Scooter Gets By

That'll teach HIM not to obstruct justice and commit treason again!

Here's the story, though it's not really hard to find.

Ugh... you know, we all knew it would happen, but it's just so depressing that our ultimate cynicism about this administration turned out to be right once again. I wonder if Bush's popularity rating will drop into the teens before he's done.

Where's the Disconnect?

I always wonder why the media is considered to be so left-wing-biased. Is it, really? Or is it just a case of, as Stephen Colbert says, "reality having a liberal bias"? The article at the following link claims that the New York Times is falling all over itself trying to praise Hugo Chavez, the communist soon-to-be-dictator in Venezuela. But in reading the article, you see that the opposite is actually true -- the writer says that economic growth in the banking industry has taken off in spite of Chavez's anti-capitalist policies.

So how is that praise for Chavez?

And also, the shutting down of rival news outlets by Chavez in May was met with steaming anger from most of America's "left-wing media" journalists. Aren't the journalists part of the media?

Which leads me to think that the "left-wing media" conspiracy is just another half-assed conspiracy theory without much merit at all. Obviously, I'm not the first person to realize this, and it's not like I really just now realized it, but remember. Anytime someone tries to blame a complex, non-contiguous entity for large-scale problems, "You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind."

Anyway, here's the article.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/06/why_the_msm_love_fest_for_hugo.html

A "Moderate Christian"?

I have yet to meet a moderate Christian. I don't think they exist. All Christians are just waiting patiently to take over our country and our culture.

They may think they're moderate -- even going so far as to say they want to work within our American system of givernment -- but they just wait in the shadows, patiently, for their chance to put us under the thumb of despotic Christian hatred and immorality.

Some will say thay we need to be just as patient with these interlopers in order to "bring them into the fold." But when they come knockin at your door in the middle of the night waving their evil death-book and saying "Repent! Repent!" who will be listening to your calls for patience? Not the Christians, that's for sure.

This is an example of the type of blind, stupid hatred that spews from way too many Americans when they talk about Muslims, as if Muslims are any different from anybody else on Earth.

Venezuelans Protest as TV Station Shuts

I really wish we'd stop seeing news clips of our outspoken left-leaning celebrities pal-ing around with this guy. This leftist government is starting to look more and more like pre-WW2 Germany or basically any post-revolutionary government. They may start out with good intentions, but soon the lust for power grips the former idealist, and they become the thing they hated.
=====================
Excerpt from Associated Press article by FABIOLA SANCHEZ

Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets Monday into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a television station critical of his leftist government off the air.

Police fired toward the crowd of up to 5,000 protesters from a raised highway, and protesters fled amid clouds of tear gas. They later regrouped in Caracas' Plaza Brion chanting "freedom!" Some tossed rocks and bottles at police, prompting authorities to scatter demonstrators by firing more gas.

It was the largest of several protests that broke out across Caracas hours after Radio Caracas Television ceased broadcasting at midnight Sunday and was replaced with a new state-funded channel. Chavez had refused to renew RCTV's broadcast license, accusing it of "subversive" activities and of backing a 2002 coup against him.

Office workers poured out of buildings to join student protesters, while organizers called for the demonstration to remain peaceful. RCTV talk show host Miguel Angel Rodriguez led the crowd in chants of, "They will not silence us!"

Separately, Information Minister Willian Lara accused the private Globovision TV channel of encouraging an attempt on Chavez's life by broadcasting the chorus of a salsa tune — "Have faith, this doesn't end here" — along with footage of the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II in St. Peter's Square.

"They incite the assassination of Venezuela's president," he said.

Globovision director Alberto Federico Ravell denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations "ridiculous."

The new public channel, TVES, launched its transmissions early Monday with artists singing pro-Chavez music, then carried an exercise program and a talk show, interspersed with government ads proclaiming, "Now Venezuela belongs to everyone."

Chavez says he is democratizing the airwaves by turning the network's signal over to public use.
The socialist president accused the network of helping to incite a failed coup in 2002, violating broadcast laws and "poisoning" Venezuelans with programming that promoted capitalism. RCTV's managers deny wrongdoing.

Some protesters on Monday blocked roads with rocks and burning trash, saying they fear for the future of free speech. Police used tear gas to break up at least two protests, and were seen handcuffing and detaining one man.

"I plan to keep protesting because we're Venezuelans and it's our right," said Valentina Ramos, 17, a Metropolitan University student who was hit in the head with a tear gas canister and received stitches.

The group Reporters Without Borders called for international condemnation of the RCTV decision as "a major setback to democracy and pluralism."

Germany, which holds the European Union presidency, officially declared its concern that Venezuela let RCTV's license expire "without holding an open competition for the successor license."

UNDERNEWS: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A MEXICAN CUT YOUR PENSION OR HEALTH BENEFITS?

This is an interesting opinion article on the immigration "crisis" that was written almost exactly 1 year ago. Note, when it talks about the Texas Rangers, it's talking about the police force, not the baseball team. Because I'm an idiot, it threw me at first... ;-)

UNDERNEWS: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A MEXICAN CUT YOUR PENSION OR HEALTH BENEFITS?

A Definition of "Terrorism"

What does it mean? Why is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter? Why is it called "terrorism" when insurgents in Iraq kill innocent people in the streets, but not when U.S warplanes bomb a wedding party in Afghanistan? Why was the Washington D.C. sniper called a terrorist, but the kids at Columbine weren't?

This is a serious question. I'm not using this post to criticize our military by calling them terrorists, as some have done. I just want to make sure that we know what we mean when we call someone a terrorist.

Because unless we have a firm definition of terrorism, we will always be swayed by the whims of politicians and the media, who seem to be able to attach that label to anyone they want us to hate.

Help me out. What are your ideas?

Didn't Want to Kick a Dead Horse's Ass, But...

Jerry Falwell died this past week, and while many feel that the world has lost a great man, I just can't stop myself from wondering if his afterlife is quite what he expected.

Here's a selection of his greatest quotes, taken from the Website The Progressive Review, by Sam Smith.

• If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being
• I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be.
• AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals
• The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.
• The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior.
• I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status.
• We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism ... we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today ... our battle is with Satan himself.
• The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.

And this list doesn't even include some of his later hits, such as his duet with Pat Robertson about how Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment on the gays of New Orleans. The Daily Show did a piece on this that I remember. It showed a graphic of the neighborhoods of New Orleans that had been flooded, and pointed out that one of the few places there that had remained relatively undamaged was the predominantly gay section. The lesson? God loves the gays, but hates the "gay-adjacent".

That's what this "great" man stood for. My heart goes out to his family in his time of grief, and my thoughts go out to the poor people who followed him. Your world must be very dark, indeed.

From Associated Press via Yahoo!

---

AUSTIN, Texas - The agency that runs the state's juvenile prison system said it will release 226 inmates after a review found their sentences were improperly extended.

Advocates for Texas Youth Commission inmates and their families have complained that sentences are often extended inconsistently or in retaliation for filing grievances.

Jay Kimbrough, who is heading an investigation into allegations of physical and sexual abuse at the agency's facilities, formed a panel to review the records of nearly all inmates with extended sentences. The six-member panel, which included community activists and prosecutors, reviewed the cases of 1,027 inmates whose sentences were extended.

"For the youth we're releasing, we did not find that the extensions were warranted," agency spokesman Jim Hurley said Friday. "The others will be reviewed on a regular basis."

Hurley said the 226 inmates will be released on parole as soon as guardians can pick them up or they can be transferred to an interim halfway house.

Kimbrough said in March that the panel would review the documentation on each inmate's sentencing extension and discuss whether the decision was just and appropriate, and then refer their recommendation to a retired judge.

The review is one of many ongoing reforms to the state's juvenile system after the disclosure of allegations of sexual abuse of inmates by staff and a possible cover-up by agency officials. The commission incarcerates about 4,700 offenders ages 10 to 21.

---

First off, this is from Texas, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised about it. Secondly, this is great evidence about why we need to abolish the death penalty. Since judges are fallible -- and in some of these cases, even vindictive -- we shouldn't give the power of life and death to them.

Dr. Bushlove, Or How I Learned to Stop Hedging and Love Iraq Timetables

We've been hearing all about timetables to leave Iraq for months now, and it looks like Bush will soon have yet another opportunity to veto a bill with an Iraq timetable.

Now, as I've said elsewhere, I don't know much about anything, but from a purely pragmatic POV, I've kind of been wondering why Bush would be against a timetable in the first place. Don't know why he wouldn't have come up with it himself. It would have given him a way to save face.

The USA is not going to stop violence in Iraq by staying. That should be fairly clear by now. We don't have enough troops, we don't have enough money, and we don't have public support for the war. If you set a timetable for withdrawal, then that accomplishes a few things that the Republicans would want:

• The Iraqi government suddenly becomes in charge of getting ready for their own country's security
• US troops get to leave in the foreseeable future. That has to help troop morale, doesn't it?
• US hawks will get to say that we didn't lose -- we just set a timetable and folowed it
• Republicans get to claim that they helped stop the war
• The US public will start to feel better about the war right away, possibly helping the next Republican candidate for President

Bush's people have been trying to spin this war since the beginning, so why couldn't they be able to spin a timetable this way?

G. Beck Uncovers Muslim Plot to Silence Dissent in America

Just put quotation marks around just about every word in the sentence, and you've got it!

My blog was getting a little cold. That's because I've been wasting my time working and commenting on other people's uninformed opinions.

Speaking of which... this video is of Glenn Beck, a cable-TV blowhard saying that there's some conspiracy to get Americans to shut up. And he's not talking about the Bush Administration's need to stop us from criticising his war, either.

A few points:

1. The headline to this video is a little misleading. There was no uncovering done here by Bleck... because he came up with no proof--only a few possibly tangential pieces of circumstantial evidence linking ONE of the Imams to charity groups that, as he says, "HAVE BEEN SUSPECTED" of having ties to terrorist groups. As we've seen in some court cases like this, those suspicions can turn out completely wrong.

2. Blech makes no case for a "Plot to silence dissent" by Muslims. Seems he thinks that if nobody else is telling this half-baked story that he made up, then that's evidence enough of a plot to silece dissent.

3. Several statements by Belch clarify, to me at least, that he doesn't care if Muslims are peaceful or not--they're Muslims and therefore have no place in our culture. Things like "we'll have to worry about separation of mosque and state" rather than separation of church and state. That has nothing to do with terrorism, but only a fear of another religion.

4. One piece of evidence that he "uncovers" and claims is damning is the fact that he used to belong to a Muslim group who had in their philosophy that "governments should eventually be Islamic." First, that's fairly innocuous--I mean, most Christians would say the same thing regarding their own religion, that governments should eventually be Christian, and will be so during the Millennium. The group's philosophy statement, as related by Belloq, does not advocate a holy war to bring about such a change, only that they should "eventually" be Muslim.

I'm against both notions myself.

Polls Don't Lie -- Or Do They?

You know the kind of phone call it was – you’ve probably avoided them as much as I have because they just take forever. “Hi, my name is so-and-so from the Tarrance Group,” came the voice on the other end, “and we’d like to take a few minutes of your time to ask you about the upcoming elections.”

This time, for whatever reason, I decided to take the call. It was around September 11, and I was feeling reflective.

They started simply with questions about my particular background. But then they asked the questions that alerted me to what was really happening. “Questions” worded like, “Democrats such as Tammy Duckworth will make the country weaker and less able to respond to terrorism. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote Democratic in the upcoming elections?” Or “Democrats want to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get into the country and take American jobs. Does this make you more likely to vote Democratic?”

When the phone call was over, I was outraged. Obviously, this wasn’t a legitimate poll, but had been designed to sway me against Tammy Duckworth and other Democratic candidates. I recognized the phone call as a form of “push-polling,” a negative-campaigning technique that tries to plant misleading, incomplete, or just plain biased ideas in voters’ heads to try and sway them to vote a certain way.

The National Council on Public Polls calls push polls “a growing and thoroughly unethical political campaign technique.” In fact, in many areas of the country, they’re considered so unethical that they’re illegal.

The phone call was enough to plant me firmly against Peter Roskam. And after a few minutes of Web research, I found out a few things that made me realize that Tammy Duckworth has to win this election – if only to keep guys like Peter Roskam out of office.

Peter Roskam had paid The Tarrance Group to make the phone call I had just received. And The Tarrance Group itself had been reprimanded before for illegal push-polling. If you remember, these are the same types of people who spread the rumors that McCain had fathered a baby with a prostitute. The baby turned out to be a Bangladeshi girl he and his wife had adopted years before.

I started to pay attention. Then I noticed the mailings from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) trying to scare us against Duckworth. The ones with ghosts on the front and headlines like, “Tammy Duckworth doesn’t want your roads to be fixed.” How idiotic is that statement? Obviously, she’s not against our roads being fixed, but the Republicans are trying to paint her opposition to earmarking as opposition to public works. There are many reasons to oppose earmarking, not the least of which is that it goes under another, more negative name: “pork”. It holds up legislation, encourages back-room politicking, and costs taxpayers even more money. Other mailings were just as idiotic and misleading.

Peter Roskam himself has already been caught lying about some of Duckworth’s policies, saying she’s for amnesty for illegal immigrants, when she has stated her support for the McCain immigration bill that DOES NOT grant amnesty for illegals.

The Tarrance Group says it works to help “Republican” candidates get elected, and also says, “All of these clients would say one thing about The Tarrance Group: We hate to lose.” Well, apparently they are so worried about losing that they’re willing to do anything to win. And that goes for Peter Roskam, too. We deserve better than a candidate who would stoop to such low levels to get elected.

And that means I voted for Tammy Duckworth.

Blackmail!

First, Republican Congress leadership blocks every attempt to introduce a minimum wage increase to debate. Then they use the debate as an opportunity to give the rich millions more.

What does one have to do with the other? This is such obvious pork it's disgusting. It's like saying we'll get you your next meal, but only if we can give an island paradise to this rich guy over here...

Now, I'm not really against the estate tax repeal. Not really for it, either, but to force it upon us this way is blackmail!

=========================
Edited From Associated Press article
House Approves Minimum Wage Increase
July 29, 2006

WASHINGTON - Republicans muscled the first minimum wage increase in a decade through the House early Saturday after pairing it with a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates.

The House passed the bill 230-180 before leaving for a five-week recess.

The GOP package would increase the wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next three years.

Inflation has eroded the minimum wage's buying power to the lowest level in about 50 years. Lawmakers have won cost-of-living wage increases totaling about $35,000 for themselves over the last 10 years.

Under current law, the estate tax is phased out completely by 2010, but jumps back to 55 percent on estates larger than $1 million in 2011.

The bill passed Saturday would exempt $5 million of an individual's estate, and $10 million of a couple's, from estate taxes by 2015. Estates worth up to $25 million would be taxed at capital gains rates, currently 15 percent and scheduled to rise to 20 percent. Tax rates on the remainder of larger estates would fall to 30 percent by 2015.

The maneuver was aimed at defusing the minimum wage increase as a campaign issue for Democrats while using the popularity of the increase to achieve the Republican Party's longtime goal of permanently cutting estate taxes.

That left Democrats fuming.

"Just think of what it is to have a bill that says to minimum wage workers, 'We'll raise your minimum wage but only if we can give an estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America,'" said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

As part of the plan, Congress would also pass a bill shoring up the U.S. pension system. That bill easily passed the House Friday night and seemed more likely to succeed in the Senate than the minimum wage-estate tax plan.

The No. 2 Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, said the move by GOP leaders — who actually oppose the minimum wage increase — was a cynical exercise to give political cover to GOP moderates while ensuring the wage increase does not become law.

Republicans countered that it was only fair to business interests opposed to the wage to reward them with estate tax relief and other tax cuts. And they said adding the estate tax was the only way to get their Senate GOP counterparts — who rejected a minimum wage increase just last month — to vote for it.

"The Republicans in the Senate have twice defeated this," said Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio. "You know what? If the Senate wants the estate tax and the (tax cut) extenders, they've to give us the minimum wage. That's how it's going to become law."

LaTourette organized a drive by almost 50 rank-and-file Republican lawmakers to persuade House leaders to schedule the wage measure for debate. Democrats have been hammering away on the minimum wage issue and have public opinion behind them.

Conservative Professor Censored By University

Here's a link to a post on Undernews, a progressive online alternative news repository, concerning a conservative professor who has been denied promotion for his stated views on affirmative action and other policies of State University Of New York (SUNY) Fredonia.

UNDERNEWS: CONSERVATIVE PROF CENSORED BY UNIVERSITY

Should a state university have the right to do something like this?

By his own admission, the university president, Dennis Hefner, says that Kershnar (the professor) has been an excellent teacher. The only reason for his denied promotion is that he has stated views that are in opposition to SUNY Fredonia's "official" views.

In addition, SUNY has stated it will promote Kershnar only if he submits his public writings to be reviewed by the university before publishing.

There seem to be so many things wrong with this situation that it's hard to know where to start. Here are some of my objections:

1. This is a state-funded institution, not a private one. As such, doesn't it set itself up for public debate of its policies and procedures? It's as if I worked for the streets and sanitation department and voiced disapproval about a drainage ditch that needed to be mended. Should I be fired because of my concern for the public good, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about it?
   
2. As representatives of an institution of higher learning, shouldn't the president and board be more willing to listen to criticism of its policies? I understand that I might be more than a little naive about this -- I mean, who enjoys being criticized? But if these people are sincere in their dedication to their function as leaders of higher education, shouldn't they just argue the "facts of the case" and not resort to silencing a lower member of the faculty who disagrees with them? If their policies can't withstand a little discussion, then maybe they aren't appropriate policies... This seems like a bully tactic.
   
3. Does the need for consensus outweigh the need for open debate and reflection at a state-funded university? I don't believe that. PR may play a part in some university hiring practices, but that shouldn't extend to the promotion of a professor, especially if he has shown excellent teaching ability.
   
4. No institution should have the right to make professional decisions about an employee's personal life, as long as the person is acting within the law.
   

Is there more to the story that I missed? I was outraged when some U.S. universities fired their professors after 9/11 for their stated personal views on that situation (was it at Notre Dame and Colorado?) and this is just as bad.

Word Of The Day: Sophistry
Even more reason that we shouldn't trust politicians when they start talking science. These are excerpts from an article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on July 19, 2006.

============================
Experts rip Rove stem cell remark
Researchers doubt value of adult cells
By Jeremy Manier and Judith Graham
Tribune staff reporters

When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos.In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."....

But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research--echoed by many opponents of funding for such research--is inaccurate, according to most stem cell research scientists. The field of stem cell medicine is too young and unproven to make such judgments, experts say.

"[Rove's] statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.

If opponents of embryonic stem cell research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading."

Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a Catholic who objects to research involving the destruction of embryos and is seeking alternative ways of making stem cells. But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos.

The bill heading for Bush's desk would expand federal funding of work on stem cells taken from embryos. Such cells come from extra embryos originally created for in-vitro fertilization. Many experts believe embryonic stem cells could one day help regenerate damaged tissue for patients with conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injury or Parkinson's disease, though embryonic cells have not yet been tested in humans.

Adult stem cells, which usually come from bone marrow transplants or umbilical cord blood, are widely considered less flexible than embryonic stem cells in forming many types of tissue. Yet adult stem cells already are in common use for certain conditions, such as replenishing immune cells after cancer treatment and treating some bone and blood disorders.

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.

One of the only published scientists arguing that adult stem cells are better is David Prentice, a former professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and now a fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group. Prentice compiled of 72 diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells. Yet most of the treatments on the list "remain unproven," wrote Teitelbaum of Washington University and his co-authors, who claimed that Prentice "misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments."

==================================

Keep in mind, friends, that any time a politician or mouthpiece for a political organization like the Family Research Council tries to give scientific reasons for why they're opposed to something... they're usually cherry-picking scientific evidence that supports their view, rather than taking the scientific findings as a whole and then forming their opinions. There's a word for that, and it's "sophistry": looking for evidence for something you've already decided.

Racism and the Middle East
A friend and I were talking yesterday about the Muhammad cartoon fracas in Europe that’s spilling over to America through South Park. He said, “You can make fun of every other religion except Islam. If you make fun of Islam, there’s rioting in the streets.”

Which made me think a little. On the surface that seems like it’s true. You don’t see Christians rioting because their Messiah is the butt of a joke.

Now I’ve done a little study of Islam – not much, but a little more than most Americans – and I don’t see anything in its text, the Koran, that paints a picture of an inherently violent religion. It actually seems to be a little less violent than most of the Christian Old Testament. So what is it that makes a 21st-century Muslim riot in the streets when he perceives a blasphemy where a Christian would only grumble about it and eventually ignore it?

Then I realized that we haven’t seen anywhere near the same size outcry against the Danish comics in this country as in Europe.

Then it hit me. The violence isn’t inherent in the religion – it’s endemic to the Middle East.

But why? The answer seems obvious to me, but maybe it’s a misreading or over-generalization. But the countries in the Middle East have a history that stretches back into ancient times – of small groups vying for power against other smaller groups. Of course, in the pre-Renaissance era, that was true even in Europe. And what did we have there then? We had wars that lasted for 100 years off and on. We had rival families duking it out over titles and territory for generation after generation (War of the Roses, anyone?). It is only in recent times, after the revolutions of 1848 and after the worldwide bloodbaths of World Wars 1 and 2 that this has changed. We have had relative peace between nations for the past 50 years. That is reflected in the Cold War. We had the power to annihilate each other but we didn’t do it. Our cultures had changed.

But the countries in the Middle East have only been countries for a short time, and their nationhood was a matter of imposition rather than a natural occurrence. Groups were thrown together in the same countries that would never have naturally come together so soon (see post below).

If the tables were turned, and Islam was the dominant Western religion and Christianity was the dominant Middle Eastern religion, what would happen?

Is this a racist statement? No. Racism comes when you believe that a characteristic -- good or bad -- is inherent in the people themselves. The anger that is coming out of the Muhammad cartoons is a political, rather than a genetic, phenomenon.

The Root Of Middle Eastern Anger
My feeling is that it's not the religion that causes the Middle East to be such an "angry" place, it's the politics. That region has been the hotbed of activity since colonial times (before that, even, but the current strifes are based in colonial policies.

A little history: Everywhere else in the world, countries are formed through a long historical process -- people of different heritages live in an area, form their own culture, then fight wars to gain more land and assimilate more people into their group. This usually takes hundreds, thousands of years. That's the natural way of forming a country.

Now, the countries that you see on the map in the Middle East weren't formed that way -- they were formed that way by Britain and other countries based on their colonial interests in the area, regardless of whether those borders are "natural". As a result, people are stuck with others who are not like them, and who are sometimes even historical enemies. Ancient land claims were disregarded and that has caused a lot of anger in the region there.

It has nothing to do with the religion of the majority of Middle-Eastern people. If the tables had been turned and Islam was the majority religion of Europe and Christianity was the majority religion of the Middle East, the Christian Middle Eastern people would be the angry ones, and the rest of the world would be stereotyping Christians as terrorists.

Never look at the stereotype, always look at the individual -- you'll be a lot more understanding.

The Role Of Nationalism In The World

The problem with nationalism or any kind of ancestral pride is that it's pointless. I think the Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and other belief systems have it absolutely right when they discourage pride of all sorts. All it ever does is put a veil over our understanding -- distracting us from the business at hand, and the attainment of a clearer understanding of the world around us. Pride in the whole takes away from an understanding of the parts.

For example, I have heard many of my right-wing friends talk about how the Iraqis killed in this war were probably up to no good, anyway. Or say that if another country doesn't go along with US desires (like the French) then that country should be bombed next. Where does this come from? I think these are otherwise very nice people who have just had the wool of nationalism pulled over their eyes so that the US is all good, and everyone else is worthless.

And I know this isn't just limited the US -- it just comes across as more arrogant since we're the most powerful nation on Earth. For example, the Germans I know have an incredible amount of pride in their heritage; but aren't they the same people who spawned that most evil of all sinners, David Hasselhoff?! To me, that just shows that nationalism is bull.

A country is nothing but a lifeless construct made up of regular people -- no more worthy of pride than any other group of people. People in Sudan or Turkey or Venezuela are exactly like the people in the US in every important respect -- EXACTLY the same. Take one of them at birth and drop them into an American family, and that kid'll end up like any other American. It works the other way around, too...

So forget nationalism and treat individuals as individuals.

Some will say that I'm wrong -- that America is different from all those other countries. Drop an Algerian in France and they'll never be considered French, but bring them to America and they're part of us -- American through and through.

Unfortunately, people who believe this are living in a fantasy land. The ideal America is very different from actual America by the very definition of the word.

We all deal daily with the hoax that is the "American melting pot." Yes, it's an ideal that I would love to see, but is it true? We live in the same country, but...

How American were Middle Eastern-looking people in the weeks after 9/11? Were they welcomed as true Americans? I have an uncle who has said that no Muslim is a true American -- that they're all enemies of the US. How inclusive is that comment? And he's not alone. One of the older German people I know who has been in this country for less than 50 years, is complaining about how LEGAL immigrants are coming in and taking "American" jobs. Irony all around!

And I think it's ironic how Americans hate the French (of course, EVERYONE hates them). But, of all the other cultures on the planet, French culture is the one that most closely mirrors our own -- a passionate nationalistic sense that tends toward the xenophobic, a near-total disregard for other countries' desires and international law, and now, an official language. Culturally, we're more like the French than we'd like to think.

Would I like to see an America that shines like the city on a hill? Absolutely -- we have the power and ability and strong Constitution to make it so. Does that make me proud of our country? No. It just makes me very excited by our potential!

More new content just to fill up space...

As part of my program of telling everyone what to do and think, I have recently been answering a lot of questions on Yahoo! Answers. Figured I might as well share the wisdom here...

First question:

What Is The Definition of Evil?
I don't think there is any real definition of evil that covers everything. It's how people perceive certain activities that go against cultural norms or biases. Hell, I've even heard that eating shellfish is evil according to the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah. I used to eat shrimp all the time... I'm SO screwed when I die.

My feeling is that true evil doesn't exist in mankind, because the concept of evil itself is rooted in beliefs about the supernatural. We usually perceive "evil" in a person when their acts are so horrific that no real human being could have committed them -- the person must be connected with the Devil or something. What we're really perceiving, in my opinion, is evidence of a tragic mental imbalance with tragically horrible consequences.

But who's the first person that comes to mind when you hear the word "evil"? 9 times out of 10, people will say "Hitler". I know I'm playing the exaggeration card here, but bear with me.

Ask yourself, though, how did Hitler get into power? Wasn't it because so many people in Germany agreed with him? And what about all the people who carried out his horrible orders? Aren't they to be considered evil, too? And what about Germans who knew what was happening and didn't do anything to stop it? Aren't they, then, evil?

Fact is, Hitler and his followers did what they did because they believed that doing so would be to the betterment of mankind. There are still people I know who are otherwise very nice who believe Hitler wasn't as bad as he is made out to be. It's a belief born out of fear and ethical retardation.

Evil is just a word we use when we just can't understand how a person could do something like that. But looking at it as evil does no good, either. If someone is evil, then we don't need to ponder it any further -- but if someone has a mental imbalance that causes him to disregard the simple human courtesy of not hacking a victim up with a cleaver, then there's hope.

I know, this is a rambling essay filled with BS and leaps of logic. But if you're talking about a concept as out there as the definition of evil, then you're gonna get a lot of convoluted answers. Especially since I haven't given it much thought...

A Letter to the President
Since this is a new blog, I feel like I have to have at least a little content so people get an idea of what I'm about. Here is a letter I wrote to George W. Bush a couple of days after the election in 2004.

---

Dear Mr. Bush:

Firstly, Mr. President, congratulations on winning such a hard-fought campaign for President. Though I am an independent voter who leaned toward the Kerry side of this campaign, I have many Republican friends who are glad to see their candidate win a second term. I respect their opinions as much as I respect my own and yours -- even though they are sometimes far removed from my own.

I only hope they're still this happy in another four years -- and that I share their opinion on that.

However, my letter concerns the direction of the next four years of this great country, and how they will affect the 48% of this country who voted for Senator Kerry.

I would like you to consider that number for a second, Mr. President, because it represents more than 141 million Americans who don't share your views. And though it is fewer than the 150 million who supported you in this election year, it is still an incredibly large number of people.

I ask you to consider these numbers in relation to what you have called the "mandate" you feel you have been given by the American people. And I ask you to consider that 48% of the country -- equal to 141 million Americans -- also made their desires known on November 2, and that your opponent was the preferred choice of those people.

Consider that a mandate is something you get when a vast majority of people give it to you. Then consider the actual size of your majority.

You recently said, "I earned capital in the campaign and now I intend to spend it. And I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I would spend it on." Of course, that is your right as the winner of this election, and you have to keep your promises, and any President needs to do the same.

Consider the truth of John Kerry's concession speech -- about healing the divide that exists in the United States. The truth is obvious to anyone who considers it.

Consider the possibility that you have no mandate, and that if your second term behaves as if it has one, those wounds will never heal.

Consider for an instant that maybe, just maybe, sometimes the best use of power is to not use it at all. As President, you should always look for opportunities to use your power, and look even harder for opportunities not to.

Thank you for listening, and I hope you continue to listen. Because you aren't just the leader of your own party. This is not just the land of the Republicans. It is the land of the free, and you've been elected to lead all of us. The entirety of the American people will be waiting and watching to see what you do. And in the end, you work for us, all of us... Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.

---

Ah! A fresh, new blog!

For a few years now, I've thought about starting up a blog, but something always held me back. I mean, anything I have to say has probably already been said by countless other bloggers and traditional media commentators, so who cares what I have to say?

There's just something so seductive about creating your own blog, though. You get to say exactly what you think in a (semi)-public forum, you get to craft your arguments, and best of all you get to tell people off in a really elegant way.

Really, a blog is just a power-tripper's way of telling everyone what to do and think. I'm no exception.

Unfortunately, I can also be pretty wrong when it comes to current events... it's hard not to be fooled by the countless other media and bloggers out there. How can one single person stay on top of everything that happens in the world? Or their ramifications? Plus, PR people are constantly spinning and spinning so we'll never know the real truth behind anything -- not even when the authorized, official accounts come out.

So that's what this blog will be about: spouting my opinion whether or not I really know anything. You all can tell me when I've lost my marbles.