Iraqi leaders continue to boast, even as the walls around them crumble. Foreign Minister Naji Sabri declared Iraqi victory in twenty-four hours. The coalition forces will surrender, or perish.
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, Information Minister of Iraq, declared that the broadcasting systems of Iraq have been unaffected by intense U.S. bombing. "They deny and spread lies," Sabri said, about the US media's coverage of the war, and of coalition casualties specifically.
NBC's Peter Arnett seemed himself to come under the power of lies. He said, on Iraqi TV, that the US-led Coalition forces had failed in their initial attack plan. His own grasp of reality slipped, as he no doubt sought some kind of journalistic objectivity, mistakenly thought to be "truth." The basis of his whole judgment was shaken, and he was fired by NBC.
I never thought NBC would be seized with such a streak of patriotism. This is extraordinary. I'm incredulous, but, fairly elated.
This is all about reality. We commoners over here in America are subject to media. We have to sort out distortions from accurate reports. This is a major task. We have problems with our own media, to say nothing of the remarkably consistent denials of Iraq media.
I for one resent lies. I remember what John Wayne said in the movie Cowboys, when some crooks tried to hire on as cowhands. "I hate liars." I also remember what Solomon said: "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord." Proverbs 12:22.
It's hard to keep from lying yourself, when the information you're getting is lies. This is pretty high level psychology, and it would be hard to judge a person's character.
But, unless the Iraqi's come up with a miraculous, horrific carnage on our forces, as I fearfully surmised in my last blog, I think the Iraqi leaders will go down in history as the creators of the deepest, most perfect lies ever pronounced.
I wait in silent prayer.
Since the beginning of this war in Iraq, I have had a secret fear. I have been worried that Hussein will lure thousands upon thousands of our troops into his web, then destroy them with a surprise weapon. He said as much, in the beginning, but no one has taken him seriously. We have rushed to Bagdad. We have rushed into the net.
Even now the reports are that he is about to use his chemical weapons on our troops. (And in back of this, our Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace said that the Iraqi army is a lot tougher than we were all led to believe. We were warned about it, too. Americans are concerned we're not being tough enough.)
Are we going to lose hundreds of thousands of our troops? Will there be some fantastic horror unleashed at the final hour of Hussein martyrdom?
If this is true, it will only be because of our "compassion" in trying to spare Iraqi people and their country, because we have tried to remove Hussein's regime with the least amount of casualities and destruction possible.
I doubt he is an enemy that will allow such a purpose to be fulfilled. I've felt our troops were endangered from the start by our resolve of compassion on the enemy. but this is not a compassionate enemy. Our approach has been too theoretical, or "politically correct" as some have now said.
We are willing to pay a horrible price, to prove simple point: we are compassionate, we will liberate and restore Iraq, and we hope the world will see our superior approach to the whole matter. If thousands of our soliders die, this in fact is what they will have died for: the character of America. Never before was such a war fought it such a way to prove such a point. Not even the Civil War compares with it. Let's hope that after it's over, there will indeed be "malice toward none."
In the mean time, I do pray our righteous soldiers will reap their rewards for us all. May we be worthy of their sacrifice.
Saddam Hussein uses civilians as human sheilds to protect himself and his weapons. He's done it before, and he is doing it now. He places civilians around his Repulican Guard, and around his stock piles of arms. He banks on the Coalition resolve not to harm the innocents, or, the non-combatants.
This also gives him opportunity to accuse the US and Great Britain of targeting civilians should their be any civilian loss. The US military says it is very likely that Hussein shot of a missle himself, at his own people, for propaganda purposes. This is like some professional activist in San Fransisco making horrible, violent attacks against blacks, hispanics, or Indians, so that the big, organized protest organizations (also highly funded) can have something to protest about, and then can manipulate the media, then finally influence legislation to get their way.
The "human rights" of the suffering civilians under Hussein's gruesome, torturous regime are not the main concern of these protesters. They want to make sure the United States doesn't accidently kill anyone, unnecessarily, in a gigantic war effort to remove Hussein. They're more interested in holding the great United States responsible for any accident, than they are holding Hussein responsible for decades of unspeakable, intentional torture and mayhem he's committed against his own people.
Now that's real objective thought. That's real quality analysis and noble purpose. That's real professionalism. Protest any accident in the effort to remove a devil, rather than protest that devil's intentional torture and murder.
That fact is, from day one, the way in which the United States and Great Britain and the coalition forces have conducted this military effort make it demonstrably the most humane, considerate war in the history of mankind. The effort to spare unnecessary loss is remarkable, and made possible by precision equipment and moral resolve on the part of the liberators.
I can only hope that, when it's all over, the world will see what a great character America has as a country. No, it's not perfect. Our most adored individuals are not perfect either. But, consider the alternative. Consider Hussein. Consider Iraq.
I for one resolve to live with the faults of America.
Can we learn anything from the voluminous documented testimonies of Jewish Holocaust captives and survivors? These poor people have been analyzed for over half a century now. Surely, there is information in their stories that sheds some light on the experience of hatred, captivity, torture, and survival.
One thing that distinguished this modern tragedy to start with, is the fact that Jews weren't subsequently accused of losing their identity or cooperating (however unwillingly) with the captors. The Germans would never let them forget that they were Jews. That's why they were captive. Saddam Hussein's tyranny over his Iraqi captives presents a different situation, more like family kidnapping and abuse.
Maybe that says it all. The Jewish plight came about precisely because of what they were, as a people, not who they each were, individually, as person. How can one surrender a racial identity? Ironically, then, the very basis of their captivity was also the basis of their ethnic preservation, psychologically.
So then, what can be learned from the Jewish experience? What is there that is applicable to all? Racial hatred, degradation, and obliteration of personal identity? The African Negro slave however, did not experience slavery because his race was particularly hated, certainly not hated in the way that Germans hated Jews. And the Negro slave, although he never lost his racial identity, never had much of an individual identity to start with, at least not in comparison to complex European egotism. The American Negro, for instance, has developed remarkably since his captivity. The Jews were highly developed, before their captivity.
There is something unique about the Jewish captivity. Something rather profound in comparison to all other abuse. Even if the dark Muslim world were to suddenly hold captive the entire white Christian race, the hatred, the deep level of animosity might never match the white Christian world's hatred of Jews. Remember it was the white race (or most of the Germanic part of it) who hated the Jews most. The Jews were talented and powerful, though in a terrible small minority. It is this imbalance of proportion which generally makes them seem so objectionable to the vast Gentile world. That the Germans would focus so intensely on them is one of the peculiarities of modern civilization. Like Arabs, the Germans became hysterical and terrorized themselves at the very thought of a Jew. Their hatred and superiority complex was merely a self-indulged, self-aggrandized defense mechanism.
The Jewish Captivity is just different from other tragedies. Americans didn't hate Indians just because Indians were Indian. Indians were in the way. Americans wanted to expand, and to control the continent. That's all. Germans hated Jews because Jews were Jews. Jews weren't so much in the way as they were just "in" at all. The Germans wanted them out.
So, to answer my own question, Can we learn anything from the Jewish Captivity and Holocaust?, I may have to answer, No, nothing that is applicable to anyone else, except other Gentile peoples who may feel deep hatred for Jews, like most of the Arab, Muslim world.
In less than six months now, there have been two American Negro male servicemen who have committed heinous crimes against Americans. The first was John Allen Muhammad, the DC sniper (and his young sidekick, John Lee Malvo the Jamaican), and now Mark Fidel Kools, or, Asan Akbar. Both are essentially terrorists against Americans.
There are white men who have done the same, but both these were black, and both Muslim converts. Both these men had world vision, not simply personal discontent. Perhaps Weltanshauung and personal discontent is a potentially lethal combination, especially when the world view accommodates violent expression of personal discontent.
"Attitude problem" they said? Kools/Akbar had an attitude problem? Is that going to be his defense? He was in circumstances of war, where weapons are abundant. Expression of "attitude" will very likely be expressed violently. He deeply resented the war against Muslims. So was he a victim of circumstances?
Was he confused? Well, CNN.com tried to cover for him, not even mentioning the incident except through reference to Canadian news, and not mentioning his name.
Perhaps, in the future, being an American black Muslim will provide the perfect "draft dodging" manoeuver. Such men are proving to be great risks to their environment.
In Februrary, Louis Farrakhan's "Savior Day" message denounced the leadership of President Bush, declaring Bush was leading America to its fall. The week before, The Black Radical Congress denounced the war effort, and the "disproportionate" number of black men and women in the military service, as if this the secret design of the United States government.
This type of message is part and parcel of the Nation of Islam's website, published for all to read. The Nation of Islam, the American Negro sect of Islam, is based on a protest against the historical treatment of the United States toward African slaves. Saeed Shabbazz warns that the United States has undermined the United Nations, and the implication is that the United States and Great Britain are the "rogue" nations in the world. Why, everyone else abides by the world community consensus.
With all the fundamentally patriotic black Americans around, it's a shame that this Nation of Islam makes so much noise. It's a bigger shame that black Muslim men are creating such a nasty image of black Muslims. Murderers they are. Nothing more. No sophisticated world view or religion can disguise that. John Allen and Mark Kools are deluded men. It happens. Personal discontent combined with a world view justifying the violent expression of that discontent. That is the formula for disaster. We all have discontent of one kind or another. Some world views aggrandize that discontent, and encourage the expression of it.
Iraqis are into torture. They've been tortured by Hussein for over two decades now. And now during the current conflict with Iraq, Americans have been captured and tortured already.
Torture is an ancient practice. It has existed in a variety of studied forms all over the globe. All the "great" countries of Europe practiced it, during the Dark Ages (i.e., the Medieval Ages). And that was mainly by Catholic-inspired authorities, using torture to coerce the minds and consciences of unbelievers or other political enemies. This is a terribly ugly fact about Europe.
America is about the only major civilization in history not to make a fundamental practice of torture. (The "death penalty" in our justice system can hardly be compared to torture.) Americans face torture when captured by different Indian tribes, but still, torture never became an established practice of the American government or of the American military. If it did, or if it has, it is one of the best kept secrets of all. (Of course, modern academic Indians see the entire history of white America's treatment of Indians as "torture." But that's a different issue. Americans did not torture German prisoners in WWI or II, for example. Does America have a 300 year plan to "torture" the Iraq race and culture? I seriously doubt it.)
But the maniacs among the Iraqis will indulge a satanic glee in torturing every American under their power, just as they tortured any Iraqi dissent against them.
America could easily level Iraq, with just the right bomb or two. Instead, America is going through an elaborate system of carefully orchestrated conflicts, making every possible effort to spare Iraqi citizens, and even to preserve their modern conveniences, such as electricity. This is astounding. In all the history of war, no such magnanimity and consideration has ever been expressed. This effort is costly, in terms of our resources, and especially in terms of the lives of our soldiers.
When I heard of American prisoners being tortured, and degraded, my first reaction was to simply destroy Iraq, completely. Our soldiers deserve more respect from us. The worse-than-animal, demonic regime of Hussein, and the whole Arab Muslim penchant for torture ought to be annihilated as quickly as possible.
"We must spare the innocent Iraqi's" our leaders say. So who's more innocent, our soldiers who are their to deliver the Iraqi's from the diabolical Husseinites, or the Iraqi citizens? Whose innocence to we protect first?
I suppose we're trying to prove a point. Our's is a better quality civilization than Iraq's, and our people are of a better moral quality. When they delight in torture, and we don't, I'd say there's no argument. We're far better. We do the world a great favor in eliminating a regime such as Hussein's. We can only hope that all the Islamic desert peoples observe this, and appreciate it. Somehow, I really doubt that they will. They may not be capable of changing.
Last week, Carol Arnold of Oklahoma City's KTOK radio had on Mr. Ron Black, editor of Oklahoma Small Business News. The topic was the infamous Bass Pro construction project in OKC, the private, out-of-state-business project which our City Council voted to support with OKC tax dollars. The Council is being sued by Moshe Tal and the Citizens for Honest Government, in a class action suit.
The radio conversation was typical: decrying the way in which the Bass Pro deal was achieved, decrying the risk, and yet accepting it all with good faith, like Ann Simank, my veteran opponent did. Why, it will all work out.
But it hasn't. Nearly ten years have gone by, and the Bass Pro shop is not here. Taxes have been raised, taxes have been borrowed from other departents, all because the local contractor, Mr. Hogan, apparently didn't have the money he boasted to have. It was all a pay-back sort of deal. Let the citizens do the paying.
Carol Arnold and Mr. Black spoke of Moshe Tal, and Carol spoke of him as a nuissance, while Mr. Black indicated that Tal's image was changing. Carol complained of the pestilential nature of the legal actions of Tal against the city, as if Tal were a sore loser over the fact that his land was illegally taken from him, and City Hall made the deal with local crooks instead of the first class contractors Tal had connections with. Tal hasn't been successful yet, Arnold decried, as if his efforts were simply those of a stubborn trouble maker.
I resented this, highly, and called in to the radio show. When I came on, I was not identified as a form Council candidate, nor was my last name even given, just "David." I spoke on, anyway. I said that Moshe Tal was actually a hero, the only one with character strong enough to pursue the law. I said never mind the "done deal" Carol spoke of, as if it were all over. If wrong was done, the doers must be pursued. Never mind the supposed "good outcome" of the whole Bass Pro project. By the way, the figures don't figure at all. It will be a tremendous loss to the city, even with the projected loans and tax increases. It's all at citizens' expense. Gain for local contractors and City Hall members. This is what it all looks like.
Arnold likes to think the City Council members are good hearted people, and have the best interests of the people at heart. She says this sort of thing privately and publically. I say, "good hearted" leaders, "good intentions," is just a spin-over on the matter of honesty. I would prefer honest leaders, rather than such "good hearted leaders." We do not have to accept dishonesty on the part of leaders. It must be resisted and overcome!
The Arnold type are willing to accept and condone fraud, in the name of good-hearted friends and a positive future, as projected by the accused. Call it looking the other way. Happens a lot in politics. She calls pursuing the truth, through law, a nuissance.
I call the law a nuissance. The Oklahoma Bar Association is about to be sued as well, for their own racketeering and fraud. This is being pursued by a Tulsa attorney on a different issue. Oklahoma has to begin to face up to the generational corruption of the "good ol' boys." It takes a real man, a powerful man, to stand up against this. I think Moshe Tal is such a man. I am proud to stand by him.
More and more, Hollywood celebrities are using their fame and notoriety to support liberal political views. And it seems that the anti-war Left has made its mark on sports figures as well, even in sports fans.
Rick Reilly, a terrific writer for Sports Illustrated, has a penchant for picking out the most liberal sports figures and dramatizing their political views. In his most recent post, "A Man of Substance," Reilly praises a parade of anti-war sports figures, as if their athletic accomplishments give particular validation to their views.
Reilly concentrates on Dean Smith, former head basketball coach of North Carolina, and one of the more outspoken liberals in the sports world. Reilly thinks that because Smith retired with 879 wins, the most in basketball coach history, Smith's negative views on Iraq, the death penalty, the flag salute, etc., are all especially right, and naturally represent the winning take on the issues.
I say Reilly's making a cheap shot. Fame and notoriety, especially when achieved by actors or athletes, have nothing to do with thinking skills or intellectual achievements. As a matter of fact, both actors and athletes have the general reputation of quite the opposite. Furthermore, actors have the distinct reputation of amorality, or, conscious abandonment of morals. And the way basketball players are in trouble with the law these days, one wonders just how much moral character is to be associated with athletes after all.
Yes, we naturally tend to think of athletes as highly motivated, disciplined, and of necessarily fine character. This is the subliminal, implied weight behind Reilly's use of their rep to support any liberal views any of them happen to have.
Fame is all the actors have going for them. No one expects any sincere degree of intelligence from them. It is quaint and peculiar when actors speak out, as if they have true sincerity in them, as if they really are "real" persons, apart from their movie images.
Athletes have a much finer rep, traditionally, and a heavy fame as well. Now they are being used by the Left and the Leftist media to buttress the liberal agenda. This is indeed an ironic tragedy. Now we can't associate the same kind of strength and character we used to associate with athletes.
We can only hope that our soldiers, our finest, can live above this media abuse that athletes are subjected to. Yet, as noted before, even those who wear the uniform are not completely "doubt-free."
Here's an interesting side note on Operation Regime Change in Iraq. NATO has pledged to protect and support Turkey, if Turkey is attacked by Iraq.
Such loyalty, such unity. How refreshing. How encouraging.
So, when it's a country against another country, everyone is ready to act nobly. A different mind set kicks in.
It was "terrorisim" by Islamic extremists. Oh, that was something fundamentally different. That wasn't war. That was ideological expression.
Well, I don't care what it was, it must never happen again. Our United States President has decided to act against it. In his judgment, action had to be taken. We are seeing that action now, eighteen months later. I for one am terribly grateful for such a man as President Bush. No man is infallible, but, he was willing to act. That is such a precious phenomenon in this communist-duped world today, where in the name of perverted equality, eveyone seems paralized except to protest some material inequality.
But never mind legal, ideological desputes over words like "war," "authority," or "rights." I feel safer already. That's what's important to me.
I know now why The Daily Oklahoman is considered the worst newspaper in America. The Columbia Journalism Review published a series on The Oklahoman in 1999. I can't say a agree with everything advocated in that liberal review, but, such an assessment of another liberal news organ can only mean the Oklahoman must be unusually poor quality.
Let's take the simple report on the City Council elections yesterday. The report says that the whole election was an attempt to oust two city council memebers for their role in a $17 million dollar construction project. Guy Liebmann, who spent $90 thousand on his successful campaign, is being sued for accepting a bribe. Another city council member signed an affidavit affirming facts, which was filed with the suit. The Oklahoman of course failed to report this, but instead presents Liebmann as a great leader, being heckled by small time, disgruntled "special interests."
Ann Simank apparently spent between $25 and $30 thousand on her successful campaign. She has long established relations with monied people, but didn't really need to spend more. Her opponent (me) had no name recognition in the city, started campaigning only two weeks ago, and had only $750 dollars to work with. Ann has been on City Council for eight years already. She disdained appearing with me for debate, and made only one call-in appearance on a local radio show. Ann wants "progress," not honesty. She fluffs her way out of accountability, every time.
Of course, the Oklahoman couldn't get the story quite right. "I have no name recognition and $750 dollars," it says, as if I have $750 left over from the campaign, and of course, no name after the campaign. Oh, well, minor misrepresentations, meant only to demean, not to distort. (And why the need to mention my age twice? The same reporter got it wrong before, I guess. I was thirty-one. Now I don't know how old I am.)
So Ann thinks the people want a "first class city." The people I talked with want honesty in government, and resent having no say in the use of their taxes. "Economic development" always means debt and borrowing, and raising taxes, the way OKC councilmen see it, especially when councilmen are part owners in the contract businesses involved in the "development."
Well, the suit against City Hall will bring everything out in the open. It was first thrown out by local authorities as "frivolous." But the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled it was not frivolous, therefore must be tried. We shall see who have been the beneficiaries of this "economic development" in Oklahoma City.
For now, I'll accept 42.1 percent of the vote, based on a two-week, $750 dollar campaign. That is really the story. It says something about the level of dissatisfaction many people have with Ann Simank. Many people voted conservative for the first time, and in one important precinct, people voted for my ideas clearly in preference to Simank. The last election in the same precinct, only one vote had opposed her.
It is clear from the precinct reports that she relied on her monied votes. It's a fact, most poor people don't vote at all. Bill Clinton demonstrated all that in the '90's. Low turn out, and socio-economics are the key factors in winning an election.
In my campaigning, I met people who actually were so disgusted with government that they despised voting. Others felt they had risen above the responsibility. "We're not interested," they said, as if "We don't do that anymore." It was like they considered is a vice of some kind.
So, we'll just have to wait and see if justice prevails in Oklahoma City. Most people doubt that it can, and make no effort to achieve it. But I feel honest people are obligated to fight to the last man. Justice will surely not prevail if people are not willing to rise up and fight for it. There just weren't as many patriots in Oklahoma City as I thought. But, maybe I'll call upon them again in the future.
To me, an election is about ideas, not about personalities. It's about values, not campaign money. Patriotism is about truth, not economic development in which city officials are the beneficiaries. I ran on truth, not materialism and fantasy. 42.1 percent is really not a bad showing, considering the odds.
President Bush last night issued the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Bush stood calm, firm, and determined. Many people feel he also stood alone, and has make the United States stand alone. While that simply isn't true, the thought bears interesting philosophical and even metaphysical value. Is it inevitably morally wrong to stand alone? Is there something intrinsically mistaken about making a stand, regardless of support or lack thereof? The Pope of course has issued the idea that yes, it is wrong to stand alone, at least in this case.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) wrote some interesting thoughts about standing alone in his famous essay, "Self-Reliance (1841). "Trust thyself: every hear vibrates to that iron string." "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world."
Powerful words. Of course, the world has waited twelve years for Hussein to cooperate with the peace process. It never happened. Someone has to call his bluff. President Bush, alone, has. Yes, there a few countries (30, according to Colin Powell, and fifteen more have offered undeclared support) who stand with the United States, but, none would have stood at all, had not the United States taken a hard line against a malignant tyrant and the threat to world peace.
So, anyone with Old Testament proverbs floating around in his head, like "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety," (Proverbs 11:14), can't very well accuse President Bush. The whole world has been at council, counselling itself for years now, with absolutely no success, no result, and a marked increase of power in the adverse forces.
Bush stands alone because no one else could, or would. Bravo, Bush. You are one brave man. Few people know the difference between bravery and foolishness. Cowards commend their own caution, so that they are not recognized for what they are. It is a brave and daring thing that Bush is about to do. But it is also a practical necessity, it appears to me. What a warped world it is when necessity has to be viewed with such dramatically contrasting interpretations, as bravery or foolishness.
Bush behaves quite humbly, not boastfully--like the Arabic custom in rhetoric. (For those unfamiliar with or frightened by this inflated Arabic custom, just read history, or even just the Bible. The wind in Arab verbage is always terrifying, regardless of the lack of reality behind them.) Just compare the public words of Bush and Hussein. Just compare the emotion, the intent, and the style. There is reality and humility in one man's words, and only fantasy and boasting in the other's.
Indeed, may the best man win. Not that there's any real comparison, but, just in words alone, the winner is obvious.
Why don't people vote?
I could cite several reasons: indolence, inconvenience, indifference, incredulity, or even presumption. But I think the real reason is that most people do not appreciate the right to vote. It isn't valuable. It is more of an annoyance. Most people do not understand voting to be the most basic, patriotic act a citizen can perform. They don't see it as an exciting act, as an important act, or as a responsible act.
Voting is a privilege, bought with a history of sacrifice and war. In America, in our first flush of nationhood, the leaders thought that it should be an inalienable right. Just being born here was the first and last quailification. Well, that's the way it seems to have come about.
But there was a time when only land holders could vote. There was a time when each man had to demonstrate his manhood and responsibility before he could vote. I think there is wisdom in that concept.
Today, we should probably make voting a privilege which must be earned. This is the only way to insure its value. Of course, everyone is free to earn it, but, being born here is no qualification whatsoever. Unqualified voters make unscrupulous politicians. Strong leaders insure a weak people.
Our voter turn-outs at all elections across America clearly demonstrate the ill health of our population's priorities. This is the loudest message there is, for anyone listening.
What I've learned from my simple campaign for Oklahoma City Councilman is that someone has to be willing to run for office. For any possible changes to be made in government, in policy, in values, someone has to be willing to challenge the status quo. Mass discontent results in nothing till it is expressed at the polls. It can't be expressed there unless someone is willing to be voted for!
My campaign has been the result of a very, very few dedicated volunteers. If I win, it is due to their vision of change. Yes, I was willing to be "used" for that purpose, because I agree with their principles. I considered it a patriotic act to be thus "used." Someone has to do it. It is a civic duty. Someone has to be willing to run for office. It is as simple as that.
I'm running for City Councilman (Ward 6) against a woman named Ann Simank, who has served two terms already (eight years). The election is Tuesday. Already, many of my signs I put out on the streets have been stolen.
As of the first campaign contribution reports, Ann over $10 thousand to spend on ads. Another councilman, Guy Liebman (currently being sued for accepting a bribe to change his vote on a contract issue) had over $44 thousand. Me? Why, I had all of $200 dollars.
Ann and I were on the Carol Arnold talk show KOMA 1520 AM Friday morning (14th). I was asked to drive a great distance to the radio station, while Carol let Ann simply call in. This was Ann's first "appearance" with me. She had refused other invitations to appear in person with me for debate.
Ann's campaign is based on her claim to have accomplished fantastic, multi-million dollar contruction projects in the city, as if one city councilman's vote in a pre-determined program is somehow the deciding factor, and as if she takes credit for it all. Her mail-outs all emphasize these burdensome projects as her personal accomplishments.
She also claims responsibility for brining greater safety and crime prevention to OKC, and her latest mail-out even claims she is a national leader in anti-terrorism measures. A real fantasy world out there, in politics. Fluff city.
She didn't say that she voted to tax the people more for city services, and for the support of an out-of-state business called Bass Pro. She didn't say she voted to let the City take 11 million dollars of tax money from the Public Safety, Pulic Education, and MAPS development projects to support the Bass Pro store. She didn't say that the City Hall is being sued for fraud, bribery, and racketeering in connection with the Bass Pro store project. She didn't say that one of the other eight city councilmen signed an affidavit implicating another memeber for taking a bribe. That suit was filed Friday morning, March 14.
She is either self-deceived or honestly lying. She claims, as do the other City Councilmen, that the millions they are taking from other city services to support the out-of-state private business (Bass Pro) is a "use" tax, not an increased tax to the people. This is wrong. The use tax is a tarriff. When an Oklahoma business buys products from out of state, the business must pay a tax on that product, whatever it is. Does Ann honestly think that tax is not going to be passed on to the people of Oklahoma? This is a tax increase. A use tax is an increased cost to the people. We the people pay the tax for the Oklahoma business when we buy the product. This is a verbal deception, a fraud, and for this the current City Hall is being sued.
Ann parties with the rich, and calls that neighborhood representation. She clearly has political ambition, and will probably be successful. Oklahoma politics has given her a good start in deceit, fraud, fluff, and generally murky misrepresentations. She should go far. Twelve years as an OKC councilman is long enough. Good riddens, Ann. We wish you well.
In the mean time, I'm trying to figure out how to represent the people of Oklahoma City. Not an easy task, when the current City establishment is has been set up with no such responsibility.
I no doubt will be quickly disallusioned if I am elected City Councilman. I promise to try to bring responsibility and accountability back to elected office. I will make the effort. We can hope it will have some notable effect.
I saw something interesting on yesterday's German MNS.de. Unfortunately, I didn't copy it, but saved only the URL. It's news, so it changes every day. I can't reproduce it here. Perhaps I can describe it.
The center page holds the newsheadlines. I was amazed to see that the "Flirtpartner" (singles match-maker) function absorbed the main space, as if that were the big news. (The French and Italian MSN had no such emphasis, at least on March 13.) The largest picture is always on the left, and March 13, the German MSN had a picture of a black woman, with Rustafarian hair in the grossest looking style. This, mind you, on the front page of the German MSN, as the main news, as the main sexual attraction.
Okay. Clicking on her picture, we were taken to another page, Liebe & Erotik. Here all the singles and couples pictured are as white as snow, Aryan as can be. But the porno files down at the far right of the page include a couple of darker women, one of which might be black, with straightened hair. (I'm not sure. I didn't pursue it.)
I've always been fascinated with post WWII German racial/sexual attitudes. I have found, particularly in America, Germans make sometimes a great point of their "un-prejudice." They want to demonstrate that they have overcome all the race problems of the Nazi regime. They are often quick to criticize America's racial problems, thereby exonerating their own history. (America's is always the world standard, for better or for worse.)
I certainly don't trust this attitude. I can't accept is as genuine. I remember when I was doing graduate work at Harvard (American Studies Dept.) in the '80's, there was a German student in our elite seminar section. This was the Age of Jackson (1820's), and there was plenty of opportunity to talk about race. "Look at how Amerika treated ze Negro, ze Eendian.." he went on, implying it was out of place for America to have ever criticized the Nazis.
I was living in New Haven, CT, at the time, commuting to Boston (Cambridge), and staying over in Jamaica Town. Tough days those were. I actually missed one seminar, and had to ask for notes. I first ask this fine German scholar. He refused me. Sink or swim at Harvard. No help from colleagues. There weren't any colleagues. But, hey, I was Indian. This fine German just criticized America's treatment of Indians, as if he somehow as a German was above that. But not far enough to lend me his notes. (I wound up getting notes from a poor little American white girl...sweet thing.)
But I'll never forget that German. He really didn't care about race. He was still a Nazi. He just didn't think America had a right to criticize Nazis.
And sexualty? Does a man have to have a sexual relationship with a different race to demonstrate full equality? Some people think so. I don't. I believe people have a right to their own preferences. To bring politics into romance is a forumla for failure. Romance has enough problems.
To seek to destroy another's race is Nazi, but to seek to preserve one's own is natural and honorable, it seems to me. There can be no fault in loving one's own race, and in desiring to preserve it. Those who seek to destroy race have a most dubious agenda. I dare say their agenda may be something worse than Nazi.
Military experts say that the U.S. encounter with Iraq will likely start with a barrage of pin-point accurate Tomahawk missiles.
And where are the proud, brave (Communist-funded) American Indian activists, to protest the use of sacred Indian symbols, names, and monikers? Where are these career profiteers at a time of national crisis? They're still stuck with protesting the use of Indian names for athletic teams. They're still preaching on college campuses--the only safe haven for their subversive views.
Well, here's a suggestion: let the Islamic murderers contact AIM and the American Indian activists, and pay them their exorbitant fees to protest the U.S. military use of all Indian names and images, whether on weapons, vehicles, or division arm patches. Now there's a real market for protest! Funny, the Army really got into naming it's aircraft with Indian names in 1969, right during the Civil Rights protests. How apropos.
Ah, for the beauty of freedom, freedom to idolize oneself at the expense of the larger community. What strange aberrations are engendered thereby.
Actually, Indian opinion is just as divided over the military as over the athletic use. The reason there aren't more visible Indian protesters over military use is no doubt due to the fact that there are some 190,000 living Indian veterans. Depending on one's source of census, that could be nearly one out of very eight or ten Indians.
Indians are proud of our warriorhood, as a people. The cowardly activists are a profound insult to the bravery of our warriors. I think the activists realize the embarrassment they would cause themselves and all Indians if they got too involved in protesting the military's use of proud Indian warrior images.
At least in America, there seems to be a temporary lull in terrorist acts. The same cannot be said for Israel, of course, but, except for our own testing of the Moab bomb, there has definitely been an absense of explosions in the United States.
If we can depend on Washington and media reports, (and that's always the big "if"), it would seem that our Homeland Security program has put a definite curb on Arab Muslim terrorist activities in America. With the capture of Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the likelihood of capturing Osama bin Laden seems immanent.
So, do we still need to deport Arab Muslims from America? Do we still need a travel ban on all countries in which Mulsim terrorists flurish, such as Saudi Arabia, the Emerates, and the Philippines? (And what shall Israel do with the Palestinians?) Do these suggestions now seem rash and unreasonable? Were these merely the ravings of stark fear?
Why don't we wait until the Iraq encounter is resolved? We'd better suspend judment on the war on terrorism until the fall-out of the Iraq encounter is settled. And remember, we're not looking for explosions this time, but biochemical terrorism.
I don't think the threat is subsided at all. The number of arrests of so-called American Arab Muslims and other foreign Muslims is constantly, steadily growing. Selling fake ID's, passports, money laundering, and hiring illegal aliens, are just a few of the pastimes these so-called "American citizens" engage in. February 4, Mohamed el-Atriss, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty to selling fake ID's to two of the terrorists of the 9-11 attack. Simple little thing, selling fake ID's. Fantastic consequences. So much for "innocent" Arab Muslim "American citizens." How many more are there?
Last November, (Orlando Sentinel, 11-14-02), in Orange and Osceola counties (Florida), prominent figures in Central Florida's Arab-American business community were arrested. Jesse I Maali and M. Saleem Khanani face up to 20 years for money laundering and violations of immigration laws. Who knows what terrorists come into America through the efforts of such outstanding "American citizens" like Maali and Khanani? And this is petty, local stuff. What about the grand Islamic Charity scams? Just a bunch of innocent, Islamic American citizens, just raising money--to support terrorism throughout the world. That's all.
No, I think we'd better sit tight, and keep our guard up high. Deporting Arab Muslims to their own wonderful countries is still the most logical move to make, and a world travel ban on Arab Muslims is the most sensible reaction, even though neither will never happen. Political reality is never shaped by logic. Logic never rules over people. Moral emotionalism rules. "Freedom, equality, tolerance, chartiy, and compassion" mean righteousness to most people. Ideology trumps logic, every time, in politics.
We have to allow our enemies a free shot at us, right here in our own home.
Billy Mills, the famous Oglaga Olympic champion of 1964, is going to speak at the University of North Dakota, (Grand Forks) April 1. The announcement I received says that Mr. Mills is being sponsored by Bridges, the UND student organization dedicated to getting rid of the school's moniker, "The Fighting Sioux." The appearance will be at 7:00 pm in the UND Memorial Union Ballroom.
Billy Mills is the man who, according to the Sports Illustrated article, "The Indian Wars," March 4, 2002, was deeply offended when an 'African-American' (black) airline steward call him "Chief."
Billy Mills actively protests the use of Indian names and mascots for school sports teams, and makes many public appearances for that purpose. Any bets on what he's going to speak about at UND?
Yet this same man is now preaching the Indian "warrior" message. "I challenge you to be a warrior, " Mills said at a Long Beach NCAA seminar on athletic motivational themes, last year. He said to fight against negative stereotypes, such as alcoholism, etc.
Well, I've been advocating the warrior theme too, since January, 2001, beginning on Front Page Magazine. The difference between my idea of a warrior, and Mills' idea of a warrior is this: I see it as a political function, something that makes a strong foundation for American Patriotism. Mills sees it as an occasion to complain about the use of Indian names. This is a fundamental conflict of definition.
Mills, a celebrated athlete, thinks the warrior is a good character concept, but then identifies himself with the weak, the professional "activists," who complain and lament the use of Indian names for athletic teams, (and get paid enourmous sums of money to do so.) I can't think of anything more immature and pitiful than to complain about being called a name. That is a war, sure enough: the war to be weak. Not where I want to go.
Please call me savage, noble savage, redskin, red man, wild man, chief, brave, Injun, and whatever other concept of being the idea of an Indian conjures up in your mind. I've never had a drink of alcohol in my life, I'm not a diabetic, I know who my parents, grand parents, and great, and great, great grandparents are, so, don't go there. Just think of the past glory, and the days of our freedom on the plains. Call me savage. I'll take it an run!
Mr. Jack P. Eisner, 76-year-old survivor of the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto uprising of 1942, and survivor of several concentration camps, was in recently in Oklahoma.
Mr. Eisner made numerous appearances in Tulsa and in Stillwater, at OSU, in which he spoke of his personal experiences. He addressed over 600 high school students in Stillwater, before speaking on several occasions to groups on OSU's campus. He told me, "I've been treated like royalty from the minute our plane landed in Oklahoma. Interviews, speaking engagements, dinners... it's all been wonderful." The March 7 edition of The Daily O'Collegian featured Mr.Eisner and some of his striking thoughts. "Hatred was not the driving force behind the Holocaust," he said. "It was dehumanization. We were thought of as less than human." Mr. Eisner said this was the danger, to think of other human beings as less than human.
Stillwater's Mayor Larry Brown declared Friday, March 7, "Jack Eisner Day." On that day, Mr. Eisner gave another talk to the students of OSU, on tolerance. He said hatred and love are from human emotion. Tolerance is an intellectual decision, and is much harder to accomplish.
After this speech, Mr. Eisner was presented with a surprise performance of an aria from "Jacek," the first and only grand opera on the Holocaust, by yours truly, David A. Yeagley. A young soprano named Mimi came down from University of Tulsa to perform. Mr. Eisner was more than pleased. It was actually the world premiere of the aria, "How Time Passes By."
OSU great, Bud Seratean flew in from Boca Raton, Fl on his private jet, just to be with Jack later that afternoon. There was a dinner, then a special Shabbas (Sabbath) service held that Friday evening in the university chapel.
Mr. Eisner's autobiographical book, "The Survivor," and his movie, "War and Love," have not recieved the best reviews, but I have read the book, and it that, together with spending time is Israel with Jack himself, inspired me to write the grand opera, "Jacek." After the scarcely prepared debut of the aria, I was nevertheless greatly encouraged. I have full confidence that my opera will one day be a great success. I know Mr. Eisner himself was deeply moved by the single aria.
"How Time Passes By," is sung by the character of his mother, in contemplation of the coming disasters. She is weighing reality and dread, in a soliloquy. She is alone, in the parlor, responding to the ticking of the family clock. The coming holocaust is a dreadful fantasy, which Zlotka (the mother) ever so carefully considers. It is a haunting aria, with a radical recitativo in the middle, rather than at the beginning of the aria.
Finally, I was very pleased to know that Oklahoma, rural, sparcely populated Oklahoma, recieved Mr. Jack Eisner with such sincere regard. He was highly celebrated and appreciated. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so surprised. For some reason, I was.
People don't liked to be taxed without having some say in how the tax money is used. As it turns out, this is the big issue of the 2003 Oklahoma City Council campaign. Specifically, a great many Oklahoma City folk are greatly displease with how the present City Council used tax money, and resent the fact that the Council ignored the peoples repeated protest. Essentially, it appears that the Council invested tax dollars to build a store for the nationally famous Bass Pro Shop company. It was presented as "economic development," of course, but it outraged many citizens, and particularly Moshe Tal, the private businessman suing City Council for alleged racketeering and fraud in the matter.
Taxation with misrepresentation! Daniel Pipes.org posted a piece six months ago by Dave Marciniak called "Taxation Without Representation." This was the older term for financial malfeasance. Marciniak quotes a Washington Times editor: "Congress delegates immense legislative power to agencies despite the fact that the Constitution grants legislative powers solely to Congress. That severs the voters' connection to those who regulate them..." then concludes, "The last time Americans suffered taxation without representation, they stuck a musket in the British face, pulled the trigger and called it a revolution."
So, we've been there before, in principle. The Institute of Public Accuracy posts news on the issue, as does United For A Fair Economy. In "Drifting Toward Economic Apartheid," Chuck Collins says the failure of state budgets is an epidemic across the country. Oklahoma is one of those states suffering severely. Just yesterday, Governor Henry's state lottery proposal was nevertheless kept from the people's vote. The House rejected the idea of even putting up for the people's vote. Our House does not want international crime parading in our state. Oklahoma isn't completely awash, morally.
But now the City Council election is being defined as economic development vs. responsible tax spending. This is interesting. Moshe Tal accuses Council memeber of being personal investors or profit partners in the businesses for which OKC tax dollars are being used to support. The accused Council members justified the whole venture with Bass Pro as "economic development." Never mind their personal profits expected.
What has developed here is the idea that city representatives have not distinguished their personal ambitions from the desires of the people who elected them. They are not representing the people. They are using tax dollars in a way the people disapprove of. "Economic development" has become a PC word for an elected representative's personal business interests.
Economic development has come now to mean personal development, rather than public. The City has already resolved to borrow $17,172,000 million dollars from other tax funds to pay for the shortfalls created by the Bass Pro and related city projects. These funds include education, public safety, and MAPS project funds (major building projects in the city area.)
The people are being sold on the idea that Oklahoma City can be a swingin' town, just like the big citys, just like the big boys. But there are only a little over 3 million people in the whole state. There aren't enough people to support such ambitious projects. The elected officials profit personally, from tax dollar use, and the people are simply taxed more to pay for the losses.
Even the most elementary history of the whole taxation issue in early America shows that people simply cannot have their money taken from them without some say in how it's going to be used, without some sense of continual ownership.
But interestingly, the original conception of the tax issue was stated a bit differently. The objection was to "taxation without consent." The issue was even more focused. The early Americans did not want to be taxed without their permission! How's that for independence?! The people would decide whether or not they would even be taxed at all.
Oklahoma City Council needs to be reminded of our American history on this point. Even if the people agree to a certain tax, elected officials are not free to use that tax money for personal profit ventures in the name of "economic developement."
Last December, Daniel Pipes unloaded on the Public Broadcasting System, better known as PBS. Among other things, Pipes suggests that the congressionally created PBS corporation is trying to promote Islam in America, and used a portion of its $350 million tax-payer funding to do so. At it was all at Christmas time.
Obviously, such a promotion would be a direct violation of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, everyone knows that saluting the America flag, "under God," is borderline unconstitutional these days. But, spending millions of tax-payer dollars to promote Islam is fine. Our courts like to protect the freedom of other people's religions, not our own.
Well, Pipes left out Nationa Public Radio, another Left-wing enterprise, disguising itself under classical music, arts, and superfical cultural achievements. Yes, it started with classical music. That gave it status, class, and validity. But it's really a venue for sickening liberal self-idolization and pure solipsism, at least when it comes to news reporting. I for one don't confuse "smug" with intellect, or solipsism with objectivity.
Both PBS and NPR need serious reconsideration. They were billed as alternative news sources, independent of main stream media. In time, they have become just like the main stream. Perhaps this is inevitable, but, that doesn't justify it.
Yes, PBS and NPR have given voice to many Indian causes in America, and Indian people generally applaud both PBS and NPR. Of course, they never allow voice for a conservative Indian. They're part of the "all Indians think alike," program.
So, Pipes is right. PBS should be denied access to tax dollars. If they have anything serious to offer, they should be able to survive on their own, as a competitive business in a free market society.
What? Do my eyes deceive me? Does the largest, most liberalized Indian newspaper in America have something objective to say? Could it be actually acknowledging the validity of the Indian warrior image, which I have advocated since my first article for FrontPageMagazine, Janurary 26, 2001?
Indian Country Today posted another one of those "unidentified" editorials last Friday, February 28: "American Indians fighting a very old war." The article makes first the point about the "proud military tradition" of American Indians. I found this rather shocking, since Leftist Indians such as permeate ICT and all Indian media try everything they can to denounce any warrior image associated with the modern American Indian. I found this amazing, since I have been repeatedly opposed and condemn for my insistance that the Indian warrior image is one of the most valuable cultural items in all America.
But the article is really about germ warfare, and it suggests that the reason Indians have a special motivation in this Iraq war situation is because Indians especially oppose the use of chemical warfare. It was used against us, and we must surely fight against it's use against anyone else.
So, really, the article is still in a caste of liberal, leftist, Communist-style notion of equal justice. Every Indian knows the real reason Indians fight is for this land. America is on our land. America is ours. When we fight for America, we fight for our own land. The germ warfare motivation is superimposed by a superficial Leftist attitude. Real Indians are not so superficial.
I denounce the article as a weak attempt to employ the bravery of Indian warriorhood to support a stupid sense of inept justice, and an even weaker attempt to apply the "proud military tradition" to buttress a newspaper which nearly always stands for cry-baby protesting, juvenile attitudes of resentment, and regularly published misinformation, such as showcased by writers like Suzan Harjo.
I'm sorry, but this article is a false front, and does not in the slightest honor the American Indian veterans, living or dead. Shame on Indian Country Today, and more shame on the "nameless" author of the article. You don't deserve to be associated with the "proud warrior tradition" you're trying to use. You've got a long way to go, baby.
I was in Israel, in 1998, for a debut of a new composition I had completed. It was a three movement duet for oboe and basson, entitled, "Three Spirit Dances on The Bark of An Ancient Stump." It was performed by two young Israeli girls, Meirav Kadichevski, oboe, and Ayelet Ballin, bassoon. They were students at Tel Aviv University, and also in the IDF (the Israeli army). The debut was actually in Caesarea, January 8. (I must say, their performance far exceeded that of the New Jersey Chamber Music Society, which had six months earlier performed a portion of the work. These are professional musicians, mostly from New York City. Of course, I got to rehearse with the Israeli girls.)
I stayed in Caesarea a month, and visited other places as well, like Natanya, and smaller towns. In Tel Aviv, I made a special point of visiting City Hall, to see Dr. Mordechai Vershuvski, the Cultural Affairs director. I was trying to promote the upcoming lecture and concert.
I remember the corner, right outside the tall building that houses City Hall, where Rabin had been assassinated in Novemeber, 1995. It was memorialized in marble.
Across the street, in the midst of modern buildings of contemporary design and beauty, there was entire block of what looked liked to me a piece of the Twilight Zone. It was a piece of nature preserved in the midst of the city. It was the land, and the shacks, of a small Arab family or clan. The man never sold his land to the Jews, or to the city. I was told that he had his rights. No one was forced to modernize. The old Arab kept his goats, shacks, shrubs, and slummy looking establishment in tact. It was all right there, in the middle of the city, right beside City Hall.
I never forgot that. Israel has such a bad liberal media rap for bullying Arabs. Well, there are a lot of Arabs within the borders of Israel. In fact, three hundred yards down the beach from Caesarea there is an entire village of Arabs, complete with donkeys, sheep, and a few dune buggies. We would call it a slum. But the people didn't seem discontent about anything. They had electricity. (The muezzin blasted out his prayers Friday night, over a loud speaker, when the Jews of Caesarea walked to synogogue. The Jews didn't complain about it, but I certainly would have, for all sorts of reasons.)
Most of these Arabs are Israeli citizens. They are not Palestinians. My host told me his dentist was an Arab. I would love to hear the opinions of the Arabs living quiet lives as Israeli citizens. This is the most unheard voice in all the world.
And I want to hear from that Arab family that has the slum preserved in the heart of downtown Tel Aviv. Talk about a "reservation!" This was beyond description. Talk about rights! People who accuse Israel so quickly just need to spend some time over there. Things might begin to look a lot differently. Many Arabs resist modernization, and Israel simply lets them continue in their antiquated way of life.
Last month, February 3-4, I was invited to speak in Nyack, New York, to advocate the value of the Indian name logo used by the Nyack High School. I witnessed the non-Indian professional race agitators condemning the use of any such Indian name. I witnessed the elected Nyack District School Board deny its Nyack community in the face. The community was in nearly 100% support of the Nyack name and logo.
The very next week, (during which I was terribly sick with a cold), something similar happened in my own state, in Tulsa. February 10, the Union High School Board met to discuss Union High's use of the name "Redskins." The Native American Times faithfully reports (February 15) that, although a number of Indians were there in protest to the name, most of the agitation came from white people, condeming the use of the name. White women like Linda Bolin and Cindy Hollings spoke out against the Indian name. Religious leader Russell Bennett protested.
I am happy to point out that the same article (by Gerald Wofford) cites the testimony of a Kiowa Indian, Martin Gragg, who has two children in the Union School system. "I think we've taken a negative name and made it very positive." A man after my own heart. Whatever negative connotations "Redskins" may have carried in the past, today it means fiery courage, initiative, and power--all the things a team needs to win.
Richard Grounds point about how opposing teams "dis" the mascot of their rivals was neither unique, significant, nor new, however. Sports rivalries expressed in dis-ing the opponent are not to be taken personally, or even seriously. People that do take it seriously seem immature and out of place.
Yet, these people are making the noise. J. Lawrence posted another article on the Tulsa controversy. Gretchen Haas-Bethell, Director of Communications for the Union Schools, made an all-to-revealing remark: the decision to keep or remove the Redskins name "will not be made by the many, but by the few.
Minority rule. But not really. The real minority, if we are to believe the generally distorted and fluffed figures of liberal media, is the Indians who like the Indian mascots, names, and logos. The news belies its own prejudice. According to the news, the Indians who see value in the Indian images are the minority. We are offended at their removal. We are offended at the white racial agitators who make us appear like juvenile cry-babies, stripping us of dignity or even maturity. We are offended!
But, we are not counted. The media will not let Indians be proud and strong. The communistic media wants us to be pitiful, abused, and deeply wronged, forever. The communistic media is the true minority, and they hold the power to misrepresent, distort, and ram-rod over any dissent, especially over those Indians who are offended at the removal of Indian names from schools.
To show just how desperate these agitators can be, look again at California. Remember Jackie Goldberg's campaign to outlaw all use of Indian names and logos? It failed, but, she's brought it back! This time she has support from the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, a 50-member lobby. Now's there's real, genuine Indian unity! Everyone knows how divided Indians are over the whole casino issue. The CNIA is just another misrepresentation of Indians ever so useful to the communist/liberal agenda.
Goldberg wasn't able to get the Hispanic vote, however. Assemblyman Jay La Suer is against it. La Suer was once the San Diego University's "Aztec" mascot. La Suer says the new bill is "political correctness taken 18 steps too far."
The LATimes has posted many articles on the issue, pretending to cover all sides, over course. What the media never points out is that Indian organizations do not represent Indian people. They only represent the Indians who are members of the organization. Once again, I remind everyone, there has been only one scientific poll ever taken of Indians on the mascot issue: Sports Illustrated, March 4, 2002. 83% of Indians don't mind the use of Indian names, logos, or mascots. To herd together a few Indians from a few organizations does not represent an honest approach to representing Indian people.