Thursday, November 29, 2007

Religion Will Influence My Choice

I realized something interesting... There is this debate about Romney, and whether we could elect a Mormon president. On one side, there are the liberal secularist, many constitutional conservatives, and independents saying there is no religious test for President, shouldn't matter at all. And, I agree. But who do we actually elect? Married Caucasian males of wider Christian faith exclusively. Now, there was a separate but similar debate I heard recently about appointing a Muslim to a cabinet post so we would 'understand' foreign policy better. Putting two and two together I realized something interesting. The country was founded by Protestant Christians predominantly, and the formation of the culture, government, whole society reflects that. Part of that is the strong respect of freedom. Now, if a religion is formed upon a different ethos, pushes a subservience to God that includes abdication of personal freedoms to the church, and that church pushes the concept of social and moral control through the state, would you consider actively opposing a candidate for governance based on that persons adherence to that faith?

I had to ask myself this, and I think the question is yes. Not in terms of bigotry, or opposition to any one individuals belief. But globals in a persons religion are unavoidable, and if that person makes the choice to agree with said religion, how can they support our constitution in full? A funny thing, as it is easy to believe that an atheist free market conservative will uphold the tenets of the constitution. Its easy to understand, even vote for, a Jew like Lieberman, knowing that his priority is foremost this countries safety, even when I disagree with most of his social views. And it is even possible to comprehend Rudy, who is not in line with his own church, but clearly states his position.

But that brings us to the big two. Even moderate Muslims are a question mark. There is little evidence that supports their (collective) endorsement of the separation of government and religion. Not that it is the paramount issue, but is not reflective of the majority in America, and would play into a voting decision. Again, I don't mean in terms of bigotry or any such, people are free to believe what they want. But when we know what they believe, and it does not fit with the open and free government system in the U.S., why can't that be used in consideration of a candidate?

Second, returning to Romney, how can I fully support someone to make correct decisions, when you know as a absolute certainty that they believe an obvious falsehood? I don't mean "are Mormons Christians" and what not. I mean the obvious phony history surrounding the whole origin of the religion (no hate here, its blatantly obvious to any, and extensively investigated by real anthropologists...). Hey, many very capable Christians believe in the whole ten thousand years since creation thing, but that is obvious ignorance, and someone who promoted such would by on the bottom of my list as well. Again, its not a bigotry thing, you can believe in fairies and frosty the snowman for all I care, but if I know you believe in that, and promote it as real, does that not give me grounds for questioning your decision making capabilities?

It is my right, in this country to decide who will lead us. Many religions do not have that same structure, that's ok. Even Catholics (not really the religion of choice in inspiring the foundation of this country) seem to abdicate freedom in the regards to leadership in the church. Here is where true liberals (old school), libertarians, and some conservatives are in agreement. Freedom of choice permeates the respective philosophies, even when in disagreement. Its a obvious tenet of the atheists, verging on nihilism. Its a huge cornerstone of Protestantism. And for those simply ruled by commerce, holds pretty well again.

Thus I stand, ones religion in the individual context can be a fine indicator for voting, and should not be a big deal. But in the age of PC, you can't disclose such. It come in as a modifier, after issues based decisions, and political platform. For instance, I don't care about Hillary's type of Methodist thinking. Many misguided Christians are swayed by socialist tendency's. I mean the intentions align in wanting to help your fellow many. They just can't see the unavoidable flaw of abdicating that responsibility to government. Socialism will always fail. So even though I agree with more of the values held by the United Methodists like Hillary, I would not vote for her based on that. And I would vote for Romney over any socialist, but I am not comfortable with any Mormon who I didn't know personally to lead us (again, its LEADERSHIP, not friends, family or acquaintance...). Personal knowledge reveals character, and anyone can be part of a religion simply by birth or for community association, and that shouldn't disqualify for office.

So, that leaves the hanging question of analyzing in a governmental context the compatibility of filling that government with individuals who believe in a religion that does not support fully that type of government...

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Cockroaches Skitter

It is a amazing twist of extreme deliciousness that MSNBC, a network of socialist stooges, has a reporter with a brain. Bill Dedman is his name, and in this article we can just call him the Orkin Man. It is such a incredible exposure of how shallow and narcissistic journalist are that I was fearfull the article would be pulled before I finished reading! Please go read for yourself, if its still there! The twisted responses from journos when asked about their political contributions reads like a clinical psychology text on denial. It definitely crosses party lines, as they all run for cover. What doesn't cross party lines is where the money is going. Can you guess? Did you say fair and balanced? Well, funny thing, Fox has on record five contributors, three to Dem causes and campaigns! How about the totals? What was your guess? Democrat contributors totaled 126, Republican 17. Gee, I can't see a bias in the media at all! So, less than 12% Republican. Still no bias of course.

Now, this is not a scientific study, and is no surprise to any honest observer. In fact, the true exposure is not the fact of mainstream media socialist tendencies. It is the state of mind these people have developed. The drink from the cup of feigned objectivity, pop the purple pill of "objective" reporting. At the root a Utopian higher morality, crafted from emotional responses, that supersedes the common man. For instance, when confronted with the obvious fact that the journo in question had made a political contribution, one representative response was:
"I asked for those contributions back," Amantharaman said. "I don't want to comment on this."
So, basically if the contribution could be made anonymously... Oh, and imagine a reporter not wanting to "comment" on the fact that they actually have a opinion, are a normal person, and support a certain point of view? All of these newsrooms have policies against complicity, the effect of which is a abstraction in the collective mentality, a virtual group schizophrenia.

What do we, the consumer, sense from such people? That they are crazy, and can't be trusted. Who would you want the news from? Someone who told you the truth about their personal opinions, and then told you their interpretation of news and events, along with the facts? Or someone who told you they were completely objective, yet would not disclose their personal opinions? What do they have to hide? It's denial on a massive scale, and has begun to fail with the public. We just don't trust the mainstream media at all. And winning back that trust is not going to be accomplished by restricting the individuals from comments and contributions. It will just alienate the twisted profession from the real world even further.

Friday, June 01, 2007

So Far Away

Ok, it's twenty questions, and in the box you go! What box? Why, your whole religious philosophy. Try it, but don't buy anything! Ten adds per page is a bit much... I found two things fascinating about this questionnaire. The first is which religions are ranked above/below others. The second is the FACT that it is mainstream to consider secular humanism a religion now. Clearly a established belief system, and they are organized, so only natural to finally recognize such by the whole society. Now, here are the rankings after I performed:
1. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (100%)
2. Seventh Day Adventist (95%)
3. Eastern Orthodox (94%)
4. Roman Catholic (94%)
5. Orthodox Quaker (94%)
6. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (89%)
7. Hinduism (79%)
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (61%)
9. Orthodox Judaism (57%)
10. Sikhism (57%)
11. Liberal Quakers (56%)
12. Bahai (56%)
13. Jehovah's Witness (49%)
14. Unitarian Universalism (48%)
15. Jainism (47%)
16. Theravada Buddhism (47%)
17. Mahayana Buddhism (44%)
18. Islam (43%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (39%)
20. Reform Judaism (39%)
21. Neo-Pagan (38%)
22. Scientology (33%)
23. New Thought (28%)
24. New Age (26%)
25. Taoism (25%)
26. Non-theist (22%)
27. Secular Humanism (16%)

First and foremost, "non-theists" (a.k.a. atheists) rank closer to me that secular humanists. Huh? So the sec-hums actually believe in more emptiness than the atheists... The next oddity in closeness of belief to me is the Orthodox Jews. I definitely expected they would be closer, have to check what the trouble there is. Then we have the Hindus edging out the Mormons. Next, what the heck is a "Liberal Christian Protestant"? Some throwback to archaic Victorian era thought? No modern Lib gets anywhere near the terms Christian and especially Protestant. You have to stretch a bit. I mean, are have you heard of "Protestants for Choice"? How about "Christians for Increased Taxation"? What about "Baptists for Sex Education in Third Grade"? Yeah, doesn't fit to well.

Finally regarding the list, the Quakers come through in a big finish! My ancestors were Friends, and some wrestled with the pacifism. That is a argument I can understand, though disagree with. I do not believe God wants society to "turn the other cheek" when threatened and attacked. Certainly for the individual in polite society it is the proper course. Forgiveness, patience and grace, these attributes elevate discourse. But even as a private individual, you should defend yourself when necessary. So should Western Civilization. It is asinine to ignore threats, and history has many examples of the result.

I would like to see statistics for this poll. It has no demographic information, and is obviously subject to the whims of participants, yet it would be interesting to analyze groupings. Also, each question has a three choice level of importance, haw that factors in to some questions would be fun to see. I had trouble with some questions. The answer as it applied to "standard" doctrine was clear, yet I don't share many of the same beliefs in that regard. I deviate from modern American Christians on a number of issues, though not as it pertains to salvation. However, as pertaining to this poll, we are in good company.

As a parting thought, what does a sec-hum believe in positively? Hard to figure that, but we can see who shares the same abstractions. The farthest third from I are a interesting bunch. Scientologist are in outer space, yet clearly share many areas with the sec-hums. Only eight percent from the Taoist. Strange bedfellows down there, not much in common socially, yet alignment of beliefs. May the one true Creator touch them all.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Compassion and Immigration Palaver

Well, the Pres. ticked me off with his statement today. It was condescending and offensive to any intelligent conservative that feels strongly about the "amnesty" bill. Or should we call it the "conservative destruction" legislation? But I appealed to my better life, and tried to be persuasive and positive in this letter to George. Of course it is a given that it will be flushed in the great virtual "porta-loo" out back of the White House, but I feel better. Isn't that what really matters?
Dear Mr. President,

No argument seems to sway your current course concerning legislation before the Senate which is now increasingly viewed as "amnesty" by conservatives as it becomes publically digested. Would you perhaps look at this with a even higher perspective? It appears that you view your actions as compassion, and as a Christian, that is commendable. Yet is it in the scope of compassion to not enforce the law? Perhaps if the law was immoral, and against Christian principal your actions would be justified, but it is in the best interest of any country to preserve the "entrance to the house". By not enforcing the law, you give the impression that such laws do not matter, and encourage more to break the law. Could you not have prevented, through effective border security, the breaking of laws by millions of individuals? Is this part of your consideration?

I appeal to your love of God, America, and all humanity. God would not lead you, as the representative of our enforcement, to neglect that duty. Furthermore, the people of America can choose to legally invite many more to this country if that appears necessary. You could champion such a initiative, instead of this back door amnesty. As a further observation, the situation you have created, by not enforcing the law, is creating further problems in the future for America and her neighbors. Subsidizing a whole economy in Mexico will only lead to further erosion of that countries stability, not greater prosperity.

In closing, I would implore you to search your heart concerning what is the correct path. Ignoring the law and the American people is certainly not the correct path, no matter how deeply your compassion for the unfortunate. First enforce the law, then change it if you find it is not representative of our values. Consider who makes up the conservative base, and whether perhaps they are displaying God's heart in this matter. The path of true compassion will not be the path that ignores the law.

Why not push for a large increase in legal immigration? Why not actually enforce the law instead of giving it lip service? You know it is in your power to stop virtually all illegal immigration if you wanted, yet for some reason you can not see that as the compassionate choice. Let people come here "in the light" to start with, and we will build stronger communities irregardless of political stance. Is this not what is right? You want to bring them out of the "shadows", by effectively thwarting the laws we have already. Why are you promoting lawlessness?

In closing, it is very offensive to claim the current legislation is "right", and that those of us reading the legislation and finding fault with it are ignorant. It is no wonder the general population does not trust the government, or view it favorably. To be more specific, you are our representative, have some respect for those who supported you. May God give you grace and peace, illuminating the true path of compassion.

A faithful supporter,

Oh, I cc'd Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, in the hope of fame and fortune of course... Well, I'll pass on the fame. OK, forget the fortune as well, "hope deferred makes the heart sick..."

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Proof Some Democrats Are Fearful Simian Narcissists

This is to good to pass up. Every once in a while you must click through on the blog adds that show up in your own page. I could not resist this one: WHY MOMMY IS A DEMOCRAT. Oh, help me now, why is mommy a democrat? Well off we go to find out! OK, it is a kids book. Mommy is a cute little squirrel (yes, another Dem rodent), and has some cute little squirrellykins. And mommy is apparently worried that her little darlings will grow up to be mean ugly republicans, so she must indoctrinate them now. We get a few sample pages for free, oh goody.

The first sample panel has mommy with her cup of joe looking at her little charges sharing blocks. The text is "Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does." In the background is a obviously rich couple walking past a bum on a park bench. How clever. But what message would the little darlings get who read such? Democrats equal Mommy... The state will take care of us, and make sure we share. Yes, start the victim culture early. Start the class envy from infancy. Makes you feel good all over. Oh, did I mention the clever artist has the letters for democrat on the blocks? But I found doormat as well, who knows what other subliminal messages are there!

Another panel has the caption "Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does." Quite original. The depiction is of a rampaging elephant, and Mommy shielding her little munchkins from sure destruction. I assume the theme continues on, with Mommy becoming the embodiment of all that is wonderfull about big government. Wait, did Dems make sure we are always safe? Didn't quite get that one. The last example panel has Mommy "making sure" that little sponges get to go to school, unlike the bum in the background watching the graduation of the rich kid. Yes, it's the child of those pesky rich people who wouldn't share. But that's not all we get from this website, more gifts abound from actual apes who purchased this Goebbelsian tome.

There is the core of my title to address, and how we do that is click over to the "testimonials" for pure wonderment. You be the judge of this collection of the disturbed. I will express one simple point that this page of accolades exposes so well, liberalism is a religion. They really believe this stuff, and want to indoctrinate their children in the "...long-standing beliefs of a true Democrat." I wonder if one of those long standing beliefs is freedom of choice. You know, like allowing their children to make informed decisions. Oh, that only counts with drugs and abortions. Go enjoy this garish exposition, and remember, liberalism is a religion. A church of narcissists, and dim witted ones at that.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Immigration Bill: Border Fence Lies and Subterfuge

Forget all the swirling rhetoric about the back stabbing sycophant Senators. Nevermind the parade of simian intelect by the Republican leadership. Forget refilling your high blood pressure meds when you hear McCain rasp about another body blow to the base. No, lets just look at a few of the special bits contained in the legislation concerning securing the border.

What I am talking about is the "comprehensive" fence which is becoming the "imaginary" fence. You know the one that is supposed to help secure the border. It has become hypothetical, yet there is legislation passed last year requiring it. So why aren't they building it? Anyhow, it shrunk. Yep, down to 370 miles. And not only that (Sec.106.c):
The Secretary shall construct not less than 370 miles of triple-layered fencing which may include portions already constructed in San Diego Tucson and Yuma Sectors
Yes, lets add it up what that means. We clearly can subtract the 14 miles in San Diego. Definitely they will take off the ten miles of Minuteman fence. Possibly the 75 miles of reservation cattle fence? For Yuma another 20 miles of existing fence. Then the arbitrary length of existing fence in Texas and New Mexico. A conservative guess could be 50 miles, though there is no specifics, hence they may be claiming more cattle fence to upgrade eventually. Who knows? With the numbers above, we have just over 200 miles of new fence to be built, somewhere, sometime. We are being had here, for sure.

Why are they doing this? If we really cared, we could do anything. Close the border completely, like many other countries. We could easily deport most illegal immigrants, not that I advocate that. But why are they not securing the border? Why not just increase legal immigration dramatically? The whole issue has become a twisted push to reward lawbreakers, and invite a new wave of the same. Very strange. We should fight it on principle, and specifically demand that, no matter how many people they want to give our wealth and freedom to, we don't have to see it stolen from us again. Which is easy, build a big, long fence.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

A Typical Day of Flames

I too, get bored at times. To alleviate that boredom, I resort to antagonizing the left. What else satisfies like a good piece of email:
So, the DNC isn't going to have a debate on the FOX News Network.... What are you all afraid of? I thought it was the party of freedom, free speech, free expression. But no, they don't want to answer real questions do they. So, one conservative network vs five liberal ones. Can't take the heat. Hey, when is someone going to ask Hillary the last time she had sex with Bill? You know, like Wallace asking if Romney had premarital sex. Or when is Mathews going to ask Obama "what he hates most about America", oh, yeah, that won't happen either. Gee, what hard question has been asked of any leading Dem? Nothing. Its a plastic fantastic world in the liberal media. Have to keep the appearance up. What a farce.

Hey, I thought the Iraqis wanted us out of Iraq? What happened to your leftist free for all about the Iraq Parliament "resolution" to remove American troops? What happened in the Senate recently? Votes 67 again 29 for? I thought everyone was ready to pullout? I mean that's what libs have been saying... What the hell are those Dems doing! Didn't they win the Senate just to get us out of Iraq? Sheesh, your guys are duplicitous... Sad day for peacenik nutters.
I love the bit about Hill. Questions we all want to know... Anyhow, here is how far gone the left is:
Ah, well, to start with, there is no such thing as the Fox News Network. They don't do the news....

Second, there aren't any liberal news networks, let alone five. They are all corporate owned voices of the right.

A REAL liberal network would carry news from al-jaz for example. None do. They would show the film taken by cameramen in Iraq that show body parts, bodies with holes drilled in them, burning bodies in cars, and a lot of other stuff too. None do. Why? Because the corporate owners of the press know that if the US public saw what is REALLY going on in Iraq we'd have outta there years ago. There just is no hard news available to the US public. It's all rant and cant, fluffy soft don't offend nobody network oatmeal. I sent a flamer to Olbermann the other day when HIS program spent 35 minutes on Anna Nicole and Paris Hilton! I mean, this is NEWS? Since when. The US public is so incredibly stupid, dense and slow, living in it's cheap gas and instant gratification world that most would not know duck poop if one sat on their heads and shat on them. The real problem with democracy is that you ALWAYS get the government you deserve.
Whoa Nelly! Way out there eh? I love days like this.
Ah, I see that you are a open minded "fair and balanced" liberal indeed! So the corporate owned voices of the right are out to get you again! Look out for the Star Chamber minions! Oh those evil right wing corporations... Seriously, how can someone become so isolated from reality? Oh, you answer that! You actually watch Olbermann! You and the four other nutters in the country. Yes, MSNBC, bastion of balanced coverage (if your a white liberal male, like all the hosts). Oh, that is so good, you even sunk down to castigating the objective news leader himself for pandering to ratings. But, you do realize, that his ratings are in the toilet... It is a matter of survival! You should encourage such reporting so he can keep his show!

Now, about this insane crap about the networks showing us what is "REALLY" going on in Iraq. You are in outer space. Beyond Neptune, a very cold and lonely place. It's not enough to to the Jihadists propaganda line, as your liberal journalist nutters do, you want the Voice of Jihad itself! Yes, that's balanced coverage. You can stand both sides of an issue, so long as there are no conservatives. Oh such an open mind!

Lets see, have you seen a single mainstream news report about a successful operation by the US military? Hmmm, why not? We see lots of coverage any time there is a car bomb. Oh, but even that coverage is sterile, yes, where are the shot of the dead children killed by these insane death worshipers? Where are the shots of the maimed civilians? Where are the cameras chasing the ambulances to the hospital? Oh, silence. Yeah, your buddies control the media. They are liberal. They do not want to show anything that would possibly cause support for our troops, in any way. Your full of vile insanity, and you can't even see it. Oh, where is the death toll of terrorists? Silence... Where is the stoning of women for not wanting a arranged marriage? Where are your supposed feminists? Silence. It is all about political power, your liberal buddies would hang their own grandma to further the religion.

You say they are soft and fluffy and don't want to offend anyone, but that is equally stupid. I find it offensive to parade out every second the latest US death toll number. That is sacred to them. They rush to the wires at every roadside bomb, fits the liberal mold. No problem offending anyone there. But bring up 9/11, never. That would offend the victims (and generate support for our overseas policies). No, can't politicize that tragedy!

And to end with that wonderfull assessment of your fellow citizens speaks volumes. That is the attitude of your basic Stalinist. The core behind the evils of communism. The true selfishness of social humanism. "I am smarter, I am more qualified, I should lead you whether you like it or not!" Yes, complain on about democracy. You liberals actually long for something else...

Friday, May 04, 2007

Republican Debate Revelation

There is much to say concerning the debate, but one point seems to rise above the clutter of commentary. That concerns the vast divide between socialist liberals and conservatives in the area of perception. And one debate question sums up that divide: "What do you dislike most about America?" That is it, the core difference between parties, the over arching difference in world view. Liberals dislike many things, and the pinnacle of dislike is hate. It is natural for them to come up with that question. They have many a collective contingent who can answer that question immediately. In fact, we can guess that a large percentage of liberals would answer, "Bush! I hate Bush!" But if not, it would be some other concern in the mold of racism, class envy, abortion, or any other sub-complaint of the socialist liberals. They exist politically at times solely for the things they dislike, and ultimately hate. Hate is a familiar state for those have a strong emotional lead in their personality, and this seems to be common description for a majority of the modern leftists.

This personality state, where emotion leads reason or will, can be a great asset in many jobs. Take acting as a example. One must become a master of emotional display, forming the very core of personal feelings into something alien and out of context. And do it repeatedly. A expert thespian must suppress the self persona on command, a rare skill. Shall we now suggest a simple answer to the preponderance of leftist nutters in Hollywood? Furthermore, this personality trait may fair well in many employs, but it is not desireable in the context of an elected representative. Emotional manipulation will ease the campaign process certainly. And the greatest politicians historically have been actors of a high caliber. But the finest leaders, those who excel in representing America, are not swayed by emotion, moved from rational decisiveness by mere feelings.

Think about it for a moment. What is public sentiment? What is governance by poll? Is it not simply allowing emotion to guide and lead in the decision making process? Look at the record of the Clinton administration. What were the successful policies? Hard to come up with anything monumental. Yet Bill was a master campaigner. A brilliant politician in his ability to motivate and sway. He created energy, made people feel good, moved them to align with him. Yet, what is his effectiveness as a executive? Hard to come up with anything, isn't it? There are many examples throughout history of leaders who had a superb command of collective emotion, yet failed ultimately as executives.

The archtype in this regard must be Adolf Hitler. Here is a leader who could almost hypnotize the public, bring a crowd to a frenzy, move vast numbers to overlook their natural conscience. He created a 'religion of the state' in effect. Yet, was Adolf a good executive? The greatest executives delegate power based on trust, not compulsion. The most successful understand harnessing the ambition of individuals, creating teams who have vested power, allowing the organic evolution of management. They understand innately when to clamp down, and when to ask for help. Ultimately, they realize how insignificant and faulty they are personally, and develope relationships of trust and dependence. This self realization is the true standard, the foundation of lasting effectiveness.

At this juncture, we must relate the initial perspective of conservatives and liberals as it pertains to emotional decision making with the concept of personal realization. On one hand is the individual who comprehends human frailty, perceives their personal shortcoming, and is able to honestly find trusted guidance. This type of person is not swayed easily by the whim of emotion, the swirling current of public sentiment is ineffective at eroding the foundation of their reasoned positions. For the emotionally led, if they fail to find a anchor for reason, a cognitive bulwark, they are susceptible to the ethereal influence of sentiment. Where can one find that stability? For many Americans it is within the context of their faith. The journey of realization that occurs with the exercise of faith produces a strength of character, a empowering ability to fight the tumult of public sentiment.

Faith is not the only source of such strength of course, there are many ways, but faith is central to a majority of Americans in this context. Especially conservative Americans. Now, that must be contrasted with secular humanists, a large contingent of modern socialist liberals in America. No God, no faith, no protection from the whims of undue emotional influence. In fact, they fear those of faith. They resent being ruled by those who can not see there is 'no God'. And ultimately, they hate the representatives of those they fear. Fear, resentment, hate, all emotions that sway the individual away from reason to irrationality.

I contend it is completely irrational for any American to pose as a presidential debate question, "What do you dislike most about America?" There is no good answer to the question, and the purpose of setting up a trap is ill served. It is a parody of the questioner, needing no answer. Yet it was asked, and to many liberals, there is a answer. From this we can see clear distinctions, consistent differences in the decision process. With that clarity, what rational person could possibly support a modern socialist liberal? Even those who hold closely to their personal issues, issues that keep them voting for socialists, should be able to see how poorly they will be served by their leaders.

In conclusion, I would like to throw up our modern conservative hero, Ronald Reagan, as a example of one who could utilize his emotive ability and govern with executive skill. Some would even claim he was a better actor as president than in his previous profession. Clearly he could see his failings, and could see the strengths in those he relied upon. This debate, held in the Reagan library, was touted as the debate "in search of Reagan", but the questions were not searching for such. The questions searched for nothing positive, they simply reflected the flawed emotional consternation of the leftist media. It was a clear revelation of the state socialist liberals have arrived at, a state of fear and resentment. And the fruit of those feelings, hate. It is not Reagan the left is searching for, of that we can be assured.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

From Jimma to Castro, Why Liberals Long For A Stalinist State

I found the new post by zombietime to be most informative. So informative in fact that I had to spread the love to my favorite lib:
Jimma went to Berserkeley to spout on about his anti-semitism apparently. This little album of events is more telling than a hundred articles: Demonstration at the Jimmy Carter Appearance in Berkeley

Oh my, why would leftist anti-semites thank Jimma? Your in a great crowd of the confused it seems, label wise. Reminds me of the evergreen nuts, passionate, evocative, and completely brainless. Progressive indeed... Pretty good representation of the nutters.

How about those Obamaites? Never miss a chance... Here it's the Kucinich wackos. Got their table up all the time. Can't figure them out... So much effort, so little brain. And he is dead in the water. I guess they must figure it's fun or something, then just vote for Obama after Dennis the Menace falls flat again.
Of course we expect something glorious and informative in reply:
Well, when you are wrong you are at least consistent...

Being anti-Israeli government policy is NOT the same as being anti-Semitic or, more accurately, since Palestinians are also Semites, anti-Israel. Being anti-American government policy is NOT the same as being anti-American, or, more accurately, anti-American democracy (which Bush is).

As I say, wrong, but consistently wrong...
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Can I be so wrong? If the shoe fits, and Jimma's seems to. But the far more interesting parallel occurs at the point of claiming Bush is against democracy. Very odd, and harkens back to the theme of liberal moral relativism. But the extension of the parallel is even better:
Ah, your own personal inconvenient truth? Confusion? Try to stay with the flow... Being a supporter of Hamas, PLO, or any other various terrorist organizations bent on Israels distruction is qualification enough for the classic slur of anti-semite. But you don't like it, now you want 'accuracy' and redefinition?

So, Bush is anti-Democracy? Just because he won't do your bidding? You sound like a typical modern liberal, who can't accept democracy if it takes away some of your power. Your all for democracy if you win, but revert to wannabe Stalinist if you loose. Still crying about January 2001, the root of all liberal evil.

Lets investigate this Anti-American government thing.... In a democracy, wouldn't you accept the will of the people? The president is elected by the people, but you can't accept it. Emotionally you reject the fact, you denigrate the majority who voted, and try to thwart the majorities rule. Sounds like you liberals are not to happy with democracy. Sounds like confusion, jealousy, and a lust for power that's been deferred (making the heart sick).

But more nefarious is the attempt at usurping the duly elected Administration through means which clearly benefit enemies and harm America. That is not anti-American government policy, that is treachery. And all for political gain, the cheapest of illicit rewards. What does inspire such action? What common thread inspires the pond scum amalgamation of modern liberal peacenik socialist nutters? We need a example that captures the heart of this question, and to the south, in Cuba, there is such a metaphor.

Why do socialist pig journos love Castro? Why do influential leftist pig Hollywood elites love Castro? Why do duplicitous democrat leaders love Castro? Contained in this heady amour are the clues to modern liberal motivation. Ultimately the adoration connects to Castro's absolute power, and it's what liberals subconsciously want. They naturally gravitate to that power. Why do they long for that power? They internally despise your average Joe, and think he is too stupid for his own good. They resent the majorities values and choices, and want to throw off that control, whether consciously or suppressed deep in the psyche. Castro's power, and any other Stalinist thug, does not depend on the 'whims of the masses'.

From whence springs this resentment? What engenders a individual to loath the values of his fellow countryman? Is not the principal of Liberalism openness and inclusion? Freedom of expression, freedom in all aspects of life... Yet the vocal leaders in this leftist fold look up to a communist dictator. What does this tell us? Are modern socialist scum really willing to sell out the power each individual lends to our government for the comfort of absolute rule? Is the feeling of superiority a posture of defense, isolating and insulating oneself from the ideals of the general public?

It is my opinion that the religion of liberalism either collects individuals who act out their fear in defensive superiority or creates such members through emotional collectivism. Whether absorbed or created, the outcome is the same, they fear the general public, distrust the average Joe, and do not want to submit themselves to a government elected by such. Hence the severe dimorphism of Democrat party members (as in democracy) apparently longing for Stalinist control.

A honest supporter of democracy would embrace the decision of the majority, and if in disagreement, would try to convince the majority of the benefit and positive outcome of the views put forth in future elections. That is not acts or intention of modern liberals. They have no views to put forth, only criticism. They attempt to thwart the decision of the majority, they question the validity of the democratic system, even go so far as to risk national intrests simply for grabs at power.

What is next? Will they turn to more destructive means to implement socialist ideals? If the elected President is the object of ignorant hatered, and a communist thug is idolized, what benefit lay upon the path of these simian nutters? They call for freedom, yet long for a king to rule over them. But I should now retreat from my high perch, denigrating the denigrators, despising the despisers, taking the uber elite stance above the elites. I descend to the masses, and thank God for Grace. There is no average Joe. Every American has the opportunity to excel, as well as the freedom to forgo excellence. Whether fat and happy, or stressed and bothered, we have the greatest country in the history of civilization, and the chance to make it even better. One of the paths to a better America is the exposure of liberal insanity, so end my latest contribution.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Liberal Religious Side Note

More evidence of liberalism as a religion. Time to replace the Bible in the nightstand at green conscious hotels with Gore's little piece of insanity. Yes, that's right, no Gideon, no Truth, just "Inconvenience" so to speak. Of course they are replacing the lights as well, read all for yourself in the piece: California Hotels Go Green With Low-Flow Toilets, Solar Lights. I would say that the green sect is the most powerful in the liberal cult, but the anti-war peaceniks are close. Of course there is quite a bit of crossover... You can be Green and a peacenik, but do all sects mix I wonder? Does Gore wear green robes?

On Modern Liberal Moral Relativism

Here we have a glimpse of the liberal mind, and how putty like it can be:
So, what this about Luis Posada Carriles? He blows up an airliner and we release him on bail? Ah...... Ain't doing something like that terrorism? ah, but he's OUR terrorist!
I dashed off a suitable reply:
Yeah, stuff like that doesn't fit well with your moral relativism...
In confusion the lib responds:
Ah, clearly ya gotta brush up on what relativism means...
So I must take that bait!
Se, you base your action on opinion, opinion derived from a questionable guidance structure. It's inherent in modern liberalism to just move around loosly defining whats is good or bad to suit your opinion. That is the epitome of moral relativism. I think it fits just fine.
Well dear reader, am I wrong? But in defense:
The above is BS. I quote the first sentence from Wikepedia:

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences.

As a first cut, the above is ok by me. There are no moral or ethical universals; moral truth is culturally based. Yup. How that relates to liberalism I'm not quite sure. For example, there are quite a few Catholic liberals, which to me sounds like a contradiction in terms, but not to them......strange world.
Well, don't look a gift horse in the mouth! I was actually aghast at this, how more myopic can liberalism become? Even to deny the obvious, while explaining the said obviousness, in concurrent statements! So we soldier on:
You claim "BS" on moral relativism, yet validate my observation! Pure schizophrenia! Your liberal religion is your moral standard! And its based on opinions and feelings! Completely relative! The gage of 'good' and 'bad' simply moves around based upon your subcultures political desires! It's collective insanity.

How about I use simple terms from your chosen definition? Is it not the preference of your subcult to destroy the Bush administration? Is that not the overarching goal of those thrown together by the political loss in January 2001? Is it not circumstance which binds you together with likeminded socialists, with whom your 'moral' boundaries fluctuate to justify political success? There are a multitude of clear instances substantiating such chaotic behavior within the modern liberal religion.

What is most interesting to me is the statement that you seem to agree with concerning objective moral truths. Is this correct? You can not accept objective truth, simply because it doesn't conform to your subcult's circumstance? That is fascinating. How telling that the left seems to exist for the purpose of establishing its own self serving moral behavior. It is similar to a virus in that regard I guess.

Now, for the last point, nutter modern liberals do not like partial religious converts. "How can a Catholic be a liberal!" Yes, it seems absurd, that anyone who believes in God could be a liberal, doesn't it? But, consider that there are a plethora of 'cultural' Catholics, or any other religious label you prefer. They like the community, the ritual, the society of religion. But have not considered seriously the constitution of their personal philosophy and beliefs. They are easy pickings for the emotionally driven modern liberal subcult. I would suppose if asked to defend their beliefs, it would be easier for them to regurgitate modern liberal rhetoric than profess a experience of God.

To expand on the above, for just a moment, we should consider the emotional 'religious' experience versus spiritual reality. It is easy to supplant good feelings with actual faith. Giving money feels good, listening to a concert on Sunday morning feels good, many religious activities feel good, yet one can exist in perpetuity in those good feelings without ever exercising faith or even believing in God. And as a counter, one can 'care' about specific issues or situations to the point of the suspension of cognition. This is the creation of belief, the faith of the foolish, which is the core dynamic of modern liberalism. Emotional response can supplant the exercise of actual spirituality, and can become a religion unto itself. So the hapless hereditary Catholic mentioned above is doubly susceptible to becoming a liberal, its no wonder there are many such.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Transplanting Ol' Abe

Well, I get some strange stuff, but this one sparked my interest. Hyperbole and rhetoric aside, ponder as you peruse what Lincoln would think of today's liberals. Then, as a final question, lets consider the war in Iraq, how would he view that conflict? Before such headiness, we must dredge through the provocation:
Ya know, there is a lot to be said for this guy Lincoln, the first, last and only true Republican….

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861 Thanks Abe, now tell the current Republican party of mean spirited money grubbers.

"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas debate at Ottawa" (August 21, 1858), p. 27. I think he means that in a democracy/republic the government depends of popular support. Hmmmmm……so, what percent are against the war George….??

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Meditation on the Divine Will" (September 2, 1862?), pp. 403-404. This bears some deep deep thought. “It is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party…..” Hmmmmm

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860. Which is why, in all times and in all places, Conservatives are for slavery, for repression of ideas, for censorship, for the status quo, against change, against progress, support kings and tyrants, against free speech, democracy and republican government. Can you name one single case where this is not so?

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum,of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838), p. 109. Wow. Wow! Right on Abie baby! Greece, Rome, and a host of others. And now, America? Is the American public so weak, so besotted with materialism, so fearful of phony terrorist plots? Whatever happened to “We have nothing to fear but, fear itself!” A nation of chicken-littles with a government shouting Wolf 9/11 Wolf 9/11 at every turn. Pick yourselves up Americans, there is a job to be done by the ‘last best chance for Liberty’, the United States.

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 273. So, where do you think Lincoln would stand on the war in Iraq?

Well, isn't this interesting! Twisting history for petty partisan politics. Is that the way of Lincoln? Was he such a divider, as to pervert history for personal political gain? At least we can establish one pertinent fact, the twisting and turning of snippets was not in the great stateman's bag of acceptable tricks. However, I aspire to greatness, though the way be full of tribulation. And I am sure my responses will be fruitless wanderings, yet try I must. The first point concerned labor and capitol, and that labor was the greater. But, contrary to modern liberal inanity, he is not talking about 'labor unions' but actual hard work. And what a salve it could be! Instead of wasting great 'capitol' on lazy misguided masses, make them labor. Instead of organizing lazy misguided 'workers' into 'labor unions' who inevitably decrease the amount of 'labor' accomplished, abolish such and engender healthy competition. The concept is called Capitolism, where hard work is rewarded by success. Unlike socialism, where working harder leads to increased penalization. Get it yet? Socialism equals less 'labor', not good. Capitolism leads to more 'labor', good. That clears up point number one.

For the second contention, lets consider facts. Bush attained re-election during this Iraq conflict, and not exactly at the rosy juncture we would have wished. That is a real poll, not opinion. Two years later, liberals peaceniks are screaming that they have a 'mandate' on the war, because of a minor midterm success. Not a resounding concensus of the public sentiment. However, it can be expected that any country would tire of a ongoing conflict, and we are the same. Yet if you at this time ask the public whether they want success in Iraq or failure, the majority will express a desire for success. The real 'percentage against the war' is around thirty, the same number of deranged Bush haters from January 2001. When they lost...

Now we come to a very strange duality. A confessed atheist expressing deep thought concerning the purpose of God. Well, fascinating how that plays out in the brain. Total confusion? Abject denial? Anyhow, for those who do believe, we can agree on a few simple things. There is a great verse concerning nations and war: "For the army of the Syrians came with a small company of men; and Jehovah delivered a very great host into their hand, because they had forsaken Jehovah, the God of their fathers. So they executed judgment upon Joash." (2 Chronicles 24:24) And I quote, "This bears some deep thought." So God, favored a small Syrian force in battle, and judgment fell upon those who had forsaken Him. The real question one should ask at this point is "Have I forsaken God?" Then with a pure heart and clear conscience you could approach the question of God's purpose as it concerns modern politics. Anything less is to elevate ones personal judgment to that of the divine, resulting in presumptuous self idolatry. Again, what is closest to God's heart and purpose is to establish a relationship with every individual, this is supersedant to political exposition.

Moving on to the next quote, we find such convenience in the twisting of Lincoln's prose! Yet there is the question, "What is conservatism?" Today we stand for freedom, economic and cultural, from the unwashed hordes of liberal socialists who attempt to force the immorality of a small minority upon the general population. That immorality is both social and fiscal, as we have long since passed the point of equitable taxation. We stand against the enslavement that is the modern welfare state. We stand against the cult of death that circulates within the modern liberal movement as it pertains to the murder of the unborn, the execution of those who do not attain to a acceptable 'quality of life', and the assisting of self destruction of the old and weak. There are many things that construct the modern conservative movement, and many members do not agree with everything in the core platform. That is to be expected, and encouraged as we debate these topics further. As to the insane statements about conservatives by the commenter, all we need say is that the premise of the Republican party at inception was anti-slavery. That alone is sufficient to expose the nutters reinvention of history. But if we need to look at the track record of liberal vs conservative on different topics such as racism, free speech, the support of tyrants or many other topics we can. I think the record is clear in the modern day. What party perpetually divides based upon the color of a mans skin? Democrat! Who calls for 'fair use of airwaves' simply to suppress opposing views? Democrats! Who would prefer the reinstatement of a tyrant in Iraq? Democrats! Not much more needs to be addressed here, the contention of the provocateur is moot.

On the next topic of National Security I would make two comments. One, a force did rise up from the ocean so to speak, and attacked us. It is a nemesis not seen in history, and a foe likely to inflict much societal damage before its relegation to the changing times. But can mere terrorism destroy us? Not likely, here I completely agree with Abe. It will come from within, our destroyer. And it will come in the form of a mentality so infected with universal socialism that we will be driven to the brink to stop it. In fact it has come, we have been infected, and are scarcely waking to the fact. When a significant portion of the population cares not for the Ohio or Blue Ridge as stated, or any other part of our great country for that matter, but is concerned more with what evil America has inflicted upon the world, what failed policy has alienated our beloved 'friends'. Consumed with criticism and derision for American culture, from the best to the worst. We have our enemy, right in our midst. And they don't even know it. They struggle and fight for a sick utopia that could never exist, and deny all that makes this country great. Lincoln, if present, could see the stain, and would proclaim with a fervent voice against it. He would inevitably stand with those who want liberty and freedom. He would stand be they American, African, Asian, European, even Afghan or Iraqi.

And if he were president today, might he not do as in the past and sidestep even the Constitution to further the cause of freedom? Yea, even to the point of arresting dissidents and suppressing the misguided. To further the parallel, what did the Dems of the day do? Oh, you mean the infamous Copperheads? Did they not view Lincoln as a 'tyrant' who was destroying the very fabric of America? Peaceniks never change. Did they not demand peace and a cessation of the war? At a cost we can now asses as potentially disastrous. Yes, many parallels can be made in the fight for freedom, but choosing Lincoln as a target to support liberal rhetoric and idiocy was not effective. In fact, today we have no draft. We have no generationally impactfull tragic sacrifice of American lives. No martial law, no economic upheaval, no personal threat to vast regions of American soil. Many parallels are unequivocal. But one thing is for certain, standing up for freedom is a choice we can make, however unpopular at certain times. And it is one we should continue to make now, Lincoln would.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Brainstorming A Solution For Governmental Change

Well, this all started with a discussion of McCain's blundering statements while in Iraq, but that is very uninteresting. We get to the fun part which deals with a surprising situation. For the fiscal conservative, it has been a long time since we have seen leadership that sides with less spending, less government. Strangely enough, the true socialist feels equally left out of current American politics. I start with a rant then move on from there, but the focus of the discussion comes later, this first part is for entertainment value:
Well, you wont find me going to bat for JohnJohn. All those years of pandering to the media have "gone done him in." Yeah, where is the straight talk express? My wish list is short now. I like Duncan Hunter. But the toss up will probably be Juliani vs Romney. And no bigotry involved, I would have to go with Juliani. He actually works well as a executive for the interests of the people. Romney comes across as one who leads by mediation. And his touted success is in three things. Cleaning up the Olympics in Salt Lake City. Taking over the Big Dig. And making billions in the private sector. None of those seems particularly core to the populations interest. Ok, the Big Pork hole is, but did he stop the insane waste of money? Did he do anything besides take over, after the failure was evident for years and years? I'm not sure that is in the same league. Juliani has obvious executive talent in regards to serving real needs of the population. And on the one sticky point of abortion, its a toss up. Do you want someone who says they changed their mind after considering the moral implications of embryonic stem cells, or someone who has a reasoned view for a woman's choice? I don't like either one. First, its hard to trust Romney based on his explanation, it smacks of "I'm running for President, now I'm pro-life!" And on the other, do we think Rudy will NOT consider this issue as it pertains to the SCOTUS?

I love how you liberals are so duplicitous. You fear Juliani at this point, so attack attack attack. But what about all the candidates? And their spouses? Yes, especially their spouses. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Can't wait to see how Bill plays out next year! Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. He is the money raiser, couldn't make it without the machine. But put them on stage together, Hill looks weak, very weak. Bill has the touch, she is like a dead fish nodding her head. It's going to be fun fun fun. I so hope she makes it through the primary. Virtually guarantees another four years of the executive branch for us. Obama would be nice as well, he is a lightweight. At this point, Al has more chance than all the rest of them, and he ain't running!
Well, hows that for tripping the light fantastic! But, due to the lack of incendiary comments, the reply was thoughtful and measured, quite out of character! I must reevaluate my tactics...
My problem is that there just isn't a candidate I want to go out and work for. Certainly no R!! My last R was Dan Evans. None of the announced D's really turn my crank....there isn't a 'real' capital L Liberal in the bunch. Guess what I'd really like to see is a multiparty system with about 7 parties and a parliamentary system.... at least I'd like to see real Left and Right, Liberal vs Conservative parties based on principal and ideas. The D's and the R's are just too too much alike for me. I want a (very) social Liberal with fiscal restraint. Right now I don't see anybody with any fiscal restraint.... And, of course somebody who would keep a balanced military at about a third of current spending. Also a 'mixed' economy that is sustainable. Revamp the tax code, both individual and corporate. In my increasingly less frequent sane moments it makes little difference to me how many wives any of them had or have. I'm a lot more concerned about how they would use the military, taxation, science, relations with Congress; and what they actually know. Where's Ike? Where's Harry? Give me a President that is really concerned about the country and less concerned about how much money they have to spend getting elected.
Now, I think there is a point of commonality here. Amazing, yet true. My continuation was in exploration of that potential base of agreement:
See, here is where we have consensus. I don't think socialism does anything but suppress exceptionalism, but I respect any socialist that stands on their platform, and acts accordingly after being elected. I disagree about the system change. I think we have great strength in a two party system, unfortunately at this time, media and money are overpowering debate and coalition forming. I like seeing the debate played out in two parties, then throwing up the best product. It removes some of the inanity surrounding the parliamentary system and true democracies. We gain stability and 'memory' for the loss of a bit of national dialog. Easy choice there!

Certainly it would be nice to see someone like Ike or Harry in the sense that you had no doubt (well, I wasn't there, but from what I perceive in reading) about where their concerns were. Less ambition, more 'service', yet that doesn't seem to inspire at our point in time. Career politicians need less leadership qualities, and more public presence to get elected in this climate. Which does not make for very good leadership.

I love how the Dem's, who last November assured us that they would reign in the gross spending of the pubs, have gone pork crazy. Not a fiscal conservative in the whole bunch. I repeat again, there are twelve fiscal conservatives in the Senate, as indicated by the Coburn amendment vote. And about the same percentage in the House. Pretty long ways to go.... It's a sad state of affairs for sure. Pork everywhere, but that's not whats really expensive.... Time to hack away at entitlements.... However, how electable is that platform? Not...
Well, even with the button pushing here, I got interesting furtherance of a core theme:
Guess I don't see ANY real socialists anywhere in the US government! A long way from. I'd call myself a 'social democrat', I think. I think the capitalist system is flawed and leads naturally to monopoly and oligarchy to say nothing of the exploitation of labor. So, I'm in favor of certain limits on capitalism, plus certain economic ceilings and floors to limit the range of difference between the rich and poor in society on the one hand and floors to ensure that nobody goes with food, shelter, clothing and a minimum quality of life. What do you mean by exceptionalism? In American historical writing that word has a fairly precise meaning; a meaning that I think is harshly refuted by historical events. On the pork issue, I don't have numbers but would be greatly surprised if the current D pork was even a small fraction of the R port of the last 12 years, especially when the pork to the corporate masters of the R party were included. (The D's, of course, NEVER work(ed) hand in glove with big business.....)

How about we have a 'draft'? Some are called to the Army, some to Vista, some to local government service, and some to Congress. No elections, you are 'called' by the luck of the draw to serve 2 years in the H of R or 6 years in the Senate. That would take quite an act of faith in 'the common man' to support!

Now, about 'entitlements'. I don't mind some changes in Social Security, as long as us oldsters get back the two trillion in SS surpluses the government has stolen from us in the past 20 plus years; plus interest, of course. The 'entitlements' I want to see cut concern such things as us taxpayers paying for highways for truckers, airports for the airlines, land condemnations for the oil companies and similar handouts to big business. Oh, and nobody gets more than a 5% profit on defense contracts either; nobody should make big bucks off defending 'the American way of life', which just so happens to include those contractors.
Ah, here we get to the original crux of thought. Is perhaps mandatory civil service a good idea for the country? Did you expect that to be the topic at which we could see agreement betwixt a solid conservative and a far left nutter? Strange world, but there it is. I would fully support a mandatory year of civil service for every High School graduate. The principal would not be geared towards one type of service, but broadly spread to meet the range of capabilities that population group represents. Some are intelligent hard working people headed off to college. For those a internship in a prospective field of interest, or perhaps in the public sector applying talents learned. Others may be interested in military service, and this would be the perfect time to get a 'year' to try out such a endeavor. Many more would have no idea what they want from life, and a suitable 'job' could be chosen at random to get out and see a different location and community. There are many possible combinations. And for those who have not been successful, this is the chance to switch locations, change environments, and get assistance in moving forward.

As to removing the election process from political positions, that is not a good idea. But implementing a change in the campaign process could benefit America at this point. Not the insane campaign finance reforms ideas and legislation already passed. I would repeal McCain Feingold immediately if I were King! (Now thats democratic...) But we could do something radical like mandatory job testing. Yes, every candidate must take a comprehensive exam and the results made public. This would clear up some of the 'slick' image issues. And then for contested federal office elections, mandatory open debates. That, coupled with the testing would weed out quite a few. Not that every leader must be a exemplary debater, but if they aren't, they better be damn smart. Here is where mandatory service can play a interesting role. Create a Independent Office of Elections Ombudsman that has the sole purpose of crafting the testing and debate format for politicians. This office would be staffed with randomly selected qualifying volunteers. Their terms of service would be limitted to a few years, nonrenewable. During that time, they would craft the 'background' questions for upcoming years, and oversee the current election cycles debating and testing.

Such ambitious plans are fraught with difficulty when it come to implementation however. I am sure there are many holes in the ideas above. Leaving that be, we return to a scary thought as presented by our beloved socialist, namely that American is decidedly un-exceptional. This is a very tightly held view of the modern leftist liberal, and a sad one. I don't need to view my country as the greatest source of freedom in the world, it is (and this is an objective un-ethnocentric non-historic label of exceptionalism). However, socialism is not entirely about freedom, and it is natural to disparage the idea of a 'beacon' or 'shining light' when you would prefer a governmental system that suppresses certain freedoms. There is a big difference as well between all men being created equal, and all men being equally talented. Or hard working for that matter. Is it now the job of elitist to decide who should benefit form a individuals talent and work? is that freedom?

We have found common ground with the socialist nutter, in that the modern political process has failed to provide us with specific representation. Additionally, we see the need for increased participation of youthful citizens in the common national good. I don't think that gets us a consensus, and certainly no coalition, but these ideas should be injected into the debate on both side. Appart from that we are left with the vacuum of intelligent platforms expressed by our current political leaders, on both the right and far left. It is a strange state of affairs. Something must give, or we will be saddled with the same stagnant governmental structure for many more years.

Friday, March 09, 2007

The Little Joementum Redux

I was just rereading the significant sections of the Congressional report regarding Playboy Joe, and have to comment. No, the big Joementum is our beloved Senator, this is about little Joe, former Ambassador to Gabon (tough job for sure), and grand protector of all things SECRET, especially his lovely secret agent girl wife. I have trod this path before, back when it was interesting, and even speculated that the Libby trial could generate tons of fun, but alas, all for not. It was boring, sad, and clearly a trite effort. Two years of special investigation, and what have they concluded? "Where is Rove! Where is Cheney! Where is our blood sacrifice!" Yes, the left is still livid about Fitzmas, second only to the wonderful month of Jan, 2001. Forget 9/11, these are the dates liberals really cringe over. Anyhow, back to my general impressions of the report.

I notice now, that the Ambassador of Disaster had very little to say concerning the primary question. Chatting with a few retired officials, sipping tea on the veranda, then scheming a way to make millions... Oh, that last part isn't quite in the report. In fact, the report gives the impression that the King of Diploswing had such useless information, that it was not sent around generally. Gee, that's great. So the reality was, CURRENT Nigerian officials were in direct talks with the ACTUAL U.S. Ambassador concerning potential unsanctioned sales. Those same officials OF COURSE, claimed to have no contact with 'rouge' states officially. And why in the world would they admit to such weather it had happened or not? Duh, no wonder the CIA pointy-sticks wanted additional information. And the one useful thing Mr. Suave himself provided was evidence of a additional meeting betwixt the nasty Iraq and noble pure Niger.

What cracks me up is the contention of the Nigerian officials that the uranium production was very secure, as the French ran the operation. Is that the same French who at the time were raking in very large lumps of Oil for Food cash? The report is not clear on whether that France was the same as the Security Council France that went to bat for Saddam against the U.S., and provided a nice back door for billions in oil sales. Of course they wouldn't think of letting Saddam get hold of any uranium... Not the peace loving French. Never.

So, after you read the report again, see if you come to the interesting conclusion that I did, our intelligence service is a joke, and so is Joe. I want to be served better than that. But, from such inauspicious origins, comes the Wilson show! It has vibe, it has energy, and now it's got a movie and book deal! Goooo Joe! History will forever recall what a honest and forthright guy you were... or, at least in your book, your wife's book, and her new movie. Holy-weird history will give you peace and glory, don't worry. And your nutter fan base will immortalize you, till the next artificial scandal comes along.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

The Four Unconscionable Lies Weisberg Demands You Believe (or you must be stupid)

So I get sent this nice article with the tag "a breath of fresh air", and thinking something nice or funny must be inside, what do you guess I find? Jacob Weisberg's little tidbit of arrogant liberal smuggish brain mugging drivel. Well, we simply must destroy!
Hah, stagnant swamp gas! What a idiot, and if you are somehow claiming that is the truth, well, guilt by association. And here I thought a 'breath of fresh air' meant you were going to talk about something else... Ok, lets get specific:

1) So the war was a mistake? Irregardless of how duplicitous a peacenik idiot can get, you have to be a soulless moron to want Saddam back, which is the implication. Or is there some other magic fairyland solution that was 'right around the corner' in the global socialist dream world of UN sanctions and resolutions? (Need I mention OIL FOR FOOD?) Likewise, is the implication that the U.S., who's goal is a free democratic state, is a worse Stalinist overlord than Saddam? Free elections, a constitution, free markets, even the freedom to fight a civil war if need be, though that is not our goal. Ah, liberal power to the people, but only the people we like... Now, with that idiotic view out of the way, an assumption he attributes as truth for all, he then claims most politicians won't admit their mistake. Duh, a simian buffoon can see through that one, yeah, even a buffoon in a liberal echo chamber... like SLATE readers.

2) For the big lie number two, Mr. Pointy Head claims that we aren't acknowledging American soldiers 'victimization'... WHOA! Imagine that, another liberal idiot trying to create more victims! Would never have expected that. Why doesn't he head down to any military hospital and take a poll, "Hello, do you feel like a victim? You should, you know." What a elitist prig, with no class at all, except perhaps class envy, which is the next slander of our troops. Another liberal idiot promoting the view of 'compulsory' opportunity driven enlistment. That argument has been crushed many times, yet is so convenient, most libs can't let go. It's capped off with the line: "Our troops in Iraq may not see themselves as cannon fodder or victims of presidential misjudgments, but that doesn't mean they're not." Oh! So Mr. Pointystick knows about cannon fodder! Much better than the troops even, cause he is SMARTER than they are... At this point we can pretty much discount anything Jake has to say, cause we obviously won't understand it with our faulty, uneducated, unenlightened point of view.

3) The "Great Waste", is something so despicable, it's worthy of the term unpatriotic. And anyone who holds that view, is utterly beyond the pale. Irregardless of a individuals support of the Iraq war, no loss of a American soldier is a waste. We could be defeated, our society destroyed, and doomsday occurs, but the soldiers are fighting not just for their mission, but for each other. And to have a socialist pig journo try and force that assumption on the general public is truly Anti-American. Disgusting, and I would make the same claim about Obama and McCain had they not retracted their statements. Both of them, I believe, were not intending to claim waste as interpreted. Mr. Pointless, on the other hand, disapproves of the 'banal' euphemisms like "sacrifice". This is most likely a derivative of his nihilistic, insulated persona, and I would challenge him to stand up to those who take that risk, and have made that sacrifice, and explain how much more pure his self serving existence is. Anyone who concurs with this pint of view is equally open to derision, again, whether you agree with war or not.

4) For his final 'make what I say truth' blather, there is the stupid contention that we are 'loosing' or have already 'lost' the Iraq war. No, Mr. Worhtless, wars are won or lost when they are finished. How stupid are you? But we know you do not want to win, and you want to make sure everyone else should follow and intend us to loose as well. How about you jump off a bridge with a bag of bricks in your hand. After you go down, I will claim that obviously you have drown. Am I correct? Don't avoid the truth of my statement! Your condition is drowning, you can't make it, as claimed by experts! I am sure the point will be lost in the muddled mind of liberals who "have decided" that we lost. How about acknowledging the unpleasant truth that your views are destructive to society, and will weaken and undermine our nation? Grow strong Mr. Noteworthy, and confront the truth of your despicable, elitist, Anti-American viewpoint. Realize that you have succumbed to believing your own rhetoric and break free of the journalist echo chamber.

Well, it was a valiant attempt, however successful. Fight on seekers of the truth!

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

More Global Meltdown

I sent off a article that was amusing, "Allegre's second thoughts", with the tag-line:
Drat, even the pointy headed socialist frogs are figuring it out... But, much as I LOATH socialists, when your right, your right.
What a funny reply, exhorting me to read the source:
Ah, before you go jumping off ze deep end along with the National Post of Canada you should perhaps actually read ze article in questions, oui? Voila, l'article! I do not see a recantation here, I see a we don't know for sure, let's wait and see.....and not simply follow fad and fashion. Ze good researcher always checks ze resources primarie, oui?
Apparently my humorous and sarcastic motivation for forwarding the 'news' article was not recognized in its brilliance. Alas, the direct approach in return is called for:
Hello? Your telling me to not jump off the deep end? I have read a multitude of primary source articles on said topic, along with corroborating seminars and discussions from self same leading experts, and your trying to say I am missing something? You get your opinion on the topic from pop science, and your telling ME not to jump off the deep end? Please, don't mess with it. So, you go read a article and its conclusion is "we don't know for sure", while at the same time the IPCC has declared for an absolute certainty of anthropogenic forcing, and even has a panel discussing a 'maximum temperature' target, and you don't think that is a recantation? It's a full on revolution if he has the cahones to stick with that message. And how in the hell do you figure that a position of critical skepticism concerning man made global warming is "jumping off the deep end" anyhow? How many freaking blue 'Al Gore' flavor global warming pills did it take for you to get there? Or have your priors caused your brain to drift away from science? And the exhortation to not 'simply follow fad and fashion' is absolutely hilarious! The 'pop science' blue pill cruncher mentality is entirely fad and fashion!

Unfortunately, many in my own scientific community have embraced fad and fashion for fame and profit! Blasphemy you say? Look at the billions they are getting for global climate change, and the accolades poured out on those willing to 'speculate' in the correct direction. On the other hand, vocal skeptics are shunned in many places, and can plan on rejection when submitting proposals along those lines. What happened to the real core of scientific investigation in this regard? I think it is quite simple, when 'private' conjecture within the climate sciences during the seventies leaked out into public forums, activists and alarmist jumped on it quickly with popular result. The same scientists reacted to that public exposure in a natural way, and began to investigate speculative projections more closely. They were able to do this in conjunction with the massive increase in computational resources, but not with a concurrent increase in data. Model resolution far outstripped actual data long ago, and has exponentially exceeded it with today's supercomputers. That is our greatest physical failing, albeit not intentionally. One supercomputing center, with diverse uses, can run into the tens of millions. Conversely, a single project to measure a few data points in the ocean over months of time consumes the same amount of resources, and is useful to very specific investigators. For even regional coverage, hundreds of square kilometers, it would require hundreds of millions. And what is necessary is long time series of global measurement.

The best global measurements we have regarding climate change have only a short few decades of coverage. And those measurements are primarily atmospheric and ocean surface, as satellite instruments cannot penetrate ocean depths at this time. This is the equivalent of trying to determine how a car works by filming it from a distance. You can see it move, tell what color it is, and watch it stop for gas, but what makes it go? Additionally, even the short records of global coverage have raised new issues of complexity regarding climate modeling. To sum up, we know very little about what controls the climate. And even more interesting, some of it could be entirely random and chaotic. Predict that... So populist alarm-ism as is the cry of the day has little going for it. All major players in the debate have vested interest in the short term public perspective, most of which is motivated by money.
Concise and well crafted, if I don't say so myself. (pat pat... with arrogant smirk)

Monday, March 05, 2007

The Liberalism of William Wilberforce

You could only get this from a truly, beyond the pale, blue pill popping modern nutter liberal:
Went and saw a great movie last nite.
Amazing Grace (yes, the song)
About William Wilburforce,
An MP who spent 30 years pushing for a bill to end the slave trade in the British Empire.
Of course, the Conservatives/Tories of his day were opposed to ending slavery, because they made money hand over fist in the Triangle Trade.
But, you know those damn Liberals. If something is wrong, they fight tooth and nail for change.
You know, things like slavery.
Damn liberals...
Yes, wouldn't perhaps be about a Christian pushing for change based on the principle of Freedom arrived at through his faith could it? Yes, liberals were a force for good, until they became socialist pigs and rejected God. You might want to adjust your context there a bit, your modern secular liberal scum philosophy would have nothing to do with the man. And I wonder if William would possibly be pro-life? Hmmm, ya think? The modern struggle against the culture of death is paralleled in the abolitionist movement. So I would say, those tenacious Christian activists, if something is wrong they fight tooth and nail for change, against things like, you know, killing unborn humans.

Where did his tenacity and conviction come from? Inspired by the glories of liberal thought? Yeah, I can hear it now: "Amazing humanism, how sweet the sound, that inspired a liberal like me! ..." Glad you liked the movie, sad that you can't see the mote in your own eye. I love the title and intention inherent in on of William's most influential writings: "A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted With Real Christianity". A man who, without pride or pretense, can claim to know real Christianity, is one of great character. There is a fantastic introduction in the book (third printing?), maybe you could get some context of its purpose: "It is a contrast between Christianity lowered, misapprehended, obscured, falsified, by the prevailing doctrine and morals of the day, and Christianity as it came from heaven, as it remains in all its freshness in the Sacred Records, as it is loved and obeyed by those in every age, who, like the primitive Christians, or our Reformers of the sixteenth century, come out from the world, and live unto God by the faith of a crucified Savior." A reformer in the Anglican church, lookout! So William's real pounding desire was to see a revival of Christian values in the UK? Now that is a real liberal.

I wonder what the great liberal's view on politics was? Well, if we delve further into this fine text there is a fairly concise statement towards that question: "Legislators must act fully as Christians. The public mind expects this, and will bear them out in it. England must rise to her high destiny. If she remain stationary, -but she cannot remain stationary- she will decline and perish, unless she press on in the noble career which providence now opens before her." I am afraid your band of socialist secular humanists are a long, long ways from a man like this. So now that we have cleared up that little trap of history, lets address a interesting question about the divergence of state sponsored religion, religion of the crown, and freedom of religion.

These three conditions existed in the west at the time of Wilberforce, and the outcome of countries practicing each model could be examined. I propose this in light of the apparent contradiction in William's desire for reform within the church. Though the Anglican church was free of Rome's influence for generations, it had persecuted fellow Christians, many of whom emigrated to the New World. Perhaps the structure of a sect that is inextricably tied to the government lends itself to the corruption expressed by the title of William's work. This does not mean the modern interpretation of 'Separation of Church and State' as bandied about by secularist in the modern day. What it represents is the strength in having diverse decentralized Christian communities lending their support to a government of the people. That is close to the intentions of our founding fathers, and probably something Wilberforce would approve of with hindsight of a couple hundred years.

One can only wonder, if his mother had not been fearful of his becoming a evangelical, whether history would have been quite different! However, speculation is just that, and in no way am I suggesting he may have become a second George Whitefield, but the thought is enticing. Anyhow, what a wonderful story about a remarkable man. A giant of a man that we would be wise to emulate in our daily activities, especially in the concerns of political philosophy, and precisely as that philosophy relates to the underlying Christian principals of open, honest, and moral governance. Unshackle the bondage that is secular humanism! Pull back the blinding veil of modern phony liberalism! You too could proclaim with peace and joy: "... Was blind, but now I see!"

Friday, March 02, 2007

To Talk or Not to Talk! (with Solutions for Iraq)

Sometimes it is instructive to send news articles amongst friends, so I did:

Message:Oh, so Bush has actually been pressuring Arab states to talk... but they don't want to. "Two Arab diplomats in Cairo said Wednesday that the U.S. recently increased pressure on some Arab governments to press them to attend the conference,..."
Of course the response was worthy for a liberal rant:
Ah, now read the entire section..

"Two Arab diplomats in Cairo said Wednesday that the U.S. recently increased pressure on some Arab governments to press them to attend the conference, after they initially had turned down invitations from the Iraqi government. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity. Syria and Egypt confirmed separately they would attend, but there was no immediate comment from Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Bahrain, Turkey and Kuwait also were invited, along with the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference."

Each side in the Mideast's widening Shiite-Sunni split has accused another of being responsible for the spiraling violence in Iraq. Iraqi officials have complained that Sunni countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not doing enough to help calm Iraq, while the Sunni countries in turn blame Iraq's Shiite-led government for failing to rein in death squads and Shiite militias. Well, I can think of at least two reasons why other Arab governments might not want to get involved. First, they don’t want their own populations to get any idea the they might be acting as tools of the warmonger Americans simply by being in the same room with those who kill fellow Muslims by the thousands without any remorse, concern or care. Second, they are a mix of Sunni and Shia, and do not want to get involved in the Shite/Sunni dispute. Take Saudi Arabia, where the government is largely of one sect and the people are largely of the other. Who needs to cause problems at home? Who believes the Americans are REALLY after anything constructive? Not me. What’s really interesting is that AFTER Iran said it would attend, the Bushies very quickly said, well, of course we aren’t going to talk DIRECTLY with Iran or Syria. What are the Americans gunna do, walk around the buffet dinner with their eyes on the ceiling so they don’t see Iranians or Syrians? What a bunch of fools! Hey, Condi, bring the President of Iran a cup of coffee and a finger sandwich and sit down in a nice quiet corner of the room and have a heart to heart talk. What have we got to lose? But now, the phony-Christian moralists wanna be pure and not get contaminated by the axis of evil Muslim Persian devils!
Hah! What arrogance, as if I didn't read the article. Apart from the thinly veiled religious bigotry, where is the answer to my provocation? The liberal perspective is always "If Bush is involved, it has got to be bad." Wow, eight years of complete mental and emotional constipation. If nothing else, Bush will leave a lasting legacy in the world of therapists serving liberals. When I first began a response, it was to be short and snippy. Then I caught a thought that I tried to run with, you decide if it was successful or not.
Still nothing good you can find anywhere? Surprise surprise. Not that I expected any change in consistency... (smile) I love this: "Who believes the Americans are REALLY after anything constructive? Not me." No kidding? Couldn't have figured that out from any previous statements. Notice how that view is DESTRUCTIVE and creates a myriad of mental traps you consistently fall into with any situation? There is no escape for you from this mental and emotional bondage it seems. Anyhow, back to the reality of Arab insanity. We can leave Bush out of it, as you seem to have no objectivity or measured context from which to argue if the president is involved. (It's called BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome)

I see two possible scenarios playing out from here, and they depend on Iraq Shia motivations. Even with that there are qualifications due to the mixed primary source messages that are available ('mist' of war?). It appears that there is a general sentiment of revenge against Bath atrocity fueling the sectarian violence. On the other side (still considering Iraqi Shia) there is a sentiment aligned with (but not attached to) the same nutty 12th Imam stuff who could be increasingly influenced by Iranian Mullah magic. Neither of these has matured into a pervasive force, and self interest still rules the public. But both sentiments are fluid and could easily ignite frenzied violence if given enough room or provocation. So, the overall general public must back their government to a extent where they can maintain the lid on both common popular movements. Yet unlike Al Qaida, or other foreign involvement, the government has to court the Shia population away from support of these movements, just crushing them will only add to the fervency of each. The revenue sharing agreement recently passed will go a ways toward this goal, as money begins to flow. And what money it is! Iraq already produces more oil than Indonesia and Qatar combined, with increased production on the horizon with increased stability. Of course, Iran would like to control some of that, so would many others.

If the general Shia populations perceives that the Government will be able to provide jobs and security they may abandon the more radical ideas. If they wont give up support of these populist semi-radical ideas, then security will be very difficult for anyone to provide. This seems to be key. Fighting the Islamist Radicals will continue no matter what happens, and is a separate issue at this point. I don't think the average Iraqi would hesitate long in giving up a Al Qaida member or other radical. But they obviously have not changed sentiment regarding the other two elements. If they had, it would take less than a month to stabilize much of the violent regions. So that appears to be the real roadblock at this juncture. Granted, two of the Sunni provinces are still rife with disgruntled former Bathist and Al Qaida sympathizers, but that, like western Pakistan, is a separate problem, and not a real threat to a stable functioning Iraq government (of some form). Pakistan is a bad example of course, as its not exceptionally stable. The whole Arab region is a bad example, as there is not much in the way of freedom, education, or respect of human rights. As a step towards progress though, even a semi democratic Iraq will change the whole Arab map.

Can a free Iraq exist in a repressive, 12th century Arab world? Or would it become the prime target of radicals for years to come simply due to its 'Westernization'? This is where I part with established policy. It is not about one country or region. It is about a dark oppressive society that will consume a sea of blood before it emerges from the Arab Dark Age. If we have that perspective, maybe our policy would become less complex. Export freedom, import oil. Yet we can not force freedom on a society, and we can not buy freedom for a region. Men and machines have ravaged the Arab world for many years, to little avail. Much like the trillions of aid dumped into Africa, with little result. Buy the oil, sell them DVD's, and let them duke it out amongst themselves. Unfortunately in this modern time, isolationism has become a impossibility with the advent of global Islamic Radical terror. No future of 'stick to our shores' if we intend to retain our personal security.

With this broad picture in mind, the purpose of securing Iraq should become similar to that of securing the Korean peninsula in the '50s. Create at least a secure functioning region in the Kurdish north where commerce and freedom can flourish. Even this permanent foothold would have a significant impact in the region. Next, focus on secure zones that we have absolute control over. Begin to restrict American patrol and movement to controlling those clear areas and real terror interdiction. What I mean by this is begin to downsize military involvement to anti-Jihadist activities and operations and control of sterile zones. This will lead to increased violence in some areas, but with the perspective outlined, any transfer to Iraq control will be one that has a frictional element. Why is this pullback necessary? It must happen in order to regain the initiative in the propaganda battle.

By 'redeploying' a portion of the Iraq force and then changing the mission publicly to one of anti-Jihadist hunting only, we would be given a time frame to build a structure of security that is easy to maintain and requires lower troop levels. At the same time allowing Iraq security forces to adjust for the conditions they will eventually face many years hence. All this could be implemented rapidly thus thwarting some of the Anti-American element in the Iraqi public perception. In real terms, we could 'cut the force in half' by summer of 2007 without hindering any anti terror activities. In real troop levels this could be masked by the permanent presence in the north being a 'extension' base of power. Rotations and equipment increases would happen there as (hopefully) planned. The one extreme variable in this short term plan hinges on the strengthening Baghdad government. If there is a weakening of power, or a serious collapse of cooperation, this plan would have to include retaining or increasing security around the government, or letting it fall, which would be a severe humanitarian disaster and increased security risk.

In essence, the prolonged formation of a stable governing structure in Iraq coupled with the failure of this administration to marshal the American public has created a situation where we are unable to increase our presence or change tactics easily. So with the current 'surge' and the decrease in violence in Baghdad, there is a bit of political capital that needs to be used effectively, and the implementing the plan as shown before the end of summer would short circuit criticism of the 'surge' tactic and shift gears within the public debate. It will also allow for the Iraqi government to make autonomy claims if it appears that we are downsizing, thus garnering more of the absolutely necessary general Shia confidence and support. Whether the Iraqis can suppress the two sentiments outlined and maintain a level of security long enough for the proverbial "money to flow" will depend entirely on Iraqis, there is nothing in the short term that Americans appear to be able to do apart from what they are doing. We lost the chance to 'crush' and hold the worst areas, and we can not allow the descent into chaos. Now, the effectiveness of 20/20 hindsight is weak and I am not sure that a 100k increase in troops two years ago would have actually suppressed the sectarian uprising, but that is a separate debate.

Of course most of the short term speculation is just that, but the concept of integrating our short term goals into a cohesive long term strategy to counter Islamic Radical expansion that hinges on Arab long term socioeconomics and systematic cultural repression. There are certainly wiser and more informed strategies that could be constructed in the short term, but establishing the long range goal has not been expressed publicly beyond platitudes in most cases. This is something the modern western Muslim could make great strides in and begin to lead the debate eventually. Championing women's rights, economic freedom, and religious tolerance would be a good place to start. Unfortunately, that tend to get one killed in the Arab world, most recently seen in the assassination of a Pakistani woman politician for not wearing a headscarf. They have a long way to go, and seem to be either idling or heading in reverse in some regions. Additionally, the Muslim community living in the west has not raised its voice against the radicals. This should concern them, as they are a target of the Radicals. Leaders in the West need to throw off the yolk of political correctness and reject the diversity police in this long term strategic fight. Concisely frame the argument, even while suffering with archaic policies. Speak truth, even if it offends the Saudis. Challenge partners on the clearest issues, like women's suffrage, even in the face of cooled relations. There can be no other way eventually.
In the end I do advocate discussion! Yet not the unilateral waste of time nutter libs would force upon us in regards to Iran. My discussions would be continual challenges to the Arab world to end repression, free society, and abandon mono-theocracy! Down with Jihad!