Here is a test of one's ability to manage news reports.
Of the hundreds of news stories about the fires in southern California, I have found only one that has named a suspected arsonist. It was posted on the NBC San Diego.com site. His name is Dirkan Armouchian (23) of Pasadena. He was actually caught in the act in Eaton Canyon, in Altadena. Deputies, tipped off by hikers who reported seeing a man starting another fire in the area, found Armouchian by a newly started fire. Armouchian warned them not to come near, nor to extinguish the fire. He was arrested, jailed in the Crescenta Valley Sheriff's Station, and his bail bond is posted at $50,000.
Reuters/San Diego fires
Question 1: Is he another one of those wonderful American citizens recently immigrated Middle East and naturalized? "From Pasadena," indeed. (His name looks Armenian.)
Question 2: Is he a Muslim? Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley as called the arsonists "domestic terrorists," so that means we're not supposed to look for "foreign" Muslims, apparently. And we surely don't want to be prejudiced toward our Islamic American "citizens." San Diego authorities are blaming the Earth Liberation Front for some of the fires. That's an effective diversion, expecially when ELF's home page used a group of Apache Indians as their logo! (That's how one validate's one's position on anything--using an Indian logo. Tell me the Left doesn't love Indians!)
The ELF logo
Question 3: Why isn't this the headline story of all the papers?
When 9-11 happened, the media, as well as our national leaders, like Colin Powell, immediately clicked on their lamentation switch, and everyone decried such a terrible act. Media loves to lament. The reaction of the people was thus misdirected, diverted, and off target. WAR was the only reasonable response, but the media and leaders kept the word out of reports. America would bring the perpetrators to "justice." Not the right word, when the American public is warey and weary of American courts. So, in time of crisis, we know news (and news-minded leaders) avoid the visceral reaction of the public, and divert real emotion into hackneyed "victim" mentality. "Oh, such a terrible thing has happened." Anger, rage, yea, revenge or even vengeance, are not allowed.
Then we must never point a finger at a race, a religion, or a country. We must give all immigrants, especially those who have become "citizens," our full and glorious American freedoms, which include their right to try and destroy America. We especially welcome and defend our most pronounced enemies: Arabic Muslims. We also are never to question the white liberals who orchestrate these predicaments. The news machines won't have it.
The the bare facts of a story are too "incediary," as in the case of one Dikran Armouchian, the story must be kept from the public, period. Once in a while there are "leaks" in the media, (what a tragedy), but they tend to be plugged up quickly.
We'll have to wait and see if anything develops from the Armouchian story. The public passion must never be allowed a true and accurate expression. That might change things! No, better to divert it into lamentation, into torrents of useless words, ineffective expression, and self-pity. We want victims, not heros. We want self-righteous introspection, not vindictive rage or revenge. The media accomplishes this by disallowing focus on cause. Why, the papers could be sued for prejudice. Better to dramatize effects, and forget cause.
Do we want "free" press, or "true" press? There is a critical difference.
Of daily death reports in Iraq, we are assured. The major media revels in such news.
We have to go elsewhere for a balanced view. In fact, we ourselves now have to be responsible for balancing our own view. We have to research "the rest of the story" ourselves. The internet is about our only tool to this end. Common sense is our basic tool, if we know how to use it. We have to search out the progress being made in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Free press, connected with free enterprise, means a curtailment of freedom. The larger, more successful the media institution, the more subject to lucrative law suit, and the more likely "politically correct" or slanted the news. The bigger the business, the more political the orientation.
In short, we must train our intellectual reflexes to respond to media with immediate reservation. We must instinctively react to the news as the half-truth, often distorted truth, it is. We must patiently balance the report ourselves. The media stories are simply giving us part of the story, and that's all media is ever going to give us. It is the nature of the circumstance. There should be required curriculae, beginning in grade school, teaching even young children how to handle the news. This is a vital skill.
We simply don't have "true" press. We have only "free" press, and that means partial, biased, politically motivated, nigh-conspiratorial press. Truth is our own responsibility as citizens, and as human beings. Where did we ever get the idea that media was supposed to be responsible? "Freedom" and "free enterprise" preclude such an idea.
Truth is our responsibility, individually. As Reinhold Niebuhr once observed, "group relations can never be as ethical as those which characterise individual relations." Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932). We expect too much of institutions, and are not only disappointed, but benumbed and deceived. In a way, we have none to blame but ourselves, and our own lethargy.
A bomb a day keeps the freedom away.
I think it is clear to everyone now. Iraq is going to be another extended guerilla war. As in Vietnam, the enemy has unlimited ability to strike, unlimited petty resources, and unlimited personnel willing murder themselves. American and the Coalition forces are there, hoping to straighten things out, hoping to create a democracy in Iraq. Can it be done? Are the Iraqi people willing to pay the price?
Aftermath in Fallujah
A murderous bomb explodes every day. Another one today. Reporters keep calling them "suicide" bombings. This is vapid mantra. These are acts of war. No need to emphasize the technique. (There may be a need to point out how much cocaine is available over there, and how doped up these religious fanatics are when indulge their death wish.)
More aftermath in Fallujah
President Bush has repeatedly stated America will not be deterred from the goal of democracy and freedom in Iraq. "In fact we are more determined," he said last night on national television news.
Unless unusual force or technique is used, however, we are in for a long, long haul, and there is no historical evidence that such hauls are successful. In fact, Vietnam shows exactly the opposite.
Of course, Vietnam was, our leaders thought, strategically important, but, Vietnam had no oil or natural resources we were interested in. Iraq, Afghanistan, in deed the whole region, do.
These are trying times for everyone. Mistrust and discontent have become highly marketable items, and therefore proliferate at an astounding rate. One can legitimately question seemingly every word any politician says, about anything. "Liars-R-us" has become their collective ID. We're quicly losing our ability to trust, it seems.
President Bush has recognized the untrustworthiness of Arafat, and seems temporarily satisfied to let the Palestinian situation to be dealt with as Israel sees fit. I say, if we thus recognize the abject circumstances there, and let Israel do what she has to do, then we should let ourselves do the same in Iraq. Iraq is an even more dangerous situation, because we are not guarding ourselves as Israel guards herself. Iraq is not our nation.
What we really need is more news about what is actually being accomplished in Iraq in the way of progress. We don't need daily reports of bombings. This is how the media turn everyone against Vietnam, and demoralized our troops there. We know the media is a business, without conscience, and never learns anything from history. Media is a mindless beast. We should trust it least.
However, it behoves us all, in the name of supporting our troops, and yes, supporting our government, to studiously research the reports of progress. The government ought to make every effort to make this information public. So far, all we have heard is generalized statements, platitudes, vague suggestions of accomplishment.
I want to hear about it when one toilet flushes successfully. I want to know when an electric heater works. I want to know when someone gets a hot shower, and a hot meal. This is all critical political information, and only enemies of truth will discount it as irrelevant.
Today, the first day of the Islamic "holy" month of Ramadan, at least four murderous individuals exploded car bombs in Baghdad, killing forty, and wounding over two hundred others. U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians, Iraqi police, and international Red Cross workers alike were slaughtered. A fine religion it is, Islam. Such devotees deserve our utmost attention, since the non-violent Muslims make no action to the contrary.
Baghdad rubble after one of the car bombs
near the Red Cross building
I'd say this is war. Why call it "terrorism," as if it deserves some special title? Terrorism denotes the technique, not the goal. The goal is social change. What's happening is simply war. There is war in Iraq. The Islamic "fundamentalists" are warring against the West, plain and simple, and against any who support Western ideas. The fact that these murderers have not the strength nor the courage to fight conventionally does not earn for them another title. They are at war. They have declared it. "Terrorism" in their case, is misleading. Yes, they are cowardly murderers, nothing more, but, terrorism implies only their means, and the ends are accomplished only by war. Terrorism diverts attention from their state of war.
"Terrorism" as a concept has developed because countries no longer declare war against each other. Thus the dignity of man, in absentia, eludes recognition and operation. Thus, murder of innocents is rampant. Thus leaders of countries have contributed to this mayhem of civilians.
Old-fashioned war is more noble. War is a contest. War has an end. War, real war, can end "terrorism."
Terrorism has a statistical argumement, however. Since the Iraq war began in March, 353 U.S. troops have been killed, including 229 in hostile fire. Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1, 213 U.S. troops have died, including 113 in hostile fire. At least 3,240 Iraqi civilians have been killed, but that's only counting figures from half the hospitals. The figure could be twice as many.
Nevertheless, politically-minded apologists will say terrorism's stats are fewer on all sides. Perhaps that is the reason world leaders prefer it. It is a slow bleed, like an infection, or an internal injury. War is amputation. War eliminates hundreds of thousands. Ah, but not nearly as many civilians, except in rare cases, like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. (But even they were warned. And the atomic bomb did make the Japanese rulers surrender.) In real war, only those in uniform are considered the target. There are supposed to be "rules" protecting civilians, in real war.
This preference of terrorism would all sound so reasonable, except for the fact that the Vietnam "war" was based on terrorism. The big battles didn't decide the outcome. Terrorism decided, in the tunnels, in the villages. In the betrayals.
Terrorism can win a war, too. That is the lesson to remember about undeclared wars. Beware America. Hussein said our men would be buried in the sand. Arabs don't give up. Islamicists are renlentless and indefatigable, as well as innumerable. There determination, combined with their cowardice and murderous intent, suggest that "terrorism" is in Iraq to stay. It seems America therefore has a decision to make.
We know we can't depend on the news to be perfect. We also know we can't depend on the events reported in Iraq to indicate whether we should be there or not. The majority want us there for now, but the minority seems to be making all the noise. And we're not at all sure this minority comprises Iraqis.
A CNN report says today's attack on Al Rasheed, the Baghdad hotel killed a U.S. soldier and wounded 15 others. (U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz escaped injury.) An Associate Press report says that slain soldier was an American colonel, and one of the highest ranking officers killed since the insurgency following the combat days which 'officially' ended May 1, 2003.
Details are hard to get, especially in the immediate aftermath of such an event. However, the most important details are not even addressed: Who are the insurgents? Why do they have such access to weapons, and why do they have such freedom to attack and kill? How could they launch such a well executed attack" from a few blocks away?
The answer is the same in any such situation. The attackers intimidate the people into being allies. This is arch-typical in Palestine, and it is clearly the case in Iraq. The "silent" majority is trying to rebuild things. They don't want more war. However, the insurgents, who love violence and misery, can easily threaten the poor desperate citizens into cooperation.
I think the lesson is simple: there is no safety from or in the silent majority. There can no longer be any point being part of a silent majority.
The silent majority in America itself is being overtaken without a single shot, but rather by legal intimidation. It would be easier to fight a physical enemy. But the call to political arms against a political enemy is equally desperate. Those are determined to destroy American values through the political process, through law, are as dangerous and deadly an enmy as the terrorist murderers.
The silent majority cannot tolerate either. The silent majority itself must no longer be tolerated. It only feeds the enemy. Being a member of the majority means nothing unless you make more noise than the murderous minority.
United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (67) is the most outstanding American conservative voice of the Court. It has been suggested that he will replace the aging Chief Justice Rehnquist in time.
Justice Antonin Scalia
Scalia recently (Thursday) told a conservative audience in Washington that the Supreme Court's June ruling which legalizes homosexualty completely, in all states (based on the overthrow of the Texas sodomy laws), is a grave error.
Scalia said the court "held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter." He further implicated the Court when he said judges, including his colleagues on the Supreme Court, overthrow the original meaning of the Constitution when it suits them.
Justice Scalia
But in an near future case, the Pledge of Allegiance and the "one nation under God" clause, Justice Scalia has proposed to absent himself from the Court apparently due to his already outspoken criticism of the lower court's ruling in favor of removing the clause.
Or so some superficial reports have it. The real reason may be simply because Michael A. Newdow, the atheist opponent of the pledge who is acting as his own lawyer, filed papers Sept. 9 with the Supreme Court, asking Scalia to bow out because the justice had spoken critically of the 9th Circuit ruling at a Religious Freedom Day event Jan. 12 in Fredericksburg.
So what we have is a simple, individual citizen, a true jerk if there ever was one, dictating to the Supreme Court of the United States, pressing upon the entire country the most un-American views historically possible. Of course, he is an attorney, and that gives him some know-how and consideration which none of the rest of us "simple, individual" citizens would ever have or get.
The case in and of itself means that America is no longer America. The Supreme Court has already declared itself alien to American values, and a subverter of the American Constitution. When the mental distortions and personal frustrations of an individual petty man become the standard of the nation, we have tyranny, in the name of freedom. This is the Liberal's delight. It is the successful overthrow of America, without firing a shot.
Scalia is an Italian-American, and a practicing Roman Catholic, and if such a man were ever held suspect in America's past, as history will clearly show, today Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has surely written a new chapter in American history. It is Scalia, not the deeply quirked Newdow, who represents a transcendent view not only of the true America, but of the scales of true justice.
Scalia's already given his opinion on the Pledge. He has said he will recuse himself from hearing the case. I for one hope he will "campaign" against it in other ways. He is a citizen. He has the right of free speech. He can publish.
Newdow is a leech, like all perverts. The coming media frenzy is parasitical. Of course, news is omnivorous, with a relish for perversion. But let's remember, Newdow's mind is not great, not comprehensive, but merely feeding off established, foundational views. To opposed these is merely scripted success, and involves no thought, no comprehension, or strength. Newdow is a fake.
Scalia is the real man, on the real scale.
I thought the idea of reparations was up for debate. According to this AP story by Justin Bergman, the United States government is already paying huge reparations to American Negroes who may have been descendents of slaves.
Crystal Foster, of Warsaw, Virginia, got $500,000 from the IRS as a tax return for the year 2000. Crystal and her father (who filled out the form) now face criminal charges and prison time for attempting to defraud the government. Blah, blah. blah.
According to the report, the IRS paid out over $30 million in false reparation claims the same year. In fact, for years these false claims have been made and paid. Ah, but now the government's "cracking down."
All this tell me is that there are a lot of white liberals and Negroes working in the IRS. Unfortunately, as an independent American Indian, I haven't encountered any of them.
To make matters more offensive, to me anyway, Robert Lee Foster, the father of Crystal, is a professional tax return preparer. Is this what happens when the government puts the fox in charge of the chicken house? And, naturally, Foster, who has renounced his American citizenship, claims to be the descendent of the Moors (North African Arabs), and a member of a Cherokee tribe--the Moab Tiara Cherokee Kituwah Nation. This fabricated group claims to have been in the New World before the colonists. So, how can he claim to be a descendent of a slave?
It begs the question, who in fact was a slave? Does color matter? Nearly all the colonists were slaves, English, Irish, and Scottish they were, all serving time, and not getting paid. Furthermore, they weren't worth money, like the Negro slaves, who were purchased. The Negro slaves got a lot better treatment, too, just because of that fact. And then there's the matter of white's being captured and enslaved by the Barbary Coast "Moors," and the white slaves among the Negroes here in America. As I've already posted, I'm not impressed with the African Negro slavery story, any more than I am of any other slave story. There is nothing distinctive about it, nothing particularly horrible about it, no more than any other slave story. American Negroes seem to think that having "black" skin makes theirs a more significant story.
Well, it's time to send Foster et al. back to Africa, where his soul obviouly longs to be. Of course, there's more money in protesting America. And that's obviously what he's really after. So, America's stuck with him. Well, at least he didn't shoot people off the street, like other American Negro Muslim converts have done recently.
And don't we love it when the government "cracks down"! What confidence the thought brings to us all. What reassurance of truth, justice, and the American way. So what else has the IRS been up to, besides hiring traitors and secretly paying out reparations claims?
From the very day Islamic murderers attacked New York's WTC and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., President Bush has called Islam a "religion of peace." Why? Everyone knows it isn't.
Now Bush is calling Islam a religion of liberty of tolerance. Just after Mahathir Mohammad, the Malaysian leader condemned the Jews and Israel, and called for a "final victory" over them in no uncertain terms, Bush is insistent on reading into Islam the identical values of American freedom, tolerance, and liberty. Why? Everyone knows Islam represents the antithesis of American values.
Bush said, "We know that Islam is fully compatible with liberty and tolerance and progress because we see the proof in your country and in our own," Bush told a news conference. "Terrorists who claim Islam as their inspiration defile one of the world's greatest faiths. Murder has no place in any religious tradition. It must find no home in Indonesia."
Last March, the Taliban's Mullah Omar Mohammed said, "There are only two symbols left in the world today: one is Islam, which is a religion of peace, and the other symbol is US President George W Bush, who is a symbol of terror and hatred."
Political rhetoric is not successful unless both sides are open minded. Bush has clearly taken at least the rhetorically "tolerant" side toward Islam. Islam, however, has obviously taken the "intolerant" side. But actions speak louder than words. In the case of Islamic leaders, their words tend to be expressed in their actions, perhaps moreso than those of Western leaders.
U.S. soldiers in Iraq
In this case, we can be thankful for the hypocrisy of the West. Better to at least try to think positively, in a conciliatory manner, than continually make vows of violence and destruction like the Islamic clerics do. America will resort to force of arms, in the name of peace. Islam resorts to mass murder, in the name of destruction.
Michael Weiner-turned-Savage-for profit claims he invented the phrase "Compassionate Conservative" in 1994. He even jokingly threatened to sue President Bush for using it. (Of course, I jokingly threatened to sue Michael for the use of my time-honored Indian name, "savage.")
Be this all as it may, there is one great conservative thinker who has shown the true spirit of compassion, and that is Richard Poe. In a world of war, this spirit is so significant and precious that it bears more consideration. Not that Poe is without nuclear weapons, intellectually, not that he is shy in using them on the enemy, but he has not lost the spirit of compassion either, even in a moment when it would be quite easy to do so.
Poe's patient reservations regarding the Rush Limbaugh story, Poe's careful restraint, his refraining from outrage against Limbaugh's disappointing behavior, all demonstrate something rare and grand, and something that the great American author Herman Melville lauded long ago in Moby Dick.
Herman Melville, 1819-1891
In his introduction of the character of Starbuck, the first mate, Melville prophesies the response of compassion. Starbuck, of course, is the man who had the power to stop Captain Ahab from selfishly destroying everyone, but who failed to do so. In assessing Starbuck, in the beginning of the story, Melville says this:
"But were the coming narrative to reveal, in any instance, the complete abasement of poor Starbuck's fortitude, scarce might I have the heart to write it; for it is a thing most sorrowful, nay shocking, to expose the fall of valor in the soul. Men may seem detestable as joint-stock companies and nations; knaves, fools, and murderers there may be; men may have mean and meager faces; but man, in the ideal, is no noble and so sparkling, such a grand and glowing creature, that over any ignominious blemish in him all his fellows should run to throw their costliest robes. That immaculate manliness we feel within ourselves, so far within us, that it remains in tact though all the outer character seem gone, bleeds with keenest anguish at the undraped spectacle of a valor-ruined man."
I personally thank Richard Poe for his modern exemplification of the sentiments expressed by Herman Melville. I for one am still focused on the perfection of the ideal in my own mind. I think Anne Coulter missed the mark, even in that dimension, though I am no less guilty of missing the more important mark. I want perfection out of Rush, at least in his understanding of morality. Anne says he's a better man just as he is, even fallen, when compared to the others. Neither her take, nor mine, is perfectly appropriate.
Richard Poe
Only Poe has taken the truly compassionate stance toward a fallen comrad. For this we must recognize Poe as outstanding among conservatives. No Rush-bashing on Poe's site, not because Poe thinks Rush is perfect, but because Poe wants conservatives to truly respect each other, not to compete against each other.
Last week Anne Coulter published an article on Rush Limbaugh, praising his superior calling and defending his recent falling. "With Half His Brain Tied Behind His Back" is Anne's assessment of Limbaugh's damage control after his fall. She feels he is vastly superior to his foes, and has recently demonstrated his strength.
Anne Coulter
But, indeed, Limbaugh's addiction was a falling. When Limbaugh took that first pill outside the legally prescribed dose, he stepped outside the rules. Because of his great stature, as well as his great pain, he obviously didn't feel he had to stay within the rules. We're then not talking about a political, intellectual, or rhetorical fall. We're talking about a basic moral presumption, a fall of valor in the soul.
Rush Limbaugh
All his 'admissions' and 'confessions' are no more than damage control, and must not be mistaken for character. It is not particularly honest or noble to admit something after the world already discovered it, after you purposely hid it for so long. It is not a manifestation of great character to confess after you've been 'found out.' Any child in Sunday School has been taught that from the Bible in the lessons about Esau, Aachan, and Saul.
Anne Coulter's justifications are polemical, and not moral. She compares Rush to others, to his foes and their intellectual flaws, thus not only omitting the personal moral issue, but implying that if the enemies have worse intellectual flaws, such as hypocrisy, then they have no argument against Limbaugh. If they are guilty of worse hypocrisy, then Rush is off the hook. He's beat'em with "half his brain tied behind his back."
This is, I'm afraid, an embarrassing moment for all conservatives. Anne as simply added to the weakness, rather than the strength of conservative understanding. Conservatism without the moral foundation is merely rhetoric. What does it matter who wins mere abstract arguments? Morality is the only real kind of fall. Even the young (14) Kyle Williams perceives that much. Morality is the foundation of true conservatism.
Kyle Williams
Rush knew exactly what he was doing. His doctor told him about the medicine, as any doctor would. It was addictive or "habit forming" medicine, and doctors cannot in good conscience, in legal conscience, prescribe more than a certain dosage. Rush was completely aware of his action, knew it was illegal, and knew it was addictive. But he justified it in his mind, first because of his physical pain, second because of his social stature.
Anne does not justify his moral fall. She merely omits it, and then concentrates on the matter of hypocrisy, asserting that Limbaugh's enemies are immeasurably more hypocritical.
A hollow victory, in my book.
This incident with Limbaugh, and Coulter's comments, is a milestone in Conservative thinking. Richard Poe, one of the truest, most genuine, and finest of all conservative thinkers has been caring and somewhat protective of Limbaugh, but without any attempt to justify his error. Poe merely suggests or implies that conservatives shouldn't crucify Limbaugh in the name of some superiority impulse of their own, like little yapping terriers around a Great Dane. (Poe also comments on the nature of drug use in and of itself.)
Richard Poe
I must therefore at least pretend that I myself am not guilty of such a yapping impluse. I'd like to think I'm simply putting the highest value on truth itself, and I don't see Rush doing that just yet. "This medication turned out to be highly addictive," he says in his 'confession.' This is hedging. His doctor would not have prescribed it without describing it, nor would he have ceased prescribing it unless there was a danger. Rush would not have resorted to illegally acquiring the drug without knowing previously that it was addictive.
Coulter's defense is fine, but misses the problem. We can now, according to Coulter, only say that Rush is less of a hypocrite than his enemies. This is not morality. This is merely rhetoric. Morality is merciless, and unless it is fully embraced, mercy distorts it. "By mercy and truth iniquity is purged." Prov. 16:6. We can support Rush all we want, with all the sentiment we feel he deserves. But, man to man, I don't see him measuring up to the full stature of truth, as yet. He hasn't really even admitted, or recognized, in fact, what he has actually done.
Just what we need--another rank, anti-Semitic apologist. Mahathir Mohammad, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, recently made remarks at an international Islamic conference that have cause such an Aufruhrung that Malaysias Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar has now issued apologies. This is supposed to indicate that Mohammad didn't mean what he said. With formal apologies, everything is hunky-dory. Amazing political potency, apology, even if it's one official apologizing for another.
Mahathir Mohammad
Albar wants to assure everyone that 1.3 billion Muslims represented at the conference are not blindly prejudiced against any people or any religion or anything. "The only problem with the Jews is when the State of Israel was created," he said, adding that Jews worked in Malaysia and were welcomed there.
Syed Hamid Albar
I heard the same dubious rhetoric from Islamic clerics when I was in Iran. "We have no problem with the Jews," said Khazee Ali (English Department, University of Astan Quds Razavi, Masshad). "It is the state of Israel which we do not accept. It is an unjust state."
This protest against the state of Israel, however, is so myopic, so ill-founded, and so extraneous to the Qur'an (Koran) that it can be nothing other than anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, anti-Bible, anti-everything connected with the Hebrew story. To try glossing over such a negative disposition not only causes an irreparable breach of confidence in Islamic sincerety, but also represents a terrible affront to the dignity of language itself.
The establishement of ancient Israel in Cana'an migh be protested on the grounds of "human rights." It was an unprovoked invasion. But the Qur'an blesses the story, and says nothing against it. There is no Qur'anic basis for opposing Israel. This oposition is the political manifestation of the true anti-Semitic statements throughout the Qur'an. This fact has been turned inside-out and upside-down. It is not the state of Israel which the Qur'an opposes. It is the Jews, precisely.
Surah 5:82 says the Jews and Pagans are the people most averse to the Muslims. (It says Christians are the least, but, that was before the Middle Ages, when Christians resisted the Islamic invasions of Europe.) 5:64 says "they [the Jews] ever strive to do mischief on earth. And God loveth not those who do mischief." Therefore, the Qur'an implies God does not love the Jews.
A basic reading of the Qur'an will reveal more inconsistencies in the Muslim world than reading the Bible will of Christendom. The one thing that is consistent is the aversion toward the Jews which Islam creates in all its converts, regardless of race, nationality, ethnicity, or former religion.
The Prime Minister of Maylasia, Mahathir Mohammad, is calling for all Muslims everywhere to unite, and with non-violent measures, to overthrough the Jewish "control" over the world. Mahathir Mohammad feels that Muslims have inadequately responded to the Jewish "dominance," and that the Muslims of the world must unite in order to bring about a "final victory" over the Jews.
Mahathir Mohammad
Leaders from 57 Muslim nations, representing 1.3 billion Muslims of the world, all gathered at the Organization of Islamic Conference in Putrayahah. The 77-year-old Mohammad really didn't say anything he hasn't already said in the last 22 years during his regime. He is retiring at the end of this month, but it seems he wanted to summarize his ideology in a swan song.
He said, the Jews "invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy" to avoid persecution and to gain control of the most powerful countries.
A demonic reading of history indeed, or is it? Did America, or the industrialized nations, became great because of the Jews? In a way, this is highly complimentary to Jews, and any Judophile might be secretly delighted to hear it. To attribute anything great to the Jews, to attribute any kind of human improvement, advancement, or progress to the Jews, is a wonderful testimony. Out of the mouth of the enemy proceed the highest compliments.
But it seems to be a simplistic, fanatical focus, and wholly imbalanced, and designed to incite envy, resentment, and hatred of the Jews. Yet, at the same time, if ancient Hebrew social and moral values are at the bottom of modern Western culture, then, in a way, it can at least be said that Jewish values are the foundation of superior greatness. It simply does not follow that the Jewish people are personally behind it all. All peoples are free to adopt the ancient Hebrew values. They will naturally reap the rewards.
Mohammad's thinking demonstrates the immaturity, the fanaticism, and the danger that the Muslim religion poses to the Western world. Unless there is a vast and silent majority of Muslims who do not feel this way toward the west or toward the Jews, then these radical rhetoricist Mulims leaders are accurately representative of the faith.
Shall we believe this? Shall we believe that there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world who all think alike, who all believe in animosity and hostility toward the Jews, who all hate Western Civilization? Who are the spokesmen for the Muslims who believe otherwise? Why aren't they speaking?
Many world leaders expressed their concern over Mohammad's speech. Even United Nations' Kofi Annan got in his rhetorical, vapid objections.
But it's always left up to the people, really. Shall we let the fanatical Muslims make fanatical anti-Muslims of all of us? This is the trend.
The United States Supreme Court is out of line. Acknowledging a non-case as if it is a case, only shows the utter impropriety of our entire court system, and the destructive, abject myopia of the legal profession.
The Supreme Court will hear the case about the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court will decide whether it is appropriate for the phrase "one nation under God" to be included in the national oath.
U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, DC
The Supreme Court will decide whether any God shall be publically acknowledged as at all involved in the country of the United States of America.
Historically, there is no question about God in the government of the United States. To declare there is no God involved now is high treason against the United States. The Court is not exempt from treason.
Based on this decision, the Supreme Court will judge itself. It will manifest to all whether or not it is an American court. If it decides against the phrase, making it the law to exclude acknowledgement of the country's God, the Supreme Court will declare itself alien to the United States, and therefore public enemy No.1. The Supreme Court will declare itself the enemy of America.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the supreme law of the land, as stated in the United States Constitution (1st Amendment). This "Congress" of course refers to the United States Congress, the federal body, not the state congresses.
But, once again, the federal level of American government is tyrannically imposing itself over the individual states, over the individual communities, and over the people.
"An establishment of religion" has been demonically interpolated as to mean "establishing religion." Congress is not make not law respecting "an establishment of religion." The anti-American interpolation says, "Congress shall not establish a religion." Congress is not to "prohibit the free exercise," but the anti-American perversion is: Congress shall prohibit all exercise of Judeo-Christian religion in public places.
The neurotic aggrandizement of a California man Michael Newdow and his utterly nescient and spiritually abused 9-year-old daughter represents child abuse by the U.S. Supreme Court. The father has already abused the child, intellectually, spiritually, and morally, wreaking out his own distortions through her. That the United States Supreme Court would cater to an abused child is beyond comprehension.
There is no other assessment: the United States Supreme Court has become the enemy of America. Already. This Pledge case may be its final and formal declaration of treason.
Are the American people ready to gather in multitudes at the steps of the Court? Are we capable of making the physical effort? Are we willing to make the sacrifice that true patriotism demands? Are we too busy?
Forget Congressmen, judges, lawyers, and even the police. Forget media. Are the people of American willing to gather in Washington and make our will known? If not, say Good-bye to America, say Good-bye to that American you've grown up with, that America you've loved and cherished. It's gone.
I will then be first to welcome you all to Indian country! Perhaps you will all learn from the Indians on how to keep a fantasy alive.
Germany's women's soccer team won the FIFA World Cup yesterday! It was a dramatic finish of 2-1 over Sweden. The Swedes dominated the first half, but Germany took over second half. The German women shot again and again, but, the winning goal did not come until eight minutes into overtime. It was a classic header by Nia Kuenzer.
Sweden's Hanna Ljunberg scored shortly before the end of the first half, but, Germany's Maren Meinert scored right at the beginning of the second half. The score remained tied 1-1 until the overtime goal.
Germany's Sandra Minnert taking the ball from Sweden's Hanna Ljunberg
According to the official stats, there wasn't a single foul committed in the game. Now is that clean soccer or what? This was the world cup final! No fouls. This has to be a record for good sportsmanship. Of course, Germany can do a little work on their headers. Failing at twenty-four corner kicks, only one header, the final, winning goal, went in! That's probably a record, too.
The experts say the German ladies won through patience and counter-attack. (The Germans had many scoring opportunities in the second half, but all were wide of the goal.) It is often the case that multiple misses create a psyhcological barrier to actually scoring. Strange things happen in a game, as any sportster knows. However, the German girls kept a consistent and agressive effort, and in the end, luck came to them. As they say, lady luck favors the prepared. There is no better preparation than consistency. The German girls never let up.
I'm curious about the "counter-attack" element, however. Can such an element be planned or orchestrated? To be successful in such a manoeuver means the team must have terribly strong and quick forwards. Perhaps this is somewhat illusory, and it is really simply a matter of all the players being able to change perception of the team's position on the field, from defense to sudden offense, as soon as someone on the team gains possession of the ball.
If sports has anything at all to do with life, if athletic encounters in any way reflect the disciplines and challenges of living, then I think Germany's team gave some pretty basic lessons for success.
I note also that the head coaches of the top three world teams happen to be women. This is a good thing, too: Tina Theune-Mayer, Germany; Markia Domanski-Lyfors, Sweden; and April Heinrichs, USA. The women players really don't care too much whether their coach is male or female. They just want to move forward.
It was never her ambition (nor was it the Pope's), but Shirin Ebadi just received the Nobel Peace Prize. She is the first Iranian ever to receive it, and the first Islamic woman. (She is the 11th woman ever to receive it.) The 56-year-old professor and attorney at the University of Tehran was once a judge (until the Revolution), and has always been an activist for human rights and democracy.
Shirin Ebadi
"The real Muslims should be very happy and should support the Nobel Peace Prizes," she said, in Paris, when asked how the hardliners back in Tehran would react when she returns. They certainly have a problem, since Mrs. Ebadi (mother of two) is seen repeatedly without a veil or hijob (robes).
Americans have been trying to distinguish "good Muslims" from "bad Muslims" for some time now. All most Americans can remember is the 1979 Revolution which took 54 U.S. citizens hostage in Tehran and kept them for 444 days. "Death to American" is all most Americans associate with Iranians. I have written on this unfortunate and wrong image many times. And I have written about the difference between "good" Muslims and "bad" Muslims. I have suggested that Iran is actually the key to the solution to Islam in the modern world.
There are about 2 million Iranians in America today, and they have never protested anything, they have never even held a rally. If any group of foreign people had a right to be angry with America for "ruining" their country through the greed of businessmen and politicians, it would be Iranian Americans.
Today, Iranian Americans have shown only that they love living in America, they love the opportunities, and they only wish their country could shake off the Arabic Islamic grip, and open up to free enterprize and freedom in general. Iranian Americans have learned to recover their Persian roots, learned to be tremdously productive, and have never been part of any horrid minority belly-aching social process. It is far to great a spirit in the people. They are far too talented. Even though modern Arabic Islam robbed them of their country, and robbed the world of their fabulous heritage, Iranian Americans have truly made the best of their situation. They are cultural heroes, really, right here in modern America.
That the Nobel Peace Prize should go to a female Muslim is not a bad move, however. It is a wonderful gesture of appreciation. May it encourage Iranian people to know that the world is watching, and routing for them.
I talked to some Iranian women at the last Iranian Studies Conference (Bethesda, MD) in 2002. A couple of them were Jewish Iranians. One in particular, Prof. Janet Afary, I found particularly interesting. I told her, however, that I didn't want to French femminism influence the women of Iran. I didn't want to see any Marxist model of agitation there. "Iranian women are strong, creative, and inovative, like all Persians. They will develope their own model of reform...and it will be better than anyone else's. Iranian women don't need help."
Janet Afary
"Well," she smiled curiously, "we need a little bit...a little bit."
She knew I was urging the historical precedent that ancient Persians always improved on a thing, no matter what it was, or where they got it. They always ended up making it bigger and better. That is the ancient tradition.
This is why, at my last lecture at the University of Tehran, I said to the students, "You can do it! You can take democracy, and maker better than ever before. You can make it into something the world has never seen. You are not bound to the same mistakes America has made. I expect more from you!"
So, Syria didn't get the reaction it expected from the U.S. Instead her sins have caught up with her. Her terrorist murderers have killed too many innocent people in the world. Syria loves terrorist murderers, apparently, and now she will begin to pay the price.
Instead of condemning Israel for its recent bombings in Syria, the United States is about to slap sanctions on Syria! The House passed a bill 33 to 2, three days after the Israeli attack. To idealistic liberals this is almost as dramatic a surprise as Schwarzenegger's win in Caleefornia.
But Syria has long deserved strict discipline. In a way, Syria makes Saudi look like just a bad boy. Syria is the real problem in the Middle East, historically. Syria created all the problems for Israel in the 1940's.
In 1972, Khaled Al-Azm, Syria's Prime Minister in 1948, wrote in his Memoirs, "Since 1948 it is we [Syria] who demanded the return of the ["Palestinian"] refugees [to Israel]...while it is we who made them leave [Israel]...We brought disaster upon Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave." "We have rendered them dispossessed...We have accustomed them to begging...We have participated in lowering their moral and social level...Then we exploited them in executing crimes of curder, arson, and throwing bombs upon...men, women, and children--all this in the service of political purposes."
Believe it. Syria is the foundation of the Palestinian problem. Syria is the foundation of terrorist muderer organizations. Yes, other movements have grown up in other countries, like Saudi, but, Syria was the architect of the program.
In a way, since Britain created all the artificial boundaries of the Middle East, perhaps Britain should take more responsibility. Britain, since gaining control of the Suez Canal in 1875, Britain had the largest role in shaping the modern situation in the Middle East. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was Britain's decision to make Palestine a Jewish National Home.
But more interesting pursuits would be to identify the "indigenous" groups of people and where they lived before the artificial boundaries were created. We say these people are "Arabic," but are they? With whom did the invading Muslim Arabs intermarry a millennium ago? Did the Arabs commit genocide? Is that what Arab Muslim culture is all about, wiping out other people completely, forever?
Perhaps the problems of the Middle East might be assuaged with a little genealogy. The indigenous tribes need to recover their own identity. Never mind the Arab superimposed culture, religion, language, etc. Let the indigenous tribes rediscover their own identity.
And remember Iran. For all its bad image, Iran is still the only "original" country in the Middle East. It's people, though influenced greatly by Arab Muslim culture, still have their own race, their own language, and their own boundaries. Persian Heritage Magazine (Dr. Shahrokh Ahkami, ed.) is an example that every tribe, kindred, and tongue in the Middle East needs to follow. Restoring the original image is the way out of the modern bad image. Of course, Persia is not the glorious heritage of every tribe on the Jordon river, but, still, the principle of heritage will work for these people, too.
The present "Arabic" peoples surrounding Israel have forgotten their own heritage. They need help to rediscover it. They are lost in a fanatical foreign religion, and their only identity is to hate Israel. This is truly pitiful.
Mohammad was the father of modern psychotherapy which uses hate as focus. When nothing else works, when there is no other way to unify the mind, or organize the thoughts, or to motivate the consciousness, hate will work. Anger therapy, it is. This is the legacy of Mohammad.
Schwarzenegger is now Governor of California. In basically a three-way race, he got 47.8 % of the California vote, 97 precincts participating. Bustamante got 32.4%, McClintock, 13.2%. Of course, out of 35.4 million (?) less than 8 million are registered voters. Is this pathetic? But it doesn't matter. Schwarzenegger is in, and a record number of voters apparently voted. And 43% of the women voters voted for him.
Arnold and wife Maria
Back on August 10, BadEagle.com felt that Awnold would probably win. The reasons, however, have never yet been articulated elsewhere. California's social "collective Unconscious" was in high gear, obviously, during this special election. Most people think it was his American success story, his popularity, combined with the miserable conditions of California that gave him the victory.
But again, most people, and certainly professional news media, will not associate those miserable conditions with the victory. Why? They are afraid to identify the cause of much of those miserable conditions: illegal immigration and Mexican labor.
Clearly, white Californians are worried about keeping the state part of America, and not losing it to Mexico by proxy. Clearly they are tired of supporting illegal Mexicans with their tax dollars. Clearly, anti-American liberals like Grey Davis are willing to let Mexico take over. He made sure all the illegal Mexicans could drive. Of course, American businesses who prefer the cheap Mexican labor are equally to blame. This is another unspoken truth.
Schwarzenegger, however, has the image of a great white strong man. This is what really resonated at the unconscious level. He will save California, racially. Then nationally.
The formula was perfect. Schwarzenegger is clearly not anti-Semitic, clearly above racism, personally. But the image of his people, his race, his Vaterland, is inevitably 'raced.' That image was operative in California. Though never voiced as a positive thing by he or his campaign, it was loud enough to drown out accusations of personal misconduct, and it was the perfect fit for the needs of the situation in California.
Nor is Schwarzenegger to be blamed for this outcome. These racial thoughts may never have occurred to him. But anyone with basic knowledge of socio-psychology can't help but read the writing on the wall. Scharzenegger is a new breed of politician. More white strong men will no doubt appear elsewhere in the country where racial agitation appears to threaten American values.
Last night (Oct. 6, 2003) Joe Scarborough had on guest and syndicated news writer Jill Stewart of Los Angeles. (I think her column on Grey Davis female abuse may have just appeared in the New Times Los Angeles. The transcript of the Scarborough show is not yet available, but Jill Stewart's article is posted on her own website. She also exposes the "true lies" of Davis on the campaign trail. He didn't get 8 million votes when he was elected, but only 3.5 million, in the worst gubernatorial turn out in California history.
Gov. Grey Davis
The Scarborough discussion was about Gov. Grey Davis and his temper tantrums in his office. He has allegedly behaved in ways more alarming than anything for which Schwarzenegger has yet been accused. He shoved a 66-year-old lady and loyalist so violently that she refused ever to work in the same office with him again. Davis also allegedly shook another women so violently that her teeth rattled. He's been known to throw things at people as well. The LA Times kept all this perfectly hidden, and told Scarborough that they wouldn't print anything that wasn't "true." (They obviously are willing to say things that sound like lies, however.) The same discussion was on today's Fox News Studio B with Shepard Smith. Stewart stood her ground well.
So, there's only one thing we can be sure of. We cannot have confidence in our major news media. Not that this is news, but, it's a fact that still hasn't 'sunk in' yet. The American public still looks to the TV and radio for news. The internet is certainly growing, but, the TV is still the heaviest of the heavy-weights.
And TV news stories have become so degrading that they're little above gossip columns. The juvenile attacks on personality traits, looks, and habits reveal a frightening trend. In a way, however, it is no trend at all. Abraham Lincoln's enemies referred to him as the "ape in the White House," when he grew his beard.
I once had a conversation with Her Majesty Farah Diba Pahlavi, Iranian Empress in exhile, about news. She said of American media, "They are not responsible to anyone." She certainly wasn't advocating propaganda, either. She was observing that American media seems to have no concern for its effects on society.
In a way, this is the key to understanding American media. We call it "freedom of the press." Yes, we have laws, but no, they do not make media responsible. Our laws allow only a certain "use" of media, that's all.
What we clearly have is media-as-political-tool. Media-as-agenda-tool. It seems nearly impossible to get the truth out of them. We get partial, slanted stories, always. Buyer beware.
Our laws merely enforce liberal trands. Therefore, our laws are functional bias. Fear of suit is the only semblence of "responsibility." Lawyers, ironically, are capitalists. They look for suits. This is their bread and butter. When someone complains of mistreatment, there's a suit. It is very easy to complain, especially when there's money in it. Lawyers have encouraged an immature, belly-aching society. Capitalist lawyers have ironically contributed to the liberal take-over of America.
If the media is responsible at all, it is only to lawyers who happen to smell a suit.
Sunday, the famed and awsome Israeli Air Force struck at terrorist camps deep in Syria. For the first time in thirty years, Israel has bombed territory in Syria, and taken a measure to strike at terrorism where it breeds.
Israeli Phantom
The world holds its breath.
And Israeli government spokesman said Israel will strike at terrorism anywhere it has to, anywhere in the region. Avi Pazner said, ""Any country who harbors terrorism, who trains (terrorists), supports and encourages them will be responsible to answer for their actions."
Israel could have taken this tack long ago. Instead, Israel has patiently waited, and waited, and lost many lives waiting, for the cooperation from the Arab world and from the United States. Cooperation does not seem forthcoming.
This strike marks the 30th Anniversary of the Yom Kippur War of 1973, when Syrian and Egyptian forces attacked Israel.
Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, Returning, or Repentence, is the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. There are stories in ancient history of enemies attacking Israel on this day, because they believed the Jews would not be prepared for battle then. Today's air strike on Syria should remind the world of a "modernized" tradition in Israel.
Perhaps the Israeli leaders repent of their compromising, their failure to act, their mistaken patience, and their lack of focus on the defense of Israel. Perhaps they repent of their weakness, their mistaken, self-righteous compassion on enemies, their foolish in-house political feuding, and their wasteful, selfish use of power. Perhaps they are returning to their truest values, to protect their nation, their people, and their right to exist.
Perhaps their courage and conviction will now earn the respect and fear they need to survive. Perhaps the world will be more supportive, after all.
Not a good week for conservatives. First, the storm over Robert Novak's improprietous national publication of the name of a CIA undercover agent, then the resignation of Rush Limbaugh from ESPN over his "racial" statements together with allegations of 'medicinal' abuse.
Novak's case is surrounded with confusion and misinformation, so that he may come out less tarnished. And Rush says he quite ESPN to avoid bringing trouble to professional football, thus trying to exit with honorable motivation. The matter of his habituation to prescription medicine is also understandable by many, many Americans in the same situation.
So, what shall we make of all this? The intensity wherewith the great and mighty justify themselves is equal to that of their status. Nevertheless, their status mustn't becloud our judgment, as it may becloud theirs.
In the case of Novak, President Bush is willing to turn Washington upside down to find the "leak," as if the accusation of hosting a leaker is a great political liability for the Bush White House. If it's that important to know who "leaked" it, just put Novak on trial. "Problem solved," as Perot would say. Why all the wasted effort in another of Washington's notorious "investigations?"
Rush had an opportunity to stand for what he constantly preaches everyone else should stand for: freedom of speech. He didn't stand. He backed down. On O'Reilly's "fading" radio show yesterday, O'Reilly made suggestions of other reasons behind Limbaugh's resignation with the intent of justification.
But fame only increases responsibility. Success does not diminish ones obligations to the public. It only intensifies them.
Novak should just keep quiet until called on to testify. Then let him claim the 5th Amendment if he wants. In his preempitve strikes at self-justification, he disgraces himself. Ah, but newsmen love news. They love reporting it, making it, and being in it. But, if he's being smeared, he should have ignored it until he's actually accused of crime by the authorities. Playing into the accussation is squirming, and ill becomes a man of strength. To try to minimized it all is a complete misfire, since he has no control over how serious people take the "leak." He's playing this wrong.
Rush should have stood his ground. To say his love of football led him to step down is to say that's more important than the truth about freedom of speech. He may have some serious health problems, and this may be the bottom line. He should say so, and everyone could understand that. What he has done is contradict his deepest "principles," a grave disappointment to all.
Funny, it's Schwarzenegger who is going to come out on top. He's been slaughtered over his past since the day he announced his candidacy for the governorship of 'Caleefornia.' He steadily moves forward, nonetheless, and I predicted he would win from the beginning. As things turn out, Schwarzenegger will probably redefine "conservative" before he's through. He may represent a new hybrid of political identity. He's surely saturated with the personal, strong disciplinary values that made him a success. That makes him a conservative at heart. But he's in 'Caleefornia,' a state about to sink due to excessive liberalism. Like a Titan, he will bring opposites together. He's therefore the man for the job. More men like him may appear in other sinking states. This is a season for strange and wonderful political personalities.
Newsman Robert Novak must hang. It was he who made public the knowledge of Valerie Plame's role as an undercover CIA agent. All the fire and smoke at the White House is mistaken entirely. Bush is being more responsible than he should have to be.
Robert Novak
All sort of agents know who each other are. That's "inside" info. So, someone did "leak" it to the press. True, that person is criminal. And so is the newsman who published it. The leaker didn't publish it. For that matter, the paper (Chicago Sun) should be criminalized as well.
This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech. This has to do with breaking the law. It is plain and simple. All the rhetoric and legal jaron to justify what happened is a disgrace to the news profession, the legal system, and above all, the falsely accused White House.
The Chairman of the Republican Party, Ed Gillespie, thinks this is all a political manoeuver on the part of Democrats to discredit the Republican White House. This may be an element, but it is nearly irrelevent to the matter of criminality.
When we start politicizing crime itself, we're lost beyond recovery.
Of course, Novak is already trying to minimize everything. This is ignoble, and his ratings as a newsman and as an Amercan should quickly plummet.
The talk of Novak not revealing his sources, as if that's some principle of noble character in a news man, is nigh treasonous, considering this incident. Let Novak suffer the same fate as the leaker, when the leaker is revealed.
Complicated talk, academic, theoretical concepts don't count here. Something dirty was done. Now the guilty are just trying to say it wasn't so dirty. "No great crime here," Novak says. That's their tack.
May mud forever rest on their faces, every one.
Hang Novak, and get it over with. People will be more respectful and careful in the future. The whole system will feel a cleansing effect.
The quickest way to find out who did it is to hang Novak and the Chicago Sun. Then we'll see how "noble" Novak really is, or isn't.