Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Senator Barack Obama - AIPAC Policy Conference June 4, 2008
"Before I begin I also want to mention that I know some have been receiving provocative emails that have been circulated throughout the Jewish communities across the country and a few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall-tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President and all I want to say is let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama because he sounds pretty scary."
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Is it "religious fundamentalism" in general?
The following comment is based on Robert Spencer's "13 Myths About Jihad".
Islam came around 600 years after the birth of Jesus. It was the Muslims who conquered the holy land in an imperial conquest.
The common myth of course is that the world's problem is "religious fundamentalism" in general, not Islamic jihad in particular.
The fact is that Islamists commit violent acts in the name of Islam THE WORLD OVER. Fundamentalists from no other religious tradition have organized into violent groups worldwide. That is because violence and violent imperialism is "fundamental" to the teachings of Islam in a way and to an extent that is not true of ANY other religion.
Islam came around 600 years after the birth of Jesus. It was the Muslims who conquered the holy land in an imperial conquest.
The common myth of course is that the world's problem is "religious fundamentalism" in general, not Islamic jihad in particular.
The fact is that Islamists commit violent acts in the name of Islam THE WORLD OVER. Fundamentalists from no other religious tradition have organized into violent groups worldwide. That is because violence and violent imperialism is "fundamental" to the teachings of Islam in a way and to an extent that is not true of ANY other religion.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
"Moderate Muslims"
I think this thesis was originally offered on Tundra Tabloids.
I know this isn't the original verbiage, but the thesis is basically the same.
The Islamic religion in its purest (political) form is totalitarian in nature and therefore anti-democratic. We speak about the meaning of the word "moderate" in relation to Islam and find it as something no longer holding any meaning. The reason for this is simple: many so-called "moderates" have been praised in the west, only later being found to have been supporting jihad (whether by peaceful or violent means) against non-Muslims from the very beginning.
The Muslims we look to with hope are the "modernists", who truly believe in liberal democracy such that Islam should be a matter of personal faith, not politics. And above all, our modernist Muslim allies fully realize that Sharia has no place as a system of government in a modern industrial, democratic nation.
Those who refuse to condemn (restrict) sharia (Islamic law) as being incompatible with modern day society, are the Muslims we take issue with. It is these Muslims who present a clear and present danger to our American republic.
I know this isn't the original verbiage, but the thesis is basically the same.
The Islamic religion in its purest (political) form is totalitarian in nature and therefore anti-democratic. We speak about the meaning of the word "moderate" in relation to Islam and find it as something no longer holding any meaning. The reason for this is simple: many so-called "moderates" have been praised in the west, only later being found to have been supporting jihad (whether by peaceful or violent means) against non-Muslims from the very beginning.
The Muslims we look to with hope are the "modernists", who truly believe in liberal democracy such that Islam should be a matter of personal faith, not politics. And above all, our modernist Muslim allies fully realize that Sharia has no place as a system of government in a modern industrial, democratic nation.
Those who refuse to condemn (restrict) sharia (Islamic law) as being incompatible with modern day society, are the Muslims we take issue with. It is these Muslims who present a clear and present danger to our American republic.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Rio gets the 2016 Summer Olympics
Did anybody bother to tell the IOC that it's WINTER in Rio that time of year?
DUH!!!!
DUH!!!!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
President O'Bama Negotiates Secretly With the Pharmaceutical Lobby
My friend KGS59 of the Tundra Tabloids has posted an interesting article. It concerns recent news that President O'Bama has negotiated pharmaceutical prices in private with a leading representative of the industry (otherwise known as a lobbyist).
This is an excellent presentation. It clarifies something important.
I never had a problem with the President negotiating drug prices. I didn't mind the fact that the negotiation was held privately.
Most GOP/partisan blogs are just complaining that the President negotiated drug prices. This was something most people thought needed to be done. Moreover, it was seen as a major shortcoming in the GOP Medicare prescription plan.
There is also major GOP/partisan griping about who President O'Bama negotiated with, a leading lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. I wonder who they expected the President to negotiate with. Who did the GOP negotiate with when they formulated their plan? Are GOP partisans trying to tell us the Bush Administration and their congressional allies never negotiated public policy with lobbyists? Who's President O'Bama supposed to negotiate with?
So here's where I draw the line. I have ALWAYS said that the negotiation results need to be scrutinized. The real question that has to be asked is this: Did the American people get the best deal possible?
This presentation actually does something to answer that key question and it seems like we certainly did NOT get the best deal possible. The 2% savings bandied about in the presentation was against total sales. That's actually a more significant amount than the presentation says. The 2% savings against total sales might not seem like much, but it's a much larger percentage of gross profit margin.
Here's the rub! Most financial analysts specializing in the pharmaceutical business believe the industry could have comfortably doubled the price concessions made to President O'Bama. In other words, President O'Bama left aLOT of money on the table; money that the American public will have to pay. Moreover, the legitimate partisan question can be raised: was there a tangible political reward to President O'Bama and the Democrats for failing to push for more drug price concessions?
That's the issue I would like to see argued! I was glad that the Tundra Tabloid presentation cast some light on the issue of whether or not we got a good deal, but if we're really serious about this issue, there's more to shed light on. Merely quoting a dubious source like AirAmerica only makes a partisan GOP point America
Oh! One more thing. There's another thesis offered in the Tundra Tabloids column. It states that the O'Bama Administration is conducting business as usual. Not only was that obvious long before he got elected, but it is also obvious along the entire front of issues facing the country. If you voted for President O'Bama and you believed he'd conduct the business of government differently than before, then you are someone who is easily fooled.
The American system of government has its flaws, but it's still a pretty good system. The people who manage it make the difference. President O'Bama couldn't really do business any different than before because it's very difficult to do so. The only question lies in his sincerity to represent the American public consensus fairly in matters of public policy.
The evidence of his first 7 months in office suggests that he's torn between two entities and neither of these are the general American public consensus. Either he's pressing the agenda of:
1. The extreme left of the Democratic party.
2. Corporate interests
Hey! I saw the guy in action while he was inIllinois Chicago , Illinois
In the grand attempt to make medical care part of the American public infrastructure (a mistake, in my view), negotiations between the government and corporations are absolutely necessary. However, like all other forms of infrastructure, these negotiations and their results must hold up to public scrutiny.
We are seeing our first signs of failure in the O'Bama Administration's dealings in THIS story. It's really one of the first stories we can sink our teeth into since he became President. I think this story deserves more public scrutiny.
This is an excellent presentation. It clarifies something important.
I never had a problem with the President negotiating drug prices. I didn't mind the fact that the negotiation was held privately.
Most GOP/partisan blogs are just complaining that the President negotiated drug prices. This was something most people thought needed to be done. Moreover, it was seen as a major shortcoming in the GOP Medicare prescription plan.
There is also major GOP/partisan griping about who President O'Bama negotiated with, a leading lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. I wonder who they expected the President to negotiate with. Who did the GOP negotiate with when they formulated their plan? Are GOP partisans trying to tell us the Bush Administration and their congressional allies never negotiated public policy with lobbyists? Who's President O'Bama supposed to negotiate with?
So here's where I draw the line. I have ALWAYS said that the negotiation results need to be scrutinized. The real question that has to be asked is this: Did the American people get the best deal possible?
This presentation actually does something to answer that key question and it seems like we certainly did NOT get the best deal possible. The 2% savings bandied about in the presentation was against total sales. That's actually a more significant amount than the presentation says. The 2% savings against total sales might not seem like much, but it's a much larger percentage of gross profit margin.
Here's the rub! Most financial analysts specializing in the pharmaceutical business believe the industry could have comfortably doubled the price concessions made to President O'Bama. In other words, President O'Bama left a
That's the issue I would like to see argued! I was glad that the Tundra Tabloid presentation cast some light on the issue of whether or not we got a good deal, but if we're really serious about this issue, there's more to shed light on. Merely quoting a dubious source like Air
Oh! One more thing. There's another thesis offered in the Tundra Tabloids column. It states that the O'Bama Administration is conducting business as usual. Not only was that obvious long before he got elected, but it is also obvious along the entire front of issues facing the country. If you voted for President O'Bama and you believed he'd conduct the business of government differently than before, then you are someone who is easily fooled.
The American system of government has its flaws, but it's still a pretty good system. The people who manage it make the difference. President O'Bama couldn't really do business any different than before because it's very difficult to do so. The only question lies in his sincerity to represent the American public consensus fairly in matters of public policy.
The evidence of his first 7 months in office suggests that he's torn between two entities and neither of these are the general American public consensus. Either he's pressing the agenda of:
1. The extreme left of the Democratic party.
2. Corporate interests
Hey! I saw the guy in action while he was in
In the grand attempt to make medical care part of the American public infrastructure (a mistake, in my view), negotiations between the government and corporations are absolutely necessary. However, like all other forms of infrastructure, these negotiations and their results must hold up to public scrutiny.
We are seeing our first signs of failure in the O'Bama Administration's dealings in THIS story. It's really one of the first stories we can sink our teeth into since he became President. I think this story deserves more public scrutiny.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Cronkite Remembers
I bought the 1996 VHS edition of "Cronkite Remembers" several years ago. Unfortunately, when I tried to play it a couple weeks ago when Walter Cronkite died, the tape broke. I was really angry about that and issued a few choice swear words in frustration.
I went on the internet and used Amazon.com to locate the tape. It was not to be found. Rather, there is a 3 DVD set by the same name. I figured it was probably a very similar production and bought it.
Mrs. TINSC and I have just spent the past 3 days watching this 7-1/2 hour series. It's worth every cent of the $20 or so we paid.
What can I say about Walter Cronkite? I dunno. The first thing that comes to my mind is: WHAT A LIFE!
Walter Cronkite was an eye witness to so much American history that this 7-1/2 hour series couldn't possibly cover it all.
He flew 8 combat missions over Europe during World War II as a war correspondent. He saw that war up close and personal. He covered the Nuremberg trials and later; even covered the Eichmann trial in Israel. He lived in Moscow immediately after the war and witnessed Stalinism in a most personal way. He flew a combat air mission over Vietnam. He attended BOTH the Democratic and Republican national conventions of 1928 (not as a reporter).
To hear the 20th century history of America from Walter Cronkite is a treat no matter what your politics are.
There are people who berate Walter Cronkite because he was a liberal. He was a liberal. There are those who berate Walter Cronkite for causing America to lose the Vietnam War. America didn't lose the Vietnam War; the RVN lost it. If the South Vietnamese couldn't stand up and fight against the Communists, then there was never a war to be won.
I'd also add that I heard some absolute falsehoods stated in that documentary. For example, Walter Cronkite states that America spent the 1930's preparing for World War II. Few concur with that view. Most historians rightly believe that America was quite unprepared for war on September 1, 1939 and hardly more prepared on December 7, 1941 when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor.
But these are things he said in passing; so briefly you'd hardly even notice it. By and large, this DVD set is like listening to Grandpa tell old stories; except these stories shaped our world. There is no question that Walter Cronkite was in the thick of so much of it.
Walter Cronkite took from the Nuremberg Trials an opinion that we need a "World Court" and a "World Government" to diffuse conflict. That he was holding onto such beliefs well into the late 1990's is a mystery to me. Let me just say that I certainly don't agree with him on THAT one.
I need to check to see what the copyright date is on the DVD set. I think there were some things left out of the DVD set that were in that original 1996 VHS edition. For example, I could SWEAR Walter Cronkite talks about his daughter Kathy going to Woodstock on the original 1996 edition. I'm going to find a VHS tape repair service someday and have that restored so I can tell you whether my memory serves me correct.
I also remember that the 1996 edition covered the assassination attempt on President Reagan. This was certainly absent from the DVD set although as I'm sure you can imagine, there was plenty of time devoted to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Yet while Walter Cronkite can be fairly criticized for being liberal, even having liberal bias in his news reporting, nobody can say he was naive about the totalitarian aspects of Communism. This is where his worst critics and I part ways. Walter Cronkite was opposed to Communism and fully recognized it as a means to impose totalitarian rule. Moreover, he fully recognized the imperialist nature of the Soviet Union and the anti-American sentiment that American Communists held. Walter Cronkite was no fool and he was no tool.
He called the news the way he saw the news; sometimes regretting afterward. He did his best to get it right and if he reported the news through his liberal preferences, well... that's the way it was. Compared to the clods anchoring network news today, Walter did his job reasonably well.
I went on the internet and used Amazon.com to locate the tape. It was not to be found. Rather, there is a 3 DVD set by the same name. I figured it was probably a very similar production and bought it.
Mrs. TINSC and I have just spent the past 3 days watching this 7-1/2 hour series. It's worth every cent of the $20 or so we paid.
What can I say about Walter Cronkite? I dunno. The first thing that comes to my mind is: WHAT A LIFE!
Walter Cronkite was an eye witness to so much American history that this 7-1/2 hour series couldn't possibly cover it all.
He flew 8 combat missions over Europe during World War II as a war correspondent. He saw that war up close and personal. He covered the Nuremberg trials and later; even covered the Eichmann trial in Israel. He lived in Moscow immediately after the war and witnessed Stalinism in a most personal way. He flew a combat air mission over Vietnam. He attended BOTH the Democratic and Republican national conventions of 1928 (not as a reporter).
To hear the 20th century history of America from Walter Cronkite is a treat no matter what your politics are.
There are people who berate Walter Cronkite because he was a liberal. He was a liberal. There are those who berate Walter Cronkite for causing America to lose the Vietnam War. America didn't lose the Vietnam War; the RVN lost it. If the South Vietnamese couldn't stand up and fight against the Communists, then there was never a war to be won.
I'd also add that I heard some absolute falsehoods stated in that documentary. For example, Walter Cronkite states that America spent the 1930's preparing for World War II. Few concur with that view. Most historians rightly believe that America was quite unprepared for war on September 1, 1939 and hardly more prepared on December 7, 1941 when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor.
But these are things he said in passing; so briefly you'd hardly even notice it. By and large, this DVD set is like listening to Grandpa tell old stories; except these stories shaped our world. There is no question that Walter Cronkite was in the thick of so much of it.
Walter Cronkite took from the Nuremberg Trials an opinion that we need a "World Court" and a "World Government" to diffuse conflict. That he was holding onto such beliefs well into the late 1990's is a mystery to me. Let me just say that I certainly don't agree with him on THAT one.
I need to check to see what the copyright date is on the DVD set. I think there were some things left out of the DVD set that were in that original 1996 VHS edition. For example, I could SWEAR Walter Cronkite talks about his daughter Kathy going to Woodstock on the original 1996 edition. I'm going to find a VHS tape repair service someday and have that restored so I can tell you whether my memory serves me correct.
I also remember that the 1996 edition covered the assassination attempt on President Reagan. This was certainly absent from the DVD set although as I'm sure you can imagine, there was plenty of time devoted to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Yet while Walter Cronkite can be fairly criticized for being liberal, even having liberal bias in his news reporting, nobody can say he was naive about the totalitarian aspects of Communism. This is where his worst critics and I part ways. Walter Cronkite was opposed to Communism and fully recognized it as a means to impose totalitarian rule. Moreover, he fully recognized the imperialist nature of the Soviet Union and the anti-American sentiment that American Communists held. Walter Cronkite was no fool and he was no tool.
He called the news the way he saw the news; sometimes regretting afterward. He did his best to get it right and if he reported the news through his liberal preferences, well... that's the way it was. Compared to the clods anchoring network news today, Walter did his job reasonably well.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Republicans and Democrats
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that one group tries to push the country over the cliff. The other group tries to pull the country over the cliff.
The two sides argue about which is better but the end result is the same.
The two sides argue about which is better but the end result is the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
