented the birth of hundreds of millions, and signs of possible problems in the future can be seen in economic heartlands in Guangdong and near Shanghai where factories are already finding it hard to get workers.
The second flaw of capitalism, though, is one that only I see, as far as I am able to tell. I’ve not noticed any economist, socialist or capitalist, who will bring this up. It has to do with capitalism’s need for population growth. The big word in any economic report, whether it be that of a company, or of a country, is growth. Economies always have to be growing. GNP must be rising. Profits must be rising. A large component of growth, aside from productivity increases, comes simply from growth in population. GNP will rise as the population of a country rises. Profits will rise as a company enlarges its customer base. The more people, the better.
Now, two “nations” have been having their “problems” with population growth, China and the European Union. China imposed their one-child rules in order to stem population growth. It was their solution to one billion people. The unwanted side-effects, besides the ungodly invasion of privacy and dignity, were the murder of female babies, since males are favored over females, and now this trouble for China’s labor force. China has successfully transitioned, like few other nations, from communism to a form of capitalism. Their success, though, has been largely based on their supply of cheap labor, now threatened.
Europe has had a similar problem. Europe’s declining population growth, though, came from the “middle-class syndrome.” This is the seemingly natural phenomenon where upper income families have fewer babies than the lower classes. The same thing happened in the United States.
The U.S. solved its cheap labor problem through increased immigration. The capitalistic beast is fed by the honest labor of Mexican illegals. The result for the United States is a booming economy, but all the problems of a foreign invasion—including loss of jobs and wages for Americans, and the creation of a bilingual nation. In Europe, they solved their cheap labor problem by importing millions of Arabs. The problems for Europe include an ever-increasing Muslim population that will one day change Europe into a fundamentalist Islamic “nation.” The Muslims in Europe already have so much political power that they are able to affect national decisions, like whether to enter the war in Iraq, policies toward Israel and Palestine, Europe’s attitude about America, and even its feelings for George W. Bush.
Capitalism can be given a heart, through watchdog policies and regulation. The need for population growth and cheap labor is another matter, though. This is my one major gripe against capitalism. I think population growth should have a limit. I believe too many people drain the world’s resources, lead to pollution and overcrowding, clog our freeways, and will one day lead to a disaster, like when there is a world drought and millions will starve. The need for cheap labor also drives countries like America and Europe to rely on rampant immigration for growth. This unruly immigration does not allow for assimilation. Thus, America is bilingual, and Europe is bicultural. The unintended results are, Mexicans will take over the United States politically, and Muslims will do likewise in Europe.
My solution? My solution will never happen. It goes against nature, and capitalism is so very natural. My solution is to accept a lower growth rate in the economy. I suggest that we limit our growth aspirations in the economy to that part of growth which will come exclusively from productivity gains. Forget about population growth as an engine, and cheap labor. Give up this part of capitalism. Yeah right. And bluebirds will turn back into dinosaurs. I’m not dumb enough to imagine this will ever happen.
So, America will become a Mexican nation, and Europe will become a Muslim nation. China will just pass a law to start having babies again. And the world will grow and grow and grow, until the day our rivers turn black, and traffic on our freeways will start to go backwards.
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar or below this post)
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Crystal Ball
These are some of my predictions for the world for the next twenty years. I’d love to see how you respond, and your predictions as well.
America will become a bi-lingual country. This will come naturally for the children, and will be more difficult for us Baby-Boomers and geezers. Since being bi-lingual can safeguard against Alzheimer’s disease, I predict the rate of Alzheimer’s will decrease by 5%.
China and India will become the largest and 4th largest economies in the world, with the U.S. and Japan at numbers 2 and 3. The European Union, taken as a whole, will decline to position 5. (See GNP definitions in Wikipedia, and GNP per capita standings of the world’s economies.)
Iran will build its nuclear weapons, but will hold off using them due to fear of retaliatory strikes by Israel and/or the United States. Ditto with North Korea. There will be no revolution in Iran, but the middle class and students will eventually wield influence over the country to transition them into a modern state.
After several years of war, there will be peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, as Palestinians start to realize the economic boom they’ve always hoped for.
Iraq will split into three entities, but work out a deal for the distribution of oil proceeds. The Kurds will finally have a nation. The Shia will be aligned with Iran. The Sunnis will be independent, keeping communications open with the West and the East.
The United States will eventually win the war on terrorism, including against Al-Queda. This will occur too as Al-Queda transitions from a terrorist organization into an economic and political power in the Middle East.
The United States will transition from a gasoline-powered country to the model of Brazil, using mostly ethanol. Other environmental advances will include more solar and wind energy, cars that get 200 miles per gallon, and new nuclear plants.
China, not traditionally an expansionist country, will use its new economic power in the world as a peacemaker, joining the United States and Great Britain for a Pax Americana-Britaina-Chinana.
America will become a bi-lingual country. This will come naturally for the children, and will be more difficult for us Baby-Boomers and geezers. Since being bi-lingual can safeguard against Alzheimer’s disease, I predict the rate of Alzheimer’s will decrease by 5%.
China and India will become the largest and 4th largest economies in the world, with the U.S. and Japan at numbers 2 and 3. The European Union, taken as a whole, will decline to position 5. (See GNP definitions in Wikipedia, and GNP per capita standings of the world’s economies.)
Iran will build its nuclear weapons, but will hold off using them due to fear of retaliatory strikes by Israel and/or the United States. Ditto with North Korea. There will be no revolution in Iran, but the middle class and students will eventually wield influence over the country to transition them into a modern state.
After several years of war, there will be peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, as Palestinians start to realize the economic boom they’ve always hoped for.
Iraq will split into three entities, but work out a deal for the distribution of oil proceeds. The Kurds will finally have a nation. The Shia will be aligned with Iran. The Sunnis will be independent, keeping communications open with the West and the East.
The United States will eventually win the war on terrorism, including against Al-Queda. This will occur too as Al-Queda transitions from a terrorist organization into an economic and political power in the Middle East.
The United States will transition from a gasoline-powered country to the model of Brazil, using mostly ethanol. Other environmental advances will include more solar and wind energy, cars that get 200 miles per gallon, and new nuclear plants.
China, not traditionally an expansionist country, will use its new economic power in the world as a peacemaker, joining the United States and Great Britain for a Pax Americana-Britaina-Chinana.
Monday, August 21, 2006
News Snippets and Reactions
Israeli Raid Strains Mideast Truce, U.N. Official Warns : New York Times, By JOHN KIFNER and GREG MYRE, August 20, 2006
Woods Wins P.G.A. Championship - New York Times: New York Times, MEDINAH, Ill. (AP)
Iran Reiterates It Won’t End Nuclear Program - New York Times: New York Times, by NAZILA FATHI, August 20, 2006, TEHRAN
The School-Lunch Test - New York Times: New York Times, by LISA BELKIN, August 20, 2006
Candidly Speaking, The YouTube Election: New York Times, by RYAN LIZZA, August 20, 2006
And Now, Islamism Trumps Arabism: New York Times
BEIRUT, Lebanon. A day after an Israeli commando raid into Lebanon touched off a lengthy firefight with Hezbollah guerrillas, a top United Nations envoy warned today that further such incidents could unravel a shaky, week-old cease-fire. Israel defended its operation and hinted it was ready to do it again if it suspected new arms were being smuggled to Hezbollah.What else can Israel do? Who is going to keep new weapons away from Hezbollah?
Woods Wins P.G.A. Championship - New York Times: New York Times, MEDINAH, Ill. (AP)
No tears, no sweat. One month after an emotional victory in the British Open, Tiger Woods won the PGA Championship with a ruthless display of efficiency Sunday, closing with a 4-under 68 for a five-shot victory and his 12th career major.A great American athlete, now second all-time behind Jack Nicklaus.
Iran Reiterates It Won’t End Nuclear Program - New York Times: New York Times, by NAZILA FATHI, August 20, 2006, TEHRAN
As Iran fired ten short-range missiles on the second day of a large-scale military maneuver, officials today reiterated Iran’s stance that it does not intend to halt its uranium enrichment program.Why should they? The world operates using cold calculations, not on the humanitarian philosophies of the left. Iran has more to gain with nuclear weapons than without, period.
The School-Lunch Test - New York Times: New York Times, by LISA BELKIN, August 20, 2006
Schools receiving federal lunch subsidies must now create wellness plans. But will replacing Tater Tots with sweet-potato fries really lead to healthier, slimmer children?Yes, it will, taken as one measure in tandem with other measures. Even McDonald’s now lets you substitute apple dippers for French fries, thanks to Supersize Me, and lawsuits.
Candidly Speaking, The YouTube Election: New York Times, by RYAN LIZZA, August 20, 2006
AUGUST, usually the sleepiest month in politics, has suddenly become raucous, thanks in part to YouTube, the vast video-sharing Web site. Last week, Senator George Allen, the Virginia Republican, was caught on tape at a campaign event twice calling a college student of Indian descent “Macaca,” evidently and hopefully, an unconscious racial slur.The blogosphere, YouTube, MySpace, it’s all the wave of the future. If you are a politician, do not drink, do not let your guard down to seem homey for the folks, and do not imagine that one word you say will escape public scrutiny.
And Now, Islamism Trumps Arabism: New York Times
But Jihan Mahmoud, 24, from the middle-class neighborhood of Heliopolis, and Madah Ali Muhammad, 23, from a village in the Nile Delta, have come to the exact same conclusion about what they and their country need: a strong Islamic political movement. “I have more faith in Islam than in my state; I have more faith in Allah than in Hosni Mubarak,” Ms. Mahmoud said, referring to the president of Egypt. “That is why I am proud to be a Muslim."The religion of peace is so happy that Hezbollah lobbed Katushyas into Israeli living rooms, and resisted for a month Israel’s attempt to destroy them. They have their great hero now, in Lebanon. In Egypt and across the Arab world, support for the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is growing more fervent.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
The Sleeping Giant Has Awoken
Immigration May Tip Vote in California - New York Times
I understand the pols’ dilemma. The Republicans in California, for example, lost the Hispanic vote to the Democrats in a serious way after championing Proposition 187. As a result, California is now largely a Democratic state. Schwarzenegger will not make this kind of mistake.
So, there are two ways to win the Hispanic vote. One is to pander. This seems to work quite well. This is the Democratic approach, and, after all, they are garnering the majority of Hispanic votes at this time. The second way is to straddle, which is Bush and Schwarzenegger’s method. This way, they hold on to their base, and get at least a third of the Hispanic vote. This method is effective now, but may not continue to work, as the Hispanic vote will continue to grow.
There is only one sure way to both court the Hispanic vote and hold on to conservative values. It is not to pander. It is not to straddle. Rather, it is to invite Hispanics to become full-fledged assimilated Americans with a stake in this country as Americans. (By the way, I think this same approach must be used with African-Americans.) Family values, for example, are not alien to Hispanics. Hispanics hold several conservative principles naturally, like being pro-business and concerned with national security.
The sticking points will always be issues like immigration, English as the American language, and entitlement programs for the poor and for immigrants. Here, too, though, the best strategy will not be to throw in the towel, like the Democrats, nor to straddle, like the Republicans. It is best to go after the Hispanic community directly on these matters. Find Hispanics who are conservative on these concerns and send them into the Hispanic communities for direct dialogue. Hispanics became Hispanics, after all, because a European country dominated them for centuries. Eventually, they gave up their native tongues in favor of Spanish. I don’t pretend that the same thing will happen here. They will always keep Spanish as an active part of their communication. I do believe, though, that there are several advantages for them in learning English, the international language of business. We must assume they are reasonable people, and will see this. Maybe not this generation, but surely their children.
As far as entitlement programs for illegal immigrants, Hispanics will be moving into the middle class. They will be the ones paying for these programs one day. Then, it will not be in their interest to support a welfare state, nor the socialism of the Democrats. Again, I think the best approach is to communicate with them directly on this kind of issue.
It will not help to have an “us" versus "them” mentality. In a democracy, they will win. Let’s be real. The only way to really court them, and continue winning our base, is to invite them to join us, to convince them that conservative values are good for everyone, Hispanics included.
At a recent town-hall-style campaign appearance by Mr. Schwarzenegger in Orange County, Larry Collins, vice president of a local Republican club, asked the first question, and it was about border security. Mr. Collins said later that although he supported Mr. Schwarzenegger, he wanted the governor to take a harder line on immigration. He said he could not bear hearing more and more Spanish being spoken in the county, and he wondered about the legality of the newcomers. "We are being overloaded with a potential hazard," Mr. Collins said. Even as Mr. Schwarzenegger seeks to hold on to voters like Mr. Collins, he is striving to attract Latinos. His aides concede that if the election is close, Latino voters could prove vital, and so they have embarked on a campaign to attract them, particularly native-born middle-class and professional Latinos.Hispanic Business - A Growing Voice - HISPANIC BUSINESS Magazine.
The 2004 presidential election will be marked as a time when a record number of Hispanic voters went to the polls, and two Hispanics, Ken Salazar of Colorado and Mel Martinez of Florida, were catapulted to office in the U.S. Senate for the first time in nearly three decades.All over the country, politicians are handling courting the Latino voter in different ways. Pols in areas populated heavily by Hispanic immigrants usually throw in the towel and urge every kind of advantage for immigrants, legal or illegal, including such things as in-state tuition for higher education. Bush, who may have garnered up to 44% of the Latino vote, puts forth his amnesty plan. Schwarzenegger, who got 33% of the Hispanic vote, straddles issues, like having the National Guard troops on the border. One day he is for it, and the next day against it.
What may not be clear yet, however, is whether it eventually also will be seen as a clear demarcation of the electorate's growing sophistication and power and evolution from a stalwart piece of the Democratic Party base to an unpredictable and perhaps fragmented swing-voter group.
National Electoral Pool results showed 44 percent of Hispanic voters chose President Bush, up 8 percentage points from the 2000 elections and the most for any Republican presidential candidate in decades.
I understand the pols’ dilemma. The Republicans in California, for example, lost the Hispanic vote to the Democrats in a serious way after championing Proposition 187. As a result, California is now largely a Democratic state. Schwarzenegger will not make this kind of mistake.
So, there are two ways to win the Hispanic vote. One is to pander. This seems to work quite well. This is the Democratic approach, and, after all, they are garnering the majority of Hispanic votes at this time. The second way is to straddle, which is Bush and Schwarzenegger’s method. This way, they hold on to their base, and get at least a third of the Hispanic vote. This method is effective now, but may not continue to work, as the Hispanic vote will continue to grow.
There is only one sure way to both court the Hispanic vote and hold on to conservative values. It is not to pander. It is not to straddle. Rather, it is to invite Hispanics to become full-fledged assimilated Americans with a stake in this country as Americans. (By the way, I think this same approach must be used with African-Americans.) Family values, for example, are not alien to Hispanics. Hispanics hold several conservative principles naturally, like being pro-business and concerned with national security.
The sticking points will always be issues like immigration, English as the American language, and entitlement programs for the poor and for immigrants. Here, too, though, the best strategy will not be to throw in the towel, like the Democrats, nor to straddle, like the Republicans. It is best to go after the Hispanic community directly on these matters. Find Hispanics who are conservative on these concerns and send them into the Hispanic communities for direct dialogue. Hispanics became Hispanics, after all, because a European country dominated them for centuries. Eventually, they gave up their native tongues in favor of Spanish. I don’t pretend that the same thing will happen here. They will always keep Spanish as an active part of their communication. I do believe, though, that there are several advantages for them in learning English, the international language of business. We must assume they are reasonable people, and will see this. Maybe not this generation, but surely their children.
As far as entitlement programs for illegal immigrants, Hispanics will be moving into the middle class. They will be the ones paying for these programs one day. Then, it will not be in their interest to support a welfare state, nor the socialism of the Democrats. Again, I think the best approach is to communicate with them directly on this kind of issue.
It will not help to have an “us" versus "them” mentality. In a democracy, they will win. Let’s be real. The only way to really court them, and continue winning our base, is to invite them to join us, to convince them that conservative values are good for everyone, Hispanics included.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Simple But Stark Differences
There appears to be simple but stark differences between liberals and conservatives at this time in history on many issues, but I’ll start with defense.
Liberals believe the U.S. has been a bully with its military, and an imperialistic power, hungry for oil and resources.
Conservatives believe the U.S. has protected the world from bullies, and is the opposite of an imperialistic power. It could, if it wanted to, take over the world, but it hasn’t.
I believe the case for the conservative view is overwhelming, but logic and facts don’t seem to sway liberals on this issue. So, I won’t give logic and facts, or history. I simply state the difference, and you will see that the country is about equally divided, 50% to 50%. It is a litmus test. Conservatives, I believe, base their understanding of this issue on reality. With liberals, it is a religion. You cannot debate religion, so there is not much to say, not much to learn. The two sides just state how they see things.
Liberals believe the U.S. has been a bully with its military, and an imperialistic power, hungry for oil and resources.
Conservatives believe the U.S. has protected the world from bullies, and is the opposite of an imperialistic power. It could, if it wanted to, take over the world, but it hasn’t.
I believe the case for the conservative view is overwhelming, but logic and facts don’t seem to sway liberals on this issue. So, I won’t give logic and facts, or history. I simply state the difference, and you will see that the country is about equally divided, 50% to 50%. It is a litmus test. Conservatives, I believe, base their understanding of this issue on reality. With liberals, it is a religion. You cannot debate religion, so there is not much to say, not much to learn. The two sides just state how they see things.
Friday, August 18, 2006
A Purpose Driven Life, the Making of a Compassionate Conservative
A little about me. I grew up in Munster, Indiana, a Catholic, and attended St. Thomas Moore elementary school, where I was a prodigy on the saxophone. Then on to Bishop Noll Institute, a Catholic high school in Hammond, Indiana, where I was a four-sport athlete and honor student. I went to Creighton University, a fine Catholic school in Omaha, Nebraska, for two years, in pre-med, where I was a saxophonist in a rock band, then to Indiana University in Bloomington to complete my B.A. in English literature, during the Vietnam era protests. I was a longhaired, tie-dyed, anti-war hippie like everyone else. After my first marriage fell apart (we were too young) I got my M.S. in clinical psychology at Indiana State University in Terre Haute, Indiana. My daughter lives in New Jersey.
I worked first as a rehabilitation counselor in Fort Wayne, Indiana, then a prison psychologist in Wilmington, North Carolina. Then stockbroker in Beverly Hills, California (Merrill Lynch, Dean Witter and Charles Schwab—quite a switch, huh?) That’s when I met my second wife, an Israeli, which led to my residence in Israel for 10 years. This marriage lasted 5 years. In Israel, I was a school psychologist in Bat Yam, clinical psychologist in Tel Aviv, director of research at Kaplan Hospital in Rehovot, and then, simultaneously, a professional actor and singer, and filmmaker. You can see me in one of the popular Lemon Popsicle (Eskimo Limon) Israeli films, with my gorgeous Norwegian blonde-haired, green-eyed girlfriend of the time. We were professional folksingers. I also was the star of a “reality” show, as a clinical psychologist on Israeli TV, talking about weight loss, in Hebrew no less. I got a chance to travel the Middle East, and all over Europe while I was there.
Back in the U.S.A., just after the Intifada was starting in Israel, I returned to social services gigs—group home counselor, group home supervisor, and then social worker for foster children, all in Los Angeles, California. Again, simultaneously, I’ve been a writer and filmmaker. I started my own company, Golden Path, which is a charitable foundation and a technical writing firm, and will eventually be a film production entity. I am presently hired as a fulltime consultant for the publications department of a worldwide defense contractor, whose mission is structurally engineering buildings to make them safe from terrorism and bomb blasts.
Religiously, I began as a devout Catholic, then agnostic in the 70’s, Jewish when first in Israel, then New Age. Now, I’m eclectic. I believe in truths I’ve harvested from all the religions, except for Islam, which I’m only now beginning to study. I’ll let you know what I learn about the religion of peace.
Politically, I probably started out conservative, without knowing what that meant, being surrounded by the conservative Midwest values of the Indiana folk. I was a big John F. Kennedy fan when he was the deal. I got my first taste of liberalism at Creighton University, where I began to become politically aware. I had one best friend who went on to become a Denver Republican congressman, and another who was a staffer for Robert Kennedy. Then, I was a full-blown liberal radical while at Indiana University, during the student protests and riots of the 70’s.
I next went into my politically dormant stage, where I was mostly concerned with life, literature, music, booze, filmmaking and females. While in Israel, I don’t know what I was, except that I was wide-eyed, observing both sides of the political spectrum. From the Peace Now (Shalom Akshav) liberals and the Peace Stones movements, which I joined, to the conservative Likud, which I applauded, I was right in the middle, and open-minded. It was a wonderful time of peace for Israel.
Back in the U.S.A., I became conservatised in liberal L.A. I listened to Rush Limbaugh from his beginnings on talk radio, and he made a lot of sense. He still does. I went on to admire Dennis Prager and Larry Elder. Then I got cable and discovered Fox News, the best news organization on television. I became a fan of Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Tony Snow, Laura Ingraham, the magnificent Ann Coulter, and even shoot-straight-from-the-hip Michael Savage.
Special mention must be given to Tammy Bruce, a liberal former president of NOW, who has in recent years had the moral courage to denounce liberals on issues like defense and the Iraq war, and who has taken on her party (she is still a Democrat) on their hypocrisy on a range if issues. She describes herself as “an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist.” A lifelong Democrat, she says she is a "classical liberal." This is a leftist I can love. She's beautiful too (alas, she's into the same gender as I am).
She, Joe Lieberman and Zel Miller are some of the finest human beings on the planet, along with Larry Elder, a Black conservative (mentioned above) who tells the truth to the Black, Hispanic, and Caucasian communities alike.
I “came out” as a conservative first at my social worker job in foster care. I was surprised to learn there were a number of closet conservatives at the job, but they were deathly afraid of declaring themselves, as the liberal bias is so strong in Los Angeles, and especially in the social services industry. Double this for Hollywood. I “came out” with my writing partners ten years ago. When I first did it their jaws dropped. How could a human being possibly be conservative? It’s unthinkable. Anyway, I’ve gotten used to being the only conservative at Hollywood parties. I try to be civil and respectful, but I refuse to hide my views. I’m used to seeing jaws drop all over the place. They look at me upon revelation as a creature from another planet.
Blogging has reassured me about the human race a bit. Finally, some fellow conservatives. Plus, most of the liberal bloggers I’ve “met” seem reasonable, and intelligent, which is all that I ask.
At this moment in time, I remain deeply conservative on many issues, like defense, the economy, affirmative action, education, the U.N. and immigration, but rationally liberal on some issues, like the environment, healthcare, a woman’s right to choose, gay rights, and stem cell research. I am literally a compassionate conservative, a neo-con, a conservative with a heart, a conservative who is still tugged by the liberal leanings of his youth. This is why I feel comfortable talking with liberals and conservatives. I know what it is to be liberal. I represent the adage very well, if you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative when you’re older, you have no brain.
I honestly believe I’ve arrived at truth, politically and religiously, at this stage of my life. I can understand the good heart that liberals have, yet I see that liberalism is in a sorry state at this moment in time. They’ve lost their integrity and their backbone. Conservatives, on the other hand, have lost their moral courage. They want to be liked so much now that they give up on most of their conservative principles in order to curry favor with voting blocks, like Hispanics and African Americans. For example, conservatives are pandering to Blacks at this time. Instead of leading by extolling the virtues of conservatism for Blacks, conservatives instead try to show Blacks how liberal and open-minded they are on matters of concern to the African-American community. Bush is the chief panderer. Does he get love for this approach? Respect? No. Blacks aren’t stupid. They know pandering.
The solution, I believe, is to just tell the truth. Maybe no one will listen, but it’s better than any alternative.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
This Post’s Technorati Tags: Vietnam protests, Lemon Popsicle movies, Intifada, Jew, Catholic, New Age, Islam, Robert Kennedy, Peace Now, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Tony Snow, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Tammy Bruce, classical liberal, Joe Lieberman, Zel Miller, Hollywood, social services industry, blogging, bloggers, conservatives, liberals, compassionate conservative, hippie, student protests, truth
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
I worked first as a rehabilitation counselor in Fort Wayne, Indiana, then a prison psychologist in Wilmington, North Carolina. Then stockbroker in Beverly Hills, California (Merrill Lynch, Dean Witter and Charles Schwab—quite a switch, huh?) That’s when I met my second wife, an Israeli, which led to my residence in Israel for 10 years. This marriage lasted 5 years. In Israel, I was a school psychologist in Bat Yam, clinical psychologist in Tel Aviv, director of research at Kaplan Hospital in Rehovot, and then, simultaneously, a professional actor and singer, and filmmaker. You can see me in one of the popular Lemon Popsicle (Eskimo Limon) Israeli films, with my gorgeous Norwegian blonde-haired, green-eyed girlfriend of the time. We were professional folksingers. I also was the star of a “reality” show, as a clinical psychologist on Israeli TV, talking about weight loss, in Hebrew no less. I got a chance to travel the Middle East, and all over Europe while I was there.
Back in the U.S.A., just after the Intifada was starting in Israel, I returned to social services gigs—group home counselor, group home supervisor, and then social worker for foster children, all in Los Angeles, California. Again, simultaneously, I’ve been a writer and filmmaker. I started my own company, Golden Path, which is a charitable foundation and a technical writing firm, and will eventually be a film production entity. I am presently hired as a fulltime consultant for the publications department of a worldwide defense contractor, whose mission is structurally engineering buildings to make them safe from terrorism and bomb blasts.
Religiously, I began as a devout Catholic, then agnostic in the 70’s, Jewish when first in Israel, then New Age. Now, I’m eclectic. I believe in truths I’ve harvested from all the religions, except for Islam, which I’m only now beginning to study. I’ll let you know what I learn about the religion of peace.
Politically, I probably started out conservative, without knowing what that meant, being surrounded by the conservative Midwest values of the Indiana folk. I was a big John F. Kennedy fan when he was the deal. I got my first taste of liberalism at Creighton University, where I began to become politically aware. I had one best friend who went on to become a Denver Republican congressman, and another who was a staffer for Robert Kennedy. Then, I was a full-blown liberal radical while at Indiana University, during the student protests and riots of the 70’s.
I next went into my politically dormant stage, where I was mostly concerned with life, literature, music, booze, filmmaking and females. While in Israel, I don’t know what I was, except that I was wide-eyed, observing both sides of the political spectrum. From the Peace Now (Shalom Akshav) liberals and the Peace Stones movements, which I joined, to the conservative Likud, which I applauded, I was right in the middle, and open-minded. It was a wonderful time of peace for Israel.
Back in the U.S.A., I became conservatised in liberal L.A. I listened to Rush Limbaugh from his beginnings on talk radio, and he made a lot of sense. He still does. I went on to admire Dennis Prager and Larry Elder. Then I got cable and discovered Fox News, the best news organization on television. I became a fan of Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Tony Snow, Laura Ingraham, the magnificent Ann Coulter, and even shoot-straight-from-the-hip Michael Savage.
Special mention must be given to Tammy Bruce, a liberal former president of NOW, who has in recent years had the moral courage to denounce liberals on issues like defense and the Iraq war, and who has taken on her party (she is still a Democrat) on their hypocrisy on a range if issues. She describes herself as “an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist.” A lifelong Democrat, she says she is a "classical liberal." This is a leftist I can love. She's beautiful too (alas, she's into the same gender as I am).
She, Joe Lieberman and Zel Miller are some of the finest human beings on the planet, along with Larry Elder, a Black conservative (mentioned above) who tells the truth to the Black, Hispanic, and Caucasian communities alike.
I “came out” as a conservative first at my social worker job in foster care. I was surprised to learn there were a number of closet conservatives at the job, but they were deathly afraid of declaring themselves, as the liberal bias is so strong in Los Angeles, and especially in the social services industry. Double this for Hollywood. I “came out” with my writing partners ten years ago. When I first did it their jaws dropped. How could a human being possibly be conservative? It’s unthinkable. Anyway, I’ve gotten used to being the only conservative at Hollywood parties. I try to be civil and respectful, but I refuse to hide my views. I’m used to seeing jaws drop all over the place. They look at me upon revelation as a creature from another planet.
Blogging has reassured me about the human race a bit. Finally, some fellow conservatives. Plus, most of the liberal bloggers I’ve “met” seem reasonable, and intelligent, which is all that I ask.
At this moment in time, I remain deeply conservative on many issues, like defense, the economy, affirmative action, education, the U.N. and immigration, but rationally liberal on some issues, like the environment, healthcare, a woman’s right to choose, gay rights, and stem cell research. I am literally a compassionate conservative, a neo-con, a conservative with a heart, a conservative who is still tugged by the liberal leanings of his youth. This is why I feel comfortable talking with liberals and conservatives. I know what it is to be liberal. I represent the adage very well, if you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative when you’re older, you have no brain.
I honestly believe I’ve arrived at truth, politically and religiously, at this stage of my life. I can understand the good heart that liberals have, yet I see that liberalism is in a sorry state at this moment in time. They’ve lost their integrity and their backbone. Conservatives, on the other hand, have lost their moral courage. They want to be liked so much now that they give up on most of their conservative principles in order to curry favor with voting blocks, like Hispanics and African Americans. For example, conservatives are pandering to Blacks at this time. Instead of leading by extolling the virtues of conservatism for Blacks, conservatives instead try to show Blacks how liberal and open-minded they are on matters of concern to the African-American community. Bush is the chief panderer. Does he get love for this approach? Respect? No. Blacks aren’t stupid. They know pandering.
The solution, I believe, is to just tell the truth. Maybe no one will listen, but it’s better than any alternative.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
This Post’s Technorati Tags: Vietnam protests, Lemon Popsicle movies, Intifada, Jew, Catholic, New Age, Islam, Robert Kennedy, Peace Now, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Tony Snow, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Tammy Bruce, classical liberal, Joe Lieberman, Zel Miller, Hollywood, social services industry, blogging, bloggers, conservatives, liberals, compassionate conservative, hippie, student protests, truth
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar or below this post)
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Hezbollah, a Noble Organization
The Left York Times leads with this headline, as usual sympathetic with terrorists, dictators and other thugs, Hezbollah Leads Work to Rebuild, Gaining Stature
What the Times will never emphasize is this: YESHIVA WORLD NEWS, Blog Archive, The Katushya rocket totals:
Hezbollah, though, is the new model terrorist. Slaughter babies. Invite the destruction of a country. Then, come in as the hero, beaming, hands outstretched with greenbacks. Reminds me of the Godfather movies, or the Sopranos. Don Corleone and Tony Soprano are beloved characters, not only with their beneficiaries, but also with audiences, even me. I love these guys. But not in real life. Real life Don Corleone’s and Tony Soprano’s I despise. I can’t get over the bloody horses’ heads and the whacked nephews. With Hezbollah, I can’t get over the indiscriminate hurling of Katushyah rockets into the living rooms of young mothers and gurgling infants.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.) This Post’s Technorati Tags: Israel, Hezbolah, Lebanon, Yeshiva, liberal, The Godfather, the Sopranos, Katushyah rockets, truth
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Aug. 15, 2006. As stunned Lebanese returned Tuesday over broken roads to shattered apartments in the south, it increasingly seemed that the beneficiary of the destruction was most likely to be Hezbollah.Here’s how I would like the Times to present their headline and story for this piece: Terrorist Organization Funnels Money from Thugs to Country Whose Destruction They Caused. Yeah, my title’s too long, not as catchy. It represents the truth, but hey, I can’t stop the Times from propping up another hooligan.
What the Times will never emphasize is this: YESHIVA WORLD NEWS, Blog Archive, The Katushya rocket totals:
Israeli Police have reported that, since the beginning of the war, a total of 3,970 rockets landed on Israel, 901 of them in urban areas. 2,015 people were hurt in the various attacks, 1,318 of them victims of shock. 52 civilians have been killed. Forty people are still being treated for very serious injuries. More than a thousand rockets landed in the Kiryat Shmona area, 808 rockets landed near Nahariya, 471 near Tzefas, 176 near Carmiel, 106 near Akko, 93 in the Chaifa vicinity and 81 near Tevereya.The question always remains, if a murderous goon does good deeds, is he transformed into a saint? Apparently so. Never mind that the $10,000 that Hezbollah now gives each needy family in Lebanon is blood money. Yes, Israel comes out of all this looking bad. They could have waged a cleaner, more effective war if they’d have sent in massive ground troops, and accepted heavier casualties. This is what you get when you put a liberal in charge of a war effort. Yes, Olmert is a liberal, and he fought a liberal-style war, full of negotiations and hesitations, and a cease-fire helpful to the enemy.
Hezbollah, though, is the new model terrorist. Slaughter babies. Invite the destruction of a country. Then, come in as the hero, beaming, hands outstretched with greenbacks. Reminds me of the Godfather movies, or the Sopranos. Don Corleone and Tony Soprano are beloved characters, not only with their beneficiaries, but also with audiences, even me. I love these guys. But not in real life. Real life Don Corleone’s and Tony Soprano’s I despise. I can’t get over the bloody horses’ heads and the whacked nephews. With Hezbollah, I can’t get over the indiscriminate hurling of Katushyah rockets into the living rooms of young mothers and gurgling infants.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.) This Post’s Technorati Tags: Israel, Hezbolah, Lebanon, Yeshiva, liberal, The Godfather, the Sopranos, Katushyah rockets, truth
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar or below this post)
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
What Would You Do If You Were President?
What would you do if you were President of the United States? I’m asking you to list five things you would carry out if you were the Chief Executive right now.
My fellow bloggers know what it is to declare ourselves in front of millions of people (well, traffic isn’t that high yet, don’t kid yourself Rock. All right, in front of many people). You get people that agree with you, those that disagree, those that love you, and those that hate you.
My blog has a special self-imposed standard on speaking the truth (okay all you dissenters, the truth as I see it). We seldom pronounce the truth in real life. We have to be diplomatic. We don’t want to offend. We don’t want people to think badly of us.
Yet, at this time in history, the world cries out for people to declare what is in their hearts, and the blogosphere is the place to do it. So, here goes, I’m going to be straight with you, as I always am:
If I were President, the five things I would do right now are:
1. Attack any country that supports terrorism against us. This includes Iran and Syria. I’d give them fair warning, and then, if they would not stop, I’d hit them massively. I would not invade, or get involved in a long, drawn-out Iraq-type war. Rather, I’d just crush them where it hurts the most, in their economies, oil fields, and infrastructure. I would not hesitate to do this, no matter who would not like us anymore, and I would not worry about retaliation. All of terrorism is funded. It is funded by oil-based economies with one natural resource. I’d brace myself for economic upheaval, but I’d accept this as the price for really winning the war on terror.
2. Send a mission on the scale of the Peace Corps to win the hearts and minds of young Muslims all over the world.
3. Do a Marshall Plan-type effort to get every homeless person in America into a program where they can lead lives with some dignity.
4. Open the floodgates of immigration once again to Europe, and to any person in the world who can contribute to America with his or her advanced education or technological skills, and so on. I would slam shut immigration to anyone who is not coming here to be American.
5. Actively recruit the brightest minds and warmest hearts in America to get over their prejudices against the right wing and the Republican Party and become true-believer conservatives. It is my contention that conservatism is the most humane and productive approach for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Whites, all races, all religions, young and old, male and female. They say that if you’re not liberal when you’re young, you don’t have a heart, and that if you’re not conservative when you’re older, you don’t have a brain. I think the truth is, at this point in history, if you’re not conservative, you don’t have a heart or a brain.
There, I’ve exposed myself to laughter, ridicule, and scorn. Now it's your turn. What would you do if you were President? Don’t be afraid. Be brave. Don’t hold back. Let your imagination run wild, and try to imagine that you could really effect your five actions.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.) This Post’s Technorati Tags: President of the United States, chief executive, bloggers, blogosphere, terrorism, Syria, Iran, oil based economies, Peace Corps, young Muslims, immigration, right-wing, Republican Party, conservatism, truth
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
My fellow bloggers know what it is to declare ourselves in front of millions of people (well, traffic isn’t that high yet, don’t kid yourself Rock. All right, in front of many people). You get people that agree with you, those that disagree, those that love you, and those that hate you.
My blog has a special self-imposed standard on speaking the truth (okay all you dissenters, the truth as I see it). We seldom pronounce the truth in real life. We have to be diplomatic. We don’t want to offend. We don’t want people to think badly of us.
Yet, at this time in history, the world cries out for people to declare what is in their hearts, and the blogosphere is the place to do it. So, here goes, I’m going to be straight with you, as I always am:
If I were President, the five things I would do right now are:
1. Attack any country that supports terrorism against us. This includes Iran and Syria. I’d give them fair warning, and then, if they would not stop, I’d hit them massively. I would not invade, or get involved in a long, drawn-out Iraq-type war. Rather, I’d just crush them where it hurts the most, in their economies, oil fields, and infrastructure. I would not hesitate to do this, no matter who would not like us anymore, and I would not worry about retaliation. All of terrorism is funded. It is funded by oil-based economies with one natural resource. I’d brace myself for economic upheaval, but I’d accept this as the price for really winning the war on terror.
2. Send a mission on the scale of the Peace Corps to win the hearts and minds of young Muslims all over the world.
3. Do a Marshall Plan-type effort to get every homeless person in America into a program where they can lead lives with some dignity.
4. Open the floodgates of immigration once again to Europe, and to any person in the world who can contribute to America with his or her advanced education or technological skills, and so on. I would slam shut immigration to anyone who is not coming here to be American.
5. Actively recruit the brightest minds and warmest hearts in America to get over their prejudices against the right wing and the Republican Party and become true-believer conservatives. It is my contention that conservatism is the most humane and productive approach for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Whites, all races, all religions, young and old, male and female. They say that if you’re not liberal when you’re young, you don’t have a heart, and that if you’re not conservative when you’re older, you don’t have a brain. I think the truth is, at this point in history, if you’re not conservative, you don’t have a heart or a brain.
There, I’ve exposed myself to laughter, ridicule, and scorn. Now it's your turn. What would you do if you were President? Don’t be afraid. Be brave. Don’t hold back. Let your imagination run wild, and try to imagine that you could really effect your five actions.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.) This Post’s Technorati Tags: President of the United States, chief executive, bloggers, blogosphere, terrorism, Syria, Iran, oil based economies, Peace Corps, young Muslims, immigration, right-wing, Republican Party, conservatism, truth
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar or below this post)
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Who are the Terrorists?
Al-Qaeda, which translates to "the foundation" or "the base," or simply "databank,” is a radical Sunni Islamist organization with the objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries.*
This group are adherents of Salafism, a fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam. Osama bin Laden is its ideological leader, but their operations are not centralized, and several independent but collaborative cells exist in multiple countries. Al-Qaeda has been linked to multiple terrorist attacks against the U.S., including the September 11 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In response, the United States launched the war in Afghanistan, which was safe haven to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
The origins of Al-Qaeda can be traced to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. A cadre of foreign Arab Mujahideen, financed by bin Laden and wealthy Muslim contributors, fought the occupation. The U.S. viewed the conflict as a Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to these anti-Soviet forces. Bin Laden channeled Arab Mujahideen to the conflict, distributing money and providing logistical skills and resources to guerrillas as well as Afghan refugees.
Hamas translates to the "Islamic Resistance Movement.” It is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist organization that currently forms the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Created in 1987 by Shaikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, at the beginning of the first Intifada, Hamas is known for its suicide bombings and attacks directed against Israeli civilians, as well as military and security forces targets. Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in force) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.
Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. Since the death of the former Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat, Hamas' political wing has won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya, and Nablus. In January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, with the ruling Fatah party trailing with 43. Its anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic rhetoric has found a receptive audience among Palestinians. Many perceived the preceding Fatah government as corrupt and ineffective, and Hamas' supporters see it as a legitimate resistance movement fighting the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Hamas has gained popularity by establishing welfare programs, funding schools, orphanages, and healthcare clinics throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. When Hamas took control, the Palestinian territories experienced a period of sharp internal conflicts, known as Fauda (anarchy), in which many Palestinians were killed.
Hezbollah translates to “party of God.” It is a Shia Islamist organization in Lebanon, comprising a militia, a political party, and an extensive program of social development. Formed in 1982 to fight the occupation by Israel, it sought to bring Islamic Revolution to Lebanon, with the dream of transforming it into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Today, Hezbollah is a well-structured political organization, with members in the Lebanese parliament, whose recent one-month stand against Israel, while not technically a victory, was seen as heroic in the Arab world. This could propel them to legitimate political control over Lebanon, and lead to the Islamic state they so desire.
Moktada al-Sadr is the fourth son of the famous Iraqi Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr and son-in-law of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir As-Sadr. As of early 2004, he was the de facto ruler of Sadr City, a section of Baghdad, and commanded the loyalty of the Mahdi Army, an insurgent force making a bid for power in Iraq.
The Mahdi Army, also known as the Mehdi Army or Jaish al Mahdi, is a militia force created by Al-Sadr in June of 2003. The group moved in to fill the security vacuum in Sadr City, and in a string of southern Iraqi cities, following the fall of Baghdad to U.S-led coalition forces on April 9, 2003. They initially dispensed aid to Iraqis and provided security from looters in the Shiite slums. Gradually, the militia grew and was formalized by al-Sadr in June of 2003.
They rose to prominence on April 4, 2004 when they spearheaded the first major armed confrontation against the U.S-led occupation forces in Iraq. Operating from the Shiite community, they fomented an uprising that followed the banning of al-Sadr's newspaper and attempts to arrest him.
The group is armed with AK-47 (Kalashnikov) assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades, mortars, Strela Anti-air missiles, and other light weapons. This army is believed to have infiltrated Iraqi police forces and to be involved in vigilante activities. The Mahdi Army has now grown into a force of 10,000 militia that even operates what amounts to a shadow government in some areas. The National Independent Cadres and Elites party that ran in the 2005 Iraqi election was closely linked with the army.
Then there are the Sunni and Bathist guerrilla fighters in Iraq, formed mostly to regain the status quo they enjoyed under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
The conclusions? All these terrorist organizations are united by a hatred of foreigners in their countries. Their animosity towards the occupiers goes farther than xenophobia, however, including a desire to destroy the occupiers, and the societies that spawn them. Some of their rhetoric is tinged with an extreme religious intolerance. On a gut level, they seem to want the annihilation of Israel, and the downfall of Western societies.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.) This Post’s Technorati Tags: Al-Qaeda, Sunni, Islamist, Muslim, Salafism, Palestine, Intifida, Osama bin Laden, World Trade Center, war in Afghanistan, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Mujahideen, Hamas, Palestinian National Authority, Palestinian, Muslim Brotherhood, Yasser Arafat, Fatah, Fauda, Hezbollah, Shia, Islamic Revolution, Islamic state, Lebanese parliament, Lebanon, Moktada al-Sadr, Sadr City, Mahdi Army, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, xenophobia, religious intolerance, Israel, truth
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
This group are adherents of Salafism, a fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam. Osama bin Laden is its ideological leader, but their operations are not centralized, and several independent but collaborative cells exist in multiple countries. Al-Qaeda has been linked to multiple terrorist attacks against the U.S., including the September 11 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In response, the United States launched the war in Afghanistan, which was safe haven to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
The origins of Al-Qaeda can be traced to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. A cadre of foreign Arab Mujahideen, financed by bin Laden and wealthy Muslim contributors, fought the occupation. The U.S. viewed the conflict as a Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to these anti-Soviet forces. Bin Laden channeled Arab Mujahideen to the conflict, distributing money and providing logistical skills and resources to guerrillas as well as Afghan refugees.
Hamas translates to the "Islamic Resistance Movement.” It is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist organization that currently forms the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Created in 1987 by Shaikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, at the beginning of the first Intifada, Hamas is known for its suicide bombings and attacks directed against Israeli civilians, as well as military and security forces targets. Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in force) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.
Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. Since the death of the former Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat, Hamas' political wing has won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya, and Nablus. In January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, with the ruling Fatah party trailing with 43. Its anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic rhetoric has found a receptive audience among Palestinians. Many perceived the preceding Fatah government as corrupt and ineffective, and Hamas' supporters see it as a legitimate resistance movement fighting the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Hamas has gained popularity by establishing welfare programs, funding schools, orphanages, and healthcare clinics throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. When Hamas took control, the Palestinian territories experienced a period of sharp internal conflicts, known as Fauda (anarchy), in which many Palestinians were killed.
Hezbollah translates to “party of God.” It is a Shia Islamist organization in Lebanon, comprising a militia, a political party, and an extensive program of social development. Formed in 1982 to fight the occupation by Israel, it sought to bring Islamic Revolution to Lebanon, with the dream of transforming it into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Today, Hezbollah is a well-structured political organization, with members in the Lebanese parliament, whose recent one-month stand against Israel, while not technically a victory, was seen as heroic in the Arab world. This could propel them to legitimate political control over Lebanon, and lead to the Islamic state they so desire.
Moktada al-Sadr is the fourth son of the famous Iraqi Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr and son-in-law of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir As-Sadr. As of early 2004, he was the de facto ruler of Sadr City, a section of Baghdad, and commanded the loyalty of the Mahdi Army, an insurgent force making a bid for power in Iraq.
The Mahdi Army, also known as the Mehdi Army or Jaish al Mahdi, is a militia force created by Al-Sadr in June of 2003. The group moved in to fill the security vacuum in Sadr City, and in a string of southern Iraqi cities, following the fall of Baghdad to U.S-led coalition forces on April 9, 2003. They initially dispensed aid to Iraqis and provided security from looters in the Shiite slums. Gradually, the militia grew and was formalized by al-Sadr in June of 2003.
They rose to prominence on April 4, 2004 when they spearheaded the first major armed confrontation against the U.S-led occupation forces in Iraq. Operating from the Shiite community, they fomented an uprising that followed the banning of al-Sadr's newspaper and attempts to arrest him.
The group is armed with AK-47 (Kalashnikov) assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades, mortars, Strela Anti-air missiles, and other light weapons. This army is believed to have infiltrated Iraqi police forces and to be involved in vigilante activities. The Mahdi Army has now grown into a force of 10,000 militia that even operates what amounts to a shadow government in some areas. The National Independent Cadres and Elites party that ran in the 2005 Iraqi election was closely linked with the army.
Then there are the Sunni and Bathist guerrilla fighters in Iraq, formed mostly to regain the status quo they enjoyed under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
The conclusions? All these terrorist organizations are united by a hatred of foreigners in their countries. Their animosity towards the occupiers goes farther than xenophobia, however, including a desire to destroy the occupiers, and the societies that spawn them. Some of their rhetoric is tinged with an extreme religious intolerance. On a gut level, they seem to want the annihilation of Israel, and the downfall of Western societies.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.) This Post’s Technorati Tags: Al-Qaeda, Sunni, Islamist, Muslim, Salafism, Palestine, Intifida, Osama bin Laden, World Trade Center, war in Afghanistan, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Mujahideen, Hamas, Palestinian National Authority, Palestinian, Muslim Brotherhood, Yasser Arafat, Fatah, Fauda, Hezbollah, Shia, Islamic Revolution, Islamic state, Lebanese parliament, Lebanon, Moktada al-Sadr, Sadr City, Mahdi Army, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, xenophobia, religious intolerance, Israel, truth
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar or below this post)
Monday, August 14, 2006
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Good
In the most recent Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, Aug. 10-11, 2006, on the question of terrorism, it was asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling terrorism and homeland security?” The results: 55% approve, 40% disapprove, 5% are unsure.
Meanwhile, in London:
UK terror threat level downgraded - BBC NEWS
The British did a fine job in stopping the liquids-on-a-plane threats. They continue to do the right things with regard to tracking down their jihadists, and sensibly protecting their public.
The Bad
Cease-Fire Begins After a Day of Fierce Attacks - New York Times
Both sides claim victory - Aljazeera.Net
Israelis in North Are Pessimistic About a Truce - New York Times
And then, in Iraq:
5 Bombs Kill at Least 57 in Baghdad - New York Times
The Ugly
The British were able to thwart the liquids-on-a-plane attacks because they are allowed to surveil and arrest suspected terrorists without the restrictions imposed here in the United States by the left, the Democratic Party, and the ACLU.
Despite the fact that Britain seems to be a more leftist country than America in many ways, on the issue of homeland security they are way ahead of us, because their left seems more rational than ours. We are endangered by our left.
Terrorism has lost some important actual battles recently, as in London and even in Lebanon. Yet, the terrorists remain united and can now actually recruit more martyrs to their cause after their symbolic victory in Lebanon. Again, for the first time in modern history, an Arab army has survived for one month an all-out assault by the mighty Israeli army.
It is not, as those on the left would have us believe, American or Israeli aggression which impassions Muslims to join the jihadists. Rather, it is perceived American or Israeli weakness. It is, in fact, the lack of sufficient aggression that eggs them on. They imagine at this time they have won some glorious victories, both in Iraq and in Lebanon. This means more jihadists will be willing to join their cause, so they too can become heroes.
Israel’s failure to disarm Hezbollah guarantees there will be more bloodshed there in the future. This ceasefire may last for some time, but the stories around the campfires now in Lebanon will resound with calls to action that will one day result in heartache for Israel. Perceived Israeli weakness will lead other troublemakers to get involved too, like Iran.
Why did Israel fail? Hezbollah was dug in, well armed, and well prepared, and Israel was unwilling to wage an all-out ground war, which would have meant heavy Israeli casualties. Israel’s reluctance to fight this kind of war led to more Lebanese civilian victims, because Israel had no troops on the ground to guarantee the accuracy of their air strikes. It was a mess. It is hard to fault Israel entirely. They love their children, and were not willing to lose them. Contrast this kind of humanity with that of the mothers and fathers of the suicide bombers, who cheer their sons and daughters to their deaths.
Ultimately, the blame for Israel’s failure lies with leadership. Olmert’s government will fall from power shortly. If Sharon had been in charge, this whole thing would have been handled differently. Olmert is a good man, but lacks the experience, cunning and sense of the jugular that Sharon had.
The one bright spot in the war on terror remains Britain. Lebanon is a setback, and the United States continues its two wars simultaneously, against the terrorists on the one hand, and against the left on the other. Whether we win the war on terror or not largely depends on whether we choose to behave like Britain in this crisis, or like Israel. Again, I don’t blame the Israelis. These are hard choices. None of us wants our children returning in coffins. I also don’t blame the left. They exist in their misguided beliefs that peace at any cost saves lives. I do hold the public responsible, though. I expect them to read, listen, express themselves, and vote intelligently. Our survival and way of life depend on it. Thank God the polls are starting to swing the "right" way.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.) This Post’s Technorati Tags: terrorism, Bush, homeland security, Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, ceasefire, Iraq, liquids on a plane, Britain, Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, truth
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Subscribe to my feed
In the most recent Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, Aug. 10-11, 2006, on the question of terrorism, it was asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling terrorism and homeland security?” The results: 55% approve, 40% disapprove, 5% are unsure.
Meanwhile, in London:
UK terror threat level downgraded - BBC NEWS
The British did a fine job in stopping the liquids-on-a-plane threats. They continue to do the right things with regard to tracking down their jihadists, and sensibly protecting their public.
The Bad
Cease-Fire Begins After a Day of Fierce Attacks - New York Times
Both sides claim victory - Aljazeera.Net
Israel and Hezbollah both say they won as a UN-brokered truce to end the month-old fighting took effect.Israel ends this month-long battle with its tail between its legs. Though the Israelis did more damage to Hezbollah than vice versa, it was a sloppy endeavor. There were too many civilian casualties. Hezbollah has survived and can even claim a symbolic victory, being the first Arab force to last a month without being destroyed by the mighty Israeli army.
Israelis in North Are Pessimistic About a Truce - New York Times
KIRYAT SHMONA, Israel. Rockets whistling in from Lebanon have been a constant in Eli Ben-Abo’s life for nearly four decades. As he waited out a barrage Sunday in a cramped, airless shelter, he was sure a truce set for Monday would not end that enduring threat.The future looks bad for Israeli citizens, not only in Kiryat Shmona, but also in Tel Aviv.“I’ve been listening to these rockets from 1970 until today,” said Mr. Ben-Abo, 50, who was squeezed into the tiny cinder-block shelter with his wife and two daughters, along with four more relatives. “We keep hoping it will end, but it never does."
And then, in Iraq:
5 Bombs Kill at Least 57 in Baghdad - New York Times
As American forces conducted a new security sweep in western Baghdad on Sunday, five apparently coordinated bombings in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood on the city’s south side killed at least 57 people and wounded 148, an Iraqi government official said."Same old, same old.
The Ugly
The British were able to thwart the liquids-on-a-plane attacks because they are allowed to surveil and arrest suspected terrorists without the restrictions imposed here in the United States by the left, the Democratic Party, and the ACLU.
Despite the fact that Britain seems to be a more leftist country than America in many ways, on the issue of homeland security they are way ahead of us, because their left seems more rational than ours. We are endangered by our left.
Terrorism has lost some important actual battles recently, as in London and even in Lebanon. Yet, the terrorists remain united and can now actually recruit more martyrs to their cause after their symbolic victory in Lebanon. Again, for the first time in modern history, an Arab army has survived for one month an all-out assault by the mighty Israeli army.
It is not, as those on the left would have us believe, American or Israeli aggression which impassions Muslims to join the jihadists. Rather, it is perceived American or Israeli weakness. It is, in fact, the lack of sufficient aggression that eggs them on. They imagine at this time they have won some glorious victories, both in Iraq and in Lebanon. This means more jihadists will be willing to join their cause, so they too can become heroes.
Israel’s failure to disarm Hezbollah guarantees there will be more bloodshed there in the future. This ceasefire may last for some time, but the stories around the campfires now in Lebanon will resound with calls to action that will one day result in heartache for Israel. Perceived Israeli weakness will lead other troublemakers to get involved too, like Iran.
Why did Israel fail? Hezbollah was dug in, well armed, and well prepared, and Israel was unwilling to wage an all-out ground war, which would have meant heavy Israeli casualties. Israel’s reluctance to fight this kind of war led to more Lebanese civilian victims, because Israel had no troops on the ground to guarantee the accuracy of their air strikes. It was a mess. It is hard to fault Israel entirely. They love their children, and were not willing to lose them. Contrast this kind of humanity with that of the mothers and fathers of the suicide bombers, who cheer their sons and daughters to their deaths.
Ultimately, the blame for Israel’s failure lies with leadership. Olmert’s government will fall from power shortly. If Sharon had been in charge, this whole thing would have been handled differently. Olmert is a good man, but lacks the experience, cunning and sense of the jugular that Sharon had.
The one bright spot in the war on terror remains Britain. Lebanon is a setback, and the United States continues its two wars simultaneously, against the terrorists on the one hand, and against the left on the other. Whether we win the war on terror or not largely depends on whether we choose to behave like Britain in this crisis, or like Israel. Again, I don’t blame the Israelis. These are hard choices. None of us wants our children returning in coffins. I also don’t blame the left. They exist in their misguided beliefs that peace at any cost saves lives. I do hold the public responsible, though. I expect them to read, listen, express themselves, and vote intelligently. Our survival and way of life depend on it. Thank God the polls are starting to swing the "right" way.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.) This Post’s Technorati Tags: terrorism, Bush, homeland security, Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, ceasefire, Iraq, liquids on a plane, Britain, Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, truth
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Subscribe to my feed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)