Mr. Know It All

Chef Jeff Hub Spot

2008-05-29T10:57:00.000-07:00

Go to my alter-ego place, right next to the water cooler, and read up on my rantings and ravings there.

And I invite you become a hub member! It's just like blogging, only better!

Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi

2008-05-21T11:33:00.000-07:00

Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi

Appeasement

2008-05-16T09:16:00.000-07:00

Appeasement

Barack Obama reacted strongly to words spoken by President Bush to the Israeli Knesset recently, words that likened any attempt to talk with Iran to those of people who thought they could have stopped Hitler’s mad agenda.

Much to my own surprise, I actually do agree that talking with the leaders of Iran is unlikely to bring about any major change in their policies or ideas. That said, I also believe that to simply rule out any conversations merely strengthens the hand of people like President of the Republic of Iran Ahmadinejad. He makes his living telling his people that America hates them, and that he is the only one who can save them from us.

Moreover, they believe it. Why? Because, in a way, he is right: We DO hate Iran, and have proven that quite adequately over the years. Our backing of Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war only goes to strengthen that belief amongst the average Iranian.

I will digress a bit, to the days before Ahmadinejad’s victory in the elections in Iran. There were more moderate voices heard back then, admittedly voices that did not meet all of America’s expectations, but moderate voices just the same.

At times it was said that if the American president had indeed started a dialogue with these moderates, it would have been the kiss of death for their chances. Other voices from within Iran said the opposite was true, that the average Iranian wanted reassurance that the U.S. did not have nefarious plans for wiping them out.

I have a friend from Iran who says that her family, and many others, still hope for some rapport with the U.S. No, they do not want to become “U.S. puppets”, but they do want the tensions to decrease.

There are those who fear Iran’s nuclear intentions. I am among them. An Iran with nuclear weapons is as fearful to me as any other nation in possession of nukes. I am afraid of the U.S. with nukes, since there is always the possibility that they might someday be used, or as former Senator Goldwater once said, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”. Others may disagree with me, but I actually can envision a time when we would use our nuclear arsenal to defend ourselves.

And this brings us back to appeasement. What exactly does it mean, and does it apply to Barack Obama’s statements that he would meet with people such as Ahmadinejad? First, let's look at what appeasement has generally come to mean. At Wikipedia, it states: Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement)

With that in mind, let us next look at what Barack Obama has said.

Barack Obama has not called for the surrender of our position vis-à-vis Iran, nor has he said that he would capitulate on the important points of American diplomacy concerning Iran’s responsibilities toward the world community. He has not said he would look for a “peace at any price” approach to the problem.

What he has said is that diplomacy should not be set aside in dealing with Iran, because diplomacy is what we do best, and is always the first step in resolving any conflict. In an interview with the New York Times Obama (11/02/2007)stated that he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if he were elected this November. The article goes onto say that Obama ‘would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.’

Elsewhere Obama stated that we need to deal with Iran with “cooler heads” than we have in the recent past. He says this is not appeasement, but the start of building a community of nations to see the Iranian threat as we do. He claims that Bush and Cheney have so isolated other nations that they either fear or mistrust us, or both.

President Bush no doubt has his own ideas and opinions about how to deal with Iran. In the remaining days of his administration there is doubt that he will see his way through to a solution of the Israeli-Palestinian problems, or that he will be the one to forge a two-state solution in the Middle East.

While these are lofty goals, and certainly would be welcomed as genuine initiatives that would bring about peace, there are too many close to Bush, in my opinion, who believe that stirring up trouble in the Middle East strengthens our ability to control events there. Some seem to desire bringing about Armageddon, others simply seem to believe that the trouble will always require us to be involved there, and since we are the dominant military power on the planet, we will get our way through either intimidation or by propping up regimes that favor our point of view.

Obama, it seems to me, sees through this. He has no Pollyanna view of relations with Iran. Indeed, he has spoken out forcefully that we must not and must never concede the moral high ground to the likes of Ahmadinejad. Instead, we must use diplomacy instead of troops to carry out the will of the United States, and if diplomacy fails, the pressure will need to be ratcheted up, up to and including military force. This is not the view of a ‘Liberal Pacifist’, but rather that of a concerned, intelligent and observant future leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

This morning on Fox and Friends I heard former presidential candidate Fred Thompson berate Obama by saying that we need a president who is aware of and understands the world, the dangers out there and how to deal with other nations. I would say that if that is true, then how did George Bush ever get elected? His understanding of the world was the source of great humor back in 1999. His actions on and about 9-11 reached for greatness, but then he slipped back into the old “You are either with us or against us” outlook of the world.

The world is either with us or against us based upon the actions that we, as a nation, and we, as a People, make or fail to make. In my opinion, based solely upon my outlook of the way the world looks, I believe there are many ways in which we can and must engage the other countries in our world. At times we must use the carrot, and at times we must use the stick, and at times we must leave well-enough alone, but no matter which of the approaches we use, it must be the method which is correct for the United States.

It is easy to wax nostalgic and get on the patriotism bandwagon – it requires no great thought to agree with those who shout the loudest, but in doing so, we abrogate the great trust ever given to us, the hugely enormous responsibility our founding fathers and mothers handed to each new generation, to think and to plan and to understand what it will take to make our nation better and stronger with each passing year.

By 2012 I may be terribly disappointed in a President Barack Obama administration – I can’t say yet whether or not he will do a good job or merely be an interesting footnote in the history of our nation.

I do believe, however, that he is no fool, no neophyte, and most certainly is not ignorant of the tremendous task before him. As he moves ever closer to what seems to be the inevitable nomination of his party, I wish him the best. I wish him wisdom, God’s blessing and the ability to see beyond partisan politics, beyond the pressures to act simply because it seems expedient, beyond the bad advice he may be given over the term he is in office, and expect for him to give us a clear vision of what he wants to do and where he wants to lead us. If he can do this, I believe he may have a chance to become the greatest American president in decades, if not amongst the top few who met the crisis head on and used intelligence and wisdom to make America a better nation, a better citizen of the world.

Like Lincoln, he comes in as an unknown qualtity, with little legislative experience under his belt. And like Lincoln, he enters the political arena at a time of great, fearful change. I can only hope that like Lincoln, he rises to the challenge and overcomes the dangerous, divisive days yet to come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyHJZxNm-Cg

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/05/bushs-remarks-a.html

Hermann Goering and American Politics

2008-05-13T07:33:00.000-07:00

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." [Hermann Goering]

Why does this Real Politik sound so familiar? Do you think that some of President Bush's advisors, wittingly, or unwittingly, followed this advice to get us embroiled in Iraq?

Those of you who know me understand that I supported, and still support, the war in Afghanistan. I firmly believe that when al Qaeda existed there as a client of the former Afghan Taliban regime, it was legitimate to go after them. I have no problem with our presence in Afghanistan.

However, I DO have a major disagreement with our presence in Iraq. I have yet to see any evidence that we needed to go there. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and thousands died under his regime, but haven't thousands died in the fighting since? Also, there is that nasty bit of reality that when Saddam was our dictator, he was a good guy. He was, after all, against Iran, and since the fall of the Shah, our government has always been against Iran.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the sectarian violence and ability of al Qaeda to easily move into Iraq were all results of removing the brutal dictator from power. Nation building is not like playing with a jigsaw puzzle. One piece does not necessarily join to another to make a sound, complete picture. In Iraq the pieces appear not to fit together at all.

Ah, but what about the nuclear bombs? Some of my friends continue to tell me that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including the nukes, were transported to Syria. Possibly some lower grade chemical or biological weapons might have been, but I do believe we would have seen any movement of nukes, knowing that our intelligence capabilities are sophisticated enough to track convoys coming and going from "known weapons factories and depots" our leaders told us about when they justified this quagmire.

Also, there is that inconveniently broad definition of what constitutes a WMD. People automatically assume (and are often lead to believe) that it means mainly his alleged nuclear capabilities, and while the definition of WMD does indeed include nuclear, Saddam's weaponry was, to the best of our intelligence assessment, limited to chemical & poorly developed biological, such as "anthrax bombs" that reportedly would not have been very effective. Yes, he would have been interested in nuclear, and was apparently working on strengthening his low-grade biological arsenal, but the assumption for our going to war involved the specter of the nuclear fear that Saddam was actively producing nuclear weapons and would be ready to use them in a very short period of time.

Democrats were fooled by this slight-of-hand, too, so I can't blame Republicans alone. But if one is told a lie by a government agency that is supposed to only tell the truth, then one tends to believe the lie until it is proven false. And when the lie comes from "the buck stops here" office of the President, then who is willing not to believe it?

All the pundits who now cry out that Kerry and Clinton and other Democrats voted for giving the President the war option fail to also state that we, all of us, were patently lied to. There was no obfuscating the facts that our highest leaders lied and then lied again, and, apparently, continue to lie to us even today, some 5 years and more after this war began.

And now that some responsible people in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, repudiate the reasons for our war in Iraq, these same pundits call them traitors.

Worse yet, when members of congress dare to hint about the alleged involvement of Mr. Bush and his top cronies in this scheme, the attack dogs call the critics traitors and demand they pay a price for their criticism. I now quote one of my favorite presidents, Teddy Roosevelt: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

I have to state that I am not alone in believing that we were lied to, and continue to be lied to, concerning our ongoing involvement in Iraq. Just recently two former government officials who worked in Iraq came out and stated publicly that the corruption in the Iraqi government under Nouri-al Malaki is rampant, and that our own efforts to stop it were comical, at best.

Arthur Brennan, former head of the Office of Accountability and Transparency, (OAT) said concerning our State Department meddling in OAT's mission "not only contradicted the anti-corruption mission but indirectly contributed to and has allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government." The U.S. embassy "effort against corruption — including its new centerpiece, the now-defunct Office of Accountability and Transparency — was little more than 'window dressing,'" Brennan added. (Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080512/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_corruption )

So, how many more lies will we accept? How much more will our nation accept? Recently John McCain (and President Bush as well) said it would not be wise to support a revision to the G.I. Bill because it would be too costly. How much has this war already cost us? Well, simply put, it has cost us more than 4,000 lives and billions upon billions of dollars.

Also recently the Fort Bragg barracks of one of the 82nd Airborne were found to be far below substandard. (Source: http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1140 ) Is this how we show support and patriotism for our troops fighting in Iraq? Is this the government's way of telling us we all need to be patriotic?

My feeling is this: If you can't support the troops after they come home, Mr. McCain, don't dare to play the patriotic card in the election.

Yes, I am more than aware of Mr. McCain's service, and I applaud that, but his service to the troops as of late has, in my opinion, left a lot to be desired. I, too, am a veteran, and there is plenty I could say about how I was treated after I came home. But that is for another day.

And concerning our facilities in Iraq & Afghanistan, more than a dozen soldiers were electrocuted while showering in their barracks in those sorry nations. Why? Allegedly because of shoddy building construction by an American company hired to build the facilities. And that company would be? Houston based KBR, which until last year was known as Kellogg, Brown and Root, and which was at the time a subsidiary of, guess who - Halliburton.

Jeffrey Bliss, an electrician working over there recalled the KBR excuse when he pointed out these abuses: "The excuse KBR always used was, 'This is a war zone — what do you expect?' " He added his own thoughts. "But if you are going to do the work, you have got to do it safe."

(Source: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/05/04/kbr-allegedly-behind-soldier-electrocutions/ ) and (http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_9145057?source=rss )

I would add, if you are going to go to war, then plan it right, and know what the expectations are, when they will be met, and build your case based upon the truth. We Americans, most of us anyway, can justify going to war if it is for the "right reasons", but we will, as is our patriotiuc duty, rebel against being lied to as if were being led astray by the likes of Hermann Goering.

I consider it is a national shame that there are so many people who still refuse to believe the truth about the lies we were fed by those who, from the start, seemed to want to pick a fight with Iraq for reasons only they can explain.

Does Russia Pose a New Threat to the West?

2008-05-09T14:06:00.000-07:00

Right after the Soviet Era ended, people in the West were happy to see Democratic reforms taking place in the new Russia that emerged from the dust of the old Cold war days. Entrepreneurs of all kinds began to flock to nations that had once been off-limits to Capitalists and others seeking to invest in new markets. It was a heady heyday of freedom, celebrated by Russians of all ethnics groups and languages.

So, what happened? Why is Russia now run more like a Mafia empire than a free-market country? Who did what to kill the great dream of a free and prosperous Russia, a Russia that followed a Western economic model?

Gary Kasparov was the Soviet Union’s great chess player, who now runs, unsuccessfully, for political office in Russia. When he is not under threat of one kind or another, which he says comes straight from the top, Kasparov tries desperately to get his message out in a tightly controlled media that falls directly under the control of former President Vladimir Putin, and now under the hand-picked puppet, Dmitry Medvedev.

You remember Putin, the man President Bush said he could see through the windows of his eyes, the guy Bush said was a “good guy” and on the same page with us? Well, Putin has been replaced by space aliens, I fear, because the strongman, who now fills the chair of Prime Minister, seems bent of returning Russia to the same rigid control system that once kept the Soviet Union under such tight wraps.

Under Putin there have been mysterious assassinations, all accomplished in typical, shoulder-shrugging KGB style. KGB-like thugs have broken into offices, jailed officials, and of course, when regional governments displeased Putin, he replaced them with his own hand-picked men, who were 100% obedient to him, as were the old Stalinist apparatchiks of the 1930’s and 40’s.

Why do people there put up wit this, and why does no one speak out against this new Soviet-style dictatorship in the guise of democracy?

OK, people tell me that things work differently in Russia, that there is something fatalistic in “the Great Russian Soul”. That people there just accept with quiet sighs the major and minor changes that occur in their lifetimes. Yet something tells me that the changes occurring are not part of any great plans to democratize that huge and still important nation.

I fear the emergence of top-heavy Soviet-style leadership in Russia. It is still a very well-armed nation, with enough nukes to make life miserable for decades, if not centuries on Planet Earth.

I fear that Russia will be using its natural gas and oil money to play spoiler in European and Middle East nations.

I fear that a Russia playing Russian Roulette with the world will cause a catastrophe that will make WWI and WWII look like a Kindergarten exercise in playing at war.

Why do I fear these things? Well, when I look into Mr. Putin’s eyes, I see a cold, calculating former KGB official who believes that people are robots to be ordered about, nations are natural enemies to Mother Russia, and I also see the cold, distant stare of a Mafia boss, willing to do anything, and I do mean anything, to get his way.

I can only hope that whoever our next president may be, he or she will look deeply into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and see him for what he really is. Because, unless our next leader has that ability, we all will be playing Russian Roulette with our future.

For more enlightenment about this subject, please refer to the article written by Lord David Howell, former British Cabinet minister and former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. Lord Howell is now a member of the British House of Lords.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/western-alliance/42882-russia-disappoints-world.html

Banning Books

2008-05-08T07:15:00.000-07:00

Recently this article came across the AP. I am curious to see what people think about banning books. Personally, I do not favor the banning of books, although I do support a parent's right to not allow their children to read books they find offensive. What I take issue with is taking that same choice away from me.

So, read it over and please comment after you've read the story. By the way, the penquin book And Tango makes Three: is supposedly based upon a true story. Does it promote homosexuality? I have not read the book, so I can't answer that. If you have read it, please comment.

************************************

By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer Tue May 6, 3:42 PM ET

NEW YORK - A children's story about a family of penguins with two fathers once again tops the list of library books the public objects to the most.

"And Tango Makes Three," released in 2005 and co-written by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, was the most "challenged" book in public schools and libraries for the second straight year, according to the American Library Association.

"The complaints are that young children will believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle that is acceptable. The people complaining, of course, don't agree with that," Judith Krug, director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The ALA defines a "challenge" as a "formal, written complaint filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness."

Other books on the ALA's top 10 list include Maya Angelou's memoir "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings," in which the author writes of being raped as a young girl; Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," long attacked for alleged racism; and Philip Pullman's "The Golden Compass," an anti-religious work in which a former nun says: "The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake." Pullman's novel, released in 1996, received new attention last year because of the film version starring Nicole Kidman.

Overall, the number of reported library challenges dropped from 546 in 2006 to 420 last year, well below the mid-1990s, when complaints topped 750. For every challenge listed, about four to five go unreported, the library association estimates.

"The atmosphere is a little better than it used to be," Krug says. "I think some of the pressure has been taken off of books by the Internet, because so much is happening on the Internet."

According to the ALA, at least 65 challenges last year led to a book being pulled.
In Louisville, Ky., a high school principal told 150 English students to drop "Beloved," Toni Morrison's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about an ex-slave who has murdered her baby daughter. At least two parents had complained that "Beloved" includes depictions of violence, racism and sex.

In Burlingame, Calif., Mark Mathabane's "Kaffir Boy," a memoir about growing up poor and black in apartheid-era South Africa, was banned from an intermediate school after a parent complained about a two-paragraph scene in which men pay boys for sex.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080506/ap_en_ot/challenged_books

Hillary’s Dilemma

2008-05-07T12:59:00.000-07:00

Is it time for Hillary Clinton to gracefully step aside? Or, does she really have a chance to pull this thing off? Well, the answer to the second question may well determine the answer to the first.

Whether or not you want Barack Obama to be the Democratic candidate for president, the facts seem to be pointing more and more the a simple truth: Hillary Clinton has almost no chance of surpassing him in delegates before or at the convention.

Just looking at the realities of the situation, it is doubtful that either Michigan or Florida will have a voice in this process. Frankly, it angers me that this is so, but both states knew ahead of time that they were going to have consequences for the early primaries. They didn’t want to play by the rules. As for why, well, that is a question for debate, but the simple facts are that both states failed to heed the warnings, and, unless there is some unforeseen action taken at a meeting by the Rules Committee on May 31st, neither state will be a serious contender in choosing the Democratic nominee.

What about Hillary Clintons many victories in the primaries & caucuses? Well, even with so many wins, and even though her victories have been in traditionally Democratic supporting states, the delegate count still adds up against her. With Barack Obama’s recent strong showing, I have my doubts that the super delegates will be flocking to her side. For better or for worse, she has little comfort to look forward to in that area of support.

Some argue that she is the best qualified candidate. Again, in the states that have followed the rules and have voted, the number of votes and the delegates gathered simply do not add up to enough to win. There are projections that even if she wins the remaining primaries, she will not have enough support to win. According to the rules of the party, as we saw in 2004, it is not always the most electable candidate who wins the party’s nod. Again, those are the rules Democrats have created for themselves.

As for the super delegates, I have a sneaking suspicion that the party’s original intent, which I understand as giving rewards to states that elect Democrats to state & federal offices, will be undergoing a major revision after this campaign season draws to a close. And, in my humble opinion, that is only rightly so. The super delegate process has added confusion, anger and resentment to the average voters who seem to have come to the conclusion that, once again, voting has been usurped by a political machine.

The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of the people. That is the mantra still touted by the party faithful. Yet, in an attempt to try to do something good, the super delegate process has, in my opinion, cheapened and ruined the very nature of the nominating process. The Dems would be wise to drop the current super delegate process in order to reestablish good faith with the voters.

As for state party leaders, it would be wise to avoid trying to jump over the voting process in order to get a few headlines. Maybe it is time for a regional process of primaries & caucuses. Maybe it’s time to put this thing aright and stop the rather chaotic way Dems nominate their presidential candidates. Otherwise, the debilitating and destructive process we have witnessed in the past few months will prevent the Democratic Party from being credible in the next election cycle where they have candidates running. And if the party is a divisively split as it seems, that may only be four years off.

Hateful Things Pastors Say – Focus on John Hagee, Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell

2008-05-06T08:47:00.000-07:00

Hateful things Pastors Say – From the Religious Right

With all the controversy over Jeremiah Wright, I thought I’d include a few choice remarks made by politically active pastors and ministers from the other side of the political spectrum. I doubt this would be reported on any cable news network, fired up and obsessed as they are with Rev Wright. So I will relay this information that I found on other sites. To me it says very plainly why we have the expectation of a distinct and undeniable separation between Church and State.
*******************************
John Hagee, from a 2006 interview with Terry Gross on NPR.
Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/

On Islam:

TG: If you use the Bible as the basis for policy, is there any room for compromise? And if you use the bible as the basis for policy, should Muslims use the Koran as the basis for their policy, and then again, what possible basis is there for compromise at that point?

JH: There is really no room for compromise between radical Islam –

TG: I'm not talking about radical Islam. I'm just talking about Islam in general.

JH: Well Islam in general -- those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews.

On Hurricane Katrina:

JH: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.

The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.

So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

I would suggest you go to the website: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/
and
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=110359
for a look at how Catholics view John Hagee.

You can find a wealth in information on these and other sites, information, facts and opinions you might otherwise not see in the mainstream news. Whether or not you agree with the political opinions expressed on these sites, it is hard to dismiss the many hateful, even un-American comments religious-right ministers have uttered and gotten away with. What is fair for one is fair for all, Right, Left, Democrat, and Republican.

And what of Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell? Well, they also had their moments, unpatriotic, un-American moments, in my humble opinion. Here is one conversation they had in a Partial transcript of comments from the September 13, 2001 telecast of the 700 Club:

“JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

JERRY FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged". In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time - calling upon God. ~~~

PAT ROBERTSON: > Amen”

To me, it sounds as if they are saying America is damned because of the actions of some of its citizens. Now I ask you, how far is that from Rev. Wright’s statement that America is damned because of the actions of some of its citizens? Same effect, different causes, in my understanding.

Now mind you, I do not agree 100% with anything any of these fellows say. I do agree that if we do not solve the racial divide that still splits America into angry sections, we will be in trouble. I also agree that America should honor its traditional roots. I am a Christian and I believe in God. However, to use God’s Name for political purposes strikes me as blasphemy. If God is in charge, then why are Robertson and Falwell, and Hagee and others, trying to force a political solution? I don’t understand their lack of faith in God’s ability to bring about the changes He wants for the world.

Also check out the source of this information on Robertson and Falwell:
http://www.actupny.org/YELL/falwell.html
There you will find many more outrageous statements made in the Name of God

Calling All Veterans!

2008-05-06T07:54:00.000-07:00

As a veteran, I am sending this out to all my fellow veterans.

Mr. Know It All
***************************

Dear VoteVets.org Supporter,

While the Presidential race continues, I wanted to let you know that VoteVets.org's endorsed veteran candidates are steamrolling ahead, in their races for the House and Senate! I wanted to give you a quick update on just a few of them.

As Ashwin Madia told you in a recent email, he secured his party's nomination for the House seat in Minnesota being vacated by Rep. Jim Ramstad. This fine Iraq veteran has completely blown away the odds makers, who were doubtful that a newcomer to politics could defeat opponents who had been in politics for a long time. Now, Ashwin is on his way towards taking this House seat in November.

In Ohio, Iraq veteran John Boccieri has also won his party's nomination, and is showing incredible strength against his opponent in the general election. While he still will need some money to get his message out through November, an encouraging sign is that he is outraising his opponent nearly 2-1.

DONATE HERE TO HELP US CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR THESE VETERAN CANDIDATES!

Western New York has been wowed by the incredible campaign of Jon Powers, another Iraq veteran. Political watchers are constantly amazed by the strong, methodical campaign he has run, putting him in the position to win this seat in November.

And in Texas, we've endorsed Afghanistan veteran Rick Noriega, whose strong and forceful campaign is giving Senator John Cornyn fits. Every day, Rick is out there taking the fight to Cornyn, holding him accountable in a way that the Senator hasn't seen his entire career, putting this Senate seat in play!

For more updates, I encourage you to keep coming to our website, and reading up on all of our candidates.

BUT, FIRST, CLICK HERE TO HELP VOTEVETS.ORG PAC CONTINUE ITS WORK

We've got quite a number of incredible veterans, taking their service to the next level. But we'll need your help, if we're to continue fighting for these vets. Please consider making a donation to VoteVets.org PAC today. Your money will help us take our message to these states and districts, explaining why the election of these fine patriots is so crucial.

Together, we can change the face of Congress, and elect Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans who will help ensure that our national security, military, and veterans' policies are finally set right.

Thank you for all of your support.

Sincerely,
Jon Soltz
Iraq War Veteran
Chairman, VoteVets.org

What Do They Know That We Are Ignoring?

2008-05-06T07:36:00.000-07:00

The Story of Masdar

If someone told you they were building a city of 50,000 inhabitants that would be free of carbon-producing fuels, and that would have a zero-carbon footprint, would you think they were crazy? Would you believe they were science fiction writers talking about a new book? Well, think again. In the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi is leading an initiative that would build just such a city.

Yes, a city of 50,000 carbon-free residents would reduce by but a small drop the vast ocean of carbon emitted each year by other nations, but it is still of interest. The point I raise, however, is, what do they know that we are ignoring?

The U.S. is arguably, if not the top end user of petroleum products, at least amongst the top few. We have not made more than a fly speck of progress in weaning ourselves from oil. Yet here in Abu Dhabi, a small nation wealthy in oil, leaders are already looking forward to the day when Abu Dhabi will become free of its own dependence upon oil for energy. For them it is not a question of if, but when. So, I ask again: What do they know that we are ignoring?

There has been plenty of loose talk about how the current Congress is blocking drilling in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife reserve, (Not that the Republican controlled Congress of the past years did anything about it, either!) where, according to commercials playing now on TV, it is said that enough oil-based energy is available to keep our nation running until around 2060. But the fact is, we have known for a long time that our dependence upon oil, whether national or foreign, has kept us enslaved to the interests of nations and groups that are do not look favorably upon our nation. Will we be wise enough to use what time we have left to take ourselves off the petro-drug we are addicted to, or will we just squander our time as we have since the gas-crisis of the 1970’s?

Somehow, I doubt we’ll make any better use of our precious time than we did in the past. We just can’t seem to get fired up enough about making the expensive changes needed for the future. And then there’s that nasty word, compromise, which neither leading political party seems willing to engage in so that we might actually do something that is in our nation’s best interest.

Yes, it would take compromise. I believe hydro-electric power is already completely exploited. And although solar and wind power are great ideas, I doubt either will completely fulfill our future energy needs. These sources are all important, but they will not provide enough of what we need.

Now I have to bring up that nasty “N” word: Nuclear.

Yes, there are many drawbacks to using nuclear sources for generating power, but I for one believe that it is a necessary evil if we are to wean ourselves off petroleum products. That is, in my opinion, where I part with my friends on the Left, many of whom believe nuclear power is an option never to be considered. Yet, what choices do we have?

Europe uses nuclear power to a great extent, and has made progress in making it safer and less intrusive. Not far from where I live in Illinois there are several nuclear power plants currently in operation. So far there has been no observable effect on either the people or the environment. Better yet, pollution from coal and oil powered energy sources are nowhere to be seen.

Yes, nuclear waste must be stored somewhere, and that creates a problem, yet even now we are handling it in some fashion. Yes, we will need to find safe places to bury the waste and allow it to go through its lengthy decaying process. Those are all problems we will need to solve, and according to those who want to drill in ANWR, we have only 50 some odd years to solve them.

Compromise used to be an acceptable word in American politics. Today it is called bipartisanship. But that doesn’t really capture the essence of compromise. Sometimes it merely delayed solving a problem, but other times it allowed for great things to be done. Problems were discussed and solutions were hammered out in mutual talks between parties. I am proposing that we call for and demand that our governmental leaders begin at once long term plans to study and hammer out solutions for our energy needs, and then have the political guts to act upon the solutions at which they arrive. Oil is not going to last forever. Blindly ignoring the facts is not going to make the problem simply disappear. We need answers, solutions, and action – now!

Can it be done? Well, far away, in the deserts of the Middle East, someone is doing something. Something positive, it would seem. We should, and must, pay attention, learn and then apply what we learn. Otherwise, I fear, one day, very soon, we will be the third world nation, and places like Abu Dhabi will be world leaders.

For more information on Masdar, go to the following websites:

The Masdar Initiative:
http://www.masdaruae.com/

Abu Dhabi Aims to Build First Carbon-Neutral City: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90042092

100 More Years in Iraq???

2008-05-02T13:11:00.000-07:00

OK, it’s all over the web, on the news and part of current political campaigns. Like most “shocking” revelations about presidential candidates, it’s partially true, and partially false.

Barack Obama is equated with former terrorists, McCain is seen to apparently think 100 more years in Iraq is alright with him, and Hillary Clinton – well, what can we say?

In these times of instant news, secret cameras recording everything a candidate does, no wonder we are being bombarded with clips and sound bites all decrying the despicable nature of the people we have running for president.

If I were to believe all of these things, I would immediate decide not to vote for ANY of these people, because it’s clear from the clips, ads and other devices used to smear candidates, that NONE of them are worthy of my trust! I guess it all comes down to which exaggerations we decide to accept.

Obama, McCain and Clinton, and the RNC and DNC, too, all need to reign in their surrogates, and people who send out ads need to be more truthful about what they show. Obama said people were “bitter” and some pounced on him for that. I, for one, am bitter. McCain really meant we might have a presence in Iraq for 100 years, not combat troops. I understand what he means, even if I don’t agree with him. And Hillary – well, what can we say? Bill certainly has been talking enough for her.

Still, I suggest we all take these ads with a grain of salt, because they obviously are partisan in nature. They are put out by people with a vested interest in being negative about the other candidates, and of course they will not be either fair or always completely true. They are, in effect, opinions based upon someone’s biased outlook about what has been said or done. Swift boating is alive and well in 2008. Too bad for us.

Vets Cheated Again, and White House finally admits Mission Accomplished not such a good idea!

2008-05-01T09:19:00.000-07:00

Dear readers...

Well, long since the days when the G.I. Bill was supposed to give returning vets a leg up in civilian life, a thank you for the time they took out of their everyday lives to bleed and die for those who found excuses not to serve, today we have a watered-down version of the G.I. Bill that barely passes muster.

If you are a veteran from within the past 30 years, you know that original version of bill was changed sometime back in the 1970’s. I served at a time when I was supposed to get the benefits under the old bill, but somehow the Veteran’s Administration didn’t see things that way. Fortunately, I live in Illinois, where a wisely crafted Illinois G.I. Bill covers things the federal program no longer does. And it does so for the life of the veteran.

Be that as it may, vets today are rightly complaining that the things they were promised have also been somehow forgotten by the recruiters. According to an AP story posted on CNN.com, vets returning from Afghanistan and Iraq feel “cheated, baited and switched”. Most seem to blame their recruiters. I had the same experience. My recruiter told me I would be heading to college to become a physician, a program he forgot to tell me had been cancelled more than a year before I enlisted.

The same crap goes on today! After all these years, how can any recruiter or military person in charge of anything larger than latrine duty claim they don’t know anything about it?

The vets interviewed, and one would assume many others were weren't, are finding it nearly impossible to get the help they need for college, not to mention other promises left unfulfilled. According to the AP report, benefits today cover about half of the expected tuition and other costs. The total comes to a national average of $1,101 dollars per month for up to 36 months, but only for active duty, honorably discharged vets. For the National Guard and reservists, the average is $440 per month. That’s hardly enough, one vets tells us, to cover community college tuition, let alone other costs of getting an education.

Our vets put their lives in danger, and for those who survive the ordeal, they also put them on hold, and for what? Will it take a reliving of history, when WWI vets built Hoovervilles in Washington to protest the government neglect of vets? There, vets protested and were driven off by regular army troops, under the leadership of Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, (And McArthur and Patton, too!). I wonder if the regular army troops were thinking, “Hey, this might be me some day!” As this occurred, the House of Representatives was debating the Patman Bonus Bill, which was staunchly opposed by Republicans loyal to then president Herbert Hoover. The bill passed the House but was defeated in the Senate, and then all hell broke loose as regular army troops with tanks, teargas and cavalry drove the protesters and their families from the nation's capital.

Of course, the local Republicans brought out the "communist sympathizer" attack, and retired Marine general Smetley Butler gave a fired up speech to the vets which fueled opponents of the vets to claim communist infiltration had taken place. Man, they never get tired of that one, do they?

More about the G.I. Bill fiasco can be found at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/29/new.gi.rally/index.html

More about Hooverville can be found at: http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/4.pdf

*****************************************************

In related news, Dana Perino, the president’s White House press secretary, admitted that”…we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner.” As she explained that the crew of the ship had something to do with it being displayed. She went on to blame the press for pointing out the error in Bush’s thinking with her usually display of disdain. “And I recognize that the media is going to pay this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.” Oh, so telling the truth is inconvenient to the White House?

Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you. That is how I am beginning to size up the legacy of the Bush administration for the past sever years of what were, in my opinion, some of the most messed up mistakes on record.

OK, I exaggerate a bit, but looking back over Bush’s tenure I begin to wax nostalgic for the Clinton years, which at the time I thought were pretty messed up. Still Bush has managed, by whatever means, to, in my opinion, get us bogged down in a war that has no victory in sight. Yes, there have been small, even important victories on the field, mainly obtained through the excellent spirit and work of our armed forces.

However, it seems to me that our leaders have managed to squander too many opportunities to make our eventual exit from Iraq something to be proud of. Yes, the surge has had its successes, but did it really, truly accomplish the goals it was supposed to win? I remain highly skeptical.

And now we find out that the White House has, in what is in my opinion a back-handed way, admitted that the famous Mission Accomplished banner was a mistake. Well, 4,000 plus lives later, in a war that has lasted longer than WWII, using armed forces that are woefully understaffed, that is the best they can do? Then, they even blamed some of it on the ship’s crew! At least in ancient Rome disgraced leaders would fall on their swords; in our time I guess we should be grateful they at least trip on their own words.

Whatever the truth of that, I do think that our jingoistic attitude, or at least the loud saber rattling done in those days by certain administration officials, elected and non-elected, should lead to some sort of consequences for the leaders who lead us astray. I would start at the top, and one by one, work our way down the list. People, this is way worse than Bill Clinton’s Monicagate, and yet we see absolutely nothing being done about it!

You know, when my students chew gum in class they are chastised in greater degree than our leaders when they lie to us, deceive us, and then try to cover up their fabrications. Many of my students are angry that a president can do such things and get away with it.

OK: What’s This???

2008-04-30T11:38:00.000-07:00

In the state of Uttar Pradesh, India, a 6 year old girl was shoved into burning embers by a young man from an upper caste. It appears she is a Dalit, an Untouchable, the lowest of the low amongst Indian castes. And she had the nerve, the nerve, mind you, to walk on a path reserved for upper caste villagers!

Can you imagine the chutzpah of any 6 year old Indian child who doesn’t know by now that such paths are reserved for the uppity-ups of the world? Sounds to me like a clear case of an Untouchable being touched in an inappropriate manner! I am surprised the snobby fellow would have touched her at all, even to shove her aside. I’m shocked he didn’t have a servant do that for him!

“Dalits are seen to pollute higher caste people if they come in touch with them, hence the 'untouchables'”, according to a website devoted to reporting such matters. "If a higher caste Hindu is touched by, or even had a Dalit's shadow fall across them, they consider themselves to be polluted and have to go through a rigorous series of rituals to be cleansed." Guess it’s like watching where you step in a city full of homeless people, eh? Toss ‘em a coin or two, but don’t get too close … Yuck! It might be catchy! And then we’d have to take a bath! OMG!

At any rate, the girl was seriously hurt and the man was charged with attempted murder. I guess even the elite have to take responsibility for their stupidity.

Gas Prices: The Oil Well Has Blown Its Top!

2008-04-30T09:52:00.000-07:00

I am now paying at the pump more than I pay for a really good meal in my favorite restaurant. I even took to replying to all of my friends who, some years back, told me not to bitch and complain about the high cost of gas because milk and bottled water were more expensive. Well, the chickens have come home to roost on this matter: milk and bottled water are less expensive than a gallon of gas!

What got us here? Some people say the dollar is weak, and that is why we pay more for oil. I doubt that. The U.S. dollar is globally down about 10%, but gas is up a whole lot more than that!

Some people say there isn’t enough oil on the market, now that China and India are buying huge amounts, but I don’t buy that either. Actually, there seems to be a more-than-adequate supply of oil out there right now.

Some people say lower the taxes on gas at the pump (Hillary Clinton & John McCain each propose variations on this idea). I think that would lead to two disasters. First, the taxes pay for infrastructure, and as we all know, bridges and roads in the U.S. are generally in deplorable condition. Second, lowering the taxes would at best be a temporary solution that would lead to higher consumption, adding to the problem and making it potentially even worse.

Some people want to drill in ANWR, and Arctic National Wildlife reserve, where it is said enough oil exists to keep us humming along in our Hummers for quite a long time. Of course, there are oil shale fields, off-shore sites and other places we could also drill and find oil, so why not use those resources now?

Then some people want to reopen old, low-producing wells, such as those in the Midwest. Well, that is already being done, although the oil is pumped more slowly than molasses on a cold January morning. It’s just not a huge supply, and is only worth the effort when oil prices are very, very high.

Lastly, increase the availability of bio-fuels, ethanol. OK, but it costs a lot of money and takes forever to get new plants on-line, doesn’t it? And there is that nasty ethical issue of taking food that could feed starving millions and putting it use as fuel. Ouch, bad form, guys.

All of these sound reasonable, in order to keep our automobiles moving us from point A to point B, but I am a skeptic when it comes to easy (or even not so easy, but quick and seemingly expedient) solutions to huge problems. To tell the truth, most people do not seem to have a really good idea about why gas prices are up, but we do know that oil supply is not necessarily low. It seems, according to my friends at NPR, who interviewed Vijay Vaitheeswaran, correspondent for The Economist and co-author of Zoom, The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future, that the real reason behind the high prices has nothing to do with supply and demand, but a shift in investments and rising oil nationalism, coupled with a reluctance on our part to separate ourselves from our over-dependence upon oil at a fuel.

Those people who seek to make money off investments have fewer choices these days than they did, even, for example, a year or two ago. Housing markets are down, so real estate is not a wise investment for turning a quick buck. Many have turned to the volatile oil sector, where trading can often change dramatically, with huge swings in oil prices, from one minute to the next. Speculators have been helping drive the cost for oil up and down; that much is quite true, but is that enough to cause these higher prices?

In my opinion, greed is at the heart of most of this. We, as consumers, just can’t get our heads around the fact that we need to reduce our need for oil. I have even heard some of my friends say that it is our God given right to drive gas-hungry vehicles. Well, that type of twisted logic usually leads to a sudden downfall. As for the rest of us, until we get there, none of us should complain about how high gas prices are. We are in a free market situation, and demand drives up prices like nothing else can.

Our stock market is also fueled by greed in a sense, in that nobody enters the market hoping to lose money. The higher the price of crude oil goes, the better for speculators. I’m all for making a profit, within the rules of the game, of course.

I’m not out to change the way we do business, but I am certain that greed, (or monetary ambition if you prefer), can also be put to better use. Where are the entrepreneurs creating new energy systems? This would be a huge and profitable market in the right hands. Where is our great national genius and leadership in this field? Why isn’t President Bush, and every candidate hopeful of truly making change happen in our nation, delving into ways of creating profitable markets for alternative energy sources, sources which do require huge input of energy to make a pittance of return?

No matter what, the world is changing all around us, and if we are to keep our place at the top of this global energy chain, we had better get busy right now and make a better future than that which is being predicted for us.

Expelling Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed!

2008-04-30T08:47:00.000-07:00

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, is a current film touted by Ben Stein as the proof needed that there is a vast conspiracy by scientists to exclude the evidence of a divine creator, and Intelligent Designer, i.e. God, that is obscuring the truth and perpetuating a falsehood about evolution. The argument, however, is much older than this movie, and is, in my humble opinion, just another rehash of the same tired, disproven diatribe used by anti-evolutionists to get Creationism put into the classroom. I’m sorry, but I didn’t buy it then, and I don’t buy the argument now.

I am one of those people who believe that religion is religion, and science is science, and seldom shall the twain meet. Recently, the people who brought you such novel ideas as the earth is only 5,000 some odd years old and Creationism, have tried a new tactic in getting their message across. It is called Intelligent Design.

Now, I am not going to say that God had nothing to do with creating everything there is, or that God exists or doesn’t exist. That is a matter of religious belief, and there is nothing is science that can measure the God Factor in anything scientifically examined.

However, Intelligent Design (ID) is not science. It is a postulation that behind everything that exists, there must be seen the direct intervention of a Superior Being, God, if you will. I can neither confirm nor deny that by using science or the scientific method.

ID was born of the frustration that Creationists feel about not getting their unsubstantiated views shoved into public school science courses. They gave their views a more scientific feel, without any of the substance or proof needed to create a scientific theory, never put their views under scientific scrutiny, and because some of their claims have been disproved by serious science, they claim foul, equate non-believers to Nazis and do all they can to make the scientific method look like some quasi-religion that shuts out their views.

Well, in my humble opinion, it is their own set of views that excludes itself from being taken seriously. Recently I watched a show where a “scientist” was showing that because layers of land exposed by erosion were flat, it proves (a) and Noah’s flood was real, and that (b) the Earth is only a little more than 5,000 years old.

How they came to that conclusion was not clearly presented in the argument, but if they were to create a serious document, provide evidence, publish it, and then be prepared to present it, maybe they could be taken more seriously as scientists. But no, they decided to by-pass the scrutiny and scientific inquiry stages and just appeal to the public.

Now I am not saying that we common folk are unenlightened, but just as I would not want to perform surgery on someone, me not being medically trained to do so, neither would I expect the mass of people to be able to properly use the scientific method to weigh the arguments for and against ID. Heck, most people still think a theory used in science is just a best guess, failing to understand the common usage of the word theory is as far removed from the scientific use of the word as can be.

So, people may naturally say, “Yes, gee, scientists sound like a bunch of elitists that deny the existence of God! They must be punished, so allow ID to be taught in public schools!” That, at least, seems to be the hope of the current batch of ID proponents.

Without asking whether or not a god, or The God, created everything in the Universe, one must ask oneself; what are the rules by which we must play this game? Well, in science, unlike other areas of life, the rules are quite explicit. Postulate, prove, and then proclaim. The ID people would like to skip that middle section. To them, proof is anecdotal. I often stir controversy amongst my very religious friends by stating that simple fact that there is more scientific proof for how the eye was evolved than there is for the entire Bible. (By the way, for those who don’t know, the complexity of the eye was used as one example of why evolution can’t be true.)

I guess I would have to take a pass on seeing the Intelligent Design behind this film. I give it no rating, because it is neither science nor good cinematography. Sorry, Ben. You should have stuck with just giving away your money instead of throwing it away on junk like this.

For those seeking to learn more about the truth behind the REAL science, go to: http://www.expelledexposed.com/

¡Basta! Enough!

2008-04-29T12:46:00.000-07:00

Well, I’m writing this on the fly, so hopefully I won’t end up making too many errors as I go along. But, I am highly pissed at the low quality of products we are buying from China and other places. Already the U.S. has lost way too many jobs to overseas markets, but to add insult to injury, the products we used to make here, which are now being made over there somewhere, are toxic, poorly made, dangerous or otherwise flawed.

Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, an exposé about the horrible conditions in the meat packing industry more than 100 years ago. Too bad he wasn’t still around, because he’d have a field day writing about how we have sold ourselves down the river!

I listen to Lou Dobbs on CNN, and while I may disagree on some issues, he and I are one in this matter! As I see it, and I may be wrong, but I doubt it, you need a job in order to buy things, and if you don’t make enough money to buy well-made things, there is always someone out there willing top sell you crap. We all know who “they” are, and I, for one, have sworn off buying things made overseas.

Or, at least I think I have. But this new toxic medicine scare is enough to make me research where my medicines are coming from. I depend on several medicines to stay alive, and believe me; I am worried that somehow a poison will get into the materials used to make the meds I need to keep breathing. Does that make me angry? You bet it does!

It isn’t enough just to get angry, though. You and I need to do something loud and angry to get our government to stop the importation of cheap products with such poor (or apparently in some cases non-existent safety controls). To do that we need to stop handing our jobs overseas, because this is leading to a loss of quality, as well as the hemorrhage of money from our pockets. We can ill afford to keep this up.

Write/email people in Congress, the President, and the presidential candidates. Don’t delay: that next pill you take may be the one that kills you!

For more info on this go to: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/05/asia/web0505-toxic-46350.php

The Black Holocaust Museum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin

2008-04-28T12:01:00.000-07:00

There is a place that changed me, a place that made me see things I did not want to see. It is called the Black Holocaust Museum, and it's located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I chanced upon it some years ago and the things I saw there, the questions that were asked of me, the questions I asked myself, changed my view of how I look at and think of people who are different than I am.

The mission of the museum is as follows: America’s Black Holocaust Museum (ABHM) exists to educate the public of injustices suffered by people of African American heritage, while providing visitors with an opportunity to rethink their assumptions about race and racism.

That alone is a powerful statement. It asks me to look at how people of my culture treated people of differing cultures. It asks me to examine why I believe my culture is superior to another culture, one that is very different than my own. It asks me to challenge my beliefs and the reasons for which I believe what I do, or in this case, used to believe.

The answers are not often easy, and they change or evolve over time. I saw things that I had known about, but had never personalized. It is like when someone sees Jesus on a cross and thinks, "How cruel!", but they never actually wonder, what if that were me? It is as if someone sees the pictures of Jewish people, or other people, in concentration camps and thinks, "That's terrible!", but never ponders, could that happen to me?

When you can mentally put yourself in another's situation, empathise with them, step into their shoes, their time and place, you begin to personalize the experience and become part of it. I did the same thing when I visited the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. I felt the same thing when I visited Anne Frank's house in Amsterdam, or when I saw the memorials at former concentration camps in Europe.

I personalized the experience and began to wonder, what if that were me?

No, it didn't happen all in one blinding flash of enlightenment. Indeed, it is, as I said, an evolving experience, one that is more strongly felt one day and less so on another. But, and this is the important part, it is now a part of me. When I look at the news on television I am internally asking myself, what if that were me in Darfur? What if that were me in Mexico? What if that were happening to me? How would I react?

Often I find that I empathize with others, even if I don't understand their culture, their anger or their hatred. Often I find that reasons for hatred and anger are the same ones that I used to feel. I do not understand you, therefore I do not like you. Palestinian hates Jew because ... , Jew hates Palestinian because ... , each has their reasons, but their logic is flawed, the information by which they formulate their opinion is lacking balance, lacking comprehension of the root cause of their anger and hatred.

White man hates Black man because ...; Black man hates White man because ... Again, there is a cultural divide, a chasm that neither think can or even should cross. It is much easier to stay where you are, secure in your beliefs, even if your beliefs are wrong. Why? Ah! That is the most difficult question posed by the Black Holocaust Museum, and by other museums like it.

When you can answer this question, you are on the narrow path to better understand not only strangers, but also yourself.

In spite of what you think about the recent controversies concerning Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and no matter what sound bites you choose to believe, listen to what the man has to say, and listen to others with whom you do not agree. I did, and here is what I learned.

Jeremiah Wright said that cultures are different, but that does not mean one or the other is deficient. Both can be equally valid and equally valuable. I can't think of music, for example, without the Blues or Jazz, any more than I can think of it without Country, Classical and Rock. I can hear roots of Indian music in Flamenco, roots of Arabic music in many modern European songs. There is a cross-cultural mix that creates a whole new experience, a completely new and intriguing sound. Yes, each type of music has importance, validity and value. There are even traces of each type found in the others. Antonin Dvorak, for example, used folk genres in writing much of his music, and he was extremely interested in what was then called "Black music." So much so that he helped found a college where people of many different cultures and colors could come together and teach each other.
There is a change coming, a change about how we, as individuals, engage with and interchange with people of other cultures. Some people lament that America is changing and becoming too exotic, too different from it's traditional European roots. They forget that there was a time when people said that very same thing because America was predominantly English and German, and those pesky Irish and Italians were coming here, not to mention those Eastern Europeans, with their foreign ways and customs and attitudes. Yes, things change, they evolve, and in spite of what some people believe, if a society remains static, it dies. That is a lesson history teaches us, yet one which many people do not wish to hear.
We, as a nation, are responsible for our actions, as well as for the reactions to our actions. Keep a people in bondage for centuries, deny them opportunities, force them to live in abject conditions, and guess what, it comes back to bite you in the butt! This is not to say that White and Black people can not overcome the past, learn to live with respect, treat each other with dignity. However, such a day is not here just quite yet, and we have to be reminded that we are, indeed, working to fulfil the true American dream when we make it possible for each person, regardless of color or culture, to add to and take from our overall culture that which he or she needs to survive and thrive.

So, what is your outlook, what do you feel in your heart about people who are different from you? Why do you feel that way, and more importantly, just how sure are you that what is in your heart is correct? Check it out, and if you get a chance, visit the Black Holocaust Museum and see if you walk out with a different attitude about your own beliefs and ideas. Even if you don't, at least you may start to understand how America looks through a different set of eyes.

Some information taken from the museum website:

America's Black Holocaust Museum

2233 North 4th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53212

Phone: (414) 264-2500

Fax: (414) 264-0112

www.blackholocaustmuseum.org

HoursTuesday-Saturday: 9 am - 5 pm

Why go to the Moon?

2008-04-28T11:43:00.000-07:00

Ever since I was a child I have been fascinated with space travel. I wanted to visit the moon by the time I was an adult. Well, I'm an adult now and my dreams will have to wait. However, I believe that we should move quickly to establish a permanent base on the moon, and that this should be followed by a permanent colony there are well.

Why? you might ask. Well, simply to do what human beings have long considered impossible: Live on another world, leave the earth and begin to colonize space. Simply because we can. There are many petty reasons, and a number of major, in-the-national-interest reasons as well.

Eventually we, as a species, will need to outgrow and move beyond our perilous existence on this planet. One large asteroid and we could be wiped out. With colonies on the Moon, Mars and perhaps even moons around Jupiter and Saturn, we would be extending our chances of survival in case of a major natural disaster.

There are also important industrial reasons for spreading amongst the stars. Sooner or later we are going out-populate the earth. It may be happening already, since we have more than six billion people breathing the air and drinking the water down here.

I believe that it will also give us anew and much needed perspective on who we are and why we are here. Without getting spiritual and religious, seeing the Earth from afar, and learning to cope and thrive on distant worlds will make us appreciate our humanness. Like pioneers of old, we will be forced to live by our wits, and in my interpretation of history, that is when we show how brilliant we can be.

Of course there will many benefits in technology, science and other important areas that will, hopefully, lead us to a better and more equitable future.

But most of all, I simply believe it would be a lot of fun just to walk around on the surface of the moon, or Mars, and see if I have what it takes to face the odds, survive, and live to write about it!