Dear Sir,
I read your very long winded article on "support" for Israel Click here: The American Thinker and found it, quite honestly, stupid, naive, and way off point. Real thinkers don't like Israel because it created 750,000 UN recognized refugees with its Zionist war in 1948, and since then has tried to steal even more land to create a "Greater Israel."
When Menachem Begin was elected he described this as "not occupying but liberating Judea and Summeria" which is pure Biblical fantasy, at best. His Likud Party, with American help, has now gone on to inflame the entire Muslim world, cause 9/11, and the current worldwide war on terror. Support for Likud has been and is very stupid; support for a just peace would have been very smart. Do you get it now?
Peace always could have been easily achieved with total separation by an internationally built and defended wall at the internationally recognized '67 borders, and paying off the Palestinians with 30-40 $Billion. Likud did not do this because it wanted to steal land from the Palestinians far more than it wanted peace.
America's blind support for Likud, and not peace, is based on accident, stupidity, guilt over the holocaust, and fear of anti-Semitism. We are the only ones in the world who blindly support Israel, i.e., Likud, and we have paid a huge and needless price for it. Get it now??
3.25.2005
Thinking About Terri Schiavo
Firstly, we all might be very proud to live in a country where one human life, such as it is, is valued so much. Perhaps we should just let Terri live as a symbol of how much we value life and individual liberty; as the symbol of how we are so naturally inclined to avoid the pre-Nazi slippery slope on which individual life meant so little, except as an instrument of the state. After all, killing people by the millions has been the normal course of human history. Terri in some ways represents the culmination of the long road toward freedom and individual liberty on which people and individuals mattered more and more, and gov't, and the mass slaughter it always causes, matters less and less.
Or, perhaps we should let her live just to confound a liberal world which has come to believe America's heart is somehow essentially evil? Or, perhaps we should let her live to remind us that it is the Republicans who seems to care and vote from their hearts to save life while the liberals are so empty and silent and cold. Is it the same sentiment that allows liberals not to care about 1 million aborted babies a year? Or, perhaps we should just let her live because her parents and family still want to love and be with their daughter regardless of her IQ? Imagine that kind of love in contrast to the deadly violence that has animated almost all of human history.
Terri's story is inexplicable in so many ways. Is she really different from many of the 2000 people who die every day in this country? Why this one case above all the others? We don't really know. It is like asking how Angelina Jolie got to be the most beautiful woman in the world or how Scott Peterson got to be the most infamous murder this year. These things result from a complex interplay between media and consumers. In many ways they represent our inability to be conceptual, and in the case of Terri, our wish to look into our own tragic futures. We find dealing with beauty, or murder, or death in general, on a conceptual level difficult and unfulfilling, but deal with them we must since they are ever present and ever important. We deal with them through one obvious individual case at a time so as to be forthright and honest, and yet as non-conceptual as suites our natural mental processes.
The specific case against Terri is simple. The courts have found, based on nearly meaningless hearsay evidence, from an insanely relentless exhusband, with a personal grudge and financial motives, that Terri would want to die in a situation like the one she is now in, and so her individual liberty must be honored over the liberty of her family and her society. And, on some level, we understand the natural progression of the sentiment expressed on behalf of Terri is that one day we might all value life so much that we will all want to be kept alive as long as possible, in any form possible, and by any technological means possible. It would simply be too expensive and ultimately represent a significant conflict with all the other things the money might buy.
This debate between the quality and quantity of life has always gone on, albeit less publicly than now. In many senses it is astonishing how, despite the flourishing of individual liberty, the quality of life seems to have won out in general. For example, we have a billion dollars to spend on Oreo Cookies each year, to pick just one silly brand among 1000s, which arguably might be better spent on cancer research or general health care. In the end the many moments of life speak to us louder than the few moments of death. We know death is coming but still we have found that an Oreo cookie is the better medicine.
It seems certain now that we will honor what we think of as Terri's wish to die a slow death of dehydration. Conversely, if we could save her or even cure her, and the other 2000 human beings who will die today, would we? Indeed the absence of death would create even greater problems. Populations would rise dramatically, and we would be inclined to put everything off until tomorrow. Time, always our greatest adversary and reference point, would cease to have meaning, except perhaps as a way to measure the boredom.
So somehow we muddle on as we are: congratulatory that we cared, proud of what we have become, sad that she must die tragically as we all must die, but still somehow finding some way and some reason to enjoy the coming spring. Perhaps in the end it is children that are at the heart of what keeps us going despite all that we know. We must provide for them, we owe them a future, and most importantly, we must share and give meaning to their youthful joy and innocence. Without the springtime of life that they bring to us, there would be very little to counterbalance the end of life that Terri so strongly suggests to us.
comments: bje1000@aol.com
Or, perhaps we should let her live just to confound a liberal world which has come to believe America's heart is somehow essentially evil? Or, perhaps we should let her live to remind us that it is the Republicans who seems to care and vote from their hearts to save life while the liberals are so empty and silent and cold. Is it the same sentiment that allows liberals not to care about 1 million aborted babies a year? Or, perhaps we should just let her live because her parents and family still want to love and be with their daughter regardless of her IQ? Imagine that kind of love in contrast to the deadly violence that has animated almost all of human history.
Terri's story is inexplicable in so many ways. Is she really different from many of the 2000 people who die every day in this country? Why this one case above all the others? We don't really know. It is like asking how Angelina Jolie got to be the most beautiful woman in the world or how Scott Peterson got to be the most infamous murder this year. These things result from a complex interplay between media and consumers. In many ways they represent our inability to be conceptual, and in the case of Terri, our wish to look into our own tragic futures. We find dealing with beauty, or murder, or death in general, on a conceptual level difficult and unfulfilling, but deal with them we must since they are ever present and ever important. We deal with them through one obvious individual case at a time so as to be forthright and honest, and yet as non-conceptual as suites our natural mental processes.
The specific case against Terri is simple. The courts have found, based on nearly meaningless hearsay evidence, from an insanely relentless exhusband, with a personal grudge and financial motives, that Terri would want to die in a situation like the one she is now in, and so her individual liberty must be honored over the liberty of her family and her society. And, on some level, we understand the natural progression of the sentiment expressed on behalf of Terri is that one day we might all value life so much that we will all want to be kept alive as long as possible, in any form possible, and by any technological means possible. It would simply be too expensive and ultimately represent a significant conflict with all the other things the money might buy.
This debate between the quality and quantity of life has always gone on, albeit less publicly than now. In many senses it is astonishing how, despite the flourishing of individual liberty, the quality of life seems to have won out in general. For example, we have a billion dollars to spend on Oreo Cookies each year, to pick just one silly brand among 1000s, which arguably might be better spent on cancer research or general health care. In the end the many moments of life speak to us louder than the few moments of death. We know death is coming but still we have found that an Oreo cookie is the better medicine.
It seems certain now that we will honor what we think of as Terri's wish to die a slow death of dehydration. Conversely, if we could save her or even cure her, and the other 2000 human beings who will die today, would we? Indeed the absence of death would create even greater problems. Populations would rise dramatically, and we would be inclined to put everything off until tomorrow. Time, always our greatest adversary and reference point, would cease to have meaning, except perhaps as a way to measure the boredom.
So somehow we muddle on as we are: congratulatory that we cared, proud of what we have become, sad that she must die tragically as we all must die, but still somehow finding some way and some reason to enjoy the coming spring. Perhaps in the end it is children that are at the heart of what keeps us going despite all that we know. We must provide for them, we owe them a future, and most importantly, we must share and give meaning to their youthful joy and innocence. Without the springtime of life that they bring to us, there would be very little to counterbalance the end of life that Terri so strongly suggests to us.
comments: bje1000@aol.com
3.23.2005
RED STATES ARE DUMB STATES?
Democrats have taken a beating in the last couple of elections. Many somewhat honest but rude Democrats are deriving some comfort though in noting that Red States are demonstrably inferior, or even in thinking of the people who inhabit those States as demonstrably inferior.
The economies of the Red States tend to be "dominated by older extraction industries and by low-wage manufacturing and federal facilities. They are the home of old-fashioned values and the "Bible Belt," with its pro-life, antigay convictions and tendency to be more wedded to creationism than to science." Many analyses show that people in Red States tend to earn less, have less education, have more divorce, abortion, unemployment, crime, and even lower IQ's. Conversely, the Blue States represent the "Metropolitan areas primarily along both coasts that include both the historic industrial base and the "New Economy," new economic classes, a commitment to scientific innovation, and new ways of constructing the world." In short, the Blue States are liberal and Democratic.
So then, why would anybody want to challenge the rude condescending smugness the Democrats have toward the people of the Red States? There are two reasons: 1) having manners obviously gives Republicans a huge political advantage against the rude, condescending and yet oh so sophisticated Democrats, and 2) the idea that Red is somehow inferior is stupid. Whatever negative you can say about the Red States, you can also say they are conservatives who have, for whatever reason, inherited the wisdom of the past and tend to vote, accordingly, for values that seem to be the values that were in place when American growth and greatness was the most incredible phenomenon in all of human history.
The liberals came to power in 1932 only in response to the Depression, and with no plan whatsoever. They existed only to see find problems and exploit them. They gave new meaning to the phrase, "throwing out the baby with the bath water." In their attempt to fix greatness, and support new ways to construct the world, they promptly extended the Depression for 10 years, with higher taxes and bigger gov't, which in turn led to WW2. They indirectly supported Lenin, Stain, Hitler, Mao, and Castro, (actually spyed for Lenin and Stalin) even as tens of millions were being killed. In the 60's they launched a "War on Poverty" that amounted to near genocide against American Blacks. They liberated women from marriage so most American kids could then grow up in broken homes, if there even were homes to be broken. They continue to support new ways to liberate humankind from the traditional Republican family even as this liberation kills 10's of millions around the world, most notably in Africa. Indeed, if we do live in a global village liberals ought to take note of it!
The Red States, for whatever reason, have stood heroically against all this deadly liberal "new construction." They conserve the tried and true values of the most glorious past in all of human history while moving forward at a sensible pace. One can only hope the Democrats continue to take comfort in rude condescension toward the best values of human history. They are entitled only to the comfort that destroys them.
The economies of the Red States tend to be "dominated by older extraction industries and by low-wage manufacturing and federal facilities. They are the home of old-fashioned values and the "Bible Belt," with its pro-life, antigay convictions and tendency to be more wedded to creationism than to science." Many analyses show that people in Red States tend to earn less, have less education, have more divorce, abortion, unemployment, crime, and even lower IQ's. Conversely, the Blue States represent the "Metropolitan areas primarily along both coasts that include both the historic industrial base and the "New Economy," new economic classes, a commitment to scientific innovation, and new ways of constructing the world." In short, the Blue States are liberal and Democratic.
So then, why would anybody want to challenge the rude condescending smugness the Democrats have toward the people of the Red States? There are two reasons: 1) having manners obviously gives Republicans a huge political advantage against the rude, condescending and yet oh so sophisticated Democrats, and 2) the idea that Red is somehow inferior is stupid. Whatever negative you can say about the Red States, you can also say they are conservatives who have, for whatever reason, inherited the wisdom of the past and tend to vote, accordingly, for values that seem to be the values that were in place when American growth and greatness was the most incredible phenomenon in all of human history.
The liberals came to power in 1932 only in response to the Depression, and with no plan whatsoever. They existed only to see find problems and exploit them. They gave new meaning to the phrase, "throwing out the baby with the bath water." In their attempt to fix greatness, and support new ways to construct the world, they promptly extended the Depression for 10 years, with higher taxes and bigger gov't, which in turn led to WW2. They indirectly supported Lenin, Stain, Hitler, Mao, and Castro, (actually spyed for Lenin and Stalin) even as tens of millions were being killed. In the 60's they launched a "War on Poverty" that amounted to near genocide against American Blacks. They liberated women from marriage so most American kids could then grow up in broken homes, if there even were homes to be broken. They continue to support new ways to liberate humankind from the traditional Republican family even as this liberation kills 10's of millions around the world, most notably in Africa. Indeed, if we do live in a global village liberals ought to take note of it!
The Red States, for whatever reason, have stood heroically against all this deadly liberal "new construction." They conserve the tried and true values of the most glorious past in all of human history while moving forward at a sensible pace. One can only hope the Democrats continue to take comfort in rude condescension toward the best values of human history. They are entitled only to the comfort that destroys them.
3.15.2005
Michael Jackson: Liberalism on Trial?
Michael Jackson is a special case to be sure, but so are the 90 million in Africa who are expected to get AIDS. What is special is that both are, in large part, victims of liberal Democrats. It seems that neither was taught Republican family values and so both embarked into the brave new sexual world that conservatives had long warned against.
Yes, Jackson was born into a very odd and abusive family, and with incredible talent. He was given neither education, love, nor sensible religious values. And, lastly, he apparently was also born with a tendency to be an effeminate, homosexual pedophile. But perhaps most importantly, he was born into a feminist, homosexual, liberal, tolerant Democratic culture which wanted to make room for the entire rich and "sophisticated" panoply of diverse lifestyles that the liberal mind could cook up. The distinguished scholar, Marlo Thomas, taught us that we were " Free To Be You And Me". Johnny had two dads, Suzy had two Moms, Michael was boldly liberal androgynous and just loved little boys. It was ok. 10,000 years of human history had been instantly reversed, or so it seemed.
In fact, Mr. Jackson at one point was on the cover of Time Magazine where he was hailed as the liberal symbol of the "New Androgyny". None other than Elizabeth Taylor testified to his glorious combination of male and female qualities. A raft of feminists chimed in that he represented the death of traditional macho men and the dawn of a glorious, liberated new sexual future. Some men did seem to cringe, but mostly in intimidated silence, at the thought of lipstick and makeup.
Ok, so the liberal attempt to rewrite human cultural history in an instant didn't quite work out as expected, and even liberals seem to have drawn the line at pedophilia, but other aspects of the attack on the traditional Republican family continued unabated. The American divorce rate is 50%, nearly 50% of all American children grow up in broken homes, there are more young Black men in jail than in college, and we are paralyzed on the world stage in fear of looking intolerant toward even Africa's genocidal sexual culture.
But now it may be time for liberals to punish Mr. Jackson for his excessive liberalism. It is hard though. When a priest in Boston (Father John Geoghan) was send to prison for pedophilia, guards noticed that other inmates developed a predilection for urinating on his bed. In time he was then transferred to another prison, for his own safety, whereupon he was promptly stomped to death by another group of very intolerant fellow inmates. Very sadly, there was almost no reaction anywhere to our inability to make the proscribed punishment fit the crime. If Mr. Jackson does go to jail we can only hope the state's proscribed punishment will be administered, and not usurped by an insane, blood thirsty, liberal mob.
A liberal mob? Yes, a liberal mob indeed, and Hillary Clinton knows this grotesque truth all too well and seems quite happy to exploit it. Convicts are liberal Democrats as certainly as American soldiers are Republicans. Her very recent "make every vote count" legislation cynically seeks to enfranchise ex-cons, not because she values their deadly urinary wisdom, but because she knows the concentration of liberalism among ex-cons is as great as it is on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. It seems liberalism is everywhere: in Michael Jackson, Africa, Hillary Clinton, and in American prisons. And, everywhere, it is a obvious horror.
comments: bje1000@aol.com
Yes, Jackson was born into a very odd and abusive family, and with incredible talent. He was given neither education, love, nor sensible religious values. And, lastly, he apparently was also born with a tendency to be an effeminate, homosexual pedophile. But perhaps most importantly, he was born into a feminist, homosexual, liberal, tolerant Democratic culture which wanted to make room for the entire rich and "sophisticated" panoply of diverse lifestyles that the liberal mind could cook up. The distinguished scholar, Marlo Thomas, taught us that we were " Free To Be You And Me". Johnny had two dads, Suzy had two Moms, Michael was boldly liberal androgynous and just loved little boys. It was ok. 10,000 years of human history had been instantly reversed, or so it seemed.
In fact, Mr. Jackson at one point was on the cover of Time Magazine where he was hailed as the liberal symbol of the "New Androgyny". None other than Elizabeth Taylor testified to his glorious combination of male and female qualities. A raft of feminists chimed in that he represented the death of traditional macho men and the dawn of a glorious, liberated new sexual future. Some men did seem to cringe, but mostly in intimidated silence, at the thought of lipstick and makeup.
Ok, so the liberal attempt to rewrite human cultural history in an instant didn't quite work out as expected, and even liberals seem to have drawn the line at pedophilia, but other aspects of the attack on the traditional Republican family continued unabated. The American divorce rate is 50%, nearly 50% of all American children grow up in broken homes, there are more young Black men in jail than in college, and we are paralyzed on the world stage in fear of looking intolerant toward even Africa's genocidal sexual culture.
But now it may be time for liberals to punish Mr. Jackson for his excessive liberalism. It is hard though. When a priest in Boston (Father John Geoghan) was send to prison for pedophilia, guards noticed that other inmates developed a predilection for urinating on his bed. In time he was then transferred to another prison, for his own safety, whereupon he was promptly stomped to death by another group of very intolerant fellow inmates. Very sadly, there was almost no reaction anywhere to our inability to make the proscribed punishment fit the crime. If Mr. Jackson does go to jail we can only hope the state's proscribed punishment will be administered, and not usurped by an insane, blood thirsty, liberal mob.
A liberal mob? Yes, a liberal mob indeed, and Hillary Clinton knows this grotesque truth all too well and seems quite happy to exploit it. Convicts are liberal Democrats as certainly as American soldiers are Republicans. Her very recent "make every vote count" legislation cynically seeks to enfranchise ex-cons, not because she values their deadly urinary wisdom, but because she knows the concentration of liberalism among ex-cons is as great as it is on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. It seems liberalism is everywhere: in Michael Jackson, Africa, Hillary Clinton, and in American prisons. And, everywhere, it is a obvious horror.
comments: bje1000@aol.com
3.10.2005
Killing Millions At The Liberal UN
When John Kerry, the former liberal Democratic Presidential hopeful said, "we can't fight Communism everywhere" he was really saying two things: 1) I'm a coward, and 2) I don't really believe in defending or promoting American values. Kerry came easily to mind the other day when the very liberal UN announced a study which predicted 90 million would get aids in Africa in the near future. The response from John Kerry and the UN was, well, liberal.
The correct response is to impose American values on Africa to save the 90 million lives, as well as the millions more who will die needlessly from other causes. But, this would dramatically conflict with liberal values which hold that American values are bad values, or at least bad enough that they should not be imperialistically inflicted on Africans even when African values are causing millions to die needlessly. Moreover, it would require the imposition of American family values over Africa's suicidal, homicidal sexual values, and this, liberals would find absolutely unbearable. Imagine teaching people to be heterosexual, to love and be loyal to their spouses and children? Its so 1950s American.
When Daniel Patrick Moynahan was asked years ago about where American family values came from he simply replied, "when a woman got pregnant out of wedlock in 18th century England, she died." She did however teach those who lived an important lesson about family values. But, without the intellectual background of even 18 Century England, Africans are seemingly incapable of learning to value life, even from the many millions of dead bodies piling up all around them.
So, imposition by force seems the only realistic possibility for Africa. Liberals around the world would have to become conservative, select a small demonstration country in Africa, install a powerful international army to in turn install a western style constitution, economy, and religion circa 1950, ceremoniously execute for treason all those who significantly violated the new civilized values, and then pray for the best. Yes, yes, it sounds very harsh but is it really more harsh than sitting around on our confused, befuddled, conflicted, ambiguous, nuanced, cowardly, and liberal hands while new millions die with each passing year? comments: bje1000@aol.com
The correct response is to impose American values on Africa to save the 90 million lives, as well as the millions more who will die needlessly from other causes. But, this would dramatically conflict with liberal values which hold that American values are bad values, or at least bad enough that they should not be imperialistically inflicted on Africans even when African values are causing millions to die needlessly. Moreover, it would require the imposition of American family values over Africa's suicidal, homicidal sexual values, and this, liberals would find absolutely unbearable. Imagine teaching people to be heterosexual, to love and be loyal to their spouses and children? Its so 1950s American.
When Daniel Patrick Moynahan was asked years ago about where American family values came from he simply replied, "when a woman got pregnant out of wedlock in 18th century England, she died." She did however teach those who lived an important lesson about family values. But, without the intellectual background of even 18 Century England, Africans are seemingly incapable of learning to value life, even from the many millions of dead bodies piling up all around them.
So, imposition by force seems the only realistic possibility for Africa. Liberals around the world would have to become conservative, select a small demonstration country in Africa, install a powerful international army to in turn install a western style constitution, economy, and religion circa 1950, ceremoniously execute for treason all those who significantly violated the new civilized values, and then pray for the best. Yes, yes, it sounds very harsh but is it really more harsh than sitting around on our confused, befuddled, conflicted, ambiguous, nuanced, cowardly, and liberal hands while new millions die with each passing year? comments: bje1000@aol.com
3.08.2005
SOCIAL SECURITY AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS
If you give the gov't 13% of your income for life, they will steal and or waste most of it, and then give you back $952 (current average SS check) a month at retirement. If you are free to keep the money in a private account you'll have 2-3 times as much per month at retirement (assuming a historically low 4% return, and $30K annual income) and die with a $millon estate for your children or heirs. In short, our beloved Democratic gov't is stealing millions from virtually every American when we are supposed to live in a free country as defined by the Jeffersonian Republicans. Social Security is yet another perfect example of why Republican freedom from gov't is so important.
The real mystery here is why do Democrats love gov't so much when it was the greatest evil in human history( by a huge margin) that their own country was specifically founded to avoid? They are the beneficiaries of the greatest wisdom in human history and yet they seek to squander it rather than pass it on as Thomas Jefferson so magnanimously did. comments: bje1000@aol.com
The real mystery here is why do Democrats love gov't so much when it was the greatest evil in human history( by a huge margin) that their own country was specifically founded to avoid? They are the beneficiaries of the greatest wisdom in human history and yet they seek to squander it rather than pass it on as Thomas Jefferson so magnanimously did. comments: bje1000@aol.com
3.01.2005
THREE CHEERS FOR WAL-MART
child Republican: Wal Mart is good because it has low prices.
child Democrat : Wal Mart is bad because it pays low wages.
child Democrat : We need socialism/liberalism to require higher wages.
adult Republican: Wal Mart wages are higher wages or they would have no workers. Wal Mart low prices give millions of Americans a pay increase; while only 1000's of employees get the, supposedly, low wages .
adult Democrat : Many Wal Mart employees don't earn a living wage
adult Republican : It is closer to a living wage than before being blessed by Wal Mart
educated Democrat: Republicans lack empathy and compassion
educated Republican: If that was true they would not like Wal Mart
educated Democrat : What's wrong with helping people
educated Republican : Nothing, that's why we love capitalism and hate Democrats
educated Democrat : What's wrong with taking from the rich and giving to the poor
educated Republican : Giving seems to create the need for more giving.
educated Republican : The top 1% pay 23% of taxes, but the need has not diminished.
educated Democrat : Unions help workers.
educated Republican : In fact, unions and liberals cause outsourcing of jobs to China, and give every American a pay decrease.
educated Democrat : A capitalist society is cruel.
educated Republican : Yes, 500,000 businesses die each year because consumers buy better products at lower prices elsewhere. This drives businesses into bankruptcy, and unemployes millions, but it is the competitive process that gives us better products at lower prices and the highest standard of living in the world. comments bje1000@aol.com
child Democrat : Wal Mart is bad because it pays low wages.
child Democrat : We need socialism/liberalism to require higher wages.
adult Republican: Wal Mart wages are higher wages or they would have no workers. Wal Mart low prices give millions of Americans a pay increase; while only 1000's of employees get the, supposedly, low wages .
adult Democrat : Many Wal Mart employees don't earn a living wage
adult Republican : It is closer to a living wage than before being blessed by Wal Mart
educated Democrat: Republicans lack empathy and compassion
educated Republican: If that was true they would not like Wal Mart
educated Democrat : What's wrong with helping people
educated Republican : Nothing, that's why we love capitalism and hate Democrats
educated Democrat : What's wrong with taking from the rich and giving to the poor
educated Republican : Giving seems to create the need for more giving.
educated Republican : The top 1% pay 23% of taxes, but the need has not diminished.
educated Democrat : Unions help workers.
educated Republican : In fact, unions and liberals cause outsourcing of jobs to China, and give every American a pay decrease.
educated Democrat : A capitalist society is cruel.
educated Republican : Yes, 500,000 businesses die each year because consumers buy better products at lower prices elsewhere. This drives businesses into bankruptcy, and unemployes millions, but it is the competitive process that gives us better products at lower prices and the highest standard of living in the world. comments bje1000@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)