December 23rd, 2008
HE’S BACK
After a year of silence, Osama bin Laden has filled the world’s headlines with an audiotape, and the predictable opinions are being heard. Is his offering of a truce a sign of weakness or strength? Is he making such statements because he is harried or is the statement a result of the recent U.S. missile attack in Pakistan? All of these questions are to be expected from a media that has usually asked: Is he really alive? Where is he? It rarely asks: What did he say/mean?
Bin Laden’s public statements - which have almost never been aired in full-length in the U.S. mainstream media - have been made primarily based on his religious/ideological considerations. He has consistently justified Al Qaeda’s actions and those of other jihad groups as a defensive struggle against Western encroachment on Islamic societies and the ‘apostate’ regimes currently ruling Muslim countries. Moreover, he has consistently elaborated basic themes: one-sided U.S. support for Israel at the expense of the Palestinians; U.S. historical and current support for ‘apostate’ Muslim regimes, such as that governing Saudi Arabia; the West’s pilfering of Muslims’ natural resources, especially oil; and the West’s cultural, political, and military attack on Muslims worldwide.
After the 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., Al Qaeda was criticized by those within its own ideological persuasion, not for having attacked the U.S., but for not having followed correct religious procedures. It had failed to get the proper religious/legal rulings in support of such an attack; had not warned Muslims, women, children, and innocent civilians; and had not made an offer of peaceful resolution - all before attacking.
As of today, all of these conditions have been fulfilled with respect to the next attack in the U.S. Religious rulings have been obtained, warnings have been issued, and offers of a peaceful resolution - to accept a truce if the U.S. offers one - have been made. In Bin Laden’s mind, and in the minds of likeminded fundamentalist jihadists, all the preconditions have been met for directly attacking the United States. This is the real meaning of the audiotape.
Liked this post? Share it with others!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Comments Off
December 22nd, 2008
If you are not into bulking up and getting big, you can get lean muscle tone, strength and more power by using Cyclone.
It promotes not only muscle growth but also energy and nitrogen retention.
It also optimizes the natural growth hormone. Maximuscle has really taken care of you with this product.
This product helps to reduce and prevent the amount fo muscle By the time that you buy all the ingredients that are in Cyclone you are going to wind up spending like 250.
But when you buy Cyclone you are getting the combination that is sure to make a drink that will blow away anything else you have ever tried.
When I was younger I could lose five pounds just by skipping a few lunches - those days are over.
Between getting older and working behind a desk all day, I put on an extra twenty pounds and most of it seemed to be in my waist a belly.
After trying several programs, I finally realized I would need an exercise program I liked and a very good supplement.
So I went online and found a fitness supplement called Maximuscle, which is used by bodybuilders.
The combination of sticking with a realistic diet and exercise program coupled with this great fat-burning supplement helped me to see results very quickly.
That was two years ago and today I fit into clothes I haven’t worn for twenty years - and I feel fabulous.
Liked this post? Share it with others!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Comments Off
December 18th, 2008
In Meacham Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory was planning to lay off a number of employees. It has the burden to prove that its decision was based on a reasonable factor other than age. Specifically the jury found that although the plaintiffs did not prove that Knolls intentionally discriminated against them they did prove that Knolls method of deciding who to lay off disproportionately harmed older workers. Thirty of the 48 salaried employees the company laid off were at least 66 years old. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case and eventually reversed the Second Circuit and reinstated the jurys finding that Knolls policy unlawfully discriminated because of age. A lawyer from Harlingen won from a lawyer in Deltona Florida For example it would not be illegal to consider criteria for a particular role in a movie that has a disparate impact on age if the part calls for someone of a particular age. Twenty-eight of those 29 employees sued under the ADEA claiming Knolls illegally fired them because of their age. As long as the adverse action is based on reasonable factors other than age. The BFOQ defense states that it is not unlawful for an employer to take adverse employment actions otherwise prohibited by the ADEA where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. Knolls totaled those scores and gave the employees additional points based on their years of service. In reaching its conclusion that the employer has the burden to prove the reasonable factors other than age defense the Supreme Court looked at another provision of the ADEA the bona fide occupational qualification defense. In other words the ADEA permits employers to discriminate based on age considering age is legitimately necessary under the circumstances. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the employer has the burden to establish the BFOQ affirmative defense. It then used those totals to decide who to lay off. At the trial a jury found Knolls had violated the ADEA because its layoff procedure had a disparate impact based on age. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit initially affirmed the jurys findings but after the United States Supreme Court asked it to reconsider the Second Circuit reversed itself and ruled in favor of Knolls. The Supreme Court ruled that if an employer seeks to rely on that defense. Even if the employment action is otherwise prohibited by the ADEA. The company had its supervisors rate their subordinates based on their performance flexibility and critical skills. In that case Meacham versus Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory the Supreme Court interpreted a provision of the ADEA that permits an employer to take an adverse employment action against an employee.
Liked this post? Share it with others!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Comments Off
December 18th, 2008
I like Bill O’Reilly. I do. I have read two of the man’s books, all his columns, and when I lived in the United States, I listened to the “O’Reilly Factor.” I agree with him on many issues. I do so not because of his political worldview but because he makes sense, most of the time, and challenges me with the factshe makes me think.
Nevertheless, I am afraid we have to part company regarding his stance and support of the Minuteman Project.
In O’Reilly’s April 8th, Foxnews Talking Points, he says the following,
“And the concept is very simple bringing attention to the chaotic border situation by launching a media attractive protest. And the Minutemen are getting a lot of attention.”
I wish I could say Bill was right here: “The concept is very simple.” Perhaps he is referring to the Minuteman’s mantra to just “Observe and Report?” I think there is more to it.
A lot more.
I wonder if Mr. O’Reilly was aware that Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minuteman project, is probably not the best candidate to be leading a group which claims to just “Observe and Report” at the Mexican-American border.
Miroslava Flores, reporting for the La Voz de Aztlan, writes in December 2002,
“Chris Simcox, the vigilante who recently called for an armed militia and an uprising against Mexican immigrants in Arizona, left Los Angeles two years ago because his life here had become intolerable. Ask anyone who knew him about the kind of person he is, including his former wife, and their faces cringe. His neighbors at 3855 Inglewood Boulevard did not like him and avoided him like “the plague.” They expressed worry that Simcox could soon “crack” and go on a rampage. His colleagues at Wildwood School, where he worked as a kindergarten teacher, would rather not remember or speak of him.”
She goes on to write,
“Simcox’s life in Los Angeles started falling apart when he began exhibiting bizarre behavior about 3 year’s ago. Apparently, he became a delusional paranoiac at the same time he started to talk loudly about a “Mexican conspiracy” to take over Los Angeles. His wife became concerned when he started taking their 13-year-old son to the shooting range in order to prepare him for an “upcoming race war.” His wife eventually divorced him and fought a successful court battle to take custody of her son. At the same time, because of his increasingly irrational racist behavior, his private educational consulting business collapsed.”
Simcox seems to be of the ilk, like Glenn Spencer and his gang, who believe,
“…that migrant workers are not coming to America to find a better life for themselves and their families, but rather to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico. Groups who work on behalf of migrant or immigrant workers, such as MECHA, La Raza Unida, and the Coalicin de Derechos Humanos of Tucson, Az., he regards as “de facto agents of Mexico.”
These men have used 911 as a renewed excuse to persecute Mexican migrant workers. Now let me make this point: Do anyone really think that a highly financed, professionally trained, sophisticated Arab terrorist is going to be sneaking into the U.S. by crossing the dirty and muddy Rio Grande or crawling on his belly through the Canadian woods? I mean, come on!
I wonder if Mr. O’Reilly knows that Chris Simcox, the co-founder of the group he adulates, was arrested in January 2003, by Federal Park rangers for possession of loaded and concealed weapons, disorderly conduct, and interfering with law enforcement on federal land, according to Ernesto Cienfuegos of La Voz de Aztlan.
This is the leader of the group of Mexican-hunters, of which O’Reilly said,
“So three cheers for the Minutemen. Like their ancestors in Concord and Lexington, they’re making a statement. And we all should respect that.”
I wonder if Mr. O’Reilly knows who he is cheering and asking us to respect a federal lawbreaker?
And should not any thinking individual be asking, “What is a man like Simcox doing leading a band of vigilantes?”
I really think there is more than just “Observe and Report” below the surface of this man. Why, if the Minuteman group is there to just “Observe and Report,” has Simcox issued a “call to arms?”
Listen to what Los Angeles Times Magazine writer, Dan Baum, wrote on March 16, 2003:
“Chris Simcox won’t stop fooling with his gun. He paces his tiny office, bouncing on the balls of his feet, and every 15 seconds his hands go to the gun on his belt–hiking it up, adjusting its angle, checking its safety. It’s a big gun, a two-toned .45 in a hard plastic holster, and whenever he is photographed by the media–which is often these days–Simcox makes sure the pistol is in every frame.
Simcox speaks of sovereignty, the Pledge of Allegiance and the rule of law, but his body language is all about the gun. Sooner or later he’s going to use it, he wants everybody to know, in a showdown with the illegal immigrants and Mexican drug dealers he believes are ruining the United States.
“These are enemies who are wrecking our economy,” he says, his eyes shiny with emotion. “This is about national security.”
If Simcox dies in a blaze of border gunfire, so be it, he says. “Damn them. That’s how much I care about my country.”
Simcox would be naught but an anonymous zealot with a death wish if, in October, he hadn’t flamboyantly demonstrated the dictum that freedom of the press is best enjoyed by those who own one. At 42, he is owner, editor and publisher (and reporter, ad director and circulation manager) of the weekly Tombstone Tumbleweed, circulation 1,200. His Oct. 24 issue bore the headline: “Enough is Enough! A Public Call to Arms!” The paper invited readers to join a “Citizens Border Patrol Militia” whose function, Simcox says, will be to “shame the government into doing its job” of controlling the nation’s border with Mexico. “We need some good old-fashioned discipline in this country,” Simcox explains as he fitfully circles the one-room Tumbleweed office. “I invite someone to come up with a solution.”
So what do we have going here? The co-founder of The Minuteman Project, Chris Simcox, has:
•A Felony Arrest Record
•Seems obsessed with his hand gun
•Wants everyone to know that sooner or later he will use his gun in a showdown with illegal immigrants
•He says that if he dies in a blaze of border gunfire then “so be it.”
His Oct. 24 issue of his own newspaper bore the headline: “Enough is Enough! A Public Call to Arms!
Does it take being a rocket scientist to figure out that there is moreA LOT MOREto this group being on just a “Observe and Report” mission?
Ok, O’Reilly. There you have it. What says you?
Doug Bower is a freelance writer and book author. His most recent writing credits include The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Houston Chronicle, and The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Transitions Abroad. He lives with his wife in Guanajuato, Mexico.
His new book Mexican Living: Blogging it from a Third World Country can be seen at http://www.lulu.com/content/126241
Liked this post? Share it with others!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Comments Off
December 18th, 2008
We are currently seeing a build up in China of their military, with 7 new classes of warships. Buying of 15 Billion worth of jet fighters from Russia, advances in Space which can lead to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Electromagnetic Weapons, training and recruiting of personal for army. Taiwan is extremely concerned as is Japan, Russia is thrilled having been able to sell them technologically advanced weaponry. Our defense industry is upset seeing sales go to other countries, also alarming in our trade deficit and money flows out of our country to China, which is being used to buy the weapons in the first place. Airbus is establishing a military division to catch some of that money flow too, having watched Boeing which also sells military and commercial make major end roads to markets thru R and D partially coming from US Government, which as we know has been a debate in the EU and fair trade rules as Airbus is funded in part and subsidized by European governments who are simultaneously deficit spending. The selling of weapons in the world is quite alarming and makes the case for Iranian or North Korea’s nuclear weapon ambitions a tough one, in that shouldn’t a country have the right to defend itself? A worthy debate although a government, which has proved untrustworthy in the past obviously should never be trusted with such destructive power which once used would surely change the history of mankind.
China is aware of the World’s concern with the largest population base in the World and expanding industrial might, such concerns are warranted. One issue of supreme insight would be that of Dr. Einstein; “You cannot simultaneously prepare and prevent war.” China says it wants to defend itself. Which is a noble cause of any nation, right? Yes, but the question is from whom? No one country on Earth is up to a challenge of the Chinese Military, except maybe the US, which of course is a trading partner whose purchases are funding their economy and their war machine. Having the world’s largest and most powerful Army, Air Force and Navy has been for over 25 years undisputed territory of the United States. Chinese war theory predicts forcing political will without use of force or if possible not fighting a single battle as adequate method. If China wishes to force its political will with Taiwan, then who might defend them? Will the US show up for a political game poker game where each side tries to bluff the other. Chinese culture is much different than Western Culture despite the closeness in the end goals of the civilizations (certainly worthy of discussion for another topic). China is well aware of the tension created by this build up and the power and what that means for its future forceful negotiations of will. China currently does not wish to rock the boat until it has the military might to play at the poker table with the EU or with the United States and has suggested a Hotline to Washington DC in the interim. Keeping up communication is important to peaceful solutions to military issues, but are we playing into a grander plan. By opening military force hotline are we in fact admitting and raising their status as a World Power?
China, US Discuss Setting Up Defense Hotline
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-05o.html
“Beijing (XNA) Feb 01, 2005 - Chinese Defense Ministry and its US counterpart rounded off their first special policy dialogue here Tuesday with both voicing their satisfactions, a sign of warming ties between two militaries of the two countries.”
China is also testing its power and practicing the modern art of war:
China, Russia To Hold First Ever Joint Military Drill
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-05n.html
“Beijing (AFP) Feb 01, 2005 - Russia and China will conduct their first ever joint military exercises in August or September to better coordinate the fight against terrorism, state media reported Tuesday.”
The United States if it really expects to remain the world leader militarily ought to take notes of these trends and set a course to maintain the ability to negotiate from a position of strength and be prepared to make an example of any nation which tries to force our their will against us or our allies with annihilating force so that China realizes that we are not into the bluffing game and will not tolerate imperialism from any other nation in the future periods. Without such a demonstration China will test us with Taiwan and then other allies to see how far we can be pushed. Such a series of signs will be very similar to a previous set of threats which history had showed us during Germany’s build up to power. We should be ready to negotiate but not fear the ultimate example and display of power to put away any possible attempt for any other nation to bluff us into backing down on what we know to be right.
This should not be a considered a warning of future events to come, but we should be ready and prepared to defend the free world and use unheard of force if necessary and all those in the wake should know in advance that we do not do threats, we do not play with bluffers and we will prevail no matter what. Do not challenge the free world and never mistake the United States’ acts of kindness for a sign of weakness.
“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/
Liked this post? Share it with others!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Comments Off
December 15th, 2008
In typical bureaucratese, the pensive EBRD analyst ventures with the appearance of compunction: “A number of projects have fallen short of acceptable standards (notice the passive, exculpating voice - SV) and have put the reputation of the bank at risk”. If so, very little was risked. The outlandish lavishness of its City headquarters, the apotheosis of the inevitable narcissism of its first French Chairman (sliding marble slabs, motion sensitive lighting and designer furniture) - is, at this stage, its only tangible achievement. In the territories of its constituencies and shareholders it is known equally for its logy pomposity, the irrelevance of its projects, its lack of perspicacity and its Kafkaesque procedures. And where the IMF sometimes indulges in oblique malice and corrupt opaqueness, the EBRD wallows merely in avuncular inefficacy. Both are havens of insouciant third rate economists and bankers beyond rating.
Established in 1991, “it exists to foster the transition towards open market oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in the countries of central and eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics. The EBRD seeks to help its 26 countries of operations to implement structural and sectoral economic reforms, promoting competition, privatization and entrepreneurship, taking into account the particular needs of countries at different stages of transition. Through its investments it promotes private sector activity, the strengthening of financial institutions and legal systems, and the development of the infrastructure needed to support the private sector. The Bank applies sound banking and investment principles in all of its operations. In fulfilling its role as a catalyst of change, the Bank encourages co-financing and foreign direct investment from the private and public sectors, helps to mobilize domestic capital, and provides technical co-operation in relevant areas. It works in close co-operation with international financial institutions and other international and national organizations. In all of its activities, the Bank promotes environmentally sound and sustainable development.”
Grandiloquence aside, the EBRD was supposed to foster the formation of the private sector in the revenant wreckage of Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkan, Russia and the New Independent States. This it was mandated to do by providing finance where there was none (”bridging the gaps in the post communist financial system” to quote “The Economist”). Put more intelligibly, it was NOT supposed to transform itself into a long-term investment portfolio with equity holdings in most blue-chips in the region. Yet, this is precisely what it ended up becoming. It avoided project financing like the plague and met the burgeoning capital needs of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) grudgingly. And it refuses to divest itself of stakes in the best run and most efficiently managed firms from Russia to the Czech Republic. In a way, it competes head on with other investors and commercial banks - often crowding them out with its subsidized financing.
One of its main mistakes, in a depressingly impressive salmagundi, is that it channelled precious resources to this budding sector (SMEs), the dynamo of every economy, through the domestic, decrepit, venal and politically manhandled banking system. The inevitable result was a colossal waste of resources. The money was allocated to sycophantic cronies and sinecured relatives (often one and the same) and to gigantic, state-owned or state-favoured loss makers. Most of it lay idle and yielded to its hosts a hefty income in arbitrage and speculation. As banks went bankrupt, they wiped whole portfolios of EBRD SME funds, theoretically guaranteed by even more bankrupt states.
Thus, the only segments of the private sector to benefit handsomely from the EBRD were lawyers and accountants involved in the umpteen lawsuits the EBRD is mired in. It is a growth industry in “countries” such as Russia. This is the melancholy outcome of indiscriminate, politically-motivated lending and of a lackadaisical performance as both lenders and shareholders. In the spirit of its first chairman, the suave and titivated Attali, the bank is in a constant road show, mortified by the possibility of its dissolution by reason of irrelevance. It aims to impress the West with its grandiose projects, mega investments, fast returns and acquiescence. In thus behaving, it is engaged in a perditionable perfidy of its fiduciary obligations. It lends to criminal managers, winking at their off-shore shenanigans and turning a blind eye to the scapegrace slaughter of minority shareholders. It throws good money after bad, cosies up to oligarchs near and far and engages in creative accounting. Instead of Westernizing the Easterners - it has been Easternized by them. Its sedentary though peregrinating employees are more adept at wining and at dining the high and mighty and at haughtily maundering in the odd, tangential, seminar - than at managing a banking institution or looking after the interests of their nominal shareholders with the tutelary solicitude expected of a bank.
Consider two examples:
MACEDONIA
The nascent private sector is nowhere to be found in the list of projects the EBRD so sagely chose to falter into here. The Electricity and Telecoms monopolies are prime beneficiaries as is the airport. The EBRD is also a passive shareholder in both big universal banks - until recently, conduits of state mismanagement. The SME and Trade Facilitation credit lines were conveniently divvied up among five domestic banks (one went belly up, the managers of two are under criminal investigation and one was sold to a Greek state bank). Despite vigorous protestations to the contrary, none of this money reached its proclaimed entrepreneurial targets. Two loans were made to giant local firms - the natural preserve of commercial lenders and equity investors the world over. The EBRD contributed nothing to the emergence of a management culture, to the development of proper corporate governance, to the safeguarding of property rights and the protection of minority shareholders here. Instead, it colluded in the perpetuation of monopolies, shoddy and shady banking practices, the pertinacious robbery titled “privatization” and the pretence of funding languishing private sector enterprises.
RUSSIA
Its 2 billion US dollars portfolio all but wiped out in the August 1998 financial crisis, the EBRD has now returned with 700 million new Euros to be - conservatively but not more safely - lent in major energy and telecom behemoths.
The historic, pre-1998, portfolio appears impressive. Almost 11 billion US dollars were generated by the EBRD’s less than 4. The bottom line reads 94 projects. Yet, when one neutralizes the infrastructural ones (including the gas and energy sector) - one is left with less than 50% of the amount. Add “infrastructure-like” projects (water transportation and the like) - and less than 30% of the portfolio went to what can be called proper “private sector”. Moreover, even these investments and credits were geared towards traditional and smokestack industries: mining, food processing, pipelines, rubber and such. Not an entrepreneur in sight. And the EBRD’s meagre loan-loss provisions and reserves cast serious doubts regarding the mental state of both its directors and its auditors.
To varying degrees, these two countries are typical. Development banks, like industrial policy, import substitution and poverty reduction, have gone in and out of multilateral fashion several times in the last few decades. But there is a consensus regarding some minimum aims of such bureaucracy-laden establishments - and the EBRD achieves none. It does not encourage entrepreneurship. It does not improve corporate governance. It does not enhance property rights. It does not allocate economic resources efficiently. It competes directly with other - more desirable - financing alternatives. It is not equipped to monitor its vast and inert portfolio. By implication it collaborates in graft, tax evasion and worse. It is a waste of scarce resources badly needed elsewhere. It should be administered a coup de grace. And its marbled abode - so out of touch with the realities of its clients and its balance sheet - should be sold to someone more up to the task. A bank, for instance.
About The Author
Sam Vaknin is the author of “Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited” and “After the Rain - How the West Lost the East”. He is a columnist in “Central Europe Review”, United Press International (UPI) and ebookweb.org and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com. Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.
His web site: http://samvak.tripod.com
Liked this post? Share it with others!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Comments Off
December 15th, 2008
Posted in
Uncategorized
Broad band will often loosely be described as fierce speedy internet & has all but over taken from slow dial-up www connections. annoying dial- up internet connections, which were the first web systems to provide flats with wordlwide web access through a modem, use all of the available phone line & traditionally run at only 33 kilobits per second. Broad-band technology, which uses ADSL ,also known as Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line, technology through traditional copper land lines, is capable to offer at the very least two times that speed which is amazing and as if that wasn’t enough it will typically not trigger off any trouble to the land line.
Fast broadband has turned out to be progressively more reasonably priced & very accessible over the past 3 years or so & is nowadays normally used by the majority of house internet subscribers in the Great British Isle. There are a mammoth assortment of broadband firms who nowadays suggest quick broadband packages, each and every one offering different priced services with countless benefits. One of the big time present focus points for Super fast broadband is its speed with customers nowadays becoming progressively more concerned in buying the best ever connection available as online games, music and videos become even more and more attractive & widely achievable on the web. The dial up speed of a broadband connection depends on a number of things, the most critical being how close the Residence is to the nearest phone exchange box & the quality of the copper cable between the box and the home.
One of the ways Quick broadband speed can be greatly improved 2 with the use of fibre optic cables, which do not suffer from speed depreciation over most distances. a miscellaneous number of other countries in the entire world have large distances. fibre optic networks & some, like Japan & South Korea, are providing broadband top speeds of up to 100mbps this is really excellent. The Country is eager to bring itself in line with all these countries & people may be happy to know that British Telecom recently revealed their plans to lay a large fibre optic network through out the country, at a cost of 1.5 billion pounds, reaching up to 10 million homes by 2012 & providing top speeds of up to 100mbps in a lot of apartments, with an average of 40-50mbps. This site allows you to compare broadband deals and find the best prices.
Liked this post? Share it with others!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Comments Off
December 14th, 2008
These days, speaking with most Democrats is like being “Alice, In Wonderland”. Most of them seem to be going under the old saying “Don’t Confuse Me With The Facts”, it seems that many of their statements are based on emotions instead of reality. I used to enjoy discussing politics, especially with people that disagreed with me (I felt that I might learn something new or different.). I still do, but lately I have found that, while I still enjoy discussing politics with Independents and Republicans, I no longer enjoy discussing politics with most Democrats. They almost all say the same things and they sound as if they are reading from a script.
Numerous Democrats that I have spoken with have stated, to paraphrase, “I don’t like Bush (They never say President Bush), he’s a thief and a liar and he is owned by the oil companies. He only cares about the rich. Nothing he says or does can be any good. Additionally, he is not smart enough to be President.”. The words they actually use are much worse, I just don’t wish to repeat them here.
The first thing that they all say is “Bush and his cronies stole the presidency from Vice-President Gore (They say President or Vice-President when speaking about President Clinton or Vice-President Gore.) in 2000.”. They say “Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.”. They say “Bush has ruined our economy”. They say “Bush was too slow in handling the Katrina disaster because he is prejudiced against blacks.” They say, “Bush has turned the world against us.”. Some are now even saying, “Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing to stop it so he would have an excuse for invading Iraq.”. When I ask them how they know these things they quote David Letterman, Jay Leno, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Edward Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand and numerous other far left politicians, celebrities and newscasters.
I attempt to discover all sides of the issues so I watch NBC News, Fox News and CNN, I read the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Forbes and other magazines and newspapers. When I ask my Democrat acquaintances if they watch Fox News, they all say “No, it’s too right wing.”. When I ask if they read the Wall Street Journal, Most say “No, it’s too biased.”, and even the ones that do admit to reading the Journal say, “I only read the financial pages.”. When I ask if they read or watch any conservative media at all, they say “No, all that you find in the conservative media are lies and cover ups.”.
When I try to counter some of their anti Bush statements with facts, they usually become upset and say “I don’t want to hear your facts, they are all lies spread by ‘big business’ and ‘right wing religious groups’, and even if they are true, I don’t care.”. “I don’t like Bush and that’s all that matters.”. When I ask them for proof of their allegations against President Bush, they usually either quote someone on the far left or say “Everyone knows it’s true.”. If I push them further they get upset and refuse to discuss the matter further. I have found that if you just listen to them and don’t disagree with them, they can talk forever about how bad President Bush and the Republican Party are. However, if you disagree with any part of anything they say, they will usually end the conversation immediately by changing the subject.
I don’t necessarily agree with, or even care for, everything that President Bush says or does, but the strident clamoring of the Democrats is forcing me to, more and more, side with him and the Republican Party. I am a Republican, but used to consider myself an Independent and voted my conscience rather than for a political party. Now, the blatant partisanship and lack of reason displayed by the Democratic Party has forced me to become an ardent Republican. The Republican Party, at least, still embraces some liberals and moderates. The Democratic Party appears to be trying to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with the far left.
David G. Hallstrom, Sr. is a retired private investigator and currently publishes several internet directories including www.resourcesforattorneys.com a legal and lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public. For more lifestyle information see lifestyle.resourcesforattorneys.com, the Lifestyle directory from Resources For Attorneys.
Liked this post? Share it with others!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Comments Off
December 13th, 2008
The late Ronald Reagan embodied the soul of classic liberalism - that’s right, Reagan was a liberal. His unbridled optimism and faith in the power of the individual to live his or her life independently, solve problems, and function as a contributing member of society, and his determination to expand the cause of freedom restrained only by morality are hallmarks of what the term “liberal” actually means. However, just as socialists usurped the term “liberal” and transformed its meaning to designate a person or party which supports larger, more intrusive government as a mechanism for peace and “prosperity”, Reagan utilized the philosophical underpinnings of classic liberalism to form today’s conservative movement.
Since Reagan, many Republican politicians have donned the “conservative” mantle without an understanding of what wearing that title entails. As a result, both federal and state governments have grown larger, require more of your tax money to exist, and created more cavernous deficits. Even our current president struggles to maintain the interest of a conservative base while creating his newest entitlement program which expands the fiscal black hole known as Medicare. Just as the Democratic Party abandoned Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party appears to have abandoned conservatives.
Social and fiscal conservatives do have a viable alternative, and that is the Libertarian Party. Libertarianism was initially a reaction against Soviet rule in Russia and eastern Europe, but as our own government grows increasingly more intrusive, more expensive and less effective in its originally defined jobs (defense and law enforcement), Libertarians have discovered a rising popularity in our own country.
Libertarians believe that all power begins with the individual and flows up, rather than flowing from the top down. They understand that defense and law enforcement are best done on a collective basis, and support a strong, well-trained and well-funded military, as well as the checks and balances we have today in our criminal justice system. However, they do not believe that the FEDERAL government should be responsible for allocating state funds for education, funding for roads based upon the state’s “drunk driving” standards, or feeding, housing, clothing and medicating every man, woman and child comprising the loudest voting block during an election year.
Because one of the basic premises of libertarianism is that “I own myself”, personal responsibility is a large part of the libertarian picture. The individual is free to make any informed choice they want, but they must also accept the consequences of those choices. This means, of course, that tort lawyers would be out of business. If an individual chooses to smoke cigarettes or eat high-fat foods and develops heart problems at 40, they are not assigned victim status, or allowed to claim “disability” payments for injuries that are self-inflicted. Under current laws, drug addicts can receive SSD (Social Security Disability) because they chose to burn out their brain cells, and now can’t function. And we wonder why Social Security is going bankrupt?
Likewise, if an individual is upset about the plight of the homeless, the environment, or the drug problem in the neighborhood, the libertarian answer is “Look in the mirror for the solution.” Local problems are to be solved on a local basis by people who understand the problems, the people they are working with, and will be accountable for, and affected by, the solutions they impose. This doesn’t happen with the current slurry of cookie-cutter fixes determined by policy-wonks in Washington. For those people who believe that “big business” needs to be regulated, remember that it was the unholy alliance between “big business” and certain members of congress that allowed the so-called Robber Barons to reign during the Gilded Era, and recently, the actions of Senators Lieberman and Shays to defang the Accounting Oversight Board sowed the seeds for the criminal activities at Enron and WorldComm. The criminal behavior exhibited within business enterprises was ultimately brought to light by the media; government agencies then were forced to react.
The Libertarian ideal works within a sane and mature society, and the more conservatives work toward the establishment of one, the better our country will become. Don’t think of a third party vote as a wasted vote; think of it as a grass-roots referendum for change.
About the Author
Jean Fritz is a farmer, freelance writer, and observer of human nature. She can be reached via her website: http://continue.to/jmtpubs.
Liked this post? Share it with others!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Comments Off
December 10th, 2008
I admit it, I don’t like Karl Rove and almost everything that comes out of his cynical little mouth. If he is the brains behind the Republican party operation they’re headed off of a steep political cliff. With that being said, I do admire his chutzpah, unapologetically saying things as inane as he does,
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11
in the attacks and prepared for war;
liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks
and wanted to prepare indictments and offer
therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
Let me first say that this liberal, if I was so inclined, could slap Rove so hard his therapy needing head would spin around his little pencil neck. I would never do such a thing, not because I realize that it wouldn’t get me anywhere or make me feel any better but the crisis of our President being advised by a moron would not be radically improved. On the contrary, the slap would probably damage many of the few precious brain cells that Karl needs to desperately hold on to.
But Karl’s strategy of not apologizing for uttering statements that are not based in reality is a good one.
Let’s look at the situation through the lens of logic. Karl makes a statement that is so asinine that only the most loyal of right wing talking heads would consider it profound. It’s so outrageously simple minded and contradictory to reality that it begs for “outrage” from liberals like myself. But I won’t entertain such garbage and I beg of you my liberal brethren, do not fall for this distractionary tactic.
You see Karl has advised his buddy George to get the American people into a war based on false pretenses, that was never winnable and that has inspired an entirely new generation of Muslim people, that now have legitimate grievances, to radicalize for the sake of their perceived self-defense. Lately these truths have been making their way to the American public’s ears and eyes. We saw glimmers of it in the Downing Street Memos and reports of an illegal and secret air campaign taking place before congress authorized war.
Karl’s behavior is perfectly understandable under the circumstances. He’s scared to death that the American people are going to wake up to the news that George W. Bush lied this country into a war that has caused the deaths, maimings and injuries of thousands and thousands of people without reason. And this is what really gives him cold sweats at night, he’s worried that the American people are going to ask why we attacked a country that had no connections to Al-Queda, no WMD, didn’t threaten us and had nothing to do with 9-11, when we had unfinished business with those that DID attack us.
So don’t fall for the distraction by engaging the stupidity of the argument. Stand tall and unapologetically speak loudly and truthfully and feel comforted that if Karl won’t apologize for speaking lies, we shouldn’t apologize for speaking the truth. And the truth should be spoken whenever there’s an opportunity, like when a chickenhawk squawks.
About the Author
The Indy Voice is an unapologetic liberal that doesn’t take any crap from weak know-nothing conservatives. Wanna see a no-nonsense and hard-hitting blog that discusses politics, current affairs, and everything in between, without being married to any cold corporate conglomerate? Then click here, The Indy Voice
Liked this post? Share it with others!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Comments Off
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
|
|
