Halloween Light Show 2011 - Ghostbusters
Have A Safe and Happy Halloween
Have A Safe and Happy Halloween
Oct 28, 2012
Oct 21, 2012
Ragbag Headliners
IMF: Slow Growth, Big Risks
A tentative recovery in the global economy is running out of steam and growth could weaken further due to Europe's debt crisis and inaction over a looming fiscal squeeze in the United States, the International Monetary Fund said Monday.
In its latest World Economic Outlook, the IMF predicted global growth of 3.3% this year, down 0.2% from July. The IMF was also more pessimistic about 2013, when it expects growth of only 3.6%, down from its previous forecast of 3.9%.
"The recovery has suffered new setbacks, and uncertainty weighs heavily on the outlook," the IMF said. "A key reason is that policies in the major advanced economies have not rebuilt confidence in medium-term prospects."
The U.S. economy is projected to grow 2.2% this year and 2.1% in 2013, according to the report. In July, the IMF projected 2% growth this year and 2.3% in 2013.
The IMF said growth would be even weaker than forecast if eurozone leaders fail to take further measures to support ailing members of the 17-nation currency union, and if the United States drives headlong over the so-called fiscal cliff -- a $7 trillion program of automatic tax increases and spending cuts that start taking effect at midnight on Dec. 31.
"If for some reason we actually jump all the way down the [fiscal] cliff, this would be an enormous fiscal contraction," Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist, told CNN on Tuesday. "It would be a U.S. recession, and God knows what would happen to the world."
The European Central Bank gave markets a shot in the arm last month when it agreed to buy potentially unlimited amounts of government bonds, providing an effective back stop for eurozone member states facing crippling borrowing costs.
The IMF said it was now up to European leaders to play their part. Specifically, the IMF said the recently activated €500 billion European Stability Mechanism "must intervene in banking systems and provide support to sovereigns."
The ESM, which replaced a temporary fund that backed bailouts for Greece, Portugal and Ireland, is a key component of the "breakthrough" agreement that European Union leaders announced in June.
It's also crucial that plans to create a banking union and achieve greater fiscal integration move forward, said the IMF.
Despite Germany's resilience, the eurozone economy is mired in recession and its prospects of returning to growth in 2013 have darkened substantially. The IMF now expects the eurozone to expand by just 0.2% next year, compared with 0.7% in July.
The outlook for the United States was more stable, the IMF said, trimming its forecast for 2013 by just 0.1%. But that assumes policymakers take prompt action to avert the fiscal cliff and raise the debt ceiling.
"If they fail to do so, the U.S. economy could fall back into recession, with deleterious spillovers to the rest of the world," the IMF said.
Growth in China should fall this year to 7.8%, from 9.2% in 2011, due to tighter credit conditions, weaker exports, and a return to a more sustainable pace of public investment.
The IMF said it should recover in 2013 to around 8.2% as domestic demand picks up in response to a partial easing of monetary policy. -By Mark Thompson/CNN Money/October 9, 2012
A tentative recovery in the global economy is running out of steam and growth could weaken further due to Europe's debt crisis and inaction over a looming fiscal squeeze in the United States, the International Monetary Fund said Monday.
In its latest World Economic Outlook, the IMF predicted global growth of 3.3% this year, down 0.2% from July. The IMF was also more pessimistic about 2013, when it expects growth of only 3.6%, down from its previous forecast of 3.9%.
"The recovery has suffered new setbacks, and uncertainty weighs heavily on the outlook," the IMF said. "A key reason is that policies in the major advanced economies have not rebuilt confidence in medium-term prospects."
The U.S. economy is projected to grow 2.2% this year and 2.1% in 2013, according to the report. In July, the IMF projected 2% growth this year and 2.3% in 2013.
The IMF said growth would be even weaker than forecast if eurozone leaders fail to take further measures to support ailing members of the 17-nation currency union, and if the United States drives headlong over the so-called fiscal cliff -- a $7 trillion program of automatic tax increases and spending cuts that start taking effect at midnight on Dec. 31.
"If for some reason we actually jump all the way down the [fiscal] cliff, this would be an enormous fiscal contraction," Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist, told CNN on Tuesday. "It would be a U.S. recession, and God knows what would happen to the world."
The European Central Bank gave markets a shot in the arm last month when it agreed to buy potentially unlimited amounts of government bonds, providing an effective back stop for eurozone member states facing crippling borrowing costs.
The IMF said it was now up to European leaders to play their part. Specifically, the IMF said the recently activated €500 billion European Stability Mechanism "must intervene in banking systems and provide support to sovereigns."
The ESM, which replaced a temporary fund that backed bailouts for Greece, Portugal and Ireland, is a key component of the "breakthrough" agreement that European Union leaders announced in June.
It's also crucial that plans to create a banking union and achieve greater fiscal integration move forward, said the IMF.
Despite Germany's resilience, the eurozone economy is mired in recession and its prospects of returning to growth in 2013 have darkened substantially. The IMF now expects the eurozone to expand by just 0.2% next year, compared with 0.7% in July.
The outlook for the United States was more stable, the IMF said, trimming its forecast for 2013 by just 0.1%. But that assumes policymakers take prompt action to avert the fiscal cliff and raise the debt ceiling.
"If they fail to do so, the U.S. economy could fall back into recession, with deleterious spillovers to the rest of the world," the IMF said.
Growth in China should fall this year to 7.8%, from 9.2% in 2011, due to tighter credit conditions, weaker exports, and a return to a more sustainable pace of public investment.
The IMF said it should recover in 2013 to around 8.2% as domestic demand picks up in response to a partial easing of monetary policy. -By Mark Thompson/CNN Money/October 9, 2012
Forget Red vs. Blue -- It's Slave States vs. Free States in 2012
A century and a half later, we've come full circle: The red-blue state divide falls along Confederate-Union lines
Every now and then someone highlights the overlap between today’s Republican states and the slave states of the former Confederacy. As clichéd as the point may be, it remains indispensable to understanding what is happening in American politics today.
The core of today’s Democratic party consists of the states of New England and the Great Lakes/Midatlantic region that were the heart of the Union effort during the Civil War. The core of today’s Republican party consists of the states that seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America.Don’t be misled by the contemporary red state-blue state map which makes the mostly-red Prairie/Mountain states look as important in the Republican coalition as the South.
As the cartogram shows, in terms of population and votes the South vastly outweighs the thinly-populated Prairie/Mountain states, even though the latter get disproportionate representation in the U.S. Senate and the electoral college. The cartogram provides a pretty good reflection of the situation perceived by conservative white Southerners, by depicting a besieged South encircled and on the verge of being crushed by multiracial, polyglot, immigrant-friendly, secular humanist, progressive Blue America.
Now that they dominate the Republican party, Southern conservatives are using it to carry out the same strategies that they promoted during the generations when they controlled the Democratic Party, from the days of Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren to the Civil Rights Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s. From the nineteenth century to the twenty-first, the oligarchs of the American South have sought to defend the Southern system, what used to be known as the Southern Way of Life.
Notwithstanding slavery, segregation and today’s covert racism, the Southern system has always been based on economics, not race. Its rulers have always seen the comparative advantage of the South as arising from the South’s character as a low-wage, low-tax, low-regulation site in the U.S. and world economy. The Southern strategy of attracting foreign investment from New York, London and other centers of capital depends on having a local Southern work force that is forced to work at low wages by the absence of bargaining power.
Anything that increases the bargaining power of Southern workers vs. Southern employers must be opposed, in the interest of the South’s regional economic development model. Unions, federal wage and workplace regulations, and a generous, national welfare state all increase the bargaining power of Southern workers, by reducing their economic desperation. Anti-union right-to-work laws, state control of wages and workplace regulations, and an inadequate welfare state all make Southern workers more helpless, pliant and dependent on the mercy of their employers. A weak welfare state also maximizes the dependence of ordinary Southerrners on the tax-favored clerical allies of the local Southern ruling class, the Protestant megachurches, whose own lucrative business model is to perform welfare functions that are performed by public agencies elsewhere, like child care.
The Southern system is essentially about class and only incidentally about race. That is why, following the abolition of slavery, the Southern landlord elite exploited black and white tenant farmers and child workers indifferently. Immigrant workers without rights to vote or organize unions have always appealed to the Southern employer elite. After the Civil War some Southern landlords experimented with bringing in indentured servants or “coolies” from Asia, until that form of unfree labor was banned by Congress in the 1880s. Today many business-class conservatives from Texas and other Southern states such as former Texas Senator Phil Gramm champion “guest-worker programs” which would bring in Mexican nationals and others to work as indentured servants in the South, while forbidding them to become U.S. citizens with legal and voting rights.
White supremacy was never an end in itself, but a tactic used by the Southern oligarchs to divide white workers from nonwhite workers. But the Southern elite can dispense with racism, because it has never cared what color its serfs are. Indeed, in the seventeenth century Southern planters initially experimented with white British and European indentured servants as farm workers, before trying black slaves, who were easier to identify if they ran away. In theory, in a truly post-racist South, a multiracial Southern oligarchy could lord it over an underpaid, vulnerable and equally multiracial Southern regional majority.
The traditional Southern regional economic strategy, then, depends on the control by Southern employers of a huge pool of low-wage workers with little or no bargaining power in their dealings with their local bosses or the foreign (that is, extra-Southern) investors and corporations who are invited in to exploit their labor. This regional economic strategy can succeed only if the power of the Southern employer class over Southern urban and rural workers is protected from political and legal interference from outside the South and within.
Protecting the prerogatives of the Southern economic elite and the politicians it owns from external interference is the rationale for the defense of states’ rights, in the twenty-first century as in the nineteenth and twentieth. While they demonize “the federal government” as though it were some external force, Southern conservatives are actually afraid of democracy—national democracy. They are afraid of their fellow Americans outside of the region they control. They are afraid that national majorities will impose unwelcome reform on the South, at the expense of their profits and privileges, as national majorities did during Reconstruction, the New Deal and the Civil Rights revolution.
The Southern system is also threatened by internal democracy. The Populist movement of the late 1800s, which in some cases united white and black Southerners in the cause of reform, terrified the white Southern establishment. By World War I many Southern states had adopted variants of the “Mississippi system” of disfranchising all of the black and up to half of the white population, by means of poll taxes, means tests, and other devices, ensuring that elections in the South would be dominated by upper-income voters. The purpose of the “voter ID” laws pushed by today’s Dixified Republican party is similarly to prevent lower-income citizens from voting.
Southern conservatives are sometimes accused of being hypocritical in denouncing the federal government even as their states take a disproportionate amount of federal military and civilian subsidies. But that isn’t hypocrisy; it’s cunning. As long as the local Southern oligarchs control how the federal money is spent in their region, they have no objection to massive restribution from Yankeeland to Dixie. Plans like Romney’s and Ryan’s for block-granting federal subsidies support the self-serving strategy of the Southern elite: federal funding but regional control.
Note that throughout this essay I have used the phrases “Southern establishment,” “Southern oligarchy,” and “Southern elite.” All too often outsiders treat the victims of the Southern oligarchy—the majority of white and black and Latino Southerners—as though they are to be blamed for their misfortune. Unfortunately, many northern progressives are snobs who would rather sneer at the manners and lifestyle of the Southern white working class than mobilize to defeat the Southern elite, which tends to be well-educated, well-spoken and well-traveled.
What about the future? Theorists of a “new majority” at the national level may be vindicated, if this year the Democrats win the popular vote for the five times in six consecutive elections. If Texas, the powerhouse of Southern electoral votes, shifts from red to blue in the next generation or two because of demographic change, that would further ghettoize Dixie conservatives. Gerrymandering can delay the inevitable decline of influence of white Southern conservatives in the House of Representatives, but cannot stop it. As before the Civil War, the Senate may be the last redoubt of the Southern right, but only as long as it can find enough allies among the low-population states of the prairie and mountain regions.
But the former slave states could triumph even as they went down, if the demise of the traditional South were to be accompanied by the Southernization of the American economy and political system. It is all too easy to imagine a United States which combines anti-racist, feminist and pro-gay attitudes with an economic strategy based on luring foreign investment with the help of low voter turn-out, low wages, weak unions, and foreign guest-worker programs, together with an inadequate welfare state dominated by state governments, private vouchers and tax-favored religious charities. A nationalized Confederacy with progressive trappings would be all too reminiscent of today’s America. –By Michael Lind/AlterNet/October 10, 2012
Every now and then someone highlights the overlap between today’s Republican states and the slave states of the former Confederacy. As clichéd as the point may be, it remains indispensable to understanding what is happening in American politics today.
The core of today’s Democratic party consists of the states of New England and the Great Lakes/Midatlantic region that were the heart of the Union effort during the Civil War. The core of today’s Republican party consists of the states that seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America.Don’t be misled by the contemporary red state-blue state map which makes the mostly-red Prairie/Mountain states look as important in the Republican coalition as the South.
As the cartogram shows, in terms of population and votes the South vastly outweighs the thinly-populated Prairie/Mountain states, even though the latter get disproportionate representation in the U.S. Senate and the electoral college. The cartogram provides a pretty good reflection of the situation perceived by conservative white Southerners, by depicting a besieged South encircled and on the verge of being crushed by multiracial, polyglot, immigrant-friendly, secular humanist, progressive Blue America.
Now that they dominate the Republican party, Southern conservatives are using it to carry out the same strategies that they promoted during the generations when they controlled the Democratic Party, from the days of Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren to the Civil Rights Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s. From the nineteenth century to the twenty-first, the oligarchs of the American South have sought to defend the Southern system, what used to be known as the Southern Way of Life.
Notwithstanding slavery, segregation and today’s covert racism, the Southern system has always been based on economics, not race. Its rulers have always seen the comparative advantage of the South as arising from the South’s character as a low-wage, low-tax, low-regulation site in the U.S. and world economy. The Southern strategy of attracting foreign investment from New York, London and other centers of capital depends on having a local Southern work force that is forced to work at low wages by the absence of bargaining power.
Anything that increases the bargaining power of Southern workers vs. Southern employers must be opposed, in the interest of the South’s regional economic development model. Unions, federal wage and workplace regulations, and a generous, national welfare state all increase the bargaining power of Southern workers, by reducing their economic desperation. Anti-union right-to-work laws, state control of wages and workplace regulations, and an inadequate welfare state all make Southern workers more helpless, pliant and dependent on the mercy of their employers. A weak welfare state also maximizes the dependence of ordinary Southerrners on the tax-favored clerical allies of the local Southern ruling class, the Protestant megachurches, whose own lucrative business model is to perform welfare functions that are performed by public agencies elsewhere, like child care.
The Southern system is essentially about class and only incidentally about race. That is why, following the abolition of slavery, the Southern landlord elite exploited black and white tenant farmers and child workers indifferently. Immigrant workers without rights to vote or organize unions have always appealed to the Southern employer elite. After the Civil War some Southern landlords experimented with bringing in indentured servants or “coolies” from Asia, until that form of unfree labor was banned by Congress in the 1880s. Today many business-class conservatives from Texas and other Southern states such as former Texas Senator Phil Gramm champion “guest-worker programs” which would bring in Mexican nationals and others to work as indentured servants in the South, while forbidding them to become U.S. citizens with legal and voting rights.
White supremacy was never an end in itself, but a tactic used by the Southern oligarchs to divide white workers from nonwhite workers. But the Southern elite can dispense with racism, because it has never cared what color its serfs are. Indeed, in the seventeenth century Southern planters initially experimented with white British and European indentured servants as farm workers, before trying black slaves, who were easier to identify if they ran away. In theory, in a truly post-racist South, a multiracial Southern oligarchy could lord it over an underpaid, vulnerable and equally multiracial Southern regional majority.
The traditional Southern regional economic strategy, then, depends on the control by Southern employers of a huge pool of low-wage workers with little or no bargaining power in their dealings with their local bosses or the foreign (that is, extra-Southern) investors and corporations who are invited in to exploit their labor. This regional economic strategy can succeed only if the power of the Southern employer class over Southern urban and rural workers is protected from political and legal interference from outside the South and within.
Protecting the prerogatives of the Southern economic elite and the politicians it owns from external interference is the rationale for the defense of states’ rights, in the twenty-first century as in the nineteenth and twentieth. While they demonize “the federal government” as though it were some external force, Southern conservatives are actually afraid of democracy—national democracy. They are afraid of their fellow Americans outside of the region they control. They are afraid that national majorities will impose unwelcome reform on the South, at the expense of their profits and privileges, as national majorities did during Reconstruction, the New Deal and the Civil Rights revolution.
The Southern system is also threatened by internal democracy. The Populist movement of the late 1800s, which in some cases united white and black Southerners in the cause of reform, terrified the white Southern establishment. By World War I many Southern states had adopted variants of the “Mississippi system” of disfranchising all of the black and up to half of the white population, by means of poll taxes, means tests, and other devices, ensuring that elections in the South would be dominated by upper-income voters. The purpose of the “voter ID” laws pushed by today’s Dixified Republican party is similarly to prevent lower-income citizens from voting.
Southern conservatives are sometimes accused of being hypocritical in denouncing the federal government even as their states take a disproportionate amount of federal military and civilian subsidies. But that isn’t hypocrisy; it’s cunning. As long as the local Southern oligarchs control how the federal money is spent in their region, they have no objection to massive restribution from Yankeeland to Dixie. Plans like Romney’s and Ryan’s for block-granting federal subsidies support the self-serving strategy of the Southern elite: federal funding but regional control.
Note that throughout this essay I have used the phrases “Southern establishment,” “Southern oligarchy,” and “Southern elite.” All too often outsiders treat the victims of the Southern oligarchy—the majority of white and black and Latino Southerners—as though they are to be blamed for their misfortune. Unfortunately, many northern progressives are snobs who would rather sneer at the manners and lifestyle of the Southern white working class than mobilize to defeat the Southern elite, which tends to be well-educated, well-spoken and well-traveled.
What about the future? Theorists of a “new majority” at the national level may be vindicated, if this year the Democrats win the popular vote for the five times in six consecutive elections. If Texas, the powerhouse of Southern electoral votes, shifts from red to blue in the next generation or two because of demographic change, that would further ghettoize Dixie conservatives. Gerrymandering can delay the inevitable decline of influence of white Southern conservatives in the House of Representatives, but cannot stop it. As before the Civil War, the Senate may be the last redoubt of the Southern right, but only as long as it can find enough allies among the low-population states of the prairie and mountain regions.
But the former slave states could triumph even as they went down, if the demise of the traditional South were to be accompanied by the Southernization of the American economy and political system. It is all too easy to imagine a United States which combines anti-racist, feminist and pro-gay attitudes with an economic strategy based on luring foreign investment with the help of low voter turn-out, low wages, weak unions, and foreign guest-worker programs, together with an inadequate welfare state dominated by state governments, private vouchers and tax-favored religious charities. A nationalized Confederacy with progressive trappings would be all too reminiscent of today’s America. –By Michael Lind/AlterNet/October 10, 2012
Watch What You Say
Watch and be very careful what you say. . .you might end up eating your own words later! The quote below is a good example, and guess who said it?
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
The above comment was made in March 2006 in in the US Congress by the then Sen. Barack H. Obama
Source Unknown
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
The above comment was made in March 2006 in in the US Congress by the then Sen. Barack H. Obama
Source Unknown
Why Our Constitution Fails In Other Countries
The President and his liberal compatriots were excited to see the Arab Spring bring democracy to a nation like Egypt. There is no doubt that the presidency of Hosni Mubarak was corrupt and needed to be changed. Riots in the streets don’t breed confidence. It would be like putting the worst elements of the Occupy movement in control of America. Not a good idea.
There is an old saying that is mostly true: Be careful what you wish for because you may actually get it. Democracy does not always get you the results you want.
There’s a lot of history to show that revolutions do not bring about good government. The war we had with Great Britain was a war for independence not a revolution. Thirteen governments defended themselves against a foreign aggressor. The colonies were already self-governing. The character of the people made all the difference.
Simon Bolívar was called the “George Washington of South America.” He was a student and admirer of the principles that led to America’s War for Independence as well as a critic of the French Revolution.
Bolívar would be described today as a classical “liberal” in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson who defended limited government and a free market economic system.
In his construction of the Bolivian Constitution, he studied the U.S. Constitution and Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Bolívar’s many speeches and writings show that he was an advocate of limited government, the separation of powers, freedom of religion, property rights, and the rule of law.
At first, Bolívar believed that South America could be governed as well as the United States if the people would adopt the principles of the U.S. Constitution. His attempts failed because the people were the problem. Our Constitution says nothing about personal character. It is not a document that carries a moral code. These things came from outside the Constitution and were necessary for it to work.
Bolívar’s attempts at governing left him an “exhausted and disillusioned idealist” because the character of the people would not change. He considered them to be ungovernable. He understood that ideas and character matter more than governmental forms. Good self-government precedes good civil government.
Bolivar died an “exhausted and disillusioned idealist” at the age of forty-seven. Shortly before he died, he declared that Latin America was ungovernable. Revolutions were not enough. When the bloodshed was over, then what? “He who serves a revolution,” he said, “ploughs the sea.”[1]
He was discouraged with how the people expressed their new freedoms. Some months before his death Bolivar wrote: “There is no good faith in [Latin] America, nor among the nations of [Latin] America. Treaties are scraps of paper; constitutions, printed matter; elections, battles; freedom, anarchy; and life a torment.”[2]
The same can be applied to Egypt and the rest of the Middle East. –By Gary DeMar/Godfather Politics/February 6, 2012
There is an old saying that is mostly true: Be careful what you wish for because you may actually get it. Democracy does not always get you the results you want.
There’s a lot of history to show that revolutions do not bring about good government. The war we had with Great Britain was a war for independence not a revolution. Thirteen governments defended themselves against a foreign aggressor. The colonies were already self-governing. The character of the people made all the difference.
Simon Bolívar was called the “George Washington of South America.” He was a student and admirer of the principles that led to America’s War for Independence as well as a critic of the French Revolution.
Bolívar would be described today as a classical “liberal” in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson who defended limited government and a free market economic system.
In his construction of the Bolivian Constitution, he studied the U.S. Constitution and Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Bolívar’s many speeches and writings show that he was an advocate of limited government, the separation of powers, freedom of religion, property rights, and the rule of law.
At first, Bolívar believed that South America could be governed as well as the United States if the people would adopt the principles of the U.S. Constitution. His attempts failed because the people were the problem. Our Constitution says nothing about personal character. It is not a document that carries a moral code. These things came from outside the Constitution and were necessary for it to work.
Bolívar’s attempts at governing left him an “exhausted and disillusioned idealist” because the character of the people would not change. He considered them to be ungovernable. He understood that ideas and character matter more than governmental forms. Good self-government precedes good civil government.
Bolivar died an “exhausted and disillusioned idealist” at the age of forty-seven. Shortly before he died, he declared that Latin America was ungovernable. Revolutions were not enough. When the bloodshed was over, then what? “He who serves a revolution,” he said, “ploughs the sea.”[1]
He was discouraged with how the people expressed their new freedoms. Some months before his death Bolivar wrote: “There is no good faith in [Latin] America, nor among the nations of [Latin] America. Treaties are scraps of paper; constitutions, printed matter; elections, battles; freedom, anarchy; and life a torment.”[2]
The same can be applied to Egypt and the rest of the Middle East. –By Gary DeMar/Godfather Politics/February 6, 2012
Notes:
- Edward Coleson, “The American Revolution: Typical or Unique?,” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Symposium on Christianity and the American Revolution, ed. Gary North, 3:1 (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon, 1976), 176–177.
- Quoted in Edward Coleson, “The American Revolution: Typical or Unique?,” 177.
The video below features David Morris, the man who helped Bill Clinton get elected U.S. President twice and Arkansas governor three times. Morris is also a respected author, investigative reporter, and national news commentator. He knows what he is talking about. Watch the video and listen very carefully because what he says is going to affect EVERY American!
^^^*^^^
Obama's Second Term Tax Plans!
Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT!
Oct 14, 2012
Ragbag Headliners
Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley Fired For Criticizing Islam At Joint Forces Staff College
In the Spring of this year, US Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley was condemned by the Joints Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and relieved of teaching duties at Joint Forces Staff College for teaching a course judged to be offensive to Islam.
The course he taught, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism, was an elective course that Lt. Col. Dooley's superiors judged as presenting Islam in a negative way. His superiors were persuaded to come to this conclusion after receiving an October 2011 letter in which 57 Muslim organizations claimed to be offended by the course.
The fact that Lt. Col. Dooley is a highly decorated combat veteran with nearly 20 years of service under his belt apparently held little or no sway with the JCS. As a matter of fact, JCS Chairman General Martin Dempsey "personally attacked" Lt. Col. Dooley on C-Span on May 10, 2012, during a Pentagon News Conference.
Yet the craziest part of all this is that "the course content, the guest speakers, and the method of instruction" for the course was all approved by the the Joint Forces Staff College "years ago."
Former CIA agent Claire M. Lopez commented on the state of things: "All US military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau, and Joint Chiefs are under Dempsey's Muslim Brotherhood-dictated order to ensure that henceforth, no US military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive (or just too informative)."
God bless Lt. Col. Dooley for possessing the courage of his convictions.
By AWR Hawkins/Breitbart/September 20, 2012
In the Spring of this year, US Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley was condemned by the Joints Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and relieved of teaching duties at Joint Forces Staff College for teaching a course judged to be offensive to Islam.
The course he taught, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism, was an elective course that Lt. Col. Dooley's superiors judged as presenting Islam in a negative way. His superiors were persuaded to come to this conclusion after receiving an October 2011 letter in which 57 Muslim organizations claimed to be offended by the course.
The fact that Lt. Col. Dooley is a highly decorated combat veteran with nearly 20 years of service under his belt apparently held little or no sway with the JCS. As a matter of fact, JCS Chairman General Martin Dempsey "personally attacked" Lt. Col. Dooley on C-Span on May 10, 2012, during a Pentagon News Conference.
Yet the craziest part of all this is that "the course content, the guest speakers, and the method of instruction" for the course was all approved by the the Joint Forces Staff College "years ago."
Former CIA agent Claire M. Lopez commented on the state of things: "All US military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau, and Joint Chiefs are under Dempsey's Muslim Brotherhood-dictated order to ensure that henceforth, no US military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive (or just too informative)."
God bless Lt. Col. Dooley for possessing the courage of his convictions.
By AWR Hawkins/Breitbart/September 20, 2012
<><><>*<><><>
Democratic Lawmaker Refuses To Lead The Pledge Of Allegiance
A Democratic lawmaker shocked her fellow House members when she refused to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. When asked to do so, Pennsylvania State Representative Babette Josephs said, “I do not pledge the flag of the allegiance based on my First Amendment rights and the fact that I really think it’s a prayer, and I don’t pray in public.”
The Pledge is regarded as an expression of loyalty to the flag and the United States of America. Rep. Josephs believes that the words “under God” make it a prayer. State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA) was the one who asked her to lead the Pledge at that meeting. Today on Fox and Friends, he said that as a veteran, he finds it offensive that any elected leader would decide to not represent their constituents and themselves in this manner.
Rep. Josephs stands by her decision, saying, “How many years ago was 1954? I have not said the Pledge of Allegiance since and I will not say it into the future. Unless they take those words out and make it less of a prayer.” -Fox News/October 7, 2012
A Democratic lawmaker shocked her fellow House members when she refused to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. When asked to do so, Pennsylvania State Representative Babette Josephs said, “I do not pledge the flag of the allegiance based on my First Amendment rights and the fact that I really think it’s a prayer, and I don’t pray in public.”
The Pledge is regarded as an expression of loyalty to the flag and the United States of America. Rep. Josephs believes that the words “under God” make it a prayer. State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA) was the one who asked her to lead the Pledge at that meeting. Today on Fox and Friends, he said that as a veteran, he finds it offensive that any elected leader would decide to not represent their constituents and themselves in this manner.
Rep. Josephs stands by her decision, saying, “How many years ago was 1954? I have not said the Pledge of Allegiance since and I will not say it into the future. Unless they take those words out and make it less of a prayer.” -Fox News/October 7, 2012
The USA’s Muslim Heritage? My Ass!
Barack Obama said during his speech in Cairo in June 2009 (five months after his January 2009 inauguration), "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's history."
Below is an American citizen's response to Obama's above statement.
Dear Mr. Obama:
Were there Muslims in America when the Pilgrims first landed? No, those were native Americans!
Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? No, those were native Americans and English Pilgrims!
Can you show me one Muslim signature on
Below is an American citizen's response to Obama's above statement.
Dear Mr. Obama:
Were there Muslims in America when the Pilgrims first landed? No, those were native Americans!
Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? No, those were native Americans and English Pilgrims!
Can you show me one Muslim signature on
- the United States Constitution?
- the US Declaration of Independence ?
- the US Bill of Rights? Of course, you can NOT because there was NONE!
Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England? No!
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ? No!
Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Nowhere!
Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Nowhere!
Where were Muslims during World War II? They were on the side of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis!
Mr. Obama, the only time Muslims really played any part in American history was on September 11th, 2001? They flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The third hijacked plane destined for either the White House or the US Capitol ended in a crash on a field in Pennsylvania which averted more injuries and/or deaths. That day, Muslim terrorists killed about 3,000 people on our own soil, and from all parts of the world, Muslims rejoiced -- no one can dispute the pictures shown on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks of Muslims gleefully jumping and gloating over the day's carnage and destruction!
Strangely, the Muslims whom you kissed in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent after the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack on US soil by Muslims. To many Americans, their silence meant approval for the terrorist acts of that day.
That is the true "rich Muslim heritage in America"!
And now we can add November 5, 2009 the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim US Army major, a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, Mr. Obama, Muslim heritage in America? My ass!
Author Unknown
According To The FBI, Internet Privacy Is Now Considered To Be Suspicious Activity
When you use the Internet in a public place, do you prefer to have as much privacy as possible? Well, that makes you a potential terrorist. According to the FBI, Internet privacy is now considered to be suspicious activity. If you are out in public and you attempt to keep snoopers from peeking at your computer screen, then according to the FBI they should gather as much information about you as they can and they should report you to the authorities immediately. If this seems completely and totally ridiculous to you, then you are not alone. Millions of Americans have become deeply concerned about the constantly expanding definition of "suspicious activity" in the United States. Sadly, the federal government is now engaging in an all-out attempt to have us all spy on one another. All over America, the Department of Homeland Security is running ads promoting the "See Something, Say Something" campaign. They even had 8,000 stadium workers at the Super Bowl this year go through special training on how to spot potential terrorists. So the next time you see a hot dog vendor, keep in mind that he might also be part of a special anti-terrorism task force.
The following are some quotes from a government document entitled "Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Internet Café". In between each quote, I have included some commentary. It is absolutely amazing what the definition of "suspicious activity" now includes....
"Are overly concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from view of others"
Look, if I am doing some online banking or am composing an email to a friend I don't want someone peeking at my screen. Aren't most Americans "concerned about privacy" and don't most people want to keep their Internet activity to themselves?
"Always pay cash or use credit card(s) in different name(s)"
We have seen the government warn about this before. It appears that from now on using cash in America is going to get you labeled as a potential terrorist. How bizarre is that?
"Act nervous or suspicious behavior inconsistent with activities"
Some people are just naturally nervous. This kind of vague language could be applied to almost anyone.
"Are observed switching SIM cards in cell phone or use of multiple cell phones"
What if your cell phone battery is dead and you need to use your wife's cell phone? Does that make you a potential terrorist?
"Travel illogical distance to use Internet Café"
A lot of times people will use Internet cafes when they are out of town on a trip. Is there something inherently suspicious about that?
"Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL, etc.)"
Why in the world would this be considered to be suspicious activity?
"Use of anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address"
These are lots of people out there that take Internet security very seriously and that use things like this. And how would a casual observer know that these kinds of things are being used? You would have to be watching someone pretty closely to know that something like this is going on.
"Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc."
What would "suspicious or coded writings" include? Again, this is very vague language and could include a vast array of different things.
"Encryption or use of software to hide encrypted data in digital photos, etc."
So nobody should use encryption anymore?
"Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game"
What exactly would fall under the category of "suspicious communications"?
Also, if you are talking to someone through a PC game, there is a good chance that it is a very violent PC game and that you would say something that you normally wouldn't say in real life.
You might say something like this: "Okay let's get the guys together and go kill the boss. We'll meet at the Gates of Endor in a half hour."
According to the FBI, that could easily be labeled as "suspicious activity" that needs to be reported to the authorities.
So exactly what are we being instructed to do if we see something suspicious?
Well, the following is one of the action points from the FBI flyer....
"Identify license plates, vehicle description, names used, languages spoken, ethnicity, etc."
That sounds like something the KGB would ask people to do.
You can view the complete FBI flyer right here.
But it isn't just Internet privacy that the FBI is concerned about.
There is another FBI flyer out there that is directed at those running hotels and motels.
The document is entitled "Potential Indicators Of Terrorist Activities Related To Hotels And Motels", and you can view the entire document for yourself right here.
The following are things that the FBI says make a hotel guest "suspicious"....
"Request specific room assignments or locations."
I do this all the time. I always request a non-smoking room and I always prefer a king size bed. Also, if I have a lot of stuff to carry I may request a room on the ground floor. Does that make me suspicious?
"Use cash for large transactions or a credit card in someone else’s name."
Once again, using cash is considered to be a suspicious activity. How long will it be before they try to outlaw cash?
"Arrive with unusual amounts of luggage."
Has the person writing these things ever even traveled with a woman?
"Make unusual inquiries about local sites, including government, military, police, communications, and power facilities."
When I am visiting a new area, I will often talk with hotel staff about places to eat or places to visit.
Is that a problem?
"Refuse cleaning service over an extended time."
This is something that I have done for years. I don't want a maid to wake me up at the crack of dawn. If I refuse cleaning service will that get me put on a list somewhere?
"Use entrances and exits that avoid the lobby."
Many hotels have entrances all around the building so that you don't have to walk a mile to get to your car.
If I walk out a side door directly to my car does that make me a potential terrorist?
"Abandon a room and leave behind clothing and toiletry items."
How many of us have ever left something behind in a hotel room by mistake? Sometimes I triple check the room and still manage to leave something behind.
"Do not leave their room."
Sometimes when you have a day off you just want to stay in bed all day.
Or if you are newly married you may not want to leave your room for a few days.
Should newly married couples be reported to the government as potential terrorists?
"Change their appearance."
I change my appearance all the time.
If I am on vacation, I may not shave for several days.
And most people I know wear different clothes every single day.
So exactly how dramatic would a "change" of appearance have to be in order to be considered suspicious?
"Leave the property for several days and then return."
Sometimes people have business plans or vacation plans that involve an unusual schedule.
Whoever wrote these flyers does not seem to have a lick of common sense.
Using the criteria above, almost anyone could be considered to be engaging in suspicious activity.
And it is highly offensive that the federal government is instructing us to watch one another so closely.
When did the United States turn into East Germany?
Unfortunately, these flyers are just another sign of the mass paranoia that seems to have descended on this country.
In America today, everyone is a "potential terrorist" and will be treated as such.
If the authorities will detain U.S. Senators at our airports for "security reasons" and if they will issue hundreds of thousands of tickets to school children, then there is no reason to believe that you are going to be treated with dignity and respect.
The United States is rapidly becoming a Big Brother police state. I didn't sign up to live in North Korea, but that is exactly where we are headed.
We have been told that all of our rights are now "limited privileges" that can be taken away at any time for the sake of "national security".
Sadly, most Americans have become convinced that if we give up large amounts of liberty and freedom it will help the authorities keep us safe.
But that is a lie. Without a doubt, more bad things are going to happen in the future.
When those bad things happen, we will be told that we need to give up even more liberty and freedom.
In the end, we will be living like slaves.
And we will still not be safe.
Please wake up America.
The following are some quotes from a government document entitled "Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Internet Café". In between each quote, I have included some commentary. It is absolutely amazing what the definition of "suspicious activity" now includes....
"Are overly concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from view of others"
Look, if I am doing some online banking or am composing an email to a friend I don't want someone peeking at my screen. Aren't most Americans "concerned about privacy" and don't most people want to keep their Internet activity to themselves?
"Always pay cash or use credit card(s) in different name(s)"
We have seen the government warn about this before. It appears that from now on using cash in America is going to get you labeled as a potential terrorist. How bizarre is that?
"Act nervous or suspicious behavior inconsistent with activities"
Some people are just naturally nervous. This kind of vague language could be applied to almost anyone.
"Are observed switching SIM cards in cell phone or use of multiple cell phones"
What if your cell phone battery is dead and you need to use your wife's cell phone? Does that make you a potential terrorist?
"Travel illogical distance to use Internet Café"
A lot of times people will use Internet cafes when they are out of town on a trip. Is there something inherently suspicious about that?
"Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL, etc.)"
Why in the world would this be considered to be suspicious activity?
"Use of anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address"
These are lots of people out there that take Internet security very seriously and that use things like this. And how would a casual observer know that these kinds of things are being used? You would have to be watching someone pretty closely to know that something like this is going on.
"Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc."
What would "suspicious or coded writings" include? Again, this is very vague language and could include a vast array of different things.
"Encryption or use of software to hide encrypted data in digital photos, etc."
So nobody should use encryption anymore?
"Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game"
What exactly would fall under the category of "suspicious communications"?
Also, if you are talking to someone through a PC game, there is a good chance that it is a very violent PC game and that you would say something that you normally wouldn't say in real life.
You might say something like this: "Okay let's get the guys together and go kill the boss. We'll meet at the Gates of Endor in a half hour."
According to the FBI, that could easily be labeled as "suspicious activity" that needs to be reported to the authorities.
So exactly what are we being instructed to do if we see something suspicious?
Well, the following is one of the action points from the FBI flyer....
"Identify license plates, vehicle description, names used, languages spoken, ethnicity, etc."
That sounds like something the KGB would ask people to do.
You can view the complete FBI flyer right here.
But it isn't just Internet privacy that the FBI is concerned about.
There is another FBI flyer out there that is directed at those running hotels and motels.
The document is entitled "Potential Indicators Of Terrorist Activities Related To Hotels And Motels", and you can view the entire document for yourself right here.
The following are things that the FBI says make a hotel guest "suspicious"....
"Request specific room assignments or locations."
I do this all the time. I always request a non-smoking room and I always prefer a king size bed. Also, if I have a lot of stuff to carry I may request a room on the ground floor. Does that make me suspicious?
"Use cash for large transactions or a credit card in someone else’s name."
Once again, using cash is considered to be a suspicious activity. How long will it be before they try to outlaw cash?
"Arrive with unusual amounts of luggage."
Has the person writing these things ever even traveled with a woman?
"Make unusual inquiries about local sites, including government, military, police, communications, and power facilities."
When I am visiting a new area, I will often talk with hotel staff about places to eat or places to visit.
Is that a problem?
"Refuse cleaning service over an extended time."
This is something that I have done for years. I don't want a maid to wake me up at the crack of dawn. If I refuse cleaning service will that get me put on a list somewhere?
"Use entrances and exits that avoid the lobby."
Many hotels have entrances all around the building so that you don't have to walk a mile to get to your car.
If I walk out a side door directly to my car does that make me a potential terrorist?
"Abandon a room and leave behind clothing and toiletry items."
How many of us have ever left something behind in a hotel room by mistake? Sometimes I triple check the room and still manage to leave something behind.
"Do not leave their room."
Sometimes when you have a day off you just want to stay in bed all day.
Or if you are newly married you may not want to leave your room for a few days.
Should newly married couples be reported to the government as potential terrorists?
"Change their appearance."
I change my appearance all the time.
If I am on vacation, I may not shave for several days.
And most people I know wear different clothes every single day.
So exactly how dramatic would a "change" of appearance have to be in order to be considered suspicious?
"Leave the property for several days and then return."
Sometimes people have business plans or vacation plans that involve an unusual schedule.
Whoever wrote these flyers does not seem to have a lick of common sense.
Using the criteria above, almost anyone could be considered to be engaging in suspicious activity.
And it is highly offensive that the federal government is instructing us to watch one another so closely.
When did the United States turn into East Germany?
Unfortunately, these flyers are just another sign of the mass paranoia that seems to have descended on this country.
In America today, everyone is a "potential terrorist" and will be treated as such.
If the authorities will detain U.S. Senators at our airports for "security reasons" and if they will issue hundreds of thousands of tickets to school children, then there is no reason to believe that you are going to be treated with dignity and respect.
The United States is rapidly becoming a Big Brother police state. I didn't sign up to live in North Korea, but that is exactly where we are headed.
We have been told that all of our rights are now "limited privileges" that can be taken away at any time for the sake of "national security".
Sadly, most Americans have become convinced that if we give up large amounts of liberty and freedom it will help the authorities keep us safe.
But that is a lie. Without a doubt, more bad things are going to happen in the future.
When those bad things happen, we will be told that we need to give up even more liberty and freedom.
In the end, we will be living like slaves.
And we will still not be safe.
Please wake up America.
By Michael/American Dream/February 3, 2012
In the Black: Some People Only See Race
The Associated Press is being called “racist” because it published President Obama’s comments to the Congressional Black Caucus just the way he said it. “On MSNBC, the African-American author Karen Hunter complained the news service transcribed Obama’s speech without cleaning it up as other outlets did — specifically including the ‘dropped g’s.’” Here’s the AP’s’ literal transcription of President Obama’s comments:
“Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes,” he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. “Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on. We have work to do.”
Hunter called the AP’s version of the speech “inherently racist.” It’s shocking that anyone would accuse the AP of racism since the news service has been carrying water for the president for nearly four years.
Since liberals are losing the debate over liberalism, they reach for the only weapon they can to divert attention from the inherent faults of liberalism. When you are losing a debate or when your worldview is about to crash and burn, call someone a racist. There’s nothing new in any of this.
There’s a scene in the film Malcolm X when Malcolm Little (later to take the name Malcolm X, X standing for his unknown African heritage[1]) is in prison and is introduced to the philosophy of the “Honorable Elijah Muhammad” and the Nation of Islam (N.O.I.) by a fellow prisoner named John Elton Bembry. (Bembry is a composite character who does not appear in The Autobiography of Malcolm X co-authored with Alex Haley. Malcolm’s family members introduced Malcolm to the tenets of the N.O.I.) Malcolm was wasting his life outside of prison, and he was wasting his life in prison. Bembry saw something in Malcolm, but Malcolm was resistant to change and had no interest in the N.O.I. until Bembry showed him a dictionary and the definitions of “black” and “white.” It was a strategic move that rattled the former street hustler.
The definition of “black,” as Bembry read from an edition of Webster’s Dictionary, is always negative: “destitute of light, devoid of color, enveloped in darkness, utterly dismal or gloomy, soiled with dirt, foul, sullen, hostile, forbidding, outrageously wicked.” White, on the other hand, is positive: “the color of pure snow, the opposite of black, free from spot or blemish, innocent, pure, without evil intent, harmless, square deal, honest.” Malcolm makes a connection: “This is written by White folks, right?” White is wrong, Black is right, just like the Nation of Islam teaches.[2]
Malcolm Little became Malcolm X and embraced the racist ideology of the N.O.I. To Malcolm, the White man is a “blue-eyed Devil.” This was the teaching of the Nation of Islam as articulated by its founder Wallace D. Fard Muhammad and his successor Elijah Muhammad. Race became Malcolm’s entry into the Black community, and he used it well to recruit fellow blacks. But after leaving the N.O.I., he began to change his view of White people. He began to see that not all Whites were devils. As his assassination at the hands of Black men proved, some Blacks are devils.
Malcolm’s break with the N.O.I. did not set well with the organization’s leadership. This included Elijah Muhammad and Louis X, better known as Louis Farrakhan. While in Mecca on a pilgrimage, Malcolm wrote the following to his assistants at the Harlem Mosque:
Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and the overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races. . . . You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. . . .[3]
While Malcolm changed his views regarding race, it seems that there are people today who define everything by race. Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright are extremist examples of keeping the issue of race front and center in American politics. There are others. But what’s most irritating is the way some people see race in everything and make a point of keeping the wound of racial conflict festering.
At the beginning of this article, I mentioned the dictionary scene in the film Malcolm X. The streetwise Malcolm naively accepts the illogical leap that the definitional meaning of black and its descriptive attributes are applicable to people with dark skin. A dictionary edited by Blacks would have to acknowledge that the definition of “black” is the absence of light. In fact, The Urban Dictionary offers these definitions:
“Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes,” he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. “Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on. We have work to do.”
Hunter called the AP’s version of the speech “inherently racist.” It’s shocking that anyone would accuse the AP of racism since the news service has been carrying water for the president for nearly four years.
Since liberals are losing the debate over liberalism, they reach for the only weapon they can to divert attention from the inherent faults of liberalism. When you are losing a debate or when your worldview is about to crash and burn, call someone a racist. There’s nothing new in any of this.
There’s a scene in the film Malcolm X when Malcolm Little (later to take the name Malcolm X, X standing for his unknown African heritage[1]) is in prison and is introduced to the philosophy of the “Honorable Elijah Muhammad” and the Nation of Islam (N.O.I.) by a fellow prisoner named John Elton Bembry. (Bembry is a composite character who does not appear in The Autobiography of Malcolm X co-authored with Alex Haley. Malcolm’s family members introduced Malcolm to the tenets of the N.O.I.) Malcolm was wasting his life outside of prison, and he was wasting his life in prison. Bembry saw something in Malcolm, but Malcolm was resistant to change and had no interest in the N.O.I. until Bembry showed him a dictionary and the definitions of “black” and “white.” It was a strategic move that rattled the former street hustler.
The definition of “black,” as Bembry read from an edition of Webster’s Dictionary, is always negative: “destitute of light, devoid of color, enveloped in darkness, utterly dismal or gloomy, soiled with dirt, foul, sullen, hostile, forbidding, outrageously wicked.” White, on the other hand, is positive: “the color of pure snow, the opposite of black, free from spot or blemish, innocent, pure, without evil intent, harmless, square deal, honest.” Malcolm makes a connection: “This is written by White folks, right?” White is wrong, Black is right, just like the Nation of Islam teaches.[2]
Malcolm Little became Malcolm X and embraced the racist ideology of the N.O.I. To Malcolm, the White man is a “blue-eyed Devil.” This was the teaching of the Nation of Islam as articulated by its founder Wallace D. Fard Muhammad and his successor Elijah Muhammad. Race became Malcolm’s entry into the Black community, and he used it well to recruit fellow blacks. But after leaving the N.O.I., he began to change his view of White people. He began to see that not all Whites were devils. As his assassination at the hands of Black men proved, some Blacks are devils.
Malcolm’s break with the N.O.I. did not set well with the organization’s leadership. This included Elijah Muhammad and Louis X, better known as Louis Farrakhan. While in Mecca on a pilgrimage, Malcolm wrote the following to his assistants at the Harlem Mosque:
Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and the overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races. . . . You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. . . .[3]
While Malcolm changed his views regarding race, it seems that there are people today who define everything by race. Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright are extremist examples of keeping the issue of race front and center in American politics. There are others. But what’s most irritating is the way some people see race in everything and make a point of keeping the wound of racial conflict festering.
At the beginning of this article, I mentioned the dictionary scene in the film Malcolm X. The streetwise Malcolm naively accepts the illogical leap that the definitional meaning of black and its descriptive attributes are applicable to people with dark skin. A dictionary edited by Blacks would have to acknowledge that the definition of “black” is the absence of light. In fact, The Urban Dictionary offers these definitions:
- A color widely defined as the absence of light.
- The darkest shade possible
- The opposite of white . . . best described on the Yin & Yang symbol.
Bembry was poisoning the well by continually stating that these are the White man’s definitions. He had a vested interest in making all aspects of White society and culture, even the standard definition of black, to mean anti-Black person. It’s a common tactic. You can easily win a debate by making an issue “racial.” Conversation over.
Joy Behar, who co-hosts on “The View,” couldn’t help turning “Black Friday” into a racial issue. Whoopi Goldberg opened the show with the declaration that “Today is Black Friday, all day long.” Behar offers this rejoinder: “Isn’t it a little racist to call it Black Friday? . . . [T]here’s a negative connotation to it? Or does it mean something else?” Goldberg, for once, had better sense: “No, it’s like when you make all the money — you’re in the black.” Behar finally gets it: “So it’s positive?” Yes, Joy, it’s positive. Being “in the black” is better than being “in the red.” It won’t be too long before some Native Americans protest that a red should no longer be used to indicate a deficit.
Blacks are not helped by the continued claim that all problems for them are racial. Some are, but many aren’t. Black on Black crime is not the fault of White people. Sky-high out-of-wedlock births are not the fault of Whites. High dropout rates among Blacks are not the fault of Whites. The solution is not to cry “racism” and blame everything on Whites or hundreds of years of oppression. Blacks won’t find their problems solved by appealing to the State.
Welfare programs have done a lot to keep Black families down by subsidizing family fragmentation and fostering multi-generational dependency. Black problems aren’t solved by naming streets after Martin Luther King, Jr. The same can be said for the King Holiday and Black History Month. These are liberal crumbs to appease the Black community, but have any of these actions helped Blacks? Guilt-ridden Whites vote for them, and anyone who does not will be labeled, you guessed it, a “racist.”
This is not to say that Blacks should imitate “White culture.” There is nothing inherently good in being White. Whites have similar pathologies. We’re all sinners. There is no inherently good Black culture. Black is not always beautiful, and, of course, the same can be said for white culture, whatever that is. There’s a great deal of good in both cultures.[4] Malcolm Little came to his senses in prison. He decided that he was not going to play the victim any longer. The dictionary that put him on the road to racial hatred also liberated him. He studied that dictionary until it became a part of him. But it wasn’t until he abandoned the line that it’s all the White man’s fault that he was truly free.
Some Blacks will say that I don’t know what it’s like growing up Black. There is no doubt about it; I don’t know what it’s like, and I never will. But my lack of Black perspective doesn’t change what is going on in some areas of the Black community. I can’t change what I’m not, but I am responsible to change what I am. There is no one to blame but me. The sooner I realized this, the sooner I took responsibility for my failings. –By the Godfather/Godfather Politics/September 27, 2011
Notes:
- The “X” is not the Roman numeral 10. The “X” was a placeholder for a Black person’s unknown African name. His American surname was given to him by his slave master. Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali, and Lew Alcindor became Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
- For a succinct study of the Nation of Islam history and philosophy, see Richard Abanes, Cults, New Religious Movements, and Your Family: A Guide to Ten Non-Christian Groups out to Convert Your Loved Ones (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), chap. 6.
- The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley (1965), 391.
- There had been a vibrant Black culture in America, even before the end of segregation. See Mark Cauvreau Judge, If It Ain’t Got that Swing: The Rebirth of Grown-Up Culture (Dallas, TX: Spence Publishing Co., 2000).
The Psychology Of Appeasement
Why Radical Muslims Feel Free to Target the United States but Not France
The difference between Muslims' reaction to the French cartoons that insulted the prophet Mohamed and their reaction to the Mohamed film that was produced in the United States is striking. On the one hand, Muslim mobs viciously attacked US embassies, replaced the US flag with the Al-Queda flag, and killed many innocent people-including US ambassador Chris Stevens and other US diplomats. On the other hand, however, they did not dare react with the same violence against France, despite the very insulting nature of the French cartoons.
The factors that underpin this odd disparity in Muslim reaction must be analyzed.
The French response to radical Islam since September 11, 2001 can explain to a great extent this paradox.
It seems that the French have understood the mindset of the Islamists.
Analysis of the behaviour of most Islamic groups in the last few decades shows beyond doubt that the most important and significant issue for them-once they attain power-is to promote or enforce the Hijab (Islamic head scarf). They know very well that their agenda for Islamizing a society cannot succeed without this dress code.
The Hijab for the Islamists not only represents the honor and dignity of Islam & of Muslim women, but it also creates a sense of supremacy over other people who do not wear it and unites the Muslim culture as a separate and different entity within the society that uses the dress code. This, then, unites Muslims psychologically with the global Muslim community (Umma) rather than with their western or secular societies.
Many in the West may not be able to imagine how the issue of the Hijab is so fundamental to the Islamists. Nevertheless, the reality is that Islamic radical groups everywhere in the world care for nothing more than making Muslim women wear the Hijab.
Allow me to share my personal experience to illustrate the case. As a radical Muslim for several years earlier in my life (actually more than 30 years ago!), I can attest that literally the only thing that could have stopped me from committing a suicide attack or using some other form of violence (had been so inclined) was the certainty that my violent action would result in the banning of the Hijab for Muslim women. In other words, banning the Hijab-which was for me at that time the symbol of the dignity of Islam-was for me one of very few effective deterrents to violence.
It seems that the French have understood this somewhat bizarrepsychology of the Islamic radicals. It therefore did not take them long after 9/11 to ban the Hijab in their public high schools. The message that the French sent to the radicals was that if they dared to attack France as they had attacked the United States, the Hijab would be banned throughout the country-not just in the public high schools. Many radicals realized that the French knew their weak point and thus avoided-as much as possible-attacking France lest they ban the Hijab everywhere in the French Republic. For the Islamists this would mean an end to their hopes of Islamizing France in the future.
Using violence to try to prevent France from banning the Hijab in the high schools would have resulted in its ban all over France. The French were adamant. The Islamic radicals simply could not take this risk with the strongly determined French, as this could mean the end of the Hijab in France.
Unlike the French, American officials took precisely the opposite approach: they defended the Hijab, criticized France for banning it, and encouraged US female diplomats to wear it in their meetings with officials in Muslim countries. In fact, US female soldiers were for a short time actually encouraged to wear the Hijab in Afghanistan to appease the local Muslim population. This supportive attitude regarding the Hijab made radical Muslims realize that the US-unlike France-will never even come close to their weakest point or to banning the Hijab. Their reaction is not unlike that of a bully who realizes that his opponent will never hit him back.
Killing a few radicals will never deter the others because they actually want to die as martyrs and thereby enter paradise-a fact that many Americans simply cannot imagine due to cultural differences. Whereas, warning the Islamists either directly or indirectly that their attacks will result in a ban on the Hijab (as the French did after 9/11) would deter them.
Another factor that has likely played a significant role in weakening the Islamists' reaction to the French cartoons is the French response to the problem-which clearly shows that they have learned from history.
Examining the Timelineof Muslim response following the publication of anti-Mohamed Danish cartoons on January 30, 2005 reveals that they stayed peaceful for four months after the publication. Violence did not erupt until 72 hours after the magazine apologized for publishing the cartoons. The apology in this case was seen as a sign of weakness and likely encouraged the Islamists to react violently. The French seem to have understood this lesson. Their response, as articulated by Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, after publication of the recent French cartoons was this:
"In the current climate, the prime minister wishes to stress his disapproval of all excesses and calls on everyone to behave responsibly. "Questioned on RTL radio, he added: "We are in a country where the freedom of expression is guaranteed, along with the freedom to caricature. If people really feel their beliefs are offended and think the law has been broken - and we are in a state where the law must be totally respected- they can go to the courts."
The French clearly stood for their values of freedom of expression.
On the contrary, the initial US response to the 'Mohamed' film--as seen in the tweets of the US embassy in Cairo-- was mainly to denounce the film and its producers rather than defend the basic American value of freedom of speech.
5:53 a.m., 9/11/12. Shortly before noon local time, @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," according to a screenshot captured by @NYCSouthpaw.
6:11 a.m., 9/11/12.@USEmbassyCairo tweets: "US Embassy condemns religious incitement" with a link to a statement, according to another @NYCSouthpaw screenshot. The statement "U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement" was posted on the Embassy of the United States Cairo, Egypt website in response to Egyptian media accounts of the film, though without a specific time-stamp:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims-as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
This weak US response is likely to have worked in the minds of Islamists in the same way as the apology from the Jyllands-Postenmagazine for publishing the Danish cartoons: it was understood by the Islamists as a sign of weakness, encouraging a violent reaction against the "weak" United States. In fact, the deadly anti-U.S. protests erupted in Pakistan essentially after (NOT before!) an ad on Pakistani TV featuring President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the movie "Innocence of Muslims". As the ABC News put it:
"The ads have been running this week on seven different Pakistani television stations in an attempt to cool tempers over the film, but today's protests were the largest seen so far since the controversy began in Pakistan last week with the attempted storming of the U.S. embassy".
The same phenomenon was observed when thousands of Afghans turned violent, some even killing American officers, afterPresident Obama's apology for the "inadvertent" Quran burning by American soldiers at Bagram Airfield on February 20.
Additionally, as a prophylactic move to avoid Islamist violence against France after publishing the cartoon, the French Interior Minister Manuel Valls recently threatened to expel radical Muslims from the country if they challenged France's principles.
By comparison, putting the man allegedly behind the inflammatory film "Innocence of Muslims" under arrest in the US and holding him without bail was seen by many in the Muslim world as a sign of weakness. This move-which was also seen by many Muslims as a move to appease the Islamists--did not prevent (and possibly encouraged) violence. Within 48 hours of this arrest, most Christians living near Egypt's border with Israel in Sinai had to flee their homes because Islamist militants set their church on fire, made death threats to their community, and gunmen attacked a Coptic-owned shop.
The difference in the reaction to Islamic related issues between France and the US can be further exemplified by comparing the response of former President of France Nicolas Sarkozy to the Danish Cartoon problem by saying on LCI television that he "preferred an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship"-to the recent US request to Google to consider banning the latest anti-Mohamed movie.
This is not meant to underestimate other factors that aggravate Islamist violence or to excuse the innate nature of Islamic radicalism but rather to shed light on some other factors that may aggravate or weaken it.
Another factor that could have also played a role in ameliorating the Islamist response to the French Cartoons is the fact that raising the flag of Al-Queda on French Embassies will not fulfil the grandiose feelings of Islamists compared to raising their flag on the embassies of the most powerful country on earth (the United States).
To conclude: the striking difference between Muslim reaction to the US and to France after publishing insulting material against the prophet Mohamed in both countries illustrates how, without thinking outside the box, the fight against Islamic radicals can go on forever, as simply killing some of the radicals does not deter the rest from conducting more violent acts. We may not be able to kill all the terrorists and Jihadists but perhaps by understanding and using much less costly psychological measures, we can deter many of them.
By Tawfik Hamid
The difference between Muslims' reaction to the French cartoons that insulted the prophet Mohamed and their reaction to the Mohamed film that was produced in the United States is striking. On the one hand, Muslim mobs viciously attacked US embassies, replaced the US flag with the Al-Queda flag, and killed many innocent people-including US ambassador Chris Stevens and other US diplomats. On the other hand, however, they did not dare react with the same violence against France, despite the very insulting nature of the French cartoons.
The factors that underpin this odd disparity in Muslim reaction must be analyzed.
The French response to radical Islam since September 11, 2001 can explain to a great extent this paradox.
It seems that the French have understood the mindset of the Islamists.
Analysis of the behaviour of most Islamic groups in the last few decades shows beyond doubt that the most important and significant issue for them-once they attain power-is to promote or enforce the Hijab (Islamic head scarf). They know very well that their agenda for Islamizing a society cannot succeed without this dress code.
The Hijab for the Islamists not only represents the honor and dignity of Islam & of Muslim women, but it also creates a sense of supremacy over other people who do not wear it and unites the Muslim culture as a separate and different entity within the society that uses the dress code. This, then, unites Muslims psychologically with the global Muslim community (Umma) rather than with their western or secular societies.
Many in the West may not be able to imagine how the issue of the Hijab is so fundamental to the Islamists. Nevertheless, the reality is that Islamic radical groups everywhere in the world care for nothing more than making Muslim women wear the Hijab.
Allow me to share my personal experience to illustrate the case. As a radical Muslim for several years earlier in my life (actually more than 30 years ago!), I can attest that literally the only thing that could have stopped me from committing a suicide attack or using some other form of violence (had been so inclined) was the certainty that my violent action would result in the banning of the Hijab for Muslim women. In other words, banning the Hijab-which was for me at that time the symbol of the dignity of Islam-was for me one of very few effective deterrents to violence.
It seems that the French have understood this somewhat bizarrepsychology of the Islamic radicals. It therefore did not take them long after 9/11 to ban the Hijab in their public high schools. The message that the French sent to the radicals was that if they dared to attack France as they had attacked the United States, the Hijab would be banned throughout the country-not just in the public high schools. Many radicals realized that the French knew their weak point and thus avoided-as much as possible-attacking France lest they ban the Hijab everywhere in the French Republic. For the Islamists this would mean an end to their hopes of Islamizing France in the future.
Using violence to try to prevent France from banning the Hijab in the high schools would have resulted in its ban all over France. The French were adamant. The Islamic radicals simply could not take this risk with the strongly determined French, as this could mean the end of the Hijab in France.
Unlike the French, American officials took precisely the opposite approach: they defended the Hijab, criticized France for banning it, and encouraged US female diplomats to wear it in their meetings with officials in Muslim countries. In fact, US female soldiers were for a short time actually encouraged to wear the Hijab in Afghanistan to appease the local Muslim population. This supportive attitude regarding the Hijab made radical Muslims realize that the US-unlike France-will never even come close to their weakest point or to banning the Hijab. Their reaction is not unlike that of a bully who realizes that his opponent will never hit him back.
Killing a few radicals will never deter the others because they actually want to die as martyrs and thereby enter paradise-a fact that many Americans simply cannot imagine due to cultural differences. Whereas, warning the Islamists either directly or indirectly that their attacks will result in a ban on the Hijab (as the French did after 9/11) would deter them.
Another factor that has likely played a significant role in weakening the Islamists' reaction to the French cartoons is the French response to the problem-which clearly shows that they have learned from history.
Examining the Timelineof Muslim response following the publication of anti-Mohamed Danish cartoons on January 30, 2005 reveals that they stayed peaceful for four months after the publication. Violence did not erupt until 72 hours after the magazine apologized for publishing the cartoons. The apology in this case was seen as a sign of weakness and likely encouraged the Islamists to react violently. The French seem to have understood this lesson. Their response, as articulated by Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, after publication of the recent French cartoons was this:
"In the current climate, the prime minister wishes to stress his disapproval of all excesses and calls on everyone to behave responsibly. "Questioned on RTL radio, he added: "We are in a country where the freedom of expression is guaranteed, along with the freedom to caricature. If people really feel their beliefs are offended and think the law has been broken - and we are in a state where the law must be totally respected- they can go to the courts."
The French clearly stood for their values of freedom of expression.
On the contrary, the initial US response to the 'Mohamed' film--as seen in the tweets of the US embassy in Cairo-- was mainly to denounce the film and its producers rather than defend the basic American value of freedom of speech.
5:53 a.m., 9/11/12. Shortly before noon local time, @USEmbassyCairo tweets: "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," according to a screenshot captured by @NYCSouthpaw.
6:11 a.m., 9/11/12.@USEmbassyCairo tweets: "US Embassy condemns religious incitement" with a link to a statement, according to another @NYCSouthpaw screenshot. The statement "U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement" was posted on the Embassy of the United States Cairo, Egypt website in response to Egyptian media accounts of the film, though without a specific time-stamp:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims-as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
This weak US response is likely to have worked in the minds of Islamists in the same way as the apology from the Jyllands-Postenmagazine for publishing the Danish cartoons: it was understood by the Islamists as a sign of weakness, encouraging a violent reaction against the "weak" United States. In fact, the deadly anti-U.S. protests erupted in Pakistan essentially after (NOT before!) an ad on Pakistani TV featuring President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the movie "Innocence of Muslims". As the ABC News put it:
"The ads have been running this week on seven different Pakistani television stations in an attempt to cool tempers over the film, but today's protests were the largest seen so far since the controversy began in Pakistan last week with the attempted storming of the U.S. embassy".
The same phenomenon was observed when thousands of Afghans turned violent, some even killing American officers, afterPresident Obama's apology for the "inadvertent" Quran burning by American soldiers at Bagram Airfield on February 20.
Additionally, as a prophylactic move to avoid Islamist violence against France after publishing the cartoon, the French Interior Minister Manuel Valls recently threatened to expel radical Muslims from the country if they challenged France's principles.
By comparison, putting the man allegedly behind the inflammatory film "Innocence of Muslims" under arrest in the US and holding him without bail was seen by many in the Muslim world as a sign of weakness. This move-which was also seen by many Muslims as a move to appease the Islamists--did not prevent (and possibly encouraged) violence. Within 48 hours of this arrest, most Christians living near Egypt's border with Israel in Sinai had to flee their homes because Islamist militants set their church on fire, made death threats to their community, and gunmen attacked a Coptic-owned shop.
The difference in the reaction to Islamic related issues between France and the US can be further exemplified by comparing the response of former President of France Nicolas Sarkozy to the Danish Cartoon problem by saying on LCI television that he "preferred an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship"-to the recent US request to Google to consider banning the latest anti-Mohamed movie.
This is not meant to underestimate other factors that aggravate Islamist violence or to excuse the innate nature of Islamic radicalism but rather to shed light on some other factors that may aggravate or weaken it.
Another factor that could have also played a role in ameliorating the Islamist response to the French Cartoons is the fact that raising the flag of Al-Queda on French Embassies will not fulfil the grandiose feelings of Islamists compared to raising their flag on the embassies of the most powerful country on earth (the United States).
To conclude: the striking difference between Muslim reaction to the US and to France after publishing insulting material against the prophet Mohamed in both countries illustrates how, without thinking outside the box, the fight against Islamic radicals can go on forever, as simply killing some of the radicals does not deter the rest from conducting more violent acts. We may not be able to kill all the terrorists and Jihadists but perhaps by understanding and using much less costly psychological measures, we can deter many of them.
By Tawfik Hamid
Oct 7, 2012
Ragbag Headliners
Journalist From Leftist Newspaper: Violent Muslims Scare Us To Not Write The Truth
Journalist Nils Thorsen from the Leftist newspaper Politiken posted this honest statement on his Facebook profile. Politiken is the only Danish newspaper that excused itself to Muslims for printing the Muhammed cartoons.
Nils Thorsen:
Yes, it is fear. I work at a newspaper, and I know from myself and others that we think more than twice before writing anything about Muslims and Islamic topics nowadays. Concerning the drawings, I think it was pretty obvious, that people who demonstrated, set fire to Embassies and threatened with murder and more arson influence what we dared to say and write. We were so scared. More or less. We should face that fact." -By Nicolai Sennels/Europe News/September 26, 2012
Journalist Nils Thorsen from the Leftist newspaper Politiken posted this honest statement on his Facebook profile. Politiken is the only Danish newspaper that excused itself to Muslims for printing the Muhammed cartoons.
Nils Thorsen:
Yes, it is fear. I work at a newspaper, and I know from myself and others that we think more than twice before writing anything about Muslims and Islamic topics nowadays. Concerning the drawings, I think it was pretty obvious, that people who demonstrated, set fire to Embassies and threatened with murder and more arson influence what we dared to say and write. We were so scared. More or less. We should face that fact." -By Nicolai Sennels/Europe News/September 26, 2012
Op-ed: A Marine’s Wishful Do-Over In A Military Without DADT
There’s a lot more crying in the Marines than you’d expect from the fetishized image packaged for pop-consumption. In fact, the first thing you do as a Marine is cry. The end of boot camp includes a grueling 54-hour test of your physical, mental, and cooperative abilities culminating in a ceremony where your first Eagle Globe and Anchor (the symbol of our beloved Corps) is placed in your hand. The crying isn’t just for the artifact in your palm but also seeing your drill instructor smile, address you with respect, and call you a Marine.
If that doesn’t get you, Lee Greenwood blaring over the loudspeakers certainly will.
Much of a Marine’s world is hidden from civilians. Our culture from our clothing to our language is our own. We are a familial pack with fierce loyalties and fiercer love. So much love in fact, that crying is unavoidable. Imagine if you will, that your brother or sister at any moment would actually lay down their life for you, then multiply that by thousands of brothers and sisters. But it isn’t only the eminence of danger that stresses you, but also the drama that comes with family.
If that doesn’t get you, Lee Greenwood blaring over the loudspeakers certainly will.
Much of a Marine’s world is hidden from civilians. Our culture from our clothing to our language is our own. We are a familial pack with fierce loyalties and fiercer love. So much love in fact, that crying is unavoidable. Imagine if you will, that your brother or sister at any moment would actually lay down their life for you, then multiply that by thousands of brothers and sisters. But it isn’t only the eminence of danger that stresses you, but also the drama that comes with family.
My service as a Russian linguist in the Marines ended in 2002, but my experience as a Marine is a story without end. I meet new members of my extended family every day and, from time to time, I encounter some I knew quite well in unexpected places. We talk about our family drama and wax about what was. It never gets old, even as I slowly do.
Two years ago, on a Sunday morning, I woke up and began fumbling through my Facebook mailbox. There, under the “other” box, was a message from a corporal I hadn’t seen since my tour of duty had ended. The message was long, but one sentence conveyed all the intended meaning: “I’m sorry I didn’t try harder to stick up for you.” Again, the tears.
You see, this Marine and I were quite close. We’d gone out on the town clubbing, sat on E-tools eating MRE’s in the black of night, and we’d traded jabs in the barracks about newbies trying to pass off jokes as anecdotes for attention. In his letter, he detailed how not standing up for me when discussions got nasty was, in his words, the “greatest regret of his five years in Marines.” People didn’t know for sure I was gay, but most suspected it.
The irony of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was that not telling was itself a giveaway. As a gay Marine, life in the corps was often difficult for me. I like to think I hid it well with smiles and overachievement, but when you know someone well enough, you can always tell when something is wrong.
It was my friendships with Marines like this corporal that kept me alive, kept me going. But, the one thing we never shared was my constant fear of being kicked out or of being killed by one of my own. That I endured on my own. After a few incidents with my Recon company, I even went so far as to move off base because of fear for my safety. It’s an unsettling feeling to be afraid of your own family.
I took half a day to collect myself before sending the corporal from my past a friend request and trying to compose a response. The response, I’ll admit, was fumbled and half dismissive.
Today, the paper walls that separated Marines from one another have been shredded. A deep part of me aches to know the freedom to love my fellow Marines with unedited trust. “Were that I could do it again,” is a sentiment common in nearly all Marine vets. I chose to join the Marines for too many reasons to count, but being gay was never part of the equation. For the most part, I didn’t even know I was gay, or rather, I hadn’t admitted it to myself. The reasons why I didn’t reenlist are a much shorter list. At the top was DADT.
Once I came out to me, the military stopped being a place I could continue to learn about myself. It became something that was stopping me from knowing that person.
A year after repeal, I can’t help but be caught up in the fantasy of it. Over and over I’ve relived every detail back to the white buses, yellow footprints, quarterdecks, and campaign covers. I’ve rewritten the story of my service with me bringing a “real” date to the Marine Corps Ball or for “mando-fun.” I’ve relived conversations free of pronoun games. I’ve imagined actually going on dates instead of having rendezvous.
There’s nothing like the Corp’s culture of “hurry up and wait,” “good to go,” and in which everyone answers “How are you?” with “Outstanding!” To all current service members, I envy the freedom you have on your journey. But to the corporal who wrote me that Sunday morning, if you allow me to say it all over again, I’d say it differently. I’d say:
“I’m sorry that what I went through hurt you. And, I’m sorry that I couldn’t share with you the details of the hardship I faced. Sometimes, I was scared. Sometimes, I worked so hard not because I wanted to prove what I could do, but because I was afraid I'd lose everything if I didn’t. I wanted very much to trust you with more. It’s a sad thing when brothers have to love one another through walls. Please, don’t ever think that my lack of disclosure represents any lack of love for you. I miss you.”
Brett Edward Stout is a veteran corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is the founder of the Gay Marines Facebook page and is a contributing writer to The Advocate. -By: Brett Edward Stout/Gay.nehttp://www.gay.net/news/2012/09/19/op-ed-marine%E2%80%99s-wishful-do-over-military-without-dadtt/September 19, 2012
Two years ago, on a Sunday morning, I woke up and began fumbling through my Facebook mailbox. There, under the “other” box, was a message from a corporal I hadn’t seen since my tour of duty had ended. The message was long, but one sentence conveyed all the intended meaning: “I’m sorry I didn’t try harder to stick up for you.” Again, the tears.
You see, this Marine and I were quite close. We’d gone out on the town clubbing, sat on E-tools eating MRE’s in the black of night, and we’d traded jabs in the barracks about newbies trying to pass off jokes as anecdotes for attention. In his letter, he detailed how not standing up for me when discussions got nasty was, in his words, the “greatest regret of his five years in Marines.” People didn’t know for sure I was gay, but most suspected it.
The irony of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was that not telling was itself a giveaway. As a gay Marine, life in the corps was often difficult for me. I like to think I hid it well with smiles and overachievement, but when you know someone well enough, you can always tell when something is wrong.
It was my friendships with Marines like this corporal that kept me alive, kept me going. But, the one thing we never shared was my constant fear of being kicked out or of being killed by one of my own. That I endured on my own. After a few incidents with my Recon company, I even went so far as to move off base because of fear for my safety. It’s an unsettling feeling to be afraid of your own family.
I took half a day to collect myself before sending the corporal from my past a friend request and trying to compose a response. The response, I’ll admit, was fumbled and half dismissive.
Today, the paper walls that separated Marines from one another have been shredded. A deep part of me aches to know the freedom to love my fellow Marines with unedited trust. “Were that I could do it again,” is a sentiment common in nearly all Marine vets. I chose to join the Marines for too many reasons to count, but being gay was never part of the equation. For the most part, I didn’t even know I was gay, or rather, I hadn’t admitted it to myself. The reasons why I didn’t reenlist are a much shorter list. At the top was DADT.
Once I came out to me, the military stopped being a place I could continue to learn about myself. It became something that was stopping me from knowing that person.
A year after repeal, I can’t help but be caught up in the fantasy of it. Over and over I’ve relived every detail back to the white buses, yellow footprints, quarterdecks, and campaign covers. I’ve rewritten the story of my service with me bringing a “real” date to the Marine Corps Ball or for “mando-fun.” I’ve relived conversations free of pronoun games. I’ve imagined actually going on dates instead of having rendezvous.
There’s nothing like the Corp’s culture of “hurry up and wait,” “good to go,” and in which everyone answers “How are you?” with “Outstanding!” To all current service members, I envy the freedom you have on your journey. But to the corporal who wrote me that Sunday morning, if you allow me to say it all over again, I’d say it differently. I’d say:
“I’m sorry that what I went through hurt you. And, I’m sorry that I couldn’t share with you the details of the hardship I faced. Sometimes, I was scared. Sometimes, I worked so hard not because I wanted to prove what I could do, but because I was afraid I'd lose everything if I didn’t. I wanted very much to trust you with more. It’s a sad thing when brothers have to love one another through walls. Please, don’t ever think that my lack of disclosure represents any lack of love for you. I miss you.”
Brett Edward Stout is a veteran corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is the founder of the Gay Marines Facebook page and is a contributing writer to The Advocate. -By: Brett Edward Stout/Gay.nehttp://www.gay.net/news/2012/09/19/op-ed-marine%E2%80%99s-wishful-do-over-military-without-dadtt/September 19, 2012
Out Of The Mouths Of Youngsters-And Sometimes Even An Oldster
While I sat in my doctor's office waiting room, a woman rolled in an elderly man on a wheelchair. While she went to the receptionist's window, the man sat silently alone. Just as I was about to make small talk with him, a little boy slipped off his mother's lap, walked over to the old man's wheelchair, placed his hand on the man's, and said, "I know how you feel. My Mom makes me ride in the stroller, too.'
*****
As a new mother was nursing her baby, her six-year-old daughter niece came into the room. Never having seen anyone breast feed before, she was intrigued and full of all kinds of questions about what her aunt was doing. After mulling over the answers, she remarked, 'My mom has some of those, but I don't think she knows how to use them.'
*****
Bicycling one day with her eight-year-old granddaughter, he got a little wistful and said, 'In ten years, you'll want to be with your friends and you won't go walking, biking, and swimming with me like you do now. The granddaughter shrugged. 'In ten years you'll be too old to do all those things anyway.'
******
As the pediatric nurse entered the examining room to give a four-year-old girl an injection, the girl screamed. 'No, no, no!' 'Lizzie,' scolded her mother, 'that's not polite behavior.' With that, the girl yelled even louder, 'No, thank you! No, thank you!"
******
On the way back from a Cub Scout meeting, a kid innocently asked his father, 'Dad, I know babies come from mommies' tummies, but how do they get there in the first place?' After the father hemmed and hawed awhile, the youngster said sort of disappointedly, 'You don't have to make up stories, Dad. It's okay if you don't know the answer.'
*****
Just before a soldier was deployed to Iraq, he sat his eight-year-old son down and broke the news, 'I'm going to Iraq and will be away for a long time.' The son asked, 'Why? Don't you know there's a war going on over there?'
*****
Paul Newman, the famous movie actor, founded the Hole in the Wall Gang Camp for children with cancer, AIDS, and blood diseases. One afternoon, he and his wife, Joanne Woodward, stopped by to have lunch with the kids. A camp counselor at a nearby table, suspecting the young patients didn't know Newman as a well-known Hollywood figure, who made the camp possible told the youngsters, "Maybe you've seen his picture on his salad dressing bottle,' Blank stares. 'Or you've probably seen his face on the lemonade carton,' the counselor added. Then an eight-year-old girl asked, 'How long was he missing?'
*****
As the graveside service for a woman just finished, there was an ear-splitting clap of thunder followed by a tremendous bolt of lightning, and further followed by even more thunder and lightning. The dead woman's husband looked at the pastor and calmly said, "Well, she's really there."
Authors Unknown
*****
As a new mother was nursing her baby, her six-year-old daughter niece came into the room. Never having seen anyone breast feed before, she was intrigued and full of all kinds of questions about what her aunt was doing. After mulling over the answers, she remarked, 'My mom has some of those, but I don't think she knows how to use them.'
*****
Bicycling one day with her eight-year-old granddaughter, he got a little wistful and said, 'In ten years, you'll want to be with your friends and you won't go walking, biking, and swimming with me like you do now. The granddaughter shrugged. 'In ten years you'll be too old to do all those things anyway.'
******
As the pediatric nurse entered the examining room to give a four-year-old girl an injection, the girl screamed. 'No, no, no!' 'Lizzie,' scolded her mother, 'that's not polite behavior.' With that, the girl yelled even louder, 'No, thank you! No, thank you!"
******
On the way back from a Cub Scout meeting, a kid innocently asked his father, 'Dad, I know babies come from mommies' tummies, but how do they get there in the first place?' After the father hemmed and hawed awhile, the youngster said sort of disappointedly, 'You don't have to make up stories, Dad. It's okay if you don't know the answer.'
*****
Just before a soldier was deployed to Iraq, he sat his eight-year-old son down and broke the news, 'I'm going to Iraq and will be away for a long time.' The son asked, 'Why? Don't you know there's a war going on over there?'
*****
Paul Newman, the famous movie actor, founded the Hole in the Wall Gang Camp for children with cancer, AIDS, and blood diseases. One afternoon, he and his wife, Joanne Woodward, stopped by to have lunch with the kids. A camp counselor at a nearby table, suspecting the young patients didn't know Newman as a well-known Hollywood figure, who made the camp possible told the youngsters, "Maybe you've seen his picture on his salad dressing bottle,' Blank stares. 'Or you've probably seen his face on the lemonade carton,' the counselor added. Then an eight-year-old girl asked, 'How long was he missing?'
*****
As the graveside service for a woman just finished, there was an ear-splitting clap of thunder followed by a tremendous bolt of lightning, and further followed by even more thunder and lightning. The dead woman's husband looked at the pastor and calmly said, "Well, she's really there."
Authors Unknown
A New Generation Of Political Islamists Steps Forward
Olivier Roy is a professor at the European University Institute in Florence and the author of “Holy Ignorance.”
Everywhere, the Muslim Brotherhood is benefiting from a democratization it did not trigger. There is a political vacuum because the liberal vanguard that initiated the Arab Spring did not try, and did not want, to take power. This was a revolution without revolutionaries. Yet the Muslim Brothers are the only organized political force. They are rooted in society, and decades of opposition against authoritarian regimes gave them experience, legitimacy and respect. Their conservative agenda fits a conservative society, which may welcome democracy but did not turn liberal.
Under these circumstances, the ghost of a totalitarian Islamic state is raised, with the specter of imposing sharia and closing the short democratic parenthesis. But such an outcome is unlikely.
The Islamists have, in fact, changed: They are more middle-class “bourgeois,” and they benefited from the liberalization of local economies during the last decades of the 20th century, especially in countries with no oil rent. The Islamists have also drawn lessons from the failure of ideological regimes and from the success of Turkey’s AKP party. They are no longer advocating jihad and understand geostrategic constraints, such as the need to maintain peace, even a cold one, with Israel. Realism is the starting point of political wisdom.
The Islamists have been elected with a clear agenda: stability, good governance and a better economy. If they have been able to reach a larger constituency than the hard-core supporters of sharia, it is precisely because they can combine such a reformist agenda while talking about religion, values, identity and tradition. The Nahda party won the majority of the votes cast at the Tunisian consulate of San Francisco, although Tunisian expatriates in Silicon Valley are not known for their Islamic fundamentalism.
This mix of technocratic modernism and conservative values is their brand, and to turn their back on multipartism and legalism would alienate a large portion of their constituency, at a time when they have no means to confiscate power. They have neither military forces nor oil wealth to bypass the people: They have to negotiate and deliver. Their electorate wants stability and peace, not revolution.
They are stepping into a new political landscape: a democracy, although a fledgling and fragile one. The only way to maintain their legitimacy is through elections. Even if their pristine political culture is not democratic, they are formatted by the democratic landscape, much as the Roman Catholic Church ended up accepting democratic institutions. But it will take time.
Another important change, if we refer to the “revolutionary” period of the 1970s and 1980s, is that the Muslim Brothers do not monopolize Islam in the public sphere. In fact, the religious revival that has engulfed Arab societies led to a diversification and an individualization of the religious field. Religious state institutions such as Al Azhar, so recently discredited, are regaining autonomy after so recently being discredited. Al Azhar’s dean, Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, openly spoke in favor of democracy and of separating religious institutions from the state. A new phenomenon is the decision of the Salafis, an ultraconservative Sunni sect, to establish political parties. On the one hand they will push for a more Islamic agenda, trying to outbid the Muslim Brothers on Islam, but this will force the Brotherhood to clarify its own position and to find a way to distance itself from the call for sharia.
To do that, the Muslim Brothers have to turn purely Islamic norms into more universal conservative values — such as limiting the sale and consumption of alcohol in a way that is closer to Utah’s rules than to Saudi laws and promoting “family values” instead of imposing sharia norms on women.
In the coming months the hot issue in Egypt, beyond the status of women, will be religious freedom. Not in the sense that Coptic Christians will have less freedom to practice — there were a lot of limitations under the so-called secular dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak — but in defining religious freedom as not merely a minority right but an individual human right, implying the right to convert from Islam to Christianity.
The issue is institutionalizing democracy, not promoting liberal policies. Democracy could take hold only if it is based in well-established values. Liberalism does not precede democracy; America’s Founding Fathers were not liberal. But once democracy is rooted in institutions and political culture, then the debate on freedom, censorship, social norms and individual rights could be managed through freedom of expression and changes of majorities in parliament. However, there will be no institutionalization of democracy without the Muslim Brothers. -By Olivier Roy/Washington Post/January 20, 2012
Everywhere, the Muslim Brotherhood is benefiting from a democratization it did not trigger. There is a political vacuum because the liberal vanguard that initiated the Arab Spring did not try, and did not want, to take power. This was a revolution without revolutionaries. Yet the Muslim Brothers are the only organized political force. They are rooted in society, and decades of opposition against authoritarian regimes gave them experience, legitimacy and respect. Their conservative agenda fits a conservative society, which may welcome democracy but did not turn liberal.
Under these circumstances, the ghost of a totalitarian Islamic state is raised, with the specter of imposing sharia and closing the short democratic parenthesis. But such an outcome is unlikely.
The Islamists have, in fact, changed: They are more middle-class “bourgeois,” and they benefited from the liberalization of local economies during the last decades of the 20th century, especially in countries with no oil rent. The Islamists have also drawn lessons from the failure of ideological regimes and from the success of Turkey’s AKP party. They are no longer advocating jihad and understand geostrategic constraints, such as the need to maintain peace, even a cold one, with Israel. Realism is the starting point of political wisdom.
The Islamists have been elected with a clear agenda: stability, good governance and a better economy. If they have been able to reach a larger constituency than the hard-core supporters of sharia, it is precisely because they can combine such a reformist agenda while talking about religion, values, identity and tradition. The Nahda party won the majority of the votes cast at the Tunisian consulate of San Francisco, although Tunisian expatriates in Silicon Valley are not known for their Islamic fundamentalism.
This mix of technocratic modernism and conservative values is their brand, and to turn their back on multipartism and legalism would alienate a large portion of their constituency, at a time when they have no means to confiscate power. They have neither military forces nor oil wealth to bypass the people: They have to negotiate and deliver. Their electorate wants stability and peace, not revolution.
They are stepping into a new political landscape: a democracy, although a fledgling and fragile one. The only way to maintain their legitimacy is through elections. Even if their pristine political culture is not democratic, they are formatted by the democratic landscape, much as the Roman Catholic Church ended up accepting democratic institutions. But it will take time.
Another important change, if we refer to the “revolutionary” period of the 1970s and 1980s, is that the Muslim Brothers do not monopolize Islam in the public sphere. In fact, the religious revival that has engulfed Arab societies led to a diversification and an individualization of the religious field. Religious state institutions such as Al Azhar, so recently discredited, are regaining autonomy after so recently being discredited. Al Azhar’s dean, Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, openly spoke in favor of democracy and of separating religious institutions from the state. A new phenomenon is the decision of the Salafis, an ultraconservative Sunni sect, to establish political parties. On the one hand they will push for a more Islamic agenda, trying to outbid the Muslim Brothers on Islam, but this will force the Brotherhood to clarify its own position and to find a way to distance itself from the call for sharia.
To do that, the Muslim Brothers have to turn purely Islamic norms into more universal conservative values — such as limiting the sale and consumption of alcohol in a way that is closer to Utah’s rules than to Saudi laws and promoting “family values” instead of imposing sharia norms on women.
In the coming months the hot issue in Egypt, beyond the status of women, will be religious freedom. Not in the sense that Coptic Christians will have less freedom to practice — there were a lot of limitations under the so-called secular dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak — but in defining religious freedom as not merely a minority right but an individual human right, implying the right to convert from Islam to Christianity.
The issue is institutionalizing democracy, not promoting liberal policies. Democracy could take hold only if it is based in well-established values. Liberalism does not precede democracy; America’s Founding Fathers were not liberal. But once democracy is rooted in institutions and political culture, then the debate on freedom, censorship, social norms and individual rights could be managed through freedom of expression and changes of majorities in parliament. However, there will be no institutionalization of democracy without the Muslim Brothers. -By Olivier Roy/Washington Post/January 20, 2012
How Not To Annoy People Via E-mail
E-mail can be a lovely way to connect, an easy and instant medium for getting back or keeping in touch, a canvas for hellos and sorrys and XOXOs.
But more often than not it's a backdrop for obnoxious behavior, and you, gentle readers, just don't stop giving us reasons to wag our fingers at you.
We're not talking about the content of your digital missives (though plenty of you could stand to take a course in Spelling 101 or How to Avoid Coming Across as Brusque and/or Angry).
No, we're addressing the very way you use e-mail, the logistics of hurtling e-mails into the tangled switchboard of the Web. Here, three blatantly annoying sins to avoid before hitting send.
1. Abusing the reply-all button
Ninety percent of mass announcements are annoying in the first place, according to a statistic we just made up. Don't be that dummy who piles spam atop spam by replying all and saying something inane or meant for the sender.
As one reader complained, "I find those 'Jane Doe wants to add her most sincere congrats to Mary Smith on the occasion of her selection for...' messages mightily irritating when they're sent to all 900 recipients on the original announcement message. I don't care what Jane says to the honoree AND I wish she would not say it to the world (me)."
Granted, the sender should have BCC'ed everyone in the first place, thus preventing a mouthy recipient from spamming the entire list, but until we reach a utopian era when everyone comports themselves politely online, we've got to do the best we can to stop the madness.
2. Mixing work and play
Your friends and acquaintances may occasionally play the role of career contacts, but remember: Work e-mails and personal e-mails are not interchangeable.
Let's walk through an example: Say you realize your friend's techie boyfriend should, for professional reasons, receive the press release your assistant is sending out for your upcoming Tweets and Beats presentation (tag line: "where social networks and drum circles collide").
If you've only communicated in casual group e-mails up until this point, you may be tempted just lazily to add his Gmail to your list. In a word: Don't.
Instead, send him a quick note asking for his work address and mention that you're planning to send an event announcement his way; that way he won't be picking out work-related e-mails amid his nonbusiness conversations, and -- bonus -- he'll keep an eye out when the press release hits his inbox. (And catching his eye is critical: Last year, the typical corporate e-mail user sent and received 105 e-mails per day, and 19% of those that made it past the spam filter were, in fact, spam, according to research firm Radicati.)
3. Sending an eight- to 12-page preamble of formatting debris
So you've just encountered a warning about the health risks of paintballing or a series of photos of albino dolphins, and you absolutely must forward it on. As we've noted, you should begin by really asking yourself if your recipients care to see this.
(What's that, you say they've never responded? Never thanked you for the chain letter? Never forwarded you a forward themselves? Then, 99 to 1, they wish you'd leave them off the list.)
But if you're going to send away, you rebel you, at least do your hapless recipients the courtesy of deleting the equivalent of phlegmy throat-clearing: lines upon lines that look something like this (ahem):
Begin forwarded message:
From: [an e-mail address you don't know]
Date: December 26, 2011 11:24:10 AM CST
To: [approximately 18 lines of e-mails you don't know]
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: YOU'VE GOT TO SEE THIS!!
-----Original Message-----
From: [another random yahoo you don't know]
To: [another half-page of e-mail addresses]
Sent: Sat, Dec 26, 2011 7:27 am
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: YOU'VE GOT TO SEE THIS!!
Unbelieveable, definitely read and forward on, what a joy.
...ad infinitum.
Delete all the headers in the body of your e-mail so the relevant material is at the top of the e-mail. Clean up that subject line so it doesn't start on a stuttering F-sound.
In short, give your contacts one less reason to hate you, and maybe they'll take that life-is-all-about-beautiful-relationships chain e-mail to heart. -By Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich/CNN/February 1, 2012
Foot Note: Brenna Ehrlich and Andrea Bartz are the sarcastic brains behind humor blog and book "Stuff Hipsters Hate." Got a question about etiquette in the digital world? Contact them at netiquette@cnn.com.
But more often than not it's a backdrop for obnoxious behavior, and you, gentle readers, just don't stop giving us reasons to wag our fingers at you.
We're not talking about the content of your digital missives (though plenty of you could stand to take a course in Spelling 101 or How to Avoid Coming Across as Brusque and/or Angry).
No, we're addressing the very way you use e-mail, the logistics of hurtling e-mails into the tangled switchboard of the Web. Here, three blatantly annoying sins to avoid before hitting send.
1. Abusing the reply-all button
Ninety percent of mass announcements are annoying in the first place, according to a statistic we just made up. Don't be that dummy who piles spam atop spam by replying all and saying something inane or meant for the sender.
As one reader complained, "I find those 'Jane Doe wants to add her most sincere congrats to Mary Smith on the occasion of her selection for...' messages mightily irritating when they're sent to all 900 recipients on the original announcement message. I don't care what Jane says to the honoree AND I wish she would not say it to the world (me)."
Granted, the sender should have BCC'ed everyone in the first place, thus preventing a mouthy recipient from spamming the entire list, but until we reach a utopian era when everyone comports themselves politely online, we've got to do the best we can to stop the madness.
2. Mixing work and play
Your friends and acquaintances may occasionally play the role of career contacts, but remember: Work e-mails and personal e-mails are not interchangeable.
Let's walk through an example: Say you realize your friend's techie boyfriend should, for professional reasons, receive the press release your assistant is sending out for your upcoming Tweets and Beats presentation (tag line: "where social networks and drum circles collide").
If you've only communicated in casual group e-mails up until this point, you may be tempted just lazily to add his Gmail to your list. In a word: Don't.
Instead, send him a quick note asking for his work address and mention that you're planning to send an event announcement his way; that way he won't be picking out work-related e-mails amid his nonbusiness conversations, and -- bonus -- he'll keep an eye out when the press release hits his inbox. (And catching his eye is critical: Last year, the typical corporate e-mail user sent and received 105 e-mails per day, and 19% of those that made it past the spam filter were, in fact, spam, according to research firm Radicati.)
3. Sending an eight- to 12-page preamble of formatting debris
So you've just encountered a warning about the health risks of paintballing or a series of photos of albino dolphins, and you absolutely must forward it on. As we've noted, you should begin by really asking yourself if your recipients care to see this.
(What's that, you say they've never responded? Never thanked you for the chain letter? Never forwarded you a forward themselves? Then, 99 to 1, they wish you'd leave them off the list.)
But if you're going to send away, you rebel you, at least do your hapless recipients the courtesy of deleting the equivalent of phlegmy throat-clearing: lines upon lines that look something like this (ahem):
Begin forwarded message:
From: [an e-mail address you don't know]
Date: December 26, 2011 11:24:10 AM CST
To: [approximately 18 lines of e-mails you don't know]
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: YOU'VE GOT TO SEE THIS!!
-----Original Message-----
From: [another random yahoo you don't know]
To: [another half-page of e-mail addresses]
Sent: Sat, Dec 26, 2011 7:27 am
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: YOU'VE GOT TO SEE THIS!!
Unbelieveable, definitely read and forward on, what a joy.
...ad infinitum.
Delete all the headers in the body of your e-mail so the relevant material is at the top of the e-mail. Clean up that subject line so it doesn't start on a stuttering F-sound.
In short, give your contacts one less reason to hate you, and maybe they'll take that life-is-all-about-beautiful-relationships chain e-mail to heart. -By Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich/CNN/February 1, 2012
Foot Note: Brenna Ehrlich and Andrea Bartz are the sarcastic brains behind humor blog and book "Stuff Hipsters Hate." Got a question about etiquette in the digital world? Contact them at netiquette@cnn.com.
Have We Become A Nation Of Moral Bystanders?
“What’s it going to cost?” is the first thing a smart shopper asks when purchasing an item. Not just in the purchase price, but in the continued operation and maintenance. Everything we do has a cost. This is why Jesus tells us to “count the cost” when we make our plans.
Every person has a foundational set of principles on which his or her worldview is built. While it might take some probing to identify the foundational operating principles, they’re always there. The first line in Carl Sagan’s book Cosmos tells us what his operating assumption was: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[1]
Similar statements have been made by well know atheist Richard Dawkins. He begins with the operating assumption that there is no God. His worldview unfolds from this premise and has real-world consequences:
“In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”[2]
Over time, these operating assumptions work their way through our culture. They imbed themselves, often unconsciously, in our thinking patterns. The world we look at is filtered by a new set of interpreting lenses. Like contacts and glasses, we see through these new lenses without noticing that we’re wearing them.
The same is true of worldview glasses. Once we put them on, everything we view is bent, as light is bent, and then refocused on the optic nerve and registered on our brain. Over time, this bent light becomes a grid of interpretive analysis for everything we do.
What might have been shocking to someone born just after the Second World War and into the 1950s is now part of a new way of looking at the world. As species evolve, as atheists tell us, so must worldviews, since there is no fixed standard, an established interpreting starting point, to evaluate old and new information. Everything is reevaluated based on a new set of relative values.
Kay Haugaard began teaching creative writing in 1970. As with most of her classes, students read and discuss Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery.” Jackson’s lottery isn’t about winning millions of dollars by picking the right series of numbers; it’s about human sacrifice that a small town accepts and takes part in with no questions asked. As the years of teaching this story have passed, Haugaard began to see a change in the moral perceptions of her students. Their views on right and wrong had been dulled by the rhetoric of moral neutrality, “the danger of just ‘going along’ with something habitually, without examining its rationale and value.”[3] Haugaard’s closing comments are chilling:
No one in the whole class of more than twenty ostensibly intelligent individuals would go out on a limb and take a stand against human sacrifice.
[Here’s how] I wound up the discussion. “Frankly, I feel it’s clear that the author was pointing out the dangers of being totally accepting followers, too cowardly to rebel against obvious cruelties and injustices.” I was shaken, and I thought that the author, whose story had shocked so many [in past years], would have been shaken as well.
The class finally ended. It was a warm night when I walked to my car after class that evening, but I felt shivery, chilled to the bone.[4]
We’ve become a nation of moral bystanders. Deep down we know certain behaviors are wrong, but we’ve been cajoled into believing that nothing can be said in objection to the new glasses that have been pasted on our face. If we do react, we are labeled “intolerant” and “insensitive” to different “lifestyle choices.” -By Gary Demar/Godfather Politics/February 3, 2012
Notes:
1. Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), 4. While I can’t be sure, but I think he stole this line from The Berenstain Bears children’s book The Bears’ Nature Guide: A Nature Walk Through Bear Country where this line is found: “Nature is all that IS or WAS or EVER WILL BE.”
2. Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: HarperCollins/BasicBooks, 1995), 133.
3. Kay Haugaard, “The Lottery Revisited,” Unriddling Our Times: Reflections on the Gathering Cultural Crisis, ed. Os Guinness (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 138.
4. Haugaard, “The Lottery Revisited,” 141.
Every person has a foundational set of principles on which his or her worldview is built. While it might take some probing to identify the foundational operating principles, they’re always there. The first line in Carl Sagan’s book Cosmos tells us what his operating assumption was: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[1]
Similar statements have been made by well know atheist Richard Dawkins. He begins with the operating assumption that there is no God. His worldview unfolds from this premise and has real-world consequences:
“In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”[2]
Over time, these operating assumptions work their way through our culture. They imbed themselves, often unconsciously, in our thinking patterns. The world we look at is filtered by a new set of interpreting lenses. Like contacts and glasses, we see through these new lenses without noticing that we’re wearing them.
The same is true of worldview glasses. Once we put them on, everything we view is bent, as light is bent, and then refocused on the optic nerve and registered on our brain. Over time, this bent light becomes a grid of interpretive analysis for everything we do.
What might have been shocking to someone born just after the Second World War and into the 1950s is now part of a new way of looking at the world. As species evolve, as atheists tell us, so must worldviews, since there is no fixed standard, an established interpreting starting point, to evaluate old and new information. Everything is reevaluated based on a new set of relative values.
Kay Haugaard began teaching creative writing in 1970. As with most of her classes, students read and discuss Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery.” Jackson’s lottery isn’t about winning millions of dollars by picking the right series of numbers; it’s about human sacrifice that a small town accepts and takes part in with no questions asked. As the years of teaching this story have passed, Haugaard began to see a change in the moral perceptions of her students. Their views on right and wrong had been dulled by the rhetoric of moral neutrality, “the danger of just ‘going along’ with something habitually, without examining its rationale and value.”[3] Haugaard’s closing comments are chilling:
No one in the whole class of more than twenty ostensibly intelligent individuals would go out on a limb and take a stand against human sacrifice.
[Here’s how] I wound up the discussion. “Frankly, I feel it’s clear that the author was pointing out the dangers of being totally accepting followers, too cowardly to rebel against obvious cruelties and injustices.” I was shaken, and I thought that the author, whose story had shocked so many [in past years], would have been shaken as well.
The class finally ended. It was a warm night when I walked to my car after class that evening, but I felt shivery, chilled to the bone.[4]
We’ve become a nation of moral bystanders. Deep down we know certain behaviors are wrong, but we’ve been cajoled into believing that nothing can be said in objection to the new glasses that have been pasted on our face. If we do react, we are labeled “intolerant” and “insensitive” to different “lifestyle choices.” -By Gary Demar/Godfather Politics/February 3, 2012
Notes:
1. Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), 4. While I can’t be sure, but I think he stole this line from The Berenstain Bears children’s book The Bears’ Nature Guide: A Nature Walk Through Bear Country where this line is found: “Nature is all that IS or WAS or EVER WILL BE.”
2. Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: HarperCollins/BasicBooks, 1995), 133.
3. Kay Haugaard, “The Lottery Revisited,” Unriddling Our Times: Reflections on the Gathering Cultural Crisis, ed. Os Guinness (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 138.
4. Haugaard, “The Lottery Revisited,” 141.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)