TRUTH—THE NO SPIN POLITICALLY INCORRECT ZONE

We Need a Third Party

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:11:00 +0000

I assume Newsweek is defensive about the above photo of Michele Bachmann. I am not. I think it represents her perfectly.

It was literally okay with her if we had defaulted, and she blames our downgrade and stock market crash on raising the debt ceiling. She'd rather we not pay our bills, renege on our agreements, and hold the world's economy hostage, for political gain.

I don't imagine she does this maliciously. I just think she truly has no understanding of economics at all. She has no business running for dogcatcher, let alone president.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

We indeed are on a Mission from God!

Please donate, subscribe, and invest in my enterprise to help get this vital truth out to the rest of America. Mine is a unique viewpoint that I believe is part of the salvation for America in our troubled times. It needs and deserves generous support.

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers on the Right

I used to think that all irrationality lay on the liberal side of the spectrum. I still judge that most modern liberals, at least the leaders, have entirely lost their reasoning abilities.

Yet I, a conservative, have become steadily disenchanted with the Republican Party. Sadly, I’ve seen most of them, including their leaders, like their counterparts on the left, drift into complete

S
enselessness.

And, they’ve become the caricatures they were always accused of being, like Scrooge, or wanting to throw Granny off a cliff, and so on. It’s amazing. The final straws for me were their voting against unemployment extensions and now leading us to our first credit downgrade in history.

The Grand Old Tea Party

Presently, the Republican Party represents the Tea Party alone. Their intolerance for diverse points of view fosters scorn for "RINOs" like Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown. These "moderates" commit the sin of voting for compassionate and economically viable things like unemployment insurance extensions. Republicans also deride people like me, not a moderate, for siding with the American people and economists on issues like infrastructure spending.

Well, the Tea Party cannot define Snowe, Brown, or me out of existence as conservatives. I define them out of existence as conservatives. I insist on believing that conservatives are rational, brilliant, and innovative.

The Tea Party loves to go back to our roots and Founding Fathers. However, these historical figures were rebels, innovators, scientists, businessmen, and entrepreneurs. They broke barriers. They were full of "revolutionary ideas." They definitely used Keynesian spending, initiated deficit spending, and built infrastructure to win the Revolutionary War.

Republicans have become far-right wing and unreasonable, with no imagination and no vision for America other than low taxes and spending cuts. That’s it? That’s the great beacon for all our efforts? At least Reagan had the “Shining City on a Hill.”

No Big Ideas and No Flexibility

Unfortunately, under present Republican stewardship, we will never again be a nation of big ideas.

We’ll never do things like go to the moon, build high-speed rail, or even cure cancer. All that costs money. We’ll never be able to fight another World War. We’d just give up and let the Nazi’s take over.

With their idiotic Balanced Budget Amendment, we won’t even be able to behave like the average American family or business. Families and businesses engage in deficit spending all the time, taking on a mortgage, car loan, business investment loans, or inventory loans when the opportunity presents itself or an emergency, like the need for a heart transplant. If we had a balanced budget requirement during the recent recession, we’d have had spending cuts and tax increases — just when the economy was most vulnerable.

So I Like the Dems, Right?

Sadly for me, though, Democrats are preaching what I’ve just said too. I don’t want them as allies in this fight, and I cringe at any association with them. The problem is they have morphed over the years into not only a far-left party, but led by a bunch of lying demagogues. Every time they open their mouths they are spewing bold-faced untruths.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi is an example of a purely evil politician. She is a sociopath with no redeeming values.

Present-day Democrats, like Republicans, operate on only one guiding principle. Theirs is to demonize and soak the rich, and business. However, soaking the rich will not pay for all their golden dreams. And soaking, over-regulating, and demonizing business does harm to our economy, and winds up hurting even those they claim to represent, the poor.

Morton's Fork

Therefore, we’ve got the choice between the ideological nutcases on the right, who tell the “truth” but whose truth is dangerous for the nation, versus the demagogic, lying left.

Stuck in the Middle With You

In my opinion, my position is where the nation needs to be, if you’re a conservative. I’m a hardcore conservative with some progressive ideals. I find myself on the conservative side of most issues, but I am not tied to ideology. I’m tied to what works for America.

Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger

This should not be confused with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stance, which sounded the same. He, in my opinion, was a man with his finger in the air. He was a “moderate.”

I don’t have my finger in the air, and I’m not a moderate. Rather, I’m focused on what will work, based on economics, science, and research. I’m an empiricist. It just so happens that most things that work in these areas take on a conservative hue. But, not always.

John Maynard Keynes

One example is Keynesian spending. Almost 99% of conservatives nowadays do not believe in it. They think it leads to debt and a weaker economy. They are wrong. WWII was our most massive Keynesian spending in history. It worked.

Keynesian spending should be increased when the nation needs an input of money, and shrink when the economy is doing well. When unemployment is high and GDP sluggish, an injection of funds into the economy is required.

So, Why Didn’t Obama’s Keynesian Spending Work?

Basically, it was poured down a rat-hole. He wasted it on cronies, unions, and government jobs. None of this had a multiplier effect for the economy, and its positives ended when the spending stopped. No new roads were built, or bridges, or factories for future employment.

Therefore, he “proved” that Keynesian spending doesn’t work, right? No. He proved that dumping money down a rat-hole doesn’t work.

Never Trust a Leftist with Keynesian Spending

Anyway, I wouldn’t trust Obama or the left with any Keynesian spending. I’d run from all community organizers for this job. I’d only trust a businessperson or economist. They’d have to be pro-business, have a conservative bent, and be meticulous at assessing cost-benefit.

I Will Remain a Conservative

But I cannot vote for the insane, vision-impaired, and cruel Republican Party we have now. My goals might be considered progressive, in that I want to help the poor, for example, like any good Democrat. But I don’t see Marxism or socialism as the way to effect this. Only market based solutions make any sense to me.

We Need a Third Party

So, I must create or find a third party. I don’t have a name yet. But I would simply describe it as hardcore conservative with some progressive ideals. Incidentally, I believe most Americans occupy this part of the political spectrum. They don’t want to snatch unemployment extensions away from the unemployed, but they do think we need to be careful with our spending. They seek a strong defense, but don't accept ten-year wars.

I’ll be filling in more details about this in the future.

Have a wonderful day!

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Rock

Have a wonderful day!

My links are:
Rock's World (#cartoons)
Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
@RockyII Twitter
Rock It Productions (Website)
Rock It Productions Facebook
RockyII2 Personal Facebook

You can contact me at:
Rock's Email

To copy these, here they are:
Rock's World (#cartoons) http://rockyiisworld.blogspot.com/
Truth--the No Spin Blog http://truthrock.blogspot.com/
@RockyII Twitter http://twitter.com/RockyII
Rock It Productions (Website) http://rockit-productions.blogspot.com/
Rock It Productions Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RockyII1?sk=app_190322544333196
RockyII2 Personal Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RockyII2

Technorati Tags for this post: Michele Bachman, debt ceiling, Republican Party, unemployment extensions, credit downgrade, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, infrastructure spending, Founding Fathers, Shining City on a Hill, Balanced Budget Amendment, Democrats, demagogues, Nancy Pelosi, Morton's Fork, progressive, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Keynesian, GDP, multiplier effect, community organizers, Marxism, socialism

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Hardcore Conservative with Some Progressive Ideals

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:05:00 +0000

Elwood: "They're not gonna catch us. We're on a mission from God." (Blues Brothers 1980)

We indeed are on a Mission from God!

Hardcore Conservative with Some Progressive Ideals

Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone is the philosophical bedrock for my filmmaking, and for my cartoons blog, Rock's World.

This TRUTH includes an exploration of vital issues in our politics, news, entertainment, and culture.
My thesis is we need all our citizens involved in the national debate, both the left and right wings. I believe each is vital in a thriving democracy. Sometimes truth will lie with the left, other times with the right, and usually in a combination. This is not centrist, or moderate. It is hardcore truth.

Having said this, I often find myself on the conservative side of things. Even when I passionately support a progressive ideal, like Social Security benefits, I usually seek a conservative approach, such as voluntary privatization. I advocate means testing, raising the age requirements, and rigid cost-benefits analyses. In other words, I'm basically conservative, even when I promote a progressive ideal, and I want SMART.

As opposed to my far-right fellow conservatives, though, I do passionately believe in the social safety net, including humane unemployment insurance, universal healthcare (market-based), and reformed SSC, Medicare, and Medicaid.

See previous related posts, Towards an Activist Conservatism and Left Versus Right, Two Hulks Bursting with Anger.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

Invisible and Visible Hands

Adam Smith

I trust, with my compadres, in Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market, but I don't think it solves all of society's needs. The invisible hand is necessary for business and economic success, but it requires a visible hand too, that of a government actively seeking to solve the other problems, like homelessness. Albeit, with market-based solutions.

I also want active and enduring support for the arts, science, research, and infrastructure investments.

I promote reasonable financing for education, but also its release from the clutches of teachers’ unions, and from liberal, anti-American ideologies.

The History of Left vs. Right

I am surprised as I learn the history of our great nation that we repeatedly revisit the very same arguments our Founding Fathers had in the eighteenth century. There have always been liberals, and conservatives.

Present-day conservatives, and their radical right-wing proponents, like Bachmann, the Tea Party, and even Beck, proclaim conservatism as the guardian of our national history, and they promote a return to the values of our Founders.

Thomas Jefferson, States' Rights

John Hancock, Federalist

Well, I’ve got news for you, my fellow conservatives; the values of the Founding Fathers were exactly like ours. They were split between Federalist and States' Rights people, those that desired a republic and those who wanted pure democracy, and yes, between liberals and conservatives. It’s tiring to think we’ve made no progress since then. Or, is it? Maybe this kind of balance and tension is exactly what our republic needs.

What If the Hard Right Ruled?

Thinking of our own times, what if the hard right, which is now controlling the Republican Party, ruled absolutely?

Well, we’d have Texas. There’d be drastically reduced unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits. The military would still be fully funded. Taxes would be flat. We’d have no illegal immigration. There’d be an abundant energy supply. The air and water would be a bit more polluted.

Dallas Oil Refinery and Skyline

Unions would shrivel and no longer destroy our companies, and city and state governments. Teachers unions would stop emulsifying our children's minds in the interest of teacher benefits and anti-American liberal philosophy. Our history would be re-written again to make America the hero of the world. Students would be allowed to attend quality schools with a voucher system.

Our economy would rocket under these conditions. Small businesses would thrive and hire.

On the other hand, the unemployed, the poor, the mentally ill, many sick people, the elderly, education funding, science, research, and the arts would suffer. Millions of government workers would lose their jobs and flood the job market. The poor would be vilified. They would get enough food from charities to live, on the streets, and then be arrested for vagrancy. Some elderly would be at the mercy of relatives or charities. Mental health would be decimated, and we’d have even more Jared Loughner’s. Millions would have no health insurance, and continue to flood and bankrupt our public hospitals.

The Post Office and public transportation would no longer serve small towns. We’d never have high-speed rail. Our roads and bridges would crumble waiting for private enterprise to repair them. NASA would not exist, and we wouldn't have even gone to the moon. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program would be defunded, removing a vital investment tool for American manufacturing.

Regulation would be diminished so much that our food supply would be tainted.

We'd be in Afghanistan another thirty years.

We'd be dominated by religious dogma. Pornography would be banned.

The useless war on drugs would be expanded, and even more people would be in prison. Speaking of prisons, they'd be even more of a hellhole. Which means, yes, the incentive would increase not to offend, but jails would turn out a more determined class of uneducated criminals, who only know crime, to prey on us.

What if the Hardcore Left Ruled?

We’d have Los Angeles. There'd be humane unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits. We’d have lots of government jobs. The elderly would be okay. The poor could survive in dignity. The mentally ill and challenged would have programs and be off the streets.

Los Angeles Slum and Skyline

Science, research, and the arts would thrive.

The Post Office and public transportation would continue to serve small towns. We’d have high-speed rail. Our roads and bridges would be repaired. We’d revitalize our space program and other technological advancements. The SBIR program would help revive American manufacturing.

We’d advance our Green Technology, which would mean a socialistic choosing of winners, which would fail miserably and cost billions, but also lead to a few important advancements over the years. The air and water would be very clean.

The prison population would shrink with the end of the war on drugs. This would mean, however, flooding the job market, roads, and hospitals with addicted and inebriated citizens. Still, this would reduce the crime rate, and lower gang and organized crime involvement in the drug trade. Replacing these, though, would be the black market and gang involvement for cigarettes, and establishments where smoking would be surreptitiously allowed, kind of like speakeasies.

French fries and milkshakes would be outlawed.

Prisons would be run humanely, and would educate inmates so they’d at least have a chance on the outside, and stop robbing us.

The military would be denuded. We'd be out of Afghanistan and unlikely to get involved military again with boots on the ground.

Religion would be kept out of government. Pornography would be allowed.

Regulation would metastasize, so that we’d theoretically be a safer, cleaner society, and with no financial risks of world meltdown again. In reality, though, the regulations themselves would crush business, commerce, and the financial system.

There’d be an eternal energy shortage, as we’d be mired as we are now, forbidden to utilize our vast resources.

Unions would multiply and thrive, with unabashed cronyism and payoffs. “Stimulus” programs would funnel money to their leaders and some of their members. They’d be free again to destroy our manufacturing base, and city and state governments.

Taxes would skyrocket. Government would confiscate money from all successful individuals and corporations. The economy would tank, just like Los Angeles. We’d eventually suffer another Depression.

Everybody would have health insurance, but on a par with Cuba. There would be long lines, cues for treatment, and even death panels, though denied by present proponents.

Teachers unions would guarantee higher teacher wages and benefits, but also that children remain in low-quality schools. They’d continue to fill children’s minds with hatred for America and anything to do with business or success. They’d just about ensure that future presidents of the United States would go around apologizing for America.

We’d be flooded even more with illegal immigrants. English would be the second language of the land.

Conclusions

Perhaps you can tell I’d prefer that the hardcore right rule rather than the hardcore left. Control by the far right would lead to a Darwinian paradise, and the U.S. would conquer and thrive. Unless, of course, it wasted everything on Afghanistan-like, black-hole militarisms of ten-year wars.

Survival of the Fittest

Yet, I don’t want a Darwinian paradise. I am against the hardcore right’s inhumane treatment of the poor, the aged, and the arts. They’ve even shown they will oppose the advancement of science, higher education, investment in infrastructure, and wonderful programs like the SBIR. And I don’t want ten-year, black-hole wars.

I want a humane society. I love progressive ideals, like helping the poor. I just don’t like the left’s socialist and communist solutions to these ideals.

I want a Darwinian paradise for the economy, and for defense. But for other issues, like poverty, I want a Dickensian sensibility backed up with market-based or at least cost-effective solutions devised by conservatives, not by deep-pocket, dreamy eyed liberals.

Still, as I think I’ve demonstrated, we need liberals and conservatives.

Without both wings, our society would flounder.

Have a wonderful day!

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Rock

Technorati Tags for this post: Technorati Tags for this post: Blues Brothers, Rock's World, progressive, Social Security benefits, SSC, Medicare, Medicaid, Adam Smith, invisible hand, Founding Fathers, liberal, conservative, Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Federalist, states' rights, republic, democracy, Texas, Los Angeles, flat tax, unions, school vouchers, jared loughner, NASA, Small Business Innovation Research, (SBIR), Afghanistan War, war on drugs, the Post Office, high-speed rail, green technology, socialism, communism, speakeasy, stimulus programs, Depression, death panel, Darwin, survival of the fittest, Charles Dickens

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Solving Intractable Problems in a Polarized Society

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:45:00 +0000

Snapshot of Our Present Political Landscape

At this time in our history, America is considered a

C
enter

R
ight

W

ing

country.

Tea Party in the House

Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party commands much power and attention, especially after 2010, when Republicans gained 68 seats and control of the House and added six Senate seats. Prognosticators believe Republicans are likely to win control of the Senate in 2012, and possibly regain the White House.

Our love of having the first black president in history has been overshadowed by our dissatisfaction with his job performance.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

Canaries in the Coal Mine

Our canaries, independents, continue to be center-right on most issues, and very unhappy with government spending and the Democrat and Obama’s handling of the economy. While Obama’s job approval rating is now 47% approve, 49% disapprove, an astonishing 51% of independents strongly disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy.

Democrat Glimmer of Hope

On the other hand, Democrats have found a glimmer of hope. Senator Paul Ryan’s "Roadmap" Medicare plan is unpopular with Americans, and the Republicans have signed on to it.

Senator Paul Ryan

Republican Representative Jane Corwin’s support of the Ryan plan led in part to her 2011 special election loss for the New York 26th congressional district House seat, long-held by Republicans. The loss was stunning in that Corwin was leading comfortably weeks before the election, until Democrat challenger, and now new congresswoman, Kathy Hochul, started to hammer Corwin for her support of the Medicare part of the Ryan Plan.

Democrats feel they’ve found a winning issue. Some of them are daring to dream of re-gaining the House, and perhaps retaining the Senate.

Third Rail

The fact is, Medicare, like Social Security, is a third rail for politicians. It’s hot and deadly. Independents, Democrats, and even Republicans like their Medicare, and don’t want anyone messin’ around with it.

Medicare

Medicare illustrates my central thesis of this post. Medicare was created in 1965 by The Great Society’s Lyndon Johnson. Eighty percent of Medicare is a government run program, and the rest is handled in various ways privately. Of course, it is highly regulated.

Personally, as a conservative, I don’t mind this percentage of government and private control for a healthcare program, as it seems to work reasonably well. Except, of course, that as we all age, the program will go bankrupt.

So, it must be reformed.

How to Reform Medicare

My conservative reforms would include means testing, raising the age requirements, and so on. Liberal “reforms” would include raising taxes on “the rich” and business to pay for increasing costs.

In my opinion, my solution would help the economy. The liberal reforms would further impoverish the country.

But, all this doesn’t matter. Nobody wants my kind of reforms, and the hard right will not accept the liberal reforms.

Obstacles to Medicare Reform

Liberals Hate the Rich, and Business

If liberals could just accept raising taxes a bit on “the rich” and let business off the hook, I could have more sympathy for their Medicare plans. But, they won’t. They hate the rich and business, and will never rest until America is a country with equal wages for all.

Every person would take their hard-won daily fifty cents and buy a loaf of government bread and a stick of butter, then go to their glorious healthcare shack to wait in line for their cancer cure by their top-notch medical team, Larry, Curly, and Moe, and salute the next leader like any good communist Cuban.

The Three Stooges: Larry, Nurse, Curly, Moe

Even Castro has admitted that his socialism did not work for his people, but our leftists still worship him as the ideal, another tyrant who uses guns to seize property from the “evil rich” and business.

The Hard-Right Hates Big Government, and Loves Survival-of-the-Fittest

My problem with the right is the opposite. According to their present world view, anything that smacks of being a government program is automatically an evil thing.

I’ve got news for them. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all big government programs. As well as the Department of Defense, SBIR programs, research grants, you name it. All these have worked relatively well. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security have served us as a nation, but will now have problems due to the coming population bulge of the elderly. So, again, they must be reformed.

The radical hardcore right will take me up on this challenge, and say “You’re darn right. But don’t reform them. Get rid of them.

Scrooge

We don’t need ‘em.” (As Scrooge said, “Are there no workhouses?") Let’s just abolish these big government entitlements, and go to a pure survival of the fittest.

That’s why I can never be a Libertarian, and don’t endorse Libertarians Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or even Larry Elder (an otherwise wonderful and wise man), anymore than I can approve of socialists Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders.

In a Nutshell

The far left wants to steal every gulden from the “rich," and from “evil business,” reducing us all to grubs and turnip roots; and the far right actually does want to toss Grandma out into the street, and off a cliff. These are not exaggerations.

Eighty percent of Americans like their Medicare, the way it is. Regardless of which party, regardless of any hard-coriness.

It has worked. Part big government, and part private enterprise, it crosses the hard-core lines.

Can it be fixed?

Only if folks give up their irrationalities.

Have a wonderful day!

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Rock

Technorati Tags for this post: Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Tea Party, 2008 elections, 2010 elections, 2012 elections, 2011 26th NY district special elections, Obama job approval, Kathy Hochul, the Third Rail, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, The Great Society, Lyndon Johnson, The Three Stooges, SBIR, Scrooge, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, socialist, Rand Paul, Larry Elder, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, unemployment benefits, food stamps, school lunches, throw grandma off a cliff

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

A Review of Political Talk Show Hosts

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Tue, 03 May 2011 15:25:00 +0000

I’m going to briefly review some of the popular political talk show hosts in America. I divide them into

R
ed Meat Radicals with Charm

Red Meat Screaming Radicals with No Charm, Cheerleaders Blinded by Agenda, His Agenda is Himself, Rational But with a Clear Agenda, and The Great Communicator.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

I Listen to Them All

I consider it my duty, and that of all Americans, to consider both the left and the right. We have two parties for a reason. Each is correct. Each is wrong. Choosing sides is natural, and okay. Making decisions based solely on purist thinking is not a good thing. The world is complex.

Red Meat Radicals With Charm

Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck

The first two of these political talk show hosts are vision-impaired by their views of the world. They ignore facts that don’t support them, and seek only evidence that proves they’re right. They demonize their opponents.

Rachel Maddow

They are also, however, charming, entertaining, and sometimes funny.

Both are demagogues. Maddow is pedestrian and common. Beck though, approaches mythic proportions, because he has the huge ideas, some of which work, like the Restoring Honor rally on the Washington Mall. Both are good for the nation, and bad for the nation.

Glenn Beck

Both often get their facts right, with good research. Beck is the finest researcher in American politics. Both, however, misinterpret the facts they find with their top-notch research, Maddow blinded by progressivism, and Beck by his conspiratorial paranoia.
Should we listen to them? Yes, but not on a daily basis. It’s worth checking in to see what they’ve uncovered. You won’t find what they broadcast anywhere else on the media. But, it’s not a good idea to get sucked into their visions of the world, which are dark and warped versions of the truth.

One small note on Beck

See my previous Truth articles on him, Beck, Palin, and the Tea Party and The Fall of Glenn Beck, in which I explain more of how I feel about him. I just saw one of his shows two days ago, and it was wonderful. He was concerned about what liberals are doing to our kids through the education system. He was spot on, but this time without his usual end of times foreboding. He was actually working with parents and educators on how to fix the situation.

This is the persona he ought to keep forever, instead of the Huey Long firebrand warning everyone to avoid stocks and buy gold and food insurance. I have little hope for this, however. Beck seems to be getting more religious and end of times, more radical, and more Huey Longish with every passing day.

Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin

Ann Coulter

Coulter is charming, funny, outrageous, and often correct. I find her more grounded than Maddow or Beck. She is outrageous, and says truths that pinpoint exactly who liberals are today. She’s not a demagogue, as she comes close to the truth always, and is entirely sincere. She doesn’t say anything to gain an audience. Is she ever wrong? Yes, as when she opposes unemployment insurance extensions.

Michelle Malkin

Malkin is similar to Coulter in every way. Both are attractive, intelligent, and rigid.

Should we listen to them? Yes. All the time, even if we disagree with them. They are brilliant, funny, charming, entertaining, and all their views touch truth.

Red Meat Radical Screamers with No Charm

Keith Olbermann, Michael Savage, Mark Levin

Keith Olbermann

All three are the screamers, and none of them have any charm. They are unpleasant, hate-filled, and dogmatic. Olbermann is on the far left, and Savage and Levin on the far right.

Michael Savage

Mark Levin

Should we listen to them? Yeah. Force yourself once in awhile to hear them. They do speak truth often, but go so far that they exclude truth from the rest of the spectrum. And, they hate.

Cheerleaders Blinded by Agenda

Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell

Ed Schultz

Lawrence O'Donnell

I find Schultz and O’Donnell insufferable. But the left love them.

They are also guys who hate, but they at least don’t scream all the time. They are totally blinded by their leftist agenda.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity

Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh is the king of talk radio. He is a genius. He is the one who converted me to conservatism. A great and good man. Rush is funny too, and irreverent. But, he is totally blinded by his agenda. Obama is always wrong, and conservatives are always right. I do buy his vision for a conservative America, but I don’t subscribe to his complete rejection of things like unemployment insurance and the social safety net. He goes way too far.

Ditto with Sean Hannity. They are both charming. One of the things I dislike about Sean and Rush is that I can predict every word out of their mouths. They believe the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith will solve all the world’s problems, and that isn’t true. It’s partly true. Lower taxes and charity will help the poor. But charity will not pay the rent for people who are unemployed. They go too far, and are blinded by agenda.

Should we listen to them? Yes, frequently. They are two of the best spokespersons for their point of view. And, they are often correct. Just don’t join their religion, which is pure Darwinian conservatism.

His Agenda is Himself

Dylan Ratigan

I’ve followed Dylan Ratigan for years. He used to be the host of Fast Money. He’s always been a know it all who used to sound conservative when he was among the investment crowd, but has converted to hardcore liberalism now that he has his own show on radically liberal MSNBC. How anyone who knows business can be liberal I can’t imagine.

Should we listen to him? Yeah. He’s bright. He’s got good guests. You can learn some things from him. Just don’t make him your American Idol.

Rational But with a Clear Agenda

Chris Matthews, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Larry Elder

With Matthews on the left, and Prager, Medved, and Elder on the hard but cogent right, all are principled representatives of their viewpoints. All are rational, except for Matthews 40% of the time.

Chris Matthews

Why do I include Matthews then in the rational crowd? Because he can certainly be reasonable, and will surprise you often with his fair opinions. It’s just when he gets off into calling Tea Partiers racists, or saying that it is his job to ensure Obama succeeds that I want to throw rocks at the TV.

Dennis Prager

Prager and Medved are two of the most reasoned talk show hosts in America. I don’t agree with them on some issues, like unemployment insurance, but I do share many of their other views.

Michael Medved

Larry, a black conservative, I absolutely love, and especially that he is charming, funny, fair, and rational. However, he is a Libertarian, and I disagree with this party on many issues. Again, unemployment insurance, and others.

Larry Elder

Should we listen to all these? Absolutely, often. You will learn a great deal, and feel good about humanity.

The Great Communicator

Joe Scarborough is the only honest political talk show host who is able to enter into the worlds of both the left and right, while maintaining a basically consistent personal philosophy. He is far from the late William F. Buckley in intelligence, and even much below Prager and Medved, but he’s fairly smart.

He is a conservative, but is named a RINO by the hard right. For example, he will often bash conservatives for calling Obama a socialist, and so on. So, he thinks being honest is cruel, and politically suicidal.

Joe Scarborough

Obama is a socialist. There, I’ve said it.

Still, of all the talk show hosts, Scarborough can actually understand the need for both the left and the right, which is my position, and which is essential in a functioning America. Too bad we’re a minority in holding that view.

The Battle Goes On

Republicans won the last election for a reason. And, Obama is none too popular now that people have gotten to know his radical leftism and Chicago style politics.

Still, rational progressives do have a point against this Republican House, and especially the new members of congress. They are cruel proponents of survival of the fittest, when they could settle for just being fiscally rational. It’s an old argument that began even as far back as the election of 1800, when Federalist John Adams ran against states’ rights Jefferson. Progressives versus the Tea Party.

Listen to all the talk show hosts. Just know whom it is you’re listening to, and what their strengths and weaknesses are.

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Rock

Technorati Tags for this post: Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck, progressivism, Sara Palin, the Tea Party, Huey Long, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Keith Olbermann, Mark Levin, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dylan Ratigan, Chris Matthews, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Larry Elder, RINO, socialist, Joe Scarborough, Chicago style politics, election of 1800, the Federalist Party, John Adams, states' rights, Thomas Jefferson

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

The Fall of Glenn Beck

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 21:40:00 +0000

The karmic trajectory of Glenn Beck's life ought to be an

A
llegory

for the Republican Party, the Tea Party, and America. We’ll get into this in the conclusion.

The Daily Beast: America’s Ten Worst Demagogues.

Who is Glenn Beck?

Glenn Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American conservative radio and television host, author, entrepreneur, and political commentator. He hosts the Glenn Beck Program, a nationally syndicated talk-radio show that airs throughout the United States on Premiere Radio Networks; and also a cable news show on the Fox News Channel.

Beck has authored six New York Times-bestselling books. He is the founder and CEO of Mercury Radio Arts, a multimedia production company through which he produces content for radio, television, publishing, the stage, and the Internet.

Wikepedia

Mr. Beck has been both an effective communicator who has caused real-world results, and a controversial one who has made many enemies.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

How Others See the Glenn Beck “Transitioning”

New York Times David Carr

Mr. Beck, a conservative Jeremiah and talk-radio phenomenon, burst into television prominence in 2009 by taking the forsaken 5 p.m. slot on Fox News and turning it into a juggernaut.

A conjurer of conspiracies who spotted sedition everywhere he looked, Mr. Beck struck a big chord and ended up on the cover of Time magazine

and The New York Times Magazine, and held rallies all over the country that were mobbed with acolytes. He achieved unheard-of ratings, swamped the competition and at times seemed to threaten the dominion of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity at Fox.

But a funny thing happened on the way from the revolution. Since last August, when he summoned more than 100,000 followers to the Washington mall for the “Restoring Honor” rally, Mr. Beck has lost over a third of his audience on Fox — a greater percentage drop than other hosts at Fox. True, he fell from the great heights of the health care debate in January 2010, but there has been worrisome erosion — more than one million viewers — especially in the younger demographic.

He still has numbers that just about any cable news host would envy and, with about two million viewers a night, outdraws all his competition combined. But the erosion is significant enough that Fox News officials are willing to say — anonymously, of course; they don’t want to be identified as criticizing the talent — that they are looking at the end of his contract in December and contemplating life without Mr. Beck.

David Carr also said, “The problem with “Glenn Beck” is that it has turned into a serial doomsday machine that’s a bummer to watch.”

“He used to be a lot funnier,” said David Von Drehle, who wrote an article in Time magazine.

He was the befuddled everyman and something entirely new, but the longer people have listened to his ranting and raving, the wearier they become. Now you are just getting down to diehards. I mean, how many people were in the Waco compound at the end? A couple of hundred?

Why Fox Dumped Beck

The ratings for the first quarter of 2011 revealed Beck's show had lost close to a third of its audience compared with the same stretch a year ago, when his viewership peaked at 2.78 million. Among advertiser-prized viewers ages 25 to 54, he was down almost 40 percent, and advertisers increasingly were shunning him.

Beck, and Fox for Beck’s time slot, has lost more than 300 advertisers. Below is a compilation of some of these.

Companies Boycotting Beck

Both Liberals and Conservatives Are Happy About the Move

Liberals are gleeful that a far right-wing guy is going down. Conservatives see Beck as giving conservatism, and Fox News, a bad name.

Bill Kristol

Neoconservative columnist Bill Kristol in The Weekly Standard, Feb 14, 2011

Hysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. Hejavascript:void(0)’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

Kristol's words drew an approving nod from National Review’s Rich Lowry, a rare public repudiation of the influential Fox host from a conservative elite that quietly dislikes him.

From calling President Obama racist, then taking back the statement, to the consistent use of Nazi and Holocaust imagery, Beck was upsetting more than just Jewish groups.

Not an American Tragedy

Of course, the “fall” of Glenn Beck isn’t really an American tragedy, as he will have other projects, many of them lucrative. He has sold four million books, has high talk-radio ratings, a successful Web site, The Blaze, and a stage performance that packs ‘em in. His company, Mercury Radio Arts, had more than $30 million in revenue last year.

Beck’s fall is sort of comparable to the “fall” of Katie Couric, who was forced out of the first mainstream media news anchor job for a female over at CBS. She too, will have much power and moneymaking opportunities, so no one should feel sorry for her.

Still, both of them have “fallen.”

The Most Positive Man in America

Of course, I was never entirely happy with Beck. I even thought his Restoring Honor, the best thing he ever did, was a religious revival, when I was expecting something politically uplifting. Still, it’s a free country, and Beck made that choice. It was because of that chosen path, in fact, I think, that he was so popular at that time. He seemed like the most optimistic man in America.

See my earlier post on Beck, when I was more upbeat about him, Beck, Palin, and the Tea Party.

Beck and Palin at Restoring Honor

No more.

My feelings about Beck used to be about 90% positive and 10% negative. My judgment of him has moved from that to about 10% positive now and 90% negative. I even feel he has slid into unethical behaviors.

Let me start with my positive feelings about Beck.

The Good

Beck took the world by storm when the Glenn Beck TV program opened on the Fox News Channel on Jan 19, 2009. It reached the height of its all-time ratings in March of that year, 3,074,000 million viewers, outpacing the total of all his timeslot competitors combined. He was second on Cable News only to Bill O’Reilly, who beat him by only 81,000 viewers. He became a favorite guest on “The O’Reilly Factor,” where Bill’s affection for him was obvious. Fox was proud of him.

He was the king of moneymaking, with books on the New York Times bestsellers lists and projects that always worked.

The pinnacle of his success was the Restoring Honor rally on the steps of the the Lincoln Memorial, on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. He was beloved by millions, and still is.

That Chalkboard

Beck and His Famous Chalkboard

At first, his chalkboard lectures were wondrous, instructive, and useful. He did reveal things that no one in America was talking about. He was very helpful to our nation in pointing out Barrack Obama’s radical, leftist associations. He helped demystify the "Annointed One" mystique about Obama and cut him down to size as a political hack with Chicago thug tactics. All this was in part responsible for both Obama’s lowered ratings and the rise of the Tea Party, who were much in alignment with Glenn Beck’s value system.

Research Par Excellence

He was, and remains, the best researcher in the media. Too bad the mainstream media don’t do this much homework. Beck is infamous for finding 99 degrees of separation. If Barrack Obama had coffee one day with Bill Ayers’s cousin, Beck would find it. Thus, he was able to uncover that indeed Barrack has mostly associated his whole life with radical left-wingers, and made statements on the record affirming his socialist tendencies. We wouldn’t have known all this in the slightest without Beck.

Thank You, Glenn

Like him or not, Glenn has trumpeted several wonderful things. He has sought to elevate family values, religion, patriotism, a return to conservatism, and honoring both America and the “common man.”

He took down radical socialist Van Jones from the Obama Administration, and removed the unethical, criminal, and election frauding Obama ally ACORN from their nefarious activities, among others.

He has also uncovered the associations between far left organizations like Media Matters, and other left-wing sites like The Huffington Post, and unsavory characters like George Soros. Or, as Glenn Beck calls him, “Spooky Dude.”

Modern Liberals

John F. Kennedy

I have long felt that modern liberals have left their dignified roots as exhibited, in my opinion, by FDR, Truman, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. While conservatives might not agree with the policies of these liberal giants, they were decent men, not demagogues, and with America’s interest in mind. Plus, they were sensible. All of them were strong on defense, and pro business.

All this is a far cry from today’s liberals, who have morphed into vicious demagogues without conscience, like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Obama himself more resembles Pelosi and Reid than any of the liberal giants of the past, let alone Abraham Lincoln.

Spot On

Beck was able to paint modern liberals exactly as they are. He showed us their socialist and even communist connections and sentiments. He, along with the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and others, helped conservatives win a majority in the House of Representatives and take back some of the Senate. This started with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts to Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat. An astounding achievement.

And Much More

Beck is also a great entertainer. He started as a DJ, can play characters, complete with a great voice and clowning around.

The Bad

I was among the first conservatives on the Web and on Twitter to start criticizing Beck. I had some arguments with his devotees, and lost some followers myself because of my critiques. I gained some followers too.

At first, my complaints about him were that he was constantly finding conspiracies. He was paranoid, full of doom and gloom, and always afraid, communicating that fear to all of America.

Beck is Accurate, But ...

I never took issue with Beck on what he discovered with his impeccable research. For example, yes there are conspiracies going on all over the world right this very moment. Beck has found several of them. Islamic radicals do want a worldwide caliphate. Unions are connected with communist radicals. Some communist radicals are associated with some radical Islamofascists. Obama has had lifelong associations with domestic terrorists, socialists, and even communists.

Faulty Analysis

What I dispute are Beck’s interpretations of what he finds, and their implications. What he ignores is that there always have been, and always will be conspiracies, people who hate America, those who are plotting America’s downfall, and so on. This began with the Revolutionary War, and will continue as long as America exists.

Reason to Tremble?

Finding conspiracies doesn’t mean that any of these will succeed. It even doesn’t follow that any of them are worth worrying about. We can thank Glenn Beck for making us aware of some of these actual plots. Knowing they exist can afford us the chance to prepare, and to prevent their fruition. But we can curse him for making us afraid. An afraid America creates Depressions, isolationism, hatreds, more fears, and self-destructive behaviors.

Valid Fears and an Open Mind

Some of his fears are valid. Obama does seem to be solely educated by leftist radical family, friends, associates, and schooling. As such, he probably does have a bias against business, a negative view of America, an anti-military feeling, and so on. These are real.

Even here, though, Beck ignores the fact that Obama can learn. Perhaps he’ll never be a centrist, but he has accepted being forced to the middle in his policies. So much so that he now has problems with his radical left base. Remember, Reagan was a fervent Democrat before he became the darling of the conservatives.

The Ugly

Beck has not only flirted with unethical behavior, he eventually became mired in it.

He was locked in to a dark vision of the world, the end times, and the ruination of the United States, its currency, and economy. His main message became, prepare for the coming apocalypse.

While he was actually preaching that money would become useless soon, he was scrambling to increase his earned millions. He would advise listeners to take their money out of the stock market, all the while it was going up. At the same time he was running down America, in a distinctly un-conservative, un-Reagonesque manner, he was peddling everything you need for the catastrophes to come. Gold, food insurance, disaster supplies.

Glenn Peddling Food Insurance

Locked in to his dark view of the world, he was profiting from it. So, he had to outdo himself every day in coming up with something new about which to be afraid.

This is all unethical, and immoral.

The Moral of the Story

Lessons for Beck

For my personal taste, Beck became too religious, too apocalyptic, too much doom and gloom, too opportunistic in peddling disaster products while preaching the end of times, too paranoid, and too empowering of those who really are involved in conspiracies. He is not a conservative, in my view, because conservatives are happy, love their country, and root for it to succeed.

All Beck had to do to keep his kingdom was to shift gears into the persona of a winner. Instead, he reverted to the raving maniac of his alcoholic years. He ends his Fox career, the highest

Huey Long

peak he will ever reach, much like Joe McCarthy, Huey Long, and other demagogues, who stayed locked in their negative paranoia’s.

He has become the political equivalent, in my opinion, of Art Bell’s Coast to Coast, UFO watchers, the John Birch Society, and all the conspiracy theorists who believe such things as Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John F. Kennedy.

UFO?

Lessons for the Rest of Us

The lesson for Republicans, and for the Tea Party, is that Americans might passionately love you today because you have a clear heartfelt message that seems to lead to the Promised Land. But, they expect you to stay reasonable. Beck left the reservation.

Republicans and the Tea Party are misreading their election mandate, and are becoming irrational. Americans did not want them to dismantle the social safety net, support for the arts, and for NPR. They just wanted reasonable spending. Eventually, most Americans will reject radical solutions to our very real problems.

God Bless You Glenn

The Young Beck

You will succeed in other ways, I’m sure. Take care of yourself. We loved you. We wish you well.

Stay away from booze. And, avoid reading the Book of Revelations.

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Rock

Technorati Tags for this post: Republican Party, Glenn Beck, Tea Party, conservatism, Fox News Channel, The O'Reilly Factor, Sean Hannity, Bill Kristol, Robert Welch, the John Birch Society, The Blaze, Katie Couric, the Annointed One, I Have a Dream, Martin Luther King, Jr., Chicago thug tactics, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, ACORN, Media Matters, The Huffington Post, George Soros, FDR, Truman, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Abraham Lincoln, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, Scott Brown, Edward "Ted" Kennedy, caliphate, Islamofascism, Revolutionary War, Reagan, Joe McCarthy, Huey Long, Art Bell, UFO, John Birch Society, JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the Promised Land, the social safety net, NPR

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone, The Truth Zone of Combat

On a Mission From God

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:15:00 +0000

Elwood: "They're not gonna catch us. We're on a mission from God." (Blues Brothers 1980)

For the Good of Our Nation

The United States is in the midst of one of its most tumultuous periods. It’s ironic that baby boomers like me were awash in turmoil during the wild rebellions of the 1960s and 1970s, and now, nearer our grey life’s end, are witnessing another

R
evolutionary period.

The Age of Aquarius, where the flower children crushed a war, broadened the meaning of God, and handed the world the “gifts” of cannabis, LSD, mescaline, peyote, and sacred mushrooms,

Beautiful Flower Child of the 60s

influencing philosophy, art, music, and styles of dress, has transformed into religious traditionalism and the fervor of the Tea Party.

Vietnam was the big thing back then, Elvis and the Beatles, shoulder-length hair and bell-bottoms. Now it’s 9/11, Islamic terrorism, Lady Gaga, the worldwide financial crisis, the Haiti earthquake, the ascendancy of the conservative movement, the Japan earthquake, tsunamis, and nuclear disasters, and the Muslim revolutions. Recently, Japan moved 13 feet closer to America’s West Coast. The 9.0-magnitude earthquake tilted the Earth’s axis by 25 cm, shortening our day by 1.8 millionths of a second. So, we’ll stand a bit cockeyed, and get older faster!

The hardcore right in America is on a mission from God. So are ex-hippies like me.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

Religious Tolerance in America

The U. S. Constitution, Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Religious Evolution

I was born in East Chicago, Indiana, and raised a devout Catholic at St. Thomas Moore grade school, and Bishop Noll high school, all the way up to my second year at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, where I was pre-med and the girls wore miniskirts.

In 1967, I was exposed to the student uprisings at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, lost my faith, and became a full-blown, longhaired progressive, godless and marching. After my flower child days, and during my B.A. in English, M.S. in clinical psychology, and completion of Ph.D. coursework in clinical psychology, I was still agnostic.

My first, Catholic, marriage ended in 1972.

One of the Girls of the IDF

In 1978, I met my wonderful Israeli soldier, Molly, in Los Angeles, and moved to Israel, converting to Judaism to marry her. In Bat Yam and Tel Aviv, I honored all the Jewish traditions, like Passover, but I was not really religious. I worked as a clinical and school psychologist, and then later also as an actor, filmmaker, and singer.

After my second divorce, I became a seeker. I turned to New Age religions, and did things like rebirthing.

The California Years

Dating from 1988, my previous jobs were as a prison psychologist in Wilmington, North Carolina, and then in Los Angeles, California, as a social worker for abused youth in group homes.

Later, I used my science and writing background as Senior Technical Editor for two California defense contractors, writing and editing documents for bids to develop the next James Bond gadgets and secret weapons research.

I then got back into writing and filmmaking, which I do fulltime now, and will return to acting also.

Present Beliefs

I am a firm believer in God, but don’t belong to any one religion. I still hold dear my Catholic beliefs. I am also touched by the Judaism I studied and experienced. And, I am especially partial to New Age, believing that God continues to speak to us, no matter what religion we choose, and that it’s up to us to listen and try and be good human beings, treating each other well, living up to His code, and endeavoring to do His will.

I believe God communicates with me, as He does to all my fellow humans, through the world and what I see. Via the unfolding of nature and the order in the universe. Through science, philosophy, and all manner of studies and endeavors. By what happens to me, and my tragedies and triumphs. And, through religion.

I respect all religious beliefs, and have learned from each. I am only troubled by religious cults and Islam. I do believe we can learn even from the cults, and from Islam, but that they have perverted the meaning of goodness and God.

Islam

Of course, I will assume that millions of Muslims are good people, who are doing noble things with their lives. I will also judge, and have seen, that there are many wonderful things in the Qur'an. However, much like our Old Testament, there are also primitive commandments in the Qur’an that advocate what we’d define nowadays as evil. Like killing babies and chopping off heads.

The Need for Islamic Reformation

The difference is that God “continued to speak” to the Catholics and Christians, and they listened, with the New Testament, the Reformation, and major changes in fundamental precepts. The problem with Islam is that it has no central authority, so that each sect, and even mosque, interprets the Qur’an as they see fit. Plus, the Qur’an has not given birth to a “New Testament,” Reformation, or major changes in precepts. Hence, a significant portion of Muslim clerics continue to lead their people to hatred, bigotry, and unspeakable violence.

These need to be defeated through the social media, or in war, and to undergo a voluntary transformation to whatever is benevolent in the Qur’an, plus openness to the goodness of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and other religions.

Gradual Turn to the Right, Whoa, Adjust Back a Bit

From my radical progressive stance in the 1960s and 1970s, I moved to a politically agnostic period from 1978 to 1988, where I experienced first-hand the Begin Sadat peace era in Israel. I was a member of the Israeli peace movement, שלום עכשיו - Shalom Achshav (Peace Now), but only as a bystander, because some of my good friends were passionate about it.

At the same time, I befriended conservative Israelis, like those in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud Party, and considered their views too. I was pro-settlement.

Bedouin Wedding with Camel Tents

Being halfway famous in Israel, I was also invited to several Arab settlements, and went to such things as a Bedouin marriage, complete with camels and a goat slaughtered on the spot.

Bedouin Bride

These Arabs were wonderfully kind and gracious, without a negative bone in their bodies.

Back in the USA

Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and Rush Limbaugh

Back in the United States, 1988, I finally became political. George H.W. Bush was in office, but I felt something wasn’t right politically. I turned on my radio on my daily drive to work in Santa Monica, CA, as the top fundraiser for Jayne Fonda and Tom Hayden, and got educated,

Fonda and Hayden

by Rush Limbaugh. He made sense. I saw that much of what he said was true, and I was able to experience first-hand the liberal mindset while working for Fonda and Hayden.

For example, they would send us out to raise money on behalf of the topic of the week. It could be helping starving children in Darfur, or battling polluting corporations.

Rush Limbaugh

The only catch, though, I eventually learned, was that the Darfur children and the polluting corporations were only stories. Red meat for liberals. The money went mostly into the Heyden Fonda political organization. Only a few token advertisements ever appeared for the Darfur children or to fight the polluting corporations.

It was a sham. Just like global warming is a liberal sham today.

My Renaissance Boogie

I’ve always been a Renaissance man. I was an honors student at Bishop Noll High School in the 1960s, a prodigy on the saxophone, a four-sport athlete, got my advanced degree and studies in psychology in Indiana, learned to program computers in California, was a Shakespeare specialist and English literature buff, devoured math and science, and explored everything under the sun all my life.

Interestingly, my I.Q. was measured at 117 in high school. Venezuelan psychologists have proven that I.Q. can change, contrary to popular opinion. At the time of the writing of this article, my I.Q. is now measured at over 150, and I am a Mensa member.

My E.Q.

What lagged behind for me were my social skills, relationship capabilities, and judgment, my E.Q. Well, at the age of 64, I can finally say that I am moderately effective even with these. Though I still have weaknesses and quirks, I have managed to settle in with the rest of humanity, and even shown signs of leadership capability.

My Gifts and Goals

I sincerely believe that God has given me a perch somewhat detached in order to see things that are true but unseen by most. It is my job to make sense of these so that others can benefit, and so I can learn from others.

After psychology, science, and broad learning, the area that I have come most to study and in which to participate, is politics. For ten years, I have eaten, breathed, and slept politics, including history and our present political situation.

Expertise

Even with all this study and single-minded focus, I am still not an expert on politics, in the sense of having facts and figures at the tip of my tongue. William F. Buckley and George Will would put me to shame with this. My brain just doesn’t allow me easy access to details. I have to struggle hard for these.

Still, I do have some gifts. Politics is one area where I feel I have a contribution to make. One of the reasons is that my greatest endowment, I believe, is insight. I don’t see many politicos with feet in both camps, and the ability to express and critique both sides. Plus, I plug away tirelessly.

Priorities

One of my priorities is just to be as good as I can to everyone I come across. And honest. Yes, unfortunately, or fortunately, a deep, engulfing purpose of mine is to be honest.

Rush, FOX, Hannity, O'Reilly

Eventually, all these pundit media stars came into prominence, and I, along with millions of Americans got educated and converted to conservatism. We lived through the Gulf War, two Bush presidencies, the Clinton years, 9/11, the financial collapse, and now the Muslim revolutions, all the time exploring liberalism and conservatism. I branched out, though, beyond FOX, and forced myself to continue listening to all sides, including CNN, MSNBC, the mainstream media, and reading everything political I could grab.

Do Our Opinions Matter

One or two of the “kind” people on Twitter occasionally Tweets, “Nobody wants to listen to what you think about anything.” He might be right, to a certain extent.

Breaking through the noise in the world today is a tough task. There are millions of blogs and posts, Tweets, Facebook updates, you name it. Writers for the Huffington Post don’t even get paid for first-class journalism. Hard copy newspapers are going out of business. We have never been so free to express our opinions, and yet have never received so little attention nor compensation for doing it well.

If you say anything definitive on Twitter, someone is going to oppose you, and sometimes angrily, or even with hatred. Just because they disagree with you. Religious intolerance is rampant. Political intolerance is even worse. Freedom of speech? Yeah, it does exist, but not without consequences, good and bad.

Plus, there is the eternal question, if a Twitterer Tweets and no one reads it, did she really Tweet? Hello out there! Is this thing connected?

One Tweeter said this to me when I first started Tweeting, “Twitter is like the high school playground. You have to go through bullying, resistance, and even hatred before you can establish yourself as worthy of acceptance.”

No-name folks like me have to work very hard to build followers.

Charlie Sheen

Charlie Sheen can break records by Tweeting once, then gaining a million followers in days. I have a decent following, much higher than average. Over 8,000 and climbing fast, ranked 35,000 out of 8,000,000 as of yesterday, with a very respectable 66 Klout score, which puts me at the top 4% on Twitter. Still, nowhere near Charlie.

So, is anybody listening? Do our opinions matter, unless we’re celebrities? I think yes, and yes are the answers.

As evidence of this, Google and Twitter can be said to have brought down two Arab tyrants, and helped start the spreading Islamic revolutions and protests we see now. Twitter does matter. What we believe and say counts.

My Role

How important I personally will be, will depend on longevity, perseverance, my relevance, whether I express truth, a good quality of output, luck, and the will of those who read me and watch my films. Plus, God’s plan for me.

I may amount to nothing, and that’s okay too. I feel I have made some difference. I am ready to accept whatever happens.

In the meantime, I’ll try to work diligently to tell the truth. I will also support other people who I believe make their own vital contributions to the national dialogue, like my good friends on Twitter, @inhuggermugger (Hawkeye) and @NeoWesternCiv (Tom), and readers of this blog, and authors of other blogs, articles, and publications.

Priesthood of Political Truth

So, I consider politics as part of my own particular mission from God. Some people are not meant to worry about affairs of state. Good mothers and fathers are busy, so political concerns take a back seat to the struggle to survive and succeed, love their partners, raise healthy, happy, productive children, and have fun with coworkers, friends, and neighbors.

I have one daughter, dear Wendy, who lives in New Jersey, all grown, and am presently single, after my two marriages and dozens of relationships. I am, at the moment, kind of like in a life-imposed priesthood. I have come to realize that my present purpose is to bring to bear all that I have been and learned to help my country in the arenas of politics and entertainment.

The Annointed One

Obama's Inauguration

In 2008, a country weary of divisiveness spied the young and charismatic Obama. This community organizer from out of nowhere seemed decent and intelligent. He charmed the people, embodied in Independents, and gained their usually hard-won trust pronto. He would be giving the U.S. the chance to wipe away our original sin of slavery. He was our great black hope, and would propel us in a direction of change that surely would mean a brighter America. He promised to “reach across the aisle.” That brought cheer to many hearts.

So, we elected Barrack Hussein Obama as our national saint who would bring us salvation.

Even many conservatives, like me, were ecstatic we had elected an African-American, and crossed our fingers that he would indeed succeed. I didn’t vote for him, but I rooted for him to at least heal our wounded psyche. I knew his politics, but I could hope he’d be no more damaging than Clinton.

We were wrong. We were all wrong. Even Obama was wrong. The man with the golden opportunity of truly being the next Lincoln broke his promises to himself, and to the nation.

He was shackled by his roots as a radical, left-wing, Chicago-style political thug. Perhaps we should forgive him for this. After all, that's the only kind of politics he ever knew. His friends were exclusively progressive, and beyond, on into Marxism, anarchism, and unionist cronyism.

He demonized conservatives, and Republicans. He offended allies, like Israel. He apologized for America across the globe. He played the race card. He dragged in, against the nation's will, a radical, far-left agenda, like Obamacare, and continued the reckless spending of George W. Bush, only this time a thousand times more, exponentially increasing the size of government, and payouts to union bosses, and political pals.

His base, the political left, led by Pelosi, Reid, Media Matters, MoveOn.org, and Keith Olbermann, were also disappointed. He wasn’t progressive enough.

In short, he failed miserably to unite the nation.

The Fall and Rise? Of Obama

The American people slowly discovered they didn’t like the drastic changes Obama, and Pelosi and friends, were bringing, and felt that these were harming the nation. They recoiled. The right pushed back, and the nation supported them, to move us in the other direction.

In 2010, in the middle of the public’s horror at Obama’s politics, and the realization of where the nation was headed with liberals, we needed the Tea Party, and a swing to the right. The people were by then reacting to the out of control spending, which they saw as leading to the financial meltdown. Americans recognized that the left had turned into a vicious hate group, echoed by Obama, demonizing everything conservative, like George W. Bush. U.S. citizens, embodied by the Independents, threw the bums out.

Eventually, all this led or would lead to the ouster of Pelosi as Speaker of the House, the near defeat of Senate Majority Leader Reid, a threatened halt to Obamacare, spending cuts, and the firing of MSNBC anchorman Keith Olbermann.

After these dramatic Democratic Party defeats, and the apparent groundwork laid for the future loss of the Senate too, Obama’s political tin ear perked up. He heard America’s displeasure. He shifted to the center. It was not like Bill Clinton, though, who himself had made a genuine move to the center when he was in political danger. Obama’s shift was a pretense. He even let it be known that he was being forced to the center. The center swerve angered the far left, but it did gain Obama Independent support, and his poll numbers rose.

This Feels Better

Now, with Obama more in the center, and the Republicans pushing from the right, our country is in a better circumstance than when both houses were Democratically controlled. Up to a point.

We Need Both Wings

I’ve said this repeatedly. We need both the left and right wings, progressives and conservatives. The balance and struggle between the two is what makes America great. Both contribute to our whole. Truth, in my opinion, is not owned by either side. Both sides have it, and both sides lie.

Truth also swings. Sometimes, the liberals are more relevant. Other times, conservatives are more essential for our nation’s needs.

Presently, the American people have said that conservatives own the high ground.

Abandoning Their Political Roots

The problem for liberals is that they have left their roots. They are far from FDR, Truman, and JFK. Pelosi, in my opinion, is unethical in every word she speaks. JFK was a great man.

Conservatives have left their roots, too. In 2011, they are far from Goldwater and Nixon, and even Reagan. They worship Reagan but have abandoned his loving, good-natured tone. Hardcore right-wingers wouldn’t be caught dead drinking with the likes of Tip O’Neill, as Reagan used to do.

Twitter is full of hate, on both sides. Passion is one thing, but loathing can crowd out rationality.

What Lies Ahead

Sorry, my dear conservative friends, but I have to say something painful for you to hear. It is likely now that Obama will be re-elected, no matter whom the Republicans put up. Barrack has moved sufficiently to the center, regardless of his Maoist inner self, to satisfy the masses. And, the economy should pick up enough by 2012 for him to win. However, it is also likely that the Republicans will take control of the Senate.

Unfortunately, though, for Republicans and conservatives, their congressional reign is likely to be short-lived after that. As most political parties do, they’ve misread their “mandate,” from the 2010 elections, and are trying to push through drastic spending cuts too early, which will harm the nation’s economy. They are also focusing on social issues that divide the nation.

The Tea Party will remain strong for years, or even decades, as their principles are important to our nation. But, the exaggerated and singular focus on their issues is insufficient to maintain excellence in America, so their power too will eventually wane.

We will have divided government for a while, with Barrack as president and both houses Republican, which is just fine with most Americans, and probably a good thing for the country. Americans prefer a divided government, and with good reason. It will protect the nation from the cruelty of the Republican freshmen, and from the socialism of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the Rachel Maddow’s of the world.

Our Task as Americans

All this is happening post 9/11, in the midst of financial meltdown, the Japanese earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disasters, and with worldwide political turmoil and Muslim revolution. We need transformative leaders, brave and insightful. Since Obama is not this great leader, at least not yet, we need the American people to rise to their potential. We ourselves must be the transformation.

As Obama said, arrogantly and prematurely, “We are the change we have been waiting for,” we actually need to enact this. We must educate ourselves on the issues, develop sound judgment, and display courage in our decision-making and actions. We are a mature democratic republic. We had a wonderful start, with Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Lincoln, and the rest. But the world is in peril, and at a crossroads between danger and opportunity. We have work to do.

We are on a mission from God.

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Rock

Technorati Tags for this post: Blues Brothers, baby boomers, Age of Aquarious, flower children Tea Party, bell-bottoms, Vietnam, Elvis Beatles, Haiti earthquake tsunamies, nuclear disasters, Muslim revolutions, Japan earthquake, Japan tsunami, Japan nuclear disaster hippies, First Amendment, IDF, Judaism Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity Passover, psychologist, New Age, rebirthing, Tel Aviv, Los Angeles, North Carolina, Los Angeles, Qur’an, Old Testament, rebirthing, New Testament, Reformation, progressive, conservative, liberal, Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, Shalom Achsav, Benjamin Neanyahu, Likud, Bedouin, liberal, Bedouin Wedding, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Rush Limbaugh, I.Q., E.Q., liberal, politics, William F. Buckley, George Will, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, liberal, mainstream media, Twitter, Tweet, Charlie Sheen, Barrack Obama, Obamacare, Chicago-style politics, George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Media Matters, MoveOn.org, Keith Olbermann, left wing, right wing, FDR, Truman, JFK, Nicon, Goldwater, Reagan, Tip O’Neill, Rachel Maddow, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Lincoln

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone, The Truth Zone of Combat

Revisiting Jared Loughner and Why We Loved “Lost”

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:39:00 +0000

In real life, we might be involved in family settings, circles of friends, and political communities, clubs, and so on. Also, of course, we belong to our workplace network. None of this, though, is as perfect as the make-believe worlds we experience on “Lost” and “Survivor.”

You Can Leave a Comment Here

Tribes and Heroes

On these shows, we return to our tribal instincts and become or empathize with ordinary people who can redefine themselves into the heroes they always wanted to be. Even the worst

M
isfits

like Sawyer in “Lost,” can become leaders and even good people if they choose. They all matter. Their efforts have consequences.

Reality

Contrast this with a life spent with boring or hideous relatives, bosses who are dictators, and clubs that never elect us as president. Where our efforts go unnoticed and unappreciated. Where our lives can seem meaningless.

Lost Souls

Harsh reality is what partially leads to lost souls like Jared Loughner. Whereas in “real life,” Hurley in “Lost” was most at home in a mental institution . . . on the Island, he was quirky but courageous, and he was loved and appreciated by his fellow islanders. He did heroic things. He was his own best self.

Hurley

Loughner of course also wanted to be a hero in life. He probably still thinks he was brave for slaughtering people and maiming Congressperson Gabrielle Giffords. John Wilkes Booth also imagined himself as a hero. Unfortunately, unlike even Booth, Loughner’s brain cells are fried, and so he never possessed the skills necessary to be a hero anywhere, not even on the “Lost” Island. Like the characters on “Lost,” he was deeply flawed, and his judgment always clouded. Unlike them, however, he didn’t have a chance of functioning anywhere.

Similar to all of us, Loughner deeply cared about succeeding, about being loved and respected. But he knew he could never achieve these. So, he committed the grave sin of rebelling against the universe and giving in to the foulest darkness. He could destroy those who had it better. He would at least get noticed. People would speak his name. Hence, the smirk.

Jared Loughner

He got what he wanted.

Perversion

It was an evil “triumph,” though. He will be hated and derided forever now, though he’ll get plenty of the attention he craved. That fifteen seconds of notoriety was the best he could have achieved in life, he imagined. But, was it?

The Choice

No. There was an alternative, even for Jared. He could have suffered in silence, eschewing the limelight in favor of leading an undignified life, but with grace. He could have loved his fellow human beings despite the fact that they didn’t reciprocate. This is what the characters on “Lost” did. In contrast to reality, however, the “Lost” characters did get rewarded, in many ways, for their good deeds. Karma manifested eventually, if only through the smile of a pretty girl. In real life, heroes go unnoticed all the time.

The other Jared Loughner’s of the world who do bravely accept their fate, choosing not to harm anyone, are treated like dirt. Some of them are victims of Asperger’s Syndrome. Others have thought disorders. What they have in common is that people reject them. They are ostracized at work. Family and friends won’t talk to them. They never get the girl. They fail economically. Nonetheless, many of these choose to accept their existence, and still send out only good vibes—which are universally misinterpreted.

Condemnation and Praise

So, I condemn Jared Loughner, who should have treated his fellow human beings with love and respect, no matter what. But I salute all you potential Jared Loughner’s who choose not to go down that assassin path. You are real heroes. I am sorry that human beings are not advanced enough yet to recognize the goodness of your simply resisting evil, but I do trust that God or the universe sees you. I believe in karma, even though it is much slower appearing than in shows like “Lost.”

Utopias

For the rest of us, all misfits in our own ways, I still hope that society can build something akin to a “Lost” or “Survivor” situation for us. That is what the kibbutz movement has been all about in Israel. It is what the encounter movement was in the ‘70s, the Age of Aquarius, and the utopian societies of communes.

Unfortunately, these movements went awry, due to human nature. They led to Charles Manson

and Jim Jones, the anti-feminism of Hare Krishna, and so on. Somehow, we can never make living together as idyllic as “Lost.” And you know how un-idyllic even “Lost” was. It was a living nightmare, a purgatory. Yet, on the Island, there was love, heroism, community, and people rising up to their capabilities.

Survival of the Fittest or the Golden Rule?

The conservative in me does want survival of the fittest. This is good for the species. The progressive in me, though, desires our world to help afford all good people the chance to be heroes, even in small ways. I want the silent, long-suffering potential Jared Loughner’s to be applauded and given some things they can do in life that will gain them acceptance into society, enable them to make a positive difference, teach them that they matter, and give them recognition.

For “normal” people, I urge you not to ostracize individuals in your society or company who are “strange.” Use your judgment, of course. But most of these folks are far from dangerous, and they have social needs, just like you. Even the Jared Loughner’s of the world, who are dangerous, would be much less explosive if they had a social network of support. Rejecting people just because they are different or confused, will at the very least cause suffering. At most, it can make the vulnerable among them truly dangerous.

We tend to pawn these people off with “they need treatment.” I’ve got news for you (as a former psychologist), treatment might help, but ordinary human kindness is much more powerful. Back to the Golden Rule.

Fry the Bastard

What about Jared Loughner himself? While I might sympathize with his having suffered a lousy life, and gotten a raw deal, he is still an evil man. What he did was horrid. He ought to be executed. Despite his twisted thinking, and social ostracism, I believe he still had a choice.

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Rock

Technorati Tags for this post: Lost, Jared Loughner, Survivor, Gabrielle Giffords, John Wilkes Booth,Asperger’s Syndrome, thought disorder, kibbutz, encounter group, Age of Aquarius, utopia, commune, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Hare Krishna, the Golden Rule

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone, The Truth Zone of Combat

The Definitive Article on Global Warming

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:42:00 +0000

does not exist. This will be one of the major points I make. There has not been, and never will be, a definitive article on global warming, or climate change. I’ll try to address this with logic, and science.

I do believe that humans have some effect on climate, but that the extent of this is un-measurable at present. My bias is that other factors, such as

S
unspots

(see the peer reviewed Solar Cycles Causing Global Warming) have a greater effect.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

My Credentials

I completed all my pre-med, attained an M.S. in Clinical Psychology, plus all the coursework for my Ph.D. in that field. I have an extensive scientific and research background, along with higher math, including statistics. I am not paid by any industry for my opinions on this topic.

When someone claims “the end of the Earth is near” and demands tens of trillions of dollars to correct it, people should be a lot more skeptical than they have been.

A.J. Strata

My first argument is logic.

The Earth has had Warmer Periods

than we are experiencing now, before the evil humans walked upon this planet. 1000 years ago the Earth was much warmer than it is today. Guess what? There was no industry then, no cars, and … polar bears survived that period! It is even debatable whether or not the Earth is warming now. Records indicate that Earth’s temperature has not been rising since 1995.

Correlation between CO2 and Rising Temperature

Second, scientists have proven some sort of correlation between an elevation in CO2 with a rise in temperature. But what they have not proven is causation. In fact, CO2 levels rise only after temperature increases. CO2 could be increasing as a result of many factors, even the higher temperatures. A rising temperature, caused perhaps by sunspot activity,

might affect the Earth’s capability to handle CO2. The assumption of a greenhouse effect is still a theory. It is not a fact. See here for how complex the subject is.

The Coming Ice Age

Third, the Earth periodically has global warming followed by ice ages. Climate always changes! Saying global warming is causing climate change, or even climate disruption, means global warming is having no effect on climate, since the climate would be changing anyway. For example, the number of hurricanes and their ferocity goes up and down and up and down, throughout Earth’s history. Some scientists think we may be entering an ice age right now. See New Ice Age Predicted -- But Averted by Global Warming? We won’t feel it for a while, but it will come. If this is true, then global warming will save the Earth, not harm it! We should pray for global warming, then, as an ice age will be much more cruel on life than global warming.

Global Warming as a Good Thing

Global warming over the last 15,000 years has changed our world from an icebox to a garden. Today extreme deserts and glaciers have largely given way to grasslands, woodlands, and forests.

Global Warming:  A Chilling Perspective

Fourth, why is global warming necessarily a bad thing? Let’s say it’s true to the extent that the alarmists predict. So, sea levels will rise, polar bears will be harmed,

and some islanders will lose their homes. Humans will survive. Some species will actually be happier, like fish. We are so self-centered that we think the universe revolves around us. Global warming can’t “destroy” the Earth. It can only be a factor in the natural ebb and flow that’s been going on for eons. Ice age, global warming. Lower sea levels, higher sea levels. The Earth has seen it all before.

See See Global Warming: a Boon to Humans and Other Animals, by Thomas Gale Moore

Contrary to the doom and gloom scenarios that environmentalists propound, both evidence and theory suggest that global warming would in general be beneficial. Simple logic indicates that most of modern humankind's activities would be unaffected by a warming of five to nine degrees Fahrenheit. Agriculture and some services might actually benefit.

Moreover, past history shows two periods that were significantly warmer than today, and during both eras mankind flourished. The first epoch, which has been dubbed by climatologists the "climatic optimum," brought temperatures that were as warm as the median prediction for the next century. During this period, Homo sapiens shifted from surviving in small tribes through hunting and gathering to settled farming communities and from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. During the second warming, the "little climate optimum," Europe enjoyed the High Middle Ages and went on one of the largest building sprees ever recorded.

Is CO2 a Pollutant?

I will concede one point. It is logical to me that spewing pollutants into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing. So, I’m happy the air quality in the U.S. is much better than it was when I was a child near Chicago, and my father would drive us along the highways passing paint factories, and I couldn’t see through the acid smog or hardly breathe.

Yet, I’m not willing to concede that CO2 is a pollutant. It is a natural product. Plants love it, in fact thrive on it. And I’m not convinced the Earth can’t take care of it. For example, plant life will thrive at higher CO2 levels, and grow larger, more widespread, and greener, spewing out more oxygen. As stated in Popular Technology

CO2 is not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis.

How Scientific Knowledge is Developed

My biggest complaint about the global warming alarmists, including scientists, is that they ought to know better. Science, including that on global warming, is based on theory. Scientists must try and prove their theories, over and over, and keep adjusting them when new data becomes available. Nothing is ever “decided.” We keep learning and discovering new things, even about reality, new dimensions, E=MC2, everything.

Copernicus said the Earth revolves around the Sun, but all the scientists of his day disagreed with him. Physicians went on TV when I was a child and said that cigarettes were good for your health.

All the scientists in the Middle Ages recommended bleeding patients with leeches to cure them of the plague, which led to their patients’ deaths. The majority of scientists some years ago said that coffee was bad for your health. Now, there’s a sizeable group that say that coffee is good for you. This goes on and on.

There is nothing definitive in science. They can’t even explain gravity yet.

Meteorologists have trouble predicting tomorrow’s weather.

And you’re going to entrust these same people with predicting climate, based on mathematical models? Mathematical models of this magnitude are notoriously unreliable.

Why did we have global warming before industrialization? Why, then, did we have ice ages? What caused them?

Unanswered Questions

These are unanswered questions, even to this day. Global warming can be measured. If it’s happening, it’s happening. Anecdotal reports, though, are useless. And, beyond this, predicting the course of global warming, or climate change, is a science in its infancy. Determining “the cause” of climate change is also quite complex. This is not one plus one equals two. Everything is a guess. If a single part of one of those mile-long formulas is off, the whole prediction goes out the window.

The Hoax of Global Warming

There are tons of articles on the ruse of global warming, including this site, Global Warming Hoax, which has a moving scroll of hundreds of articles written that either show global warming is not happening, including climate change, or that it is not caused by humans primarily. Also see these enlightening videos, Global Warming Hoax, and The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Who Benefits Financially from the Global Warming Hysteria?

The whole green industry. Liberals. The Democratic Party. Al Gore. All liberal and political environmental groups. Independent films promoting global warming hysteria, regardless of the facts. Scientists trying to get grants to prove global warming or develop green technology. And political action groups seeking money for green candidates.

Raising Money for Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda

I know. I used to be a fundraiser for Tom Hayden and Jayne Fonda. Like all these bogus fund-raising organizations, the leaders (Tom and Jayne) gave us the cause we’d be “working” that week. One week it would be environmentalism. Would the money go to cleaning the environment, or promoting green laws? No. The cash went straight into a general fund that Tom and Jayne would use for whatever they wanted, political or personal. Some of the money, of course, went to paying salaries for us workers, and for Tom and Jayne’s political needs, and for ads to frighten people into believing the sky was falling.

Other Benefits for Believers in Global Warming

How else do liberals benefit from the global warming scam? They get to feel like the good guys. They are doing something positive for the world, while the nasty global warming deniers are destroying the Earth.

As a conservative, I feel good by promoting the truth. If I find one day that global warming is real, I’ll say so. And if I discover that humankind is causing it, I’ll write that. Until then, I’ll assert this. If global warming exists, or climate disruption, I believe factors other than humans are the more important ones.

How Can You Recognize a Scam?

Personally, I believe global warming at present is a genuine scam. The day when I start hearing evidence on both sides of the issue, then I’ll know that the global warming advocates are at least allowing debate on the topic. This is not happening. Anyone who believes global warming does not exist, or that it is not man made, is hounded into silence. This is not science. And as long as global warming is treated as a religion rather than a scientific question, it will not pass the smell test with me.

Global Warming as Religion

My personal theory is that many liberals are anti-religion (which I don’t mind), but are not being honest with themselves. Global warming, Gaia, and green are their religion instead. They worship the Earth, animals, flowers, plants, and trees, and no amount of evidence will ever convince them of anything that is against their gods, like Al Gore; or against their bibles, like the hysterical global warming literature and films.

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Rock

Technorati Tags for this post: global warming, solar cycles, sunspots, CO2, ice age, pollutant, Copernicus, meteorologists, global warming hoax, green industry, green jobs, liberals, political action groups, Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, environmentalism

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone, The Truth Zone of Combat

The World’s Problem with Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:07:00 +0000

We continue to be tested by our relationship with Islam. We are not the only country that faces this problem. Since 9/11, Muslims, in the name of Allah, have carried out 16,003 deadly terrorist attacks. Last month alone there were 196 Jihad attacks worldwide in 23 countries, resulting in 811 dead and 1602 critically injured. This is what liberals and “moderate” Muslims call the Religion of Peace.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

Disclaimer

I realize there are millions of good, kindhearted Muslims in the world and the United States, who are patriotic, wonderful citizens, and care deeply for their fellow man. I salute them. This article is not an indictment of them. Rather, it is a frank examination of the infrastructure of modern Islam and its effect not only on the world, but on these good Muslims who do not condone the violence of their radical brethern. Tiptoeing around the subject does no one any good. We all must face the truth.

The Qur’an and the Old Testament

Violence in Holy Books

It is true that one can find peaceful admonitions in the Qur’an, such as the taking of one innocent life is like taking all of Mankind... and the saving of one life is like saving all of Mankind. Qur'an (5:33)

But there are many more of this aggressive kind of saying, I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. Qur’an (8:12)

Yes, the Christian Old Testament contains similar violent passages, but there remains some crucial differences.

Christian versus Muslim Violence

Whereas Christianity has had its murderous eras, all its sects have somehow arrived at peaceful postures with the world. As a result, this year’s Ramadan 2010 scorecard shows 226 terror attacks by Muslims, resulting in 1028 dead bodies, as opposed to those by all the other religions—1 terror attack, resulting in 1 dead body. There is no comparison.

Reformation

Most of the major religions went through violent phases. Catholicism murdered via the Crusades to defeat Islam, conducted the Inquisition to torture and kill non-believers, burned witches, and so on. Then, however, the Catholic Church had its Reformation, after the brave rebellion by Martin Luther, and slowly transformed into its modern peaceful, more tolerant iteration.

The problem for the modern world is that Islam has not had a Reformation. It also lacks a central controlling body that could effect one. The only control on interpretation of the Qur'an is at the local level. Islam’s leaders are free to read the Qur’an as they please. What you are left with, then, are several Islams, some “moderate,” and others extreme. It depends on how they interpret the Qur’an. One mosque will be peace-loving and full of wonderful human beings, and another will be boiling with hatred of the infidels.

Rejoicing at 9/11, and Pastor Terry Jones

While many representatives of “moderate” Islam flood our airwaves proclaiming Islam as peaceful and goodhearted, their assertions are belied by internal polling of Muslims, and also by the sheer number of protests across the world in the name of violence for Allah.

The Free Egyptians conducted opinion polls of Muslims soon after 9/11.

To measure the reaction of the educated Egyptian-Muslim middle-class to 9/11, the Free Egyptians conducted opinion polls on a sample thereof on 9/11 and during the ensuing days when an atmosphere of euphoria and rejoicing took control of and overwhelmed the Muslim street.

91% of these Egyptians said they supported and rejoiced over the attacks of 9/11. See here for the other, similar, results.

I’ll show just one of the hundreds of photos of Muslims cheering 9/11 all over the world. They were happy that innocent people had been slaughtered in the name of Allah.

This mob-like mentality is evidenced recently by Muslims calling for death because Florida Pastor Terry Jones was going to burn the Qur’an.

Afghans protesting the proposed Qur'an burning

History of Islam

Just as with Israel and Palestine, I cannot do justice to the history of Islam in a post. Instead, refer to here and here for primers.

Let me say this. By necessity, Islam was born of war. This was not Muhammed’s fault, as it was a demand of the times. Everyone was at war, and battling for existence and for their gods.

The problem is that Islam remains the most CONSERVATIVE of religions, stuck in a time warp, still existing in the battles of its founder.

Israel and Palestine, a Related But Separate Issue

My Middle East Experience

Good People

I lived in the Middle East for ten years. I personally knew both Israelis and Arabs, who were Jews, Christians, and Muslims. I had friends among all these, attended ceremonies, even a Bedouin wedding on camels, and heard their expressed political views.

Bedouin Wedding with Camels

Regarding the individuals I knew, I had a positive feeling about each. In their lives, they held the same aspirations as all of us. They wanted family above all, good friends, fun, a prosperous business life, and peace.

Hatred

Yet, I was also witness to feelings of hatred. I was in Israel during the beginnings of the first Intifada in 1987, where Arabs began by lining the streets to throw stones at passing busses, and which evolved into such things as the murder of sleeping children in Kibbutzim.

The Modern State of Israel

The Jews have a history on the land presently known as Israel dating from 1400 BCE. For an outline of Jewish history, see here.

In the 1940s Jews faced anti-Semitism, pogroms, and finally the Holocaust in Germany. In response to the existential threat to a whole people, on November 29, 1947 the United Nations divided Palestine into two states: one Jewish and the other Arab. The U.N. thus created the modern state of Israel, carving out a tiny piece of land for the Jews.

Israel’s Wars

Despite Jews having lived in the Palestine area for thousands of years, and enjoying kingdoms that came and went in that piece of land, the Arab Palestinians felt that the whole area was theirs, reflecting their centuries old animosity and blood-letting with this other tribe. The Jewish leadership accepted the United Nations’ decision, but the Arabs opposed it and started attacking Jewish settlements from the day of Israel’s conception, initiating the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Israel smashed the Arab invaders.

One Arab state or another continues to attack Israel until today, to no avail. Israel’s wars include: the 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Sinai War, the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1967 to 1970 War of Attrition, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the 1982 Lebanon War, and the 2006 Lebanon War.

War has been a constant companion to Israeli life, and the Israelis have always won. Of course, now they face an existential threat, with the attainment of nuclear weapons by Iran, and the super-arming of Hezbollah.

Palestinian Israeli Wars

The essence is that Palestinians have been fighting Israelis for control over this tiny piece of land for centuries. The Israelis have the upper hand at the moment, but that could change. The Palestinians are a “democracy,” and have chosen Hamas as their leaders. Hamas has decided that Israel has no right to exist, and continues to terrorize Israel’s inhabitants.

Israel responds, to save its existence and the lives of its children, and is near universally condemned for it.

The Conundrum

Palestine

History of Palestine

See an outline of the history of Palestine 1948 to present.

Refugees

As a result of the failed pan-Arab attempt to annihilate Israel in 1948, 300,000 Palestinians abandoned their homes and fled the territory. They dispersed in a diaspora into Jordan, Gaza, and other Arab territories, longing to return to their land, and this is the nut of the problem that continues until today.

Unfortunately, they are not satisfied with just Return. They also want the complete abrogation of Israel, or it’s annihilation, and they work for these actively, and support terrorism to attain them. And, of course, because the 300,000 have now become 10,000,000 … any such Return would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The eternal conundrum.

Palestinian Violence

The level of hatred has only grown over the years until it has reached the present day expression in continual warfare, attacks on Israeli civilians, and suicide bombings against Israelis. The saying in Israel is that peace will come when the Palestinians learn to love their own children more than they hate Israelis.

Attempts at Peace

The reasons for continued war in Israel and Palestine are numerous and intractable. Every U.S. president, including now Barrack Obama, tries very hard to solve the problem. Jimmy Carter is due credit for the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. For this, he did diserve the Nobel Peace Prize. He also earns homage for his wonderful Habitat for Humanity. To the contrary, he has been nothing but unhelpful to the world on a range of other issues, including his undermining of peace in the Middle East now by his obvious enmity towards Israel.

One can only wish Obama well in the latest quest for peace there.

Israel as an Excuse for Hatred and Terrorism

The unfortunate thing is, present day Islam uses the continuing Israeli conflict as its excuse for hatred and violence, not only against Israelis, but also against the U.S. and the West. The rationale is that as long as the U.S. and the West support the “murderous” Israelis, Islam will be at war with them too. Israel, they openly claim, has no right to exist, and will be driven into the sea.

The West’s excuses for villainizing Israel are that they conduct an Apartheid, and that they murder innocent Palestinians. The truth is that every attempt by Israel to loosen its control over Gaza and other Palestinian territories results in an increase in terrorist attacks. Why? Because the Palestinians don’t want just the freedom to form their own state. They also want the annihilation of Israel.

As far as murdering innocent Palestinians, there is no more careful country than Israel in trying to avoid collateral damage. The Palestinians, like Muslims in other parts of the world, though, have learned the tactic of preying on weak Western sentimentality, by embedding terrorists in the midst of civilians and using them as shields. Israel is not wrong in defending itself as it does. It defends itself this way or it dies.

And second, using Israel as an excuse for hatred and violence is bogus. The facts more convincingly state that Israel is the peacemaker in the region, and its enemies are the opponents of peace there.

The Real Goals

Moreover, the Arabs and Muslims are deluding themselves, and certainly the world. Let’s assume the annihilation of Israel, the goal of many if not most of the Arab/Muslim states. This is certainly a reasonable aspiration now that Iran is going nuclear. If Israel no longer existed, and if the Arabs and Muslims no longer had the excuse of it as their motivation for inflicting terror on the world, would the terror stop?

The answer is No. Why? Because the defeat of Israel is only a minor stepping stone in their overall plan. Israel is the diversion that the Arab states use to take the minds of their subjects off their ineffective, powerless existences. The real and larger goal is the conquering of infidels worldwide, and the establishment of a universal caliphate, ruled by Sharia law, according to the hard-line edicts in the Qur’an.

Modern Arab Civilization

Despite having great oil wealth, the modern Arab states have not advanced their civilizations much in their territories, and never in modern times have approached the level of culture they once had achieved. Instead, they have created kingdoms and dictatorships that survive by fixating hatred on enemies, chief among them Israel and the West, including the United States.

Arab Contributions to the World

It is not so much a lack of money, or even schooling—witness the high level of education of the Palestinians—but rather a lack of self-actualization that keeps many Arab countries from fulfilling their promise. Too many contribute little to the world except hatred. The one thing many of the haters have become experts at, is terrorism.

Clash of Cultures

The big problem between the Western cultures and Islam is Christina Aguilera,

Christina Aguilera

and Madonna, and Shakira, etc. It is the way of life, and who controls whom.

Western cultures allow freedom for individuals to the extent that families are weakened, there are no tribes or clans, religion is peripheral, and sexuality runs rampant, to the point of Roman excessiveness. The Arab, Muslim world runs by a strict patriarchy where control and the law is entirely in the hands of its men, and where violations are punished by communal strictures on up to public stonings. The population as a whole is controlled by Islam itself, joining the people together in common rituals and beliefs, and with a common enemy, the infidel. The men, and women, in these cultures love it the way it is; so much so, that they are willing to die for it.

I actually can understand their point of view. It is not so much different than the strict Catholic, Mormon, or Amish yearnings. In all these, the family is sacrosanct, religion is primary, God is above all, and the Word of God is sacred. And, sexuality is kept tightly controlled. All these are in a continual fight with Western civilization, as in the battle against unstoppable Internet porn that, they feel, weakens the family, the marriage bond, the purity of their females, and the cohesion of the tribe (community).

The major difference is that Islam so much wants its vision of family, society, and religion that it is not just willing to die for it, but to kill for it. And, it is not just willing to murder its outright enemies and attackers, but also innocents. After all, anyone who is an infidel, they believe, is not innocent at all. They are guilty of the heinous crime of not believing.

Conclusion

Religion of Peace, Reformation, and Staying On Guard

Liberals want to forget all this, and tilt at windmills, saying that most Muslims are moderates and only want peace. One can hope so, but the evidence is contrary. Perhaps by pretending that Islam is peaceful, liberals hope to cajole them into a more noble state. If so, I am all for it.

But at the same time, Islam needs to be confronted and forced into a Reformation. And the world needs to be on guard against them until they do reform.

Reformation would necessarily include creating a central authority that could effect changes. This might require an Islamic Martin Luther, who is brave enough to face death and ostracism, and who could unite a large number of followers. Or, it would demand at least a growing change within the religion from the ground up to reject medieval thinking and practices.

The crucial question is, can Muslims as a whole adjust their religion to a point where they retain their personal and societal aspirations, but abandon imposing them on the world, and give up coercion and violence as a means of attaining them?

What to Do

The Reformation of Islam can only occur inside Islam. However, it might only happen if the West projects a positive vision of its own society and families. Plus, the West must confront Islam with what is not tolerated from any religion. For example, when confronting other religions in the past, we made it clear we won’t permit cannibalism anymore, regardless of which religion promotes it.

I don’t think we can demand of Islam that they abandon their vision of family and control of men over women, and so on. If women attain more independence within Islam, this must be an internal battle or evolution, like what we had. Our changes came from organizations and movements like suffrage and feminism. We can try to convince them we are right, but we can’t force them to listen on these issues.

End the Slaughter of Innocents

What the West can demand, however, is an end to the slaughter of innocents. No more planting bombs in nurseries, or nightclubs.

And, by the way, we can strongly suggest and pressure Islam to grow up and move the Park 51 Mosque away from Ground Zero.

Your Comments are Welcome Here

and please also go to The Truth Zone of Combat to debate the the world's problem with Islam, or contribute by writing an article.

Rock

Technorati Tags for this post: Religion of Peace, Qur'an, Old Testament, Christianity, Catholicism, Crusades, infidels, Inquisition, witches, Reformation, Martin Luther, mosque, Pastor Terry Jones, Allah, Intifada, pogroms, Holocaust, Palestine, Hamas, Law of Return, Barrack Obama, Jimmy Carter, Habitat for Humanity, Apartheid, caliphate, Sharia, Christina Aguilera, Madonna, Shakira, Mormon, suffrage, feminism, Park 51, Ground Zero

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone, The Truth Zone of Combat

Beck, Palin, and the Tea Party

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:55:00 +0000

Beck and Palin Restoring Honor

Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party are intertwined by the audiences they attract and the frustrations they address. Though their publics are not identical, there is some overlap. And for the frustrations they experience, there is some intersect regarding solutions.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

Congratulations to Glenn

on his August 28, 2010 rally, Restoring Honor, at the Lincoln Memorial. Whether you approve or not, it was a magnificent gathering of upwards of 300,000 positive people. See my Twitter assessment of the event.

Restoring Honor 8/28/10

Prophet and Mad Man

One day, I can watch or listen to Beck and know that he has pierced through the truth of America so accurately that I understand why this guy has a cult following. The next day, I hear a maniac trying to drag me down into his darkness. I am led to contemplate the end of civilization and the need for canning my beefsteak tomatoes ahead of the apocalypse.

Even on those ugly days, though, he still makes some sense, as you realize America really is on the brink of ruination. And, yes, Obama actually is the worst president in history.

Still, Glenn Beck will be paranoid twenty years from now too, no matter what president is in charge … regardless of how good or bad the country is doing. He’ll be whispering or screaming at you to hoard gold and buy water purifiers for the coming end of times. He’ll be uncovering conspiracies in government forever, with his infamous interconnections on his chalkboard.

Glenn Beck and his Chalkboard

(Here is the
Beck conspiracy generator.)

Howard Beale

Beck compares himself with Howard Beale. Beale is a fictional character from the movie Network (1976), played by Peter Finch , who won a posthumous Oscar for best actor in the role. In his famous speech, Beale said:

Peter Finch as Howard Beale

I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth; banks are going bust; shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter; punks are running wild in the street, and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it.

We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat. And we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be!

We all know things are bad -- worse than bad -- they're crazy.

It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out any more. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, "Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone."

Well, I'm not going to leave you alone.

I want you to get mad!

I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot. I don't want you to write to your Congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street.
All I know is that first, you've got to get mad.

You've gotta say, "I'm a human being, goddammit! My life has value!"

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell,

"I'm as mad as hell,
and I'm not going to take this anymore!!"

The speech is entirely apropos for our times, and for Beck, Palin, and the Tea Party.

Huey Long

Beck reminds me a bit of Huey Long. Though holding a few beliefs in common, most of their views were polar opposites. What is most alike in them is their style.

Huey Long 1932

Huey Pierce Long, Jr. (1893 to 1935), nicknamed The Kingfish, was a charismatic, powerful politician who built a ruthless Democratic machine in Louisiana as governor (1928-32) and U.S. senator (1932-35). He proposed his "Every Man a King" plan, to redistribute wealth by an asset tax on corporations and individuals to end poverty and homelessness during the Great Depression. To stimulate the economy, he wanted spending on public works, schools and universities, and old age pensions. He disapproved of the Federal Reserve .

He was popular because of his flamboyant style and soaring rhetoric, and his forceful attack on the nation’s problems. However, he was accused by his opponents of being a dictator, due to his strong-arm control of state government. At his popularity’s peak, on September 8, 1935, at age 42, Long was assassinated by gunshot at the Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge.

Although often described as a "fascist," Long eschewed ideology. Historians debate whether he was a dictator, demagogue, messiah, or populist, and whether he was a friend or enemy of American values.

In common with Beck are his charisma, his flamboyant, theatrical, soaring rhetoric, and his self-assuredness in taking on the nation’s problems with remedies that half the country feel are wonderful, and half feel are dangerous. It is debated for both whether they are praiseworthy men, and whether or not they are good for America..

So, Do I Dismiss Beck?

No, I don’t dismiss him. I said that Beck reminds me of Huey Long, but I didn’t say he was Huey.

Beck has more truth than Long did. Beck is right that America has forgotten its history. He is correct in longing for a return to Mom and Dad and everything-will-be-fine. He is accurate when describing the Obama Administration as far-left ideologues who will harm America by turning it into a weak, socialist, bloated-government nanny state.

Howard Beale or Huey Long?

In fact, the Howard Beale character, not Huey Long, is the best comparison when thinking of Beck. Beck is unhinged, perhaps by society, but he’s on to something. He’s not somebody you should empower, but you ought to listen to him, with some skepticism.

The Origin of Beck’s Issues with America

Glenn Beck discovered his issues with America because of his paranoia. Darkness drove him to research like no other talk show host. Add to that the emotions of his inner devils, and his alcoholism, and you get the tears and the sighing, and the doomsday predictions with pleas to start digging underground shelters and buying composting toilets.

I’m With Beck When

he’s calling Obama a Chicago thug leftist. By all reports, Obama is worse than Blagoyavich, and approaches the tactics of Al Capone, politically.

Rod Blagoyavich, Ex Illinois Governor

Beck loses me when he advises Americans to withdraw all their money from the stock market. Doesn’t he realize that if a lack of confidence like this spread to all America, it would spell d o o m? It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The exact opposite of FDR’s "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."

Al Capone, 1940, Chicago gangster

Many Republicans and conservative talk-show hosts are making this same mistake, talking down the economy, for political or ratings gains. They lack the perspective to realize the potential harm they are doing to America.

Yes, vote out Obama, but don’t destroy America in the process.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx Rock

However, in short, Beck is good for America. Yes, you heard me … but only if you listen to him once a week max, and on condition that you take what he says with a handful of salt.

Sarah Palin

Sarah is a different story. She is not a raging, but helpful, demagogue like Glenn. She was born innocent, and remains so. The

Sarah Palin

eternal cheerleader. The mother of all Downs’ Syndrome babies, and irresponsible teenagers. The scrappy basketball guard with a perfect figure and white teeth, Sarah Barracuda—who couldn’t last two minutes on a basketball court with a male midget, but whom men would like to date.

Is Sarah Stupid?

No. Politically, she’s brilliant. Her emotional quotient, EQ, is sky high. Her IQ, though, is admittedly low.

What this means is, she’s the opposite of a nerd, who can repeat all sorts of history, politics, and science. Her vocabulary is challenged, which you might refudiate. Her understanding of international politics is weak, as when she explained to Katie Couric she had foreign policy experience because one could see Russia from Alaska. Intellectually, on the wonk side of things, some national, and all international issues, just don’t interest her. And, she lacks what they accused Bush of lacking, the curiosity to investigate. She is lost on many of the important national issues. Could she learn them? Yes, but she’s not shown any inclination to school herself.

But, what she does grasp, is people. She has leadership qualities and charisma. Up until the Glenn Beck rally, she was the champion on gathering a crowd. Her political skills, in my opinion, reach the level of Ronald Reagan, but not FDR. Her political acumen, in fact, far exceeds Obama’s. She does "get" her followers, speak their language, and fight for them like the mama grizzlies she loves. Palin knows people, kids, friends, public speaking, and regional and local politics.

In Short

Palin is basically a cheerleader with instinctual knowledge and extraordinary appeal, firmly grounded in conservative and family values, who can translate her vision into an attractive package for Americans yearning for tradition and certainty.

The Tea Party

is a social political movement that began in 2008 and 2009 with a number of local and national coordinated protests based on fiscal conservatism.

Tea Party Logo

History

See here a short history of the Tea Party Movement, which owes it’s origin to Ron Paul supporters, stock-trader Graham Makohoniuk, Rush Limbaugh, and activists Mary Rakovich and Keli Carender, and which was boosted greatly by Michelle Malkin in 2009.

Tenets and Goals

A few of the major tenets of the Tea Party are:

- Fiscal Responsibility

- Constitutionally Limited Government

- Free Markets

See here and here for more platform issues of the party.

The Tea Party’s Contract From America , developed by Houston-based attorney, Ryan Hecker prior to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies, includes:

Identify constitutionality of every new law.

Reject emissions trading.

Demand a balanced federal budget.

Simplify the tax system.

Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality.

Limit annual growth in federal spending.

Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010.

Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy.

Reduce Earmarks.

Reduce Taxes.

The Tea Party, as opposed to Beck, steers clear of religion, although it does emphasize patriotism and support for the troops. As opposed to Sara Palin, the Tea Party leaves family values out as an issue.

Palin, Beck, and the Tea Party

Sarah Palin, in fact, is active in several Tea Party events, to the extent that some label her as a leader in the movement. She and they, however, demure from this, preferring that the Tea Party remain basically a grassroots uprising, without identifiable leadership. They do love her, though, and vice versa.

And, of course, Beck is a favorite, too, since he believes in many of the same tenets. He also, though, would not consider himself a leader in the movement, though thousands of Tea Partiers did attend his recent rally.

What they all have in common is a feeling that America has gone wrong. They think that government has become too big, and is spending too much money. All three assess that the Obama Administration is taking the country in the direction of a European-like nanny-state socialism, and away from patriotism. They fear a loss of freedom due to massive government intervention in people’s lives. They want a return to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

And, of course, they are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Have a great day!

Rock

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!

Technorati Tags for this post: Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, Restoring Honor, Twitter, Howard Beale, Huey Long, the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve, fascist, nanny state, Rod Blagoyavich, Al Capone, Sara Palin, EQ, IQ, refudiate, Katie Couric, Alaska, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, mama grizzlies, Rush Limbaugh, Ron Paul, Michelle Malkin, Tax Day Tea Party Rallies, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone, The Truth Zone of Combat

Towards an Activist Conservatism

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:16:00 +0000

The common stereotypes of liberals and conservatives are that liberals have no brains, and conservatives no hearts. To some extent, these are true.

Of course, I can immediately think of a thousand exceptions to each generalization. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, for example, was a brilliant liberal. And Barry Goldwater was a radical conservative with miles of heart. Some of my liberal friends are geniuses. Many of my Republican cohorts are close to bleeding hearts, like me.

You Can Thrash the Hell Out of Me In a Comment Here

I want to Concentrate on Present-Day Conservatives

They have no

H
eart

as evidenced by their immoral stand on opposing the extension of unemployment benefits for the nation’s victims of our recession (Depression). For example, one of my heroes, Rush Limbaugh, is positively bare-knuckle Darwinian on this issue, even Roman sadistic. He can spend half a broadcast attacking Obama because he has created a near collapse of the economy, with it being nearly impossible to find a job. Then, he literally laughs at the unemployed, calling them lazy freeloaders.

Of course, he let it slip on his radio show one day when I was listening, that when he was unemployed, he lived off his parents for an extended period of time. Lazy, good-for-nothing hobo! Much like Beck, who was surviving unemployed as a drunk in the back of his car. I guess sleeping in that vehicle was the origin of Beck’s paranoia.

Sometimes the often-brilliant Rushbo doesn’t have a brain. He’s had a stroke that day, or year, in the compassion area, and also in the logic region of his cortex. You can’t have it both ways, Rush. Either anyone can find a job if they look hard enough, or the economy is so bad that many simply cannot obtain employment. Which is it?

Plus, I contend, that among the unemployed are many over 50, who have the hardest time getting rehired, the marginally sick, the marginally retarded, and the socially challenged. And, surprise surprise, there are thousands with advanced degrees who can't find work, and other "over-qualifieds." All of whom continue to desperately try for new jobs, but who face the mountain of competing with younger, healthier, more- or less-qualified (you heard me) applicants who outnumber them 5 to 1. Add to this the fact that employers hesitate to hire the long-term unemployed. It's literally a jungle out there. Republicans, like Rush, don’t have a brain on this issue, and no heart.

I’m for an Active Conservatism

Some of my beliefs are:

We ought to bomb Iran now.

We should deny a mosque near Ground Zero.

We need a flat tax of 15% for everyone.

We should choose sides in the Middle East, firmly on behalf of Israel, and against all tyranny.

And, we ought to fight hard to extend unemployment benefits.

Republicans, Now and Forever

need to fight for the rights and well being of every American. They should not foster dependence on government handouts, but they can actively pursue market-based solutions for all the problems that bother society.

Homelessness

For example, conservatives ought to actively pursue and promote market-based solutions to homelessness. Instead of just saying “Lower taxes and the market will take care of it,” they need to go a thousand steps further, and develop capitalistic solutions for this blight. Yes, I agree, some people will wind up back in the streets no matter what society does for them, but that doesn’t apply to everyone.

Christmas for Depression Era Homeless

Give a Man a Fish

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Chinese Proverb

Sermon on the Mount

This saying is oh so true. Republicans believe in the first part. They cheer snatching away the fish, even from all the people at the Sermon on the Mount. I think that’s okay, notwithstanding Jesus’ opposite example. (Yes, he GAVE people fish.)

What I disagree with, regarding Republicans, is they also absolutely neglect the second part of the adage. They don’t believe in teaching a man/woman to fish. They desire, rather, a do-or-die Darwinian survival of the fittest. The industrious, they know, will survive. The rest, who cares?

My problem with this is, yes, Darwinism does focus the minds of the underachievers—but among them, again, are the old, the ugly, the socially inept, and even hard-working capitalists who’ve bet on the wrong idea.

Teach These People to Fish, for God’s Sake!

Give them a time-limited opportunity to get back into the current of life. Don’t instruct them to swim by throwing them into the rapids, where they must struggle to breathe, let alone fish.

If you’re really going to be smart, give the woman a fish, a fishing rod, a manual, and a guide. She’ll soon be a fisherwoman if she has the talent, and then she can be a guide. By the way, this is what the rich do for their offspring all the time.

Don't Fall In While You Fish Here

What is Missing, Is Another Capitalistic Ideal, Investment

Republicans believe in “investment” in small businesses, new issues in the stock market, loans to new enterprises, lending for companies to meet their payrolls … but not in investment in individuals, in people during hard times, nor even in capitalists who’ve failed and want to try again. They believe in deficit spending for war, for people buying homes with mortgages, and for going to university. They do not love deficit spending for other worthwhile things, like keeping Grandma from begging on a street corner.

Unemployment Benefits

I do argue that extending unemployment benefits is an investment. It is not welfare. These people have been working all their adult lives, many of them successfully, paying taxes, and into the unemployment insurance program. It is insurance, not a handout. It is also an investment. Millions of these on unemployment now will go on to create their own businesses, find new jobs, and become sources of tax revenues in the future, helping the next group of unfortunates.

And, those who will never recover, who will forever remain unemployed, at least will get some time on this Earth without worry. They will be able to pay their bills, buy food, and keep their house or rental. This is an act of charity. So what? Aren’t Republicans proud of their charitable giving? It is not a sin to give people fish. It is also not a sin to help them learn to fish.

Republicans are Characterized as the Party of No

Because, at this moment in time, they are. This needn’t be the case.

They must get off their butts and come up with solutions to society’s difficult problems. Their ideas ought to be business friendly, deficit neutral, tax cutting, and revenue enhancing, but the market alone will not take care of everything. The market requires help from the ingenuity of hard-working, brilliant people with good values.

The welfare state, and socialism, are definitely not the answers. But neither is pure economic Darwinism. I propose an activist conservatism, and yes, a passionate conservatism, hard-nosed but full of heart.

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Have a great day!

Rock

Technorati Tags for this post: Daniel Patrick Moynihan, extension of unemployment benefits, Rush Limbaugh, Darwin, Roman sadism, Glen Beck, Iran, Ground Zero, Middle East, Sermon on the Mount, Jesus, unemployment insurance program, welfare state, socialism

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone, The Truth Zone of Combat

Barrack Obama and Abraham Lincoln, Revisiting the Comparisons

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:34:00 +0000

How does Barack Obama stack up against his idol, Abraham Lincoln? Many compared his desire to be the Great Unifier to Lincoln. He was the first Black president, and would be the first “post-racial” chief executive.

Caution

For my liberal friends, brace yourselves; you’re in for a hard ride. If you are

M
asochists

read on.

You Can Leave a Comment Here

1988 Vice-Presidential Debate

Bentsen

Quayle

During the 1988 vice-presidential debate between Democrat Senator Lloyd Bentsen and Republican Senator Dan Quayle, Quayle said, “I have as much experience in Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency.” Bentsen replied, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.”

That put-down drew cheers and applause, stunning Quayle and sealing his reputation as a deer-frozen-in-the-headlights communicator, a sort of warm-up for the inarticulate George W. Bush. Like W, though, Quayle’s side won the election, under the leadership of W’s father, George H. W. Bush … despite people misunderestimating Danny Boy.

It would be oh-so easy to say something similar to Bentsen’s remark in comparing Barrack Obama with Abraham Lincoln. “Barrack, we know Abraham Lincoln, sir …” And we’d be entirely correct in that assessment. Lincoln was our finest president.

This article, though, is not entirely a bashing. Neither is it praise. Rather, it is an exhortation, on bended knee.

Comparisons to Lincoln

After all, Obama and his followers, including thrill-up-his-leg Chris Matthews are to blame for the Lincoln comparisons. Before Obama had even spelled out his positions, before he had any accomplishments besides community organizing, he was being compared in liberal quarters to big Abraham. Matthews said of Obama’s 2008 speech on race, that it was “worthy of Abraham Lincoln," and also claimed it bypassed Martin Luther King Jr.'s ‘I Have A Dream’ address as the "best speech ever given on race in this country."

Obama himself liked the idea of emulating Honest Abe, and steeped himself in Lincoln lore. He quoted Lincoln often, as when in the final push for the 2010 healthcare bill he said “I am not bound to win, but I'm bound to be true. I'm not bound to succeed, but I'm bound to live up to what light I have."

So, the question is a fair one, even this early in his presidency. How does Barrack stack up to our greatest president? I’m certainly no Lincoln expert, but I’ll offer a few comparisons.

War

Inheriting War

Lincoln inherited a war, or rather, his election was one cause of that war. (See The Top 9 Events that Led to Civil War by Martin Kelly)

With the election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln on November 6, 1860, South Carolina, followed by six other states, seceded from the Union. Even though his views about slavery were considered moderate during the nomination and election, South Carolina had warned it would secede if he won. Lincoln agreed with the majority of the Republican Party that the South was becoming too powerful, and made it part of their platform that slavery would not be extended to any new territories or states added to the union.

Obama, of course, inherited a war he did not support, in Iraq, and one he did, in Afghanistan. The Civil War was an existential war, whereas the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were meant to combat terrorism and brutality. Lincoln embraced the Civil War as a noble cause, whereas Obama rejected the Iraq War as a mistake, and treated the Afghanistan War as just something we had to do.

Lincoln’s War

Lincoln was ready to do anything to win his war, including the suspension of habeas corpus, harsh imprisonments, death squads, and Sherman’s notorious march.

Among papers found with Sherman were plans from the Lincoln government for a war of terrorism to be waged systematically against women and children in the South. These included detailed instructions, with illustrations for the soldiers. Houses were to be pillaged and then burned, along with all farm buildings and tools, and standing crops. Livestock was to be killed or carried away, and food confiscated or destroyed.

Particular emphasis was laid on destructions of family heirlooms – pictures of dead loved ones, Bibles, wedding dresses, and pianos. There were also directions as to how to persuade, or coerce if persuasion failed, black servants into divulging the whereabouts of hidden valuables.

and ...

The fact is, the Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration's battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan," because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways, and starve the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government's list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible.

Charges made against Lincoln by detractors include:

Suspending the writ of habeas corpus and interfering with the press without due process, imprisoning thousands of citizens without charge or trial, and closing courts by military force where no hostilities were occurring.

and ...

Rations at Andersonville Prison

The deliberate starvation and murder of Confederate prisoners.

Obama’s Wars

Obama, by contrast, offers Miranda rights to prisoners, habeas corpus, and in fact treats War on Terror combatants better than American prisoners.

He fights the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with Rules of Engagement like … an officer being denied illumination to reveal the position of Taliban fighters who were mortaring his position at night, because the illumination rounds “might cause collateral damage.” The truth is that these rounds never cause collateral damage. This is an example of the hands-tied-behind the back warfare that Obama engages in.

The Economy

Lincoln’s Economy

Lincoln inherited economic hardship. Despite this, President Lincoln built a mighty army, and enacted an extraordinary slate of economic measures, including:

tariffs that enabled a new American steel industry;

development of railroads that would extend all the way to the Pacific Ocean;

agricultural improvements … by agricultural science, free land for farmers, creation of the Agriculture Department, and development of farm machinery and tools;

enticing immigrants, to rapidly increase population;

free higher education, through the Land Grant College system;

and national control over banking, with cheap credit for production.

Obama’s Economy

Obama’s economic policy has been to pass a stimulus package laden with pork, seek to eliminate tax cuts for the “rich,” and he has added government jobs, but not private sector jobs.

Still, as opposed to most Republicans, flawed as it is, I credit Obama’s interventions, along with Bush’s, as having saved the country from a Depression. My complaint is, the money could have been spent better, more along Lincoln’s lines, like for infrastructure.

Oration

Lincoln was a great orator. He spoke pretty words that pierced the heart of matters, much like, but even more elevated than, Martin Luther King, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. The thing that elevated Lincoln’s prose was not only did it have cadence, but it had substance, the appropriate meaning for a country in dire emotional straits. Obama’s oratory, on the other hand, is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Compare Obama’s

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.

with

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

I will say this, Barrack had an auspicious beginning. He did give one quality speech, the (see the video here and read the text) keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. The speech was effective because it was detailed,

My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father -- my grandfather -- was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

hopeful,

Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before.

and in it he genuinely reached out to all America,

And fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, I say to you tonight: We have more work to do.

something he has forgotten how to do. If he could reclaim 2004, then he might have something there.

The Whiner in Chief

Lincoln’s Demeanor

Lincoln never complained. Criticism rolled off Lincoln’s back like water on a beaver. He faced a hatred so great that he paid for it with his life, yet he never felt sorry for himself. "With malice toward none, with charity for all.”

Obama’s Behavior

Instead of dwelling in the clouds, like Lincoln, Obama has become a hack politician whiner, one of the whiniest presidents in history, saying things like

First of all, I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration.

Aw, poor baby. He’s only got all the networks cheering him, MSNBC, CNBC, Hollywood, all the educational system, from kindergarten on up to graduate schools—and he must face, heaven forbid, one network that is fair and balanced. Give me a break.

Obama faces some hatred, not to the level of Lincoln, but still a kind of demonization. Yet, his reaction to it is far less noble. Can you imagine at all Lincoln, in his presidential years, saying "You can't have the keys back, you don't know how to drive!" Lincoln would have said something like, “We have our disagreements, but my honored opponents are sincere in their offers to help the nation.”

In fact, when I think of Obama, I think of a whiner. A great big baby, always complaining, always laying blame on everybody but himself, forever a poor me kind of guy. When Obama starts to speak I hear the wha whah whah wah-wah of Charlie Brown cartoons.

Dealing with Enemies

Lincoln in fact praised his enemies. “I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.” He reached across the divide to unite the country. He freed the slaves, but didn’t demonize the slaveholders. In presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Love your enemies: how Lincoln turned his rivals into allies, we meet Lincoln afresh as a leader whose "extraordinary array of personal qualities ... enabled him to form friendships with men who had formerly opposed him." He was the great uniter.

Obama, however, is very Nixonian, waging a boycott on FOX News, strong-arming congressmen who vote against him, and demonizing business, big oil, Wall Street, and all conservatives. Obama reaches across the liberal divide only—badmouthing the rest of the nation.

Fist Bumps?

If Lincoln had lived, and Obama succeeded him as president … Abraham would have posed for the “fist-bump” picture at the top of this post … Barrack would not have.

Obama would be too busy criticizing Lincoln for his suspension of habeas corpus and harsh treatment of civilians, leaving him a messed up economy, and any number of “crimes against humanity.” He’d go around apologizing to the world for our slavery transgressions, instead of being proud we were one of the nations that put the final nail in that horrible institution’s coffin. Lincoln led the country to a higher plane, in all respects. Obama leads us to Chicago.

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Have a great day!

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Technorati Tags for this post: Abraham Lincoln, Lloyd Bentsen, Dan Quayle, George H. W. Bush, Chris Matthews, Martin Luther King Jr., I Have A Dream, Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Civil War, Sherman’s march, Rules of Engagement, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, 2004 Democratic Convention, Charlie Brown, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Nixonian, Fox News Channel, Wall Street, Chicago, Chicago thugism, George W. Bush, economic Depression

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone, The Truth Zone of Combat

Left Versus Right, Two Hulks Bursting with Anger

noreply@blogger.com (Rock) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:27:00 +0000

The Left and the Right have always disliked each other. Both sides think the nation will collapse without their theories being enacted. Why, though, recently, has the animosity risen to a nearly revolutionary pitch?

You Can Leave a Comment Here

Back in the Day

When I was

Y
oung

Dwight D. Eisenhower

John F. Kennedy

Eisenhower Greeting the Troops

Kennedy Commanding PT109

I had steady Dwight D. Eisenhower and then charismatic John F. Kennedy as images of what a president ought to be. Eisenhower, a hero of the Western world for his effective waging of WWII, was a conservative, but he liked Social Security and many other Franklin Delano Roosevelt policies. Kennedy, a WWII war hero himself, was a liberal but he was tough as nails on defense, cut taxes, and was business friendly. I still admire both these men, as much for style as substance. Both were fairly popular in their time, although Kennedy did face some demonization down South.

Things are Different Today

With George W. Bush, we had a good guy (screams from the left!) but ineffective communicator and fiscal irresponsible, get demonized for eight years by the left, and sometimes by the right. I liked Bush for his brave, and appropriate I believe, initiation of the Iraq War. I did not cheer Bush for the politically correct way he waged the war, until the end, with the Surge. I did not admire Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility, his bumbling communication skills, and his failure to stand up to the bullies who were sullying his name.

The demonization of Bush, and of the right, was promoted by left-wing organizations like Media Matters and MoveOn.org. This was continued by Air America (Senator Al Franken’s old liberal stomping ground), and echoed by most of Hollywood, ranging from Barbra Streisand, the Sarandons (incl. Tim Robbins), and Sean Penn.

In my opinion, the right just turned the other cheek for many years. Bush was the ultimate nice guy. He never personally answered his critics, preferring to think that if he just did the right things, people would eventually come to appreciate him. He was wrong.

Now, the Right Has Learned to Demonize Back.

The answer on the right, starting in 1988, was Rush Limbaugh. Plus there were the very fair Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, and Michael Medved. And, some quite right-wing guys like Michael Savage began to lay the groundwork for more radical vitriol.

In, 1996, The right-wing Fox News Channel stood up to liberalism by presenting a fair and balanced viewpoint. On Hannity and Colmes they included conservative Sean Hannity with liberal Alan Colmes, and people like liberal Shepard Smith reporting the news, plus left-wing guests all the time.

Veering Hard Right

Dropping Alan Colmes from Hannity and Colmes in 2009 and changing it to Hannity’s America, and adding Glenn Beck, Fox moved hard right. Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor did try to be fair and balanced, but veered left and right from time to time (i.e., left on big oil, right on the “Nanny State”).

Since then, the left has gone nuts, and the right. I worked with one female Media Matters fan at a defense contractor’s job. I was the Technical Writer. She was my immediate boss. She was vicious in her attacks on Bush, and then later, equally rabid in her assaults on Hillary, and … Obama. They were too “right-wing” for her!

Beckland

Fox, indeed, recently has gone beyond fair and balanced into the land of even higher ratings and Beckdom. In my opinion, Beck makes a lot of good points, but I can never cheer for the guy because he’ll always be stuck in a time warp of revolutionary paranoia. He’s right to be frightened by this president, I believe, and by the left at this time, but I imagine he’d be in a panic about George Washington as president too. (“Do you know who Washington had working in his mess hall? That’s right, a British chambermaid, who used to change King George III’s chamber pot. Bet you didn’t know that!”)

The left has reacted in kind to the daily, sometimes accurate, hysteria of Glenny Babe. They, again in my opinion, have been demonizing for years, so they just notched it up a bit. Now, we’ve got two paranoids in a room who see the other as a mortal threat. Two giant Hulks have burst through their blue and red T-shirts!

Does Demonization Work?

Yes. Is it good for the country? Yes, if the person needs demonizing. On the other hand, your demon might be my saint. And, in the midst of villifying, important considerations on policy get lost, and the public becomes merely a bunch of cheerleaders for their side, and for the political demise of their enemies.

Your Comments are Welcome Here

Have a great day!

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Technorati Tags for this post:
Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Barrack Obama, World War II, George W. Bush, demonization, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Michael Medved, Michael Savage , Fox News Channel, Hannity and Colmes, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Shepard Smith, Hannity’s America, Glenn Beck, Nanny State, Iraq War, Surge, Media Matters, MoveOn.org, Air America, Al Franken, Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth, Truth—the No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone, The Truth Zone of Combat