Left Out in the Rain Too Long

FREEDOM TO MOCK

2010-09-19T13:43:00.003-05:00

No, I don't mean to say that people should run about using the democratic freedom to mock to insult people, telling mothers "Your baby is really ugly! or "Ha ha, that person is grossly obese."

What I am trying to do is to mock (rather ineptly) Polital Correctness. I strongly feel that Political Correctness, by politicizing what some feel is honoring the beliefs of others, and on and on, in a dangerous attempt to relieve Americans of one of the most precious of their - our - constitutional rights.

So a fool named Terry Jones announced he wants to burn the Koran. So what? To do so might be idiotic, and insulting to many, but it is not a crime. So what has our president and the media done, in their infinite wisdom? They have given the publicity-starved Pastor Jones all the attention he could dream of, as the world waits with bated breath -- will he or won't he?

Wouldn't it be more effective for the president and the media to ignore him and to let him burn, or not, as he pleases, as he tries to prolong his few minutes of fame (or infamy)?

This is just what America-haters and their frightened or brain-washed followers needed in order to cry, "Hatred of Islam is on the rise in America!" and call a conference to discuss this problem. By giving attention to the Jones incident we have given fodder to the terrorists.

By the way, have you noticed that many American Muslims are only too ready to portray themselves as victims of religious hatred? But how often have heard protests from them decrying Taliban and Al-Qaeda acts? Perhaps ordinary people are afraid to speak up for fear of reprisal by terrorists. But not even many of the organizations of Muslims in this country are on record for making public pronouncements that Jihad should not be the way of a holy people. Which one of them has publicly denounced the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Instead, we learn that even the organizations* that deny that they have ever encouraged violence despite evidence to the contrary, have complained of harassment by security officials in this country.

I am not suggesting anything distasteful as a loyalty Oath, but I would like to read some convincing statements of repugnance toward Jihad from the Muslim community.

*Taibah International Aid Association, World Assembly of Muslim Youth International or WAMY, both directed by Anwar Hajjaj. See New York Post article 9/19/2010.conference to discuss this problem. By giving attention to the Jones incident we have given fodder to the terrorists.

By the way, have you noticed that many American Muslims are only too ready to portray themselves as victims of religious hatred? But how often have heard protests from them decrying Taliban and Al-Qaeda acts? Perhaps ordinary people are afraid to speak up for fear of reprisal by terrorists. But not even many of the organizations of Muslims in this country are on record for making public pronouncements that Jihad should not be the way of a holy people. Which one of them has publicly denounced the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Instead, we learn that even the organizations* that deny that they have ever encouraged violence despite evidence to the contrary, have complained of harassment by security officials in this country.

I am not suggesting anything distasteful as a loyalty Oath, but I would like to read some convincing statements of repugnance toward Jihad from the Muslim community.

*Taibah International Aid Association, World Assembly of Muslim Youth International or WAMY, both directed by Anwar Hajjaj. See New York Post article 9/19/2010.

PLEASE KEEP GERMANY FROM MORE SUFFERING

2009-05-25T14:37:00.006-05:00

ACHTUNG!
Germany Cries Out for Our Help!
Keep The Fatherland Fat!

Does anyone realize that Germany is suffering? Are you aware, sitting in your comfortable homes watching your plasma television sets, that people in Germany are starving?

But more importantly there are many Germans living below the poverty level set by the government. Unlike the time after World War I when inflation was killing them and they had to fill wheel barrows with useless deutsche marks just trying to buy enough to put food on the table, today many German families don't even have enough euros to fill a wheelbarrow, let alone own one.

Will someone please tell me why people in the Civilized World are sitting around bellyaching about starvation in Darfur, Namibia, or Eritrea. Naturally we feel bad about that. But when Germans are suffering we must sit up and take notice. Unlike people in the aforementioned unfortunate countries in Africa, the Germans will not just sit around complaining, or merely start exterminating those who annoy them. No, they will do something to alleviate their own distress. They will reopen the military-industrial arms complex -- they have the will and the know-how. They will soon be seen in Poland, the Czech Republic, Belgium, and not just as slightly pushy tourists. No, they'll be wearing boots which definitely won't be Uggs.

Please, I implore you, warn your neighbors, teach your children, rent old war movies, buy Volkswagens, and above all refresh your memories -- when Germans suffer, it is the rest of the world must pay the piper!

Join me and thousands of others in contributing to the KEEP GERMANY CONTENTED FUND. It's worth your life to be alert now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090525/wl_time/08599190064900

PARABLE OF THE UNRIGHTEOUS

2009-02-26T18:42:00.003-05:00

The Unrighteous live in the village of Blinkham, part of a small principality nestled among snow-capped mountains. There is very little industry and manufacturing. The people engage mainly in herding goats and making exquisite cheeses so delicate that they cannot be exported and which they wrap in leaves of fragrant herbs and sell in the market square. There are abundant orchards of fruit of the pome variety which are suitable to the northern climate.

Artisans create whatever they need for practical, aesthetic, and spiritual purposes.

But a few generations ago these simple folk suffered a terrible tribulation. It rose from relations with several church employees gifted in ecclesiastical music. They were an organist, two zither players, a choirmaster, and a flautist (who was the principal trouble maker). The church musicians were always highly esteemed in the village and well-treated. Their wages were not high but almost as high as the schoolmaster’s. They also received living quarters (each was provided with a well-built chalet) and all the cheese they wanted, as well as quince jelly and a quantity of sharp cider made from pears.

But they were not content. The flautist persuaded them that their wages were not consistent with their talents or up to the prevailing rate in the principality. Under his influence they demanded collective bargaining , but the town council (which also oversaw the church) refused to come to the table. It was fruit harvesting time and they were too busy. They suggested the matter be postponed until the winter and perhaps they would agree to provide a goat or two every year to each musician.

The musicians were enraged at this treatment. They listened to the plan of the flautist which seemed worthwhile to them as it included both vengeance and profit. Details were worked out to the agreement of all. The group announced that they had made arrangements to give the children a treat. They would take them on a picnic on the nearby slopes. Parental consent was given and on the next Saturday morning the children lined up outside the church and gaily headed off for their treat.

Late that day as the parents were wondering why the children were so late returning, a small boy limped into town and told them the horrible news. As the children approached the pass leading into the next valley they were told to leave the trail and follow the musicians to the entrance of a cave. The young boy, in his difficulty in keeping up, tripped and fell, and to his horror watched as the singing children, following the flautist playing his instrument, were led into the cave, immediately after which the musicians emerged, and using levers, rolled a giant boulder into the entrance, completely blocking it. The young boy watched as the musicians disappeared over the mountain, unaware that he was lying on the ground nearby, bruised and sobbing.

Frightened and sore he made his way home alone. The parents, on hearing this tale, and knowing of the cave near the pass, immediately made their way there and tried to move the boulder. It would not budge, however, and seemed cemented in place. They decided to hold a meeting in the village hall to decide their next step. The schoolmaster had a suggestion. At that time a large overseas country had sent special forces to fight terrorists in the small principality. He suggested that they would have the equipment to move the boulder and set off to contact the military forces.

In a few weeks’ time he returned with a tactical attache and a squad of demolition experts with great experience in blasting into blocked caves and they set to work. The parents requested that they be careful not to hurt the children within and the experts said they would try not to, but they might be a bit stunned.

It was not long before the squad succeeded in unblocking the entrance. They entered with weapons drawn and in a short time returned leading the blinking, confused children into the daylight and into the arms of their joyful parents.

For a while the townspeople, overjoyed at being reunited with their children, did not notice anything amiss. But soon they began to feel uneasy. Their children had begun exhibiting behavior unlike anything their parents had seen. They were strangely quiet and docile. They never laughed or sang or played loud music which in the past had brought on migraine attacks in their elders, or gleefully danced the rhythmic, stomping steps which they had loved. Although strangely obedient in performing their chores they did not hesitate to rebuke their parents for what they called “unseemly” or “unholy” behavior. They were also strangely familiar with the Book of Truth, upon which their religion was based, quoting from it with great facility.

When one father, in a state of high spirits, burst out in the lusty yodeling for which their land was world-renowned, his daughter stopped him, saying, “Sing not in the voice of braying asses, for the Lord of All despiseth falsettos. Hepsipah, 6:8”. And when a wife criticized her husband for not wiping his shoes after returning home from milking the goats, their son cried, “Speak not, woman, in tones of displeasure to your husband and master, for a woman is born to serve and obey, smile and be silent. Chronicles of Abjah, 8:11-12”. And once, when engaged couples, enjoying some fine weather, spontaneously began whirling and capering in their distinctive native dance, some youths cried out, “Dance not in this valley of tears or thou shalt dance for eternity in the fires of Beldoroath, Hezekinad, 12:4”.

Amazed, the parents, who had never seen their children voluntarily reading the Book, asked them how they now seemed to have read it from cover to cover. Oh, no, the ever truthful children told them, they had never done so, but had been provided with pages of quotations extracted from the Book of Truth which they had to memorize and quote when appropriate. When asked who had so instructed them they answered, "Our shepherds,” and more than that they would not say.

Even worse, the children, who dutifully attended school, would now disrupt classes throughout the day with demands to pray. When the schoolmaster ordered them not to interrupt their studies as they had plenty of time to pray in church or at home after finishing their chores, they became irate, pointed their fingers at him, and shouted, "Tool of the Evil One.”

Outraged and worried, the people again sent the schoolmaster to the Special Forces to inform him that the children who had emerged from the cave were not the ones who had so merrily left home that fateful morning. They demanded that their own children be returned to them. The schoolmaster returned to the village with a message from the Tactical Attache. In it he told them that when they had rescued the children his men had secured a large cache of documents from the cave. From them their experts had learned that the church musicians had been in the employ of a group of terrorists known as “The Righteous.” These people who were trying to pass off their irrational and dangerous beliefs as being grounded in The Book of Truth were attempting to take over the principality by various legal and illegal means, including the control of the minds of children.

The children were taught that the Book was totally without error or contradictions and every word must be believed at peril of losing their immortal souls. No questioning or suggestion that anything in it could be interpreted symbolically, as poetry, or in the context of the time of its writing was tolerated and other groups holding even slightly different beliefs were cursed and told they were apostates headed for eternal damnation. The Lord of All was vengeful and imposed dreadful punishments on his beloved children if they strayed. Complete obedience to their pastors or “shepherds” was demanded at all times. No real friendship or close relationships were possible among the believers because they were instructed to listen for heretical ideas and inform on their friends and relations.

The Tactical Attache further informed them that the Special Forces were well on their way to completely rooting out cells of the Righteous throughout the land but there still remained the battle to cleanse the children and others of their strange teachings and keep them from spreading. He did not, however, explain to the parents how they were to do that.

The desperate parents, however, held a meeting and arrived at some ideas for turning their children back into the carefree, playful youths they had been. For example, when a child rebuked others with quotations from the Book, the parents would shout, “Don’t take it literally!”

Fathers played concertinas constantly in desperate efforts to induce their children to regain their childhood. Sometimes the children’s limbs would begin twitching and feet would begin rhythmically stomping, until at times, distraught at such unholy behavior, the children would fall on the floor and roll about pitifully.

Then the schoolmaster was sent again as an envoy to the Special Forces to request help in this dire situation. The Tactical Attache assigned a staff sergeant to help out. She told the schoolmaster, “Tell your people that I will design an after-school program that will have those kids acting like their normal, boisterous selves in no time.”

In a few days the staff sergeant arrived with a truckload of equipment. She began teaching the children athletic activities and at first met with resistance. However they were soon awed by her military bearing and kindhearted but firm pursuasiveness. Soon they were playing soccer, badminton, jogging around a track, and running races. When the parents heard their boisterous shouting from the playing fields they joyously raised their voices in thanks to the Lord of All.

And the people from then on lived contentedly in their beautiful valley.

U N S T A B L E K A R M A

2008-12-29T13:04:00.009-05:00

What a strange, stressful and wonderful year I have had. I am not sure whether the good and bad balanced each other out. I only know that the bad was painful and in some cases I am still dealing with it, and the good was often completely unexpected and surprising.

As to the good things that have happened, finding a nice apartment in a great neighborhood, thanks to someone in town who knows this area well. I am glad I've kept in touch with him. He is also very funny and makes me laugh.

Then there are several separate instances of money coming in to grace my bank account. The most unexpected, and smallest example is that involving changing the address on my cable tv account and being told that the former tenant left a balance in his account when he moved and this tidy little sum was transferred to my account. The only other tenants here are a very friendly young couple who have been very helpful to me.

There is also a lawsuit with a titan of American finance and a communication from my attorney that they have finally agreed to settle. I'll let you know if the attorney and some other creditors leave anything for me.

On the down side moving was very stressful and exhausting, especially with recent appearance of annoying weakness, exhaustion and other discomfort which various MDs are in the process of trying to diagnose by various tests and procedures (in some cases uncomfortably for me). It seems clear the symptoms were not just caused by stress of moving. At least in all other respects I feel fine!

Some of the good recent happenings, great neighbors, apartment, money unexpectedly coming in, remind me of things they talk about in systems like the well-known "The Secret" which has never done a thing for me, along with other positive-thinking schemes that I have tried at times. After analyzing this "failure" I am wondering if that is because I am not strongly enough motivated. This may be because I am already comfortable and not discontented enough. That is, on some level I don't want so much more than I have. I strongly desire enlightenment, for example, although not enough to work hard at achieving it. But maybe in a crazy way I am already enlightened (just a little).

Wait - a nice coincidence just occurred. After writing just a few minutes ago about money coming in, the doorbell rang, and there on my doorstep was someone waving a check at me! A hand delivery of money that was promised me in connection with a business agreement but which I could not be certain of receiving. Now I'm off to the bank....

********
Life is a dream
And dreams are real;
Let's change our dreams
and live them...

Soccer Mom Plays Softball

2008-10-04T11:22:00.002-05:00

I have just one question for John McCain and his advisers. What was the basis for the choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate?

Did anyone actually sit down with her and ask some hard questions -- the kind she might be asked as a Vice Presidential candidate? Or did you check out photos of her in a swimsuit and think that she made a better impression that Hillary Clinton would in the same attire?

When she announced during the debate with Joe Biden that she might not answer questions as her opponent or the moderator expected, did you think that the voting public might wonder if she ever would or could answer hard questions? Did you feel at all disappointed that she gave irrelevant and ungrammatical replies from a scripted list most of the time?

In my opinion Sarah Palin does not disappoint in her public statements; not if you expect that she will fall far short of inspiring confidence that if McCain dies in office she will ably replace him.

President Palin? God forbid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04herbert.html?em

T H E G O O D F A T H E R

2008-06-13T09:54:00.011-05:00

"What in human history has been more overrated — and caused more pain, sorrow and death -- than female virginity?" -- from a comment on Judith Warner's blog:
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/pure-tyranny
/index.html?th&emc=th

I highly recommend this blog post which I have just read this morning as it is valuable for inspiring so much controversy and discussion on the subject of female chastity. Both religious and secular sexism, misguided parental concern for daughters, lack of parental concern, a hook-up society, women owning their bodies, men owning everything -- these issues and many others regarding sexuality are seldom resolved to everyone's satisfaction in any culture.

The 6/12 blog post, "Pure Tyranny," begins with a discussion of hymen reconstruction surgery among French Muslim women, then proceeds to a discussion of an annual Father-Daughter Purity Ball in Colorado, and ends with a statement about how much behavior that passes for "protection" of women is "sick".

I find it hard to disagree with her arguments. As for the situation among French Muslims (and not only in France) cultural diversity laws may go too far in allowing too much familial interference with women's chastity. No woman should have to submit to an examination by a doctor of the groom's family's choice. If the couple are both okay with each other's state of chastity or lack thereof, then that should settle the matter.

I also, of course, agree that parents should teach all their children to make informed choices, not only girls. However, sometimes I wonder how they do it (I mean convince young people to preserve chastity) -- it's hard to fight such a powerful biological imperative, even with draconic penalties. But there should be a fair playing field -- girls should perhaps shun extreme provocative behavior and dress; boys need to stop bullying girls into having sex and stop putting notches on their belts for every out-of-wedlock kid they've sired...and don't support.

The Usual Suspects: Pt. 2 -- Masonry

2008-05-30T10:33:00.014-05:00

Why have the Masons been in the public eye so much more than most other "secret" societies? Over the centuries they have incurred the resentment, envy, rage, disapproval and curiosity of the public, monarchs, and the Church. Today they are still the whipping boy of the Vatican and frequently blamed for everything that points to worldly wheeling and dealing (usually done with papal knowledge.)

And yet the actual Masonic implication in conspiratorial activities is usually not clear-cut, while it is impossible to be dismissed entirely. This attraction of negative attention may be caused in part by the secrecy of their inner dealings, perhaps carried on in part from medieval masons and builders who strove to keep the secrets of their trade from outsiders. The secret handshakes, recognition signals, and initiation rites were necessary in a feudal age to prevent serfs from escaping from their class into the wider world of masons.

In the past secrecy gave the the Freemasons freedom to discuss knowledge of their time that was not accepted and even forbidden by the Catholic Church. But the intellectual interests of the various lodges varied, some attracting religious freethinkers, while others followed mysticism, the occult, or natural science. All these subjects were anathema to the Church and the equally repressive despotic governments of the time, large and small. It was not surprising that people who had a vested interest in ignorance and blind obedience would oppose secret societies, reading and discussion groups, and masonic lodges. These attitudes carried down to the public at large which had a distrust of masonry.

In the early 19th century in the U.S., for example, many people were up in arms about secret manoeuvering of freemasons to help and favor brother masons, especially in the law courts. Many judges were known to be masons and the popular opinion was that they gave unfair advantage to their brothers. Resentment of masons was strong and possibly reasonable enough. Then, in the 1820's a mason named Morgan disappeared. Rumors about what had happened soon convinced people that he had been murdered because he had threatened to disclose masonic secrets. Public outrage grew and soon the Anti-Masonic Party was born. The official investigation was botched and there were varying stories about whether Morgan's body was found or even identified as his. People knew what they believed.

This was a prominent but short-lived phenomenon. It lasted from the late 1820's to 1833-34. The new party was notable for organizing the country's first nominating convention. William Wirt, a mason from Massachusetts ran for President on the Anti-Masonic Ticket.

The party lost the election and lasted only for a few more years. Historians did not treat it kindly. They dismissed the public outrage against Masonry as paranoia. But historiography often comes to the rescue of time's rejects and gives them a bit of credit. Sometimes new facts emerge to warrant another look. In fact something personally interesting re anti-masonry occurred over twenty years ago when I was in grad school. On the eve of turning in a term paper to my American History professor on the Anti-Masonic Party, I was watching the news on TV and learned about a Vatican scandal. It was referred to as Propaganda Due or P2.

This was exciting. It provided me with a footnote which I added to my paper before handing it in -- a footnote to history which may remove some of the stigma of paranoia attached to the Anti-Masonic Party. This financial scandal is still being debated today and recently returned to a London law court. It involved the murder of an Italian banker close to the Vatican, the Banco Ambrosiano, of which the Vatican was a major shareholder, the Mafia, which may have been using the bank for money laundering and may have ordered the murder of the banker for embezzling and losing Mafia money. And much more.

The point is that the Vatican blamed this on a masonic plot, but the Lodge, called P2, was an illegal "black" lodge which had been cast off by Freemasonry. It was still secretly active however and had a membership of some of the most prominent men in Italian business and politics. I knew that this was a "renegade" lodge but most of the details were unknown to me until yesterday and find it even more interesting than I thought twenty years ago.

This is why the whole subject of conspiracies is so convoluted and hard to disentangle. Those of us who have known fathers, uncles, or husbands who went off to lodge meetings, wore odd regalia, were active in philanthropic activities, and proudly wore Masonic rings and other jewelry, may swear that today Masonry has devolved into a harmless beneficent social organization. Others may argue that the lower orders of masonry have always been a cover for the higher orders whose secrets may be unknown to their own rank and file. There are higher grades within higher grades, secrets within secrets, with an inner invisible core guarding a political agenda which may affect all of us if ever realized.

What's on my mind now is the secret history of the Knights Templar. There are certain little-known theories about them which should be discussed openly, so why not here?

http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/proceedings.htm
http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/pope-leo.htm
http://www.masonicinfo.com/convention.htm
http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=201204
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-AntiMaso.html

conspiracies & secret societies: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

2008-04-28T11:50:00.022-05:00

Lately I have returned to an interesting diversion, reading about conspiracy theories and secret societies. One topic I will not touch is 9/11.

Some things many conspiracies have in common are:

1. the usual suspects: Freemasons, Jews, the Government, Enormously Rich People Who Control the World

2. subjects such as the occult; politics; missing treasure; groups pushing special agendas, religious or political, on the rest of the world or country

Putting together some posts on it will give me a chance to catch up on new ideas regarding old theories. Some old conspiracy topics such as Watergate have been in the news so much during the period of their infamy that they would not seem to offer much interest in bringing it out from under the rug, yet new books on the subject are frequently published.

Another example of a fairly recent one is The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy which figured in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Despite all the reams of testimony we still don't know whether this was a clear cut case of evidence of guilt being subjected to legal proceedings. However there is also evidence of tainted testimony, subornation of perjury and an eminence grise behind the massive undertaking against a sitting president. Also because of what we know, there are questions as to whether a conspiracy actually existed.

WHAT WE KNOW

The term Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was coined by Hillary Clinton when the big boys came after her husband for his and others' financial wheeling and dealing (Whitewater scandal) and his unwholesome sexual habits (supposedly secret). The phrase was mocked for years but has been recently used again by Senator Clinton. My opinion: the term is too good to drop.

The force behind the supposed Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has a face and a name: Edward Mellon Scaife. He was born rich, got richer and his money usually flows to conservative organizations and causes. The documents and facts about who and what he funded are included in links below. For example, we know that he funded a variety of anti-liberal groups, such as The Center for the Study of Popular Culture, in Hollywood, which frets over what it sees as liberal bias in films.

We know that he had (and probably still has) a huge antipathy to Bill Clinton. People on his payroll, reporters, editors, investigators, pursued information on Bill Clinton's misdeeds, sexual and financial, work which was referred to as The Arkansas Project. Operatives are said to have contacted and paid informants through an Arkansas bait shop.

One of those informants, David Hale, reportedly made a deal with Kenneth Starr to be released from prison after 20 months on an unrelated fraud charge in return for testifying against Bill Clinton. Today some of the people involved, like the bait and tackle shop owner, deny their role in the Arkansas Project.

If you are interested please read the articles cited below and make up your own minds about how credible the whole story is. Many of us already "know" what happened; after all, haven't we read it in the newspapers and seen and heard it all on television?

WHEN IS A CONSPIRACY NOT A CONSPIRACY?

It is not unusual for politicians with high profiles or in high profile positions to have enemies but if these enemies go beyond open backing of one candidate against another, if they make secret deals and suborn perjury and bribe witnesses to give false testimony, then they more than skating on thin ice -- they may be involved in a conspiracy.

WHAT WE DON'T KNOW

A very small bit of what we don't know:

>whether Ken Starr was on the payroll of Edward Mellon Scaife. After Scaife made a large donation to Pepperdine University School of Law, Starr was offered the post of Dean, which he then refused because of accusations of a financial relationship with Scaife. Later he accepted the post.

>whether the Paula Jones scandal happened the way we read that it did, considering that she was a state employee at the time. Did Scaife's alleged employees pursuade her to tell a tale about Clinton's alleged sexual misconduct? Whether or not the tale she told was true, after being stretched out in the courts for years, a judge dismissed it, dismaying Clinton-haters, and leaving the public wondering why Jones waited a couple of years to seek justice, in which time Clinton had become the President. Some of us would like to know too why The justices of the Supreme Court in their wisdom decided a suit could be brought against a sitting president for having been rude in a hotel room.

CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

>If the alleged Vast Right Wing Conspiracy unfolded as many have written that it did and if the impeachment trial of the President had ended in his conviction and brought down the president, then that would have been a coup and even attempted coups are relevant. Certainly it was not completely unsuccessful: many people were imprisoned, many lives were ruined and Bill Clinton's reputation was tainted for all time.

>Is a conspiracy ethical if the members believe that they are patriots acting in the best interests of the country, or true believers doing what they think God wants, striving to preserve the purity of their country? Please share your opinions.

>The Clinton's are still in politics, and probably one of them will be for some time in some office or other.

SOURCES

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to destroy Bill Clinton:

http://surftofind.com/steele

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/
scaife092998.htm#TOP

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/scaife.profile/
Former White House counsel Davis said, "I think it's the mystery,
the man behind the scenes pulling the strings and that's the scene
we all remember at the end of the Wizard of Oz."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Starr

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/billy.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17593375/
Clinton: Vast right-wing conspiracy is back

Right Wing Comments:

http://www.therightwingconspiracy.org/

5/22/2008

OBAMA'S TARNISHED HALO

2008-04-19T10:48:00.003-05:00

Barack Obama has been the recipient of benefits he does not deserve. In my opinion, he has been adulated and praised more for his charisma, charm, and oratory than for anything substantial. If you caught the moment at the beginning of the debate with Hillary Clinton when the camera zoomed in on him for the first time and he mechanically turned on his now familiar big smile, then you saw the real Obama -- a shallow character (although perhaps a deep thinker) far removed from the people.

Yet people still adore him, a man who would and does say anything, even fudging the truth when it's obvious, in order to be president

We don't need another manufactured candidate like Bush was. He is not tried, he is not true to the people who cheer him like a rock star. If he can't stand up to Clinton do you really think that he will stand up to McCain if nominated?

Choose Obama and the Democrats will choose defeat once again. I don't want another Republican president and I fear that will happen if BHO is nominated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18brooks.html?em&ex=1208750400&en
=34d002f8eb6da2e7&ei=5087%0A

BARACK'S LIES

2008-03-27T14:08:00.007-05:00

Barack Obama handled the potential criticism when the consistently racist preaching of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright Jr. came to light, by changing the subject. Somehow his speech was received with admiration by many who breathed a sigh of relief that their hero was out of trouble. All he did, however, was to change the subject, not usually a cause for praise. Praise for a liar?

Barack told the American people that he hadn't been aware of his long-time pastor's racial remarks. Hasn't anyone asked themselves how that could possibly be true? It can't, you know, unless he slept through the sermons which is just as unlikely. And even if he hadn't heard them because he couldn't join his wife and family at church because he had urgent business to attend to, why wouldn't Mrs. B. tell her husband about the obnoxious toxic preaching she heard that day? Do we want a first lady who will willingly sit through such incitement to hate and then tell the public abut the first time she was proud to be an American? How could any American be proud of her behavior? She could have discussed with her husband whether they should leave that church if it did not stop. I don't think Americans would be proud to have a first lady like that.

Obama says he can't turn his back on his old preacher for such disastrous remarks. I can see not turning one's back on an elderly or alcoholic or deranged relative for making such remarks. But we are talking about a preacher who, over many years, fed racist remarks and outrageous lies to generations of congregants. Not the same thing at all as distressing a few relatives.

Obama should have spoken in private to his preacher and told him that it was time to publicly apologize and correct his ways or else Obama would cease to attend his church and be ready to leave if his pastor refused.

Barack Obama also defamed his white grandmother for making hurtful racist remarks, comparing that to Wright's racist speech. But in the past Obama had praised his grandmother. This means to me that he is just digging the hole deeper for himself; if he lies about his own grandmother to please some voters, what wouldn't he do to get elected?

Of course, he's just being consistent if he is still attending the same church, because Wright's successor, Otis Moss III, defends and praises his predecessor, referring to his preaching style as "interesting rhetoric" and an "art form."

One last word about the candidate's wife: when confronted by reporters about her "pride" remark, she seemed to be blaming the audience for not understanding what she really meant. She is an educated woman -- why didn't she say what she "really" meant in the first place? She looks more and more like a liability to her husband.

http://www.nysun.com/blog/latest-politics/michelle-obama-clarifies-remarks-pride-america
http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2008/03/baracks_new_pastor_defends_his.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59707

P L A Y G R O U N D P O L I T I C S

2008-02-06T13:45:00.000-05:00

One way that anti-Hillary politicians and politicians have attacked Hillary is by using childlike bullying against her. Rather than attack her on the issues she debates, they use name-calling and lies -- "cold woman, always wears pants suits, has no charisma, people hate her." That last is a good one. There's no support for it although there are some who may use that word to express their opposition. Yet just yesterday in the NYPOST a columnist wrote that republicans were counting on the nomination of Hillary Clinton to help them win the election because ..... "people hate her." Maybe they would like another category of political opinion: For, Against, Hate.

Pernicious, deliberate attempts to sway and discourage democratic voters, maybe. But they are just another example of the refusal to emphasize issues in Campaign 2008. The supporters of Barack Obama refuse to be bothered by his lack of scrupulous attention to the issues. Maybe issues bore them. They prefer to be "uplifted, inspired, hopeful" etc etc etc.

Yes, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. I am inspired by a candidate who is not content to be a rock star, who is extremely intelligent, persevering and has a vision for America that is not made of sugar and spice. And if the candidate has a husband who is extremely intelligent too, so much the better.

OUR NEXT PRESIDENT AND ABORTION -- PRO- or ANTI-?

2008-02-03T12:17:00.000-05:00

When making your choice for our next president, is his/her stand on abortion an important factor? If so, maybe reading this article will interest you.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId
=18632802&surl=http://radio.azpm.org/kuaz/&f=
module-nprnews

My own position on this is pro-choice. One doesn't have to like abortion, it is not a pretty thing, but it is the right of women, and only women, to make that choice. It is more important to create a society where men and women have the opportunity to provide themselves with medically approved and safe means of preventing pregnancy, than to deny women the right to abortion. When pregnancy is the result of violence what sane person would make it a crime?

Senator John McCain's voting record is clearly anti-abortion. He may be avoiding mentioning it these days but it is not something that can be covered up for long. Even recently I have come across opinions published in newspapers that Republicans are unsure of McCain's abortion stance. Is that just a ploy to influence the independent voters?

How many other presidential candidates are trying to cloud inconvenient truths?

OBAMA; CANDIDATE OR ROCK STAR

2008-01-31T17:26:00.000-05:00

Friends, I am sorry if this comes as a shock to anyone, but Barack Hussein Obama is not the Second Coming of Christ. Your man has done nothing to convince me that he will do a damn thing which he promises the nation. Promises, promises, is anyone satisfied with that?

Apparently his followers are so enchanted by his great smile, feel-good phrases which keep ringing in our memory, hyperbole, and charisma, that all this is enough for them to promise him their votes, and in many cases a great deal of money. A Chicken in every pot, a change of government and the end of everything we dislike in government -- god almighty, bring it on!

I'd hate to see your hopes dashed but even more would I dislike seeing them come to fruition. I don't trust the judgment of people who act like they are raving over a rock star. I'd almost rather vote for Bono (if he were eligible to run) -- after all, doesn't he care about noble causes and confer with world leaders? And Bono is rich enough to finance his own campaign.

Where is the real substance in his speeches and promises? If you would stop cheering and feeling good long enough to think about what you want, say, doing something about the power of big corporations in influencing how this country is run (hey,
Edwards had plenty to say about that, but it's too late now), or how he is going to finance health care for everyone, then maybe one could understand why you're so excited about your candidate.

As Barack's followers you are not too impressive in your constant repetition of slurs and expressions of downright hatred of Clinton. Maybe Mrs Obama is your role model there -- apparently advisers have toned her down lately because she started the campaign by being vicious about her husband's rival.

I happen to believe that we shouldn't be feeling so happy when listening to campaign speeches by any candidate. The excitement, the sense of being uplifted by joy, the confidence that things will change -- better to save it for a U2 concert.

Yes, even the hope and optimism are overdone for a political campaign. Do you have to be reminded that we are living in desperate times in which tragedy has struck and will strike many Americans, and the economy is looking rather grim?

Do you really want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on such flimsy evidence as he offers?

WAS JESUS GAY?

2008-01-21T12:09:00.000-05:00

A new play by Terrence McNally opening in Sydney, Australia is causing much controversy by its depiction of Jesus as a homosexual. The playwright has said that he wanted it to reflect the hurt and rejection he received as a young homosexual man. While the play has received great reviews, it has unsurprisingly been reviled by church leaders.

But that is not what stands out to me as being atrocious. Rather it is that an Islamic group [gang?] based in the UK has issued a fatwa on the author. It is one thing for members of a religious group to have freedom of religion, but it is another for them to misuse their freedom to break or attempt to break the law of the country that has harbored them. There may not be a law against fatwas in the West, but what about death threats?

Given the reckless political correctness of Britain which is now paying for its past coddling of home-grown terrorists, it will be interesting to see whether the government will condone the wanton issuing of this hideous fatwa. The play was condemned by Muslims when it was performed in London. Should Muslims be allowed to publicly issue death threats in the UK? Sure -- when church bells ring in Teheran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080121/stage_nm/jesus_dc

EAT! DRINK! BE WARY!

2007-10-11T12:02:00.000-05:00

Today is my luckiest day and must be a day of rejoicing for people the world over. First, the news that it's okay to eat fat. The "scientific" data we've been reading for years is incorrect! Dead wrong! It turns out that the so-called sound scientific research on which it was based was incorrect! The first thing I did after reading it was to search out an Argentine barbecue recipe - here it is:
http://bbq.about.com/od/beefrecipes/r/bl60622c.htm
Enjoy!

This article explains that some food scientists for years have been claiming that beliefs that fat caused premature heart disease and death did not have a sound
scientific foundation, but were voices crying in the wilderness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?
pagewanted=1&ei=
5087&em&en=9f36687fe8aef756

The then Surgeon General Koop informed America that the proof that a diet of high-fat food caused deadly diseases was based on excellent science. But this was a false assumption, as an author
"...demonstrates in his new book meticulously debunking diet myths, “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (Knopf, 2007). The notion that fatty foods shorten your life began as a hypothesis based on dubious assumptions and data; when scientists tried to confirm it they failed repeatedly. The evidence against Häagen-Dazs was nothing like the evidence against Marlboros."

But in my opinion the most fascinating part is the explanation of how false or mistaken beliefs are propagated. It seems to be caused by something called Cascade Theory. According to this quote from the abstract of an article*:

"An informational cascade occurs when it is optimal for an individual, having observed the actions of those ahead of him, to follow the behavior of the preceding individual without regard to his own information. We argue that localized conformity of behavior and the fragility of mass behaviors can be explained by informational cascades."

A quote included below the above is extremely apt:

Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind
lead the blind, both fall into the ditch. [Matthew 15:14]

Certainly our health is important to us but so is the well being of our nation. Do our leaders deliberately mislead the public, or are they too suffering from the cascade effect? If so, who feeds them misleading information? The public surely is blinded by the informational cascade on many vital issues. In such a situation even critical thinking will be of no avail (although I recommend that more people start exercising it) when the facts are simply not accessible to most people. Who can we believe? How do we avoid being victims of the cascade effect?

As for freedom from fear of alcohol beverages, I wish...... But read this amusing parody to learn that alcohol is good for you and will even enhance your cognitive processes.
http://chocolatecity2.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E3A5A45BAC8F91AD!290.trak

*Full article is from The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 100, No. 5 (Oct. 1992} but only the abstract is available to the general public on the website. The author of the article is Sushil Bikhchandani et al.

Open Letter to Presidential Candidates

2007-10-10T10:34:00.000-05:00

Dear Candidate:

I am thoughtfully providing you with a list of issues which I'd like you to address. If your answers satisfy me then I believe will show me and the rest of the country that you have the right stuff to lead the U. S. A.:

1. > Do not prattle about Family Values. We don't need any lying, cheating politicians teaching us about family values. Please overlook the statement about "lying, cheating" -- you may seem to have a clean record now but who knows what may turn up in the future? Anyway, even if you're pure of heart you probably don't even know anything about the subject. In today's world, what is a family? What is a value? If you are looking for the roar of the crowd and the blessing of the clergy by talking about "nuclear" families, traditional mom/dad/kids, forget it. My ears are deaf to you. Today any conglomeration of people which provides stability, nourishes the development of the individual, pays its own way and is law abiding, is acceptable. If there is a mom and a dad that's great. Hey, we do the best we can.

Furthermore I must ask, what is a value? If you are preaching God's Law, quoting from the Bible about what God doesn't care for, my ears are deaf to you. You should be talking about which values matter most not only to the American family but to America and all Americans, no matter what their creed. Here are only a few:

2. >A work ethic, the need to raise and educate children to be self-supporting;

3. >An understanding of cause and effect -- be prepared for the consequences of your actions;

4. >Put off doing what you want today until the time is right for you -- i.e. losers always seek instant gratification;

5. >Honor your god(s) all you want but don't render only unto him/her what you owe to your country -- your love, your taxes, your service, your life if necessary. You have the freedom of worship only as long as our country is free, get it? Our enemies are not the people who worship other gods or who dress differently, but those who insist that America is or should be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other kind of country. Obey your country's laws and not only those of your religion, especially if they are illegal. That's right, they do not supersede criminal and civil law. Here's a good example: your religion may encourage infanticide -- what's a good defense in a court of law, that child sacrifice is for the good of the people?

6. >And please, Mr./Ms Candidate, tell us your plans, if you have any, for dealing with global warming*. If you don't have any idea then now is the time to hire some really smart non-political people to draft a plan to present to the American public. Otherwise I wish you'd change your mind about running for president.

That's all for now Mr/Ms Candidate. Rest assured that I think of anything else I will immediately communicate it to your campaign headquarters.

*http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?em&ex
=1192766400&en=c5e1aa67f8266958&ei=5087%0A

I recommend this article, "Gore Derangement Syndrome" -- it includes a great explanation of why the Republicans hate Gore so much. It seems that anything and anyone trying to take measures against global warming is anathema to them.

Also, today an article, "Global Warming Starts to Divide G.O.P. contenders appeared here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/politics/17climate.html?th&emc=th

Katie, Please Don't Hate Me for Loving America

2007-10-07T17:19:00.000-05:00

I've always found it hard to enjoy watching and listening to Katie Couric. I feel that the beauty queen who wanted a career like couric's but wanted to be taken seriously. Sure, she angered KC, but there's something that feels right about an opinion that Katie takes herself more seriously than others do.

I checked out this site
http://www.mrc.org/projects/couric/welcome.asp
to see if others agree with me and to see if she's as lightweight as I think. Katie seems to make foolish or outrageous statements in a naively self-assured way that shows she does expect to be taken seriously. Here's an example of her seemingly unaware that historians through the years will always have a new take on old subjects:

I can’t think of anyone more qualified to write another book about Ronald Reagan. The question is, do we need another book about Ronald Reagan?"
— First question to former Washington Post reporter and Reagan biographer Lou Cannon on the November 26, 2001.

Then there was the time she lavished praise on the socialist economy of France, an economy then steadily growing weaker, and which finally welcomed a leader recently who is trying to give the economy a healthy dose of capitalism... and oh, yeah, convince the labor force that it takes work to earn profits:

Keith Miller: "Break out the band, bring on the drinks. The French are calling it a miracle. A government-mandated 35-hour work week is changing the French way of life. Two years ago, in an effort to create more jobs, the government imposed a shorter work week on large companies, forcing them to hire more workers....Sixty percent of those on the job say their lives have improved. These American women, all working in France, have time for lunch and a life."
Avivah Wittenberg-Cox: "More Americans should be more aware that an economy as successful as the French one managed to be successful without giving up everything else in life."

Katie Couric, following the end of Miller’s taped piece: "So great that young mother being able to come home at three every day and spend that time with her child. Isn’t that nice? The French, they’ve got it right, don’t they?"
— August 1, 2001.

But what irritates me most about Katie is her assumption that nationalism and patriotism are dirty words and people should just stop already with that flag waving. Her *National Press Club remarks recently were odious - at least to me. She said she was annoyed by, "The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying 'we' when referring to the United States."

Now, I actually agree with her about that. I've never been thrilled by the flag-wearing (although I'd prefer to say "a flag on your lapel" or "flags on our lapels" but listen carefully, she's often sloppy about speech, even though it is her stock in trade, along with the perkiness). I don't have flags pasted or flying on my car - I would fly one from my home if I had one (a flag, not a home). But I can't say "we" without annoying her? Sorry, Katie, the USA is the only club I belong to. You can't stop Americans from saying (whether at times proudly or sadly), "we". You go ahead and say "they" when referring to Americans.

Countries where people seem embarrassed to openly appreciate and shelter their national heritage, as in Western Europe, have had to hear it reviled and attacked by those immigrants from the Middle East whom they have given the freedom they lacked in their native lands -- people who despise and attack the land that shelters them.

If it annoys Katie perhaps I should start wearing a flag lapel pin -- except that I don't have a lapel.

*Article by Johah Goldberg,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2I1NzI2ZGMzZDE2NzNiZjQ5MjVkMDZkNTQzZjJmZDQ=

NYC School Children and Islamic Culture

2007-08-26T08:21:00.000-05:00

One thing I am absolutely certain of is that the opportunity to learn to speak, read, write and converse in foreign languages would be a good thing. We have all heard that the lack of such people has a negative influence on the workings of our government, e.g. in intelligence, diplomacy, and many other areas.

Now at last several such schools have opened in America which teach the Arabic language. A good thing, right? Maybe not for at least some of these schools are not secular. While some of them are charter schools they may get away with flouting separation of church and state, but there's no flouting the requirement that all elementary, middle and high schools must teach the mandated curricula for each grade.

By now many people have learned about the controversy surrounding the Khalil Gibran International Academy and its planned opening in New York City in September of this year.
This school has caused considerable controversy even before opening. One justified (in my opinion) complaint is that the school, named for a Lebanese-American Christian will not be teaching his values.
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalil_Gibran

Many have called this school a "madrassa" - but even Wikipedia seems uncertain as to what a madrassa actually is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrassa

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14422

the school's founder stepped down last week after she initially refused to renounce the sale of t-shirts marketed by an organization she was associated with that read "Intifada, NYC." Her attempt to explain the meaning of "infitada" misleadingly angered many and led to her resignation. But criticism of her and the school might have begun earlier if people were aware that it was planned to provide bilingual education. I have given my opinion on bilingual education in posts on 1/22 and 2/27. I thought its weakness and failures so evidents in schools across America had already doomed this expensive and largely ineffective concept. And yet here it is again, raising its uncharming head with claim it will help Arab-American youth to assimilate.

Earlier generations of immigrants went to English-speaking public schools and assimilated. So why does Arabic have to be taught in a school the planning of which was heavily influenced by religious people, imams and rabbis? Why did the former principle wear hijab on the job?

It seems clear that in studying Islamic history culture it will be taught wholly from a partisan point of view. The phrase "brain washing" comes to mind. I don't think we want our children being taught about jihadist ideas by people who think "infitada" is wholly good.

While researching this post I tried to find clear cut answers to my questions, but time and time again got bogged down in contradictory opinions. One interesting thing I came across was that one of the members of the KGIa, Imam Shamsi Ali, was connected to jihadist organizations. This seemed a good place to start but I could find no evidence that this is true, and very little about the man himself, except his insistance that the school will have a wholly secular curriculum. However I found an article on him on this web site:
http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=565&Itemid=74
This seems like a very conservative or even fundamental site dedicated to following the Koran and being "true Muslims" in a "non-violent" way. And they despise Shamsi Ali. The spiteful, highly critical article on the Iman , calling him an "Uncle Sam Muslim" who "wants to lead Muslims toward the American dream" while true Muslims only want Islam.

A fine commendation indeed for Shamsi Ali who may actually be the right person to be on KGIA board after all.

I hope you will read at least a few of the following articles and blogs both for and against this type of school. We need to understand why even the Mayor of NY is so insistent a supporter of it. This is a hugely important issue for America, not just NYC.

http://gothamist.com/2007/08/14/khalil_gibran_a.php

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/khalil_gibran_international_academy/

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4836

http://educationalissues.suite101.com/blog.cfm/arabic_school_tension
Ignores pipes’ concern about teaching Islamic propaganda on grounds Arabic speakers need to be trained, as if they can't be trained in foreign language academies.

http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/novice.htm

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3769

Community wants answers on KGIA
Those for the school say that all the opposition is proof of need for school which will promote tolerance and understanding. But there is a need to examine which “Arab-American” groups are promoting the school and what their aims and their Islamist views are in their own words.

http://educationalissues.suite101.com/blog.cfm/arabic_school_tension
Middle East Scholar Daniel Pipes, a controversial scholar on the Middle East, wrote, "Arabic-language instruction is inevitably laden with pan-Arabist and Islamist baggage." [Alexandra Marks, Christian Science Monitor, csmonitor.com, June 1, 2007]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/nyregion/16koran.html?ex=1313380800&en=bfd66b91de7a7870&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=r

Explains how a koran madrassa in NYC flouts law by not teaching regular school subject, just memorization

http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=kgiahamas71807.htm
Brooklyn's young Muslims have been radicalized over the past 20 years, their ideas display hatred and Anti-American opinions, such as 9/11 not being a Muslim plot

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/758
Re other Islamic schools in USA and backers with jihadist connections

Try Ablutions of the Brain

2007-08-08T16:05:00.001-05:00

Has anyone given a second thought to the reports in the press about installing foot baths in U. S. university wash rooms? It might not seem so noteworthy except that it has become very controversial. Some non-Muslims claim that Muslims are getting preferential treatment.

But the foot baths are being installed because it came to the attention of university administrators, possibly by way of janitors, that puddles of water were appearing on the floors of the toilets, some sinks were coming loose from the wall, and finally, a student was injured by falling down while washing her feet in a sink.

Now there were several courses the university could have taken. One was the common sense one of advising the Muslim Council or whichever responsible party they chose, that the situation with slippery wet floors was dangerous to all students, and that sinks were damaged. In order to prevent these conditions from continuing, and in light of the religious needs of Muslim students, that if the Muslim authorities agreed, the university would install foot baths for them and send the bill to the aforementioned authorities.

Of course if it were handled that way the university's claim that the foot baths could be used by anyone might not no longer be valid (if it ever was) because the Muslim students might object that since the installation was paid for by their religious leaders, then infidels have no right to stick their feet in them.

The university, concerned about litigation perhaps, decided to have their lawyers rule on the question of the foot baths with the result that they decided it was constitutional to install them. Non-Muslims who are agitated about the baths might consider whether their feelings have any relation to the treatment of minorities in the days of their parents or grandparents. Those were times when the entire population more or less followed Christian days of rest, holidays, etc., although concessions were made, for example, for orthodox Jews in NYC to keep their businesses open on Sunday (when that was illegal) as they could not work on Saturday.

But times change. It would be better if they change regarding religion with the least interference, negatively or positively, in religious practices. I suppose it is too late to bill the Muslims for the plumbing. Besides they never even asked for it.

Keep the Xmas trees in the parks in December, along with any and all religious symbols. But don't make us pay for plumbing that we don't all use.

http://iht.com/articles/2007/08/07/america/muslims.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/education/07muslim.html?pagewanted=2

OF ARMS, WEAPONRY, AND THE KURDISH PEOPLE, ETC.

2007-07-17T16:23:00.000-05:00

I can't deny that there is some good news from Iraq. We are told that finally the Syrian and Iranian border areas are controlled by Iraqi and Coalition forces. Doing that has taken far too long.

Also, Sunni Arab tribal forces are helping to subdue Al Qaeda. However, Shiites seem to be made uneasy by the fact of our cooperating with their enemy, the Sunni. They may hate each other, but isn't it unrealistic to expect us not to be on good terms with all factions in Iraq? I wish it were just as childish as the "Mom always liked you best" syndrome. In the past, getting cooperation from the tribal areas was mostly a vain hope. We tended to lump all Sunni in with Al Qaeda and seemed to be doing a favor to the majority Shiites by fighting their enemies. But how wise is that? Most Muslim countries are Sunni. Should we worry about antagonizing them?
http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/TWAH-74BJJM?OpenDocument&Print=1 ( point of view of a military person on aspects of the situation in Iraq )

Then comes the news that the U.S. is planning to sell twenty billion dollars worth of latest technology weaponry to Saudi Arabia, no strings attached. Aside from being a major exporter of terrorism in the Middle East we seem to be unconcerned about what that nation will do with all that weaponry. Maybe we're hoping that it will put Iran out of the picture as a nuclear threat, or maybe flatten that troublemaker (according to its many enemies), Israel. This plan, so pleasing for large U.S. arms manufacturers, is making many Americans uneasy.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/204353.aspx
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/arms/saudi.html

John Edwards made what was probably his most sensible statement of his career when he said of it,

"Congress needs to stand firm against the president," said Edwards. "The administration's proposed arms deal with Saudi Arabia isn't in the long-term interests of our country or the region. This deal has serious shortcomings—it doesn't force Saudi Arabia to stop terrorists from going into Iraq, make a real effort to help stabilize Iraq, lead regional security talks or assure the arms will not be used for offensive purposes. Congress should do the right thing and block the deal."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/31/175827/204

A new issue to chew over is the current news of a secret deal to aid Turkey in fighting the "threat" of Kurdish rebels in Iraq. This is actually old news for the Kurds, a people united by language, religion but not by politics whose homeland is actually in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Many tribal groups smaller than the Kurds, especially in Africa, were granted their own, or part of a country after World War II. I have heard it said that the Kurds will never be granted their own country because they occupy a vital piece of geography which is the watershed of the Middle East.

Bush and his strategists may be thinking that our aid to Turkey will encourage them to kick in with support for us in the Iraq War. If so, is that a reason for us to turn against our allies, the Kurds?

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=bush+plan+help+turkey+round+up+kurds&fr=yfp-t-501
&u=feeds.theturkeynews.net/%3Frid%3D8561902%26cat%3D53023059fadd9a63&w=bush+plan
+plans+help+turkey+round+kurds&d=YIAnYuljO8hd&amp;amp;amp;icp=1&.intl=us

023059fadd9a63&w=bush+plan+plans+help+turkey+round+kurds&d=YIAnYuljO8hd&icp=1&.intl=us

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900859.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds

One of the odd things about this not-so-secret plan of Bush is that according to people who have written about him in the past week is that it may be the reason he seems so pleased with himself lately, in spite of the loss of support from his political base. I sincerely hope that if he manages to put it through the results bring us all the satisfaction which he seems to expect.

HONK IF YOU LIKE BUSH

2007-07-13T12:02:00.001-05:00

Something admirable and patriotic occurred this week when former Surgeon General Richard H. Camona exercised his rights and duty as a citizen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&amp;amp;amp;amp;en=e90da223753967cf&ex=1341806400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

He appeared before a congressional panel and told them how his term as surgeon general had been compromised by the Bush administration. One example of interference in his role was the attempt to turn him into a press agent for the administration by mentioning Bush on every page of each speech he gave. No matter that this has never been in his job description.
http://www.answers.com/topic/surgeon-general?cat=biz-fin

Camona, a high-ranking public servant with the mission to educate the public on national health issues such as smoking and AIDS was told to omit these subjects from speeches. While President Bush has been trying for years to build his image as one who cares about the health of the American public, even of the world population, he has repeatedly paid deference to the beliefs of his fundamentalist constituency in health matters. Could he or his minions possibly have thought that beating the drum for the President by the Surgeon General while talking about issues like, say stem cell research, in which Bush trod the path of the religious right, could possibly have convinced the nation that the administration puts public health before politics? One of the nastiest things about his priorities is that in order to show that he makes his decisions from religious conviction and not in order to please the religious right for political gain, he must keep up the his hypocritical role of a deeply devout person. Of course comments on the depth of his piety are based on my opinion.

Other administrations have no doubt at times attempted to influence the work and public utterances of the surgeon general, as mentioned in the above-cited newspaper article, but probably none as egregiously as this one. Still, what else could we have expected from Bush since from the beginning of his first term he has demonstrated that his political agenda was not based on the welfare and security of all the people.

SEE YOU SOON

2007-05-27T10:19:00.000-05:00

I just want to apologize for recent lack of updating of my blog. I am in the process of packing up in preparation for a move to a new apartment. I hope to be back blogging in a couple of weeks.

Thank you for visiting.

WALK AWAY, WOLFIE: An Open Letter to Paul Wolfowitz

2007-05-07T11:28:00.000-05:00

Dear Paul,

What a shame that you and the talented Ms Shaha Riza have been put through the ringer so unrelentingly by your peers and those who are not so peer! Imagine, over 700 World Bank employees signing a letter appearing on the organizations website, express their concern about damage done to the bank's image -- how inappropriate to question your ethics, especially after all you have done to, I mean for the United States. Especially to demand that the World Bank practice what it preaches in terms of ethical behavior.

Speaking of ethics, what more could you do about transferring ms Riza than having her transferred with a raise, ($232,660 to $293,590, tax exempt plus 8% annual increase in pay) to an outside entity? It was only fair compensation seeing that she didn't want to leave the WB and suffer possible damage to her career. I wouldn't be surprised if she sued if she sued the Bank -- quite right! -- for breaching her contract and possible hurt feelings.

You did offer to recuse yourself from having anything to do with her, during working hours, when there was a complaint about her working under you, but that wasn't good enough for the Bank's Board. No, they wanted her to work at an outside job as if you are teenagers who don't know how to behave while on the same premises! Outrageous! You told them you both finally agreed and that Human Resources handled the whole transfer with no interference from you.

But then the Washington Post reported that you directly dictated the terms of her contract to the the H.R. Department, and worse, it was bandied about that neither the Bank's Board nor the Ethics Committee was informed of the terms of the final agreement on the external assignment for Ms Riza until after they were finalized. What a scandalous assertion!

I am glad you are sticking to your guns and say you won't quit. Still, complaining about a conspiracy to oust you and acting like a victim -- well, that just doesn't make you look good. So maybe, without of course admitting anything except making a tiny mistake, you should just bite the bullet and for the good of the great entity you have been serving so honorably, just maybe you should resign, and walk away, Wolfie.

Sources:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-05-05
T004738Z_01_N24441992_RTRUKOC_0_US-WORLDBANK-WOLFOWITZ.xml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaha_Riza

National Unity

2007-03-30T15:54:00.000-05:00

BECOMING AN AMERICAN:

IS NATIONAL UNITY IMPORTANT?

A report, “Becoming an American: Immigration and Immigrant Policy“*, issued on October 1, 1997, urged the President to lead a national dialogue on the Americanization of new immigrants as he was leading the discussion on race, and called for "a new Americanization movement involving communities across the country." The report voiced the concern that in creating "one of the world's most successful multi-ethnic nations, the United States must also reinforce the unity that comes from allegiance to common principles and values." http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_billing.html (“Twisted Tongues: The Failure of Bilingual Education,” prepared by Rosalie Pedalino Porter, 1998)

Now, almost ten years later, we are still wrestling with questions of assimilation, accommodating oneself to customs not practiced in one’s former country, and with issues like what constitutes the responsibility of the government in accommodating laws, education, and even the election process to increasingly cantankerous and demanding immigrants. Isn’t it possible that some people who incite protests, including religious leaders who advise their adherents to deliberately flout job requirements in the name of refusing to break their religious laws, have ulterior motives? I am thinking of the recent increases in incidents where people employed in positions where they deal directly with the public have refused to serve certain customers. **http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212007/postopinion/postopbooks/one_america_postopbooks_john_fonte.htm
Many Hispanics have taken any suggestions that they learn English personally, even as a slur on their intelligence. What would be insulting to their intelligence is to agree that college students can’t be expected to learn to read English and to write it correctly. It is not a value judgment to back English as a common language. It is not a way of saying that English is better than any other language. There is a wealth of materials in many languages available. Anyone who wants their news and entertainment in other languages can enjoy it just as they always have. Those people whose first language was not English are not being asked to stop speaking their native language and teaching it to their children, But I believe it is important for national unity that we all understand and can vote in English.

This country is multicultural without there being a need for government policy to support it. But there is a strong need for the formulation of a policy promoting national unity. SUNY Provost Peter Salins’ concept of assimilation is straight forward and so well-put that I will quote it here:
--Cultural unity means “English language dominance.”
--Civic unity means pride in and allegiance to America.
--Unity of values means adherence to a self-reliant work ethic.

Anyone reacting negatively to those definitions, consider this: English language dominance does not mean that your language of choice for social or family occasions is going to be outlawed; pride in and allegiance to America does mean that the founding fathers of this country are in a real sense the ancestors of every citizen and the American flag takes precedence to one you may have once saluted; and as for a self-reliance work ethic, well, the only ones who won’t go along with that never have in the past anyway.

The assimilation written of by Herman Badillo and Peter Salinas does not call on anyone to be a traitor to their ethnicity, nor does it call on anyone to disobey any religious teachings. It does call on everyone to make an effort to do what they may previously have found impossible -- to hold two different ways of thinking at the same time. We must all be capable of saying, “I honor my god,” or “I honor my native land above all others,” and at the same time put the laws, well being, and survival of the United States before all others. It may be difficult but it’s not impossible, and to make it a little easier to swallow, remember this: We worship our god of choice, or none at all, we speak the languages we love because the laws of this country allow us to do so as our natural right. Remember why your ancestors immigrated here in the first place. And thank God, or the fates, or your luck that they did.

*http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_billing.html (also discusses what’s good about bilingual ed.)

**http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212007/postopinion/postopbooks

/one_america_postopbooks_john_fonte.htm

This article discusses how recently Somali cabdrivers in Minneapolis carrying passengers to the airport refused to serve anyone carrying liquor, on instructions from their imam. Similar incidents have occurred in the UK. To forbid churchgoers to accept jobs that would force them to break religious laws is one thing; to urge people who are gainfully employed to push the limits of laws, employers' regulations, and accepted practice is another. In my opinion, at the very least this sounds like some leaders definitely do not want their followers to become assimilated at all. It also appears that their goal to force American society to bend to their preferences. Are Americans such pushovers that this will happen?

Does Bilingual Education Have Any Value for American Schools?

2007-02-17T11:08:00.000-05:00

One of the most important issues in American educational policy is bilingual education. Once the stronghold of mostly well-meaning educators and administrators who fought to maintain the huge and expensive bureaucracy they had created, butut for years it has been under scrutiny by educators and concerned parents and is being replaced or cut back in many areas. A saner educational policy must replace it everywhere.

Bilingual education denies that children learn a second language most naturally and effectively if they begin at an early age, even though there is overwhelming proof in linguistic and cognitive research. Just one quote from neurophysiologist William H. Calvin in How Brains Think (1996) makes the point: "Asian immigrants who learn English as adults succeed with vocabulary and basic-word-order sentences but have greater difficulty with other [language] tasks than those who arrived as children easily master."
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_billing.html
(also discusses what’s good about bilingual ed.)

As former Representative Herman Badillo, America's first Hispanic Member of Congress, remarked last year, "To keep children in classes where their own native language is used in the hope that they will somehow make the transition to English after five or six years is unacceptable to us."

Some Hispanics consider Mr. Badillo a traitor for his criticism of them but if they can avoid taking the criticism personally, and read various sides of this controversy they will recognize that he is a man of courage who ought not be repudiated by the people he still serves by writing his book, "One Nation, One Standard." If you hate what he says, please continue to read negative criticism of him and his book, but also read the links below critically and decide for yourselves whether he disrespects Hispanic Culture in its entirety. Decide for yourselves whether teaching children whose first language is Spanish (or any other language) is a way of disparaging their culture or their intellect.

Perhaps you will decide that enforced and prolonged bilingual education is a disservice to all children of immigrants. Whatever you decide, please comment and voice your opinions.

Paper on failure of bilingual education education in CA and other states:
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1028.shtml

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-boulet082101.shtml

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212007/postopinion/postopbooks/one_america_postopbooks_john_fonte.htm

http://www.theamericanvoice.com/

http://vivirlatino.com/2006/12/19/herman-badillo-dises-his-own-kind.php

Vote for Your President, er... Your Idol

2007-01-30T16:26:00.000-05:00

I used to think that a voting system in America that would make it easier for people to vote would mean that a greater percentage of citizens would vote. I leaned toward ideas like being able to vote using your home or work computer, perhaps entering one's SSN as an identifier to prevent one person from voting twice. I also thought that giving people the day off on Election Day as on national holidays .... well, we do have something to celebrate on Election Day, don't we? ... or even half a day off, might work to get the voters out.

However I have changed my mind. It's not because I've read that the number of votes cast for American Idol contestants greatly outnumbers the votes ever cast for president, as it's well-known that some fans cast multiple votes. That is easy to do when you're seated comfortably at home and the telephone is at hand. It's not like getting out of the house a few minutes early on Election Day and driving out of your way to the polling site. And some employers excuse some lateness of employees who like to vote early.

If they want to, the government can go ahead and make it easier to vote, as long as the system they choose is technically sound and the voting officials are not corrupt. But it doesn't matter if the weather is bad on Election Day or you're elderly or infirm, because political party workers in your community will have contacted you and inquired whether you need a ride to the polling site. And they won't ask you which party you are for as they just want you to vote.

No, because I think that people who want to vote will vote, even if it is in some way inconvenient for them. Even if they are not happy with any of the principal candidates, they will vote because they can. But I cannot understand why some people boast that they have never voted in any national or local election, even some who are well above the age when they have a right to vote.

I've read that so many people vote for American Idol contestants, because Americans want to have their "say" and make their opinions heard. If they have no opinions at all about candidates or political issues perhaps it is better that they don't vote.

Below are some links providing varying slants on the subject of this post:

Change laws to allow voting from home?
http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2006/06/05/243900-our-president-is-not-an-american-idol-or-how-voting-killed-the-political-star

American Idol parodies American Elections?
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=6843

Technology and Voting; Corruption and Winning
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/vote_machines_what_will_count_your_vote.htm

Out of the Fire, Into the Pot

2007-01-22T15:40:00.000-05:00

Have you ever wished that something in American history hadn't turned out the way it did? I wish that someone had told Abraham Lincoln that escorting his wife to the theater to see the play, "Our American Cousin" was a bad idea.

What happened to make me want to change history is that something common in the U.S. more than half a century ago disappeared, e.g. the concept of the Melting Pot, and was replaced by Cultural Diversity. In case you youngsters are not familiar with the term 'melting pot' I'd love to describe it and what it meant in my life. In elementary school textbooks, perhaps on history or civics, could be found a drawing of a huge cauldron, much like my childhood vision of a cannibal pot or witches' cauldron. In the pot was a person in the national dress of another country. On the right side, awaiting their turn to enter the pot, was a line of people, each dressed in a different national costume, and the line led to the pot. On the left of the pot, was a line of people, newly emerged from the pot, walking away from the, each wearing contemporary American clothing. The Melting Pot was what the assimilation proces was called, and the picture was how assimilation of immigrants to the American way of Life was illustrated for elementary school children.

My reaction was not that of many people today. I loved that pot because it meant that newcomers to this country could actually become Americans, look American, and at least learn to speak English even if accented. It also meant that you could speak your native language at home, teach it to your children, and sometimes read newspapers in it, enjoy your marvellous native cuisine. music, dancing, literature, and march proudly in parades celebrating your heritage.

But then progress happened. Political Correctness happened. We began to "celebrate" diversity and multiculturalism. While some people still exercised their right to assimilate, others disdained it. Taking up residence in the United States was scarcely a matter of pride to this latter group, unless it was pride that they now could comfortably support their families. Some immigrants forbade their children to speak English at home, insisted that they marry someone the parents chose, and not socialize with friends of their own choice.

Along the way some immigrants got the idea that "ethnic customs," as well as being superior to "American" customs, were also above the law. Many of these people were unaware that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and on learning that they broke the law, still insisted that their "culture" take precedence over the law.

Such was the case of the Pakistani immigrants who arranged a marriage between their underage daughter and a much older man, which in fact then took place. Although the parents were charged by police for facilitating the marriage of a minor, the courts took note that the married couple by then had several children, the daughter wished to stay where she was, and so the law wisely left this family alone.

But because there are many ways to assimilate, at least enough so that you know that the law, not your native culture, takes precedence, let's talk only about the English language. At one time bilingual education was thought of as an education in immigrants' own language. But like many innovations thought to be solutions (think of the automobile), it soon presented new problems. One mistake in New York City at one time was to ask Hispanic parents of children in such classes whether they would agree to their kids being mainstreamed in all-English classes. A reporter writing a newspaper article on bilingual education asked such a youngster, who had been learning English for several years, why his mother refused to let him drop Spanish language classes. He replied, in English, that his mother did not want him to "lose" his native language.

That is an incredible situation. Shouldn't educators be the ones to determine if the child is ready to be mainstreamed? Shouldn't parents arrange for after school language classes for their kids and pay for it themselves, and not the taxpayers?

My grandparents came here with their family in the early twentieth century. They worked hard, supported their family, but never learned to speak English fluently. Only one of their children was born in the U.S.A., and the others started school not knowing any English, one was as old as twelve years. There was no bilingual education and my aunts and uncle spoke English at home only among themselves, yet they all learned English quickly and grew up speaking unaccented English. I apologize for any offense caused by mentioning accents, as it is the English fluency that concerns me, not the accents.

But speaking of accents, what about the situation a few years ago at a N.Y.C. community college when the faculty and student body took to the streets to protest a ruling that students were required to be tested for their English skills in order to graduate. One faculty member, speaking in front of television cameras, angrily insisted that "'They' think we are stupid because we speak with an accent!" Nice try, making an accusation of an insult which never existed, possibly to avoid admitting that too many students did not have an adequate spoken and written English.

In fact, elementary educators have been discovering the flaws in bilingual education.

But perhaps complaining about the mistakes in bilingual education is like beating a dead horse. Its creators had good intentions, perhaps, and let's not forget the place reserved for such people, but it seems to be on the way out. At least on such a large scale as we've seen in the past. Some educators have been shocked to notice that children who arrived in this country without knowing a word of English, had been placed in a bilingual system which was supposed to be their educational environment for at least three years. Then the "educators" noticed that the kids were happily chattering away in English before the first year was up! Who knew that children could learn a language so fast?

Hellooo. Several generations have arrived on these shores with no knowledge of English, entered public schools and received NO Assistance in learning English. Then they grew up and their speech was exactly like their American-born peers. Was this a secret or just part of some kind of cruel plot to make education more expensive and benefit the bureaucracy which invented it?

Please see the links below for more on this subject. I hope to continue commenting on it and other related issues within the next few days.

htm http://www.edsource.org/pub_bi_edu.cfm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/NYT18.htm

1/22/2007

2006-12-29T12:42:00.000-05:00

WHERE AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE NOT FREE TO SPEAK

When I posted here on 10/13/2006 about the student protests (which turned into a riot) at Columbia University, during which speakers from the Minuteman Project were prevented from speaking, I did not realize that this was just the tip of the iceberg of campus hypocracy in this country. I am just beginning to grasp how widespread the suppression of dissenting voices is in the classroom and on campus. http://www.columbiaunbecoming.com/
provides the text of a film documenting abuse of students at CU by professors who are permitted to teach only one point of view and to silence anyone questioning their opinion. Yet they continue to go on teaching.

As a further example of suppression of open debate, in my first blog here I wondered why American Muslims do not often speak up against Islamist terrorism and against punitive and restrictive practices in some Muslim countries. I assumed that they were afraid of reprisals by those terrorists. I was wrong. It seems that they are, at least some of the time, prevented by other American Muslims!

Nonie Darwish, raised as a Muslim, was prevented from speaking at Brown University of her rejection of human rights abuses by radical Islamists, because Muslim students found her to be too controversial. She also got no support from a Jewish student organization which preferred to show its allegiance to Muslim students. A woman's organization also opposed her coming to speak on campus because Ms Darwish did not criticize Israel for not protecting Palestinian women from their husbands. (It does seem difficult, though not impossible, to prevent spousal abuse just about everywhere!) Just where is the logic in this as Ms Darwish wants to speak for Muslim women everywhere?

I must admit that I still wish that liberal Muslim leaders and individuals would say something more in public or in the press if they truly deplore such acts as, in just one example, fathers and brothers in Jordan murdering a daughter or sister who has been raped because she has "disgraced" the family.

And I also strongly urge those politicians and journalists who have expressed concern at erosion of free speech and other civil rights brought about by the current administration, to also use their clout and access to the media to bring to light the situation in higher education. When university faculty and students do not understand open debate, freedom of speech, and do not realize how horrendous disruptive protests are in an academic environment, then higher education itself is a victim.

Please check out these links:

Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror (Hardcover) by Nonie Darwish
http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/003603.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21369

2006-12-11T12:38:00.000-05:00

PET PEEVES: FROM THE ANNOYING TO THE RIDICULOUS

....I am mildly bemused and irritated that in general only American Indians are referred to as "Native Americans." I am a natural-born American too but it is vaguely not PC to call myself a native American. Okay, their ancestors were here before mine arrived in the 19th Century, but perhaps there were other people here before the "native Americans" arrived.

....The word "boutique" may be thought to be cool and trendy, but it's just "a small shop, esp. one that sells clothes and accessories for women" (American College Dictionary). Now I'm not one that demands that words be strictly held to their original meaning, as language is a living, growing organism. The frequent current use of "boutique hotel" is, however, definitely over-used. Do they mean that it is small, is it meant to imply it's fashionable and trendy, that only celebs and fashionistas are welcome? They never say.

....Maybe I'm dim, but at the onset of dusk, or on a gray, overcast day, while driving I turn on my low beams. But I am invariably blinded by approaching cars with high beams turned on. Sometimes I flash my brights at oncoming cars and they turn down their high beams. Why are some drivers so thoughtless and inconsiderate? Why do they use such blindingly bright lights even when on well lit roads and even before it is fully dark? Of course my eyes are especially sensitive as they are aging, but I've never understood this bright light phenomenon.

....Since "Pro Life" is supposed to be the opposite of "Pro Choice" it should be called "Anti Choice."

....This is the time of year when some Christians are often vociferous in opposing such signs of holiday cheer as brilliantly lit shopping districts (especially when it starts too long before Christmas) and seem to feel that the love of Santa Clause is inimical to Christian worship. Father Christmas even made an unwelcome appearance at church services in England.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/6170059.stm. The anti-Christmas-consumerists don't care that all the December marketing gives a boost to the economy, which seems like a good thing, and they surely cannot put a stop to reindeer, elves, inflatable snowmen and over-the-top spending this time of year. Is there any solution to this unchristian complaining and hostility?

Well, maybe we all need to remember that early Christians stole the date of christmas in the first place, in order to exploit the popularity of the pagan festival in December. So there really is no disrespect of the holy season by non-believers and intermittent believers. They are all just doing what they did before the birth of Christ, going back to god knows when, in the mists of prehistory, and so are many church-going Christians, whose ancestors were also pagan. Let's just see it as two separate holidays which overlap, one of which disdains the other.

I wish you all a Good Yuletide, Merry Christime, Jolly Winter Solstice, and a damn good New Year.

2006-11-24T11:06:00.000-05:00

SPEAKING AS AN INFIDEL

A story about a woman in the UK employed by British Airways is barred from wearing a small cross suspended by a chain around her neck while working by her employer. This news item appeared here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire
/6166746.stmhttp://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/6166746.stm

The employer explains that other B.A. employees, such as Sikhs with turbans and women with headscarves are not barred from wearing symbols of their faiths. B.A. counters that the cross is only banned because all “jewelry” must be worn beneath clothing and not showing, but since turbans etc. cannot be hidden under clothing they are allowed. They are just following the rules and regulations of the company. If the woman, now on leave, were to accept a position not dealing with the public, she could wear her cross. B.A. says it is not about religious observance, it’s just regulations.

But is it really about religion? It’s only about the wearing of jewelry by uniformed personnel, trinkets which may be worn if concealed. Do you buy that? Okay, let’s say I do too. But then one reads of passengers boarding planes who have been processed by uniformed personnel wearing turbans, bracelets and neck chains sporting Islamic symbols. That sort of "jewelry" is okay?

As an infidel it doesn’t matter whether I am an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist, or girl scout. (I
am not going to own up toward which I may be leaning, but I will if I ever do make up my mind about a preference for any sect, cult, or even card readers who work out of “psychic fairs“.)
As a matter of fact, whether or not you are an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist or member of any other major or minor religious group: you are all still infidels too, subject to deliberate, planned extermination by some believers of a major religion.

Is the above incident with the cross on a neck chain a case of political correctness gone mad? No right-thinking person will approve deliberate slighting, racial or ethnic profiling, or denying any religious group to follow the laws of its faith. Sacrifice of virgins? Not if that breaks any federal laws. Sacrifice a domestic animal in a holy rite? To forbid that would be laughable as long as slaughterhouses exist as commercial enterprises. Permit drivers’ licenses to be issued to women who always go about with their faces covered, and whose license photographs are taken with faces covered? Only if our laws are not intended to protect the public. So when is a person forbidden to wear a sign of her faith become a victim of religious prejudice?

There is nothing about this which is simple. If the woman who insists on openly wearing her cross while in uniform while insisting that she does so with an evangelistic purpose a victim of prejudice? After all, christians are not following a religious law by wearing crosses. For a long time crosses worn as jewelry have been just that. Two examples: rock musicians like large crosses in platinum, with platinum chains; they are often sold as tourist kitsch and worn as travel am not going to own up toward which I may be leaning, but I will if I ever do make up my mind about a preference for any sect, cult, or even card readers who work out of “psychic fairs“.)

As a matter of fact, whether or not you are an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist etc., you are all still infidels too, subject to deliberate, planned extermination. Still, we celebrate ethnic and religious diversity, unless such diversity frightens us in some way. If elements of religious practice threaten our culture, should national security or political correctness take precedence? How should we respond to complaints and threatens that parts of our Western civilization and culture "insult" Islamic culture and religion? Perhaps we should just overlook the small stuff (tiny crosses on neckchains), and worry more about the weaknesses in our domestic security.

2006-11-06T12:06:00.000-05:00

Ringing Off The Hook

How have people with famous names found insignificant me in an ordinary town? For the past few weeks I have been honored by telephone calls from prominent people. H0w I deserved to be noticed by the likes of Andrew Cuomo, General Wes Clark, Rudy Giuliani, etc. is a puzzle. But after all this time the thrill is gone. I am reluctant to pick up the phone, lest it be Andy or Rudy again, saying the same old thing, asking me to vote for them or for their friend or their party.

Add that to the many calls from volunteers reminding me to vote and who they think I should vote for. I am overwhelmed by the number of calls interrupting my daily activities, and underwhelmed by their apparent belief that it will do some good. Do these calls ever change anyone's mind about a candidate, or prompt the huge number of people who never vote to go out and vote?

And then, while surfing merrily along I came across this:

http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2006/11/reminder-for-american-readers.html

where a Brit kindly adds his tuppence to the mix.

I know we shook many Brits up badly by the result of the 2000 US election - almost as badly as most of us were shaken. Quite an optimist, this Brit, hoping to make a difference.

Still I will, as always, be at the voting booth tomorrow, not so much hoping to make a difference, as thinking that we never will if we don't all vote.

I used to feel that the only time our opinions made a difference was when we voted. But after the 2000 election I remain uncertain about that. I'd love to have my mind changed after tomorrow.

2006-11-03T12:11:00.000-05:00

HYPOCRITES AND HACKS

I won’t recap any details of the Mark Foley D-MA scandal, which occupied so much newspaper space recently, mostly to spare myself the sordid details. I am only bringing it up because it seems to me that opinions which I hear and read about it are so lame. For example:

***Compared to similar scandals in the past, the Foley case seems minor.

How can it be minor just because Massachusetts Rep. Garry Studds committed similar offenses on a much larger scale in the ‘80s, never apologized, and even accused his accusers of picking on him because of their homophobia. (Perhaps more scandalous than anything else was the fact that Studds was reelected several times after that incident.) Another congressman, Rep. Dan Crane, whose juvenile prey were female, did apologize publicly for his actions.

***Foley has not been convicted of child molestation so technically he is not guilty of child molestation. There is also the question that since pages are teenagers it is not a crime for congressmen to seek sexual contact with them.

The entire congressional page system is flawed and should be scrapped entirely. These kids are not in D.C. for the purpose of being the playthings of dirty old men. They ought not to be appointed by congressmen. A new group should be set up to oversee the day to day life of the pages, security of their living quarters, and to provide counselors they can turn to if some some great patriot of a congressman or congresswoman contacts them inappropriately or bothers them in any way. Of whom should this group be comprised? Damned if I know. I only know there ought not be preachers, evangelists, rabbis, or ministers of any kind overseeing the pages.

***Foley has apologized -- give him credit for that.

Certainly not - no credit to Foley for anything! He apologized for his alcoholism but that is a whole other problem. It was sickening that he blamed alcoholism for his bad behavior. Why, that's not even a good excuse for wifebeating or abuse of any kind. He entered rehab for alcoholism and today or yesterday it was announced that he was extended his stay for continued treatment ... for alcoholism. If they give rehab for hypocricy, all senators and representatives are candidates for treatment. It's hard to imagine that Congress even has an investigation committe, and even one for abuse of ethics. A group which is trained to investigate, say the FBI, should always do all the investigations, especially of coverups.

If I could think of anyone suitable to conduct morals and ethics violations of congressmen I'd name them but I can't.

"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' "
Theodore Roosevelt26th president of US (1858 - 1919)

2006-10-29T15:18:00.000-05:00

CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO FIRES?

Do you know where your position is on the political map? Are you an extremist of the right or the left?Or do you feel that because of your predilection for seeing some good in varying points of view that you are a voter without a party? Follow this link : www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

and perhaps you will discover something about yourself.

Perhaps, like me, you will see what you already knew. I turned out to be a centrist, with a leaning toward the left. If you are a centrist check www.radicalmiddle.com/newswatch.htm
I like the quote I found there:

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall catch hell from both sides.

........ found on the wall of Justice Chairman Burke Marshall, 1964

The lack of a political middle in American politics have left many voters floundering. Whatever the cause it is not just a political plot for it seems that many voters will not accept as their candidate any politician who does not espouse some extremist position from which they won't budge, whether it is "pro life" ("anti choice"?) or Stop the War Now. I think that it would be a blessing for this country if some politicians began to stick up for reason and moderation, instead of following the president and the party line. As a former president once said:

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president.
Theodore Roosevelt26th president of US (1858 - 1919)

So take the quiz just for fun, and if you have the time, make your opinions known here, even if they are extreme. The quiz page gives resources about all political complexions.

2006-10-13T15:57:00.000-05:00

Am I Wrong?

Am I wrong or is freedom of speech a legitimate right as well as a fine thing for a people to have? I think I have heard that that is one of the things we are fighting for. Yet lately it seems that some Americans don't value it, at least for others. From reading and hearing the news lately I’m a bit confused because of conflicting and contradictory statements in the press, TV, and online, so would you help me out here?

I am going to list some of the things about freedom of speech that seem to be expressed in, say, the incident at Columbia University in connection to a speaker, Jim Gilchrist -- I believe he is the founder of the Minutemen, armed people who are guarding our border with Mexico in order to help stem the flow of illegitimate immigrants and who was invited by the Columbia College Republicans. Please read each statement and tell me if you think if you agree or disagree with any of them and I am right or wrong in my assumption that these are the points of view of activists and other students. Do any of them make any sense to you?

1. Those Minutemen are just plain ******* Nazis so a CC student has the right, even the responsibility to boo, yell, hold up signs, whatever, to let him know he’s not wanted here. We knew before he even started talking that it was all a lot of immigrant-hating stuff and we won't stand for that!

2. When he wouldn’t shut up what else could liberal, pro-immigration people do but rush the stage and wave signs in his face? He disrespected us!

3. When a press conference was held and some protesters were asked why we rushed the stage and stopped the event, one really quick-thinking girl said that we didn’t, that Gilchrist started the trouble first.

4. A legitimate protest was going on outside. Some of the protesters inside were asked why we didn’t join them, as we didn’t have to listen to what we don’t agree with. Well, we allowed the speaker to come here to speak and we had the right to speak when we didn’t like what he said.

5. Columbia University is a great institution of learning. If they are not teaching the student body civility and respect for a broad spectrum of ideas regarding legitimate behavior, they are failing their students, the students’ parents, and the expectations of American society. Students are just that -- they are enrolled in order to learn. They are exposed to a spectrum of ideas and they decide for themselves which they agree with. How can they learn critical thinking if they won't even listen to others' opinions?

Is freedom of speech a dying right if students are afraid to invite a speaker with strong, controversial opinions because violent, self-righteous "activists" will start a riot? Shouldn't the "activists" instead be planning their own event with a speaker they agree with, or back in the dorms studying? And here I've been thinking that we are starting to censor ourselves because of threats by terrorists to commit violence to people and property.

Am I wrong?

2006-09-28T16:23:00.000-05:00

Pardon My Bad

Two things currently amaze me about many people in their response to terrorists' threats, demands, claims, and outrage at the infidels' lack of appreciation of what Allah wants: the belief and insistance that the infidels and the islamists can resolve their differences by talk; the other is the prevalent need to apologize, apologize - ad nauseam and apparently without any effect. Have we apologized enough yet for our desecration of their holy cows? A thousand times NO and it will never be enough.

I discovered the impossibility of having a dialog with jihadists in the years and months leading up to 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. Occasionally Afghan "diplomats" - Taliban representatives at the United Nations - would appear on evening talk shows. No, not Leno or Letterman, unfortunately, and I love to consider what kind of a time Jon Stewart would have interviewing them (he got on great with the Pres. of Pakistan last night but he was selling a book) --- but, of course on the news channels, CNN et al. Talking heads, would ask civil questions simple enough to answer briefly, but their Taliban guests would either deflect the questions and make rude comments about the West, change the subject, also insultingly, explain how awful our culture is compared to their high civilization, etc.

They were always treated with respect. And the broadcasters could never get a straight answer. So why, when it has become obvious in the years since the Iraq invasion that they don't think that there's anything to talk about but for us simply to listen to their threats, tirades, and demands and obey pronto. Especially when we are called upon to apologize.

Now, when our actions "cause" offense, demonstrations, and attacks on persons and property, whether we have apologized or not we need to understand what is happening. It is not a question of our "understanding" islamic law and customs. When a news article reports yet another example of someone taking the lord's name in vain and explains how making images of Mohammed is prohibited, someone is talking out of his hat. Surely people of one religion routinely and without intention break laws that others hold sacred. Since when do Westerners have to obey Islamic law.

Oh, but we might do something provocative, something that might offend pious Muslims. Baloney. It's true that some Jews have not yet accepted the sight of religious emblems in public places on Xmas, but they don't blow them up, do they? Besides they are really just defending separation of church and state. So American Muslims , or Brits etc., have longed lived with things that might be considered offensive to them but it's not they who are having the demonstrations and letting themselves be driven to insane fury. It's the peoople who have declared war against us, and this is just another weapon against us. Along with jihad, the pilgrimages to Mecca, fasting, etc. contempt for infidels is a cornerstone of their beliefs; I think it is called dhimmitude.

One way we should acknowledge our inferiority is by humbly begging forgiveness of our superiors when it is demanded. When Bush apologized after the Danish cartoon coup by imams and the U. S. hadn't even published any cartoons that was sickening. Besides, when forged cartoons portraying Mohammed as a pig were shown in the Arab world, that proved it was part of the planned attack against the West.

And when the director of a German opera house just days ago cancelled a performance of an opera which included a scene with severed puppet heads of Mahomet, Buddha, Siva, etc. because of fear of retribution even though in his country art is free (unlike under the nazis when it was considered to be, in Hitler's words, the handmaiden of the state), that was a concession to Islamic law and an acknowledment of our inferiority to Muslims.

While some German leaders agreed that there was nothing else that could be done in view of the danger to life and property, other Germans disagreed and said,

"Our ideas about openness, tolerance and freedom must be lived on the offensive. Voluntary self-limitation gives those who fight against our values a confirmation in advance that we will not stand behind them."

and

"When the concern over possible protests leads to self-censorship, then the democratic culture of free speech becomes endangered."

Yes it is difficult to imagine defiantly putting peoples lives in danger because of terrorist's threats (although in this case they hadn't even materialized yet.)

What do you think?

Complete article was found at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_en_mu/germany_opera_islam

2006-09-27T10:52:00.000-05:00

Mexican Border Fence Hurts Some Feelings

My, don't some people take things too personally? Now I've read that a member of the Mexican government has complained bitterly about plans to build a fence between the U. S. and Mexico. He also thinks we should let up on illegal immigration.

Is there any country that receives more advice and criticism on the way it handles its external and internal affairs than the U.S.A.? But let's look at the advice and criticism before we reject it.

We're all for being good neighbors yet in that regard consider the old Mexican lament, "Our curse is that we are so far from God and so close to the United States." Yet Americans just love Mexico as it's a marvellous place to visit even though not everybody wants to live there (yet I've never heard any complaints from American retirees living down there.) So I assume that (some) Mexicans love the income that comes from tourism, much of it American.

Yet some day a wall might be built. But maybe not as an insult to any ethnic group. Maybe it, like enforcing immigration laws and regulations, has more to do with the perception (and experience) that an uprotected border is an invitation to criminals and other terrorists as well as people intent on immigrating in their own way. Besides, I've always felt that a government that doesn't protect its borders in every way is not worth the salary we pay it to do its job.

Amigos, I love your people, beaches, music, and god, I love your food, but try not to be so over-sensitive. And to those who are agitating for southwestern areas to secede from the United States: hey, we have feelings too.

2006-09-25T13:22:00.000-05:00

WHEN SACRED COWS ARE VICTIMS

Since I am starting this blog to give my opinion and make idle comments on whatever gets my attention, whether "untouchable" sacred cows or not, I woke up today ready to kick ass, er, complain politely.

After 9/11, like many Americans, I was filled with compassion for Muslim Americans who were now probably going to suffer the slings and arrows of ignorant people who would soon begin blaming them for the despicable actions of some of their religious brethren. Let's show them affection and understanding, I thought.

But most of the slings and arrows I was aware of were shot by leaders of the Muslim Community complaining that they were treated unfairly, that they were the "victims" of racial profiling in airports, etc. All right, don't speak up about massacres and destruction on American and foreign soil by your "brethren" -- maybe you're afraid of reprisals from the terrorists.

But, hey, aren't Muslims, including women and children, the victims, intended or otherwise, of terrorism too? So why not endure a little inconvenience while traveling without complaining that you are being singled out for questioning? If this is really your country, as you say, then why not join in to help protect it? Please consider this: in the country of your birth, or of your ancestors, are people of different religions free to practice their religion openly? You or your parents chose to live among infidels who allow you to criticise their culture openly.

So don't adopt our culture, but try obeying reasonable laws, including travel regulations without acting as if you are victims of prejudice. It's all to keep us as a nation from being victims of far worse aggression.