Dr. Forbush Thinks

Watergate was about the abuse of presidential power for political gains. Richard Nixon used his power to have his thugs break into the Democrat's offices and steal political information that could be used to preempt the Democrats political strategy. And, the information was used and Richard Nixon won the 1972 presidential election. People have argued that the crime didn’t matter, because he would have won anyway. But, because of his paranoia Nixon thought that it would be better safe than sorry and every tool possible should be used for his success.

The point is that political advertising can influence people, and when you know what the other guy is about to spring on you their advertising can be nullified rather quickly. So, when a political party shows its hand and makes its strategy known the opposition needs to react to these tactics. In the real world this is a fact of politics as usual. This fact of politics doesn’t always produce the best results for the country. For example, Hamas, a known terrorist organization, won a democratic election in Palistine earlier this year. The result of their win resulted in cuts to funding in Palistine from nations who have pledged not to fund terrorist organizations. Was this issue even debated in the elections? People voted against the Fatah, because of corruption, not for Hamas. Political choices are sometimes difficult.

We have similar problems in our democracy. We are moving closer and closer to a one party system where the Republicans are increasingly able to control the wheels of political power. For example, if the Republicans were able to get a super majority in the Senate they could pass any law they wanted without public debate, if they chose to. With the basement level popularity of the president it doesn’t seem likely that they could win six more seats, but who knows what events could happen to change the view of the average American over the next three months.

In the past the Republican Party has been able to win the few extra votes needed by using fear. They used fear to get voters to the polls and vote against same sex marriage. They didn’t need to know what the Democrats were going to do, because the Democrats do the same thing year after year. They tell their base that they can make their lives better, by increasing benefits to them. Americans know what the benefits are, and if times are tough this is an easy sell. But, when times get easy this is a much more difficult sell. If everyone is doing well, who wants to mess with success? As a result, Democrats will stay home and watch TV on that Tuesday in November.

Democracy works when the voters know the truth and decide which path into the future is best for them personally. If the path into the future benefits the majority, then it benefits the country on average. In the modern age of politics however, politicians have increasingly applied Orwellian language to describe what they mean. In practice they are technically accurate in what they say, but the meanings of the words are no longer the generally understood meanings, or combination of words is used to describe something that we have a traditionally negative or positive word commonly used in association with the concept. Using a rarely used word to replace a commonly used word changes the emotional meaning from understood, to not quite understood words. Then the politicians give a new definition to describe an old idea. This “magic” has been used over and over again to convince Americans that they didn’t really understand a concept and then the concept is redefined.

The distortion of the facts is not legally cheating in politics. The distortion of the facts is known as persuasion. And, persuasion is known as a form of debate. When I was growing up the debate team was trained to argue two different styles of debate. There was the fact based debate and the persuasion style debate.

The fact based debate took quite an effort in gathering facts and spitting them out as quickly as possible. Then the second team was required to counter every argument made by the first team. When I was older and I actually judged debate, this style of debate taxed my mental ability to keep up with every argument and make sure that every argument was countered with something. In rebuttal the first team needed to make sure that the facts that weren’t countered were brought forward and rebuttal arguments were made. This type of argument was certainly a tough mental exercise on everyone involved. The solution to the argument was based on the ability to find the proper facts and present them at the proper time. Speed in delivery counted, because the faster you spoke the more facts could be presented. Every fact presented produced an obstacle for the opposition.

In persuasion style debate facts were needed, but not required. The “what my opponent says is not common sense” argument could be used on anything presented. Citing a source detracts from the flow of an argument and isn’t as persuasive as a friendly voice that sounds like it is speaking “common sense.” Persuasive debate is more often the style employed in political campaigns. And, because this style of debate is less dependent on citing the facts it is also most susceptible to distortion of the facts to suit the needs of the speaker. This means that the speaker bears the responsibility to keep the needs of the people above his personal desires. Unfortunately politicians are human and are continually being tempted to take what they have been hired to guard, the common wealth of the people.

What this inevitably means is that facts exist all around us, but the general public does not often access these facts. Instead a few people gifted in creating persuasive arguments from facts are trusted to translate the mountains of facts into common language for the masses. On issues that most people agree with these persuasive arguments are simply read as news or history and eventually become absorbed into American culture. However, when these people disagree these persuasive arguments become the foundation for campaigns and political strategy. The facts don’t always point in only one direction.

An example of this is the Watergate scandal. In the early days of the Watergate scandal little bits and pieces were reported in the news on page three, four or five. These were the facts as they were known, and as they were discovered. Walter Cronkite realized that putting these facts together in a persuasive argument about the corruption of the Nixon administration was an important story. All of the information he presented was part of the public record, but hardly known or understood by the general public. This information about Watergate had been trickling out over several months, but the public had no idea what it meant until Cronkite synthesized it into one major story. Putting it all together in front of 20 million people that gave the go ahead to the rest of the media to dig into the affair and put it on the front page. Cronkite made a persuasive argument that this was an important story and the media should investigate it.

Of course, we have the same situation today. There have been so many things revealed about the Republicans and the Bush administration, that the general public can't see the forest for the trees. The American people know about a corruption scandal, and they know that George W Bush is an oilman. They know that gas prices are higher than they have been in the past. But, no moderate American with credibility is willing to put their reputation on the line and make the persuasive argument that there is a major problem in the Republican Party. But that seems to be the remedy for the extreme polarization that our country is currently suffering from. It seems that it will take someone from right of center to do what Cronkite did with Watergate before the public will be outraged and the media will dig deeper.


-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Here’s an interesting set of data from the Connecticut Senate race. Real Clear Politics does a good job gathering polling data from multiple sources. In general this results in better results. What they do with the data is average the surveys together. In this case, however this was a mistake.

There are three polls in this survey. The Quinnipiac survey taken 08/10 - 08/14 shows Lieberman with a 12 point lead. The other two later surveys, American Res. Group 08/17 - 08/21 and Rasmussen 08/21 had similar results showing Lieberman with a 2 point lead. The average is slightly dishonest saying that Lieberman had a 5.3 point lead. It should be quite clear that the Quinnipiac survey is an outlier.

Of course, you can go look at the data yourself.

It looks like this is shipping up to be a close race.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Sometimes I just wonder where the American people have gone. Are they hiding in their houses waiting for a new day to dawn? Is everyone just too frightened to look outside their homes and take an interest in the world?

Well, I walk down my street and I see the kids outside playing in their yards. I see adults sitting on their front porches drinking beer and wine sharing the time talking with their neighbors. I drop my kids off at school, and pick them up after their activities and I see people doing the same. So, there are Americans who leave their humble abodes, but do they take the time to look around?

Well, I am comforted that quietly 60% or more of the American public disagrees with the job that George W Bush is doing. I am comforted by the fact that finally a majority of Americans actually disagree with the War in Iraq and believe that we should never have started that conflict. So, at least we aren’t very likely to march off to Iran or Syria any time soon. But, then again I felt comforted that George W Bush was seeking support from the UN before he invaded Iraq, and I was disillusioned by the fact that he gave up that course when he knew that he couldn’t get support from the sane members of the security council. So, I worry that my comfort is a false one, cushioned in the platitudes of the pollsters. If George W Bush wants to kill someone, who is going to stop him? If George W Bush wants to invade a country, who is going to stop him? This reality that I am living in is just like the 1930s Europe that allowed Adolph Hitler to invade wherever he saw fit.

In March of 2003 when the war protestors stood up and said “NO!” their shouts fell on deaf ears. The majority of Americans thought that the Republicans knew what they were doing. But, it looks like some of those who supported the invasion have had a change of heart. But, a change of heart doesn’t change anything unless the politicians fear they won’t be elected again. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like much is happening on this front. Instead people are keeping to themselves in the political debate. Maybe they have taken the belief that they just don’t understand the world and they don’t care to think about it any more. This withdrawal from an issue happens in our culture much too often. In fact, it could actually be possible that George W Bush himself is reacting this way. But, he is a public figure required to talk about these things. So, perhaps he just continues to read the script and forget about the whole mess.

There have been quite a few pieces out in the last few days that contemplate what George W Bush is thinking about, or if he is at all. They question the hypocrisy and lies contained in his public statements, and they wonder what might be going on upstairs, as they say. Here, here and here are three.

Of course, those are only a few from the last few days. But, what really gets me is the new spin the White House is trying to play on the intellect of the president. We all know that they have played up George W Bush’s speaking problems and turned them into an advantage for themselves by trying to paint him as a “regular guy.” You know, a regular guys that crashes his bike, chokes on pretzels, tells flatulence jokes and goes to bed early every night. But, lately the spin hasn’t been working out for them so well. So, now they have begun to tell us about the books that George W Bush has been reading.

Apparently, believe it or not, George W Bush has read 50 books this year. And, in his competitive frat boy mentality he is lording his accomplishment over Karl Rove, who has only read 40 this year. The first thing that came to mind when I read this was how every year at my wife’s school there are kids who want to read books that are way over their heads. The kids can call the words pretty well, but the problem comes when you ask them about what they read. These kids have trouble understanding the complexity of the interactions going on in the book as well as comprehending the intricacy of the story. So, I imagine a race between these two men resulting in page turning but little else. Or, perhaps if George was actually interested in a book or two, he could be on the phone with authors and experts on these books asking them questions. But, that doesn’t really seem very likely.

Perhaps George W Bush really is smarter than his campaign manager allows him to let on. I hope this isn’t the case, because that would mean that he really doesn’t care about the 100 plus people being killed in Iraq every day. (How many were killed every day under Saddam Hussein? Is he getting close? If he really is smarter than he lets on, then these people who died in the aftermath of Katrina really didn’t need to died. Every Hezbolla can get relief to the people faster than George W Bush.

So, where are the American people? Why don’t they let their voices be heard? Maybe a little pressure on the congress could prevent more mayhem? Maybe a little money for the opposition Party would frighten the government into working for the public’s interest? Whatever it is, the American people need to make an effort and get their voices heard. If not now, then when? We are a Democracy, and the people who live in a Democracy have a responsibility to learn as much as they and inform everyone they know.



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

I wrote a piece a while back about “push polling” in the Democratic Primary where I was voting this year. I received a phone survey that was certainly biased and spreading misinformation about one of the candidates. I received a comment from someone who told me that what I described was not a “Push Poll” because it was not a short question containing the attack just before the election, but it was a more lengthy survey containing the misinformation. Either way, I say that this is a deceptive practice meant to influence voters and it should be illegal. The poll I got was from a Democrat in my district that I will never vote for, because of this. And, she won the primary and is running against a Republican that will surely loose. It doesn’t matter to me because I just won’t support this type of campaigning.

So, when I read this piece over at Talking Points Memo I thought that I should share it with everyone just in case they happen to live in the district and they would like to know about these dirty tricks.





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Indecent means offensive to good taste or public moral values. But, many things are offensive and we allow them to be broadcast on the TV, radio and other media. So, the question becomes, why was Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl such a traumatic event that it resulted in increased fines by the FCC by such large amounts, but the FCC made no effort to increase fines for disguised advertisements masquerading as news pieces? These Video News Releases (VNRs) are surely more destructive to our society than a revealed breast on national TV.

The crux of this argument tends to come down to the effect of indecency on children. This argument does not hold water in my opinion. Let’s take the 2004 Super Bowl incident and examine what Miss Jackson’s indiscretion had in my household.

Our family actually was watching the Super Bowl, as we normally do each year if we happen to get the TV station on which it is broadcast. Our family does not subscribe to satellite or cable TV, so we are limited whatever our TV antenna is able to pick up, which isn’t very much. Since we have four children, the six of us were watching the game. When half time started people were moving around, watching TV, getting snacks etc… My wife looked at the TV and the performance happening on TV. My daughter claimed that they were poor excuses for dancers, and the choreography was lame. Halftime finished and the game started and we went back to watching the game. No one in my family even noticed any indecency performed on stage at the Super Bowl. It wasn’t until the next day in the newspaper that I even heard mention of it.

The point of my story is that the effect of a naked breast broadcast on national TV into my home had absolutely no effect on my family or me. Well, perhaps the video that was put on the Internet with all of the still shots magnified the event to something larger, but that was something else. The actual broadcast event had absolutely no effect.

Let’s imagine that the TV station had used their instant reply technology, which they did not, in order to point out what most people didn’t see. Would that have been an issue? Of course it would be an issue with the FCC law, but I am pretty sure that it still wouldn’t have been an issue in my family. The point is how is a naked female breast actually indecent? How is it offensive? It may not be in good taste, but like I have already said, there are many things broadcast on network TV that are not in good taste.

Let us look at the harm to children argument and try to find the harm. If a child of any age sees a female breast on TV, what harm has happened? If a young girl sees a female breast exposed in a locker room while someone is undressing the mother is certainly not going to be running to the police or suing the person for harm, right. So, I am guessing that the only harm may occur when males are exposed to the female breast. So, I still don’t understand what this harm might be, so I can only deduce that it must be derived from something sexual in nature. So, we could rule out any harm to prepubescent children, because they have no sexual interest, only curiosity. So, I am guessing that the harm must somehow be related to teenaged boys who may get a glimpse of an actual female breast. But, I am still confused as to how this glimpse may somehow harm these teenagers, especially if one considers how these children talk among themselves about these things.

If someone knows of any real harm derived from a child viewing a female breast, I am certainly open to your comments, but at this point I see no harm at all. Instead, I am guessing that the entire problem with this issue is derived from societal taboos. The culture has created a taboo of disliking the exposure of female breasts, therefore culture demands that it doesn’t happen. The rarity of the occurrence makes every incident more unusual. Therefore, the weight of the Janet Jackson event became so immense because of the rarity of such an event. If, for example, American culture did not have such a strong taboo against this, then the Janet Jackson incident would have been irrelevant. If, as is the case in Europe, women sunbathed topless on the beach or even played volleyball topless in the park the occasion to see a topless woman would not be so rare and a little flash at the 2004 Super Bowl would have gone unnoticed.

So, it is my conjecture that the taboo itself has created its own cultural notion of offensive. There is nothing harmful to children about this, but perhaps there is more. Why would we have such a cultural taboo in the first place? Some might argue that the existence of topless women somehow objectifies women. But some women go out of their way to objectify themselves in other ways, and we don’t have taboos against these things. Rather, the American culture tends to praise this sort of objectification. Maybe it all comes down to a much simpler explanation. I am guessing that adults that have children are the people effected by the potential bare breasted women showing themselves in public. Imagine a dad with his child in the park and a topless woman walks by. The child turns to his dad and says: “Why do women have big chests and men don’t?” The possibility of embarrassment from being asked this question in public may actually be the root of the taboo. The historical origin of the taboo may have come out of Puritan American history, but the fear of being asked this question in public may have been the main reason for keeping this taboo. And, because of this fear of embarrassment the FCC raised fines on indecency, but did not do anything on the fines for using VNRs as undocumented news stories.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Terror is the point of Terrorism. Terror is uncontrolled fear in which terrorists choose to create in our society. The number of deaths is not the point of terrorism, the amount of terror inflicted upon the American people is the point. Killing a lot of people inside the United States can create that fear. Making huge building fall killing large numbers of people can also create that fear. But, if terrorists went around loosening the nuts on automobiles around the country killing 5000 unsuspecting people, someone might notice, but would it create the same level of terror? The point is not the death, but the fear of death.

So, how can we defeat the terrorist’s objective? What can we do to make the efforts of the terrorists as minimal as possible. The answer is: “Be Not Afraid!” When those of us who are afraid of these people remind us of the fear they inflicted the terrorists win a little more.

With this in mind we should all be sickened by the efforts of the Bush administration to continue to remind us to be afraid of the terrorists. Every time they bring up the specter of 9/11/2001 we should remember that more than 42,000 people were killed in automobile accidents that year. We need to remember that 28.5% of all deaths that year were caused by heart disease, not terrorism. We need to remember that 400,000 deaths that year were related to tobacco use. If we really should be fearful of death we should change the way we live. And, if we refuse to change the way we live, then we need to shun those who dwell on terrorism as a real fear.

I am not saying that we should ignore terrorist and let them commit their heinous crimes. No, we should battle them as the criminals that they are. But what I am saying is that we should not fear them. If we fear the terrorists more than we fear death by heart attack or stroke then the terrorists have won their objective. If we fear death by terrorism while we sit in front of the TV and smoke a cigarette eating fried foods and making excuses as to why we don’t exercise, then the terrorist have won the battle of fear.

When we over react to the terrorist threat by giving up our liberty, the terrorists have won. For, why don’t we outlaw all of the objects of death in our society? We don’t outlaw guns, liqueur or tobacco because freedom is an American right. So, why do go to such extremes as to spy on our citizens, or invade sovereign countries? More soldiers have died in Iraq than lives saved by that debacle.

Just remember when your leaders tell you to worry about the terrorist threat and provide little money for coronary disease research or health education they are working for the terrorists.


Here are some statistics for the causes of death: here.
-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Right Wing bloggers and Right Wing nuts have been using the term Islamofascist for quite some time, but last week the leader of the “free world,” George W Bush, used the term for the first time. So, why would George W Bush sink to the level of extremist fear mongers? And, why would he do it at this time?

The very same Right Wing Extremists who had used this term, were the very same Right Wing Extremists who had dismissed Liberals for bringing up any parallel between the Bush administration’s propaganda war and the Nazi propaganda war during the 1930s. The point is that political argument is filled with emotion, and there isn’t anything in American cultural that is more emotional that World War II. This is because many people who fought in that war are still alive and many people still romanticize the patriotism of the “Greatest Generation.”

Is it any wonder then that any emotionally charge argument tends to end with one side invoking the Nazi Specter to win an argument. The fact is that the Nazis and Adolph Hitler have come to represent the pure embodiment of evil. This representation has become so big that one can not see the ideology that this movement actually represented. Bloggers on the right have actually proposed that the evil of the Nazis was what the liberals he hated must have been working toward. He believed that Hitler was the pure embodiment of liberal thought. Obviously this poor ignorant blogger did not have a clue about what the ideology of fascism actually was. If he knew that fascism was a form of extremist nationalism, this extremist nationalist “patriot” might have given pause, at least for a moment. But, reality is almost never logical and people tend not to recognize their own “evil” tendencies. After all, how could patriotism be bad?

I recently wrote about how patriotism can be bad in my piece on Michael Savage. People like Michael Savage, the Minutemen and other nationalist groups have created their personal vision for a future America. They see an American culture, an American language and a military guarding the border from anyone who might enter the country bringing different culture or language with them. This idea is eerily familiar to the Nazi dream. This parallel can easily be corrected by telling those who question it that American culture is superior to German Nazi culture, so there is no need to worry. Of course, every nation believes that they have an ideal culture, or they would correct their culture. No one says, we eat crappy food but we can’t do anything about it because this is our culture. No, Americans say McDonalds serves the best food in the world, which’s why there are so many McDonalds around the world.

So, if we look at the current situation with the Bush administration we can begin to understand why they might decide to play the Nazi card. First of all George W Bush is down in the polls, perhaps at the lowest opinion of any president in US history. The polls show that 44% of Americans strongly disapprove of the job that George W Bush is doing. Secondly, these people have tied this dissatisfaction with the president to the Republican lead congress who are up for election in November. Third, every strategy that Karl Rove has used in the past to manipulate the people has become less reliable. Whenever this had happened in the past Karl Rove has upped the degree of fear used to garner enough support to win the elections. They used the fear of homosexuals getting married, free abortions for everyone and even the image of the mushroom cloud to raise the fear level. And, since almost every way of raising the fear level has been used the Nazi Specter is the only that remains. So, by calling the terrorists Islamofascists he cleverly creates the idea that the War on Terror is equal to World War II, without actually saying those words.

If George W Bush or any credible person in the Bush administration were to say that the War on Terror were actually equal to World War II he would immediately be asked why the American people were not being asked to sacrifice like those members of the “Greatest Generation.” Where is the draft? Where is the build up of munitions? Where are the enormous Manhattan style projects and the enormous efforts to undermine these Islamofascists? Where is the effort to raise the money to battle this evil blight? If George W Bush were to answer thee questions honestly he would need to either admit that the threat was not that serious, or he should actually do these things to actually fight this enormous threat.

So, but calling the terrorists Islamofascists George W Bush has been able to raise the level of fear without being required to do anything about it. This is the clever action of Karl Rove. Since Karl Rove’s personal fear of prosecution has been reduced he is now able to raise the fear of the American people in order to get the Republicans re-elected to congress.

The interesting thing about this is that the entire objective of the terrorists is to raise the fear of the American people. Terrorists actually only kill a few people, but they kill them in very dramatic ways that get media coverage. The media coverage evokes fear in the American people, and this fear is the objective. Terrorists hope that the fear will make the American people change there minds and give Israel back to the Palestinians, or give the money from the Middle East oil back to the Arab people. And when the Americans show their fear they give the terrorists more hope that they will win. This hope translates into more recruits for the Islamofascist cause. When White officials and George W Bush repeat the deeds of the terrorists the terrorists actually get even more bang for their bombs. In this way the Bush administration has actually done quite a lot for the cause of the terrorists in promoting their deeds.

It is such a crazy world that we live in where those who claim to be doing the most for the nation are actually doing the most for the terrorists. But like the old saying goes, “It’s all in the marketing.”






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Islamofascists, Right Wing Nuts, War on Terror

Every once in a while we should continue to stand back and look at the big picture and see that we are still moving in the “right” direction. Are the objects that we have set for ourselves still in the crosshairs of our action? This is something that our president leaves for the experts that he has hired. However, just because our president chooses to ignore a review of where we are and where we should be going does not mean that the rest of us can’t stand back and look at the situation.

We have been fighting terrorism since terrorism was invented. Terrorism is the only means left to a small minority that isn’t being heard, but wishes to make its voice known. There were those during the French revolution that used barbaric acts to put the aristocracy out of power. The British soldiers viewed the American revolutionaries as terrorists, because they didn’t follow the established rules of war. Terrorists were celebrated when they were on your side, as was the case with Guy Fox. Or they were deemed the enemy when they were out to destroy civilization, or a city or a leader. For the most part, terrorists are disruptive, but they cause fewer deaths than cancer or traffic accidents. The point of terror is to create fear, and that fear causes the system to bend to the will of the terrorists.

So, what do the Islamic Fascists want? Why do they dislike America?

I am not saying that we should give the terrorists what they want to appease them and make them stop their attacks. I am saying that we need to look at the big picture and see if there isn’t another way to make their movement weak.

What makes a young person willing to give their life for a cause? For example, why would a high school senior sign up for the US military after their graduation? The answer stems from the fact that we have bred patriotism into our culture and romanticized the idea of defending our country with ones life. But obviously America is not the only organization in the world that uses this technique to attract the young into a dangerous job. Patriotism is based on the mythology of national heroes. Many of these heroes went beyond the call of duty and voluntarily gave their life for the cause, be it a war or another dangerous service. These romantic ideals are based on emotions that are stirred by whatever means necessary, including religious stories and national pride.

The leaders of the terrorist groups have goals in mind, but their followers are not necessarily as well informed. The troops don’t need to know the objective or the plans. All they need to do is agree to follow and do what they are asked to do. If the leader can keep the romance alive, the followers will be compelled to do what they are asked to do. And, how does the terrorist leader do that?

Currently the strongest argument that the terrorist leaders have is the idea that God wants all believers to fight evil. It is sad that the fundamentalist Christians in our country start with the same premise and reach a different conclusion. These terrorists look at the world and they see the actions of the US government to be opposed to their understanding of the will of God. Western countries lead by the US encourages materialism to such an extreme that it is unimaginable to these people. They look at the riches of Western society and they look at the suffering of their own people and they know for certain that God must be displeased with the materialism of the western world. And, the fundamentalist Christians in the western world mostly agree with this same sentiment. These same terrorist leaders see the western companies coming into their land, taking the oil and leaving their country in continued poverty, or in some cases the oil companies enrich the aristocrats in these countries separating them even further from the poor and religious folks in the country.

The terrorists have created a romantic myth about how God wants them to destroy the oppressor and non-religious. Therefore, attacking the center of economic power in the US, the Wall Street area of Manhattan was of prime importance for these people. And, yesterday’s discovery of a plan to take down 10 airplanes filled with wealthy American and British materialists fits right into their thinking.

So, we come to the question, has the Bush administration’s strategy to combat these people help the cause? Well, the initial attack on Afghanistan that scattered the terrorists from their training camps and took the Taliban from power was certainly a step in the right direction. The Taliban shared the same ideology as the terrorists. The Taliban was a state institution that allowed it to sponsor the terrorists by giving them a place to train and organize. Iran and Syria also share the same ideology as the terrorists we are fighting.

But, it was clearly a miscalculation to invade and occupy the country of Iraq. Saddam Hussein did not share the same ideology with the terrorists. He may not have liked the Americans because of the 1991 Iraq War, but he was lukewarm to the religious zealots from Islam. In fact, the secularization of Iraq was the key to Saddam being able to maintain cooperation between the factions in Iraq. When the US invaded Iraq we destroyed the stability of the society and we encouraged the separate groups to organize and fight each other. This leads to an opportunity for Iran to support the Shia faction within Iraq. Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism was able to encourage the creation of religious civil war in Iraq. The result can only be more influence for Iran in Iraqi politics as time goes on.

But, now we have the Israeli war in Lebanon. Syria and Iran are once again in the driver seat here. Win or loose it doesn’t matter for Iran. Hezbolla serves as a reminder of what the west is doing in the Middle East. This war is another major recruiting tool for the terrorists. These guys just point to the conflict and say, “We need your help to fight these infidels.” The more destruction of life and property continues to prove that the terrorists are right, the west is evil. This will never end if destruction is the only tool being used here. Israel and the United States continue to prove the terrorists right and show the world how they were being mistreated. And, attention to their cause is the number one priority that invoked the need to blow up buildings and airplanes in the beginning. The Bush administration continues to give the terrorists what they want, publicity.

Obviously it would have made more sense to attack Iran and/or Syria instead of Iraq, but what is done can not be undone.

So, to recap, the US has sent troops to Iraq, which has resulted in the strengthening of the terrorist movement and proof to young people that the US is evil as the terrorists had said. Recruitment of young naïve religious zealots has become easier. The romantic idea of giving your life for the cause has been raised to another level. The war in Lebanon has proven that a terrorist group like Hezbolla can stand up to the once idealized power of Israel. Through all of this, Iran has gained higher status in the Middle East as the respected opposition to the evil of western materialism. On the bright side, we have done a good job in Afghanistan by leaving the Taliban to regroup as we sent our troops to Iraq and only left a few behind to help out - NOT! If we have done anything positive in the Middle East I would certainly love to hear about it.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Compare these two statements meant to sum up the over all positions of two candidates running against each other for a seat in congress:

Candidate #1:

Parents are working harder to keep up with the cost of living, taking them away from the home and family. The government must ensure the economy works for all, giving parents the time and the resources to raise kids with the right values. That means tax cuts for the middle class support for good education and affordable health care. We need a Congress that is on the side of the average family.

Candidate #2:

Good people work hard and try to do the best for their families, but the big government in Washington is raising their taxes and is out of touch with their values. We must keep taxes low so that businesses and families can prosper. We need more help for the traditional family and religious traditions, not a government that thinks homosexual marriage is okay. We need a Congress that is on the side of the average family.

I’m sure that you can guess which candidate is Democrat and which candidate is Republican if you think about it for two seconds.

These are succinct statements covering the same issue from the point of view from the two major American political parties. These statements point to the two major problems that we face in our country today, the economic difficulty of just trying to make ends meet, and the difficulty of trying to raise children with good values. Both parties address this issue, but in different ways.

The Republicans believe that if corporations are given tax breaks, then they will flourish and be able to pay their employees higher wages. The problem with this idea is that it just is not borne out by the real data. Over the last twenty years corporations have made more money and paid their top executives higher and higher wages. But the poor guys on the lower rungs did not make out quite as well. In the 1970s the average executive made 20 times what a lower wage worker in his company made. Today those same executives are now making 180 times as much as the lower wage employee. The tax breaks are good for the wealthy, but the average worker is making less than 20 years ago, if you account for inflation.

The Republicans also tell us that they want the public schools to be allowed to teach morals in school by invoking the Christian Bible, or maybe just prayer to the Christian God. The institution of religion in schools and government are the Republican answer to the decline in moral values in our society.

In would argue with both of these conjectures. First of all, if Republicans believe that the market forces should be allowed to influence the wages of the common worker, why is the market working against the poor so aggressively? Wouldn’t the ideal position of the market be “free” labor? Without government intervention and total influence by business we would continue to move closer and closer to the market ideal of slavery, or indentured servitude, or share cropping. Democrats recognize that there need to be some fundamental protection of the working class from the exploitation of the worker. This same problem with market forces comes into question in the health care industry as well. There is no bound on the amount of money someone is willing to pay in order to have his health. Therefore a wealthy man would spend all of his money to win the battle against a deadly disease. The poor man can not afford the same expensive care and would be doomed to poor health because of his assets. Market forces are not moral in the health care industry and people need to be protected.

Second, on the issue of teaching values to children we need to recognize the roll of the parent in this project. A parent needs to be with their children in order to pass on not only the moral values, but American cultural values to their children. This means that two family incomes should not be a necessity, but only an alternative choice. In the current economy companies have been able to get twice the work for the same amount of pay over the last thirty years. Women that had originally chosen to work are now forced to work just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. This is the destruction of the American family, and its roots are in the sub-living wages that companies now pay to their employees. If wages were raised to one twentieth the average wage of an executive like thirty years ago, then at least one member of the two parent team could find it much easier to stay at home with the children and pass on those family values.

Maybe in November we can get the country back on the right track.



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Family Values, Economics

In the early days of the industrial revolution manufacturing gradually replaced agriculture as the main employment opportunity for those looking for work. Agriculture was always an uncertain way to earn a living. Farmers were at the whim of the weather and what he earned for his crop largely depended on what crops his neighbors grew and how much was in the market place. The prospect of having a job with a constant dependable wage offered security to those who worked the fields in the rural areas of our country. People flocked to the cities to take these manufacturing jobs, which spawned many support services and other jobs which attracted more and more people to the urban areas.

Market forces being what they are allowed for the wages to remain low or even fall as production was increased. The result was cheaper goods, but also lower wages and longer hours for those who worked in these industrial manufacturing jobs. The problem stemmed from the fact that owners could hire workers, but they soon discovered that the over abundance of people migrating to the cities and not finding work were willing to work for any wage in order to keep their family fed. People working in the plants were fired if they didn’t accept the lower wages. The prospect of not eating is strong motivation to take whatever you can get.

As workers were forced to work longer hours for lower wages no solution to the problem seemed to work. But, as necessity is the mother of invention someone finally realized that if all of the workers banded together to not accept a lower wage the factory would not be able to produce its goods and the owner would not make his money. Working together to achieve a fair wage and a reasonable working day was a long hard fight. This cooperation among workers was known as a “union” because the workers were united behind the cause.

Some areas of the United States resisted unions more than other areas. Intimidation by threatening the lives of the people organizing the unions was the main reason for this resistance. The popular tag line by those owners opposed to unions was “right to work.” The owners argued that people should not be required to join an organized union in order to work. The fact that unions needed money to keep an organized effort alive required workers to pay union dues. As time went on people who wanted a job did not see the effectiveness of the union, or know the history of what unions had done for the workers. What they did see was money being taken out of their paycheck every week.

In some areas of the country the money collected by unions became enormous pools of money waiting for strikes that could help negotiate better working conditions. Were there is money crime isn’t far behind. Organized crime was able to skim money from these huge pools of money making the organized crime gangs stronger and the unions less responsive to the needs of the workers.

Unions work for large groups of people who are doing similar jobs every day. One member can fit into the job of another member easily. But as the twentieth century came to a close these types of jobs became less and less prominent. Specialization enabled people to be their own agent and negotiate higher wages based on the need of the company and the skills of the worker. A union of just a few computer programmers isn’t going to halt the operations of a company that makes widgets. The company will use the old software for years if need be, or figure out how to buy software from another source. Small stores can hire a few relatives to replace a few clerks or stockers that may decide to strike.

Currently only 8% of jobs are union jobs. However, 30% of government jobs like teachers and other public employees are union jobs. This enables teachers and government employees to have relatively higher wages than the general population. The Republicans solution to this problem is to propose the destruction of government employee unions. But, I would suggest that the non-union workers in the general population are just not being paid their fair share. This suggestion is born out in the data that shows that the wealthy are getting wealthier, while the middle class is continuing to loose buying power with their wages.

If we continue to follow the current course the Republicans that continue to control our government will continue to work against the American worker and for the American business owner. This is just one more issue that everyone should consider when they go to the polls in November. And, if you care about making a living wage and you were not planning to register or vote, consider changing your mind. We need a government that responds to the needs of the American working class.





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Many of my readers may not realize that I am quite moderate in my political ideology. Lately I have spent a good deal of time fighting the conservative extremists, but that is only the current situation. If liberal extremists were ever to gain the upper hand and begin to dominate the political scene I am sure that everyone would begin to label me a conservative merely for opposing the extremists.

In the United States at this time it is hard to believe that there are any moderates left. This is because the current leadership has suggested that if we are not with the conservative extremists, then we are against them. Besides the fact that this is a false dichotomy, a false choice not offering any other point of view, this idea creates polarization. Polarization means that there are few moderates who could easily imagine the two points of view and be persuaded by either side. When the president tells us that we are either with him or against him, then we are forced to choose sides, even if we normally would simply choose to support either side depending on the issue.

Now, the problem with politics is that many of the issues are quite emotionally charged. It is quite difficult to discuss many political issues, simply because many people have decided where they stand based on emotion, and not by thinking about how the issue fits into the over all picture of our society. But, I have thought of another way to think about conservatives and liberals in a way that illustrates how moderates fit into the picture.

Saturday night I found myself at family oriented dance with a DJ who professed to be able to get everyone dancing. Now, the group that I was with was a quite diverse group of individuals with a wide range of dancing ability and motivation. Current American culture has many types of music and people tend to like and dislike quite a large portion of the music available. This being said, I was interested in how the DJ was going to be able to satisfy this large group of diverse people.

Well, the DJ did what I had expected, she started playing each genre of music and shifted from one to another until she found music that people danced to. She played 50s music, classic Rock’n’Roll, country music, rap music, disco music, popular standards and a few songs that I wasn’t quite sure how they fit in. What I saw was that there were songs that lots of people danced to and there were songs that very few people danced to, but they weren’t divided by genre. If a lot of people danced to one song, then the DJ would choose to play anther song from that genre and another. If the song weren’t liked, the dancers would fade from the dance floor. There was one group of songs that one group of people got up and danced to, regardless of genre. Those were the songs with prescription dances that went with the songs. These songs were in every genre, “The Twist,” “The Chicken Dance,” “The Slide,” and I’m sure everyone has their own special song that has a special dance that goes with it. Then there was another group that generally was opposed to these prescribed dances. They generally liked to do their own thing out on the dance floor to songs that had a “good beat.” They weren’t bad dancers, they just liked to do their own thing.

I am not saying that people who like one type of dancing and not another should be labeled as conservative or liberal, but for the purpose of this discussion dancing could be considered a political issue for a moment. The conservative side of any issue is the side that relies on well-proven rules. Not following the rules is punished and following the rules tends to become more important that the issue itself as a person considering the issue is more conservative. So, I could label those people who liked the dances that had set rules for each song as conservative dancers. And, the people who liked to dance to anything else and not follow any particular prescription as liberal. With this definition, one can consider other people who don’t exactly fit into these categories. Of course, there are those who don’t like to dance at all, and they are simply the non-participants. There are people who just like to dance, and they don’t really care if the song has a prescribed dance or not. They see both sides of the issue and appreciate both points of view. When a song with a prescribed dance is played, then they do the dance. When other songs are played they ad-lib and dance how they please.

But, even though the next groups didn’t exist at my dance, these are also possibilities. In fact, these cases are rare, but they make themselves known. There are those who dislike the idea of prescribed dances so much that they choose to dance in their own way. This may not be a problem with the chicken dance, but it might be a problem at a Country and Western Dance Hall when they choose not to do the Texas Two Step or a waltz when those types of music are being played.

In fact, when I was in Texas we had some friends from Europe visit for a few days. These two girls wanted to dance, so we took them to a small club one evening. There might have been six people on the dance floor, and before we could say anything these two girls got up and started to dance with each other to some popular Rock song. I didn’t think twice about it, because this is common place in the civilized world, but in Texas this was a problem. The owner of the club came up to our table, and told us that the girls could not dance with each other, and we needed to set them straight, so to say. Apparently every song in Texas has a prescription that only one man and one woman are allowed to dance together, unless it’s a line dance.

Which brings me to the other extremist group in the dance issue. Those are the people who want to prescribe rules for every song. For example, men and women dance together. Men and women can not touch more than their hands. And there are many other crazy prescriptions.

Most moderates on the dance issue would not really care for either of the two extremist views. However, the extremists are vocal and they would like to win others to their cause. The extremists want to persuade moderates by convincing them to accept a rule or reject a rule depending on the situation. But of course moderates from one area that already has some rules in place might feel uncomfortable in a place where these rules are not in place. They might even be considered extremists trying to impose there rules when they are seen doing what they judge to be normal in their own place. The two girls I wrote about were not trying to be extremists, they were only be European moderates in a conservative place. Some moderate Texans might think that Europe or even Cleveland is a morally bankrupt place because girls are often seen dancing together in those places. And, if they were to try to change the rules the moderates would see them as extremists, even if they picked up a few compatriots from the existing extremists from those places.

The point is that common understanding of the rules defines which side of the line one falls on, especially if you are a moderate. I was a moderate and I believe that I still am a moderate. The extremist conservatives are continuing to change the rules. And, with each rule that I oppose I continue to fall further and further to the left of the commonly understood rules. This means that there are more and more people thrown to this side of the line. The question then becomes, do the moderates accept or reject the new rules? If moderates are now willing to prohibit same sex dancing it becomes the norm and those who reject the change are no longer moderates on the issue. If the moderates accept the War in Iraq, only extremists will oppose it. If the moderates accept government spying, then only extremists will oppose it. If the moderates agree that bribery and corruption are normal operating procedures, then only extremists will oppose these things.

Here’s to dancing!










-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Culture

Michael Savage is now advertising his radio show with the following tagline: Protect our borders, language, and culture! I don’t have a problem enforcing the borders. If those who want cheap labor want to hire the poor from other countries to in their labor needs, then they need to pass laws that enable them to do it, so that we can account for those who are in our country. If workers from other countries are actually forcing down the price of labor we can’t argue the point without the data.

But, language and culture are another story. When we were in Germany we were harassed by some German skinheads for speaking English in Germany. I would rather not be beat up, so we switched to German until we got off the train. The problem, of course, is that people communicate best in their mother tongue. One’s vocabulary is higher. Ones experience with the language is more numerous. And, people should communicate with each other in the most effective means possible. In fact, if we had been forced to communicate only in German while we were in Germany we would certainly had been at a disadvantage.

For example, a friend of ours went with us to the Hamburg Fish Market early one morning. Many people stay up all night partying, then go to the Fish Market for Breakfast and to shop at the little shops. So, many people do this that they even had a little auction going on when we were there. Our friend was always interested in getting a “good” deal, so winning a bid at an auction could certainly result in a nice discount. So, our friend began to bid in German as is the custom in that country. Unfortunately our friend was taught German by a Bavarian with a strong southern German accent. And, if you combine the southern German accent with an American accent the auctioneer misunderstood a 14 for a 40 in his bid, and our friend was greatly disappointed when he discovered how much he owed. Of course an auction in Germany is never going to be held in English, and an auction in America is never going to be held in German, but the point isn’t that we should make everything in the country multilingual. Instead, we should try to make things that are easy make multilingual, make them multilingual. Where is the harm in that? America should be excepting of other people no matter what language they speak. English isn’t going anywhere very soon anyway.

Now for culture I have an even bigger problem than for language. The little tag line Michael Savage uses makes it sound like culture is as trivial a problem or issue as borders or language. But culture is not so easy, and I certainly don’t want the government regulating my culture.

The first point that I would like to make is that the government can never regulate culture. In fact, culture can and is mainly regulated by families. Mothers and Fathers pass their culture to their children. Or, they elect not to. If they elect not to, then culture comes from the peers that the children hang around with in school and on the playground.

Look at the example of the Jews. They have managed to pass their culture down through the generations for nearly 5000 years. They have passed their culture from generation to generation despite governments that would rather have them not pass their culture to the next generation. The Spanish Inquisition, the Nazi Holocaust, the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities and much more persecution through out the ages were never able to prevent the dissemination of culture to the next generation. And, so if culture is important to the parent, then the culture will be transmitted to the next generation without flaw. Many parents take their children to church and concerts and museums. Many parents teach their children, how to play musical instruments, sing, act and perform. Many parents turn on the TV and have the TV teach their children for them. The culture is what the parents choose it to be for their children.

So, how is it that Michael Alan Weiner would preserve the “American Culture?” And, how would he decide what things were worthy of saving? Would he make film class mandatory so that our children learn to appreciate film? What other things would he deem worthy to be taught to our children? And, what is preventing the parents from telling their children that dreadful phrase, “Don’t worry son, that crap the school is teaching doesn’t really matter. It’s a bunch of crap that they think you should learn, but you will never use it. Just forget it after the test and be done with it. Now lets go do something important like hunting, then we’ll get back in time for Saturday Night WWF.” How can anyone create a uniform American culture with that? But, better yet, why should we?
Every American brings his or her own bit of American culture to the table. And American culture will continue to change as new people grow up and add their own experience to the American experience. Just because some members of the older generation are disappointed in the decline and fall of the horse and buggy does not mean that the American culture is now bad because we don’t have many horse and buggies any more. It is just that people will always become nostalgic for the way things once were. American culture will continue to grow and change as time goes on. We no longer have Fibber McGee and Molly on the radio, but that just means that Fibber and Molly have moved from current culture to past history.

Parents just need to remember that what they teach their children is our American culture and if they don’t like what they see they just need to teach their children what they want the American culture to become. That is what we have done with our kids, and most of them are still functioning to this very day.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Some people laugh at the Amish. Some people respect their will to combat the “progress” of modern American society. I can say just about anything I want about the Amish here on the Internet, because no God fearing Amish person would be caught dead reading my blog, or any blog at all for that matter.

Religion has always had the effect of putting the brakes on progress. Examining the potential effects of “new” ideas and insights on society is important, and it shouldn’t be neglected. The conclusions of those examinations may be debated, and the debate should be public. But, religion should be able to be honest and acknowledge that knowledge is not automatically bad, even if it disagrees with what that religion claims to be “the truth.”

We can look back and laugh at the Catholic Churches condemnation of Galileo for his heresy 400 years ago. The Church should have already known that the Bible was not completely correct when Christopher Columbus discovered the “New World.” But, the Church continued to hold on to the threads of the Bible, saying that Earth was the center of the Universe. The simple observation of the moons of Jupiter orbiting that planet was heresy; even though that observation was the truth.

Science is about observation and religion is about faith. In science nothing is true until it is observed in some way. Observations lead to insight and predictions, which crave for more observations. In religion one assumes that the religion has all of the answers and observations can only present the proof of the truth that is already known.

For example, Galileo acquired a telescope and turned it on the planet Jupiter to see what he could see. If anyone has not already used a telescope to look at Jupiter they should, because at most times one can make out the four brightest moons of Jupiter in random positions about the planet. The power of this observation does not strike you until you look at the planet the next night and actually see how those moons have moved. One can easily imagine how Galileo must have felt seeing these objects seem to flit around that planet. Being curious he must have begun to mark down their positions and eventually learn that these small objects moved around the planet. The observation was clear, and when Galileo applied mathematics to his observations he could begin to predict the position of the moons days and months in advance.

The Church did not see these observations in the same light. Certainly some of the Church hierarchy shared the observations of Jupiter and its moons, but they must have claimed that there were other explanations. After all, the Church certainly knew that everything revolved around the Earth, because the Bible made it clear that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Galileo could not claim that his observation was what it appeared to be. Religion is about certainty and changing that certainty is not easy. Galileo had to find alternative ways to spread the news of his observations. He was finally sequestered to a small house in the country and his visitors were monitored. The church found it necessary to hide the truth in order to protect the faith. If you wish to read more about this there is a short outline of Galileo vs. the Church here. It is quite eerie how this argument mirrors the argument we have today about evolution.

Once again we find ourselves in an era of religious protectionism. Some religions in the United States of America have become so powerful that they have been able to influence the government to pass laws that are supposed to “protect the faith.” Conservative Christian religions fight the teaching of evolution in biology class, or they want religious explanations offered along with fact based arguments. As we continue to observe the world in which we live we continue to discover how the Biblical understanding of the world does not fit with the scientific observations. And, this inconsistency frightens those who are members of religions that claim to have firm understanding of the world we live in. Religions that value questioning and discovery as a method for becoming closer to God have no problem with the discovery of new and sometimes controversial observations about the world.

Sometimes we have a tendency to put all religions in one group, calling them all intolerant of new ideas. But, religion as a discipline varies from group to group as well as from person to person. Some religions tolerate the development of a personal faith or belief system. Some religions encourage this, within some wider limits. Other religions are militant in their belief systems and offer only one possible way to interpret the meaning of God in our lives. It should be quite obvious which type of religion would have the highest degree of skepticism and objection to the modern observations of science.

It is one thing to know how nature works. Observations of nature by way of careful scientific experimentation and measurement give us these facts. But once we know how nature does the amazing things that it does we also learn how we can manipulate it to benefit man. Mendel observed how the color of flowers on pea plants changed from generation to generation based on the color of parent’s flowers. These observations lead to the development of hybrid varieties of many different plants, which lead to higher yields of food. Mendel was not only religious, but he was also a monk. He had read the writing of Darwin, and he was known to disagree with some of what Darwin had written. But, even with his understanding of genetics he was able to blindly follow where his observations lead. This was surely the sign of a great scientist. Mendel was fortunate to be a member of a religion that valued questioning and discovery.

Today we face many science and religion issues. Some don’t even seem to be science vs. religion on the surface, but fundamentalists have peculiar ways of looking at the world. But, we should all keep in mind that these people already know the answer before we ask the question. How can people like that be trusted to have the “right” answer?




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Religion, Science, Evolution

On my way to work today I browsed the conservative talk radio dial. This exercise is a necessary evil. I used to think that Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly might have some insight into society, but I now know for certain that they have almost no insight into anything at all. But, I have to listen to discover the hypocrisy and lies that will soon pop up here in the blogosphere. Even if only 10% of their audience believed what these false prophets say, there are still thousands of people that buy this nonsense.

Talk radio was mainly talking about the “War on Terror” today. These people have consolidated every conflict into the “War on Terror.” These people have decided that America is on the side of freedom and everyone else is against freedom. This rhetoric has now been folded into the Israel Palestinian conflict, and the United States is on the Israeli side. This revelation means that the United States can no longer claim an impartial third party in peace negotiations, which makes life much easier for George W Bush.

The revelation that The United States of America is a partner with Israel conforms that the Arabs throughout the Middle East were correct. It confirms the hypothesis of Osama bin Laden, Hamass and Hezbollah. Through out the Islamic World attacking the United States has become justified by those who believe that Israel stole land from the Palestinians to build their country. Whether this is truth or perception does not really matter.

People don’t fight just to kill each other. George W Bush and the conservatives would have you believe that terrorists are only interested in death and destruction. Actually they have another motivation. Just like Hitler wanted Germany to rule the world and the American South wanted to continue to own people, there are always reasons why people determine that it is justified going to war. Islamic Fundamentalists believe that they have the one true religion, but they don’t like the fact that the West has all of the material rewards. They have justified in their minds that God does not want anyone to distracted by all of these material goods. This is how they come to the conclusion that America is the “Great Satan.” These people hold this faith as strongly as Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God. Just like a Fundamentalist Christian would die defending the Bible a Fundamentalist Muslim would die in their effort to cleanse the world.

As we all know the American Revolution was about freedom. But, as anger about taxes was rising among some Colonists, it was tolerated by some. Those upset about the tax on tea created a theatrical event to draw attention to their cause. The colonists dressed up as Indians dropping tea into the harbor made their point, but the Boston Massacre proved that blood got even more attention. And the colonists used this event to get even more attention to their cause. But even with these events not all colonists were united behind the idea of independence.

More than 200 years later people are still fighting for what they believe to be right. People angered by property being seized from them seek ways to draw attention to their cause. Many Cubans are still angry that Fidel Castro took their land so many years ago. Many of these Cuban property owners have moved to the United States and have built much better lives for themselves, but they still feel anger toward those who stole their property from them. For some reason conservatives identify with the theft of this property and they will not rest until these people have their property back.

In Israel these very same conservatives have sided with those who have done the stealing. Maybe it is related to the fact that the British created Israel and they speak the same language. Maybe it has to do with the fact that Bible fearing Christians in the United States Government believe that it is the will of God that Israel exists. Either way, conservative Americans no longer see the two sides of the Israel - Palestine conflict. They only see Israel fighting the evil Arabs.

Actually, there is no secret that Iran and Syria support Hezbollah. The “War on Terror” finally has a nation state that should take responsibility. But no one wants to fight a real war with all of the death and damage. The United States has already spent it surplus cash on the War in Iraq. There is no money left to fight another War in Iran, Syria or even Lebanon. But, arming the Israelis to do the fighting of the United States against Iran and Syria’s proxy, Hezbollah, suites the conservatives just fine. In fact, the United States might actually make a little money on new arms deals with Israel.

Looking at the Middle East through the eyes of an average Muslim looks pretty bad for the United States. We have military forces in Afghanistan searching for Osama bin Laden. Many people in the region actually support Osama bin Laden for being the victorious David in the battle against the huge Goliath that is the United States. Victory is his case, of course, is to draw attention to his cause. These people may have primitive views when it comes to religion and government, but so does the Republican Party. One hundred and fifty years ago it was culturally acceptable to own slaves and fight to kill thousands of people in order to defend the right to own slaves. These people in the Middle East are at least as primitive in their own culture and beliefs, forcing them to change has evoked the same emotions that the American South had that justified their right to own slaves. We can say until we are blue in the face that these conservative Muslims need to change their ways, but they are just as likely to change their ways as the Fundamentalist Christians are going to turn their cheek. Imagine the early Christians being killed for their faith. The Christians of today honor these early martyrs as Saints that died for their faith. These Fundamentalist Muslims of today have the same strength in their faith. You would think that this would be something that at least the Fundamentalist Christians could understand. But, for each religious group standing up for your faith is only relevant to your own faith.

This might sound like I am justifying the action of Islamic Terrorists, but I am not. I am only trying to point out that our current strategy for fighting terrorism can not work in the way it is implemented. If we understand that force used against Islamic Fundamentalists has exactly the opposite of our desired effect. Standing up to violence creates honor among the families of the survivors. Israeli and American violence creates more hatred for Israel and the United States of America. In the Israeli conflict each act of violence multiplies the response on both sides. Violence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon angers the entire Islamic population and is increasingly viewed as violence against Islam when they see the results on their TVs.

The positive point is that not all Muslims are Fundamentalists. This is also true of Christians here in the United States. If we can remove the Fundamentalist Christians from power here in the United States, then they will be able to communicate with the non-Fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East. These two groups offer the only hope that we have to make any progress in the Middle East. The Violent solution to this problem is to kill both of these groups in order to get us to the same point. Unfortunately killing a group with this ideology breeds sympathizers who become the new members of the group. Either way, the only lasting solution will happen when the moderates finally talk to each other and come to agreement.


-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Middle East, Islamic Fundamentalists

At today’s news conference George W Bush was asked about his “strategy” for the Middle East. He was asked some questions, but this one yielded the most interesting response.

Mr. President, three years ago, you argued that an invasion of Iraq would create a new stage of Arab-Israeli peace. And yet today there is an Iraqi Prime Minister who has been sharply critical of Israel.

Arab governments, despite your arguments, who first criticized Hezbollah, have now changed their tune. Now they're sharply critical of Israel.

And despite from both of you warnings to Syria and Iran to back off support from Hezbollah, effectively, Mr. President, your words are being ignored.

So what has happened to America's clout in this region that you've committed yourself to transform?

You can read the entire response here, but I wanted to point out the main problem with the George W Bush approach to the situation in the Middle East. He tells us

In the long term, to defeat this ideology -- and they're bound by an ideology -- you defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom.

And, look, I fully understand some people don't believe it's possible for freedom and democracy to overcome this ideology of hatred. I understand that. I just happen to believe it is possible. And I believe it will happen.

It is quite clear that George W Bush does not understand the concept of “freedom.” Freedom would be freedom for the Islamic Fascists to rule. After all, when Palestine was given the freedom to vote they chose the Islamic Fascist group Hamass. Isn’t this what freedom is all about?

But, it is quite clear that the George W Bush doctrine of angering the entire Middle East and then giving them freedom will assure that every Democracy will elect a government composed of people who hate America.

How? If I wasn’t clear let me explain. George W Bush invaded Iraq and got rid of a tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Everyone on Earth can agree with that. But, after the fall of Saddam there was looting that went on for days. The Americans were very slow to react, but this did not escape the ire of the Iraqi people. At least under Saddam Hussein your property was safe, as long as you didn’t open your mouth was a common sentiment. Certainly the American conservatives who hated Fidel Castro can relate to this anger. And, for ten years the Americans had been telling the Iraqi military that they would be taken care of if America invaded were disappointed when the military was disbanded in the wake of the invasion. How is your average soldier supposed to feed his family if he is out of work? And it goes on, at every step of the way the United States has made the Iraqi people angry.

Then with the death of civilians in the street being broadcast through out the Middle East this anger spread to the entire region. Americans don’t think of this anger, because the US news “cleans up” the pictures from the Middle East. Imagine the hatred you felt when the soldiers were dragged through the streets of Morgadeshu. Imagine the hatred you felt when you saw the World Trade Center fall. Imagine the hatred you felt when the American contractors were hung from that bridge. This is happening every day for the Middle East. And, America is to blame because they have failed to protect the Iraqi citizens. America is the occupier, and we have the responsibility to protect the population of Iraq.

You may be thinking to yourself that the United States is innocent of these deaths, because the terrorists and insurgents are the ones who actually attacked these people. But, believe it or not it is about perception, not reality. If you have a hard time believing this, think of the 2004 Presidential Election. John Kerry had served in the Navy having more military experience than George W Bush. At every level John Kerry was better suited to fix the mess in the Middle East, but because of the Right Wing Echo Machine the perception was that George W Bush was going to give us the security that we desired. Now two years into the second George W Bush term we see the reality of George W Bush’s lack of leadership. In the Middle East we have the same problem. The perception of the United States is that we are the “Great Satan.” This was said in Iran in 1979, and now it is said all over the Middle East.

So, when America was given the perception that George W Bush would save us, and given the freedom to vote the American people chose the perception of security. So, shouldn’t expect that once the United States leaves Iraq and Iraq votes they will elect anti-American leaders. And, this same pattern will repeat itself all over the Middle East unless George W Bush or the next president changes course.



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, FOIA, Iraq, Iraq War, Democracy