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

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

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]

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

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

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

Revival Time For Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama?!?

Crypto-Marxists Pushing the "Opiate of the People"?!?

(The Washington Times breaks the commandment: "Thou shalt not dis a minority.")

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

From a Washington Times article, It's revival time for the Democrats:

It's revival time for the Democrats [/] October 9, 2007 [/] Wesley Pruden

It's not exactly the old-time religion, but suddenly there's sawdust on the trail. If some other worthy actually wins the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a new career open to them, reprising Jim and Tammy Faye. Praise the Lord.

Just when everyone thought that no Democrat wanted to be caught in church dead or alive, it's revival time. First Hillary started talking about the influence of the Methodist social gospel on her life — this must have been heck all these years for Bubba, a hymn-singing good ol' Baptist boy — and now Barack Obama invokes God in a way that no Republican, whether moved by the spirit or falling poll numbers, would have dared.

"I think it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party," Mr. Obama told a predominately black congregation in Greenville, S.C. "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

The senator has good reasons to play the faith-and-values card. It's not easy being the first serious black presidential candidate, particularly the first black candidate with a vaguely Muslim name. He gets points for chutzpah if not courage, taking his revival tent into upstate South Carolina, a stronghold of evangelical Christians, but the senator's choice of church is not exactly going to win a standing ovation. The United Church of Christ, only slightly to the right of the Unitarians, is one of the most liberal of the empty-pew denominations, and liberation theology sets few souls aflame in the South. The late Harry Golden, editor of the Carolina Israelite, was once asked to set up an exchange of pastors for Brotherhood Week. When he proposed exchanging the rabbi for the Unitarian pastor, one of the elders of the synagogue came to him, unhappy. "We expected a Baptist, or at least a Presbyterian. A Unitarian? For this, we have Brotherhood Week?"

Mr. Obama clearly has to do something. He trails Nurse Hillary, who proposes giving $5,000 to every newborn in America, in Iowa. He is running a lot worse in South Carolina, whose early primary is pivotal in measuring such Democratic sentiment as there may be left in the South. A new poll by the Los Angeles Times finds him trailing her by 18 points. [/] No mystery, then, that he arrived in South Carolina not with a political campaign but with a revival meeting. He's using gospel concerts and "faith forums" in a bit of grass-roots gimmickry called "40 Days of Faith and Family." Last weekend, he went to church twice (but stiffed Sunday school), once to a white congregation and once to a black one, and spoke at neither. [/] The Web site Beliefnet.com, which measures the religious content of campaign speeches with something called the God-O-Meter, finds that Mr. Obama talks about faith, church, Sunday school and the like more than any other candidate. Even Mike Huckabee, a Republican and an ordained Southern Baptist preacher, rations God talk.

But the senator's pastor back in Chicago, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who the senator cites as his inspiration, wouldn't satisfy Harry Golden's synagogue. The only sin he denounces is the inherent sin of being American. In one sermon posted on the Internet, Mr. Wright says America was founded on racism and runs on racism. "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. We conducted radiation experiments on our own people ... And God! Has got! To be sick! Of this [doo-doo]!" (Exclamation points definitely not mine.) [/] A vulgar rant like this by a man who purports to be a servant of the Almighty would make anyone sick. Probably the senator, too. He has declined to invite his pastor to appear with him — at least in South Carolina. Praise the Lord, indeed. [/] Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The [[Washington]] Times. [/] [My ellipses and emphasis]

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

Demographic Capitulation: Weird Idea?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Lt. General Sir David Richards, commander of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, told the audience that "In Afghanistan, only the United States is willing to commit blood and treasure on the scale necessary for success." [/] Among the Western nations serving on the front lines in Afghanistan, only the United States is not in demographic capitulation.

From a Weekly Standard article, A Demographic Theory of War, more follows:

A Demographic Theory of War [/] Population, power, and the 'slightly weird' ideas of Gunnar Heinsohn. [/] by Clark Whelton [/] 10/05/2007 12:00:00 AM

"LOOK AT IT THIS WAY," Gunnar Heinsohn said. "Your family is in a shooting war with a family across the street. Your forces consist of a father, mother and one child, perhaps two. The other family has a father, mother and seven children, perhaps eight or nine. For your family, the loss of one person would be devastating. The larger family can take casualties and continue fighting." [/] We were in London, having coffee before a Jane's Cityforum conference on "Defense to 2020 and Beyond." As we talked, generals, staffers, and defense contractors maneuvered among the pastry tables. Heinsohn is director of the Raphael-Lemkin Institute at the University of Bremen and author of Sons and World Power: Terror in the Rise and Fall of Nations, an academic best-seller in Germany. Later in the day he would be lecturing professional soldiers on the "demographic dimension" of future warfare.

"My point," Heinsohn continued, "is that the strength of a nation's military is affected by the size of a nation's families. Falling birth rates in Western countries mean that even light casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan bring cries of pain in Europe and America. But Iraq and Afghanistan are growing rapidly. Their populations are swollen by youth bulges. Their average family has five or six children. They are in what I call 'extreme demographic armament.'"

"What about America and Europe?" [/] "Except for its white population, which is falling, America is in demographic neutrality. Europe, however, is in demographic capitulation. Several European countries have birth rates so low they are committing demographic suicide. Supposedly, the EU was formed because Europeans were tired of fighting. 'Five hundred years of war is enough,' they said. But there is a great lie here. Why wasn't four hundred years of war enough? Or three hundred? The real reason Europeans decided to stop killing each other is that they were no longer having big families. They had no more superfluous sons to burn on the battlefield. I talk about these things in my book. I will talk about them today, as well."

"Your book hasn't been published in English," I said. "A demographic theory of war and terror could be a tough sell to a military audience in London." [/] Heinsohn smiled. "Generals understand. If you don't have children today, you won't have soldiers tomorrow. Jane's partner, Cityforum, asked me to speak at a similar conference last year. After my presentation, General Brims, a British commander in Iraq, told me that when he arrived in Basra he would go into houses and find large numbers of young people. Everywhere, young people. He wondered if they were refugees, or if maybe it was a trap. Finally he realized the young people belonged to the families that lived in those houses. They were the children of the Iraqi youth bulge."

"And a youth bulge is?" [/] "A result of rapid population growth. A youth bulge happens when thirty to forty percent of a nation's males are between the ages of fifteen and twenty-nine. Even if these young men are well nourished and have good housing and education, their numbers grow much faster than the economy can provide them with career opportunities. Many don't have jobs, and don't have places in society. When so many young men compete for the few places available, they become frustrated, angry, and violent. They are enlisted quite easily into radical groups and terror organizations."

"Is that what you talked about last year?" [/] "Last year I said that if the U.S. population since 1950 had grown at the same rate as Pakistan, America would now have almost a billion people. If Germany had grown at the same rate as Gaza, Germany would now have six hundred million people and a youth bulge to go with it. Which means today we would not be seeing young men throwing rocks and bombs just in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank, we would also be seeing violence in the streets of Hamburg and Berlin. That got the generals' attention."

"How will you get their attention this year?" [/] "I will tell them the real cause of the quagmire in Iraq. And in Afghanistan, too." [/] Heinsohn went off to prepare his lecture and I went upstairs, where a packed house was waiting for the conference to begin.

[...] As the afternoon session began, I wondered how Gunnar Heinsohn and demographic armament would fit into a conference on military armament. Heinsohn was introduced by the chief moderator, General Sir Jack Deverell KCB, former commander of NATO's Armed Forces North. The audience turned to Heinsohn's bio in the program notes. Born in 1943, with doctorates in economics and sociology, he is the author of 37 books. 'Sons and World Power,' now in its eighth printing, "explores the relation between superfluous but adequately brought up sons and violent movements throughout history." [/] To polite applause, Heinsohn clipped a wireless mike to his lapel and stepped away from the lectern. In a room of crisp uniforms and dark suits, Heinsohn wore a brown tweed jacket, striped wool tie and professorial beard, the classic uniform of academe. Clearly, the pace was about to change and Heinsohn immediately got the audience's attention.

"Most of the men in this room," he said, "belong to the 45 to 60 age bracket." In this bracket, he continued, the U.S. and U.K. have a four-to-one advantage over the male populations of two youth bulge nations, Afghanistan and Pakistan (Af-Pak), 36 million vs. 9 million. However, in the 0-14 bracket--the cohort that will be reaching military age in 2020 and beyond--the 36 million boys in the US-UK are outnumbered by 38 million boys in Afghanistan-Pakistan alone. From a military standpoint, this numerical edge is bigger than it sounds, Heinsohn added. In NATO countries, where families are small, there is no such thing as a disposable male. Statistically, Western boys are likely to be only sons or only children. But in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 25 million of those 38 million boys are second, third or fourth sons.

The real quagmire in Iraq is not military, Heinsohn said. It's demographic. "The Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq stated that 'While the United States has been able to acquire good and sometimes superb tactical intelligence on al Quaeda in Iraq, our government still does not understand very well either the insurgency in Iraq or the role of the militias.' The report never mentions demography. If we fail to understand the implications of Iraq's demographic armament, the real cause of future insurgencies will remain enigmatic."

Heinsohn asked for his first slide, which showed that Iraq has 5.5 million boys younger than 15. The UK--with more than twice the population of Iraq--has only 5.3 million boys in the under-15 age bracket. By 2022, some 360,000 young Iraqi men will be reaching military age every year. If half these men find legitimate jobs, radicals and insurgents will still have an annual recruitment pool of 180,000 second and third brothers--roughly the number of Coalition troops in Iraq today. Islamic youth bulges have given the terror contingent an "asymmetric" advantage, a tactical edge that can't be matched by countries in demographic capitulation. The Islamists can take heavy casualties and replenish their forces quickly because Islam's demographic arsenals are filled to overflowing with irregular warriors who will fight to the death.

In the opening session, Admiral Parry mentioned this asymmetric aspect to the war on terror. "We keep trying to use technology to fight war at a distance, but our adversaries have taken war back to the brutal and the bloody," Parry said. Heinsohn illustrated Parry's point with data on the "demographic armament" of Iraq. For every thousand men aged 45-59, Iraq has 5,500 boys aged 0-14. The UK, however, with a ratio of 1,000 to 885, is in "demographic capitulation." The US has 1,000 men to 1,025 boys, which, in Heinsohn's view, qualifies as "demographic neutrality."

In Germany, the ratio is 1,000 men to only 590 boys. If Germany continues down the path to demographic suicide, by 2050 its population will be 15 million below where it is now. "Not to make you happy about the fate of a former enemy," Heinsohn told the audience, "but Germany's low birth rate has weakened it to the point where it is not much of an ally."

The destabilizing effect of youth bulges have been known to Western intelligence analysts for at least a decade. The original studies of youth bulge violence go back to French sociologist Gaston Bouthoul in the 1970s. Heinsohn, who has broadened youth bulge research and applied it to a wider range of conflicts, cited 1997 testimony before the U.S. Senate Select Committee by General Patrick Hughes, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and 1998 testimony before the same committee by John Gannon, chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Both men mentioned the destabilizing effects of youth bulges and the challenge that demographic intelligence poses to the U.S.

Youth bulge analysis has bad news for some Islamic countries, too. "Khomeini's revolution in Iran came as a surprise," Heinsohn said, "because the Iranian youth bulge that preceded it did not appear on anybody's radar. Now it is Iran's demographic capitulation that evades Western analysts." More data flashed on the screen. "Today, every 1,000 Iranian men of prime fighting age (15-24) will be succeeded by only 565 boys aged 0-9. With such a dramatic plunge in manpower from--in absolute numbers--8.35 million young men to 4.72 million boys, Iran has little time left to launch armies against its opponents, and the Iranian president knows it. Last year Ahmadinejad called on his people to have bigger families, saying "Our country has the capacity for 120 million people. Westerners have got problems. Because their population growth is negative, they are worried and fear that if our population increases, we will triumph over them."

But Iran's birth rate continues to fall. "Demographically," Heinsohn said, "Iran is a paper tiger." [/] Hurrying to squeeze a 20-page paper into a 20-minue time slot, Heinsohn presented brief glimpses of the world through a youth bulge lens.

* The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue because "Western aid has enabled Palestine--where nearly every newborn is considered a refugee and provided with food and medical care by international agencies--to defeat Israel demographically." The population of Gaza jumped from 240,000 in 1950 to almost 1,500,000 in 2007. In 2006 there were 640,000 Jewish boys under 15 in Israel, against 1,120,000 Arab boys under 15 in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. The last cohort with a Jewish majority is the 30-44 age bracket--540,000 Jews vs. 410,000 Arabs--which is now past prime military age. And yet despite 60 years of fighting and violence, the overall Israeli-Arab death toll is relatively low. It ranks 49th on Heinsohn's list of fatalities in conflicts worldwide since 1948. The Israeli-Palestinian conflicts rank 67th.

* Colombia's return to peace and public safety was not brought about by tough controls imposed by the Uribe government. Peace is a result of the "ageing out" of Colombia's last big youth bulge, combined with falling birth rates, "which have simply dried up the recruitment pool for violent gangs." Similar drops in violence and political extremism have been seen throughout South America as youth bulges disappear into middle age.

* Turkey may become a more reliable partner of the West. Turkey's youth bulges have run their course and total fertility has fallen below the U.S. birth rate. This means Turkey can no longer afford to push its young people abroad to find jobs. It must encourage them to stay, "and feels reluctant to sacrifice them in war."

* Low birth rates in Russia and China place both countries in demographic capitulation.

* Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's top lieutenant, miscalculated when he encouraged Somalia to fight its war with Ethiopia by doing to the Ethiopian army what al Quaeda is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan--inflicting casualties that cause protest and dissension in Coalition countries. In 1993 U.S. forces fled Somalia after suffering 18 killed and 73 wounded. But unlike America and the UK, Heinsohn noted, Ethiopia is in strong demographic armament. It is unlikely we'll see peace marches in the streets of Addis Ababa or that Ethiopia will be deterred by losses on the battlefield.

* To compensate for falling birth rates and "to slow the ageing of its own populations, the Anglo-World--the U.S., Canada, U.K., Ireland, Australia and New Zealand--is trying to attract immigrants from a handful of European countries. But these European providers of manpower, such as Poland, Ukraine, and Austria, are in demographic capitulation and are desperately trying to attract immigrants themselves. By 2050, the total demand for foreign talent in the developed world will reach 150 million. The United States alone will realize growth by pulling in the best and brightest from everywhere else. For this reason, friends and allies may opt out of alliances with the U.S., not out of anti-Americanism but because they don't want to be demographically neutered."

During the afternoon tea break I asked Heinsohn about this last point. Are developed countries really condemned to cannibalize each other's workers, or might there be ways to encourage larger families inside their own borders? Heinsohn wasn't hopeful. More than 100 years ago, he said, there were already indications that family budgets were affecting family size. German economist Julius Wolf found not only that Germany's high birth rates had fallen sharply, but that men with fewer children, or no children at all, earned higher salaries. Less time changing diapers meant more time to learn their jobs. Wolf's research was an early warning of demographic problems to come. For centuries, the Western world had forbidden birth control and abortion. The only sexual act that was both legal and non-sinful was procreative intercourse. The result was youth bulges. Between 1500 and 1914, the population of Europe skyrocketed from 60 to 470 million because, Heinsohn said, "people only had two choices--becoming the parents of lots of children or a celibate life. Today they have many choices. For many wage earners, who often have no land to leave to an heir, remaining childless is a logical decision. And today it's women, too, who worry their careers will be harmed by having children."

"Millions of individual decisions to not have children are adding up to a collective disaster," I said. "But can't things change? Deciding to have children is about more than money." [/] "If there is an emotional need for children, it can be satisfied with one child. But one-child families mean demographic collapse. I have suggested to the German government that they confront the economic issue directly. A family's first child will come from the emotional wish to have offspring. Therefore offer a one-time payment of 130,000 euros for having a second child, and net reproduction is achieved."

"Obviously, there's a lot at stake here. If I understood your message to the military, a demographic tsunami is headed our way. For years to come, al Qaeda will have no trouble finding soldiers and suicide bombers." [/] "For Europe, it will be difficult. We may even see Europeans move to the U.S. and Canada for safety. But there are also demographic reasons to be optimistic. The combined population of just three democracies--India, Brazil, and Mexico--is 1.43 billion, compared with 1.33 billion Muslims worldwide, 150 million of whom live in India. Demographically both groups are nearly equal in size, but there are significantly more Muslims under 29 because total fertility in Islam is much higher. In another twenty years most of the Islamic youth bulges will have run their course--as they already have in Algeria, Iran, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey. Therefore, defending against the aggression of the youth bulges that have hijacked Islam is not an insurmountable obstacle. An alliance of India with the Anglo-World may be all we need to safely travel the bumpy road ahead."

[...] During the speaking program, Heinsohn was followed by a Canadian officer, Brigadier General David Fraser, former Regional Commander South for the allied forces in Afghanistan. Fraser gave a gripping account of what it's like to patrol 220,000 square kilometers of dangerous territory with one mechanized brigade. He spoke about the urgent need to find jobs for every male in Afghanistan, and emphasized that the key to success in field operations is "People, people, people. Our greatest asset is our people." [/] Fraser was talking about quality--the value of training and effective leadership. Heinsohn had just finished talking about quantity. At one time a coalition of Western countries could have provided General Fraser with ten brigades to secure Regional Command South. Those days are gone. In the opening session Lt. General Sir David Richards, commander of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, told the audience that "In Afghanistan, only the United States is willing to commit blood and treasure on the scale necessary for success." [/] Among the Western nations serving on the front lines in Afghanistan, only the United States is not in demographic capitulation.

Clark Whelton, a former chief speechwriter to New York City mayors Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani, is a writer living in Manhattan. [My ellipses and emphasis]

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

POLL BJon Behind-The-Counter Drugs: OK?!?

See article below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Christian AAA Bible Study Forum Thread 30196!!!. (Choices and link also given after article below.)

From a USA TODAY article, FDA considers a third drug category: Behind-the-counter:

FDA considers a third drug category: Behind-the-counter [/] By Rita Rubin, USA TODAY

Most everyone knows the USA has only two drug categories: prescription and over-the-counter, or non-prescription. Now the Food and Drug Administration is seeking public comment about a possible third category: behind-the-counter, or BTC.

Such drugs would be available without a prescription but only after asking a pharmacist for it, according to a Federal Register notice announced Wednesday. "FDA is exploring the public health benefit of certain drugs being available BTC (behind-the-counter) that were previously prescription medications," it says.

The FDA will seek public response at a meeting in Washington Nov. 14 and accept written comments until Nov. 28.

"The issue has become ripe," says Ilisa Bernstein, the FDA's director of pharmacy affairs. "We've heard from pharmacists that this is an issue. We've heard from manufacturers, from patients."

Bernstein emphasized: "We're not coming out and saying we think BTC is the way to go, and this is how it should be done. We want to find out more."

The FDA raises many questions about the concept in the Federal Register. They include:

•How might BTC drugs affect patient access?

•What's the role of a pharmacist or other health professional?

•If safety concerns arise, should BTC drugs go to prescription-only?

The American Society of Health System Pharmacists' policy since 1985 has been to advocate the creation of an "intermediary" category of drugs. The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, representing makers of non-prescription drugs and dietary supplements, opposes it.

With a BTC category, "patients would have some options, but it would hopefully be constructed to address any concerns about patient safety," says Brian Meyer, director of government affairs for the pharmacists' group.

David Spanger, senior vice president for policy and international affairs at the non-prescription-drugs organization, says: "You don't need a class. You've got flexibility in the existing system."

Manufacturers "can certainly be creative" on a product-by-product basis, Spanger says. He cites emergency contraceptive Plan B, which is available behind-the-counter without a prescription to anyone 18 and older. The FDA opposed Duramed Pharmaceutical's plan to sell Plan B without a prescription to consumers of all ages.

When an FDA advisory panel met in January 2005 to discuss Merck's application to take cholesterol-lowering Mevacor over-the-counter, many panel members said they wished it could be sold behind-the-counter, the way Zocor, another Merck statin, is in the U.K. The committee voted 20-3 against OTC Mevacor, and the FDA followed its advice and turned Merck down.

In Canada, few drugs are BTC, says Gerry Harrington of NDMAC, the country's counterpart of Spanger's group. Many are "old, rarely used things," Harrington says. Among them: iodine, hydrocortisone in a 0.5% concentration and benzocaine to relieve teething pain.

The Federal Register notice can be found at [[.pdf file]].

Article Side Bar:

BEHIND THE COUNTER' SALES [/] A number of countries have some form of these sales, including:

• Australia [/] • Canada [/] • France [/] • New Zealand [/] • United Kingdom [/] • Denmark [/] • Germany [/] • Italy [/] • The Netherlands [/] • Sweden [/] • Switzerland

Source: Food and Drug Administration [My ellipses and emphasis]

Poll Question: Behind-The-Counter Drugs: OK?!? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Great idea! / 2. Yes. Much more control needed. / 3. Yes. Some control needed. / 4. Yes. Cut down on drug abuse. / 5. Yes. Protect children. / 6. Yes. Protect the illiterate. / 7. Yes. Protect illiterate illegal immigrants. / 8. Yes. / 9. Possibly. / 10. Possibly. Limit to unusual drugs. / 11. Possibly. Limit to possible addictive drugs. / 12. Possibly. Limit to substantive dangers. / 13. No. / 14. No. Drug store delays already too much. / 15. No. Unwarranted intrusion on privacy. / 16. No. Unwarranted government control. / 17. No. Creeping big government health care takeover. / 18. No opinion. Complex questions require much thought. / 19. No comment. / 20. No opinion. / 21. This poll is worthless. / 22. This poll is of negative value. / 23. Other.

Vote at Christian AAA Bible Study Forum Thread 30196! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

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

Slime Machine Co-Founded by Hillary?!?

N.B. "Slime Machine" Media Matters is the source of the "phony soldiers" slander ingenuously accepted by 41 Democratic senators as the basis for their attempt to censor America's biggest radio talk show. (Link to reply to attempted censorship.)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

From a FOX News .com article, Online Slime Machine Media Matters Co-Founded by Hillary Clinton:

Online Slime Machine Media Matters Co-Founded by Hillary Clinton [/] Tuesday , October 02, 2007 [/] By John Gibson

I want to talk about an online slime machine known as Media Matters for America. It is a tax-exempt organization which states its purpose as countering conservatives in the media.

I have said before that Media Matters was started with help from Hillary Clinton and took George Soros' money. Media Matters has written to me and all my bosses saying my charge is a lie, that it is an independent organization which plays no political favorites and has never received slime machine cash from Soros-funded Democracy Alliance.

Here are the facts: Media Matters was started in offices provided by the Center for American Progress, a Soros-funded operation. It has since received Soros money. Facts, not lies.

It has also now come to light that not only did Hillary Clinton help start Media Matters with former conservative David Brock in charge, she bragged about it to a convention of the far left. At the Daily Kos convention - a gathering of the far, far left - Hillary Clinton said the following:

"We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely... in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."

She went on to explain that when she famously claimed there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy," she didn't realize it wasn't a conspiracy but just people on the Internet making political arguments out in the open. And she decided she could do the same thing.

I have a pile of letters from Media Matters and representatives of George Soros demanding I stop telling lies about them. The truth is: It was always the truth and the lies are in the denials. [/] That's My Word. [/] Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story with John Gibson and Heather Nauert" and send your comments to: myword@foxnews.com [My ellipses and emphasis]

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

Honesty About Race Is Rare?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

[[Justice Clarence]] Thomas writes, “His very first words took my breath away. ‘Honesty on questions of race is rare in the United States. So many and unrecognized have been the injustices committed against blacks that no one wishes to be unkind, or subject himself to intimidating charges. Hence even simple truths are commonly evaded.'”

[...] Thomas quotes in its entirety the last paragraph of Sowell’s book, as Novak had in his review: [/] "'Perhaps the greatest dilemma in the attempts to raise ethnic minority income is that those methods which have historically proved successful — self-reliance, work skills, education, business experience — are all slow developing, while those methods which are more direct and immediate — job quotas, charity, subsidies, preferential treatment — tend to undermine self-reliance and pride of achievement in the long run. If the history of American ethnic groups shows anything, it is how large a role has been played by attitudes — and particularly attitudes of self-reliance.'"

From a National Review Online article, Sowell of a Justice, more follows:

Sowell of a Justice [/] An early influence on Clarence Thomas. [/] By Kathryn Jean Lopez [/] October 01, 2007, 7:45 a.m.

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me. — Matthew 25: 35 [/] Thomas Sowell changed a young Clarence Thomas’s life. [/] Or, to be more specific, a Michael Novak review of a Thomas Sowell book, that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

“I felt like a thirsty man gulping down a glass of cool water,” Justice Thomas writes in his deeply personal memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, released today, about reading the review. [/] Thomas recalls that a friend who knew that Thomas felt isolated — having rejected black power (after flirting with it in college), being uncomfortable with conventional liberalism, and not quite knowing where he fit in — called the review to his attention: “Take a look at the book review in this morning’s Wall Street Journal. It’s about another black guy who thinks like you.” [/] The review was of Sowell’s Race and Economics.

Thomas writes, “His very first words took my breath away. ‘Honesty on questions of race is rare in the United States. So many and unrecognized have been the injustices committed against blacks that no one wishes to be unkind, or subject himself to intimidating charges. Hence even simple truths are commonly evaded.'” [/] “It was as though he were talking directly to me,” Thomas writes.

Thomas quotes in its entirety the last paragraph of Sowell’s book, as Novak had in his review: [/] "'Perhaps the greatest dilemma in the attempts to raise ethnic minority income is that those methods which have historically proved successful — self-reliance, work skills, education, business experience — are all slow developing, while those methods which are more direct and immediate — job quotas, charity, subsidies, preferential treatment — tend to undermine self-reliance and pride of achievement in the long run. If the history of American ethnic groups shows anything, it is how large a role has been played by attitudes — and particularly attitudes of self-reliance.'"

Thomas had an immediate admiration for Sowell — this after he had previously dismissed Sowell. During his younger, angrier days at Yale, someone had given him a copy of Sowell’s Black Education: Myths and Tragedies. Thomas trashed it after skimming it, “furious that any black man could think like that.” A few years later, that which had initially repulsed him was now the attraction: Thomas recalls, “Here was a black man who was saying what I thought — and not behind closed doors, either . . . ”

Speaking honestly and openly about race was a hard road Thomas was destined to travel, however reluctantly. And it was one that Sowell ultimately inadvertently set him on. In 1980, Sowell asked Thomas to attend a conference in San Francisco on race in America. Thomas recalls: “The purpose of the conference, he explained, was to stimulate new thinking about the issues confronting blacks, and he wanted me to sit on a panel that would discuss education policy.” During the course of the conference, he got talking to a young reporter. And the rest was history.

Thomas writes, “A young black reporter from the Washington Post, Juan Williams, was seated next to me, and we struck up a conversation. I had no idea that what I said might find its way into the Post — I wasn’t used to talking to reporters — and I spoke to Williams in a straightforward, unguarded way, explaining that I was opposed to welfare because I had seen its destructive effects up close in Savannah.” [/] Thomas also told Williams that his own sister was “a victim of the system, which had created a sense of entitlement that had trapped her and her children.” (An assessment his sister didn’t disagree with, even if it wasn’t Thomas’s intention to share it with the world.) He told Williams that he opposed busing, supported school vouchers.

And on December 16, 1980, his straight talk made it to the Washington Post, complete with a picture. Juan Williams had, Thomas writes, “presented my opinions accurately and fairly. But I’d gone against the liberal consensus on race, something that blacks weren’t supposed to do — and in the Post, no less! For the next few days, strangers on the street glared disapprovingly at me as I walked by.” Black staffers on the Hill gave him grief because in their minds there was but one way for a black man in America to think on issues of race.

But straight, honest, independent thought is what he had to do. “I could only choose between being an outcast and being dishonest.” As he explains later in the book, to do any other would be to reject what he had been raised to be. His grandfather and grandmother raised him and they didn’t raise him to live the easy way. And so, in the face of watermelon and Uncle Tom comments, he kept the voice of his grandfather as his conscience and motivation: “Son, give out but don’t give up. Get up every day and put one foot in front of the other.”

In My Grandfather’s Son, Thomas explains that when he finally read Race and Economics, he didn’t regard it as “a political statement, nor was it meant to be one: It simply tried to tell the truth about a subject that too many people were unable or unwilling to discuss honestly. Reading it didn’t turn me into a conservative, much less a Republican. All I cared about was finding answers, no matter who had them.” [/] My Grandfather’s son may hit unsuspecting readers similarly. [/] [My ellipses and emphasis]

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

Iraqi Reply To U.S. Senate Foolishness

Our senate is improving, actually. Only three-fourths of the senators voted in favor of this frivolous, anti-Iraqi, anti-American resolution. Eight years ago all one hundred senators voted to shirk their constitutional duty to properly and publicly try an impeached president.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

From a Voices of Iraq article, Iraqi parliament to debate reply to U.S. Congress resolution:

Iraqi parliament to debate reply to U.S. Congress resolution on Tuesday [/] Baghdad - Voices of Iraq [/] Tuesday , 02 /10 /2007 Time 12:14:47

Baghdad, Oct 1, (VOI) – The Iraqi parliament will debate in its ordinary session on Tuesday the reply to the U.S. Congress resolution on the division of Iraq into three Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni entities, parliamentary sources said on Monday. [/] "The debate about a reply to the U.S. Senate resolution on the division of Iraq will be of top priority in Tuesday's session," Dr. Hanin al-Qadou, a legislator from the Shiite Unified Iraqi Coalition (UIC), told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI). [/] He expected the reply to be in "the form of a statement by the Iraqi parliament on this issue in view of the fact that enacting a legislation could take a long time."

He pointed out that the matter does not even require enacting a law because the content of the American resolution flagrantly interfered in Iraq's internal affairs, let alone its violation of the Iraqi constitution.

Qadou noted that the Iraqi constitution guarantees the country's "territorial integrity and national sovereignty," adding the Congress' resolution "can never change Iraq's settled national principles."

He said the U.S. resolution "only aimed to cause Iraq to slide into the pits of a civil war only God knows when it will end."

"It is the duty of all the national powers (in Iraq) to reject such an insolent resolution and to quickly announce their positions in the face of this trivializing with the sovereignty of Iraq," he said.

[...] Seven clerical and parliamentary powers that have the majority of the seats had called on Sunday for dedicating a session to debate a U.S. resolution that urged the division of Iraq. [/] The Senate resolution, which won the majority of 75 votes against 23, provides that Iraq would be divided into three Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni entities with a federal government in Baghdad undertaking the responsibilities of border security and management of oil proceeds. [/] The Senators who proposed the "non-binding" draft resolution considered that it was the "only solution" to grind to a halt acts of violence sweeping the war-scarred nation. [/] AE [/] [My ellipses and emphasis]

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