It is truly amazing how politicians throw around words without ever being challenged to define or explain. Instead the media simply goes along and reports what was said, the population accepts what was said without questioning, and nothing ever seems to change because these same people with the same squishy positions keep getting elected by a people who are either too dumb or too lazy to question what is being said.
In recent days the stock market has reached record highs, retail businesses are reporting solid profits, the unemployment is at the lowest point it has been in years, the trade deficit is declining and the economy in general is humming along. Ordinarily this would be a reason for the politicians to gloat and attempt to take credit, but instead we find the liberal establishment shaking their heads in despair as they attempt to put a negative spin on what would ordinarily be signs for cheering.
It seems that among all of this good news the politicians have discovered that instead of cheering over the low unemployment they are concerned about how the “working poor” are not sharing in this general prosperity. But the unasked question is “who precisely are the working poor?” In fact who are the “poor”working or not. These terms are never defined with any precision even when pushed, which is rare. The poverty line in the US is $20,000 for a family of 4 and with this measure the people living in poverty in the US is approximately 37 million. But of course poverty is a relative term and who precisely is included in this figure? The reality is that people in poverty rarely stay there instead they cycle in and out of poverty. But the point is who is “poor?” Again the reality is that in any given year approximately 12% of the population would be regarded as “poor” but then these people are rarely permanently poor but are only poor for a period of time and then move on up the economic ladder. It is also worth noting that these figures include people under 18 years so the number of adults living in poverty or being poor is substantially smaller and even so – none of this defines or explains “the working poor”. After all poor people are not necessarily impoverished and these figures include people under 25 which mean students who rarely work full time, but work at minimum wage.
Furthermore, no profile is ever offered regarding the poor or the working poor. What is there age? How much education do they have? Have they been arrested? How many smoke marijuana or take other drugs? How many of these poor people abuse alcohol? What is the employment record of the average poor person? How many families are in this category and how many in that family are working? Obviously answers to these questions would be very revealing and could easily make the politician claiming that there is a problem and that the minimum wage must be raised look foolish. Any family who cannot find and keep a job paying more than minimum wage has much greater problems that must be addressed if the poverty issue is to be addressed with any hope of success. Still, the politicians cry about the working poor and no one seems to want to look very close at this problem.
So the working poor is a relative term that is very controversial and rarely defined by the politicians who bandy it about. But if the term ‘poor” is not well defined and understood what about “rich”. The liberal establishment is constantly calling for the government to “tax the rich” but they never really define precisely who is rich. The call is always to raise the taxes on the “rich” but in practice the tax changes impact everyone so in effect the "rich" are the employed.
What about “racism”? We have politicians and wannabe politicians like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Julian Bond who accuse anyone with whom they disagree of being “racist” when in fact they seem to be the most racist of all. If race is considered and weighted in terms of blacks – that is good and not racist in their eyes. They justify this on the basis of “leveling the playing field”. However, that level playing field never seems to include competition or merit. If the only thing considered is qualifications and performance that is viewed as racist. Hence affirmative action which is nothing other that racism against whites is viewed as good. Therefore, it an effort to garner the black vote politicians extol the value of affirmative action and spout rhetoric in favor of stamping out racism, when in fact racism has been on the wane for some time.
What is considered racism today is largely an example of class-ism. Turn on any TV channel in any city and you will see black faces reading the news. These are people who got their jobs on the basis of ability – not through affirmative action. What sets them apart from those blacks who are perpetual victims of racism? Perhaps the distinguishing factors are education, speaking proper English, and dressing appropriately. We hear complaints from blacks about racism every time they get into trouble with the law. Perhaps if they obeyed the law they wouldn’t have difficulty with the police. Yet, all of the black leaders maintain their power and influence by perpetuating the idea of racism. So when it comes to politicians a little critical thinking is in order but this must be done at the individual level because the media, academia, and the politicians cannot gather the courage to tell the truth or to be precise.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, July 16, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Islam is NOT Peaceful
Once again we see our Congress, the Media, the intellectually challenged, and the politically correct, if that isn’t a redundancy – merrily leading us into a catastrophe while they insist on believing that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who are attacking us (the infidels) worldwide are really a minority. THESE ARE NOT A MINORITY—this is mainstream Islam. We (Christendom) are in a fight to the death with Islam. This is a fight that began in the seventh century and has not abated since that time. The objective of Islam is world domination, the installation of a theocratic government, the suppression of freedom, democracy, law, and all religion other than Islam.
This is a violent religion and the Qur’an is NOT a book that preaches love, forgiveness, or tolerance but it focuses on hate, violence, killing, deception and instructs the true believer to kill all infidels. The beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl were simply following the Qur’an (47:4). It promises victory and states that all of the Persian and Roman Empires (think Europe), is theirs according to Allah (33:27). The Muslim is under no obligation to treat prisoners kindly or even to take prisoners (8:67) unless they have won a solid victory. Furthermore, in 5:33 the Muslim is charged with executing all who make war against Islam.
We continue to view Islam and Muslims in Western terms, which are leading us step by step to destruction. The secular governments that we continue to treat with are hollow and have little to no control over the people because for the true Muslim Islam is the church and the church is the state. In effect the Mullahs are the ones with the power and any elected person is subordinate to the Mullahs and this is very evident in Iraq. In the Qur’an (5:51) the Muslim is told that he cannot take Jews or Christians as allies because they are enemies of Islam, this means that any sincere Muslim in America or in any non-Muslim country cannot be loyal to the government because his loyalty is only to Islam and the Imam in his Mosque. Yet we are electing these people into our government on the false assumption that when they take the oath of loyalty they are in fact loyal. This is totally false.
It is also worth noting that a Muslim can take an oath on the Qur’an and still lie (5:89) if it furthers the objectives of Islam, which is the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments. This means that any practicing Muslim elected to any government office can take the oath of office without committing a sin and is under no obligation to remain loyal to the government that he serves, because his first loyalty is to Islam – meaning people like Al Sadr, Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden, etc. The Qur’an specifically states (5:14) that Christians are the specific enemies of Islam and this is the word of God.
In spite of what is clearly written in the Qur’an the Media, the Congress, and the politically correct continue to view the “insurgents” and “freedom fighters’ not as Muslims on Jihad against Christendom, but as Muslim “extremists” who can be handled if we just tried to understand them and treat “mainstream” Islam with kindness and understanding. This shows an almost childlike naiveté because these so called “extremists” ARE mainstream Islam and they are reading the Qur’an just as it is written. They feed on hate, they are dedicated to the destruction of all infidels, the elimination of everything not found in the Qur’an, which includes virtually all science, education, freedom, and democracy plus the subjugation of women.
Why can our troops not gain the support of the average Iraqi? Because if they are true Muslims then the Qur’an 4:89 specifically forbids them to befriend any non-Muslim and to kill them if they are aggressive – read soldiers.
The time has long past for the West – not just America – to abandon these illogical politically correct beliefs about Islam and begin to take positive action. This means deportation of anyone in a country illegally. Monitor all Mosques for seditious talk and when discovered to charge the Imams with treason and close the Mosque and to install profiling so that these Muslims can be watched. Watch all financial transactions and to suppress Hamas and all Muslim charities who send money overseas to any country. To tell any country that harbors anyone who attacks the US that we regard that as an act of war and to take action against them on that basis. This means an immediate action against Syria, Iran, and Gaza. We are engaged in another Crusade, we are at war with Islam and the Muslims have said so, it is about time that we actually listen to what they are saying and take appropriate action.
This is a violent religion and the Qur’an is NOT a book that preaches love, forgiveness, or tolerance but it focuses on hate, violence, killing, deception and instructs the true believer to kill all infidels. The beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl were simply following the Qur’an (47:4). It promises victory and states that all of the Persian and Roman Empires (think Europe), is theirs according to Allah (33:27). The Muslim is under no obligation to treat prisoners kindly or even to take prisoners (8:67) unless they have won a solid victory. Furthermore, in 5:33 the Muslim is charged with executing all who make war against Islam.
We continue to view Islam and Muslims in Western terms, which are leading us step by step to destruction. The secular governments that we continue to treat with are hollow and have little to no control over the people because for the true Muslim Islam is the church and the church is the state. In effect the Mullahs are the ones with the power and any elected person is subordinate to the Mullahs and this is very evident in Iraq. In the Qur’an (5:51) the Muslim is told that he cannot take Jews or Christians as allies because they are enemies of Islam, this means that any sincere Muslim in America or in any non-Muslim country cannot be loyal to the government because his loyalty is only to Islam and the Imam in his Mosque. Yet we are electing these people into our government on the false assumption that when they take the oath of loyalty they are in fact loyal. This is totally false.
It is also worth noting that a Muslim can take an oath on the Qur’an and still lie (5:89) if it furthers the objectives of Islam, which is the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments. This means that any practicing Muslim elected to any government office can take the oath of office without committing a sin and is under no obligation to remain loyal to the government that he serves, because his first loyalty is to Islam – meaning people like Al Sadr, Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden, etc. The Qur’an specifically states (5:14) that Christians are the specific enemies of Islam and this is the word of God.
In spite of what is clearly written in the Qur’an the Media, the Congress, and the politically correct continue to view the “insurgents” and “freedom fighters’ not as Muslims on Jihad against Christendom, but as Muslim “extremists” who can be handled if we just tried to understand them and treat “mainstream” Islam with kindness and understanding. This shows an almost childlike naiveté because these so called “extremists” ARE mainstream Islam and they are reading the Qur’an just as it is written. They feed on hate, they are dedicated to the destruction of all infidels, the elimination of everything not found in the Qur’an, which includes virtually all science, education, freedom, and democracy plus the subjugation of women.
Why can our troops not gain the support of the average Iraqi? Because if they are true Muslims then the Qur’an 4:89 specifically forbids them to befriend any non-Muslim and to kill them if they are aggressive – read soldiers.
The time has long past for the West – not just America – to abandon these illogical politically correct beliefs about Islam and begin to take positive action. This means deportation of anyone in a country illegally. Monitor all Mosques for seditious talk and when discovered to charge the Imams with treason and close the Mosque and to install profiling so that these Muslims can be watched. Watch all financial transactions and to suppress Hamas and all Muslim charities who send money overseas to any country. To tell any country that harbors anyone who attacks the US that we regard that as an act of war and to take action against them on that basis. This means an immediate action against Syria, Iran, and Gaza. We are engaged in another Crusade, we are at war with Islam and the Muslims have said so, it is about time that we actually listen to what they are saying and take appropriate action.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Management characteristics and Leadership – The Basics
The most basic ingredient of successful management is leadership, but precisely what leadership is, is very difficult to describe. Leadership is like panache, sophistication, or charisma, easy to say and generally understood in context but almost impossible to describe. Everyone seems to have their own understanding and description of leadership but an excellent and succinct summary of leadership can be found in the Walt Disney movie, “A Bugs Life”. Here the arch villain Hopper, explains to the Ant Princess that the “first rule of leadership is you (the leader) are always at fault”. True, this is a somewhat negative view of leadership but nevertheless, it does summarize the absolute fundamental of leadership in one simple sentence. The leader is always responsible for the result, good or bad. But as any leader can tell you, if the results are good it is due to the efforts of those being led but if the results are bad, it is the leader’s fault alone. Consequently, leadership is really a test of courage, the courage to make a decision and to accept the responsibility of that decision regardless of the outcome. And as simple as it may sound this courage to make a decision and to accept sole responsibility is what distinguishes a leader from the pack.
The words, courage and bravery are not words that one ordinarily associates with business leaders. Usually these are reserved for individuals engaged in activities that involve physical danger, but any manager who has been confronted with decisions that jeopardize their career or their company, knows the heart stopping fear associated with them. However, not all business decisions involve grave risk any more than decisions made by police officers or firemen involve personal danger. But there is always the possibility that something unexpected may happen and it is this uncertainty of the outcome that requires the courage to act.
Once we reflect on the qualities of leadership, we recognize that the term leadership is bandied about rather carelessly. We find that the media has designated various people as religious leaders, political leaders, school leaders, and even business leaders. Unfortunately, when we are asked to describe precisely what makes these people leaders, most of us are rather unsure. In fact, in most cases if these people were stripped of their position and title, they would not immediately jump to mind as leaders. This does not mean that they are not leaders or have no leadership skills, in fact many do, but it underscores the problem many of us have in distinguishing leadership from position and title. The basic assumption seems to be that if a person holds a position of authority they are ipso facto a leader! Yet the history books are filled with individuals who were kings, presidents, prime ministers, and even generals who are mainly remembered for their ineptitude and lack of leadership skill. Therefore, personal wealth, titles, or hierarchical position is not, in its self, a determinant of a person’s leadership. And this brings us to the very fundamental question of “what distinguishes a leader from everyone else?”
According to the military, a group which has studied leadership for a very long time, leaders are distinguished by certain character traits that seem to have disappeared or have fallen into disuse. Words like integrity, loyalty, courage, and just are used to describe leaders but somehow the very meanings of these words seem to have been diminished as we view what passes for leaders today. Much of this decline can be traced to the routine application of the term leader to anyone who occupies a position with a title. This can be seen everywhere, from popularly elected politicians (popularity is not indicative of leadership), to senior executives, to team leaders at the threshold of the management chain. Admittedly all of these people should be leaders but as we all know many are not and few seem to display those character traits listed above, that distinguish a leader.
In fact the leaders today, especially those who hold elective office, are pale shadows of pale shadows of the leaders of old. A good example of this was the sign on Harry Truman’s desk in the Oval Office, “The Buck Stops Here”. How many politicians or CEO’s today are willing to step up and accept total responsibility? Remember it was President Truman who rebutted a critic by pointing out that “if you don’t like what I am doing don’t vote for me!” This kind of response coming from any politician today would be unthinkable.
The very essence of leadership is the willingness to make the tough, unambiguous choices that will have an impact on the fate of the organization and to assume responsibility for the result, without excuses or attempts to off load the blame on to some else or an external event. It is the courage to make these “you bet your job” decisions that sets the leader apart from those who want to be leaders but flinch from this responsibility. As we examine out current political landscape it would be useful to compare these political leaders in terms of their commitment, candor, moral courage, truthfulness, and integrity. When this measure is applied the decline of leadership in those who term themselves, leaders become very apparent.
The words, courage and bravery are not words that one ordinarily associates with business leaders. Usually these are reserved for individuals engaged in activities that involve physical danger, but any manager who has been confronted with decisions that jeopardize their career or their company, knows the heart stopping fear associated with them. However, not all business decisions involve grave risk any more than decisions made by police officers or firemen involve personal danger. But there is always the possibility that something unexpected may happen and it is this uncertainty of the outcome that requires the courage to act.
Once we reflect on the qualities of leadership, we recognize that the term leadership is bandied about rather carelessly. We find that the media has designated various people as religious leaders, political leaders, school leaders, and even business leaders. Unfortunately, when we are asked to describe precisely what makes these people leaders, most of us are rather unsure. In fact, in most cases if these people were stripped of their position and title, they would not immediately jump to mind as leaders. This does not mean that they are not leaders or have no leadership skills, in fact many do, but it underscores the problem many of us have in distinguishing leadership from position and title. The basic assumption seems to be that if a person holds a position of authority they are ipso facto a leader! Yet the history books are filled with individuals who were kings, presidents, prime ministers, and even generals who are mainly remembered for their ineptitude and lack of leadership skill. Therefore, personal wealth, titles, or hierarchical position is not, in its self, a determinant of a person’s leadership. And this brings us to the very fundamental question of “what distinguishes a leader from everyone else?”
According to the military, a group which has studied leadership for a very long time, leaders are distinguished by certain character traits that seem to have disappeared or have fallen into disuse. Words like integrity, loyalty, courage, and just are used to describe leaders but somehow the very meanings of these words seem to have been diminished as we view what passes for leaders today. Much of this decline can be traced to the routine application of the term leader to anyone who occupies a position with a title. This can be seen everywhere, from popularly elected politicians (popularity is not indicative of leadership), to senior executives, to team leaders at the threshold of the management chain. Admittedly all of these people should be leaders but as we all know many are not and few seem to display those character traits listed above, that distinguish a leader.
In fact the leaders today, especially those who hold elective office, are pale shadows of pale shadows of the leaders of old. A good example of this was the sign on Harry Truman’s desk in the Oval Office, “The Buck Stops Here”. How many politicians or CEO’s today are willing to step up and accept total responsibility? Remember it was President Truman who rebutted a critic by pointing out that “if you don’t like what I am doing don’t vote for me!” This kind of response coming from any politician today would be unthinkable.
The very essence of leadership is the willingness to make the tough, unambiguous choices that will have an impact on the fate of the organization and to assume responsibility for the result, without excuses or attempts to off load the blame on to some else or an external event. It is the courage to make these “you bet your job” decisions that sets the leader apart from those who want to be leaders but flinch from this responsibility. As we examine out current political landscape it would be useful to compare these political leaders in terms of their commitment, candor, moral courage, truthfulness, and integrity. When this measure is applied the decline of leadership in those who term themselves, leaders become very apparent.
Monday, April 25, 2005
ODDER ENDS
Well as usual my PONTIFICATIONS did not fall on deaf ears -- quite the contrary they stirred some of my reading public (both of you) to hurl a few verbal grenades in my direction.
First -- There is the issue of Gay Marriage. I have been married for 42 years (even I can't believe that) and technically what I have is a civil union. I have a license to practice but this also offers my wife and me certain legal protections as well as a certain moral stature in the community. While it would have been nice to have been married and blessed by a religious authority it was not to be (different religions). I strongly believe that the government does not have the right to deny a license to anyone solely on the basis of sex. However, I believe every church or religious institution has the absolute right to offer or to deny the blessings of their particular religious institution. If the government wants to fiddle with the issue of marriage they should make divorce more difficult rather than focusing on the tangential issue of who has the legal right to "practice".
Well to once again to address the Tom Delay situation, I agree that "everyone else is doing it" never got me very far with my parents and certainly didn't work with my children. Also I don't subscribe to the "we're no worse than everyone else" defense. However, the timing of this issue regarding Delay is pure political witch hunting. If there is a real conflict of interest here then the Congressmen who are sniping should come forward, bare their breast, and say we are also guilty and now is the time to stop this practice altogether. He who is without sin should cast the first stone and I don't think that is happening. Personally I am sick and tired of the constant sniping back and forth without regard for the good of the country. I think there are a lot of important issues that need to be dealt with and ad hominem attacks are simply distractions from some very important issues.
And that brings me to judges -- from where I sit the entire issue is pure politics with the Democrats determined to obstruct President Bush at every opportunity. I never believed in filibusters from the time I learned what they were. I don't care who is doing it -- it is wrong. Having said that -- I believe in the Constitution and the rule of Law but what we are getting is a bunch of judges who are making laws without regard for the will of the people. Judges are appointed for life and while I understand the rationale for that I am finding increasingly that the judges are simply out of control and the separation of Church and State is a vivid example. The Constitution does not say that -- it simply forbids the government from making laws that restrict or abridge that right. My nephew is being taught about Islam, Hinduism, and other religions in school but not Christianity on the basis of the separation of Church and State. Obviously this does not apply to Temples, Mosques, WigWams, or Stonehenge. That is down right bizarre! To look at this from the other direction, using this rationale Congress could easily pass legislation eliminating the tax exempt status of these institutions because they are not "Churches". The issue of smoking is another one. While I am not a smoker suppose you substitute the word "Negro" or "Jew" for the word "smoker" and see how these laws read. This is an outright denial of the rights of a large number of people. The judiciary is out of control and needs to be curbed and the appointment of strict constructionist judges is a way (not necessarily a good way).
Bolton is simply another example of the Democratic obstructionist policies. The UN is a corrupt organization, dominated by tinpot dictatorships, radical Muslim States, and virulently anti-American. It has a track record of failure and ineffectualness and as far as I am concerned it should be dissolved or radically reorganized. Bolton -- good or bad -- is a bull dog who is quite capable of pushing the UN around. Certainly Colin Powell was incapable of pushing back on anyone and was a very weak SecState. I am not married to Bolton but I am a supporter of placing someone in the UN who won't take their guff and who will simply stop being their money machine. The accusations that he has bullied subordinates strikes close to home since I have been accused of that as well. When examined this usually means that the bully raised his voice and raked some incompetent subordinate over the coals for not meeting performance expectations. The subordinate usually has been tainted by feminist claptrap or an educational system that assured them that whatever they chose to do was A-OK because their "self-esteem" was at stake. This is pure unadulterated hogwash and I'm sure Bolton simply won't tolerate these hypersenstive idiots -- I certainly haven't and won't.
This brings me to Foreign Aid. The media and Congress are railing about the deficit but I don't hear one voice raised about cutting off foreign aid to Palestine, Israel, Africa, AIDs research, or Asia -- instead we are talking about cutting domestic spending and raising taxes. This is tantamount to not feeding your family so you can give to charity hoping they will give something back or at least be your friend. The same is true with the media calls for an exit strategy from Iraq but not a word raised demanding an exit strategy from Germany, Japan, or Korea and we have had troops there for 60 years. Personally I think we should immediately withdraw from these countries but staying there is a form of foreign aid because an abrupt departure would throw them (Germany especially) into an economic tailspin.
Visualize me shaking my fist at the sky!!!
First -- There is the issue of Gay Marriage. I have been married for 42 years (even I can't believe that) and technically what I have is a civil union. I have a license to practice but this also offers my wife and me certain legal protections as well as a certain moral stature in the community. While it would have been nice to have been married and blessed by a religious authority it was not to be (different religions). I strongly believe that the government does not have the right to deny a license to anyone solely on the basis of sex. However, I believe every church or religious institution has the absolute right to offer or to deny the blessings of their particular religious institution. If the government wants to fiddle with the issue of marriage they should make divorce more difficult rather than focusing on the tangential issue of who has the legal right to "practice".
Well to once again to address the Tom Delay situation, I agree that "everyone else is doing it" never got me very far with my parents and certainly didn't work with my children. Also I don't subscribe to the "we're no worse than everyone else" defense. However, the timing of this issue regarding Delay is pure political witch hunting. If there is a real conflict of interest here then the Congressmen who are sniping should come forward, bare their breast, and say we are also guilty and now is the time to stop this practice altogether. He who is without sin should cast the first stone and I don't think that is happening. Personally I am sick and tired of the constant sniping back and forth without regard for the good of the country. I think there are a lot of important issues that need to be dealt with and ad hominem attacks are simply distractions from some very important issues.
And that brings me to judges -- from where I sit the entire issue is pure politics with the Democrats determined to obstruct President Bush at every opportunity. I never believed in filibusters from the time I learned what they were. I don't care who is doing it -- it is wrong. Having said that -- I believe in the Constitution and the rule of Law but what we are getting is a bunch of judges who are making laws without regard for the will of the people. Judges are appointed for life and while I understand the rationale for that I am finding increasingly that the judges are simply out of control and the separation of Church and State is a vivid example. The Constitution does not say that -- it simply forbids the government from making laws that restrict or abridge that right. My nephew is being taught about Islam, Hinduism, and other religions in school but not Christianity on the basis of the separation of Church and State. Obviously this does not apply to Temples, Mosques, WigWams, or Stonehenge. That is down right bizarre! To look at this from the other direction, using this rationale Congress could easily pass legislation eliminating the tax exempt status of these institutions because they are not "Churches". The issue of smoking is another one. While I am not a smoker suppose you substitute the word "Negro" or "Jew" for the word "smoker" and see how these laws read. This is an outright denial of the rights of a large number of people. The judiciary is out of control and needs to be curbed and the appointment of strict constructionist judges is a way (not necessarily a good way).
Bolton is simply another example of the Democratic obstructionist policies. The UN is a corrupt organization, dominated by tinpot dictatorships, radical Muslim States, and virulently anti-American. It has a track record of failure and ineffectualness and as far as I am concerned it should be dissolved or radically reorganized. Bolton -- good or bad -- is a bull dog who is quite capable of pushing the UN around. Certainly Colin Powell was incapable of pushing back on anyone and was a very weak SecState. I am not married to Bolton but I am a supporter of placing someone in the UN who won't take their guff and who will simply stop being their money machine. The accusations that he has bullied subordinates strikes close to home since I have been accused of that as well. When examined this usually means that the bully raised his voice and raked some incompetent subordinate over the coals for not meeting performance expectations. The subordinate usually has been tainted by feminist claptrap or an educational system that assured them that whatever they chose to do was A-OK because their "self-esteem" was at stake. This is pure unadulterated hogwash and I'm sure Bolton simply won't tolerate these hypersenstive idiots -- I certainly haven't and won't.
This brings me to Foreign Aid. The media and Congress are railing about the deficit but I don't hear one voice raised about cutting off foreign aid to Palestine, Israel, Africa, AIDs research, or Asia -- instead we are talking about cutting domestic spending and raising taxes. This is tantamount to not feeding your family so you can give to charity hoping they will give something back or at least be your friend. The same is true with the media calls for an exit strategy from Iraq but not a word raised demanding an exit strategy from Germany, Japan, or Korea and we have had troops there for 60 years. Personally I think we should immediately withdraw from these countries but staying there is a form of foreign aid because an abrupt departure would throw them (Germany especially) into an economic tailspin.
Visualize me shaking my fist at the sky!!!
Monday, March 28, 2005
Progressive Thinking An Oxymoron
The morning paper always brings indications that the Neo-Marxists, now called Progressives, simply don’t understand economics, politics, or people. They continue their attacks on that moron in the White House, without actually specifically describing his failures and attributing his successes to the invisible and not so invisible puppet-masters. But their lack of thinking and understanding go far beyond this because they simply cannot give up their commitment to individual “rights”. Among these rights we find the right to hold a job – not any job but a job that pays a “living wage”. Presumably what this means is that these narco-illiterates must be given jobs that allow them to continue supporting their various offspring, keep up their child support, maintain their drug habits, and keep a roof over their heads. Therefore, it is time to raise the minimum wage apparently on the assumption that these minimum wage jobs should allow for the foregoing.
Then we find the right to an education. Of course for most of us taxpayers, we think that this right already exists. The public schools are available to everyone but of course you have to actually attend the classes. These means getting up early, catching the bus, going to class, and actually listening to what is being taught and of course – doing the work. Unfortunately, that four letter word “work” keeps appearing and those people, who were raised on the progressive ideas of entitlement, work never enters the equation. After all – what was the purpose of affirmative action? The whole idea was to provide the “minorities” with an equal opportunity to get an education at a prestigious university, without actually doing all of the work to either get there or stay there. Fortunately the alarm has been sounded within the minority community and while the progressives continue to beat the drum of racism it is sounding more and more like a dirge and less and less like a call to arms.
But to return to the morning paper, we find that the union movement is spending most of its time and money on political causes – causes generally not supported by the membership – and less and less on organization and recruiting. Naturally the real issue here is the anti-labor Republicans are in power and everything must be done to return the progressives to power. However, when you read the fine print, it seems that the overly generous benefits garnered by the unions, is killing jobs. It seems that the UAW members pay only 7% of their healthcare costs while the average American pays 32%. The Japanese auto manufacturers have approximately $1400 in profit in each vehicle with $400 going to healthcare. General Motors has only $700 in profit in each vehicle with $1000 going to healthcare. Of course nothing is said about the featherbedding and counterproductive union rules that keep excess employees and slow down the manufacturing process and even less is said about the declining membership which is driven by the declining number of jobs.
The progressives cannot give up their idea of rights and the responsibility of the government to redistribute wealth more equitably. Essentially these neo-Marxists, which is what they are, think that those people who worked hard, who attended school, who got an education or training that prepared them for the workforce, are obligated to share what they earn with the “less fortunate.” How I hate that term because the implication is that those who worked hard some how “got lucky” and got a good high paying job, while those who slacked off in school, who failed to get an education, who had multiple children they couldn’t afford, and who are too lazy to fix the situation, deserve to share in the wealth generated by the hard worker. This idea of wealth redistribution is called ‘progressive taxation (ironic or honest terminology -??)” and masquerades under the banner of “equality”. Of course the actual term is “egalitarianism`” which is the cornerstone of Marxism, but the Progressives really expect to take your money and redistribute it, not theirs. They are truly the embodiment of Orwell’s Animal Farm – where some Pigs are more equal than others.
Then we find the right to an education. Of course for most of us taxpayers, we think that this right already exists. The public schools are available to everyone but of course you have to actually attend the classes. These means getting up early, catching the bus, going to class, and actually listening to what is being taught and of course – doing the work. Unfortunately, that four letter word “work” keeps appearing and those people, who were raised on the progressive ideas of entitlement, work never enters the equation. After all – what was the purpose of affirmative action? The whole idea was to provide the “minorities” with an equal opportunity to get an education at a prestigious university, without actually doing all of the work to either get there or stay there. Fortunately the alarm has been sounded within the minority community and while the progressives continue to beat the drum of racism it is sounding more and more like a dirge and less and less like a call to arms.
But to return to the morning paper, we find that the union movement is spending most of its time and money on political causes – causes generally not supported by the membership – and less and less on organization and recruiting. Naturally the real issue here is the anti-labor Republicans are in power and everything must be done to return the progressives to power. However, when you read the fine print, it seems that the overly generous benefits garnered by the unions, is killing jobs. It seems that the UAW members pay only 7% of their healthcare costs while the average American pays 32%. The Japanese auto manufacturers have approximately $1400 in profit in each vehicle with $400 going to healthcare. General Motors has only $700 in profit in each vehicle with $1000 going to healthcare. Of course nothing is said about the featherbedding and counterproductive union rules that keep excess employees and slow down the manufacturing process and even less is said about the declining membership which is driven by the declining number of jobs.
The progressives cannot give up their idea of rights and the responsibility of the government to redistribute wealth more equitably. Essentially these neo-Marxists, which is what they are, think that those people who worked hard, who attended school, who got an education or training that prepared them for the workforce, are obligated to share what they earn with the “less fortunate.” How I hate that term because the implication is that those who worked hard some how “got lucky” and got a good high paying job, while those who slacked off in school, who failed to get an education, who had multiple children they couldn’t afford, and who are too lazy to fix the situation, deserve to share in the wealth generated by the hard worker. This idea of wealth redistribution is called ‘progressive taxation (ironic or honest terminology -??)” and masquerades under the banner of “equality”. Of course the actual term is “egalitarianism`” which is the cornerstone of Marxism, but the Progressives really expect to take your money and redistribute it, not theirs. They are truly the embodiment of Orwell’s Animal Farm – where some Pigs are more equal than others.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Science -- Scmience
Usually I am slamming the liberal media and the lunatic left in Calif, but have you noticed how politicized the NIH and CDC have become. Ironically these organizations have been stuffed with left leaning, Harvard educated, progressives who now seem to be in bed with "big business" in the form of the drug companies. These progressives are so intent on running everyone's life that they have sacrificed their principles regarding the evils of profit and are working hand-in-glove with the drug companies. What on Earth am I talking about - you ask? Well I am speaking of the "epidemic" of diabetes and obesity, cholesterol, and finally that supreme evil -- tobacco.
Why has diabetes suddenly become an epidemic? I'll bet everyone reading this has recently had his doctor tell him/her that they are diabetic and need medication to "control" it. Well the reason for this epidemic is that the NIH has LOWERED the threshold for diabetes. So suddenly thousands more people now have to take medications cleverly sold by those evil drug companies. It also gives the progressives another reason to police our food and insist we stop eating anything THEY deem is bad for us. How about obesity? Everyday we see pictures of overweight people on the (liberal) news as they lecture us on how our children are all overweight and we need to take everything kids like to eat out of the schools and replace it with carrot sticks. What goes unsaid is that the measure for obesity has been changed by the government (NIH, CDC). Now virtually all of the NFL and NBA athletes are overweight -- obese by definition --plus the majority of Americans are obese and need to stop eating fattening (fast) foods. The solution in the view of the progressives is that we need to immediately ban McDonalds, all fast food, soda, and anything the food police feel is bad for us. HOWEVER, this doesn't include wine which the progressive left has managed to declare HEALTHY. Of course the only difference between wine and grape juice is the alcohol so technically grape juice should do the trick but then grape juice is too sugary and therefore, bad for all of you diabetics. It is OK to be an alcoholic but not to be a FAT alcoholic.
Then we have cholesterol. Not too many years ago the count was 220 as normal but this was the average for most Americans so the drug companies needed more sales. The government accommodated by lowering the threshold and sales went up. They lowered the threshold again and sales went up even more. They have justified this on the basis of a statistical study showing the "relationship" between diet, cholesterol, and heart disease. Of course anything can be proven statistically, the studies actually show that diet has only a minimal impact on cholesterol, and that cholesterol levels below 200 show a strong correlation to colon cancer. A small fact that generally goes unmentioned but then sales are up. Besides there is no drug available to cure colon cancer so why bother with statistics?
And finally tobacco and all of those "tobacco related deaths", which of course are all statistical. The actual report on side smoke written by the EPA is over 1000 pages ( I have read every single page and it was pure torture) and states that the studies DO NOT REACH STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE. This is actually stated in the report and discussions with the author (conducted by my wife with the author of the report) elicited the comment that there is no science behind the conclusions because it is just a SOCIAL PROGRAM. One of the studies used to justify the correlation between tobacco smoke and cancer was the "Hamster Study". In this study the Hamsters were exposed to smoke over an extended period but those hamsters DIDN'T develop cancer as they should have. However, the "scientists" conducting the study decided that "had the hamsters breathed properly they WOULD have developed cancer". Therefore, this study was used to support the (obviously prior) conclusion even though the hamsters didn't actually develop cancer. There were other studies similar to this one that were flawed even to the most untrained eye, but then how many people have actually read the EPA study? We were unable to find anyone in the press or in the government who actually read the report even though they were quick to cite it in support of their right to strip smokers of their rights.
Now I am not a smoker, but it seems to me that a lot of rights of smokers have been taken away because a few wine sipping progressives don't like smokers. To belabor this report further, notice that the number of smokers has declined dramatically but the incidence of cancer and heart disease has not changed. Furthermore, there has never been a death certificate written that says a person died from tobacco smoke.
Everything is "related" and now that "cause - effect" relationship is being applied to food as the progressives launch their attack on McDonalds and make no mistake that is their target -- not you or your health. The time has come for everyone to demand that science be returned to the decision making process and that the voodoo "science" called "Epidemiology" be eliminated.
Why has diabetes suddenly become an epidemic? I'll bet everyone reading this has recently had his doctor tell him/her that they are diabetic and need medication to "control" it. Well the reason for this epidemic is that the NIH has LOWERED the threshold for diabetes. So suddenly thousands more people now have to take medications cleverly sold by those evil drug companies. It also gives the progressives another reason to police our food and insist we stop eating anything THEY deem is bad for us. How about obesity? Everyday we see pictures of overweight people on the (liberal) news as they lecture us on how our children are all overweight and we need to take everything kids like to eat out of the schools and replace it with carrot sticks. What goes unsaid is that the measure for obesity has been changed by the government (NIH, CDC). Now virtually all of the NFL and NBA athletes are overweight -- obese by definition --plus the majority of Americans are obese and need to stop eating fattening (fast) foods. The solution in the view of the progressives is that we need to immediately ban McDonalds, all fast food, soda, and anything the food police feel is bad for us. HOWEVER, this doesn't include wine which the progressive left has managed to declare HEALTHY. Of course the only difference between wine and grape juice is the alcohol so technically grape juice should do the trick but then grape juice is too sugary and therefore, bad for all of you diabetics. It is OK to be an alcoholic but not to be a FAT alcoholic.
Then we have cholesterol. Not too many years ago the count was 220 as normal but this was the average for most Americans so the drug companies needed more sales. The government accommodated by lowering the threshold and sales went up. They lowered the threshold again and sales went up even more. They have justified this on the basis of a statistical study showing the "relationship" between diet, cholesterol, and heart disease. Of course anything can be proven statistically, the studies actually show that diet has only a minimal impact on cholesterol, and that cholesterol levels below 200 show a strong correlation to colon cancer. A small fact that generally goes unmentioned but then sales are up. Besides there is no drug available to cure colon cancer so why bother with statistics?
And finally tobacco and all of those "tobacco related deaths", which of course are all statistical. The actual report on side smoke written by the EPA is over 1000 pages ( I have read every single page and it was pure torture) and states that the studies DO NOT REACH STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE. This is actually stated in the report and discussions with the author (conducted by my wife with the author of the report) elicited the comment that there is no science behind the conclusions because it is just a SOCIAL PROGRAM. One of the studies used to justify the correlation between tobacco smoke and cancer was the "Hamster Study". In this study the Hamsters were exposed to smoke over an extended period but those hamsters DIDN'T develop cancer as they should have. However, the "scientists" conducting the study decided that "had the hamsters breathed properly they WOULD have developed cancer". Therefore, this study was used to support the (obviously prior) conclusion even though the hamsters didn't actually develop cancer. There were other studies similar to this one that were flawed even to the most untrained eye, but then how many people have actually read the EPA study? We were unable to find anyone in the press or in the government who actually read the report even though they were quick to cite it in support of their right to strip smokers of their rights.
Now I am not a smoker, but it seems to me that a lot of rights of smokers have been taken away because a few wine sipping progressives don't like smokers. To belabor this report further, notice that the number of smokers has declined dramatically but the incidence of cancer and heart disease has not changed. Furthermore, there has never been a death certificate written that says a person died from tobacco smoke.
Everything is "related" and now that "cause - effect" relationship is being applied to food as the progressives launch their attack on McDonalds and make no mistake that is their target -- not you or your health. The time has come for everyone to demand that science be returned to the decision making process and that the voodoo "science" called "Epidemiology" be eliminated.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
The Undeserving Rich
I’m Rich --- and probably you are too but of course neither of us was aware of this fact until our liberal friends pointed out that we are among the “fortunate fifth” and that it was high time that we started paying our “fair share” of income tax. This is what is behind the drive by the liberal left to rescind any tax breaks in order to ensure the “rich pay their fair share”. Of course you and I know that the truly wealthy – like Senator Kerry pay very little tax (12% for Heinz-Kerry) because they can afford to pay the very best accountants to find ways to avoid paying taxes. In short it isn’t the really wealthy who are paying taxes and supporting all of these wonderful pork barrel projects like the “big dig” (thank you Senators Kerry and Kennedy), it is the middle class – the very people who are being promised tax relief and who are in fact carrying almost the entire tax burden. But the government needs more money so the “rich” have to pay. But the reality is that it is those of us who are keeping our nose above water that will be robbed once again because we are “rich”. So how do these liberals get by with selling this snake oil? Who is buying it?
The people who buy this fall into two categories, one is that group of people who pay no taxes but get plenty of free benefits from the government. In effect they are selling their vote to the politician that promises to continue giving them all of these benefits while taking the money out of some one else’s pocket to pay for them. These are the people who say they “vote their pocket book” when in point of fact it is some one else’s pocketbook they are voting to empty into theirs.
The second category is that group of naïve` people – who actually believed what they were taught in school by professors who never held a job, never had to meet a financial objective, and actually believe that the government should tax the wealthy because they are “fortunate” and that corporations are essentially evil enterprises that are exploiting their workers. These are the people who truly believe that it is right to take money from the undeserving rich (you and me) and give it to the deserving poor. In effect the rich don’t deserve their wealth because they just got lucky and therefore should have it taken away by the government and redistributed to those who have less – those who are less fortunate. Although the liberals would dispute this their position relative to taxation can be summarized by the statement
“From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.”
Does that phrase sound familiar? It should because it is a quote from “The Communist Manifesto.” Is it any wonder that the liberals prefer to call themselves “progressives” rather than the more accurate—but out of style – “Marxists”. If they actually articulated what they are attempting to do i.e. create and egalitarian society people might catch on. Naturally, just as in Animal Farm, the elites (meaning the professors and their intellectual friends) would be the most highly revered and rewarded because they are simply smarter (and not profit oriented either but I digress).
But are those of us who exist in that rarefied atmosphere of the “fortunate fifth” – meaning that we are in that glorified group of the top 20% of wage earners in the country—have we truly won “life’s lottery” as described by Dick Gephart? The (insulting) implication is that we just got lucky while those who are “less fortunate” were simply unlucky. Is this an accurate portrayal or is our “luck” the result of our decisions? For example, who went to school, had an after school job, saved their money, went to college, worked to pay for their education, and then left school and got a high income job? Who waited to have children until they were married and could afford them? Who goes to work in the dark and comes home in the dark? Who cut class to hang out on street corners? Who finally dropped out of school because it was a bunch of old guys telling them what to do? Who had a series of illegitimate children? Who got a job then lost it because they couldn’t get up that early to get to work? Who blamed everyone else for their lack of income, their old car, their drug problem? Who is on welfare and feels the government should provide better benefits to them? It seems to me that those that were lucky and won life’s lottery seem to have made a number of good decisions in association with some significant sacrifices while those that lost in life’s lottery made a long succession of poor decisions and focused exclusively on immediate self-gratification.
It seems to me that those of us who fall into the undeserving rich category deserve to be there by dint of hard work, good decisions, and a lot of self-sacrifice while those who live in poverty and have a marginal existence got there as the result of poor work habits, bad decisions, and a lack of self-sacrifice. Therefore, the idea that the “rich” are undeserving because they got lucky is not only a total falsehood it is downright insulting. But the liberals feel sorry for these people and think that the government should provide them housing and income simply because they are poor. Well as I recall, in the United States of America all men are created equal so if the government thinks they should subsidize housing for the poor, why don’t they subsidize mine—after all I’m a citizen too and the Lord knows I could use some help. But this isn’t the way liberals think is it? They see that the rich live in nice houses, drive nice cars, and pay their bills, so clearly they can afford to give some of their wealth to the poor simply because the poor need it. This was Robin Hood’s philosophy but as I recall the Sheriff of Nottingham had quite a different take on Robin’s activity. That evil ungrateful, exploitive Sheriff actually thought Robin Hood was actually robbing people – like a common criminal. Of course the liberal spin is that taking money from the rich to redistribute it to the poor is morally justified because the rich have too much and the poor have too little. This was the philosophy of Robin Hood but it was also the philosophy of Karl Marx which was carried out by Nikolai Lenin with disastrous results but this failure has not deterred our liberal intelligentsia because they still refuse to recognize any individual’s responsibility for his circumstances.
So on a parting note consider this:
“Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual once and for all.”
This is a quote from Nikita Krushchev that really describes what the liberal establishment is trying to do by focusing on societies “victims” and subordinating individual rights to those of these “groups”.
“From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.”
Remember these words because this is the unspoken mantra of the liberal establishment.
The people who buy this fall into two categories, one is that group of people who pay no taxes but get plenty of free benefits from the government. In effect they are selling their vote to the politician that promises to continue giving them all of these benefits while taking the money out of some one else’s pocket to pay for them. These are the people who say they “vote their pocket book” when in point of fact it is some one else’s pocketbook they are voting to empty into theirs.
The second category is that group of naïve` people – who actually believed what they were taught in school by professors who never held a job, never had to meet a financial objective, and actually believe that the government should tax the wealthy because they are “fortunate” and that corporations are essentially evil enterprises that are exploiting their workers. These are the people who truly believe that it is right to take money from the undeserving rich (you and me) and give it to the deserving poor. In effect the rich don’t deserve their wealth because they just got lucky and therefore should have it taken away by the government and redistributed to those who have less – those who are less fortunate. Although the liberals would dispute this their position relative to taxation can be summarized by the statement
“From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.”
Does that phrase sound familiar? It should because it is a quote from “The Communist Manifesto.” Is it any wonder that the liberals prefer to call themselves “progressives” rather than the more accurate—but out of style – “Marxists”. If they actually articulated what they are attempting to do i.e. create and egalitarian society people might catch on. Naturally, just as in Animal Farm, the elites (meaning the professors and their intellectual friends) would be the most highly revered and rewarded because they are simply smarter (and not profit oriented either but I digress).
But are those of us who exist in that rarefied atmosphere of the “fortunate fifth” – meaning that we are in that glorified group of the top 20% of wage earners in the country—have we truly won “life’s lottery” as described by Dick Gephart? The (insulting) implication is that we just got lucky while those who are “less fortunate” were simply unlucky. Is this an accurate portrayal or is our “luck” the result of our decisions? For example, who went to school, had an after school job, saved their money, went to college, worked to pay for their education, and then left school and got a high income job? Who waited to have children until they were married and could afford them? Who goes to work in the dark and comes home in the dark? Who cut class to hang out on street corners? Who finally dropped out of school because it was a bunch of old guys telling them what to do? Who had a series of illegitimate children? Who got a job then lost it because they couldn’t get up that early to get to work? Who blamed everyone else for their lack of income, their old car, their drug problem? Who is on welfare and feels the government should provide better benefits to them? It seems to me that those that were lucky and won life’s lottery seem to have made a number of good decisions in association with some significant sacrifices while those that lost in life’s lottery made a long succession of poor decisions and focused exclusively on immediate self-gratification.
It seems to me that those of us who fall into the undeserving rich category deserve to be there by dint of hard work, good decisions, and a lot of self-sacrifice while those who live in poverty and have a marginal existence got there as the result of poor work habits, bad decisions, and a lack of self-sacrifice. Therefore, the idea that the “rich” are undeserving because they got lucky is not only a total falsehood it is downright insulting. But the liberals feel sorry for these people and think that the government should provide them housing and income simply because they are poor. Well as I recall, in the United States of America all men are created equal so if the government thinks they should subsidize housing for the poor, why don’t they subsidize mine—after all I’m a citizen too and the Lord knows I could use some help. But this isn’t the way liberals think is it? They see that the rich live in nice houses, drive nice cars, and pay their bills, so clearly they can afford to give some of their wealth to the poor simply because the poor need it. This was Robin Hood’s philosophy but as I recall the Sheriff of Nottingham had quite a different take on Robin’s activity. That evil ungrateful, exploitive Sheriff actually thought Robin Hood was actually robbing people – like a common criminal. Of course the liberal spin is that taking money from the rich to redistribute it to the poor is morally justified because the rich have too much and the poor have too little. This was the philosophy of Robin Hood but it was also the philosophy of Karl Marx which was carried out by Nikolai Lenin with disastrous results but this failure has not deterred our liberal intelligentsia because they still refuse to recognize any individual’s responsibility for his circumstances.
So on a parting note consider this:
“Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual once and for all.”
This is a quote from Nikita Krushchev that really describes what the liberal establishment is trying to do by focusing on societies “victims” and subordinating individual rights to those of these “groups”.
“From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.”
Remember these words because this is the unspoken mantra of the liberal establishment.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Liberty & Humanism & Politics
LIBERTY & HUMANISM & POLITICS
There has been a great deal of rhetoric recently regarding the War on Terror, Iraq, President Bush, Islam, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press. Of course all of these are tied together into one common thread, which remains unspoken but is in fact the foundation of these topics and that is President Bush is an idiot who stole the election –a man of no vision, an ignorant bumpkin, and a person unworthy of his office. Therefore, let’s address the foundation before we address this house of emotional cards.
First, it was widely known at the time that Jack Kennedy won the Electoral College through stuffed ballot boxes in Chicago (compliments of Mayor Daley) and that Richard Nixon actually won more votes than Kennedy. At the time the Republicans were viewed as just having “sour grapes” and now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats are having a conniption fit and refuse to accept the fact that they lost the electoral college. But that is really only the tip of the iceberg, isn’t it? The real hard spot with the Democrats is the idea that President Bush is a stupid bumpkin and unworthy of his office. The only basis for this assertion seems to be his relative inarticulateness coupled with his down home pronunciations and malapropisms. The focus seems to be on his delivery and not on his message and when his message is understood, it seems to send the intelligentsia into paroxysms of anger due to its directness and lack of subtlety. Once again though the message is lost in the focus on delivery and few seem willing to attack the message or even demonstrate that it is incorrect, so let me briefly summarize the message:
God exists and must be acknowledged (an arch crime in liberal circles)
Evil exists and must be resisted, with force if necessary (liberals don’t acknowledge evil exists because that is too judgmental)
Terrorists are murderers and not freedom fighters
Once you undertake a task see it through (liberals believe that anything that doesn’t provide personal pleasure isn’t worth doing)
The UN is a failure and cannot be relied on (liberals think that the US should always bow to the international community even if it isn’t in our best interest)
It is the duty of the President to act in the best interest of the United States regardless of international opinions
That key leadership positions should be filled by the best people available and listened to but the decision remains with the President not political hacks and the media.
That the people who earn the money deserve to keep their money
Capitalism is good and it drives prosperity while socialism is bad and drags the economy down
The unvarnished truth may be bitter but is necessary and less painful in the long term.
Of course it is the last point that drives the liberal media into a frenzy because the President calls Yasser Arafat what he is – a liar, a cheat, a murderer, and a terrorist. He calls brutal dictators “EVIL” and the nations they lead – EVIL. The fact that these are true statements is lost in the hullabaloo over the sheer nerve of the man to tell the truth without any tactful euphemisms. No one seems to feel these statements aren’t true – it just that they aren’t tactful and they make people mad at us as if being liked by Satan was something to be desired, but let’s mush on to the house of cards.
First let’s discuss the recent hue and cry over how Freedom of the Press is being attacked and suppressed by the current administration. Precisely how this is being accomplished is hard to understand since the press continues to print scurrilous lies, doctored photos, and half truths about the very administration that they claim is suppressing them. I suspect that the root of this accusation lies in two places. First, increasingly the press is being called to task, (and court) over their lies and half truths and are suffering the consequences. The free ride they have had for years is being undermined by the Internet and they are struggling against their loss of control. The fact that they are out of touch with the majority of Americans is lost on them since they never leave their cozy little world on the Coasts. Secondly, their circulation is declining as people walk away from them because they no longer trust what they print. The shriller they get the more they lose and they simply don't grasp that they have lost all credibility. This is viewed as a right wing conspiracy to control the news as if the left wing weren't already controlling the news through omission and spinning facts. Of course this is exacerbated by the administration simply ignoring them and taking their message directly to the people.
Freedom of Speech is certainly an issue and it seems ironic that the very people who are now crying the loudest are the very ones who have created the situation. It was the elite media and the liberal left who broadened the concept of freedom of speech to include every offensive and degrading thing society has to offer. I am bombarded every day with foul language coming into my home via TV. Pornography is rampant and every movie seems to have an obligatory nude and graphic sex scene with these scenes becoming more graphic each day. All of this was brought about by “freedom of speech” suits via the ACLU. However, the boomerang seems to have come home because this has now been broadened into “the right not to be offended” and a level of political correctness that is astounding. While I might call you a C**KS**Ker and not be charged even with rudeness because I am just exercising my right of free speech but if I were to call you a C**KS**King Nigger I could go to jail for racial threats and intimidation. Of course this is an extreme example but the reality is worse. The Confederate Flag is now offensive and no longer protected as free speech or free expression. The Ten Commandments are offensive and no longer protected. I can no longer use the term Fireman, Mailman, Councilman, or Congressman for fear of offending someone and someone is always offended. So the very group who has created this situation is now yelling foul. Well I for one am sick and tired of political correctness and tired of having my rights trampled so a group of uncivil barbarians can assail me with rude speech, foul language, and coarse behavior. So any attempt to restore some semblance of balance and civility is viewed as a suppression of free speech. Well some of that speech needs to be suppressed. But let’s move on to the next point.
To the average American we are engaged in a political conflict of the United States versus Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and virtually the rest of world. However, the Muslim community sees the United States as the Great Satan and the conflict as a Crusade of Judeo-Christians against Islam and this as a religious life and death struggle and not a political one. If the Palestinians were to become a nation today, nothing would change. If the old Ottoman Empire were to be reconstituted and Israel dissolved, nothing would change because the problem isn’t political but RELIGIOUS. Western technology is introducing concepts unacceptable to Islam but desired by the people – or at least some of them. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, open sexuality (not necessarily a good thing), capitalism, and an openness not available in Islamic countries, are all things introduced by the US. Satan is the tempter and that is why the US is called the Great Satan – we tempt the people to do things not acceptable to Islamic law. It is our liberty to do as we please, to say what we choose, and to treat everyone equally that brings us into conflict with Islam. They see that they are in a life and death struggle and we don’t really even understand what the fight is all about other than they hate us and are attacking us but most Americans don’t have a clue as to why.
And this brings us to the “Humanists”, whom I think start from an admirable position but go woefully astray. If I understand what Humanists are all about, I think they essentially love mankind and view every human life as sacred. This translates to feed the poor, protect the innocent, clothe the naked, and essentially do God’s work. I cannot argue this position because I think any good person (Christian, Jew, or whatever) would agree with it. Unfortunately too many of the self-described Humanists lack discrimination or an understanding of Evil and what is meant by protecting the innocent. To digress for a moment I think that the significance of the Military Chorus singing the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” after 9-11 was totally lost on the rest of the world and certainly the terrorists. The fact is this hymn was tantamount to a declaration of War and a statement of resolve that we as a nation were aroused and nothing would deter us from revenge and victory, but back to my point.
Too many Humanists seem to feel the taking of any life is evil even if it is in retaliation to a heinous crime. Hence we have those who argue against the death penalty and any military action for any reason. God turned Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden for violating His law and marked Cain for the same reason. God has punished people and nations ever since then. For good to flourish evil must be resisted and sometimes at great cost and the current situation in Iraq is no exception.
The argument could be made that the US (and certainly the UN) can be faulted for not acting sooner. Saddam Hussein was evil incarnate and should have been destroyed long before. Certainly war is a terrible thing and the ongoing assassinations of our soldiers, is terrible but it is not a reason for not toppling Hussein or for leaving the job half done. After all Iraq is roughly the size of California and the number of murders and crimes committed in California in a day would exceed the casualties in Iraq and no one is calling for a mass exodus from California so the criminals can run the state. So the Humanists have a point and certainly have their heart in the right place but they need to accept that sometimes good people must give their lives so that others may live in peace.
There has been a great deal of rhetoric recently regarding the War on Terror, Iraq, President Bush, Islam, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press. Of course all of these are tied together into one common thread, which remains unspoken but is in fact the foundation of these topics and that is President Bush is an idiot who stole the election –a man of no vision, an ignorant bumpkin, and a person unworthy of his office. Therefore, let’s address the foundation before we address this house of emotional cards.
First, it was widely known at the time that Jack Kennedy won the Electoral College through stuffed ballot boxes in Chicago (compliments of Mayor Daley) and that Richard Nixon actually won more votes than Kennedy. At the time the Republicans were viewed as just having “sour grapes” and now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats are having a conniption fit and refuse to accept the fact that they lost the electoral college. But that is really only the tip of the iceberg, isn’t it? The real hard spot with the Democrats is the idea that President Bush is a stupid bumpkin and unworthy of his office. The only basis for this assertion seems to be his relative inarticulateness coupled with his down home pronunciations and malapropisms. The focus seems to be on his delivery and not on his message and when his message is understood, it seems to send the intelligentsia into paroxysms of anger due to its directness and lack of subtlety. Once again though the message is lost in the focus on delivery and few seem willing to attack the message or even demonstrate that it is incorrect, so let me briefly summarize the message:
God exists and must be acknowledged (an arch crime in liberal circles)
Evil exists and must be resisted, with force if necessary (liberals don’t acknowledge evil exists because that is too judgmental)
Terrorists are murderers and not freedom fighters
Once you undertake a task see it through (liberals believe that anything that doesn’t provide personal pleasure isn’t worth doing)
The UN is a failure and cannot be relied on (liberals think that the US should always bow to the international community even if it isn’t in our best interest)
It is the duty of the President to act in the best interest of the United States regardless of international opinions
That key leadership positions should be filled by the best people available and listened to but the decision remains with the President not political hacks and the media.
That the people who earn the money deserve to keep their money
Capitalism is good and it drives prosperity while socialism is bad and drags the economy down
The unvarnished truth may be bitter but is necessary and less painful in the long term.
Of course it is the last point that drives the liberal media into a frenzy because the President calls Yasser Arafat what he is – a liar, a cheat, a murderer, and a terrorist. He calls brutal dictators “EVIL” and the nations they lead – EVIL. The fact that these are true statements is lost in the hullabaloo over the sheer nerve of the man to tell the truth without any tactful euphemisms. No one seems to feel these statements aren’t true – it just that they aren’t tactful and they make people mad at us as if being liked by Satan was something to be desired, but let’s mush on to the house of cards.
First let’s discuss the recent hue and cry over how Freedom of the Press is being attacked and suppressed by the current administration. Precisely how this is being accomplished is hard to understand since the press continues to print scurrilous lies, doctored photos, and half truths about the very administration that they claim is suppressing them. I suspect that the root of this accusation lies in two places. First, increasingly the press is being called to task, (and court) over their lies and half truths and are suffering the consequences. The free ride they have had for years is being undermined by the Internet and they are struggling against their loss of control. The fact that they are out of touch with the majority of Americans is lost on them since they never leave their cozy little world on the Coasts. Secondly, their circulation is declining as people walk away from them because they no longer trust what they print. The shriller they get the more they lose and they simply don't grasp that they have lost all credibility. This is viewed as a right wing conspiracy to control the news as if the left wing weren't already controlling the news through omission and spinning facts. Of course this is exacerbated by the administration simply ignoring them and taking their message directly to the people.
Freedom of Speech is certainly an issue and it seems ironic that the very people who are now crying the loudest are the very ones who have created the situation. It was the elite media and the liberal left who broadened the concept of freedom of speech to include every offensive and degrading thing society has to offer. I am bombarded every day with foul language coming into my home via TV. Pornography is rampant and every movie seems to have an obligatory nude and graphic sex scene with these scenes becoming more graphic each day. All of this was brought about by “freedom of speech” suits via the ACLU. However, the boomerang seems to have come home because this has now been broadened into “the right not to be offended” and a level of political correctness that is astounding. While I might call you a C**KS**Ker and not be charged even with rudeness because I am just exercising my right of free speech but if I were to call you a C**KS**King Nigger I could go to jail for racial threats and intimidation. Of course this is an extreme example but the reality is worse. The Confederate Flag is now offensive and no longer protected as free speech or free expression. The Ten Commandments are offensive and no longer protected. I can no longer use the term Fireman, Mailman, Councilman, or Congressman for fear of offending someone and someone is always offended. So the very group who has created this situation is now yelling foul. Well I for one am sick and tired of political correctness and tired of having my rights trampled so a group of uncivil barbarians can assail me with rude speech, foul language, and coarse behavior. So any attempt to restore some semblance of balance and civility is viewed as a suppression of free speech. Well some of that speech needs to be suppressed. But let’s move on to the next point.
To the average American we are engaged in a political conflict of the United States versus Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and virtually the rest of world. However, the Muslim community sees the United States as the Great Satan and the conflict as a Crusade of Judeo-Christians against Islam and this as a religious life and death struggle and not a political one. If the Palestinians were to become a nation today, nothing would change. If the old Ottoman Empire were to be reconstituted and Israel dissolved, nothing would change because the problem isn’t political but RELIGIOUS. Western technology is introducing concepts unacceptable to Islam but desired by the people – or at least some of them. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, open sexuality (not necessarily a good thing), capitalism, and an openness not available in Islamic countries, are all things introduced by the US. Satan is the tempter and that is why the US is called the Great Satan – we tempt the people to do things not acceptable to Islamic law. It is our liberty to do as we please, to say what we choose, and to treat everyone equally that brings us into conflict with Islam. They see that they are in a life and death struggle and we don’t really even understand what the fight is all about other than they hate us and are attacking us but most Americans don’t have a clue as to why.
And this brings us to the “Humanists”, whom I think start from an admirable position but go woefully astray. If I understand what Humanists are all about, I think they essentially love mankind and view every human life as sacred. This translates to feed the poor, protect the innocent, clothe the naked, and essentially do God’s work. I cannot argue this position because I think any good person (Christian, Jew, or whatever) would agree with it. Unfortunately too many of the self-described Humanists lack discrimination or an understanding of Evil and what is meant by protecting the innocent. To digress for a moment I think that the significance of the Military Chorus singing the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” after 9-11 was totally lost on the rest of the world and certainly the terrorists. The fact is this hymn was tantamount to a declaration of War and a statement of resolve that we as a nation were aroused and nothing would deter us from revenge and victory, but back to my point.
Too many Humanists seem to feel the taking of any life is evil even if it is in retaliation to a heinous crime. Hence we have those who argue against the death penalty and any military action for any reason. God turned Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden for violating His law and marked Cain for the same reason. God has punished people and nations ever since then. For good to flourish evil must be resisted and sometimes at great cost and the current situation in Iraq is no exception.
The argument could be made that the US (and certainly the UN) can be faulted for not acting sooner. Saddam Hussein was evil incarnate and should have been destroyed long before. Certainly war is a terrible thing and the ongoing assassinations of our soldiers, is terrible but it is not a reason for not toppling Hussein or for leaving the job half done. After all Iraq is roughly the size of California and the number of murders and crimes committed in California in a day would exceed the casualties in Iraq and no one is calling for a mass exodus from California so the criminals can run the state. So the Humanists have a point and certainly have their heart in the right place but they need to accept that sometimes good people must give their lives so that others may live in peace.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Bush Bashing
The Bush Bashing continues and there is this continuing misconception that he is dumb as a rock, but I disagree. True he is a poor speaker but not being articulate is not the same as being stupid. He is actually a very intelligent man and an excellent executive. Having spent a great deal of time in senior level positions (near CEO's of Fortune 500 companies) plus having been trained as a leader and having a Master's degree in Management, I feel I know an executive when I see one. Bush has surrounded himself with some very intelligent and highly experienced people. He solicits their opinion and seeks opinions differing from his own. He makes the decisions and takes the heat accordingly. The irony is that when he has listened to Powell, whom the internationalists love, it has always backfired because the international community has no desire to solve problems they see as America's. Instead they are attempting to hide their involvement in most of these problems and are doing as much as they can to embarrass Bush and "teach America a lesson". However, the President's conduct in the face of these attacks has demonstrated (to me at least) that he is an excellent leader and manager. He also has a firm grasp on the International situation and what it takes to make diplomacy work. What few people seem to realize is that we are involved in a sea change relative to power centers. While this hasn't become totally visible it is underway and will become more evident with time. Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld apparently recognize this and are acting accordingly.
Since the fall of the Roman Empire, European politics has been dominated by France, England, Spain, and to a lesser extent Italy. By the 19th Century the power centers were Germany, France, and England and everyone else was an also ran. These countries and Western Europe in general have been dominated by socialism and socialist policies. They tout their democratic principles but in fact they pander to the masses and their economies are slowly sinking into non-competitiveness. The EU is their attempt to staunch the decline but ironically that is what is contributing to the sea change because the power is shifting to Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, and the Balkans. These are the people who have shed communism and are not likely to embrace socialism, which increases their competitiveness. As their economic strength increases so does their power and influence. France in particular is attempting to bully them into line but that isn't likely to work in the long run. The problem is so many people don't look into the future but look into the past and then back into the future expecting everything to remain the same. It won't and it isn't. France and Germany are locked into some social policies they can't change and the Bush policies are putting huge pressure on them. The internationalists think Bush is wrong because the French and Germans hate us -- that is old thinking because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant on the world stage. The reality is they no longer have financial wherewithal to maintain their socialist policies and field any significant fighting force. The truth of the matter is both of these countries have allowed their military to decline and are approaching obsolescence. The President and his advisors clearly see this so Bush doesn't care very much about these declining states and is focusing on the future power centers, which will have greater importance to the US in this century than France or Germany. Now everyone says Bush is wrong because he is stupid. First, I don't think he is wrong and secondly, the policy shift is probably coming from Rice, supported by Powell and Rumsfeld. Bush is simply executing on their recommendations, to call him stupid is to misinterpret what is going on. His strength is to listen to his advisors and act -- not to invent policy and pass it on to them.
Kerry continues to rant and rave and attempts to justify his lack of commitment on misinterpretations and distoritions. He is a hollow man -- devoid of any sincere belief in anything but himself. He is Clinton lite -- He will say and do whatever is necessary to gain and keep power. He has no strong belief in anything other than himself. His track record is horrible and amply demonstrates my assertions. He votes for the war and then votes against the funding. He justifies this on some sort of pseudo-moral ground but it looks to me like an effort to cause Bush to fail or at least to embarrass him. He had no compunction about jumping onboard with Jane Fonda and the VVAW. He betrayed his fellow soldiers for his personal power seeking not for any moral belief. He is a hollow man. The democrats do have some honorable men but unfortunately Kerry isn't one of them and Edwards brings new dimension to the term light weight. He has no government experience, no military experience, and no business experience -- what could possibly qualify him to be a Senator much less run the country?
Since the fall of the Roman Empire, European politics has been dominated by France, England, Spain, and to a lesser extent Italy. By the 19th Century the power centers were Germany, France, and England and everyone else was an also ran. These countries and Western Europe in general have been dominated by socialism and socialist policies. They tout their democratic principles but in fact they pander to the masses and their economies are slowly sinking into non-competitiveness. The EU is their attempt to staunch the decline but ironically that is what is contributing to the sea change because the power is shifting to Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, and the Balkans. These are the people who have shed communism and are not likely to embrace socialism, which increases their competitiveness. As their economic strength increases so does their power and influence. France in particular is attempting to bully them into line but that isn't likely to work in the long run. The problem is so many people don't look into the future but look into the past and then back into the future expecting everything to remain the same. It won't and it isn't. France and Germany are locked into some social policies they can't change and the Bush policies are putting huge pressure on them. The internationalists think Bush is wrong because the French and Germans hate us -- that is old thinking because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant on the world stage. The reality is they no longer have financial wherewithal to maintain their socialist policies and field any significant fighting force. The truth of the matter is both of these countries have allowed their military to decline and are approaching obsolescence. The President and his advisors clearly see this so Bush doesn't care very much about these declining states and is focusing on the future power centers, which will have greater importance to the US in this century than France or Germany. Now everyone says Bush is wrong because he is stupid. First, I don't think he is wrong and secondly, the policy shift is probably coming from Rice, supported by Powell and Rumsfeld. Bush is simply executing on their recommendations, to call him stupid is to misinterpret what is going on. His strength is to listen to his advisors and act -- not to invent policy and pass it on to them.
Kerry continues to rant and rave and attempts to justify his lack of commitment on misinterpretations and distoritions. He is a hollow man -- devoid of any sincere belief in anything but himself. He is Clinton lite -- He will say and do whatever is necessary to gain and keep power. He has no strong belief in anything other than himself. His track record is horrible and amply demonstrates my assertions. He votes for the war and then votes against the funding. He justifies this on some sort of pseudo-moral ground but it looks to me like an effort to cause Bush to fail or at least to embarrass him. He had no compunction about jumping onboard with Jane Fonda and the VVAW. He betrayed his fellow soldiers for his personal power seeking not for any moral belief. He is a hollow man. The democrats do have some honorable men but unfortunately Kerry isn't one of them and Edwards brings new dimension to the term light weight. He has no government experience, no military experience, and no business experience -- what could possibly qualify him to be a Senator much less run the country?
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Some Observations
I saw the trailer for the movie "The Aviator" yesterday. This movie stars Leonardo Di Caprio as Howard Hughes but Di Caprio can't act -- never could act. He makes Al Gore look dynamic and exciting. It is astonishing how an "actor" can never show any expression at all. He looks like he has facial paralysis. However, apparently a lot of people think his pretty face makes up for his almost total lack of talent.
The first debate is over thank God -- I'm completely sick and tired of this election already. Kerry is a nitwit and power hungry opportunist devoid of any real conviction about anything other than himself. But here again there are a lot of people who see him as the anti-Bush and seem to think that is important. Very weird in my book.
Apparently the Army has decided to finally move against the Islamic murderers in Samarra and hopefully the rest of the Sunni strongholds aren't far behind. What seems to have gone unnoticed is that there was a deputation of 19 civic leaders from Samarra who were pleading with the Iraqi government and the US Army to entger the city and throw these criminals out. Of course this is an important factor that is ignored by the elite media. Reuters in particular (like most Europeans) is so terrified of being attacked by these murderers that they won't say anything that might possibly offend them. The press did report that someone (read Sunni's) blew up a Shi'ite Mosque in Pakistan yesterday. The liberals of course see this as evidence of escalating violence and proof that "we are losing the war on terror". While it does show an increasing level of violence from a military stand point it also shows their growing weakness. They (the murderers) are attacking anyone who disagrees with them and are being forced to attack softer and softer targets -- Mosques and children. This position regarding their weakness is further bolstered by the recent blatherings of Ayman Sawahiri calling for all Muslims to rise up against the Crusaders even if their leaders are killed. To me this shows that we are having an impact on them across the board.
We are in World War III and have been for 25 years and this could easily go on for another 25 years. It is religious in origin and it represents the thousand year old struggle between the Shia and the Sunni's and the struggle of Islam to crush and overthrow Christianity and Judeism. Islam is a violent religion.
The first debate is over thank God -- I'm completely sick and tired of this election already. Kerry is a nitwit and power hungry opportunist devoid of any real conviction about anything other than himself. But here again there are a lot of people who see him as the anti-Bush and seem to think that is important. Very weird in my book.
Apparently the Army has decided to finally move against the Islamic murderers in Samarra and hopefully the rest of the Sunni strongholds aren't far behind. What seems to have gone unnoticed is that there was a deputation of 19 civic leaders from Samarra who were pleading with the Iraqi government and the US Army to entger the city and throw these criminals out. Of course this is an important factor that is ignored by the elite media. Reuters in particular (like most Europeans) is so terrified of being attacked by these murderers that they won't say anything that might possibly offend them. The press did report that someone (read Sunni's) blew up a Shi'ite Mosque in Pakistan yesterday. The liberals of course see this as evidence of escalating violence and proof that "we are losing the war on terror". While it does show an increasing level of violence from a military stand point it also shows their growing weakness. They (the murderers) are attacking anyone who disagrees with them and are being forced to attack softer and softer targets -- Mosques and children. This position regarding their weakness is further bolstered by the recent blatherings of Ayman Sawahiri calling for all Muslims to rise up against the Crusaders even if their leaders are killed. To me this shows that we are having an impact on them across the board.
We are in World War III and have been for 25 years and this could easily go on for another 25 years. It is religious in origin and it represents the thousand year old struggle between the Shia and the Sunni's and the struggle of Islam to crush and overthrow Christianity and Judeism. Islam is a violent religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)