Yeah, Let's Take Our Enemies' Word for It

CNN is apparently making a big deal of this. Our troops confronted an Islamist with an AK-47 aimed at them and the troops did him in. The locals are giving conflicting testimony. Yeah, I'd go with the folks who hate us, wouldn't you?

Dubai: Beloved Ally; World Financial Center...

...and friends Of Islamic terrorists.

Dubai cancels New Years celebrations in solidarity with the Islamic Gaza-Hamas terrorists. Egypt did the same. Wouldn't you say the Bush administrations' ill-fated attempt to have Dubai firms safeguard the security of our ports a few years ago was dumb? Wake up, Washington politicians! I can only pray that Obama surprises us.

Keep up the good work, Israel!

The only thing that can explain our coziness with Dubai is their business connections with "corporate America." Those connections will leave us sucking wind. Am I the only one who believes our federal government is a tool and witting accomplice of big business' extravagance, waste, and ill-conceived alliances, and average Joes are being screwed by this fact?

By the way, for those of you who might think I am being mean spirited, Israel endured 200 missle strikes from Islamic Hamas during the week prior to their counter-attack - AND 3,000 SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. They exercised excessive restraint.

Those who have pity on the Islamic Hamas terrorists in Gaza might very well be of the same cloth as those who had pity on Hitler and Mussolini.

Movie Critics Prove Themselves Jaded

I saw the movie "Marley and Me" this evening after reading the book last year.

I also read the Yahoo Movies movie reviews on this film.

It is interesting to note that the average of the reviews by the 12 professional "Critics" was C+ while the 447 "Yahoo Users" gave it a B+.

I would give this movie no less than a B+ myself.

Comparing the "Critics" ratings to the "Yahoo Users" ratings on movies across the board, the critics ratings are typically lower than the viewers.

I wonder why? The word "jaded" comes to mind.

In fact, many of the reviewers probably need a new line of work because they seem burned out in their movie reviewer jobs. Here are six examples of burned out, jaded movie reviewer comments from among the 12 on "Marley and Me"...

E! Online - Matt Stevens "...has about as much traction as a puppy on a linoleum floor." more... C

filmcritic.com - Bill Gibron "...this excruciating effort is 90 minutes of mediocrity followed by 10 minutes of the most manipulative, mean-spirited pap ever put into a movie made for families." more... D+

Hollywood Reporter - Kirk Honnycutt "A lovably though misbehaving dog dominates everything in a family film with little drama." more... C-

New York Post - Kyle Smith "The script is dull..." more... C-

Rolling Stone - Peter Travers "Watching the stars try to out-cutesy the mutt is one for the puke bucket." more... D+

USA Today - Claudia Puig "...fairly banal..." more... C

The Rolling Stone reviewer I understand - he's probably still on drugs from the 60's. I can only speculate that all of them have been overexposed to the sensationalism of the gendre - to the sex, the violence, the kinkiness, the irreverance, the exploitation of deviant human behavior, that anything less receives their disdain.

It's time for these folks to look for a new line of work - they have obviously lost touch with human feelings.

The War Against Ideology

I had to look this word up to make sure I wasn't missing some dark meaning behind it:

i·de·ol·o·gy
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

How many times over the months of the presidential campaign have you heard the complaint that candidates and voters (mainly the Republican or conservative ones) are "too ideolgical", too focused on "ideology."

I heard Michal Bloomberg the other night argue that the best candidates are not "idealogues" but those who can put together a team of folks that can get things done. He used the straw man of "garbage collection" to bolster his argument. I guess he was saying that you don't have to have any good ideas about social needs and aspirations about any part of society to have good garbage collection. You "just do it." Folks with stacks of trash during a sanitation workers strike might have a problem with that assumption.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bloomburg, many local, state, and national issues aren't as simple as trash collection - especially when dealing with national priorities and how to fund them.

If "ideology" is off limits to the electorate of this nation, then what? If "how" to do something (e.g. collect trash) is our only playing field, who exactly decides what to do, the priorities, and how its funded?

It seems to little ol' ideological me that these essentials can not be consistently and effectively carried out without a discussion and consensus on ideology. If ideology is taken off the table, only those who duped us into thinking ideology is not important will set our national agenda. This concept basically sucks.

You've heard the expression "Leaders lead people. Managers manage tasks." Obviously managers need to practice leadership, and leaders need to manage tasks - but in opposite proportions. But without having an ideology - a body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of a group, class, or culture being led - the leader will be aimless and will follow the wind. The group he's leading will, pardon the analogy, be like a ship without a rudder.

Our Scriptures have a spot-on verse to describe this: "That henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."

Politics without ideology is much like that. You will inherit any idea, any priority, any value without having your own set of values, principles, or ideology, and acting on them when you determine who to vote for.

It seems clear that an increasing number of vocal folks in this country dislike the idea of us "sheeple" having our own ideas - especially if we express them in the polling place. Whoooo...beware the idealogue!

The Good Side of the Downturn

I received an e-mail from a friend listing several hundred retail store closings as a warning about the potential for giving or receiving worthless gift cards.

While the long list of store closings may sound foreboding, from the standpoint of sound economics and responsible human behavior, this is great news.

Economists and investment gurus have been complaining for years that personal debt is excessive and the personal saving rate is dismally low. Most recently the complaint has been that excessive credit has been extended to many millions who are not credit-worthy. Based on the unworthy credit, we have been spending and buying "stuff" at unsustainable levels. Retailers, sensing a good (though unsustainable) thing built an excess of stores to satisfy our excess greed.

Our unsustainable orgy of credit and spending lasted so long that its fall is hard and fast. Consider our current economic problems as a too-long deferred market (and behavior) correction. Retailers are adjusting by closing unprofitable stores. This may be just the beginning.

The phenomenon that makes this recession likely to be a long one is another consequence of our greed: Our lack of productivity. Our "value added per buck paid" is not competitive in the world market place that we have been hell-bent to create and participate in. As the promoters of illegal aliens are fond of saying, others are doing the work Americans won't do.

Why did the 1929 depression end in the late 30's through the early 40's? We worked our butts off to win the war. We were motivated. Our personal productivity was high. This "high" carried over into the 50's. In the 60's we saw a new culture emerge...the flower children, the druggies, and the culture of excess consumption. This dysfunction evolved in the 70's through the present with an attitude of entitlement. "You deserve it" is not only the banter of the advertisers, but the expectation of those to whom the attitude of greed is promoted.

We are a consuming society, not a producing society any more. The chickens are coming home to roost. It will take something on the order of WWII or mega-9/11, or a really wicked depression to shake us out of our slouch into Gomorrah, as Bill Bennett so aptly lamented.

If current economic events help us straighten out our personal and national priorities, that is a good thing indeed.

Islam: What the West Needs to Know

You have heard that Islam is the "religion of peace", that only a small number of misguided Muslims have "hijacked" that noble religion and made it something it is not.

The truth is, the real, fundamental Islam is being revivived, not by a few hundred "terrorists" but by millions of Muslims worldwide. There is growing evidence that 100's of millions of the over 1.2 billion Muslims concur in the Koranic teachings of world dominance through coercion and deception and are in the process of acting on that belief - because that is what Islams founding documents and historical interpretation teach.

If you are not up to spending several days reading a book about this reality, then spend an hour and a half viewing this video... "Islam: What the West Needs to Know"

Then sit back and ponder what things may be like for your children and grand children.

A Government Tolerant of Anarchists

What does a government tolerant of anarchists produce?
Riiight. Anarchy.

Definition of "anarchist": An adult with a teenage mentality.
Definition of "teenage anarchist": The power behind the impotent Greek government.
The Greek government: Enabling, codepenant parents fearful of meting out justice and discipline to their abusive, out of control children. Or is this the definition of the current Greek culture?

I am not up on modern Greek government, nor the current socio-political issues that nation faces. But I am aware of some basic principles of human behavior. There has to be a lesson in the current Greek riots for the rest of us, Greek and non-Greek alike. Let's see, what might it be...

- I have heard that Greeks tend to have an over-the-top codependant relationship with and tolerance of ill-behavior from their little darlings. The chickens run the roost. Not a good idea.

- Letting out schools in response to rioting teenagers is not a smart thing to do. Doncha' think that gives them more time to riot?

- Firing and condemning law enforcement officials (without an investigation) to placate the anarchists certainly seems like it would encourage the anarchists, not to mention the untenable position other law enforcement officials find themselves.

Greece seems to be in a tough spot. It appears, through their excessive tolerance of bad behavior, they have passed the point of no return for civility, law, and order - pretty much the things that anarchists disdain. Anarchism seems to be the political philosophy of choice for a broad segment of their population - the common denominator for a coalition of various political philosophies.

Have the anarchists won? If so, what happens next? This reminds me of the adage of the dog chasing the car. What does he do with it if he catches it? Anarchist don't exactly appreciate government or any entity telling them what to do or not to do - again, the spoiled teen mentality. What kind of order do anarchists live by? No government, no rules, just right - oh I'm sorry, that's Outback. Do they revert to becoming a nation of outlaws? What?

I wonder if the creation of fascist Sharia law of Islam was the extreme reaction to rampant anarchy created after the Byzantine and Roman empires decimated one another creating a vacuum eager to be filled by an emerging ideology? In our two world wars, was anarchism used to help usher in fascism, a handy overreaction to anarchism?

Teens and others are being schooled in anarchism and used by others seeking to disrupt and discredit any legitimate government for their own purposes. Anarchy and anarchism are more a means to an end, and not the end in itself. First, destroy the existing government order, create a law and order vacuum, and fill it with the ideology that is best positioned to win the hearts and minds - by force or otherwise.

Anarchism tends to be left wing - most akin to Communism. Some form of government will fill the vacuum created by the anarchists. What will it be? Communism, social democracy, or facism, the reactionary extreme opposite? Read here for additional causes and effects of Greece's turmoil.

In the meantime, WHERE ARE THE PARENTS? Apparently they don't like rules either.

Calling in "Crappy Employee" Day

For the average business depending on all it's employees pulling their weight during these difficult economic times, "calling in gay" (the gays' twist on calling in sick) is the moral equivalent to the out of control juvenile delinquents rioting in the streets of Greece.

But note the location of this news story. San Francisco, where the majority of workforce is likely to call in gay.

For other places, how to win friends and influence people this is not. Calling in gay is not among the approved events for days off. Consequently the kindest employers should give these misguided souls written reprimands placed in the files. The best bosses will fire their sorry asses - a very appropriate consequence for these mindless protesters exercising perverse and inconsiderate judgement.

Won't the other workers who stayed on the job, understaffed, just ooze with so much appreciation and admiration for those who want to stick it to their co-workers and bosses to demonstrate how irreplaceable they are. On the other hand, a lot of those who were planning on calling in sick that day are likely to remain at work, sick.

It will be a sad day if the courts uphold any discrimination action brought by such gay radicals for being fired for their intent to sabotage and their disdain for the privilege of working.

Going Forward At The End of The Day

Like you know how, like we hear young people overuse the word, like "like." Like, well, adults who, parrot-like, like repeat and overuse a few words and phrases themselves.

As their teen counterparts, many adults have the need to be part of the cool, in-crowd by mimicking their repetitive jargon.

My favorite giveaways to adult professionals with egos way too large and vocabularies way too small for their mission include their overuse (or use) of the phrases:

- Going forward (as opposed to going backwards or standing still?)
- At the end of the day (which day, today? Tomorrow?
- To be sure (Of what?)

Here is an apt short essay by Jim Kershner of "The Spokesman-Review" from November 11, 2007, on the topic of "Going Forward".

Going forward, I am declaring war on the phrase "going forward."

In my capacity as Official Defender of the American-English Language, I have embarked on many lonely crusades. For instance, I have railed against both the proliferation of the word "sucks" and the overuse of the phrase "perfect storm." (In short, I believe it sucks to overuse "perfect storm.")

Yet my campaign against "going forward" is fundamentally different. This phrase is not merely overused. This phrase is completely unnecessary in every single instance.

Yet this useless phrase has become an indispensable part of business, political, and, I am sad to admit, journalistic jargon. Just the other day, I heard it used three times in the space of about an hour, in three different realms:

By a political commentator: "Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy, going forward, will be to focus on …"

By a football announcer: "This team needs to a lay a foundation, going forward, of establishing a running game …

"By a management executive: "Going forward, our plan will be …"

Pardon me if this sounds forward, but isn't "going forward" just slightly moronic? Is it possible, for instance, to have a strategy going backward?

Take out the phrase "going forward" in all three instances, and the meaning remains exactly the same.

To understand why, it helps to understand one basic concept of physics – one that, frankly, is not all that complicated.

Time goes only one direction. It does not go backward, despite what you have read in your comic books. It does not go sideways, except for certain people who choose to stay 39 forever. Time, which rules us all, goes only forward.

Since the phrase refers, 100 percent of the time, to time (as opposed to, say, yardage), we can reach only one logical conclusion: It is never necessary to specify which direction we are going, because we are always going the same direction, at least until such time as the universe suffers a reversal in the time-space continuum.

Hey, that could happen someday. Going forward.

So, you can decide for yourselves. Let me toss out a few common "going forward" constructions and you tell me how necessary they are:

"Going forward into 2008, we need to refocus on our core mission."

"Here's what I propose we do, going forward."

"What exactly, should we be looking for in this industry, going forward?"

"To be or not to be – that is the question going forward" (this, from a philosopher-poet-executive).

Oh, all right, there may be a few occasions when "going forward" might have its uses. I suppose that it can be used to clarify the distinction between "now" and "in the future."

For instance, you might reasonably say, "Right now, we need to hunker down and ride out this storm. But, going forward, we need to invest in some raincoats."

Still, it's nothing that the words "then" and "soon" haven't been able to handle for centuries.

And even though I just said that "going forward" refers to time, 100 percent of the time, I can imagine isolated cases in which it refers to actual distance.

Possibly acceptable usage: "Shaun Alexander needs to gain six inches on this play, going forward."

Always unacceptable usage: "Shaun Alexander needs to get his head into this game, going forward."

As I take a breath here, I realize that I have possibly, just maybe, become a little over-agitated over this essentially harmless phrase. I'm sorry.

This is my own problem. I'll try to get over it. Still, I can't help but worry that the English language is, you know, going backward.

"At the end of day" has similar problems. At the end of which day are they referring? The end of today? At 5pm or midnight? Or maybe at the end of your term of office in 30 days? Or at the end of the period our collective memories still function about how bad we screwed things up with the decision whose results will be known "at the end of the day."

Is this a new twist for "when it's all said and done" or "ultimately" or "in the end?" For the first week or two one hears these terms, they do sound like the speaker is "with it" and quite "avant garde." But man, do these phrases grow old fast. I heard one speaker use the term "going forward" no fewer than 15 times during a three minute speech. I thought the needle was stuck on an old scratched up LP...going forward going forward going forward going. After a minute I couldn't tell if he was coming or going forward.

"To be sure" is another.  To be sure of what?  As opposed to be uncertain and totally clueless?  What!

A national survey was conducted asking executives what were the most annoying phrases or buzzwords they heard recently. Their responses included:

“At the end of the day”
“Solution”
“Thinking outside the box”
“Synergy”
“Paradigm”
“Metrics”
“Take it offline”
“Redeployed people”
“On the runway”
“Win-win”
“Value-added”
“Get on the same page”
“Customer centric”
“Generation X”
“Accountability management”
“Core competency”
“Alignment”
“Incremental”
"Smell test", ("straight face test" or "laugh test")
"Run it up the flag pole”
"Critical path"
"Low-hanging fruit"
"Bandwidth"
"Download"
"Brain dump"

Here is the 2008 list of banished words from Lake Superior State Univerity.

New buzz words will be created every day. While they are catchy for awhile, they have a short shelf life (there's another one for ya'). Their coolness turns to irritating pretty fast.

It appears this mindless assimilation and repetition of our jargon is similar to how we mindlessly identify so-called problems and priorities like global warming and "green initiatives". Pandemically, most everyone, like a rapidly spreading virus, declare "the sky is falling". Fortunately there are alway a few unaffected cells remaining who can bring the body back to equilibrium and health.

We too often invent and pass on our newest national priorities as thoughtlessly as we create and repeat our jargon.

But going forward at the end of the day, when you download all your low hanging fruit thinking outside the box, it is what it is.

Rice satisfied with Pakistan Blowing Smoke

The headline might just as well have said: "Rice satisfied with Pakistan Pblowing Smoke."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met the President of Pakistan yesterday to mollify India. The USA Today Headline actually reads: "Rice satisfied with Pakistan's anti-terror stance."

President Asif Ali Zardari promised Rice "strong action" will be taken against elements in his country that were involved in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Then his face flipped around when he said he would not hand over 20 suspects wanted by India and said they would be tried in Pakistan if there was evidence of wrongdoing because his administration would likely face a backlash from Muslim groups and nationalists if it simply handed over the suspects to Pakistan's old foe India.

What we have here is a failure to really want to take action against the terrorists in Pakistan. It just so happens that the "elements in his country involved in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai" include the same Muslim groups and nationalists from whom he fears a backlash.

Fact one is he would receive the same Muslim backlash whether he sent the scum to India for trial, or he convicted them in Pakistan. Fact two is he doesn't have the political or military will or capital to try and convict them within Pakistan - Pakistan is a Muslim controlled nation. Fact four is Islam desires to destabilize the region so it can broaden its imposition of Sharia law upon other nations. Fact five is the purpose of the publicity from the Rice/Zardari visit is appeasement to neutralize India's outrage of continuing attacks from Islamic-controlled Pakistan.

Bottom line: The west continues to be ignorant of Islams fundamental teachings and ultimate objectives and fearful of upsetting that "peace-loving religion." We prefer to tolerate the sporadic outrage of terrorism rather than take decisive action against it.

Random Thoughts About India, Pakistan, Islam...

Islamic "ambassadors" from Pakistan brought terror to Mumbai, India last week. These ambassadors are reported to have a multi-hundred acre training site inside Pakistan and support from Pakistan's equivalent to our CIA.

Meanwhile, John McCain and Secretary of State Rice visit India and, in effect, tell India not to get excited, declaring that the US will not allow India to strike back at Pakistan. That is like Great Britain telling the US not to strike Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden after 9-11.

At this moment President-elect Obama is vindicating himself vis a vie McCain when he declared yesterday referring to the Pakislami visit to Mumbai, "Sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves."

This is consistent with and reenforces his campaign statement of August 1, 2008, when he declared, concerning Pakistan, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will". He was criticised by Republicans, of all people, for being trigger happy and irresponsible.

Well, I would like to criticise John McCain for being a namby pamby milktoast who can't clearly express a consistent thought.
...McCain, and Obama.

Would decisive military action by India be impulsive? Hardly. Our own National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell recently expressed that the same group that carried out last week's attack is believed to be behind the 2006 Mumbai train bombings that killed more than 200. Terrorist bombings are an ongoing event in India. I wish we would all get over calling such bombers "suspected militants." What is the common denominator of 99.9% these terrorist acts? We know it's not the Methodists or the League of Women Voters. Hint: Its public relations team calls it "The Religion of Peace." That's about as true a depiction of Islam as Pakistan being called effective at ridding itself of Islamic terror camps.

Ex-Press Secretary Tony Snow (RIP - and I liked the guy) oozed way too much optimism about Pakistans' efforts against Islamist extremists when last year he said "Pakistan was working hard to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban... "At the same time, we recognize the sovereignty of the Pakistani government and realize that they're putting on a serious push ... They're taking the fight to al Qaeda"

Are they really? Sure sounds like a lot more talk than fight. What is the difference between Pakistan promising a "joint investigation" and "a fox in the hen house?" Not much.

The US will make a huge mistake if we discourage India from eliminating any Islamic training camp that is known to exist inside Pakistan. But, unfortunately for the rest of us, we don't even have the will to eliminate Islamic training camps in our own nation. We are peddling insanity with our failure to act in our own defense, never mind India's. We are laisse-faire-ing our own demise - ignoring the cancer within us.

And we want India to do the same with a hostile Islamic cancer at their back door.

I'm more confused than usual...

The headline reads "Treasury, Fed to Unveil Major Lending Program...aimed at making it easier for people to borrow money."

I thought the primary cause of our self-proclaimed economic meltdown was because we made it too easy for people to borrow money - people who really couldn't afford to borrow.

Will someone with some economic talent in my family or from among my two or three friends (pretty much the only ones who might occasionally read this blog) explain the wisdom of this policy?

Let me guess first. I do realize economics, particularly, the concept of value, credit, and prosperity, is an illusion. Yes, Dr. Nicholas (my very competent college economics professor), economics is an art and not a science. I'd go one step further, professor - economics is a shell game. Money, err, CREDIT gets shifted around in a way that no one really knows who owes what to whom. I'm suspecting even the mover of the shells has lost track.

The purpose in all this?

To maintain the illusion of value, while the real value of value gradually ebbs away as the nation becomes less and less productive and more and more obsessed with consumption. To the best illusionist goes the spoils.

It will be interesting to see how much longer that macro-economic philosphy will well-serve the minions.

Your helpful explanations are sincerely hungered for.

Sincerely,
A confused child of the system.

Parable of the Talents, Liberals and Conservatives

I recently had a discussion with friends about the meaning of the Biblical parable of the talents (see Matthew 25:14-30.). While “talents” at the time of the writing of this parable referred to a denomination of money, by coincidence of language, it could also apply to the current meaning of “talent” , that is, the innate or “God-given” ability to accomplish great things with what you are given.

My initial impression of the parable was that it was mean-spirited against those who lack God-given abilities. It gives preference to and rewards the wealthy or “gifted” among us. It condemns those without much ability to “outer darkness”, which in Bible-speak, means outside of God’s light, presence or grace – in another word, they are condemned to hell. Isn’t that a bit over the top?

Here is the quote of the entire parable:

13 “Therefore stay alert, because you do not know the day or the hour. 14 For it is like a man going on a journey, who summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, each according to his ability [underlining added for emphasis]. Then he went on his journey. 16 The one who had received five talents went off right away and put his money to work270 and gained five more. 17 In the same way, the one who had two gained two more. 18 But the one who had received one talent went out and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money in it. 19 After a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled his accounts with them. 20 The one who had received the five talents came and brought five more, saying, ‘Sir, you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’ 21 His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful in a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 The one with the two talents also came and said, ‘Sir, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more.’ 23 His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful with a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? 27 Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! 28 Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. 29 For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’” [underlining added for emphasis.](Matthew 25:13-30)."

Initial impressions do not necessarily result in correct interpretations. My initial impression tended toward the passive-aggressive, siding with the third slave. "If the Master (or God) is going to do that, he really is mean!" Our worldly biases and experiences often cloud our understanding, unless additional time and reflection is invested in understanding. This is true of my understanding of this parable.

Several points of understanding were gleaned from spending some time trying to understand this parable.

1) Knowing God. The third servant misunderstood the nature of God, as revealed when he told his master “You are a hard man…so I was afraid…” He was unnecessarily fearful because he didn’t know the nature of God. Fear is the bane of our existence. Fear makes life miserable – especially fear of God, our “Master.” Yes, Scripture encourages us to “fear God”. But I’m afraid that is where context and translation of ancient languages fails us. There are two different original meanings associated with our present day usage of “fear.” “Fear God” is used in the sense of exercising awe and reverence. Being “afraid”, a form of fear, is a waste of energy and emotion if you truly know God.

2) Using what you are given. The first two servants effectively used what they were given. The value doubled – compare that to today’s “value added” provider. The third did not use what he was given at all. He just buried it. There was no value added. When someone is given money, raw materials, talent (todays definition) and does nothing with it, what does that say about the person? What words come to mind? The words Jesus used were, you “evil and lazy slave.”

3) Be creative and show initiative. Apparently God likes us to think, to be creative and to show initiative. He doesn’t like excuses. He doesn’t like us to find fault with our master (‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground) and then use that as the basis for doing nothing. This principle applies to our secular responsibilities as much as it does to our relationship with our God. Actually, a current day term for the behavior of the third worker might be “passive aggressive.” I guess the Master was lucky the slave found what he buried!

So, how might this apply to Democrats and Republicans; liberals and conservatives, the “entitleds” and the producers? Here it is: The Democrats, liberals and entitleds are going to hell. The Republicans, conservatives, and producers better not become passive-aggressive just because they are pissed at the Democrats, Liberals, and entitleds for being lazy SOBs.

The "Affirmative Action for Stupid Ideas" Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine is another name for affirmative action for unworthy ideas. The advertised reason for promoting the Fairness Doctrine has been to balance liberal and conservative ideas in broadcast media.

The belief of proponents of the Fairness Doctrine is that any idea unable to gain a voice on the public airways deserves affirmative action.

Let's see. What are some of those liberal and conservative ideas that require affirmative action - aka mandatory publicity on the public airwaves - because their proponents believe such ideas benefit society and aren't being heard enough.

Liberal:

The advantages of the gay lifestyle
Why gay sex in public ought to be tolerated
Why public funds should be used to support abortion rights
Why sick or old people should be put to death because they are inconvenient or embarrassing.
Why we should not support the war
Ways to sabotage our military industrial complex by Bill Ayers
Why the free entry of illegal aliens is good for America.
How your family pet can fulfill your sexual fantasies.
Why we should place a huge tax burden on productive people and give it to those who don't want to work because it is work Americans don't want to do.
Why Islam is the religion of peace.
Why people who associate Islam with violence ought to be put in jail.

Conservative:

Why killing babies in the womb is wrong.
Why "declaring Darwinian evolution is the only correct science" and "scientific creationism is wrong" is bad science - see Expelled.
Why we need to be suspicious of Muslims and those with Muslim associations.
Why forcibly taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots" through taxation is bad social policy compared to encouraging voluntary contributions.
How "rights" come with "consequences."
Why the Fairness Doctrine is bad for free speech.

The second set of opinions will eventually be heard without the fairness doctrine because they are based in common sense. The first set of opinions should not be forced on the American people.

Pray for Consequences for Irresponsible Behavior - Auntie Zeituni Update

So now she is fighting her deportation order.

...Auntie "believes someone leaked information about her immigration status to try to hurt Obama's candidacy." Ahhh yes. Others are at fault for her trying to sneak through the system.

..."She's upset that people could just hurt her like that ... use her to try to hurt Barack..." Uh huh. Blame others for her own stupid behavior - no responsibility for her own illegal actions.

...She "has been sickly since her immigration status became public, and Wong [her attorney] said she would not immediately make her available to speak to a reporter." Bring on the pity. Yes, people become sickly over getting themselves into trouble. Key words: "getting themselves."

..."She and her lawyers could argue her risk of harm in Kenya is even greater than before, because of the international attention brought to her case." Yes, throw out any slimy supposition to see what sticks! Again...consequences of her own actions.

The words "personal responsibility" and "law abiding" defy understanding by an increasing number of folks.
_____________

Quotes from http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/08/obamas-aunt-fight-deportation/

Why Obama Won...

Here is one guy's analysis of why Obama won...

* He is a great orator.

* He was the beneficiary of the historic financial meltdown that occurred two months before the election and was seen as preferred over McCain because he articulated solutions better.

* Voters ignored Obamas past and significant radical associations and were enamoured by his rhetoric.

* He appealed to the younger (under 40) voters who, generally speaking, are not up on history and government, are accustomed to success without much hardship and need for personal responsibility, and are consumed by the entertainment industry which shares the same counterproductive values.

* He appealed to the many Americans who were unhappy with existing politics and policies even though the alternative remains nebulous and likely worse than what we have in the long run.

* He appealed to those who want "something for nothing"; promises of paying off mortgages, tax cuts, free health care, government assistance for this and that, bailouts and rescues. His economic policies were more tittilating than McCain's. It was a carnival midway-like come-on.

* He was considered Black (even though he is more caucasian and Arab), triggering a 95% turnout among blacks, despite the fact that many of these voters may not agree with his policies. It was race over policy. This is the converse of what one prominent black leader explained, one of the 5% who did not support Obama: "I didn't want to have race trump friendship", referring to his loyalty to Hillary.

* A gradually left-moving voter base.


And why McCain lost...

* Many of his policies were not that much different from Obamas' rheteoric despite his attempts to appear more conservative. For example, his desparate attempt to balance the ticket using Sarah Palin as a prop did not overcome his generally left leaning policies, especially his promotion of illegal immigration, and government bailouts. Ann Coulter amplifies this problem here.

* His age

* His mediocre communications skills

Tugging at Liberal, Law-Evading Heartstrings

So, Barack Obama's Aunti Zeituni is living in taxpayer funded public housing as an illegal alien.

This is a unique situation on several fronts. I'll point out the obvious.

* She is an illegal alien, flaunting the laws of her host nation.
* She is receiving public taxpayer assistance while violating our immigration laws.
* She is the poverty-status aunt of an affluent presidential candidate who calls the rest of America "selfish" for "not sharing our wealth with those in need."
* She is not unknown to Mr. Obama - he mentioned her in his book “Dreams From My Father.”
* Understandably, she is called "an exemplary resident" by the very bureaucrats who make their living off of providing taxpayer dollars to those who break laws and don't work.

This is the change we can look forward to in the coming years: Polices that discourage the dilligent and successful and enable (in the self-destructive psychological sense) those who need the most motivation to help themselves. Providing handouts (public or private) to lawbreakers and unmotivateds is not the path to motivation. This is the certain path to destroying our nation's productivity, quality of life, and greatness as a nation - growing the pool of lawbreaking entitlement recipients and reducing the pool of law abiding producers.

An Obama victory is the beginning of democracy's "tyranny of the majority" - the majority being those who see the chance for more government entitlements at the expense of those who have been the most productive because of the incentives to personal effort freedom used to offer.

An Obama victory will truly be a momentus occasion for this country. It represents the first time in our history that tax policy isn't just used as an equitable system of raising revenue to fund critical federal government programs, but as a conscious policy of shifting wealth from the haves to the have nots - " from each according to their ability, to those according to their need" as Karl Marx was fond of saying. As Frank Miele in the preceeding linked article opined, Mr. Marx may have lost the the battle but it appears he is winning the war. Thank you, Mr. Obama and all the voters seeking government entitlements and those who feel guilty for being motivated and successful. We've had affirmative action based on race. We will now have affirmative action based on degree of indolence.

Loyalty - Bad; Every Man for Himself - Good

Loyalty, bad - Every man for himself, good. Is that what political correctness is all about?

During a recent “meet and greet” I met a gentleman who relocated from Utah. He was not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) aka “Mormon” as most Utahans are. In fact, he was a Unitarian – an organization that institutionalized the celebration of anything from the spiritual belief or disbelief menu that fits their member's fancy. This provision makes cafeteria Catholics and cafeteria Presbyterians appear to be exceptionally uncreative. He was also a senior manager of a company who hired many LDS employees for their well known characteristics of “dependability, respect for authority, and work ethic” - traits he admitted benefitted his company greatly.

His next comments had a surprisingly negative twist. He complained that the Mormons in Utah were predisposed to not question authority - too obediant, and were excessively “clickish”, not inviting their non-Mormon boss to social events for the umpteen years he worked there. He did admint, however, that LDS outside of Utah are much more socially inclusive of people of other faiths.

What was fascinating to me about his complaint is he appeared to want to have it “both ways”. He wanted obedient rebels. He wanted people who would do the work given to them and at the same time he wished they were more independent-minded and strong-willed “like folks in the rest of the country.” But then, would his company be able to stick to its strategic plan through unity and teamwork? Probably not.

The opposite scenario is the several Republican Sarah Palin handlers being upset for her being a "maverick." They want her to be a maverick at the same time they want her to be a "yes" woman.

Anyway, back to my Utah acquaintance. This gentleman’s critique is an apt representation of how far our nation has strayed from being “E Pluribus Unum” – “out of many, one.” Even though his company benefited from its’ employees respect for authority and related traits, he felt individuals practicing such traits were flawed in some manner - that their loyalty and obedience were oddly extreme. Well, in our society, respect for authority, dependability and the like are out of vogue. No wonder this individual thought it “unnatural.” These have become peculiar and uncommon traits. He is caught up in our “every man for himself” culture.

The Utah LDS he disdains for their “excess loyalty” reflects the character that could reunite the people of this nation. Their perceived “clickishness” is a cultural safeguard against being sucked into the larger devisive morass of our society. Or is our growing devisive, self-absorbed disdain for our cultural heritage and national goals seen as one of our nations' strengths? Hmmmm. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case.

We as a nation have strayed far afield from being united, with a common purpose. We have strayed from stressing things we have in common to "celebrating our differences." We have evolved into a nation that cherishes diversity (read: differences and disunity) above all. Why don't we identify and celebrate things we have in common with one another? Wouldn't that enhance chances of unity? Ahh, but it cuts against our rebellious grain. We disdain unity.

A poignant speech a la Thomas Paine and his “Common Sense” eloquently describes what we have become in this short video titled "The Ghost of Thomas Paine and the Second Revolution." View it here.

All About Race

How on earth can can anyone claim with a straight face that support for a black presidential candidate who has indoctrinated himself in Black Liberation Theology, is buddies with radicals, and endorsed as "the Messiah" by the leader of The Nation of Islam (which has declared the white man is the devil) that their support is not "all about race." The Obama campaign is all about the pot maliciously and erroneously calling the kettle white. Charles Krauthammer has it nailed here.

And the polls? 93% of blacks support Obama while 43% of whites support Obama (Quinnipiac University Poll - September 2008). I was unaware that such a super-majority of blacks were super-liberal. What other reason might there be for such a lopsided 93 to 2 (remainder not responding) poll among blacks? Could it possibly mean that blacks are more racist than whites? If so, will folks now start arguing that racism isn't such a bad thing - in defense of their racist preferences? That would certainly fit the mold of Obama's Black Liberation indoctrination he received throughout most of his life.

Colin Powell's disclaimer that his Obama endorsement is not about race is as phony as Obama's claim he was never a Muslim. While it may be true he is not now a Muslim, two things are certain: 1} He was a Muslim and he is likely a sympathizer with that violent, deceitful anti-American religion today, and 2) He is a racist and is supported by racists. Can you imagine the appointments he is likely to make? Consider his past associations and where his support is coming from: Middle east funding, black liberation racists, Muslims and their sympathizers, socialists and anti-Americans. Some federal government we are likely to have. That's all this county needs - a new dive into the abyss of public racism.

You think the ratings of the Bush presidency are low today? I cannot fathom the depth of discontent and dysfunction an Obama presidency will bring to this nation.

One big happy radical neighborhood...

Portions of an old Bill Ayers book was posted on Michelle Malkin's web site. It fondly notes the close proximity of the homes of Bill, Barack, Muhammad Ali, and the another Muhammad supporter, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam - the same Louis who recently declared Obama to be "the Messiah." Not that neighborly proximity indicates mutual admiration. But in this case, expression of mutual admiration by the noted parties indicates mutual admiration - unless this is another case of, as Obama puts it, they are not the Bill or Louis I used to know. It makes no difference to him that they were anti-American radicals at the time he "used to know" them.

While on the topic of Luigi, did you know the Nation of Islam is nearly identical to mainstream and radical Islam except for one thing? The Nation of Islam is considered apostate by Islam because it differs in one respect: The Nation of Islam considers the white man the devil - Islam does not.

Jeremiah Wright. Tony Resko. Bill Ayers. And now Louis Farrakhan. Will non-racist America wake up to the fact that Obama was indoctrinated by, relates to, supports, and is embraced by America-hating racists?

Anything but...

Neel Kashkari - as in "cash 'n carry", the "back in the day" throwback expression used to describe a cash transaction for merchandise - is the Interim Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability in the United States Department of the Treasury. God has a dry sense of humor. This is too funny. The man placed in charge of the greatest credit binge in this nation's history is called Cash N. Carry.

Another not so funny thing, though. I don't see anything in his bio that qualifies him for this critical economic policy implementation task. He designed latches for TRW.

Christian Representation in Iraqi Councils?

Increased Christian representatin on Iraqi Councils? Snowball's chance in hell.

Christians are being massacred in Iraq because they peaceably demonstrated for representation in the Iraqi government. So much for the promise of Iraqi democracy. As common sense and history should teach, there will be democracy in Iraq long enough for their leaders to fully implement Sharia law. For those not understanding that implication, Sharia law does not tolerate other religions very well.

There is a better chance that Obama will find a pro-American mentor than there is for the Iraqi government to tolerate demonstrations, never mind representation of Christians in their "democratic" government.

Democracy, by the way, is a two-edged sword: The majority can represent tyranny. Tolerance and liberty are much better ideals. But, unfortunately, the great majority of folk in Iraq are Muslim. 1,400 years of Islamic influence doesn't allow Muslims to tolerate. McCain's suggestion that it might take 100 years to achieve US objectives in Iraq might not be long enough to reverse 1,400 years of ingrained intolerance and violent habits.

We as a nation, especially our leaders, haven't yet grasped the fact that Muslims aren't Christians. They have a different value system. Their Koran is closer to our Old Testament on steroids without the New Testament. Legalism and vengence prevail. Grace, forgiveness, and tolerance are foreign to those folk. It is a safe bet that democracy is the wrong goal for us in Iraq. And I don't hold out much hope that the US will stomach devoting several hundred years of our resources to try to instill "grace, forgiveness, and tolerance" in that land.

Known by the Company You Keep...

But who really cares? Apparently, not many.

Ever since Jeremiah Wright's rabid feelings and philosphy about America became widely known last year, there has been radical after radical revealed as having been Obama's mentors, friends, and associates. Here are some of those associations along with some of his decisions based on those associations...

First his Muslim father,
...Then his Muslim stepfather,
...Then his aetheist mother,
...Then his decision to change his name from Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama
...Then his not-so-hot-on-America wife,
...Then Rev. Wright,
...Then his personal and business relationships with Tony Rezko, the corrupt Syrian Chicago developer,
...Then his expression that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."
...Then his personal and community organizer relationships with Bill Ayers, the terrorist, which certainly went well beyond "just being in his neighborhood."
...Then the many associations with and support from leaders of the Nation of Islam, Islamic front groups, welfare, Communist and socialist organizations...

Is there any non-radical, non-socialist, non-Black Liberation thologist, non-Islamic, non-America hating, pro-American individual that has mentored Barrack Hussein Obama over the years?

The sad reality is, even if supporters of Barack Hussein Obama were convinced beyond any doubt that the above is all true, none of this would matter to them.

Why?

Because none of those "radicals" are radical or distastefull in the eyes of those who support Obama. There is such a lack of appreciation - not just lack of appreciation, but disdain for our culture and political system that none of Obamas' associations are seen as a negative. In fact, I would guess that while a small minority of his supporters may be put-off by these associations and influences, the greater majority are either indifferent or energized by them.

Note that most of Obama's supporters are from among Generation Ys (age 20-35 group) with a strong showing from the Xs (35 to 50).

A disproportionately large number of these folks are the ones who have slouched into becoming liberal (takeoff of William Bennett's "Slouching Toward Gommorrah") out of ignorance of our Christian heritage, and the history of our nations' struggles over the last couple of generations with their inherent sacrifices. They have no point of reference to what has made America great, most conspicuously, our founding sense of self-control and sacrifice.

So, it is only natural that these ignorant and deprived souls support a candidate who promises the easy way: fewer taxes and a massive increase in federal programs and entitlements. This is Obama's claim to fame - where his heart is - providing entitlements to those who lounge in their comfort zone of being the "oppressed" and "disadvantaged", mostly at the hands of the "enablers." Yes, the "enablers" - the well-off among us who have such pity for the "entitled" that they deprive them of the will to be self-sufficient by providing esteem and incentive squealching government handouts. There is much self-esteem, power and immediate gratification garnered by the enablers by arranging for these handouts.

After the "boomers" quit producing and paying taxes, the Gen Y/X liberals will go from feeding off the old folks to feeding off themselves - sort of like eating their young.

The election may or may not be a sqeaker - depending on the degree "the Bradley effect" is at play. But there is a growing liberal population who sees nothing wrong with radical causes and behaviors, and thus sees nothing wrong with associations with radicals.

God: Why Science Exists

As I was reading the introduction to The Shack by William P. Young, this thought about those atheists and agnostics who have a narrow but abosolute faith in Science crossed my mind. I thought I'd share...

It is this: There would be no need for science if there were not an unlimited number of undiscovered, unexplained, unknown, and seemingly unknowable things for science to prove or disprove. God fits in the category of things that science hasn't figured out. If it ever did, there would be no need for science. In the meantime, it would serve devotees of science well to accept the fact that God exists. Some scientists know him; some consider him unknowable. But to assert he does not exist is foolish - and unscientific.

In Bed...

Here's the picture:

Wachovia, a large "plum" financial institution in trouble.

Merger with a healthier institution required by FDIC.

FDIC arranges a $2.1 billion purchase by Citi Bank.

Wells Fargo offers $14.8 billion, which is favored by Wachovia stockholders and would not cost the taxpayers anything.

FDIC objects and files an injunction against the $14.8 billion deal. Further background is explained here.

This is a snapshot of the FDIC in bed with Citi Bank, ya' think?

Weird Presidential candidate pleas about economy

Both presidential candidates and many in Congress are pleading to pass the $700 billion bailout to enable Americans to get more credit to keep the economy going. In their next breath they bemoan the fact of our excessive national and personal debt. Isn't there a disconnect here?

Am I the only one confused by this?

From Wikipedia: "As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion[2], about $31,700 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.[3] Adding unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and similar obligations, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion, or $516,348 per household.[4] In 2007, the public debt was 36.9 percent of GDP [5], with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.[6]"

Consumer debt alone is nearly $2.6 trillion dollars. This is about $8,500 in debt for every man, woman and child - not including mortgage debt.

We have been warned for decades that this magnitude of national and consumer debt is excessive and will come back to bite us some day. While that debt is in the midst of biting us (it is the root cause for the current failure of our financial system), our leaders are in the process of getting us $700,000,000,000 MORE in debt so that that consumers can get themselves more in debt.

What am I missing here. I know there are two theories of national fiscal policy. One is that we ought to avoid "excessive" quantities of national and personal debt. The other, and the one that we are told we need to follow to "survive" is that national and personal debt are essential (without limit?) to maintain our national and personal prosperity.

Have we, as a nation, passed the fiscal "point of no return" whereby we have no choice but continue to embrace suicidal economic policies to prolong the agony? Or does someone really know what they are doing and things are not as bad as they seem?

Announcing: The Politically Correct Bill Marriott

Last night I viewed the Marriott Hotel web site and noticed a blog by the firms president, Bill Marriott. Here it is, along with comments he invites from others who offered their condolences and heartfelt expressions of how terrible the tragedy was.

I similarly responded, expressing my sincere condolences along with my concerns about how long it took for firefighters to respond to contain the blaze - which they never did. I commented with words similar to my previous blog on this topic, below. I followed up by adding that my hope is that this terrible event should not dissuade democracies from asserting our efforts for freedom to overcome worldwide Islamic fascist terrorism.

Mr. Marriott chose not include my comments among the responses to his blog. Let me speculate as to why my comments were not included.

In his politically and corporately correct style which is shared by many of his American corporate cohorts, he chose not to call a spade a spade for fear of offending someone. He is not into feather ruffling. He wouldn't want to turn the Pakistani government, or, Allah forbid, the Islamabad Fire Department against him. He wouldn't want his hotel to burn to the ground. Oh, wait, it already did!

He is, obviously, taking the "long view." He will continue to be "easy to get along with" and "not easily offended" so he can get back to making the big bucks in a nation that is likely to kill his employees, a nation whose firefighters and top leadership are likely secretly wallowing in the success of their retribution.

This priority is consistent with Mr. Marriott's other top buck making priorities of continuing the policy of showing porn throughout his hotel chain, despite his purported religious beliefs.

This is so typical of our political and corporate "leaders." Their personal beliefs mean practically nothing in the practice of their governmental and business affairs. This is true whether the personal belief is "pro-life" or "pro-morality". If the belief doesn't get them elected or does not enhance "the bottom line" then to hell with it - literally.

For anyone who wonders why we are a declining nation, this is as good a starting point as any.

Slowest Response to a Major Fire I've Ever Seen

I was watching live scenes of the Islamabad, Pakistan, Marriott hotel fire this morning. The first scenes broadcast on Fox cable appeared to be about 30 minutes or so after the initial Islamic terrorist bombing occurred. No fire fighting was in sight. Only after 30 to 40 additional minutes of broadcast time (well over an hour after the initial blast) did any visual of firefighting appear - one lone stream of water aimed erratically at the hotel.

Like Saudi Arabia, one has to wonder about the dedication of this "significant ally" toward the defense of American interests. I would not be surprised if there was a purposeful deference toward allowing the hotel to burn - a show of Pakistani and radical Islams' disdain toward American efforts to thwart Islamic "extremism" (or Islamic "mainstremism" is perhaps more accurate) in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Pakistan appears to have gotten a bit edgy since the US has become more effective in thwarting al Quida activity in the border regions between itself and Afghanistan. This is our "slap on the wrist" for daring to be effective - which Pakistan does not have the will to be.

The Stockholm Syndrome and Trickle Down Theory

As a conservative, a blasphemous thought has encroached into my mind concening the benefits of the "trickle down" theory we often hear about during discussions of how to stimulate the economy. I wonder whether most of us might be subject to the Stockholm Syndrome in this regard.

The conservative's solution to economic woes is usually centered around "the trickle down" theory. The opposite solution embraced by most liberals and many moderates is "tax the rich and tax big business" because they can afford it.

In an article entitled "Trickle-Down Ignorance" by Thomas Sowell (April 2, 2005) he states:

"What is often confused with a trickle-down theory is supply-side economics, such as that advocated by Arthur Laffer. That theory is that tax cuts can generate more tax revenue for the government because it changes people's behavior, causing more economic activity to take place, leading to more taxable income, as well as a faster growing economy.

Sowell continues: "Whether it will happen in a given set of circumstances is what is controversial, but none of this has anything to do with money trickling down from the rich to the poor. It has to do with the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole."

The question I am plagued with: Does "the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole" necessarily mean that the middle and lower classes benefit? Or do we just hope we will benefit? Does this merely result in the rich just getting richer and the middle and poor getting poorer?

Turning to the "Stockholm syndrome" for a moment, as Wikipedia defines it, the

"Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which they have been placed. The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28 in 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal."

The Stockholm Syndrome is "Loyalty to a more powerful abuser — in spite of the danger that this loyalty puts the victim in — is common among victims of domestic abuse, battered partners and child abuse (dependent children). In many instances the victims choose to remain loyal to their abuser, and choose not to leave him or her, even when they are offered a safe placement in foster homes or safe houses. This mental phenomenon is also known as Trauma-Bonding or Bonding-to-the-Perpetrator."

I wonder if the poor and middle classes who support the idea of the "trickle down theory" are subject to the Stockholm Syndrome?" Out of years of conditioning, are we being loyal to a more powerful abuser - in spite of the disadvantages we might reap from buying into the alleged benefits of trickle down theory espoused by the wealthy and big business (the "abuser")?

Before we buy into the alleged benefits of the trickle down theory with its' tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, let's understand whether or not there are any real economic benefits for the rest of us. Let's dare to step out of the shadow of the abuser and look at objective evidence. As Sowell wrote, all too often we take one side of an issue for granted and blindly accept it as fact without bothering to understand the other side.

It is way too easy for us to feel excessively dependent on the wealthy to make our economy work as the easy way to continue feeling comfortable and taken care of.

Let's not be intimidated by those who might be abusers who use us to further their quest for tax-free and often obscenely excessive wealth.

Suddenly Seasoned Sarah

Two days ago (pre-convention speech), Sarah Palin's liberal critics declared her a small town nobody, a run-of-the-mill soccer mom, lacking experience, and not fit for the vice-presidency, never mind president.

Well, irony of ironies, after the speech those same critics now disdainfully declare her to be "a seasoned politician" and acting like a "Washington insider." After those diametrically opposed characterizations, they are likely next to declare her "schizophrenic", all self-invented fabrications by McCain's opponents.

What is even more confusing (and disingenuous) are the comments from liberal feminists and their close friends, the mainstream media. They whine that she will be neglecting her family if she is VP, after their decades of trying to bust women through the glass ceiling. Why isn't the same criticism leveled against the male fathers in office? They chastise her daughter for an out of wedlock pregnancy while screaming for "freedom of choice." I guess they would have preferred to assert their "freedom of choice" to abort the pregnancy, aka "kill the baby." They minimize and mock the courageous and right choice made in raising a downs syndrome child. (Again, abortion is their answer.) Make up your minds, fems. Which way do you want it? You're confusing me!

Politics is strange. It verges on other-worldly insane. If an individual exhibited the same inconsistent spoutings as the left has exhibited over the past week, there would have been a family intervention by now. Perhaps these inconsistent rants are the early signs of a liberal campaign becoming unraveled. Hmmm.

My previous post expressed initial doubts about McCains' VP selection, doubts based on knowing very little about his choice. Frankly, I thought there were better choices - most notably Mit Romney. However, the more I hear from and about Sarah Palin, the more confident I am becoming about her likely effectiveness and the good she may do for this country. She will definitely be one who will be fun to watch in the coming weeks as she goes head to head with the Obama camp and the derisive media.

First Thoughts About Palin as McCain's VP

Yes, she's a conservative...good
Yes, she is pro-life...good
Yes, she is a woman...good
Yes, she is well-spoken and spunky...good.

But beyond that who is she? A maverick? A governor for a couple of years?

She is, to most of us, a great unknown. And there is not enough time for the public to get to know her well enough in the next two months for her to be an asset to the ticket. Will she be effective in her new responsibilities? Is she equipped to assume the presidency when the President dies in office? She will likely add some female and conservative boost to the ballot. Yes, she is likely to do these things for the ticket. But does she help create the best ticket for this nation? Is her level of experience what we need at this point in our history? She is too green for the job in spite of whatever talents she has.

In fact, my first impression is that McCain missed the mark by putting "getting elected" above securing the best candidate. But then, this is politics - the art of argument and compromise. As McCain sees it, if he doesn't do everything to get elected, there is nothing on the other side.

One of two things will happen. The electorate will agree that she does not add sufficient credibility to the ticket, and McCain will not be elected. Or, McCains' primary reason for selecting Palin - to get himself elected - will work, and the American people will have a Vice President ill-equipped for the task.

Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong.

Fiddling while Washington's Nuked - Why We Aren't Prepared

The current tendencies of this nation and much of our population are troublesome in several respects:

Immigration: Inability to assimilate as fast as immigration is being allowed, inviting excessive and violent cultural change in the coming years; disregard for the law by not enforcing the immigration standards we have.

Cult of "cultural diversity" and "tolerance": Belief that anyones values, culture, beliefs, religion, and behaviors are as good as, if not superior, to our own - being "tolerant" to the point of self-destruction.

Ignorance about the breadth and intent of radical Islam: What proportion of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world would like to control our nation and dictate their religious standards to the rest of our population?

Lack of defenses for the most likely violent threats to our political system, economy, and infrastructure.

Here is a site worth exploring that describes these threats in vivid detail.

The Obama Nation: Why It is Bad for Our Wellbeing

A must read about Barack Hussein Obama - "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" by Jerome Corsi. My daughter gave me Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" for Christmas 19 months ago. I may just buy her this book for a pre-election present. Here is Amazon's website for it.

The reviews of this book on Amazon reflect the polarization of this nation's readers. This is a love it or hate it book. Based on the number of pro and con reviews, most readers are Obama supporters which apparently means reading doesn't necessarily equate with common sense.

Now my take on the polarization of review comments for this book:

Reviewers either want their country to remain strong and free or weak and subject to the tyranny of others.

Reviewers either want to keep more of their own money to do what they believe is best with it, or agree to have more of their money forcibly taken by the government to give to others who won't do for themselves.

Reviewers either cherish their heritage, beliefs and culture, or believe any other heritage, belief, and culture is just as valuable, whether it be that of radical Islamists, perverts, or socialists.

Reviewers either respect and trust the wisdom and experience of age, or they are viscerally attracted to youthfulness, groundless promises, and ignorant ideas.

Feminists, Fundamentalist Christians, and Islam - Quirks of Commonality and Difference

It is amusing to observe who is defending whom, and who is critical of whom and for what reasons.

Here are two examples:

1)Feminists defense of Islam and
2)Fundamentalist Christians deep concern about Islam

First, the Feminists. Feminists, of course, have been known over the past several decades for promoting women's rights. One of the early efforts was seeking the right to vote (the women's suffrage movement. ) Since then, feminists have worked toward a broad array of enhanced rights, from equality in the workplace and in marriage, and reproductive rights - including the right to abort their pregnancy (aka "killing their unborn offspring"). Feminists also tend to be "liberals" in the "social and moral" sense. As such, they tend to defend just about any non-traditional behavior that comes to their attention. Gayness is defended and embraced. If they attend church at all, it would no doubt be a demonination like Unitarian or liberal Episcopalian or liberal Presbyterian who reinterpret selected Biblical moral pronouncements into irrelevance - the epitome of cafeteria spirituality. You probably know the pronouncmenet I'm especially referring to.

Among the non-traditional and aberrant behaviors feminists like to defend are those of Islamists, in all their radically intolerant glory. I have mused on more than one occasion why a bunch of women who promote libertarian behaviors and the right to do just about anything, traditionally moral or not, would defend and support those who belong to a religion that teaches the absolute opposite? There is no other large organization on earth that relegates women to a more submission and subservient status than does Islam. Can you imagine a feminist living under Sharia law? It would be fun to watch. In essence, they are defending the right of people to not only be intolerant, but to also impose their intolerance upon us. Yikes!

Fundamentalist Christians (FCs) provide a different perspective relating to Islam. These are the high level moralists of Christianity. Along with Catholics, they will be on the abortion clinic picket lines. They are in the forefront of promoting Christians running for office and work toward adoption of laws that many would criticize as "legislating morality." (Actually, that is the purpose of our laws - consider laws against murder or stealing, for example.) Of course, being "saved" through Jesus Christ is the core of their belief. But beyond that, they believe that government should be influenced to legislate Biblical Christian values to a greater extent than they already do (what is included in this broad category could be debated until the second coming!)

This is where fundamentalist Christians and Muslims have much in common. Both groups believe that the American culture is corrupt and decadent. FCs and Islam both promote government legislation and enforcement of religious moral law - except Sharia law is more precisely defined, codified, and radical by Western standards. Nonetheless, you would think these groups could foster some common bond based on these shared ideals. But that will never happen. FC's even have trouble accepting Mormons as something other than a misguided, brainwashed cult. And Mormons and FC's hold most of their Christian beliefs in common, although most FCs and Evangelicals will fail to admit it! So, despite their mutual propensity to enforce their religious principles on the rest of society, FCs and Muslims will not likely join forces soon. In fact FCs are more likely to consider Islam a religion of Satan - almost as evil as Mormonism. Yikes!

500-Year Flood every 50 years - Isn't It Strange?

Ask almost any civil engineer why 10-year rain events seem to occur every 3 years; why 50-year rain events seem to occur every 10 years; why 100-year rain events seem to occur every 20 years and they will tell you something that makes absolutely no sense.

Isn't it strange that June's "500-year rain event" in the midwest occurs every 50 years or so? And levees designed for a 100-year storm seem to get breached every 20 years?

Could it be that the same civil engineering mindset that designs the levees also defines and establishes the flood zone categories for FEMA?

Enough of a sense of [false] security is established to lead the trusting souls who buy property to declare: "Hey, flooding over here won't occur but once in 100 years! Over there flooding won't occur but once in 500 years. Great - we don't need to get flood insurance." What special interest gains by this scenario?

Something is wrong with this picture. The only thing that makes sense to me is that there is a blatant conflict of interest when the engineers who establish the flood zones are the same ones who design the levees. Obviously this combination does not work. And who established and administers this system? FEMA. What special interest group likely controls this aspect of FEMA oversight? Civil engineers.

When we blame government for its failures, look to the private sector special interest group that often controls and manipulates that "oversight". Oh, and of course, the realtors, developers, contractors, bankers and many others who profit by the development and sale of land also lend their special interest influence on government to make sure "evil and oppressive" government standards do not interfere with their business practices and bottom line.

BIGOTS - Part 2

As I expressed in a previous post, I believe the words “bigot” and “judgmental” have become seriously overused. These words are often used against anyone with whom a person simply disagrees.

On the other hand, as with the word “racist” there are times when there is no better word to describe a person who lacks understanding and is grossly intolerant. While a person who simply feels more comfortable among people who share his ethnicity is not necessarily a racist, one who has an ignorant antipathy toward those unlike himself certainly deserves that label.

This principle can be applied to the term “bigot.” There are occasions when people absolutely deserve this label. This couldn’t be more true than in the case of Texas vs. the Fundamentalist LDS church.

If I were an unbiased observer, detached from the culture and mores of 21st century America, looking down at our mainstream American culture on one hand, and the FLDS church on the other, I would be hard pressed to condemn the values and behaviors of that church as compared to the values and behaviors of our mainstream culture. Texas law enforcement, family services, and the legal system are clearly the aggressors. Further, it is somewhat disingenuous that a culture as corrupt as ours has the audacity to judge the culture of a religious body in a nation that purports “freedom of religion.” It is not as if this is a group of terrorists threatening the existence of this nation. This body is, in fact totally opposite – exhibiting a meekness rivaling that of the Amish.

Texas family services and the other accusers say the poor women have been brainwashed. By whom? The leaders of their church? Is this any less true of devout believers in virtually any religion? So, are the men of the church, their leaders, brainwashed, too? Or are they teaching what they teach just for the sex? - this is what our perverted culture would lead us to believe. Or do they teach what they believe based on their faith? Students of polygamist cultures will attest that having multiple wives is no picnic. The practice has a sustaining purpose and comes with a great deal of responsibility and difficulty. Ask any serial polygamist of our mainstream culture if this isn’t true!

At the time of this posting, there is some evidence that the anonymous "16-year-old girl" who filed the accusation was a hoax. If this is true, it becomes even more clear that there have been aggregious civil rights violations with the purpose of sticking the nose of the the fox in the hen house door. The state of Texas is going to have to float a huge bond issue to fund this legal debacle.

This is a situation where the prevailing culture lacks understanding (ignorance) and lacks tolerance (prejudice) of a religious group and seeks to disrupt and eliminate their religious system. This is fundamentalist bigotry.

DOUBLE STANDARD

Tell me which scenario appears to be a severe case of “unequal treatment” of the affected group:

An individual in a poor, crime-riddled neighborhood claims she was raped. No individuals in the neighborhood are summarily removed from their homes and detained.

A Muslim accused of constructing a pipe bomb is apprehended and brought into custody, but all other Muslims he associated with remain with their families.

A Catholic priest accused of child molestation is taken into custody, but all other priests, many of whom may or may not be guilty of a similar crime, remain with their parish.

An anonymous woman calls authorities and claims she was abused by her Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ husband, and 400 children of that faith are taken from their families, detained and "reprogrammed."

As much as one may disagree with the doctrine and practice of that particular church, ya gotta wonder.

Picture, for a moment, the typical American city, with its street gangs, rapes, murders, incest, child abuse, spousal abuse, drug abuse, robberies, and assaults. Asserting the standard applied to the Fundamentalist LDS church, 25% of the population of this nations' largest cities would be taken into custody and reprogrammed by the state of Texas.

Who made the judgement that the practices of this church are worse than all of the crimes listed above? And the most puzzling question of all...if there was a crime committed, why were the children taken from their mothers instead of finding the person who allegedly committed the crime as has been the practice in this country for the last 200 years?

So much for freedom of religion...destroying an entire church for one alleged criminal who has not even been found. [Note: Later found and confirmed to be a hoax. Vindication!]

Crying "judgmental" without being judgmental

That is an interesting trick.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Just about anyone who has an opinion about a person, a religion, or a behavior is called a bigot nowadays. Oddly, this phenomenon more often than not results in the name caller becoming as much of a bigot as the accused. Either that or the term is overused and misapplied.

For example, if you provide indisputable evidence that the preponderance of terrorist acts are conducted by Muslims based on their Koranic scripture, you will be called a bigot, intolerant, or judgmental.

If you point out Jeremiah Wright’s numerous racist, inflammatory, and anti-American statements, you will be called a bigot.

If a presidential candidate states facts to bring to light contrasting positions of other candidates that are believed to be inferior to his own, he will either be accused of being a bigot or, at best, a negative campaigner.

Expressing any critical opinion about an individual or group or about their behavior is more politically incorrect than any time I can recall in the past 50 years. Calling someone a bigot has recently overtaken the overuse of the word judgmental!

What has happened to the ability of people in this country to express intellectually honest statements and opinions? Name calling, whether referring to someone as a bigot or judgmental is chilling to free speech and legitimate communications. Since when has it become inappropriate to speak accurate opinions, facts, and truth?

If you have a strong opinion about someone or something, and express it, chances are you will be called a bigot or judgmental. If you say you will not tolerate an individual's or group's bad or threatening behavior, you will be called a bigot or judgmental. What is wrong with being distrustful of Islamists when 99% of all terrorist activity is conducted by Islamists? And the "moderates" among them barely denounce this fact. Historically, that "judgement" has been characterized as "wise discernment." But no, not in today's lexicon. If you are “discerning” about the actions of an individual or a group, and express the basis for your discernment, you will be labeled a bigot or judgmental.

Bottom line. Our rabidly politically confused (the word "correct" should be replaced by the word "confused") culture has declared that there is no distinction between right and wrong. We shall not bring to anyone’s attention any distinction between right and wrong. Anyone who attempts to draw such a distinction will be chastised as either a bigot or judgmental.

You know what I’m thinkin’? I’m thinkin’ that anyone who labels any of my comments as bigoted or judgmental can go stick it. Why? Without things we can believe in as right, true, preferable, and desirable, as compared to things that are wrong, false, to be avoided, or undesirable, we are in deep trouble as individuals, as a community, as a culture and as a country. Without deeply held, well founded values that are worthy of defending, promoting, and contrasting with competing and opposing values, we might as well roll up the sidewalks and turn off the lights. Not everyone who has an opinion is a bigot.

What about those who do the name calling? What about the Muslims who accuse those who point out the violent acts of Muslims of being a bigot?

What about defenders of Jeremiah Wright who accuse those who point out his many racist, inflammatory, and anti-American statements of being a bigot?

What are these name callers up to? Can you see through their name calling? Are they being intellectually honest? Are they so desperately committed to the indefensible that they lose touch with rational thought? Or don’t care?
Keep that great probability in mind the next time you either hear someone making the accusation of “bigot” or “judgmental” or if you consider making those accusations yourself.

In too many instances (not all) such name calling makes the accuser one.

And, by the way, these are just fact-based opinions we're expressing. No need for name calling, like "judgemental" and "bigot." Chill! A person can't open his mouth today without some overly sensitive ass complaining and name calling.

Oops. Did I just say that? Good. I feel better.