Democratic Convention

7/28/04

It's scary! I am such a political junkie that I almost never have a time that I'm not interested in the political arena. I am in one of those moods right now. I am so sick of hearing about the Democratic Convention and the new "conservative" or sometimes "centrists" John Kerry. I know that is true because all of the unbiased news sources let that be known. His whole political life has been as liberal as anyone but Shhssss! If you say THAT, you are labeling him unfairly. The speakers at the convention have been told to tone down the Bush hatred but they just can't quite do it.

It is Bush hatred that is uniting the Democrats. The only thing interesting about this convention is how hard they are trying and failing to hide this hatred. I hear the Dems saying that Kerry would make the country safer and I try to keep from laughing. I suppose that if you just say you would make it safer then that must count as doing it. How perfectly obvious that appeasing the French or the Germans would make us safer....All those French troops guarding the entry points to the country would keep all those nasty Al-Qaeda extremist out of the country.

I am riveted to the TV (not) and (not) watching all the surprises at the convention and what the (non) liberals have to say. Take money from the rich (their definition), give money to the needy--the teachers union, the police unions, the firefighters union--it's all part of the famous Democratic Creed-- From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs. No, wait. That was Karl Marx. Whatever. It just sounds like the Democrats.

The only real honesty I heard was from Dan Rather. He said that if the convention were on the air 3 hours a night that a test pattern would get better ratings. The Dems hate George W. And anything else is just self justifications. They are trying to understand that they have to hide behind silly little centerist explanations when what they really want is to just scream and slap that rotton George W Bush back to Texas. Not of itself bad (that is of course their right and privledge in this country) but their motivations are suspect. They still think they won in 2000.

I know that generalizations are suspect but since the major broadcast media are only (in general) giving one side, I thought it would only be fair to say a few things.

Maybe It's Time

July 9, 2004

Maybe its time to explain to entertainers that attempt to insert themselves into the political process that if they play the game, they have to be ready to pay the price.

For a long time, and especially in the last year, I have seen singers, actors and other entertainers attempt to tell the rest of the country how they should vote in November. They almost all claim to have the ability to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that our president is incompetent, dumb, lying, cruel and heartless. These people, most of whom have never even seen the inside of a college, with the exception of performing there, are acting like the rest of us have no knowledge or intellectual ability at all.

Prior to the Clinton era, presidents had a rule that they did not criticise their successors. It was just the proper thing to do. Now it seems that President Bush is the target for anyone with a "D" behind his name. There are ex-presidents bad mouthing him, "documentary" films released with the obvious intent to slander the president and other Hollywood project that take aim at him. Why do we let them get away with it?

At some point in time, there must be some type of accounting rendered. I have refused to have anything to do with films that are populated with actors that spend their time attacking the beliefs I hold dear. I will not spend money on anything that will provide income to these people.

In this country, these people have a right to say almost anything they want. I do not and will not advocate preventing them from speaking. Before they shout "Censorship" they need to check the dictionary. (Note for entertainers: A dictionary is a book that tells you what words mean). I want NO government involvement in this. I simply think that it may be time to let these people know how little we appreciate being told what morons we are for supporting our president and/or his positions. The entertainers that take their views into the political realm need to pay if they insult the people that provide them with their income.

I am not necessarily calling for a boycott of these "useful idiots" but that may be the next step. These people cannot continue to abuse their public positions without paying any price at all. I have tried to simply ignore them but the media will not allow that. I am open for any suggestions as to how to implement this but I will continue to participate in a boycott of one

What are we fighting for?

July 6, 2004

I have said that we are fighting a war, WWIV. A large number of people n this country and the world do not seem to understand this. We are not fighting for oil. We are not fighting to give the downtrodden of the world a television or a car. It is not even being fought to remove a vicious dictator from power. The battle is a battle of beliefs.

On one side, the belief of the western world prevails. We in the West believe, at least to some extent, on individual freedom, capitalism, gender equality, private property and freedom to believe what we choose. On the other side, the belief system is based entirely on the Koran and how it is interperted by the various religious leaders.

I have recently read an artivle that caused me to start to understand how difficult it will be to win this war. "After all, the test of a belief is not whether you are willing to die for it, not even whether you are willing to kill for it, but whether you are willing to risk killing the wrong people for it. The terrorists demonstrate the intensity of their belief by targeting directly the innocent instead of just putting them at risk, as we have been seeing in Israel for decades." (The Moral Choice--What America Needs to Defend Democracy July 4, 2004 By Bruce Thornton).

In the West, we believe that if someone breaks the law, that person should be punished. We see the world through our "civilized" glasses. Bystanders, relatives of the perpetrator, friends, fellow church members or anyone else have no responsiblity for the actions unless an actual conspiracy exists. People are respinsible for their own actions.

In the Jihadist view, If you are a member of the group of western hedonists, you are guilty and need to be dealt with. That punishment is usually severe--even to death. If you are an American, you are guilty of being an infidel. Just because a person did not personally do anything to them does not protect you when you are sitting int he World Trade Center or you happen to be in the bus in Israel when the bomb goes off. They have said that they plan to kill as many Americans as they can. We better start to believe them.

The world has seen indescriminate killin in the past, but it has almost always been seen as an abaration. One of the most scary things in this case is that it is not even comdemmed is many cases. It is seen as something we deserve by virtue of our beliefs.

If the people of this country and the rest of Western Civilization do not wake up and understand the basis for the war on terror, they might not be able to wake up at all.

Did It Work?

July 1, 2004

It is common to hear the complaint that the administration had an excellent plan for winning the war but either no plan for the post war or a poorly thought out plan. Pundits point to the looting which either did or did not, according to who is talking, empty the National Museum and all of Iraq's wealth. They always seem to mention the disbanding of the Iraqi army and police force. At the time it seemed to be a good idea. Now, we have had months of conflict and hundreds of American soldiers killed and wounded. Oh, woe is us!

It seems to me that the problem is less that there was no plan than that we are not experienced occupiers of other countries. We have not done this in the last 50-60 years. No one has ever done this in modern history under the conditions that we have encountered. The entire world is at war (WWIV). This war is based on religion. Fundamental Islamic radicals are fighting wars or skirmishes all over the planet. Of the many major and minor wars in progress at this time, very few of them do NOT include Islamic Jihadists in some manner.

Did anyone expect to have the problems we encountered? No. Did anyone expect that the people of Iraq, suddenly freed from years of oppression would suddenly decide that it was open season on the entire country's resources? No. If you did, it surely was not reported in the news. No one saw the consequences of chopping the head off the government as quickly and "painlessly" as we did. No one even expected to take Baghdad with as little damage as we did. It was a totally unexpected and unprecedented. No one has ever seen war conducted in a manner that took civilian casualties into account to the extent that this war did.

It seems to me that we have been learning a lesson. If we have to conduct another battle in this war on terror, we will have a somewhat better idea of the dangers that lurk behind rapid victory on the battlefield.