Monday, October 29, 2007

Election Coverage: Biased Fluff?!?

Say it ain't so, media mogulhs!

(With apologies to Joseph Jefferson "Shoeless Joe" Jackson (Career batting av. - .356, 3rd highest), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball.)

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


I report and link. You decide. - BJon

The public pines for substance. A separate survey found that 77 percent of the respondents said they wanted more solid information on candidate policies and ideas. The press did not deliver.

Instead, almost two-thirds of the coverage focused on the "game" of the political horse race and candidate "performance." Accounts of their marriages, health and religion followed in importance in 17 percent of the stories — with just 15 percent examining domestic and foreign policies. A mere 1 percent shed light on candidates' public records.


From a Washington Times article, Slant seen in '08 race coverage, more follows:

Slant seen in '08 race coverage [/] Article published Oct 29, 2007 [/] By Jennifer Harper

Campaign coverage of the 2008 presidential election has been both biased and shallow, according to a study released today by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. [/] One party dominates, and there's way too much partisan fluff.

Numbers reveal all: Democratic candidates were the subject of half of the 1,742 recent print, broadcast and online news stories analyzed in the research. Republicans garnered 31 percent. [/] "Overall, Democrats received more positive coverage than Republicans (35 percent of stories versus 26 percent), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35 percent versus 26 percent)," the study said.

The public pines for substance. A separate survey found that 77 percent of the respondents said they wanted more solid information on candidate policies and ideas. The press did not deliver. [/] Instead, almost two-thirds of the coverage focused on the "game" of the political horse race and candidate "performance." Accounts of their marriages, health and religion followed in importance in 17 percent of the stories — with just 15 percent examining domestic and foreign policies. A mere 1 percent shed light on candidates' public records.

"The press and the public are not on the same page when it comes to priorities in campaign coverage," the study said. "This disparity indicates there is room for the press to calibrate its coverage differently to make it more useful and possibly more interesting to citizens." [/] Indeed. More than half the public wants more insight into candidate debates, sources of campaign money and the lesser-known White House hopefuls. Of 18 candidates running, 52 percent of the coverage went to just five of them: Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois fixated press interest, garnering 17 percent and 14 percent of the total coverage, respectively. [/] Three Republicans followed: Rudolph W. Giuliani with 9 percent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona (7 percent) and Mitt Romney (5 percent). [/] Contenders, such as Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, were featured in only a dozen stories; Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, scored just one. Even John Edward's wife, Elizabeth, got more coverage than 10 of the candidates, the study found.

Mr. Obama was the media darling: 47 percent of the stories about him were positive, compared with 27 percent for Mrs. Clinton. Mr. McCain got the most press abuse. Just 12 percent of the stories about him were positive in tone.

The public, meanwhile, has only tepid reviews for it all, with a majority — 53 percent — rating the news coverage only fair to poor. The fault could lie in journalism's focus on insider politics. [/] "Just 12 percent of stories impact ordinary citizens," the study said. "By contrast, 86 percent of the stories were produced in a way that largely focused on how the politician's chances of election would be affected." [/] The stories were analyzed between January and May; the survey of 1,000 adults was conducted Sept. 28 to Oct. 1, with a margin of error of three percentage points. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Friday, October 26, 2007

Katrina Drives Louisiana Republican?!?

It's All Bush's Fault!?!

N.B. Italics have been used in the article indicate clearly the obvious bias. Good news for conservatives and Republicans is bad news for these folks and must be qualified by their conceits.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From an Economist .com article, Bucking a trend:

Louisiana [/] Bucking a trend [/] Oct 25th 2007 | NEW ORLEANS [/] From The Economist print edition

Some rare good news for Republicans in the shape of a governor [/] WHEN it comes to the business of elections, Louisiana likes to confound conventional wisdom. While most of its Southern neighbours were busy electing Republicans during the early 2000s, Louisiana stubbornly returned a Democrat, Mary Landrieu, to the Senate in 2002, and put another one, Kathleen Blanco, in the governor's mansion in 2003. Now, as Republican fortunes have sagged across the nation—in no small part because of the Bush administration's failure to cope with Hurricane Katrina's devastation of Louisiana's coast in 2005the [[Republican]] party is having a banner year in the state.


N.B. Amazing!!! The Republican national government messed up horribly in Loisianna's hour of need so the people closest to the event turn to the Republicans for better governance?!? Do they themselves really believe this nonsense?!?

Atop the scorecard is the Republicans' reclamation of the governorship, in a rare primary-election victory by the 36-year-old Bobby Jindal on October 20th. Unusually, Louisiana holds a combined primary for all candidates, Democrat and Republican, with the top two vote-winners going forward to a run-off. Even more unusual is for a candidate to win outright on the first round, which is what Mr Jindal managed, polling an impressive 54% of the primary vote. Perhaps most remarkable of all is that Mr Jindal, who is Indian-American as well as very young, has overturned what had been supposed to be deep-seated prejudice. Four years ago, his defeat by Ms Blanco was widely viewed as proof that the state's “Bubbas”—rednecks uncomfortable with politicians who don't look like them—had not evolved. [/] But just four years later, Bubba seems to have granted Mr Jindal, whose given name is Piyush, honorary redneck status. (Four years ago, bumper stickers appeared with the slogan “Bubbas for Bobby”, but the message has taken a long time to sink in.)

Mr Jindal is something of a paradox. He is the first non-white governor since Reconstruction; he is a Rhodes scholar; he is the nation's youngest governor. In other words, he's a breath of fresh air, a sign of progress who promises to eradicate corruption in what many say is America's worst-governed state. On the other hand, he is a religious conservative who was as reliable a rubber-stamp as George Bush had in Congress, refusing to make a fuss even when Republicans there were blaming New Orleans for Katrina. Not all of the air is fresh.

Mr Jindal's victory is only the icing on the cake. The Republicans are expected to take five of the six elected state offices in Louisiana when the run-off votes are counted next month. [/] And next year the Democrats' top officeholder, Ms Landrieu, looks like facing an uphill battle. When she was last elected, in 2002, she won in large part thanks to a landslide in her home city, heavily Democratic New Orleans. Whereas the city's predilections haven't changed dramatically, its size has, and its electoral significance along with it. In 2002 almost 133,000 New Orleanians voted in the Senate race. On October 20th less than 60% of that number turned up at the polls, a sign of the city's post-Katrina shrinkage. Ms Landrieu won New Orleans by almost 80,000 votes in 2002, twice her overall margin of victory. This time, that was more votes than all the candidates got combined in the city that was once the alpha and the omega of Louisiana politics. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Catholic Bible vs. NIV (New International Version)

(Response to a poster in a forum.)

The translations to avoid are not Catholic versions, but non-literal versions.

If one believes that each word in the original writings is inspired by God, one should avoid the NIV.

This and other recent translations are based on the notion that the ideas but not each word were inspired.

This gives the translators a lot of room to decide for themselves just what these inspired ideas are.

The additional books in the Catholic versions do not add significantly to the body of central Christian teaching.

Athough those books were used by Jews of the First Century along with Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, the traditional Protestant view seems to be that the Hebrew scriptures as maintained in Jerusalem by officials of the congregation of Israel were what Paul meant by the "oracles of God".

Romans 3:1-2 KJV What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? (2) Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The difference between Catholic and Protestant teaching is not in versions of the Bible. It has to do with the Catholic notion that revelation is ongoing through the apostolic authority handed down to the bishops. Catholic scholars will readily admit that the main teachings that differ from traditional protestantism are based on the teaching authority of the Catholic Church much more than upon scripture.

Social Versus Economic Conservatism!?!

Is this the choice for Republicans?!?

Revelation 17:3-4 KJV So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. (4) And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

It seems to me that we are better off without the government beast getting overly involved with the economic lady.

But, I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a Wall Street Journal .com Opinion Journal article, Who is Mike Huckabee?:

Another Man From Hope [/] Who is Mike Huckabee? [/] JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL [/] Friday, October 26, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Republicans have won five of the last seven presidential elections by running candidates who broadly fit the Ronald Reagan model--fiscally conservative, and firmly but not harshly conservative on social issues. The wide-open race for the 2008 GOP nomination has generated two new approaches.

Rudy Giuliani, for example, isn't running away from his socially liberal views, although he has modified them. But he is campaigning as a staunch, even acerbic economic conservative. Should he win the nomination, conventional wisdom has it he may balance the ticket by picking former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as a running mate.

Mr. Huckabee, on the other hand, is running hard right on social issues but liberal-populist on some economic issues. This may help explain why the affable, golden-tongued Baptist minister was the clear favorite at the pro-life Family Research Council's national forum last Saturday. And why Mr. Huckabee's praises have been sung by liberal columnists such as Gail Collins of the New York Times and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

U.S.: Land of Free Speech?!?

There were screams from the audience: "Fascist," then "racist" then "Osama Bin Laden is a CIA agent." The noise was getting louder and I could not speak any more. I felt that even in America I am being silenced. My response was: “Who will speak for women who are stoned and for Muslims terrorized in radical Muslim countries? It is sad that I left oppressive Sharia Muslim culture, where I had no freedom of speech, only to find myself silenced in America, by groups who claim they are for free speech.”


I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a FrontPageMagazine.com article, Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week Day 2:

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week Day 2 [/] By Nonie Darwish | 10/24/2007 [/] [The following is a speech given by Nonie Darwish, the founder of Arabs for Israel, at last night’s kickoff event at UC Berkeley for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. It is preceded by a short intro written by Nonie Darwish regarding her impressions of the events surrounding her speech.]

Intro: [/] The atmosphere required extensive security -- which made me feel that without it I would have been physically hurt at UC Berkeley. The first statement from the Al-Jazeera representative to me was: “You are the most hated woman in the Arab world.” The hatred was also felt from the far leftist American audience. My response to the Al-Jazeera statement was: “Arab media spread a hate campaign against me after my book came out. Egyptian media, without reading the book, called me a traitor to my father because I support Israel. I love my father and I believe that if he had lived he would have been part of the peace treaty that Sadat had singed with Israel.” I believe Arab media is trying to misrepresent my views in order to silence me.

A man was sitting in the audience with a black sheer bag covering his head to protest ‘Abu Greib’ when the discussion had nothing to do with Iraq. There were screams from the audience: "Fascist," then "racist" then "Osama Bin Laden is a CIA agent." The noise was getting louder and I could not speak any more. I felt that even in America I am being silenced. My response was: “Who will speak for women who are stoned and for Muslims terrorized in radical Muslim countries? It is sad that I left oppressive Sharia Muslim culture, where I had no freedom of speech, only to find myself silenced in America, by groups who claim they are for free speech.”

The sad thing about this whole event was the feeling that radical Muslims and their far Left supporters would rather never criticize Islamic culture than stand up against the culture that flogs, stones, beheads and amputates limbs. Not offending a religion has become more important to the far Left (unless it is Christianity or Judaism) than human rights of Muslims and victims of terror. Honor killing and female genital mutilation can be tolerated -- but none better dare utter the word "Islamo-fascism."

American universities are becoming tyrannical when it comes to Conservative values and to Arab Americans who dare to speak out against the culture of jihad. It does not matter how many people in my early life in Egypt suffered from honor killing, female genital mutilation and oppression of women, I must shut up on American campuses.

The Speech: [/] As an American woman of Muslim Arab origin, I cherish the freedoms America has given me; a right all too scarce in the Middle East where speaking for human rights, women’s rights, democracy and even peace with Israel, is a taboo with serious consequences. [/] In America, I learned that no ideology or religion is beyond questioning. Ideologies that don’t answer the hard questions will face intellectual bankruptcy. I would like to stress that this is not a discussion about the good and peace loving Muslims, but about an ideology of violence and hatred that has brought oppression, unrest, violence and terror to the Middle East and has now spread to the rest of the world. Radicals have made the slightest criticism, critical thinking and free inquiry an insult to Islam. Arab feminists, reformers and intellectuals are intimidated, threatened or killed. Even the late Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, was stabbed in Cairo in 1994 by a radical Muslim who claimed he insulted Islam. That is why we all must welcome an open discussion. The best weapon in the war on terror and Islamo-Fascism is the truth.

I’d like to start with my background. I was born and raised as a Muslim in Cairo, Egypt and the Gaza Strip; a time when President Nasser was committed to unify the Arab world and destroy Israel. In the 50’s, my father headed the Egyptian military intelligence in Gaza and started the Fedayeen, which means ‘armed resistance and self sacrifice’. They made cross-border attacks into Israel and caused death, damage and destruction. There were assassination attempts on my father in response to the terror. [/] One night Israel sent commandos to our heavily guarded home, but my father was not home. All the Israeli soldiers found were us, women and children. The Israeli soldiers left us unharmed.

I attended Gaza elementary schools. It is there that we learned hatred vengeance and retaliation; peace was never an option; but a sign of defeat and weakness. Jews were portrayed as less than human; I was told ‘don’t take candy or fruit from a stranger, it could be a Jew trying to poison you’. They filled our hears with fear of Jews; that made hatred come easy and terrorism acceptable, even honorable. [/] After two years of intense Fedayeen operations, my father was killed in the first targeted assassination in Gaza in 1956. I was 8 years old. In Nasser's famous speech to nationalize the Suez Canal, he hailed my father as a national hero, a Shahid. President Nasser vowed that all of Egypt would take revenge and made no mention of the heavy toll of death and destruction brought upon Israel by the Fedayeen. My siblings and I were asked by top government officials "which one of you will avenge your father's blood by killing Jews." I felt very uncomfortable with a question. We were speechless. [/] After my father’s death, my mother had to face life alone with five children in a culture that gave respect only to families headed by a man. In the 50’s few women drove cars and she was criticized and called names for buying a car to take us to school. Arab women are expected to sacrifice their family by giving up their husbands and sons to martyrdom, but are given little respect to live their life with freedom and dignity.

I lived for 30 years in oppressive dictatorships and police states. I witnessed honor killing of girls (our maid), oppression of women and female genital mutilation. We regularly heard the cursing of non-Muslims from the pulpits of mosques. As a young woman, I visited a Christian friend in Cairo during the Friday prayers, and we both heard the verbal attacks on Christians and Jews from the loudspeakers. We heard "May God destroy the infidels and the Jews, the enemies of God. We are not to befriend them or make treaties with them." We also heard the worshipers respond "Amen". I heard ‘cursing prayers’ all my life from the pulpits of mosques -- and believe it or not if you grow up with cursing prayers, it can feel and sound normal. My Christian friend looked scared, and I was ashamed. That was when I first realized that something was very wrong in the way my religion was taught and practiced.

I moved to the US in 1978. In my first visit to a mosque in America, we were told not to assimilate in America and that Islam is here to become the dominant religion. I was told to cover up in Islamic clothes; but how can I do that when I have never worn Islamic clothes in Egypt? Women in Egypt until the 1980’s did not wear Islamic clothes. [/] In August 2001, I visited my birthplace, Cairo, Egypt. I was stunned to see how radical Islam had taken over. The level of anger and hate speech was alarming. I saw extreme poverty, pollution, hazardous material and garbage along the Nile. There was high unemployment, inflation and widespread corruption. But when I read Arab media, all I saw was Israel and America bashing. Citizens were unaware of Muslim against Muslim atrocities in Iraq, Algeria, Sudan etc. As a matter of fact, the term “Islamo-fascism” was coined by Algerian Muslims and ex-Muslims to describe the Islamic fanatics who slaughtered 150,000 fellow Algerian Muslims in the 1990s. Arab media have failed human rights of the ordinary Arab citizens. They have no understanding of their role in defending the interest of the public; this mentality was created from an Islamo-Fascist environment that rejects change.Western media was also under-reporting the threat.

I was happy to return to the US on the evening of Sept. 10th. 2001. The next morning I saw the second airplane hit the twin towers, I knew ‘Jihad has come to America.’ Muhammad Attah was from Cairo, the same city I came from. [/] I called several friends in Cairo, they were all in denial and said ‘How dare you say that Arabs did this? Don’t you know this is a Jewish conspiracy?' [/] These were not radicals, but ordinary Egyptians who otherwise are very nice people. I hung up the phone and felt alone and disconnected from my culture of origin. Once again, my people are accusing the Jewish people of something we know very well, we Arabs have done ourselves. In any religion this is considered a sin, but in the eyes of radial Islam, Jews do not deserve the truth, justice or mercy. The Jews that we describe in our mosques, Arab textbooks and media don't exist. We, Arabs are fighting an imaginary Jew of our own creation. Israel is not perfect; no society is; but the way the Jews and minorities are treated by my people is tragic and a disgrace.

The global war we are fighting against Islamo-fascism and jihad is not just about bombs and hijacked planes; It’s also about tyranny and oppression of women. Oppression of women and support of terror are two facets of the same fundamentalist mentality. Islamic law – Sharia – that terrorists are fighting to impose upon the world, would create a global state of gender apartheid. [/] Under criminal Sharia, punishment could be flogging, stoning, beheading and amputation of limbs. Cruel and unusual punishment by Western and humane standards. Leaving Islam is punishable by death. If the State fails to kill an apostate, his death is guaranteed at the hands of a street mob. That makes Islam more than a religion; it is a one party state; and also an elaborate legal system, called Sharia, that can put you to death if you leave Islam. Sharia must guarantee there is no defection from the Berlin Wall of the Muslim State. Amazingly, the majority of Muslim countries don’t practice criminal Sharia because they cannot stomach it.

I have lived under Family Sharia for 30 years of my life. This is practiced in all Muslim countries; it allows only men the right to an easy divorce, having up to 4 wives, allows wife beating, half the inheritance of a man to a woman and her testimony in court is only half valid. She is respected only when she shields her body, face and even her identity. As many as seventy-five percent of women in Pakistani prison are behind bars for the crime of having been raped. Sharia codified into permanent Law a 7th century Arabian Peninsula tribal culture for every Muslim in any culture for ever. [/] Under Sharia, the Muslim Khalifa or Amir, meaning leader, is exempt from being punished under Sharia. Islamic Sharia law is a dictator’s dream handed to him by Allah.

Polygamy has a devastating effect on family dynamics, husband/wife relationship and women relationships. Many Moslem men only have one wife, but the damage to wife/husband relationship has already been done in the Muslim marriage contract itself; where a man does not pledge loyalty to his wife and the wife cannot expect his loyalty. The marriage contract has 3 more spaces to be filled out by other women if the man wishes. That is why a good Muslim woman must accept her destiny under Sharia Law for one simple reason, challenging Allah’s Law is like challenging Allah himself.

In the latest Bin Laden tape, the terror guru was calling on Muslims in the West to increase their numbers through converting as many Americans to Islam and through immigration in order to accomplish, what he called, jihad from within. That is why Islamists in the West are pushing the envelope to see how far the West can take it. Some demand Sharia Law and even claim that Sharia is comparable with democracy. [/] In a Muslim parade in New York this September, right before the 6th anniversary of 9/11, Muslims carried signs saying “Muslims against Democracy and Western Values”, “the Holocaust is a hoax” and “Ban the Talmud”. They were selling books on jihad with an AK 47s on the cover. This comes from people who are complaining of Islamo-phobia. Do they think this will bring them sympathy and understanding?

A Muslim woman in Florida insists on covering her face for a driver’s license, cab drivers in Minnesota refuse to take passengers carrying wine from the duty-free shop, the 6 flying Imams who scared everyone on the airplane and are now suing. And lately demands for special faucets at the level of the feet in American schools for Muslim kids to Wada “wash” before praying. [/] I have lived in the Middle East for 30 years and have never seen special faucets for Wada in schools or universities, except in mosques. This only exists in Saudi Arabia. The deception is phenomenal. Islamists are pushing Wahabi Saudi values in America; values that I have never even seen in Egypt. [/] I have not come to America to become a Wahabi Saudi.

On Arab TV, I once saw a Muslim preacher telling little children that lying is not allowed except under three conditions 1- Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam. 2- Lying to Muslims if it will end conflict between them. And 3rd: Lying to one’s wife to improve the relationship. [/] Lying thus has become an obligation in international relationships, Muslim relationships and family relationships. Any wonder why Muslims were silent after 9/11? Those who expose the lying game are considered traitors. By allowing lying, Muslims have created a culture unable to distinguish between lies from truth; truth has become a convoluted game of saving face for the best interest of Islam.

The Times of London reported that Muslim students in Britain are being taught to despise non-Muslims as ‘filth’. The Arabic word for this is ‘Nagas.’ That is why many Arabs believe that the existence of non-Muslims on Muslim land is a desecration or occupation. [/] US soldiers, at the request of Saudi Arabia, sacrificed their lives to protect it from Saddam. Under normal conditions that could have been met with appreciation, but instead, the Arab street reaction was “how dare the infidels desecrate Muslim land.” That is why America’s defense of the Muslims against the Serbs, the Afghani Muslims against the Soviet Union, feeding the Somali Muslims starved by their own leadership, all did not get the US any credit in the Muslim world; just the opposite, the more America tries to help stabilize the region, the more it is despised. Arab-Muslims do not want to be rescued by infidels. This is a proud culture that is easily shamed by feelings of dependency on the non-Muslims. This is the psychology of the Arab Street.

That is how the West is perceived. In the Judeo Christian culture they say: “we are all sinners” -- but in the Muslim culture “they are all sinners; but we are Muslims”. Non-Muslim are “Cafir”, non-Muslims are not innocent; they are viewed as sinners who need Islam and Islamists have given themselves the role of Allah to force Islam on the world, against their will, through the principle of Jihad. [/] Moslem clergy are constantly looking for the ideal Muslim State and cannot find it. They have failed miserably in stabilizing their society. Instead of being a source of comfort, stability and wisdom, they have become a source of hate, rage and subversion. To them, the solution is always an intifada, uprising, a coup d’etat, an assassination or violence on the streets. They have no respect for the legitimacy of any government and no government is Muslim enough for them; not even Saudi Arabia.

In this dynamic only tyrannical governments can survive. Leaders who want peace, modernity and reforms are assassinated, like Sadat. Every Muslim country is suffering from underground radical Muslim groups who are trying to overturn the government and the constitution, in their pursuit for the perfect Muslim state. That is why the Muslim world is in a constant turmoil, stagnation and conflict. Islamo-fascism is the end result.

America is very concerned since all of this is spilling to the rest of the world. In 1998 the same attitude was expressed by a Muslim leader who asked Muslims in America not to assimilate and said we are here to make the Koran the law of the land in America. What Arab leaders are suffering from is now moving to America and if that will continue our freedoms will erode. Islamo-fascist unrest, turmoil, destructive mentality and hatred of order and the rule of law is now here.

Arab governments have access to build mosques in the West, but give Americans no access to build churches or synagogues in Muslim countries. They finance Muslim and Middle East studies departments on American Universities -- but there is not one University in any of the 52 Muslim countries that have a Christian or Judaism Studies Department. They freely preach Islam all around the world, but imprison and kill Christian missionaries.

If this trend continues Bin Laden’s dreams of internal jihad within America will come true. If that happens America will never be the same again. We could see a large Muslim population congregate in London, Paris or Detroit demanding Sharia or else. If their demands are denied then they will demand a separatist movement; Chechnya can happen in the West. Islamic separatist movements are alive and well in Chechnya, the Philippines and other parts of the world. It caused India to split Pakistan away and give it to Muslims, but Islamic terrorism inside India has not stopped.

And now Islamists have caught the West in a time of political correctness and multiculturalism. By tolerating hatred and violence, the West is not doing Muslims or Islam a favor. Tolerating intolerance is not a sign of compassion; it is gross negligence.

To conclude: Religion, any religion, must adapt to the universal concept of Human Rights, freedom of choice of one’s religion, equal rights of women and minorities. As Arab Americans what are we going to do about it? Are we going to remain silent and defensive? We owe America honest answers. We need to inspire true reform in our culture of origin. There are 7 women in Iran right now awaiting death by stoning -- are we going to stand by them or are we going to fail them? Muslim converts out of Islam are in hiding; are we going to allow them to get killed under the name of Islam? Are we going to see the Egyptian Christian population continue to suffer discrimination?

If Islam is a religion of peace then we must demand better from our religious leaders. We’ve had it with the self-anointed intolerant Ayatollahs, Mullahs and Sheikhs who act like Allah and silence speech by issuing Fatwas of death. I ask the support of the American Left. You should be our natural allies because we are the reformers and defenders of freedoms in the Middle East.

Western feminists must embrace a single standard for both the West and Muslim society. Feminists and everyone else concerned with human freedom must support Muslim dissidents, both male and female, who are risking their lives in a battle for women’s rights under Islam. I ask the support of the American left. You should be our natural allies because we are the reformers and defenders of freedoms in the Middle East. [/] Thank You. [/] Nonie Darwish is an American of Arab/Moslem origin. A freelance writer and public speaker, she runs the website www.ArabsForIsrael.com. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Mrs. Clinton: Still Declaring U.S. Defeat After Surge Success?!?

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


In the midst of smoke, mirrors, and spin, I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Last week, I asked Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Clinton's presidential campaign, if she still favored withdrawing troops now that the surge is working. Oh, yes, Penn said. Clinton is as "committed" as ever to removing troops from Iraq. What about the surge? Clinton is still against that, too.


From a Weekly Standard article, The Roads Not Taken, more follows:

The Roads Not Taken [/] How we narrowly avoided defeat in Iraq. [/] by Fred Barnes [/] 10/29/2007, Volume 013, Issue 07

Last February, Senator Hillary Clinton proposed to cap the number of American troops in Iraq at their level on January 1, 2007--roughly 140,000--and begin a withdrawal within 90 days. [/] The purpose of her bill was stated in section 2:

If the President follows the provisions of this Act, the United States should be able to complete a redeployment of United States troops from Iraq by the end of the current term in office of the President.


That wasn't all Clinton had in mind. Should the Bush administration and the Iraqi government fail to meet "certain conditions" within 90 days, American troops would no longer be authorized to stay in Iraq. Clinton's conditions were tough and sweeping, including the convening of a conference on Iraq to "involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors" and the stripping of "sectarian and militia influences" from Iraqi security forces.

The Clinton measure was never voted on. But it contained the major elements--a troop drawdown, emphasis on diplomacy, pressure on the Iraqi government--of the "responsible" strategy for salvaging American interests now that the war in Iraq had been lost. At least that's how Democrats, liberals, more than a few Republicans, the foreign policy establishment, most of the media, and a majority of Americans questioned by pollsters saw the situation.

Now imagine if the Clinton plan had become law. Nine months after she submitted her bill, we can speculate about what it would have produced. Sectarian violence would probably have exploded, al Qaeda would have been left with a large, secure sanctuary west of Baghdad, Iranian interference in Iraq would have increased, the prospects for democracy and stability would have dimmed. And that's just for starters.

We don't have to speculate, however, about what Clinton would have prevented. That's not a matter of guesswork. The successes from deploying more American troops in Iraq and taking up the counterinsurgency strategy of General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, would not have occurred. If Clinton had prevailed, the surge would have been impossible.

The same is true for practically every other proposal considered by the Democratic Congress on Iraq. Whatever the goal of the "responsible" plans--to end the war quickly, set a timetable for troop reductions, remove American troops from a combat role, focus the American effort solely on training the Iraqi army, make deployment of troops to Iraq more difficult, cut funding--the effect would have been to preclude the surge.

Like Clinton's bill, the "responsible" proposals were all based on the premise that the war in Iraq was lost. Now, the surge is proving that premise wrong. But had any of the proposals been enacted, we wouldn't have known this. We wouldn't have discovered the war is winnable and indeed now is being won, thanks to the surge.

What has the surge achieved? Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq. The Sunni insurgency is rapidly waning. Sunni sheikhs have joined with American forces. More recently, Shia sheikhs have helped American troops to suppress the Mahdi Army of Moktada al-Sadr, the pro-Iranian mullah. Political reconciliation is stirring in the Iraqi provinces as sectarian turmoil eases. Oil revenues are being shared. Civilian and U.S. military deaths have fallen sharply. Iraq is less violent, more stable. These accomplishments are directly or indirectly attributable to the surge.

The surge involved three steps. The first was to secure Anbar province, declared hopelessly hostile territory by the American military in 2006 but by early this year the scene of a Sunni rebellion against al Qaeda. The second step was to take over the belt around Baghdad--exurbs, really--from which al Qaeda equipped and dispatched suicide bombers, many coming from Anbar, to Baghdad and other cities. The third was pacifying Baghdad itself.

Last fall, the idea of sending troops to Anbar and leaving them to provide security for Iraqi citizens was debated inside the Bush administration. There was strong sentiment to focus on Baghdad alone. But Steve Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, favored an alliance with the Sunni sheikhs in Anbar and urged the president to include Anbar in the new secure-and-hold strategy. Bush agreed and in his nationally televised speech last January specifically noted that 4,000 more troops would be sent to Anbar.

Had Clinton's or any of the other "responsible" plans for phasing out or downgrading the American military's role in Iraq been adopted, even this small step of seizing Anbar would have been impossible. And so would subsequent efforts to secure other provinces where al Qaeda and insurgents were strong, and to stabilize Baghdad.

Let's look back at three of those plans.[...] [/] [...] like Clinton, wanted to pull troops out of Iraq, not make it easier to send them in. Last week, I asked Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Clinton's presidential campaign, if she still favored withdrawing troops now that the surge is working. Oh, yes, Penn said. Clinton is as "committed" as ever to removing troops from Iraq. What about the surge? Clinton is still against that, too. [/] Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Thursday, October 18, 2007

U.S.: In a state of "Cold Civil War"?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a MacLean's [Canada] Mark Steyn article, The 'cold civil war' in the U.S.:

The 'cold civil war' in the U.S. [/] "The common space required for civil debate has shrivelled to a very thin sliver of ground" [/] MARK STEYN | October 22, 2007 |

William Gibson, South Carolinian by birth, British Columbian by choice, is famous for inventing the word "cyberspace," way back in 1982. His latest novel, Spook Country, offers another interesting coinage:

Alejandro looked over his knees. "Carlito said there is a war in America." [/] "A war?" [/] "A civil war." [/] "There is no war, Alejandro, in America." [/] "When grandfather helped found the DGI, in Havana, were the Americans at war with the Russians?" [/] "That was the 'cold war.' " [/] Alejandro nodded, his hands coming up to grip his knees. "A cold civil war." [/] Tito heard a sharp click [...] He looked back at Alejandro. [/] "You don't follow politics, Tito."


That's quite a concept: "A cold civil war." Since 9/11, Mr. Gibson has abandoned futuristic sci-fi dystopias to frolic in the dystopia of the present. Spook Country boils down to a caper plot about a mysterious North America-bound container, and it's tricked out very inventively. Yet, notwithstanding the author's formidable powers of imagination, its politics are more or less conventional for a novelist in the twilight of the Bush era: [...] But it's that one phrase that makes you pause: "A cold civil war."

Or so you'd think. In fact, it seems to have passed entirely without notice. Unlike "cyberspace" a quarter-century ago, the "cold civil war" is not some groovy paradigm for the day after tomorrow but a cheerless assessment of the here and now, too bleak for buzz. As far as I can tell, April Gavaza, at the Hyacinth Girl website, is pretty much the first American to ponder whether a "cold civil war" has any significance beyond the novel:

What would that entail, exactly? A cold war is a war without conflict, defined in one of several online dictionaries as "[a] state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation." In that respect, is the current political climate one of "cold civil war"? I think arguments could be made to that effect. My mother, not much of a political enthusiast, has made similar assessments since the 2000 election ...


Indeed. A year before this next election in the U.S., the common space required for civil debate and civilized disagreement has shrivelled to a very thin sliver of ground. Politics requires a minimum of shared assumptions. To compete you have to be playing the same game: you can't thwack the ball back and forth if one of you thinks he's playing baseball and the other fellow thinks he's playing badminton. Likewise, if you want to discuss the best way forward in the war on terror, you can't do that if the guy you're talking to doesn't believe there is a war on terror, only a racket cooked up by the Bushitler and the rest of the Halliburton stooges as a pretext to tear up the constitution.

Americans do not agree on the basic meaning of the last seven years. If you drive around an Ivy League college town -- home to the nation's best and brightest, allegedly -- you notice a wide range of bumper stickers, from the anticipatory ("01/20/09" -- the day of liberation from the Bush tyranny) to the profane ("Buck Fush") to the myopically self-indulgent ("Regime Change Begins At Home") to the exhibitionist paranoid ("9/11 Was An Inside Job"). Let's assume, as polls suggest, that next year's presidential election is pretty open: might be a Democrat, might be a Republican. Suppose it's another 50/50 election with a narrow GOP victory dependent on the electoral college votes of one closely divided state. It's not hard to foresee those stickered Dems concluding that the system has now been entirely delegitimized.

Obviously the vast majority of Americans are not foaming partisans. It would be foolish to adduce any general theories from, say, Mr. "Ed Funkhouser," who emailed me twice in the small hours of Tuesday: the first epistle read, in total, "who needs facts indeed. How do you live with yourself, scumbag?" An hour and a half later he realized he'd forgotten to make his devastating assessment of my sexual orientation, and sent a follow-up: "you are a f--kin' moron. and probably queer too!" No doubt. Mr. Funkhouser and his friends on the wilder shores of the Internet are unusually stirred up, to a degree most Americans would find perverse. Life is good, food is plentiful, there are a million and one distractions. In advanced democracies, politics is not everything, and we get on with our lives. In a sense, we outsource politics to those who want it most and participate albeit fitfully in whatever parameters of discourse emerge. For half a decade, the "regime change" and "inside job" types have set the pace.

But that, too, is characteristic of a cold war. In the half-century from 1945, most Americans and most Russians were not in active combat. The war was waged by small elite forces through various useful local proxies. In Grenada, for example, Maurice Bishop's Castro-backed New Jewel Movement seized power from Sir Eric Gairy, the eccentric prime minister, in the first-ever coup in the British West Indies. Mr. Bishop allowed the governor general, Sir Paul Scoon, to remain in place (if memory serves, they played tennis together) and so bequeathed posterity the droll paradox of the only realm in which Her Majesty the Queen presided over a politburo. Though it wasn't exactly a critical battleground, Grenada springs to mind quite often when I think of cultural institutions in the U.S. and the West. The grade schools no longer teach American history as any kind of coherent narrative. "Paint me warts and all," Oliver Cromwell instructed his portraitist. But in public education, American children paint only the warts -- slavery, the ill-treatment of Native Americans, the pollution of the environment, more slavery ... There are attempts to put a positive spin on things -- the Iroquois stewardship of the environment, Rosa Parks' courage on the bus -- but, cumulatively, heroism comes to be defined as opposition to that towering Mount Wartmore of dead white males. As in Grenada, the outward symbols are retained -- the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance -- but an entirely new national narrative has been set in place.

Well, it takes two to have a cold civil war. The right must be doing some of this stuff, too, surely? Up to a point. But for the most part they either go along, or secede from the system -- they home-school, turn to talk radio and the Internet, read Christian publishers' books that shift millions of copies without ever showing up on a New York Times bestsellers list. The established institutions of the state remain under the monolithic control of forces that ceaselessly applaud themselves for being terrifically iconoclastic:

Hollywood's latest war movie? Rendition. Oh, as in the same old song? [/] A college kid writes a four-word editorial in a campus newspaper -- "Taser this: F--k Bush" -- and the Denver Post hails him as "the future of journalism. Smart. Confident. Audacious." Anyone audacious enough to write "F--k Hillary" or "F--k Obama" at a college paper? Or would the Muse of Confident Smarts refer you to the relevant portions of the hate-speech code? [/] Speaking of which, Columbia University won't allow U.S. military recruiters on campus because "Don't ask, don't tell" discriminates against homosexuals, but it will invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose government beheads you if they think you're bebottoming.

It's curious to encounter the soft-left establishment's hostility to the state. Go back to that line of Gibson's: free peoples develop "Stockholm Syndrome" about government all over the world, not least in Stockholm. It seems a mite inconsistent to entrust government to manage your health care and education and to dictate what you can and can't toss in the trash, but then to fret over them waging war on your behalf. Perhaps the next president will be, as George W. Bush promised, "a uniter, not a divider." Perhaps some "centrist Democrat" or "maverick Republican" will win big, but right now it doesn't feel that way.

Asked what would determine the course of his premiership, Britain's Harold Macmillan famously replied, "Events, dear boy, events." Yet in the end even "events" require broad acknowledgement. For Republicans, 9/11 is the decisive event; for Democrats, late November 2000 in the chadlands of Florida still looms larger. And elsewhere real hot wars seem to matter less than the ersatz Beltway battles back home. "The domestic political debate has nothing to do with what we're doing here," one U.S. officer in Iraq told the National Review's Rich Lowry this week, "in a representative comment offered not in a spirit of bitterness, but of cold fact." As Lowry remarked, "This is the lonely war" -- its actual progress all but irrelevant to the pseudo combat on the home front. In Neuromancer, William Gibson defined "cyberspace" as "a consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators in every nation." The "cold civil war" may be another "consensual hallucination," but for many it's more real than "the lonely war." [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Bosnia: Abject and Egregious Clinton Policy Failure?!?

The New Testament Greek word for "truth" is derived from words meaning "that which cannot be hidden". It took a few years before detailed expert assessments of the snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory in Viet Nam to be published. Now we are learning in detail how we first took the side of Islamist thugs against one of our best allies in both World Wars. The detailed truth about Kosovo is perhaps the next shoe to drop.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a Town Hall .com article, Leaping Before We Looked::

Leaping Before We Looked: The Clinton Administration's Bosnian Failure [/] By Marvin Olasky [/] Thursday, October 18, 2007

With Hillary Clinton surging in the polls and Democrats knifing Bush's foreign policy and praising Bill Clinton's, it's time for a reality check on a supposed triumph: Team Clinton oversimplified a complex situation in Bosnia and ended up aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.

That's the conclusion of John Schindler, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and a former National Security Agency analyst. In his new book, "Unholy Terror: Bosnia, al-Qa'ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad," Schindler reappraises the 1992-1995 Bosnian war and America's decision to come to the defense of Muslims in their conflict with Serbs.

Because his conclusions are controversial, his credentials are important: Schindler's NSA work, he says, showed him that the conventional academic and media wisdom about the Balkans was wrong. "I spent a lot of time in the Balkans and I participated in the culture, spoke the language and met many people. What I learned was that pretty much everything I thought I knew was either wrong or an even more dangerous half-truth."

In our interview, he told me that "people in the U.S. and the West were fed a steady diet of satellite-driven images, frequently horrifying, without the ability to independently verify what was really happening on the ground in Bosnia. The result was miscomprehension, the reducing of a complex ethnic and religious civil war into sound bites."

Both sides committed atrocities, Schindler notes, but those of Muslims generally went unreported. For example, "The number of Christians murdered in Sarajevo during the war by Muslim military and police, right under the noses of Western journalists, is at least in the many hundreds and probably in the low thousands. Between 1992 and 1995, some 1,300 Serb civilians were liquidated by Muslim troops based at Srebrenica; this was the precursor to the infamous July 1995 Serb offensive against that town."

Those killings did not become well-known in the West because "they were never seriously investigated by the Western press, governments or NGOs.The view that both sides committed atrocities ran and runs contrary to the simplistic, moralistic view of the war peddled by the international media, and therefore remains unwanted by CNN and many others."

Better coverage, Schindler says, "would have admitted upfront that all sides were behaving badly and committing atrocities, and the Muslims had no monopoly on virtue or suffering. … While Muslims were certainly expelled from their homes in large numbers, so were Croats (Catholics) and Serbs (Orthodox), but only Muslim victims and refugees were really considered newsworthy. And Croatia effectively got no help at all from NATO and the U.S. when it was attacked by the Serbs in 1991; we stood by and watched."

Schindler takes pains to note that he is not "a congenital Islamophobe. I grew up in a typical postmodern American suburb, beloved of progressives, where all religions were held to be equally (in)valid." But he was appalled by Clintonian self-congratulation following the Dayton Agreement's supposed bringing of peace to the Balkans: "The Clinton administration was uninterested in bad news from Bosnia. Dayton was their diplomatic triumph, and no amount of Islamist criminality was going to undo it."

The media also slept, either alone or with the enemy. "Western journalists failed to note that the (Bosnia) Muslim ruling party, while portraying itself as thoroughly democratic and impressively multicultural, in fact was run by and for Islamists of a radical bent, whose ideal society was revolutionary Iran.That the Bosnian jihad was considered a major success by al-Qaida was something no journalist uttered."

Many of the Bosnian jihadists -- including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaida planner of Sept. 11 -- went on to attack Western Europe or the U.S. Bosnia itself "has continued its seemingly relentless slide into crime, corruption and extremism. Radical Islam has a stronger hold there than ever before, and it remains a mystery to me why Western governments continue to not give this problem, in the heart of Europe, the attention it deserves."

Marvin Olasky is editor-in-chief of World, vice president for academic affairs of The King's College and a professor at The University of Texas. For additional commentary by Marvin Olasky throughout the week, go to www.worldmagblog.com. To find out more about Marvin Olasky and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. [/] Be the first to read Marvin Olasky's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

IQ & Race: Head vs. Heart?!?

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


With another battle on its fiercest front, the heart versus head cultural war rages on. (All this despite the Herculean efforts of our greatest true champion for world peace and his loyal crusaders marching under the banner of compassionate conservatism.)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Dr [[James]] Watson [[(an ultra-eminent scientist)]] told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". [/] His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." [/] The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism".

From an Independent [U.K.] article, Fury at DNA pioneer's theory, more follows:

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners [/] Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really" [/] By Cahal Milmo [/] Published: 17 October 2007

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion. [/] James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London. [/] The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". [/] His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." [/] The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism".

Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism. [/] Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices. [/] "These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins. [/] But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics,|Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great." [/] The Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically." [/] Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint." [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The World Corrupts the Creature

The political examples discussed below seem to me to be applicable to us all. The sacrifice of parts of the true self in order to succeed in this world is a common failing.

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a New York Times article, A Still, Small Voice:

A Still, Small Voice [/] October 16, 2007 [/] Op-Ed Columnist [/] By DAVID BROOKS

A few weeks ago, I interviewed Deborah Pryce, the Republican congresswoman, in her Washington office. [...] [/] Her Ohio House race had been one of the toughest in the entire country. And when I brought it up, I expected her to talk about the vicious ads that had been run against her.

Instead, she talked about the ads that she had put on the air against her opponent. [/] “I was appalled by what I had to do,” she said. In close races, the national parties send teams of professionals to take over campaigns, and the candidates who resist their efforts generally lose. [/] When Pryce spoke about the direct-mail letters that went out under her name, she did so with a look of disgust. She said that her friends kept coming to her to complain about the TV ads she was running against her opponent. Finally, her own mother told her she was ashamed of the ads.

The truth is, Pryce’s opponents did worse. But it was her own ads that she kept dwelling on, and as she spoke, I could see that she’d been fighting the war that the best politicians fight — the war within herself to preserve her own humanity. [/] Politics, as you know, is a tainted profession. Professional politicians cannot serve their country if they do not win their races, and to do that they must grapple with a vast array of forces that try to remold and destroy who they are.

There are consultants who try to turn them into prepackaged clones. There are party whips demanding total loyalty. There is a culture of workaholism that strangles private life and private thinking. There are journalists who define them based on a few ideological labels.

And then there is the soul-destroying act of campaigning itself. Active campaigners are compelled to embrace the ideology of Meism. [/] They spend their days talking endlessly about Me. When they meet donors, they want to know if they are giving to Me or against Me. When they meet advisers and fellow pols, they want to know, do they support Me or not Me. When they think about strategy, it’s about better ways to present Me. When they craft positions, they want to know, what does this say about Me?

No normal person can withstand the onslaught of egotism and come out unscathed. [/] And so there are two kinds of politicians: those who become creatures of the process, and those who, like Pryce, resist and retain the capacity to be appalled by what they must do.

An amazing number gladly surrender. “Public people almost eagerly dehumanize themselves,” Meg Greenfield wrote in “Washington,” her memoir. “They allow the markings of region, family, class, individual character and, generally, personhood that they once possessed to be leached away. At the same time, they construct a new public self that often does terrible damage to what remains of the genuine person.”

These politicians become denatured pantomimes. They have no thoughts in private that are different from the bromides they utter in public. They confuse public image with real self. They talk to you as an individual the same way they would address a large crowd. [/] These simulated creatures end up successful, Greenfield emphasized, but also sad and lonely. They become the victims of the tawdry scandals that blow up from time to time (like Larry Craig).

But the (other politicians — the more interesting and impressive ones — struggle to preserve their personal integrity. Many of those who struggle hardest have suffered a personal trauma, like the death of a child or time in a P.O.W. camp, which has created a private space that they refuse to sacrifice to politics. [/] Politicians of this sort do what they need to do to win, but they labor to preserve that inner voice. You see it in every conversation — an effort to ground politics in regular relationships, a capacity to carry on a candid inner monologue.

When I asked Deborah Pryce, for example, to reflect on her time in the House, it wasn’t the political issues that she remembered most. It was the people she admired (like Dennis Hastert) and the personal moments of compassion and bravery: for instance, the time Sonny Bono tried to rally the troops with an inspirational description of his own setbacks and recoveries; the time Chris Shays, the Republican moderate, was booed by his own caucus. [/] Pryce has retained that honest, inner voice, and she has decided to retire after this term. It’s not as rewarding being in the minority, she says, and with the new, longer workweek, it’s harder to get home to her adopted daughter. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Monday, October 15, 2007

Mrs. Clinton: Enemy of Emotion?!?

The character of a presidential candidate ought to be examined.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a Newsweek article, Not Really Feeling It:

Not Really Feeling It [/] A new book tries to make sense of the gripping, grating psychodrama that is the Clintons' marriage. [/] By Jonathan Darman [/] Updated: 3:31 PM ET Oct 13, 2007

Never mind the man she's married to, Hillary Clinton isn't big on feelings. "Unthinking emotion," she wrote a friend in college, "has always been pitiful to me." In "For Love of Politics" Sally Bedell Smith's new book on Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage during their White House years, the First Lady is a woman determined not to surrender to emotion, even when her husband and the nation have. While President Clinton idles away an hour hugging his way through a rope line at a Democratic Leadership Council fund-raiser, his wife, backstage, waits patiently to depart. As the president admits on TV to an affair with Monica Lewinsky, the First Lady waits in the White House solarium and greets staffers with a smile. Chelsea, the dutiful daughter, tries hard to mimic mom: "Emotions aren't rational," she tells friends.

Now Senator Clinton is moving toward the Democratic presidential nomination, and emotions have little place in her campaign. Even discussions about her marriage, that gripping, grating psychodrama, come off as cerebral and qualified—when the candidate and her staff choose to have them at all. The Clintons' marriage is important, they say, because it gave her the unparalleled experience of seeing a presidency up close. Except not "up close" in the dynastic sense; Clinton, they say, is an accomplished senator and an independent woman. Except not "independent" in the separate-lives/marriage-of-convenience sense; theirs, they say, is in every way a real marriage. Either way, the Clintonites contend, all that is irrelevant now.

Smith does not agree. A biographer who's written on Pamela Harriman, Princess Diana and Jackie and Jack Kennedy, she has a keen instinct for history made inside of marriages. She knows the irrational is often most important. Her book is narrower than other recent Clinton biographies, which deal with the nuts and bolts of her career, but is perhaps more relevant. Certainly, it is more subversive. Homing in on "the push and pull" between them and their love of politics, Smith presents a story Clinton isn't eager to remember: how her marriage made and then nearly wrecked her career.

Smith's Hillary Clinton wants only to be a public woman, a wonk and a warrior for the Clintons' noble causes. Arriving in the White House, she and her husband make her status clear; staffers call her "the Supreme Court," mindful that the First Lady had the final say. She strives for cool detachment, but her husband's coterie sees the cracks. They are "wimps," she tells them in tirades, men who "don't have balls" and "don't know how to fight." (Neither Clinton talked to Smith.) Quickly, her real target emerges, the president himself. "She knew how to push his buttons," a senior official tells Smith.

The president seeks comfort, often in the wrong places. Smith dispenses with the global do-gooder Bill Clinton of recent years in favor of the old rake known so well in the '90s. He is dazzled by Harriman, his septuagenarian ambassador to France—"seventy-five years old, and she has really nice legs"—and he fiddles with the seating chart at a New York City fund-raiser to sit next to the fawning actress Sharon Stone. Hillary hears talk about alleged infidelities, but takes "refuge in denial," even in the storm of Lewinsky. "She knew intellectually there was a problem, an addiction," a close friend tells Smith, "but she still believed he could never be that insane."

Some of Smith's juiciest material concerns the supporting cast trying to make sense of Hillary and Bill's dynamic. Most intriguing is the portrait of Chelsea, informed by rare reporting inside her circle of friends. Smith's Chelsea is a serious, self-conscious girl who worries over her diet and appearance and struggles in school during the dark days of impeachment. She adopts her parents' worst coping mechanisms, feeling the pressure to be "always grown up." During Monica, "she couldn't say, 'This is awful and I hate you'," one friend tells Smith. "She had her image to preserve." [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Ann Coulter: Anti-Semite?!?

(Slime machine of She-who-must-not-be-named strikes again?!? Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, and, now, Ann Coulter?!? Is this the price that must be paid for daring to ridicule She-who-must not-be-named?!? - (With profound apologies to H. Rider Haggard's Ayesha, and J. K. Rowling's Lord Voldemort.))

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a American Thinker .com article, On Coulter, Christians, And Jews:

On Coulter, Christians, And Jews [/] October 13, 2007 [/] By Steven M. Warshawsky

On Donny Deutch's television talk show earlier this week, Ann Coulter honestly answered "yes" when asked by Deutch if she believes that this country "would be better if we were all Christian." She further stated that Christians "just want Jews to be perfected," i.e., to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. (The full transcript is here .)

Let the outrage begin! [/] Deutch, a liberal Jew, accused Coulter of making "hateful" and "anti-Semitic" remarks. [/] Michael Savage, host of one of the most popular conservative talk radio shows, and also a Jew, likewise accused Coulter of anti-Semitism, and called her a "deranged hag" for good measure.

I must say that Savage's comments surprised me, because he has been one of the strongest voices in recent years against the cult of "political correctness." And what is Coulter's crime in this case? Not that she is an anti-Semite. This is absurd. I seriously doubt that either Savage or Deutch truly believes that Coulter "hates" Jews. Rather, Coulter's crime is that she violated one of PC's most sacred taboos: Expressing belief in the correctness of one's religion. The only thing worse than this in PC land is asserting the superiority of one's race. [/] Well, at least when it comes to white Christians. For the rules of PC do not apply equally to all. They do not apply to Jews or blacks or women (except to the extent these groups express "conservative" points of view). The strictures and penalties of PC only apply to the majority of the American people, as well as to the Founding Fathers who established this great country, and to the many generations of overwhelmingly white Christian Americans who built this nation into the freest, richest, and most powerful country on earth, and defended our country through several bloody wars against its enemies, foreign and domestic.

The ideology of PC is anti-American to its core. Its fundamental purpose is not to ensure that "minority" Americans share more fully in the American Dream. Its goal is to tear apart this nation -- its people, its culture, its history -- root and branch, and replace it with a miasma of atheism, socialism, and multiculturalism. To see Michael Savage acting the part of PC police is stunning.

Moreover, for Jews of any political persuasion to take offense at Coulter's comments strikes me as deeply ignorant and immature. Do Jews truly expect Christians to pretend that they do not believe in the teachings of their religion? Why? Because so many Jews have discarded the teachings of their own religion? (I myself am a secular Jew.) The "logic" at work here seems to be that, because so many Jews can imagine, along with John Lennon, a world in which "there's no heaven" and "no religion too," it is offensive and outrageous for other folks to disagree with this sanitized vision of the future. Many Christians, however, still believe in their religion, still believe it is the path to eternal salvation, and fail to appreciate what is so wonderful about the fairy tale world invoked in Lennon's song. From a PC perspective, this makes them "insensitive" and "bigoted" and "hateful."

I say, thank god that so many Christians in this country still believe in their religion! That is the only thing that will prevent the violent and tyrannical expansion of the Muslim world. And that is the only thing that will preserve the existence of the Jewish people. [/] As a Jew, I recognize, with painful humility, that the existence of my person, my people, lies at the mercy of the larger, stronger peoples in whose midst we live. To deny this fact is to deny reality. Not too long ago, the people of Nazi Germany, along with their allies and collaborators, attempted to eradicate the Jewish people once and for all. The Final Solution they called it. They nearly succeeded. But while the Germans and Poles and Dutch and French and the many others who participated in this obscene massacre were Christians, it was not their Christianity that impelled them to these acts. It was the vicious political ideology of the Nazis. This is what triggered the Holocaust.

The truth is that the Jews of Europe could not have saved themselves from Hitler's rampage. Practically every Jew alive today owes his or her existence to the fact that Hitler was defeated by the brave and virtuous troops of the Anglo-American alliance, practically all of whom were Christians too. Could FDR and Churchill and the rest of the western leaders have done more to help the Jews, both before and during the war? Perhaps. (Forget what the Soviets could have done; their moral corruption ran almost as deep as the Nazis'.) But I refuse to play that despicable blame game. I simply am grateful for the good people of this country, who made for my grandparents and parents, and now for me, the best home on earth that Jews have ever enjoyed.

Today, the leaders of Iran -- the most powerful Islamic nation, with aspirations of regional, indeed world, domination -- speak openly of eliminating the state of Israel, i.e., the largest concentration of Jews outside of the United States. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed repeatedly to "wipe Israel off the map." Just this week, the former president of Iran, Hashemi Rafsanjani (often referred to as a "moderate"), commented during a sermon (yes, during a religious service) that the Nazis "saved" Europe from the evils of Zionism. In other words, the Nazis did Europe a favor by murdering six million Jews. Where was the outrage from western leftists? Where were the screams of protest from liberal Jews? What will these idiots say when the nuclear bombs start falling on Israel? Probably that Israel caused it, or could have prevented it, or even deserved it. The mere existence of the Jewish state will be deemed sufficient justification for its total destruction. My stomach is sick with the thought of how easily Muslim genocide of Jews will be excused, even by Jews themselves. [/] Make no mistake, New York City -- i.e., "Jew York City" -- will be next. Destroy Israel and New York City, and most of the world's remaining Jews will be dead. When this day comes, a substantial part of the Muslim world will be cheering, just as they cheered the destruction of the World Trade Towers on 9/11.

But measured by the amount of heat and vitriol her comments generated, the real enemy apparently is Ann Coulter. How dare she assert the truth of her religion? True or not, I know that Christianity is far preferable to Islam. Would Donny Deutch and Michael Savage and all of the other critics who are blasting Coulter rather live in a Muslim country? One does not have to be a scholar of the world's religions (and I am not) to know the answer to that question.

This is the real choice facing Jews in this country, and even in Israel. John Lennon's fantasy of universal peace and love and brotherhood does not exist, and never will exist. The fate of the world's Jews, and Christians for that matter, ultimately depends on the ability and willingness of the Christian West, especially the United States, to prevail in the steadily intensifying struggle we are witnessing across the globe between Islam and Christianity.

What Deutch and Savage and the other critics fail to understand is that only a Christian people who truly believes in the correctness, indeed superiority, of their religion will be able to win this fight. A secularized people who believes in nothing but watery principles of tolerance and democracy inevitably will succumb to the combination of violent Islamic intimidation and the "nondiscriminatory" imperatives of their own multicultural worldview. If sharia ever does come to the United States, I am quite certain that its handmaidens will be atheists and liberals, not believing Christians.

As a Jew living in this great country, I have no doubt who my enemies are, and who are my allies. And I know to which group Ann Coulter belongs. [/] Email Steven M. Warshawsky [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Global Warming Cult To Sacrifice Kangaroos?!?

Kill Kangaroos to Save Drowning Polar Bears?!?

Is It Not Blatantly Unfair and Discriminatory and Selfish to Prefer Fellow Mammals to Marsupials?!?

Say it ain't so, Vice President Gore!

(With apologies to Joseph Jefferson "Shoeless Joe" Jackson (Career batting av. - .356, 3rd highest), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball.)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From a Herald Sun [Australia] article, Greenpeace urges kangaroo consumption to fight global warming:

Greenpeace urges kangaroo consumption to fight global warming [\] Karen Collier [\] October 10, 2007 02:35pm

MORE kangaroos should be slaughtered and eaten to help save the world from global warming, environmental activists say.
The controversial call to cut down on beef and serve more of the national symbol [[of Australia]] on our dinner plates follows a report on curbing greenhouse gas emissions damaging the planet.

Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham urged Aussies to substitute some red meat for roo to help reduce land clearing and the release of methane gas.

"It is one of the lifestyle changes we can make," Mr Wakeham said. [\] "Changing our meat consumption habits is a small way to make an impact." [\] The eat roo recommendation is contained in a report, Paths to a Low-Carbon Future, commissioned by Greenpeace and released today.

It also coincides with recent calls from climate change experts for people in rich countries to reduce red meat and switch to chicken and fish because land-clearing and burping and farting cattle and sheep were damaging the environment. [\] They said nearly a quarter of the planet's greenhouse gases came from agriculture, which releases the potent heat-trapping gas methane.

Roughly three million kangaroos are killed and harvested for meat each year. They are shot with high-powered guns between the eyes at night. [\] Australians eat about a third of the 30 million kilograms of roo meat produced annually. The delicacy is exported to dozens of countries and is most popular in Germany, France and Belgium.

The Greenpeace report has renewed calls for Victoria to lift a ban on harvesting roos for food. [\] Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia spokesman John Kelly said roos invading farmers' crops were already being illegally shot. [\] "They are being culled and left to rot," Mr Kelly said. [\] Kangaroo meat sold in Victoria is imported from interstate. [\] Australia's kangaroo population has halved to 25 million in the past five years as the drought has taken a toll on breeding and the animals' food sources, Mr Kelly said. [\] Under a quota system, 10 to 12 per cent can be killed for the meat and leather industry. Aerial surveys estimate their numbers.

Today's report by leading scientist Dr Mark Diesendorf, from the University of NSW, says greenhouse gas emissions need to be slashed by at least a third by 2020 to avoid a climate change catastrophe. [\] His recommendations include:

REDUCING beef consumption and increasing kangaroo meat production.

CUTTING gas and coal production.

HALTING land clearing and deforestation.

SHIFTING to renewable energy such as wind power and bioelectricity from crop residues.

"The world is currently on track to experience runaway global warming with average temperatures soon to exceed 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, Dr Diesendorf said. [\] "We face a catastrophe unless there is urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 30 per cent by 2020." [\] A major report by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology released this month warned average temperatures will rise 1C by 2030 and could increase as much as 5C in Australia by 2070 unless global greenhouse emissions [[(including those emitted by kangaroos)]] are cut dramatically. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Hillary Clinton and George Soros: Crypto-Alinskyites?!?

(And I thought that they were merely crypto-Marxists.)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7


From an American Thinker .com article, Hillary, Soros, Alinsky, and Rush:

Hillary, Soros, Alinsky, and Rush/October 09, 2007 [/] By Kyle-Anne Shiver

For the past couple of months, I've been reading up on the Clinton/Soros connection into the wee hours of every night. Ever since George Soros slipped through the backdoor to American political power at the tawdry invitation of Bill and Hillary Clinton, he has carpet-bagged his way to the Democrat Party inner circle and has become the "biggest political fat cat of all time." With more than $7 billion in his little Hungarian carpetbag, he thinks he can buy the Presidency for Hillary Clinton and get back into the throne-room of worldly hegemony -- the Oval Office.

In 1995, George Soros appeared on PBS with Charlie Rose, and said this:

I like to influence policy. I was not able to get to George Bush (Senior). But now I think I have succeeded with my influence...I do now have great access in the (Clinton) administration. There is no question about this. We actually work together as a team. - (The Shadow Party[[:How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party]]; David Horowitz and Richard Poe; p. 91)


So, even though Soros is hedging his political bets by donating to more than one candidate, his intimate ties to Hillary and Bill, going back more than a decade now, make it clear that he would prefer a 2nd Clinton administration, where he is already part of the very in in-crowd. [/] Not so fast, you two. We're onto you. [/] Senators Reid and Harkin are taking their cues from Media Matters, a Soros-funded front group. As Hillary Clinton declared at the recent YearlyKos convention (her confirming sound bite played by Rush Limbaugh on the radio), she was the mastermind behind both The Center for American Progress (her think tank) and Media Matters (her media attack machine). Hillary provides the name and political connections that Soros craves, and Soros provides the money. Quite a powerful partnership, what some might even call a conspiracy.

If you want a complete rundown on how all of Hillary's and Soros' "non-profit groups" work together in her plan to take over America, get yourself a copy of the book by her mentor, Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals. In it, you'll find the complete outline for throwing Judeo/Christian principles and honesty to the winds of revolutionary fervor. Hillary Clinton has been the perfectly patient disciple of Alinsky's since she wrote her thesis about him her senior year at Wellesley in 1969. If her admiration of Alinsky had died with her thesis, no one would care. But it didn't. He remained a close confidant until his death (The Shadow Party, p. 56) and his tactical fingerprints are all over her projection of the false "Centrist" image she is manipulating to garner political power. It's all in the book.

The First Attack on Rush [/] Hillary's media attack machine Media Matters first tried to hush Rush by attempting to have him thrown off the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service in May 2004. In a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, they demanded Rush be silenced after his "trivialization" of the military misconduct at the Abu Ghraib prison. The gag on Rush was necessary, they wrote, "to protect our troops from these reckless and dangerous messages." [/] Senator Tom Harkin jumped on the Hush-Rush Campaign that time too, just as he is now, demanding "balance" in media. With the taxpayer-funded, liberal propaganda organ, NPR, being broadcast to the troops 24/7, it's hard to believe that anyone could feel one hour a day of Rush Limbaugh is a threat to balance. If anything, that one hour of Rush may be the only balance to the unending, livestream of "The-War-Is-Lost" Harry Reid and his Democrat followers: Tom Harkin, John Murtha, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

The only reason that Hillary Clinton keeps up the public façade of "moderation," and doesn't dare to go on record with her deep disdain for our military is that she is following the Alinsky model, which admonishes revolutionaries to milk their white, middle-class backgrounds and appearances to achieve the political power necessary to carry out the socialist revolution.

According to the Alinsky model of bloodless socialist revolution, Rush Limbaugh represents a Have as opposed to a Have-Not. Now what does Rush Have that Hillary Clinton and George Soros Have-Not? [A lot, actually, good ideas being perhaps the first thing that comes to my mind.] But in the current battle, what he definitely has is an established and quite verifiable reputation for unabashed patriotism. This reputation is so strong that as soon as someone attacks it, then real, living, American Armed Forces and Veterans immediately come to his defense.

George Soros, on the other hand, even has a hard time being recognized as an American citizen. And Hillary Clinton, even though she voted for the War, has done all she could to squirm out of it -- without apologizing -- ever since the War became more difficult than bombing an aspirin factory in the middle of the night.

Rush's Have Patriotism status, and the Soros/Clinton comparative Have-Not status is the dynamic that makes Rush a prime target of their revolution.

They are using Alinsky's "basic tactic in warfare against the Haves," which Alinsky refers to as "political jujitsu." (Rules for Radicals, p. 152) This tactic advises the Have-Nots to "club the enemy to death with his own book of rules and regulations." (p. 152) Rush is a great patriot, playing by the American patriot rulebook. But even a true patriot can be caught every now and then using one or two words, that when taken out of context, might be used to choke him on his own "petard" (p. 152).

This works especially well for the revolutionaries in our high-tech age, and some of Soros' money goes to pay full-time listeners and media-watchers at Media Matters to monitor every word of the Haves.

In their battle to Hush Rush -- preferably before he gets a chance to skewer Hillary in the general election campaign -- Hillary and Soros are using their media attack machine, Media Matters, to apply Alinsky Radical tactics #8 and #10. [/] The eighth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 128):

Keep the pressure on. [/] Once you identify a potent adversary, seize every word, every event -- no matter how trivial - and turn it around to your advantage. Make a big deal of it. Keep doing it. Over and over again. Eventually, you will wear down your opponent and win. And the bloodless revolution succeeds.


The tenth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 129):

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. [/] The operations of the revolutionaries must be cohesive, organized and constant. An action causes a reaction, which causes another reaction to the reaction, "ad infinitum." (p. 129)


And we see exactly how that happened with Rush.

- MoveOn, another Soros front group, came out with their ad defaming our Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus.

- Because that was a political ad in a major public forum, The New York Times, and because it defamed an American General in wartime during his momentous testimony before Congress, the ad sparked a reaction in the Senate: a resolution denouncing the ad. Notably, while many Democrat Senators joined in condemning the MoveOn ad, Senator Hillary Clinton did not.

- Media Matters picked up Rush Limbaugh's denouncing of 2 scurrilous soldiers, Jesse Macbeth and Scott Beauchamp. They seized the only two words, which appear to catch Rush breaking his own patriotic rule of always supporting the troops.

And they employed Alinsky's 13th tactic: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. (p. 130) [/] The Soros-funded MoveOn ad provoked a reaction in the Senate. The Clinton brainchild, and Soros-supported, Media Matters stepped in the battle for Patriotism honors and provided a reaction to the first reaction. A few other Democrat Senators (including Senator Hillary Clinton) jumped on board with their reactions. And the battle continues.

After Air America crashed and burned, Clinton and Soros feel they must hush Rush and push to reinstate the "Fairness" Doctrine in order to completely control the message for Hillary's run on the White House. [/] In short, bringing down Rush -- or bursting the bubble of Rush supremacy, as George Soros might say -- would prove more than a political plum in Hillary's pudding. It might actually give her the throne of power in the Oval Office, with George Soros her backer and enabler. [/] And the only thing that remains to be seen is whether it will be as easy to control the ballot box on Election Day as it apparently has been to control the Democratic Party. [My ellipses and emphasis]


Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas | Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays