Cal Thomas: Politically exploit a tragedy

It was extremely sad and tragic that thirteen people, 12 soldiers and 1 Spokane, Washington native who eventually moved to Texas and a civilian contractor, died in a horrible massacre.    It is quite another matter to use a rare incident to stridently attack all Muslims in this country and even further, to use this tragedy to extend hatred toward “liberals,” “the politically correct,” “brain-washed dupes,” and etc.  And whom would Mr. Thomas regard as “the wise,” anyway?  Or of “sound mind?”  Considering his frothing histrionics these days over anything and everything to do with Islam.  The wise and those of sound mind would in fact recognize that in all of the centuries that this U.S. of A. has existed, just how many times have American soldiers committed fratricide?  I’d have to say that with the best of my knowledge, there have only been three such incidents and only in the last few decades.  And of the 3 incidents in question, two were committed by Muslims.  So, why did Thomas not froth over the incident at a Pacific Northwest Military base where a non-Muslim went on a lethal rampage?  Oh, because he wasn’t Muslim, I suppose.

One shouldn’t have to rehash old arguments,  but just how tolerant would Cal Thomas be toward “Christian” based terrorism? After all, Timothy McVeigh was a good ol’ American with military experience and undeniably “Christian.”  He also developed a pure hatred for all things government, accused the American government of putting a microchip in him to “keep track of his whereabouts,” and eventually blew up a federal building; engaging in a more lethal rampage by killing 168 people, men, women and children.  Oh, and McVeigh’s actions were definitely excused by other people with their own hatred of the government.

Should we call such people who could excuse the actions of a “Christian” terrorist as politically correct, “liberal,” brainwashed dupes?  Of course not.  How about “Christians” who went around bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion providers such as Dr. George Tiller?  And all of those people who came out in droves to proclaim their support for Dr. Tiller’s murderer, Scott Roeder?  Can we say that they were brainwashed dupes, “liberal,” politically correct or not of sound mind?  Actually, it has to be as long as they are in 1,000% agreement with where Mr. Thomas stands now as to political ideology that he will be greatly tolerant of themselves.  In other words, dangerous and lethal extremism can in fact be tolerated as long as it is my extremism.

There is no question that Thomas bigotry is showing.  He rants and raves in column after column attacking Muslims at every turn, especially Muslims who came to this country seeking freedom to worship as they please.  Muslims, the vast majority of whom serve this country in the U.S. Military; who I am sure wouldn’t threaten their fellow servicemen.  Whereas, there have been plenty of “Christian” servicemen who have proselytized and even sought to baptize “and make Christian” fellow servicemen.  And all of this without one word of complaint from Thomas.  Of course, when they are “Christian,” they can’t “get into trouble” for making public attempts at  proselytizing and public baptisms of their fellow members of the U.S. Armed Forces.  Nor are they going to “get into trouble” for wearing any symbol of their faith.  But we should all be damned afraid of an American soldier and Psychiatrist who wears religious garb when off-duty.  Especially if he is a Muslim.

If he is a Psychiatrist, so Thomas decrees, he shouldn’t have takien advanced firearms training.  He’d have no need to.  Uh, wasn’t he supposed to have deployed to Iraq(?) in a number of days?  Then, he’d probably have need to.  As you never know what trouble even psychiatrists deployed in a theater of war might get into if they didn’t know how to fire a weapon.  That is, any other psychiatrist but Hassan.  Yes, I am sure that this Islamic psychiatrist did have personal objections to the U.S. presence in the Middle East.  So did many an American in general have objections to the U.S. being present in a theater of war in the Middle East.  But we can suddenly be “tolerant of them” as long as they aren’t anti-war Muslims, right?  Except when we find it politically convenient to not be tolerant of them at all.

Thomas has a problem.  This nation is built on a foundation of freedom.  The freedom to believe what you wish, the freedom to practice what you believe,  the freedom to say what you wish even in dissent.  And a Muslim psychiatrist who joins the U.S. Military is primarily doing so because he is there defending those freedoms.

I can’t hope to read the man’s mind.  I can’t hope to speculate or second guess why he would flip out and gun down his fellow soldiers in an act of fratricide.  That must be up to a judge in a courts martial where the facts come out.  But, Thomas isn’t going to wait for such niceties as letting justice take its course, he’ll condemn now!  And tell the rest of us, “I told you so,” because this is the third time that soldiers died at the hands of a fellow soldier in a non-theater of war situation.  And the perpetrator just happened to be a Muslim.  And use 13 dead (who knows of what diverse religions they may well have been) as further “proof” of the war that Islam has against this country and a war “they” are intent on winning.

Do I excuse Hassan being a fanatic?  I do not.  Would I disregard Hassan’s actions of violent extremism?  I do not.  Fanaticism and extremism is always something to be feared.  And yes, he should be held to account for the murders of his fellow soldiers.  But, let us not use his actions to condemn a country or a president, or even those of the opposing political ideology as Thomas prefers to do.  Until Hassan flipped out, he was defending Thomas’ right to disparage his Islamic belief.  How about that.

Wonder if Thomas would manage to remember something like that?  No?  So if he had been a man named Smith and was a devout “Christian,” and committed fratricide of his fellow soldiers about to deploy overseas; would Thomas then regale us with the dangers of fanatical Christianity?  Probably not.  So let us end this post by concluding, it was a terrible tragedy.  My greatest condolences to the survivors of the lives lost.  To the families of the fallen.  To those at Ft Hood, Texas who didn’t expect to find themselves in fatal conflict with a fellow American and soldier.  And let justice be served.

Conservative?

If there is one thing I’ll agree with Leonard Pitts, jr about and that is having to shake one’s head at “conservatives” who would remake God’s word in their own image.  Right, republished in the Spokesman-Review of 19 October 2009, a description of a highly politicized “Conservopedia” and those of a very radical ideology who’d turn God’s word into a book of free market principles.  Uh, excuse me but I do believe that God was supposed to be opposed to people creatively interpreting the bible however they see fit.  And “Christians” who saw themselves as fundamentalists held a strict constructionist view of the bible.  God’s word was literally true as written.  So, you now have to wonder why guys who are supposed to be ideologically pro the institution would now challenge the institution, even the tenets of their own bibles?  That’s a pretty remarkable departure from where “conservatism” once stood.  That is, if it can in fact have the illusion of “conservative” any longer.

The one area that I can disagree with Pitts, if you are going to describe radical departures from an initial founding ideology in just the past two decades, why do you still describe this radicalism as conservative?  Conservative as a principle isn’t a buffet where people can select from a table of goodies and decide which will be more appetizing.  That would be like walking up to a buffet where you have your dishes of veggies and meats, breads and soups, salads and deserts; and then making your meal only of desserts and declaring that you just ate a healthy meal.  If the idea that the above described ought to raise eyebrows, then the radicalism that has replaced what used to be called “conservatism” in accordance with dictionary definitions one of which Pitts put into his column, that ought to raise eyebrows too, and be treated with as much disbelief.  If you believe in the bible and regard its historical lessons as having utter validity, there would be no cause to change the language and have God preaching the “invisible hand” or becoming a fan of Ayn Rand.  On the other hand, treating the moral lessons of the bible as a “liberalism” that can be simply dispensed with.  The God who’s prophets and other noteworthies such as King Solomon himself, writing in the name of God, didn’t exactly espouse “greed is good,” individual to the extreme, gvt is good when I want it and bad when it falls into the hands of the opposition, collectivism is a good thing when it is defined on my terms and “communism” when others may benefit.  God that can be rewritten to permit me to hold my fellow man in contempt.  To be noisy in my faith on street corners or in any other place of my choosing, regardless of what Christ that I claim association with actually thought about that.  Which actually, according to the bible I have, Christ was utterly opposed to that kind of thinking.  Shouldn’t conservative be to keep and value what you have?

Well then, if “conservatives” can’t even value a bible if it doesn’t carry the sort of language they would prefer, then it brings to mind what I am fully aware of that had their antecedents properly frothing over.  Multiculturalism, for example:  where American history must suddenly go through a process of revisionism because of the fact that standard history books tended to overlook the contributions of minorities to this nation.  That as a consequence of such revisionism, something “anti-American” existed at the base of such multiculturalism.  That the majority ought to take no further pride in being who and what they are or for that matter, who and what the founding fathers happened to be.  Or secular humanism:  Where faith no longer guided morality.  Evolution:  that was deemed to have taking God’s place and promoted by “atheist” scientists.  Marxism or Communism that put the faith of man into man and gvt.  But not into God himself.  Anything that could cause the youth of this nation to stray from the straight and narrow was deemed suspect.  Books, movies and videogames; could influence them negatively.  Songs, politicians and the next door neighbor; could make your child a total and uncontrollable stranger.  What passed for “conservative” even twenty years ago was actually a fear of the real world and also of one’s fellow Americans.  None the less, there was still a basis to believe that some of what was said did have elements of true conservatism in it.  Literally, why break what works well right now?  Why turn from the tried and the true?  Why revise what is literally acceptable right now into something that is unrecognizable and therefore unacceptable?  Why distort?  Why recreate something that departs from its original format?  Propaganda does not replace well, the truth.  A faith in God ought not be replaced by faith in the things of man or man himself.  That there should be throughout, a core of principles of values that should not be departed from.  But as Pitts has described it, over the past 20 or better years, radicals have been slip-sliding away from such sound principles.  In that, they have become much more like the “left” that they once derided than they ever were like their predecessors.  And that is quite a shame.

Religious coercion

There is a lot to be liked about any Leonard Pitts, jr editorial (republished in the Spokesman-Review 12 October 2009) and this one is included. That being said, Mr. Pitts still manages to get a few things wrong as will be explained shortly.

First of all, Christmas isn’t the only federally recognized religious holiday, actually Thanksgiving is a federally recognized religious holiday and was celebrated long before Christmas was ultimately given a similar recognition.  And from what I can understand about the history of federally recognized religious holidays, James Madison had some open opposition to the U.S. Government giving Thanksgiving any federal recognition at all.  But, he was apparently outvoted.  At the same time, Thanksgiving is in fact the only purely “Christian” holiday that is celebrated in this nation today.  That is, one not drawn from far older traditions as all other “Christian” holidays are.  And Thanksgiving as celebrated in this nation today, has valid historical roots as well.  That being said, as someone not of the Christian faith; all Thanksgiving means is a day off from work.  I will decorate for it as I like to decorate for all holidays I am most familiar with.  But my decorating theme will not necessarily include Thanksgiving’s purely religious aspects, just who made it possible—the Pilgrims.

I will agree with Pitts, that a cross and a bouquet of flowers along side a highway, city street and etc. that was erected by grieving relatives of the latest in traffic casualties will not offend.  You know what it is for.  And it can be considered an implied reminder to all others who drive those same routes what one careless moment can mean as to what it cost—in lives; be careful out there, this could be you.  For that, I’ll thank those Christians for their concern for the welfare of other drivers and their passengers even as they grieve for their own.

However, when it comes to a cross erected in the Mojave desert for presumably all of the World War 1 dead, if I were traveling through that particular region and did not know what the Cross was for, I’d have my own thoughts about why it was erected, and not necessarily would they be nice thoughts.  I can think of far better markers to honor the dead of that war, a massive block of stone carved with the wording of, “In honor of those who died in World War 1;” where it would leave no doubts as to why it was erected and set out in the same place where the Cross exists now and truly be generic as to whom it included.  Justice Scalia would be entirely wrong on this but also for reasons that Pitts himself doesn’t even begin to address.  There is a history here in this country of bigotry, not only a bigotry of Christian to non-Christian, but also Christian against Christian.  Precisely, where it concerns the latter, who owns the Cross and for whom among the World War 1 dead was it truly erected to honor?  Because of that historical bigotry, even that Cross would have behind it, an element of coercion.  Sorry, Pitts.

Thus, a grave marker would be far more appropriate, and one made of stone would be far more lasting.

---

Yes, this is October, but I expect it is not too soon to discuss the latest salvos in the War on Christmas, which Pitts mentions briefly as someone suing over the removal of Christmas  as a federally recognized holiday.  Actually, they’d probably have some valid reason to, LOL! as banks don’t necessarily close on Passover, nor will mail not be delivered on Hallowe’en.  If most religious holidays don’t receive federal recognition, why should Christmas or for that matter, Thanksgiving, be the exceptions?

But as mentioned before, Thanksgiving is the only real Christian holiday celebrated in this nation today.  Christmas, on the other hand, beyond the story of Christ’s birth, derives most of its celebrations and traditions not on anything actually having to do with Christ himself, but rather on pagan traditions.  And Christ himself  who would be mindful of Jewish law that opposed the use of the “decorated tree” (Tanakh) would be, I think appalled that his erstwhile followers get hysterical if the “Christmas” tree isn’t called a “Christmas” tree but rather an Xmas tree or holiday tree.  Or if in the case of SeaTac international airport in Washington state, that would rather pull down all “holiday” trees rather than erect one Menorah; “Christians” would rather go on the attack over the loss of something both pagan and biblically verbotën with a lot of vitriol against the d–ned Jew who’d deny them a “Christmas” tree because he wants a menorah for God’s sake erected at SeaTac… How dare he!  Of what would Christ find more appalling, squabbles over symbols one of which is indeed pagan in origin or the failure of his erstwhile followers to obey his commandments?

As to the Cross itself, it has two divergent traditions.  One in which it is a device used for torture/executions by the Romans.  The second, in a similar form and encompassed by a circle, is a Celtic/Druidic symbol.  Therefore, the Cross has been made use of by “Christians” without a doubt.  Perhaps with some historical validity as per Jesus ultimately being executed as an enemy of the Roman state.  But when “Christians” make use of a Druidic symbol as a halo for Christ’s head… as far as I know, Christ wasn’t a Druid.  Hanging him on a variation of a Celtic/Druidic cross… to the best of my knowledge, the pagan Celts weren’t responsible for his execution.  But leave it to the “Christians” to pervert their faith in order to become more attractive to the pagans they wished to convert.  Why else celebrate a “Mass for Christ” in or around the same time as Saturnalia?  The bible gives plenty of clues as to when Christ probably was actually born, why then pattern him after Mithras, a winter demi-god?  When a people divorce Christ from his Jewish beginnings and render him in many ways pagan so as to be “attractive” to pagans, what does that say about faith?

Uh, excuse me, but there are only two types of people who actually “own” the Cross, Druids and Pagan Romans.  Now, go erect that more inclusive grave marker.

Tweeting abortion

I am not about to second guess “Trunk” who tweeted her recent miscarriage. Nor why she appeared on CNN afterwards to discuss it with Rick Sanchez. But I do have a few statements to make about Kathleen Parker’s choosing to editorialize about it and offer thorough condemnations about “Trunk” making her miscarriage a public discussion.

Apparently, Ms. Parker thinks, like many uninformed about plain dictionary meanings, that there is a difference between miscarriage and abortion.  Actually, the dictionary definition of abortion includes miscarriage or spontaneous abortion.  Yes, actually, women who have spontaneous abortions where they desired to have a child do feel  heavy grief and even guilt at their loss of pregnancy.  For to them it is indeed a loss of a planned for child.  But, you have to thank “Trunk” rather than condemn her for shining the spotlight on this issue.  Miscarriages are a principle factor in the rate of abortions in this country today; especially if the woman who has a miscarriage must receive medical treatment.  It also informs anti-abortionists that not all abortions are desired, planned for and can be regulated against.  Miscarriage is in fact one of the medical conditions that results in a woman having to obtain an abortion procedure.  So, while Ms. Parker was passing judgment, she was overlooking “Trunk’s” contributions to a painful discussion.

Can you discuss the flu on Twitter?  Bet you can.  Could a heart attack that you survive become a general part of the conversation?  Most certainly.  But if you reduce an epic “loss of a child” to a mere 140 words; then condemnations must flow.  Why?  What if “Trunk” lost a young child to a car accident?  Would her grief be any less if she Tweeted such a loss in 140 characters or less?  No.  However, would there be MSM nannies out there asking her if she had no shame such as had Rick Sanchez if she Tweeted such a statement?  No.  That ought to tell you all about the politics of abortion; as opposed to what ever “moral” positions one may take on the issue.  Only in politics could a woman who Twitters about a miscarriage be taken to the woodshed.

Let us put it bluntly, miscarriage is the one medical condition that can not be prevented nor regulated against.  A woman who is happy that she did have a miscarriage probably had a number of reasons for why she had real doubts about getting pregnant at all.  And where she had doubts, then how would “the child” have fared if born?  Yes, it should have a far wider public discussion, as miscarriage is indeed one of the hidden aspects (when it comes to “religious” opposition to abortion) of why abortion procedures will always continue in this nation, they must.  For the people most uncomfortable having to discuss it at all; they aren’t uncomfortable discussing your last night’s dinner with you or if you had painful constipation afterwards; that isn’t too much information.  So, why would a miscarriage become taboo as far as a Tweeted discussion goes?  It isn’t as far as I am concerned.

Having ventured onto the Twitter board on more than one occasion, I am fully aware of the wide political spectrum of the people who comment.  Those who announce those cuh-razy Tea Parties; who make plain their “religious” opposition to this and that.  God pops up in political discussion on the Twitter board with astounding frequency as do biblical scripture.  If 140 characters reduces the significance of an abortion event to the point of being demeaned; I can’t think of a more demeaning act than to reduce God to 140 characters.  But, Ms. Parker isn’t going to pass judgment on the religious who reduce God to 140 characters but only on the people with whom she is politically opposed, people like “Trunk” for example.  That should say a lot right there.

Quite frankly, as the author of this blog, I am not opposed to discussing miscarriage or even planned for aborticides.  I would certainly invite “Trunk” to post comments here any time she wishes and I would certainly discuss with her more in-depth what she truly felt when the miscarriage took place.  Did Ms. Parker twist something when offering her condemnations?  Did Sanchez?  Miscarriages are a fact of life for a great many women.  When they are 20% of total medical abortions in this nation, that is significant.  It says what no anti-abortion law will ever prevent and why trying to force doctors who currently perform the procedure to turn from such a practice will only cause as to harm.  A woman who does have a miscarriage after all can actually be at risk of dying if she doesn’t have proper medical treatment.

Sorry Ms. Parker, but “Trunk” was not actually wrong.

The enemy within?

Well over 200 years ago, one of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, stood in a city called Philadelphia and announced to the public at large that if an Imam wished to preach here, he could.  Cut to 29 September 2009, and a republishing of a Cal Thomas editorial in the Spokesman-Review , he presents Imams living in this country as “the scary other;” certainly in light of 9/11/2001 it can come as no surprise.  Almost 3,000 people died in a single day because of an Islam belief  that followed the course of radical jihad.

However, it is what Mr. Thomas has to say in the course of his editorial that has me shaking my head:  “Democracy is not a revelation, and democracy does not equal freedom, for in democracy you have apartheid, you have slavery, you have homosexuality, you have lesbianism, you have gambling, you have all the vices that are against the spirit of truth…”  If this had been written by a “Christian,” would Mr. Thomas go haywire?  The author of this Facebook excerpt Imam Abdul Malik is deemed an “enemy of the state” in Mr. Thomas personal opinion because of his “thumbs down” on Democracy and all the human failures it allows; esp. where Thomas freaks at the idea that Democracy can be “Islamized.”  OK?!?

Let us remind Mr. Thomas that Christians made decades of public pronouncements that this country wasn’t a “democracy” at all and instead a republic.  The evils to be found in a “democracy” IE demos, the people and the inherent socialism behind it.  —Effectively, any Christian has already made the argument that democracy doesn’t equal freedom long before the Imam Malik from Brooklyn, NY made his Facebook declarations.  And any “Christian” out there has discussed the vices of this society from gambling to gay rights and sought gvt intervention to oppose anything that would keep this nation from being next door to heaven.  In short, such activists only sought to Christianize democracy.  Quite frankly, beyond the Imam’s belief, I don’t see much difference between himself and radical activist “Christians” who have certainly turned out in massive numbers to either:  oppose abortion, oppose the Obama administration.  Or small “church groups” consisting of families who carry protest signs from one soldier’s burial to another condemning them for “defending” homosexuality in this nation and “Thank God for 9/11/2001.”  But, I guess as long as they are “Christians,” they can’t be the enemy.  Nor could they have the capacity for terrorism that is only possible in Islam.  Say again?

PBS had a special on Christian terrorists post the Dr. George Tiller death.  Radical anti-abortionists who do more than simply oppose a legal operation for its “immorality.”  They go so far as to engage in vandalism, threats of violence, create websites that have hit lists of abortion providing doctors to be eliminated, they have prayed for the deaths of judges who rule against them.  Surviving doctors who perform late term abortions have called them terrorists because of the safety precautions these doctors must now take in order to stay in operation.   Well, when you create a fear factor that literally changes how people conduct their personal lives; wouldn’t that be terrorism?

How about Timothy McVeigh?  How about the “militias” that suddenly sprang up proclaiming their utter opposition to the gvt?  How about “Christian Identity” that made common cause with racism?  Excuse me, but democracies do allow some extremely radical types to operate with a degree of freedom in this nation.  Mr. Thomas just doesn’t want to include Islam, however.

Seems Imam Malik does have a point about the history of this nation, whether Mr. Thomas wants to acknowledge it or not.  What is Jim Crow after all, but racial apartheid?  Who created Jim Crow if not racist Christians?  Democracy didn’t always mean freedom in this nation; the Whiskey Rebellion was one such example.  Civil Rights came only because of a long and intense struggle and ultimate sacrifices.  Democracy in this nation did allow slavery.  Slavery only ended effectively with a civil war and an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And those who had the most objections to minorities achieving an equal status put on white robes, pointed white headgear and white masks.  They burned crosses in a very twisted and radical perversion of how they came to see Christ.  In their time, the Ku Klux Klan were terrorists; as the Neo Nazis that came after them.

Thomas does have a point to make about that it only takes a few to wreak havoc.  But it always that “scary other,” not those who believe as I do.

Thomas then goes on to refute the “deceptions” of Muslims where it concerns the infidel.  Now that does sound a bit like Fundamentalist Mormons who engage in deceptions of their own because one shouldn’t actually tell the truth to one’s Christian neighbor deemed an infidel.  Never mind the commandment against bearing false witness.

Granted that Iran’s president Ahmedinejad probably does not care to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his nuclear ambitions.  And there is without question that he is a very scary guy.  However, Thomas goes to great and convoluted lengths to “tie in” Muslims living in this nation with the crazy guy who is president of a country who has been a declared enemy for more than 20 years.  Exactly why do these Muslims live in this country if Iran’s ruling party has long called us a Great Satan?  You’d think they’d make common cause with the purists and stay well away from “corrupting influences.”  Or is there another reason why they’d come to this nation?  Well, try economic reasons for one.  Try gvt oppression for another.  Try guys like the late and not so great Saddam Hussein who butchered his “enemies” except for those who got away successfully and sought refuge in this nation.  Never mind the very legitimate reasons that these people could be here, they are all now suspect terrorists.  And all because of a Facebook statement by a single Imam.  Or because of crazy dude Ahmadinejad.

And finally, let us even go a little further and posit that there must be something terribly wrong with the current administration that somehow (with very dark whispers here) makes excuses for Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions.  Uh, those nuclear ambitions were very much evident long before Obama ran for the presidency.  Exactly what excuses did GW come up with as to why he wasn’t prepared to resolve them over a period of 8 years?  Interesting that Thomas spent more time whining about “liberals,” Dems and abortion than he could find time for with regards to GW’s foreign policy failures.

Fear factor:  “Are we being infiltrated and surrounded by people who want us dead and our country destroyed?  Try a little experiment, Google “Islam near” and then type in the name of any city or town.  When I tried the small town of Bryn Mawr, Pa., 10 Islamic-related sites came up.  In larger cities, there are as many, or more.  Deception is part of the terrorist’s battle strategy…”  Or is what Thomas’ calling for in his dark heart of an editorial a new apartheid; a call to arms by racists; an xenophobia that could easily lead to violence against a people who surely don’t all agree with Imam Malik.

The wonders of democracy, Thomas; is that allows freedom of religion, precisely, freedom for all religions.  Even though the capacity for evil does exist in the hearts of men, men are still free within a democracy to change what they deem wrong in society.  To over time correct the social ills that can come endemic with the human condition.  In that respect, Imam Malik is wrong about what democracy is capable of.  It may allow social vices, but it also allows men to act for the greater good.  And that is how progress is made.  Thomas on the other hand makes clear that he wants to be part of the social ills rather than part of the solution to them.

The “enemies” we submit to

Exactly what does it take for a nation to be perceived as “weak” before the potential enemies of this world? Cal Thomas thinks he knows, our foreign policies, especially those created by Democrats, put us in a “weak” position.  Remember, only Democratic presidents ought to actually be named, and their foreign policies in particular ought to be trotted out so that we can be “warned” against voting for them the next time.

But, isn’t it the partisan hack jobs that truly does make this nation weak?  In the full 8 years of GW’s presidency; he caved to Ahmedinajad (sic?) a great many times; changing the U.N. goal posts continually rather than drawing a line in the sand and declaring that  bullying dude would not cross here.  Must have been that Ahmedinajad felt he could use the exportation of foreign oil or even the lack of same as a leverage against the U.S.  And of course, the U.S. under GW was business profits over all.  The aftermath of GW’s refusal to stand firm?  The mistreatment by Iran’s gvt of a people who protest what they regarded as a fraudulent election.

The internet is great thing, isn’t it?  You can find an abundance of blogs, and plenty of places to park them where opinions can be generated across the political spectrum of any issue of the day, or of the hour.  It can also generate websites by people also across the political spectrum who use their websites as hatchet jobs against a political opposition, or even an idea, or a tradition.  While GW was in office, there happens to be this website, Townhall.com, run primarily by fringe new lefties who went on record after Spain pulled out of Iraq following an election in which the opposition party took over; in the aftermath of an 11 March terrorist attack on commuter trains; of attacking an ally who didn’t have much of a military presence in Iraq to begin with.  Spain had become “cowardly” for wanting to deal with its own internal affairs, including dealing with domestic terrorists, first.  The problem for Townhall.com; anyone at all can check out their website and read all the comments from some very juvenile people.  The sort of people who actually regard their most juvenile conduct and even more juvenile commentary (believe it or not) as conservative.  If an act of terrorism possibly changed the outcome of whom the Spanish people would choose for a gvt; then it was also probably a tipping point as well; the Spanish people might have seen terrorist acts against their nation as 1.  retaliation for investing in this war or 2.  they simply didn’t want in this war in the first place.  Whereby, the latter was the base reason for how they would ultimately vote and the terrorist act served as an excuse.  The vast majority of the world as to the populace of various countries did not support GW’s foreign policies on terrorism and Iraq.  GW could “stand firm” against opinion polls run by various news media; he would do as he chose regardless.  But when you looked at the full span of his over all foreign policies; especially when it involved Kim Jong Il; the man did more to cave in to gvts than show any sign of strength.

Cut to the pro-democracy rebellion by Hungarian civilians against a Soviet supported gvt.  Seems to me that a Republican administration was in place that refused to lend aid in what would become an humanitarian crisis.  Apparently, we either had some lingering fond memories of the Soviet Union as an “ally” during the second world war or we were still tangled up in the Korean conflict and the then existing administration concluded that to start another conflict before we had concluded the one we were embroiled in would likely drain our resources…  Or to lend aid to Hungary’s rebellion while still in tough negotiations with keeping the gvts of Korea from each other’s throats; would have been a grave mistake.  To put it bluntly, Thomas could trot out a lot of history in his column, without it would seem, caring to discuss anything in-depth.

While Reagan was in office; he made common cause with bullies who slaughtered in the thousands many of their own people (on the presumption that they were sympathetic to commie insurgents) as long as the bullies in those respective gvts weren’t communist themselves.  Just as he was more than prepared to make specific trade deals with communist gvts at the behest of business interests.  The same thing with Bush (41).  Preceding Iraq wars 1 & 2, we could make common cause with Saddam Hussein because of our extreme hatred of Ayatollah run Iran.  And that was regardless of Hussein the bully who was so ruthless where his own citizens were concerned that anyone could be deemed an enemy and killed by the thousands.

Only years later, would we bring up such “humanitarian concerns” (more than the presumption of harboring terrorists) that would serve as an excuse for GW to go to war in Iraq and forcibly install a new gvt.  But of course, “humanitarian concerns” didn’t factor into the Reagan/Bush (41) foreign policy considerations at all.

And in that same era; “hawks” who’d whine about our “weakness” on the foreign stage if Democratic presidents were in power, such as Charles Krauthammer; then turned about and made excuses for why we didn’t fight every war or topple every hated gvt as long as the administration was indeed GOP.  Apparently, foreign policy “weakness” was dependent on one’s political views.  Or the undercurrent was more in line with; as long as we could do business with the bullies, why would we want to topple their gvts?  And to put it very bluntly, our foreign policy of any administration was driven more by business $$$ than by “standing firm” ideologically on the behalf of democracy, or human rights, or other political considerations.  The fact that print editions of Time or Newsweek or other publications could be sold all over the world; appearing ultimately on line for the world to read what got presented; we could be seen as “weak” by potential enemies just because of what our talking heads, Krauthammer, Thomas, et al had to say about our foreign policies or even our respective administrations.  The more a Thomas or a Krauthammer engaged in strident partisan attacks of an opposition administration; the more likely “the world” would have cause to be dismissive.

In a democracy, and only in a democracy is it possible for a people to roundly and sometimes legitimately to criticize their gvt.  But to wax hysterical of the current administration goes a bit beyond the pale.  It is as though the past 60 years could be rolled up, packaged and tied in a bow and presented to the current Obama administration as the years of failure when the nation didn’t do the right thing and therefore submitted to the enemy who could then find us “weak.”

A Republican administration, Nixon; discovering that the vast majority of Americans were now turning against Vietnam; pulled out of that highly misbegotten war.  If Osama bin Laden could cite Vietnam as the reason why he thinks he can “out last us” in any war on terrorism as per Thomas’ opinion; Thomas could look a little closer to Iraq and the current polling about Afghanistan instead.  After all, GW had to whip up fears about terrorism to get this nation into a war with Iraq.  To use terrorism as a foil to bring a GOP majority into Congress.  Not that ultimately the GOP majority in Congress were ultimately to seek this nation’s safety from terrorism but rather the gift that terrorist acts had brought to try to keep themselves in power and the opposition a weak minority.  As a consequence, a foreign policy that was hit and miss and full of whimsy.

Remarkable, isn’t it that Thomas spent more time excusing the foibles of a GOP administration and wastes no time engaging in rancid attacks on the current one?  Oh and I’d like to remind one and all; that on CBS Evening News last night, Katie Couric let loose a fundamental flaw; did GW actually give the generals on the ground in Iraq everything they needed?  Or was that what he claimed while the war in Iraq went south?  And the generals were so busy sucking up to the GOP administration at the time that they were themselves proclaiming they didn’t need more troops while indeed the situation was going south in Iraq.  Was Obama honestly not wanting to give McChrystal carte blanche on more troops in Afghanistan the reason why Thomas would write his column?  Neither did GW, actually when it came to Iraq; and we didn’t get a history lesson of “caving in” to our enemies.  Partisanship wins out.

Our intrusive world

You have to love Leonard Pitts at times. His most recent commentary that was republished in the Spokesman-Review this Labor Day, 8 September 2009 involved just how wired and interconnected we truly are.  Where he describes cameras mounted at ATMs, our purchases logged in various retail stores, we can be ratted out by our e-mails and etc.  And it all began with his having left his cell phone in his car while he was taking a plane trip.  He then included an article in “Wired” where the author was going to do his best to “disappear” off the grid and set up a reward for anyone who could “find” him.  An interesting challenge to be sure.  And to put it bluntly, amusing as hell.

Even though Pitts put it rather narrowly about the more private intrusions into our personal lives I am very prepared to put it into a far broader perspective.  Any more, we take it for granted that our lives are going to be “intruded upon.”  You set up an e-mail account to communicate with family and friends, to track whether someone is posting comments to blog or you are learning about people who want to “add you as a friend” on Facebook or who want to “follow you” on Twitter and here come a massive flood of ads into your in-box.  And the repetition of these ads is nothing short of astounding.  Esp when they were first seen on TV.  If I wanted to buy a snuggie, I get catalogs that actually features snuggie.  If I truly wanted a tweeze, the moment they were sold in stores I’d consider whether it was a luxury I could well afford.  I don’t need endless ads that become useless spam in my in-box and then have to be wearily over many hours cleaned out of my web-mail account.  Over 6,000 ads before I find e-mail of far more importance?  Excuse me, but I can do without that.

Or of far greater importance still, is that the people who currently clamor about our far too intrusive gvt are living with on a daily basis and are probably taking for granted all other forms of intrusion.  Businesses that put up security cameras at ATMs are correctly trying to protect themselves from theft.  Cameras set up along various routes in big cities can correctly be in response to high crime areas.  Or when people drive through stop lights and the camera can be used to send along tickets to the malefactor in question.  Or the owner of the car being driven.  But, when purchases are being logged at customer service counters by that oh so quick and efficient bar code; that is the business attempt to discover what was most being purchased on that given day or even just how much of a profit is being realized through the frequency of bar codes being passed through a scanner.  You may indeed be “faceless” as far as the corporate office is concerned, but your purchases decidedly are not.

Of course I can understand all that.  But, it is still intrusion, isn’t it?  And private enterprise is equally intrusive if not more than gvt itself.  Yet, what we hear most often is the complaints of “big bad government.”  Take Fox News and their “majority of those polled.”  Fox News Channel has to rely upon those who actually watch that channel (I don’t) for people to be polled.  And invite the same people who are actually watching the channel to visit their web site to actually participate in any polls.  Interconnectedness to be sure.  But if 98% actually agree with the talking heads of Fox News that is because the 98% are viewers who watch Fox News and agree with its format and political positions already.  The 2% who don’t agree are those who watch Fox News with an eye to disputing what the talking heads have to say.  But that such a poll is hardly “scientific.”  Not if Fox News is only taking the pulse of its actual viewers.  Fox News Channel depends on “intrusiveness” by the viewer, the interconnectedness ultimately being loathed by the fellow who “wants to disappear” and will offer a reward for any of his readers to try to find him in 30 days.  Well, I don’t loath the technology and won’t stay unhooked from the grid.  But I could still do without the tons of useless ads in my e-mail in-box.

On the other hand, there is a degree of irony when it comes businesses that want to go “unwired.”  They still have websites to generate business and it takes technology to publish their catalogs.  I am not about to be opposed to technology when advantages can be had to having it around.  And if I want to “disconnect,” well, just shut down the computer, shut off the TV, and go take a walk.  As for my cell phone, I happily leave it at home.  I don’t panic at the thought of leaving it behind.

Yeah, you just have to love Leonard Pitts, jr.  It is what he inadvertently says in his commentary that leads to far broader avenues of discussion.

Make that a debate about misunderstanding

It was probably one of the more intelligent letters found in the Coeur d’Alene Press this Sunday 30 August 2009. But the author, Bob Shillingstad while very able to outline the vast price differentials of health insurance from one state to another, didn’t seem able to ask why there were such vast price differentials.  For example, any citizen in Kentucky could buy a good insurance health package for less than 1,000.  But in New Jersey, it is over 5,000.  Let us then ask why.  Can we blame insurance lobbyists for the vast difference in prices between Kentucky and New Jersey?  Can we blame state regulations on insurance that changes the pricing structure of the same insurance for different states?  How about over all health care costs?  Is Kentucky more efficient in containing health care costs as compared to New Jersey?  And therefore, insurance rates would be considered lower as a consequence?  How about the consumers?  Could they afford a pricier health insurance model as found in New Jersey in a state that is not known for being all that wealthy re Kentucky?  Let’s put it bluntly, that Mr. Shillingstad didn’t seem to have understood free market principles guiding health insurance all that well.

There are a lot of factors when it comes to the pricing structure of health insurance, or for that matter any kind of insurance.  I couldn’t begin to detail them all.  Is the area you work in heavily industrial?  What is the work based accident ratio?  What about survivor benefits?  Just how high could you expect health insurance to go  as it pertains to businesses or individuals where the aggregate types of jobs are industrial and accidents that can lead to permanent injury or death are too common?  I could imagine, that any such insurance policy could indeed reach a proportionate amount of 5,000 or more a year.  Is New Jersey more industrial based than Kentucky?  I believe so.  Just as any insurance for an industrial base in Michigan would be far higher than in Kentucky.

Try incidents of crime, or even incidents of car accidents?  What states would statistically have a higher crime rate that could lead to a higher health insurance premium?  Would say New Jersey have a higher crime rate than Kentucky?  How about auto accidents?  Would the statistical factor of auto accidents and in what way they occurred force my mother to pay over 2,000 in health insurance which is at least twice what supposedly any citizen of Kentucky has to pay?  How about general wellness factors?  Are Kentuckians more healthy as opposed to the citizens of New Jersey?  In short, a “Blue Shield” in Kentucky won’t sell the same type of insurance at the same price in New Jersey; even though it is the same company.  That ought to tell anyone opposing health care reform something.  Those much touted “free market principles” much preferred over the gvt run anything only means that people are at the mercy of those same insurance companies that decide for themselves how much you will pay, what they will cover or not and demand a measure of profit.

On what I would regard as a related “free market” argument; my sister lives in Wisconsin, Wisconsin would be considered an agricultural state.  You really can’t call her a “health nut” for buying organic since she has a mutation that produces a wheat allergy called Celiacs disease.  And her live in is has numerous food allergies.  When she came for a rare visit to North Idaho as much to visit my brother who had come up from down south for a class reunion as to visit my mother, she noted the vast differences in prices between organic foods sold in Wisconsin as opposed to Pilgrims here in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.  In short, Wisconsin an ag state had far steeper costs in organic food production as opposed to Idaho where only portions of the state can be considered agricultural at all.  But do the same companies that produce organic foods that sell primarily to health food stores such as Pilgrims on a national level?  Then one could certainly ask, why are the prices for the same product from the same company far higher in Wisconsin than they are in Idaho?  My sister doesn’t have the options of “shopping for bargains” in other states and so must live with the fact that organic food will be far higher in Wisconsin than it is in Idaho.  Is Wisconsin a far wealthier state to Idaho that prices for food can be jacked up that much higher to that of Idaho?  Is Wisconsin not business friendly with loads of regulations on what can be considered “organic food” compared to Idaho?  How about federal regulations?  Shipping costs?  Storage costs?  Seems to me that Idaho would be much further away from any sort of central hub of shipping of any organic foods out there.  Seems to me that Idaho should have a far higher price on its organic foods than Wisconsin ought to.  Then again, how about demand.  If there is a heavier demand on organic food in Wisconsin then price increases on such food will be driven by demand.  Where demand on such food in Idaho is lower except for those people who must make such purchases because of food allergies; then prices will likely be lower too.

So, could the answer be that demand drives up the costs of insurance to the point of being unaffordable?  Could a fellow in Kentucky who is unemployed or underemployed afford a health insurance policy of under a thousand dollars any more than an average citizen of New Jersey could of a policy that costs over five thousand dollars?  Probably not.  But that doesn’t stop insurance companies from continually raising the rates of their premiums.

No Shillingstad, the “free market” will not let you have a good insurance policy for less than a thousand dollars sold in Kentucky to the citizens thereof.  Not if the insurance companies are going to craft an insurance policy to maximize profits designed for every state that they operate in.  And yes, you get that price of insurance that is sold to you in Idaho as opposed to anything sold in Kentucky.  Bargain shopping is not an option here either.

The health care debate?

I considered posting this a week ago, but had much to do to get my projects ready for the North Idaho Fair. From canning, to crafting, to needlework and then baking; I was really rather busy. But, there were certain revelations that I definitely kept in mind for the moment when I would have a few free moments.  Betsy McCoy was invited onto “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” at one point last week.  She brought with her the over 1,000 page health care reform package and planned to point out to the comedian host 1 page and only 1 section on that page, the one that involved end of life care.  When a comedian has to point out hyperbole and misrepresentation to an individual who was at the point of hysteria on this particular health issue; well, Ms. McCoy wasn’t representing her positions very well.  And what I did hear, was turning what has been a well known and existing over a long period of time living will into a new Medicare funded provision.  And Ms. McCoy called this a “troubling problem.”  I guess it is now if you are a GOP type out to take revenge on the Dems for having won majorities in the last election.  Otherwise, what was wrong with it?  I listened with interest, I heard what was said.  I also heard all that Ms. McCoy didn’t want to discuss.  She was literally flipping out.

Onward to Gary Crooks’ “Smart Bombs” also found published this morning in the Spokesman-Review where he discussed the protests of the Democratic generated health care reform bill and went from there to discussing the unnecessary tests, too much medication and other issues that helped break the system let alone yours and my wallets.  An interesting and enlightening read.  But until “Smart Bombs” most letters to the editors don’t even touch on what Crooks researched.  One more reason why we need health reform badly.

Then in the Coeur d’Alene Press Readers Write section published this Wednesday 26 August 2009 a letter from Gene Lammon.  He claims that the Dems are sending union thugs around to beat people into submission who protest the new Dem health care plan.  Oh?  With a video to prove it.  Apparently, the fellow doesn’t realize that videos can be staged and be turned viral on the internet.  But if something that grotesque and outrageous had happened, wouldn’t it also have appeared on the news?  Say KREM 2 News?  I don’t get to watch much evening news for having some pretty solid night shifts.  However, union goons running around clobbering the elderly for shouting down members of Congress should have appeared on the news casts if they had occurred.  I had heard of brawls.  But I had not heard of goon squads engaging in “fascist” behavior.  But, I have seen plenty of “protests” making that claim about “Obamacare.”  Indeed, they get front page news.

I have read Kathleen Parker and Leonard Pitts who represent both sides of the issue with fairly reasoned debate.  Neither individual reported on any claims that protesters were getting beaten to a pulp for disagreeing with the reform package.  So excuse me if the truly gullible fall for something that isn’t verified and get a sympathetic audience from a newspaper editor who doesn’t bother researching the facts either.  What is questionable gets published, period.

On the other side of the coin, a retired pastor lost a sister to what I’ll assume was a ruptured appendix.  It went untreated because the woman in question wanted to assured of her insurance coverage first before she saw a doctor.  Given what an untreated ruptured appendix can do to include proving fatal; the retired pastor made about the best case for health care reform that all the misinformation, misrepresentation, hysteria, gun toting and etc. can’t persuade against.  But unfortunately, even though the retired pastor did have an opportunity to speak out, his voice can be easily drowned out by the Gene Lammon’s of this world.  Letting an ugly sort of hate take the place of why we need this reform at all.

The Ricci case

Call it the tale of two editorials;  Charles Krauthammer dismisses much of the affirmative action argument that lay behind Justice Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci firefighter testing program and Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post apparently did some research.

These days, I tend to take much of Krauthammer’s arguments with a grain of salt.  But I do find it down right laughable that he would argue “racial discrimination” to ameliorate racial discrimination:  IE Affirmative Action.  Just in case Mr. Krauthammer forgot, but Affirmative Action as it was originally proposed was to end discrimination against this nation’s minorities; discrimnatory practices that were put into place by the white majority in power.  Since Affirmative Action was put into place, the challenges to it have entirely come from people (white) claiming to be “victims” of Affirmative Action discrimnatory policies.  Ahhhh, you mean, they actually have to compete with racial minorities now?  That education, employment, etc. is no longer an exclusive club for whites only?  Isn’t that so sad.  Well, excuse me, but there are many reasons why I am not now a Harvard graduate as someone who is mostly Caucasian.  But I don’t regard “racial discrimination” as the sole reason why I never attended Harvard.  Call it instead; the lack of money to attend such a prestigious university.  But, after that intentionally off the wall aside; but Caucasians in this society have always had far more opportunities to advance further in this society than minorities.  And it was always their choice to either make good or to be losers instead.  If you are a minority however, you might make good if someone gives you a hand up.  But if someone instead slams the door of opportunity in your face; you are more than likely to not do so at all.

And thus, the Milloy Washington Post column.  The author goes to great lengths to describe the sort of discrimnatory practices that lie behind the tests that apparently minority firefighters couldn’t pass and therefore wanted tossed out.  Discrimnatory tests that on the other hand, Krauthammer declared did not exist owing to the “impartiality” based on race of the various testing boards.  Really?

Remember the tale of the 3 blind men trying to describe an elephant?  One found his way to the elephant’s tale and described that the elephant must be a rope.  The second blind man found one of his legs and disagreed.  The elephant was a tree trunk!  The third blind man found the elephant’s trunk and described it accordingly.  But of course, being blind; it was totally impossible for each blind man to see the entire creature.  We can excuse the blind for not having the capacity to “see” everything.  But can we excuse partisan blindness that refuses to see everything?  There is one thing that I have to applaud Milloy for as to his final thoughtful analysis of the white fire truck and the minority fire truck.  Both that stop at the corner because that is where the fire is.  Both that must work together to put the fire out.

On the other hand; Krauthammer’s concept of “color blindness” is to assure that minorities can’t really compete or whites will simply run and whine to some government authority—mainly SCOTUS—for “unfair treatment.”

You have to wonder if Krauthammer has “come a long way.”