So now we hear McCain rant, Russia must pay, Russia must pay, Russia must pay. What world is he living in?
America faces a number of foreign policy problems. There's North Korea. There's Taiwan and China. There's China declaring that the South China Seas beings to them. There's Russia messing around in Ukraine, There's Crimea. There's the Syrian refugees. There's the war on ISIS and on radical Islam. And, on and on and on. And, McCain wants to push it all aside with the idea that what Russia did when they hacked the DNC was our biggest problem. What world is he living in?
Putin plays chess and McCain's focused on tidily winks. Goal No. 1 for America is to have the nations of the world take America seriously. Our reputation has been shredded by Obama's misbegotten policies. The damage he's done will not heal overnight. McCain's desperate cry of "Russia must pay" make us look pathetic.
We did nothing when Putin pulled chunks off of Georgia. We did nothing when he took Crimea away from Ukraine. As an American, it embarrasses me even to mention Obama's red lines. And, how could we permit Assad to drop barrel bombs on innocent Syrians and not declare a no-fly zone. (This was before the Russians had even entered the conflict on the side of Assad, a man we said, "must go.") McCain now wishes to inconvenience the Russians? What's he trying to accomplish?
The Russians and the Turks hammered out a truce covering that area of Syria in which they were most interested. Note: They did it without a whole lot of Russian boots on the ground. Obama and Kerry weren't even invited to be a part of the negotiations in spite of America's involvement in the Syrian conflict. But, McCain is now thinking he's going to punish the Russians?
And, what crime did the Russians commit for which McCain now wishes to punish them? Hacking into the DNC? Hacking is a part of life in this cyber age. But, need I mention, that safeguards do exist. Our military, as I understand it, is well aware of the threat of cyber attacks. Banks, computer companies and other important segments of our country are aware of it. And, they've worked to establish safeguards against it. It seems the only ones who didn't take the threat seriously was the DNC. Be that as it may, Hillary didn't lose because of the Russians exposing her game. But, really! For her carelessness, she deserved to lose.
The latest chapter in this theater of the absurd is the hacking that is alleged to have taken place in power plants in Vermont. Was any damage done? No. Did the Russians do it? Maybe. But each and everyone of our enemies with the ability to do this kind of hacking is going to try. And probably already has. They're not looking to do any damage at this time. But in the event of war, destroying America's energy grid would become a prime objective. America must stop waggling a finger, and instead begin to protect its grid system and other key portions of its infrastructure.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Hey, McCain, Give Trump A Chance
Foreign policy under Obama has been a disaster. Okay, Republicans, we all agree. So, let's not act stupid now -- especially you, John McCain. And, yes, you too Lindsey Graham.
So you guys now want to punish Putin for hacking the Democratic National Committee. And, horror of horrors, for using the information they collected to embarrass Hillary, thereby tilting the election in Trump's favor?
If Putin actually did what they say -- and as far as I'm concerned, that's still an open question -- Putin was being even more stupid than you guys. Not because Putin should have foreseen that he might get caught, but because he should have seen that he was acting against Russia's own best interests. As I see it, trying to look at the matter from Russia's point of view, it would be in Russia's interest to try to weaken the U.S. as much as possible. That, as I see it, would have meant tilting the election over to Hillary.
Had she won, the division between blacks and whites, Latinos, the young, the police, etc. etc. would have been exacerbated. Our military would continue to have been weakened. Her social programs, not to mention her environmental policies, would have gutted our economy, and on, and on, and on. If Putin really did succeed in tilting the election in Trump's favor, we should applaud him not punish him.
I am being facetious -- but only a little bit. The larger lesson is that it's time to face the realities of cyberspace. We have to grow up. Cyberspace can do a whole lot of good. But, it can also be used in hurtful ways. Why punish Russia? Nations, to the extent they were able to get away with it, bugged one another. That's common knowledge. Why does anyone think that nations won't hack one another?
That doesn't have to prove fatal. There are safety measures that can be taken. And, that too is something that all nations know. Out military knows it. Other departments within the government know it. (Or, they damn well ought to know it.) To their own regret, it is something that the DNC overlooked and it appears the chief dummy, among many, was Hillary herself. Indeed, if we don't try to hack our enemies there is something clearly wrong with us.
And so now McCain and Graham want to punish Russia! To what end? Is there the remotest possibility that this will alter Russia's behavior, or, for that matter, the behavior of any other nation that thinks it will serve their purpose to hack? If you can tilt another nation's elections in your favor aren't you going to do it, or at least try? Didn't Obama try to have Netanyahu defeated in elections over in Israel?
McCain is showing now the same kind of flawed judgement he showed when he accepted Sarah Palin as a running mate. And, hey, McCain, I'm a Republican who once voted for you.
So you guys now want to punish Putin for hacking the Democratic National Committee. And, horror of horrors, for using the information they collected to embarrass Hillary, thereby tilting the election in Trump's favor?
If Putin actually did what they say -- and as far as I'm concerned, that's still an open question -- Putin was being even more stupid than you guys. Not because Putin should have foreseen that he might get caught, but because he should have seen that he was acting against Russia's own best interests. As I see it, trying to look at the matter from Russia's point of view, it would be in Russia's interest to try to weaken the U.S. as much as possible. That, as I see it, would have meant tilting the election over to Hillary.
Had she won, the division between blacks and whites, Latinos, the young, the police, etc. etc. would have been exacerbated. Our military would continue to have been weakened. Her social programs, not to mention her environmental policies, would have gutted our economy, and on, and on, and on. If Putin really did succeed in tilting the election in Trump's favor, we should applaud him not punish him.
I am being facetious -- but only a little bit. The larger lesson is that it's time to face the realities of cyberspace. We have to grow up. Cyberspace can do a whole lot of good. But, it can also be used in hurtful ways. Why punish Russia? Nations, to the extent they were able to get away with it, bugged one another. That's common knowledge. Why does anyone think that nations won't hack one another?
That doesn't have to prove fatal. There are safety measures that can be taken. And, that too is something that all nations know. Out military knows it. Other departments within the government know it. (Or, they damn well ought to know it.) To their own regret, it is something that the DNC overlooked and it appears the chief dummy, among many, was Hillary herself. Indeed, if we don't try to hack our enemies there is something clearly wrong with us.
And so now McCain and Graham want to punish Russia! To what end? Is there the remotest possibility that this will alter Russia's behavior, or, for that matter, the behavior of any other nation that thinks it will serve their purpose to hack? If you can tilt another nation's elections in your favor aren't you going to do it, or at least try? Didn't Obama try to have Netanyahu defeated in elections over in Israel?
McCain is showing now the same kind of flawed judgement he showed when he accepted Sarah Palin as a running mate. And, hey, McCain, I'm a Republican who once voted for you.
Friday, December 23, 2016
The Islamic Reformation -- When? Where? And, How?
In America, there have been conferences of Islamic scholars meeting under the rubric of Heretics and Heretical thought. An insight into the sort of thinking aired in these conferences can be gleaned by reading, "What Is A Muslim Heretic," by Danial Matin Verisco. I imagine my friends, reading material presented at such a conference, thinking, Muslims aren't really that different from me. These people are introspective and charming and thoughtful. But, then you'd stumble over the reality that these conferences would probably be possible nowhere except in the United States.
There are Muslims who, indeed, want to create a caliphate and who take the Quran, the Sunnah, and the Hadith literally and who yearn for a day when Sharia rules supreme. How can you institute reform when Wahhabism still rules the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country that has funded the construction of mosques throughout the world and has supplied Wahabbi imams to guide these mosques? Wahhabis think of themselves as Salafists, people who practice Islam the way it was practiced in the days of Muhammed centuries ago. But, you don't have to be a Saudi to be a Salafist.
Those among us who are less educated as to Islamic thought will posit a good Islam and a bad Islam The "bad" being Jihadists and the like. This is false. There is only one Islam. It's just a matter of whether you take one lump of sugar or two. It's still coffee. Muslims have made no clear break from their Islamic fountainhead.
Jews no longer practice polygamy, although it was once a Jewish practice. The Catholic Church no longer claims Jews murdered Christ, or burns heretics. But, Muslims do still engage in polygamy and do still murder those who would insult Islam by drawing a figure of Muhammed or engage in other kinds behavior they find blasphemous. And, that's the problem.
I don't think wiping out Salafist thought and Salafist ideals as found throughout the Islamic world is realistic. But, I do think it is necessary to create zones of safety for Muslims who would stand for a modern form of Islam, one that could live in harmony with western culture. And, I believe that only in America could such a school of Islam arise and flourish.
Many Muslims would argue that such Islamic thought has already emerged. I would disagree. I have perused "Islam for Idiots" and nowhere is there mention of Sharia. There is this pretense that Islamic practices that we would find abhorrent in our western culture can be understood as acceptable in other cultures. This may have been true in an earlier day when the world was smaller, but not today. The idea that mosques can, and should, be built throughout the world, but that no church is to be built in Saudi Arabia, the fountainhead of Salafist thought, is simply unacceptable. The idea that one school of Islamic thought can find another school of Islamic thought impure and that this impurity can be expunged by murdering those found impure is unacceptable.
Until the various forms of Islamic thought and Islamic culture can live together in harmony, we, Muslims and non-Muslims, have a problem. Until Kurdish Muslims and Shia Muslims, Saudi Muslims and Chechen Muslims, Iranian Muslims and Ahmadiyya can learn to live together and accept people with other religions as well as those who accept no religion we and the Muslim community will continue to have a problem. I see no solution other than that a form of "reform" Islamic thought emerge, one capable of sweeping throughout the Islamic world. And, I see no place on earth where this can begin other than in America. Let heresy flourish and let it be a safe haven.
There are Muslims who, indeed, want to create a caliphate and who take the Quran, the Sunnah, and the Hadith literally and who yearn for a day when Sharia rules supreme. How can you institute reform when Wahhabism still rules the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country that has funded the construction of mosques throughout the world and has supplied Wahabbi imams to guide these mosques? Wahhabis think of themselves as Salafists, people who practice Islam the way it was practiced in the days of Muhammed centuries ago. But, you don't have to be a Saudi to be a Salafist.
Those among us who are less educated as to Islamic thought will posit a good Islam and a bad Islam The "bad" being Jihadists and the like. This is false. There is only one Islam. It's just a matter of whether you take one lump of sugar or two. It's still coffee. Muslims have made no clear break from their Islamic fountainhead.
Jews no longer practice polygamy, although it was once a Jewish practice. The Catholic Church no longer claims Jews murdered Christ, or burns heretics. But, Muslims do still engage in polygamy and do still murder those who would insult Islam by drawing a figure of Muhammed or engage in other kinds behavior they find blasphemous. And, that's the problem.
I don't think wiping out Salafist thought and Salafist ideals as found throughout the Islamic world is realistic. But, I do think it is necessary to create zones of safety for Muslims who would stand for a modern form of Islam, one that could live in harmony with western culture. And, I believe that only in America could such a school of Islam arise and flourish.
Many Muslims would argue that such Islamic thought has already emerged. I would disagree. I have perused "Islam for Idiots" and nowhere is there mention of Sharia. There is this pretense that Islamic practices that we would find abhorrent in our western culture can be understood as acceptable in other cultures. This may have been true in an earlier day when the world was smaller, but not today. The idea that mosques can, and should, be built throughout the world, but that no church is to be built in Saudi Arabia, the fountainhead of Salafist thought, is simply unacceptable. The idea that one school of Islamic thought can find another school of Islamic thought impure and that this impurity can be expunged by murdering those found impure is unacceptable.
Until the various forms of Islamic thought and Islamic culture can live together in harmony, we, Muslims and non-Muslims, have a problem. Until Kurdish Muslims and Shia Muslims, Saudi Muslims and Chechen Muslims, Iranian Muslims and Ahmadiyya can learn to live together and accept people with other religions as well as those who accept no religion we and the Muslim community will continue to have a problem. I see no solution other than that a form of "reform" Islamic thought emerge, one capable of sweeping throughout the Islamic world. And, I see no place on earth where this can begin other than in America. Let heresy flourish and let it be a safe haven.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Dianne Feinstein and Wolf Blitzer on Russian Hacking
They hacked us. . . they hacked us, cries Feinstain to Wolf. We must show this to the American public. We must place additional sanctions on Russia. My parents came from Russia, I know how they are. (And, this is a high-ranking Democrat Senator!)
Hacking among nations is a given in the world we now live in. The British do it. The Germans do it. The Chinese do it. The Israelis do it. The North Koreans do it. The Russians do it. And, we do it too. Any nation that doesn't do it is being irresponsible in terms of its own national interests. And so, although I have absolutely no inside knowledge, I assume the Russians did hack the Dem Nat'l Committee.
Did they also hack the Republican Nat'l Committee? According to Reince Prebus, the answer is no.
The RNC has safeguards on its computer system and they were never breached by hackers. This leads us to our first important conclusion. The RNC takes protecting its communications seriously. The DNC does not. I find this a powerful argument for denying to the Democratic Party the right to lead this nation in a world where any country can be the target of hacking. Their carelessness was inexcusable.
If, as alleged, the Russians did hack the DNC, why were individual Democrats sending sensitive matters over an internet they had failed to secure? Did the Russians act any differently than we would have acted if the roles were reversed?
For me there is only one question. Why did the Russians seek to undermine Hillary when she clearly would have been a so much easier president to hoodwink than the Trump people?
Hacking among nations is a given in the world we now live in. The British do it. The Germans do it. The Chinese do it. The Israelis do it. The North Koreans do it. The Russians do it. And, we do it too. Any nation that doesn't do it is being irresponsible in terms of its own national interests. And so, although I have absolutely no inside knowledge, I assume the Russians did hack the Dem Nat'l Committee.
Did they also hack the Republican Nat'l Committee? According to Reince Prebus, the answer is no.
The RNC has safeguards on its computer system and they were never breached by hackers. This leads us to our first important conclusion. The RNC takes protecting its communications seriously. The DNC does not. I find this a powerful argument for denying to the Democratic Party the right to lead this nation in a world where any country can be the target of hacking. Their carelessness was inexcusable.
If, as alleged, the Russians did hack the DNC, why were individual Democrats sending sensitive matters over an internet they had failed to secure? Did the Russians act any differently than we would have acted if the roles were reversed?
For me there is only one question. Why did the Russians seek to undermine Hillary when she clearly would have been a so much easier president to hoodwink than the Trump people?
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
America's Deep Shame -- Aleppo
Americans seem to be always presented with false choices. In the case of Iraq, people ask; should we really have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. Maybe we should have never invaded Iraq. But, in fact, invading Iraq was not the problem. The problem was the dismantling of the Baath Party. Sure, the Baath Party was the instrument by which Hussein ruled Iraq. So what? Having gotten rid of Hussein, we could have installed one of his generals.
The Baath Party was what held Iraq together. It was the entity that organized garbage collectors, teachers, policemen, utility workers, healthcare workers the military, tax collectors. By eliminating the Baath Party, America totally destroyed Iraqi society.
Sure, Hussein's replacement would hardly have been someone infused with a democratic spirit. However, he would have learned a valuable lesson; namely, that if you mess with the U.S., you'll meet the same fate as Hussein. Also, we should have divided Iraq into thirds, a Kurdish third in the north, a Sunni third, below that, and a Shiite third at the bottom. Didn't Joe Biden once make such a suggestion? Why didn't we learn anything from Yugoslavia?
But, it's the horror of Aleppo that will haunt America for generations. Obama, America's Hamlet, drew a red line for Assad. Cross this line, he said, and we will bomb you. The line was drawn at using gas warfare. Assad continued to use gas. Obama did nothing. What could he have done? Bomb Assad? Maybe, but he could have done something simpler; namely, create a no-fly zone over the area.
Actually, barrel bombs should have been included in the strategies to be denied to Assad. These bombs did more harm to civilians than they did to combatants. But, that's a fine point. A no-fly zone would have taken care of both problems.
We didn't do it. Our red line meant absolutely nothing. We relied on a Russian promise that if we didn't bomb Assad, they'd get him to stop using gas. It was an imperfect promise and on occasion Assad still used gas.
At that time, the Russians hadn't yet entered this theater. Our creating a no-fly zone would not have been a challenge to the Russians. However, once we agreed to the stupid deal we had made with them, the game was over. To now create a no-fly zone -- now as the Russians were flying over Syria with their bombers, a no-fly zone would have indeed been a challenge to the Russians.
Result: The Russians, Hezbollah, Assad's troops, and a few Iranians all joined forces to flatten Aleppo. There was absolutely no regard as to the welfare of civilians. Large number of noncombatants, women children and the wounded were murdered as they tried to escape the burning city. Were we unaware of Assad's ruthlessness? Did we not understand that Hezbollah hated Aleppo's Sunnis and were delighted to join in their massacre, something that also brought great pleasure to the Iranians? Didn't we understand the game that the Russians were playing?
A city and it's inhabitants wiped out -- and all because of America's stupidity.
The Baath Party was what held Iraq together. It was the entity that organized garbage collectors, teachers, policemen, utility workers, healthcare workers the military, tax collectors. By eliminating the Baath Party, America totally destroyed Iraqi society.
Sure, Hussein's replacement would hardly have been someone infused with a democratic spirit. However, he would have learned a valuable lesson; namely, that if you mess with the U.S., you'll meet the same fate as Hussein. Also, we should have divided Iraq into thirds, a Kurdish third in the north, a Sunni third, below that, and a Shiite third at the bottom. Didn't Joe Biden once make such a suggestion? Why didn't we learn anything from Yugoslavia?
But, it's the horror of Aleppo that will haunt America for generations. Obama, America's Hamlet, drew a red line for Assad. Cross this line, he said, and we will bomb you. The line was drawn at using gas warfare. Assad continued to use gas. Obama did nothing. What could he have done? Bomb Assad? Maybe, but he could have done something simpler; namely, create a no-fly zone over the area.
Actually, barrel bombs should have been included in the strategies to be denied to Assad. These bombs did more harm to civilians than they did to combatants. But, that's a fine point. A no-fly zone would have taken care of both problems.
We didn't do it. Our red line meant absolutely nothing. We relied on a Russian promise that if we didn't bomb Assad, they'd get him to stop using gas. It was an imperfect promise and on occasion Assad still used gas.
At that time, the Russians hadn't yet entered this theater. Our creating a no-fly zone would not have been a challenge to the Russians. However, once we agreed to the stupid deal we had made with them, the game was over. To now create a no-fly zone -- now as the Russians were flying over Syria with their bombers, a no-fly zone would have indeed been a challenge to the Russians.
Result: The Russians, Hezbollah, Assad's troops, and a few Iranians all joined forces to flatten Aleppo. There was absolutely no regard as to the welfare of civilians. Large number of noncombatants, women children and the wounded were murdered as they tried to escape the burning city. Were we unaware of Assad's ruthlessness? Did we not understand that Hezbollah hated Aleppo's Sunnis and were delighted to join in their massacre, something that also brought great pleasure to the Iranians? Didn't we understand the game that the Russians were playing?
A city and it's inhabitants wiped out -- and all because of America's stupidity.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
2016 Elections: Surprises Going Unnoticed
There are a number of surprises here that should hearten the GOP, and three in particular.
The 18 - 29 year olds ___________________
Hillary got 54% against only 37 % for Trump. 9 % presumably went to 3rd parties
However, against Obama, Romney got roughly the same 37 % as Trump, but Obama got 60 %. That's 6 % better than Hillary.
Blacks ________________________________
Hillary got 88 % against 8 % for Trump. However, Trump did very slightly better than Romney and got 8 % (a rounded off figure). But, in that 2012, Obama got 93 %. . . .5% better than Hillary.
Hispanics --------------------------------------------
Hillary got 65 % against 29 % for Trump. However, in 2012 Romney got 26 % and Obama got 71 %.
Again, Hillary found herself 7 % under what Obama had gotten and -- surprise, surprise -- Trump got 29 %. Stated another way: the spread between the GOP and the Dems was 44 % in 2012, but only
36 % in 2016. The Hispanics, it seems, are like every other American. They want jobs. Now Trump will have to deliver.
Muslims _______________________________
Muslims voted 13 % for Trump and 74 % for Hillary. That 74 % doesn't look bad compared to the 54 % (18 - 29 year olds), or the 88 % (blacks), or the 65 % (Hispanics). Trump was never going to get the black vote, or the Latino vote. And, certainly not the Muslim vote.
But, here's what's unbelievable: 13 % Muslims voted for Trump. That's almost twice as many as voted for Romney. And, while 74 % is an awfully good number, it doesn't match the 88 % the blacks gave her. This number suggests that a growing number of Muslims now see America as their country and they decided that Trump would be better for America's interests.
Republicans will probably never get the black vote. Consider the case of the late Mayor of Washington DC, Marion Barry. The man was known by the community to consort with prostitutes. He was an acknowledged drug user. He had been sent to prison for 6 mos. for violating the public trust. Nevertheless, the community returned him to office again and again. That's loyalty.
Be that as it may, the slightly greater number achieved by Trump makes clear that the GOP must continue to make its case to the African American community. Trump's comment during the election campaign was "what have you got to lose?" Now, he's got to show them what he can bring to their community.
The 18 - 29 year olds ___________________
Hillary got 54% against only 37 % for Trump. 9 % presumably went to 3rd parties
However, against Obama, Romney got roughly the same 37 % as Trump, but Obama got 60 %. That's 6 % better than Hillary.
Blacks ________________________________
Hillary got 88 % against 8 % for Trump. However, Trump did very slightly better than Romney and got 8 % (a rounded off figure). But, in that 2012, Obama got 93 %. . . .5% better than Hillary.
Hispanics --------------------------------------------
Hillary got 65 % against 29 % for Trump. However, in 2012 Romney got 26 % and Obama got 71 %.
Again, Hillary found herself 7 % under what Obama had gotten and -- surprise, surprise -- Trump got 29 %. Stated another way: the spread between the GOP and the Dems was 44 % in 2012, but only
36 % in 2016. The Hispanics, it seems, are like every other American. They want jobs. Now Trump will have to deliver.
Muslims _______________________________
Muslims voted 13 % for Trump and 74 % for Hillary. That 74 % doesn't look bad compared to the 54 % (18 - 29 year olds), or the 88 % (blacks), or the 65 % (Hispanics). Trump was never going to get the black vote, or the Latino vote. And, certainly not the Muslim vote.
But, here's what's unbelievable: 13 % Muslims voted for Trump. That's almost twice as many as voted for Romney. And, while 74 % is an awfully good number, it doesn't match the 88 % the blacks gave her. This number suggests that a growing number of Muslims now see America as their country and they decided that Trump would be better for America's interests.
Republicans will probably never get the black vote. Consider the case of the late Mayor of Washington DC, Marion Barry. The man was known by the community to consort with prostitutes. He was an acknowledged drug user. He had been sent to prison for 6 mos. for violating the public trust. Nevertheless, the community returned him to office again and again. That's loyalty.
Be that as it may, the slightly greater number achieved by Trump makes clear that the GOP must continue to make its case to the African American community. Trump's comment during the election campaign was "what have you got to lose?" Now, he's got to show them what he can bring to their community.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Islamaphobia
Islamaphobia -- an unwarranted fear of Islam. Unwarranted? Really?
The problem is that few know what islam is. Sure, women wearing burkas are generally Muslim. Yes, and like very observant Jews, the men often wear skull caps and sport beards. But are these people a threat?
Keith Ellison, the Representative from Minnesota exemplifies the problem of understanding what a Muslim is. Although, he now soft pedals his entry into Islam -- he converted to Islam from Catholicism at an early age -- records make clear that it was the Nation of Islam (NOI) to which he converted. Today, he doesn't talk much about the NOI and identifies himself more with Islam in general. Is this relevant?
Well, yes. NOI, now under the leadership of Rev. Louis Farrakhan, is an American version of Islam. By that I mean, if you trace it's origins, it was created to serve the emotional and theological needs of African Americans. A great many African Americans first encountered this form of Islam in prison. And, indeed, in many cases it made the converts into better, more positively directed people. However, in their theology they demonize white people and they have great hostility to Jews. It was when Malcolm X sought to find an Islamic path away from Farrakhan that he was murdered. This is not a form of Islam that a non-African American would associate themselves with. And, yet, NOI members seem to pose no threat to non-NOI Americans.
Over the years, Muslims like others have come to American seeking a better life. And, with time many have drifted to secularism. Catholics, Protestant and Jews have also drifted to a secular way of life. They will show allegiance to their religion, but they become less observant of the theological requirements. Catholics will practice birth control, Jews will often work on Saturday and enjoy Chinese cuisine, and Protestants will often remain unaffiliated with any Protestant Church.
Recent immigrants from Europe will generally bring their religious affiliation with them. However, Europeans also have become more secular. Among recent immigrants, it is the Muslims who largely believe that assimilation is something to be avoided. Over the years, a great Muslims immigrated to American from Lebanon. There were also Christians, Chaldeans, and other groups from that part of the world. The largest mosque in Dearborn, MI, is a Shia mosque. The Sunnis also have a mosque in nearby. There have been acts of vandalism between members of the two mosques, but that seems to have been something in the past.
The problem faced by Muslims who refuse assimilation, and the responsibilities that come with American citizenship is the continuation of Middle East practices that are illegal in the U.S. Polygamy is one such practice. Honor killings of noncompliant daughters, while infrequent, still crops up from time to time.
From what I have personally witnessed, Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims do not have a very high regard for one another. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but it's what I've observed.
There are further distinctions between Muslims. Kurds, for example, are largely Sunni and yet they differ from Iraqi Sunnis. To begin with they speak a Turkic language, not Arabic. Also, their attitude towards women is more western that that of other Muslims.
Probably the most problematic Muslims, from an American point of view, are the Salafists. These are Muslims who wish to live much as Mohammed lived. That's a problem. The cultural mores in today's American society have little in common with the mores found in the days of Mohammed. Muslims, coming under the influence of Salafists, are the ones most likely to come under the influence of ISIS. The Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia are essentially Salafists. However, they have been kept in check by the rulers of Saudi Arabia, who realize that while Salafists might be countenanced in Saudi Arabia, it doesn't travel well outside the kingdom.
I should make mention of the Ahmadiyya, who refer to themselves as Muslims, but are not so regarded by other Muslims. These are great people and love American ways.
Then there are the Sufi. I mention them only because they they should not be confused with Salafists. Sufis strive to improve themselves through meditation. I might add that what we refer to as whirling dervishes are in fact Sufis.
I don't with to end on a sour note, but except for the Kurds, the Ahmadiyya and very possible the Sufis, most Muslims don't think that Jews should have a country; at least not in the Middle East.
The careful reader will realize that I haven't mentioned the Quran. Islam actually rests on three writings; namely the Quran, the Hadith and the Sunnah. These books are the same for all Muslims. Since we can see that there are different sorts of Muslims, it should be apparent that Muslims pay greater attention to some parts of these books than to other parts. Yes, I understand that all parts of a book such as the Quran should be given equal weight. But, when sections can be read differently, this becomes a problem. In fact, a great deal of picking and choosing goes on.
The problem is that few know what islam is. Sure, women wearing burkas are generally Muslim. Yes, and like very observant Jews, the men often wear skull caps and sport beards. But are these people a threat?
Keith Ellison, the Representative from Minnesota exemplifies the problem of understanding what a Muslim is. Although, he now soft pedals his entry into Islam -- he converted to Islam from Catholicism at an early age -- records make clear that it was the Nation of Islam (NOI) to which he converted. Today, he doesn't talk much about the NOI and identifies himself more with Islam in general. Is this relevant?
Well, yes. NOI, now under the leadership of Rev. Louis Farrakhan, is an American version of Islam. By that I mean, if you trace it's origins, it was created to serve the emotional and theological needs of African Americans. A great many African Americans first encountered this form of Islam in prison. And, indeed, in many cases it made the converts into better, more positively directed people. However, in their theology they demonize white people and they have great hostility to Jews. It was when Malcolm X sought to find an Islamic path away from Farrakhan that he was murdered. This is not a form of Islam that a non-African American would associate themselves with. And, yet, NOI members seem to pose no threat to non-NOI Americans.
Over the years, Muslims like others have come to American seeking a better life. And, with time many have drifted to secularism. Catholics, Protestant and Jews have also drifted to a secular way of life. They will show allegiance to their religion, but they become less observant of the theological requirements. Catholics will practice birth control, Jews will often work on Saturday and enjoy Chinese cuisine, and Protestants will often remain unaffiliated with any Protestant Church.
Recent immigrants from Europe will generally bring their religious affiliation with them. However, Europeans also have become more secular. Among recent immigrants, it is the Muslims who largely believe that assimilation is something to be avoided. Over the years, a great Muslims immigrated to American from Lebanon. There were also Christians, Chaldeans, and other groups from that part of the world. The largest mosque in Dearborn, MI, is a Shia mosque. The Sunnis also have a mosque in nearby. There have been acts of vandalism between members of the two mosques, but that seems to have been something in the past.
The problem faced by Muslims who refuse assimilation, and the responsibilities that come with American citizenship is the continuation of Middle East practices that are illegal in the U.S. Polygamy is one such practice. Honor killings of noncompliant daughters, while infrequent, still crops up from time to time.
From what I have personally witnessed, Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims do not have a very high regard for one another. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but it's what I've observed.
There are further distinctions between Muslims. Kurds, for example, are largely Sunni and yet they differ from Iraqi Sunnis. To begin with they speak a Turkic language, not Arabic. Also, their attitude towards women is more western that that of other Muslims.
Probably the most problematic Muslims, from an American point of view, are the Salafists. These are Muslims who wish to live much as Mohammed lived. That's a problem. The cultural mores in today's American society have little in common with the mores found in the days of Mohammed. Muslims, coming under the influence of Salafists, are the ones most likely to come under the influence of ISIS. The Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia are essentially Salafists. However, they have been kept in check by the rulers of Saudi Arabia, who realize that while Salafists might be countenanced in Saudi Arabia, it doesn't travel well outside the kingdom.
I should make mention of the Ahmadiyya, who refer to themselves as Muslims, but are not so regarded by other Muslims. These are great people and love American ways.
Then there are the Sufi. I mention them only because they they should not be confused with Salafists. Sufis strive to improve themselves through meditation. I might add that what we refer to as whirling dervishes are in fact Sufis.
I don't with to end on a sour note, but except for the Kurds, the Ahmadiyya and very possible the Sufis, most Muslims don't think that Jews should have a country; at least not in the Middle East.
The careful reader will realize that I haven't mentioned the Quran. Islam actually rests on three writings; namely the Quran, the Hadith and the Sunnah. These books are the same for all Muslims. Since we can see that there are different sorts of Muslims, it should be apparent that Muslims pay greater attention to some parts of these books than to other parts. Yes, I understand that all parts of a book such as the Quran should be given equal weight. But, when sections can be read differently, this becomes a problem. In fact, a great deal of picking and choosing goes on.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
The Racism That's Emerged In This Latest Presidential Campaign (Charlie Rose)
I woke up this Friday morning and caught a bit of the end of the Charlie Rose show. There I saw Doris Kearns-Goodwin, Cokie Roberts, Walter Isaacson and Kurt Anderson discuss with Charlie Rose what might be taken away from this election. Some excellent points were made. Others not so excellent.
The best was that we, today, are in a technology revolution. The effects of this revolution are no less profound than were those of the industrial revolution; especially, on how it impacts American workers and, in fact, workers throughout the world. Not all good paying jobs went overseas. But, undoubtedly some of the worst jobs did go overseas. Just as agriculture, in Andrew Jackson's day, accounted for roughly 80% of our GDP, the industrial jobs in time began to made up a large portion of our GDP. These jobs are now giving way to service jobs and jobs in healthcare.
The effect of this on America's workers is almost as awful as the as the industrial revolution was on workers of that day. Ultimately, these revolution greatly improve the quality of everyone's lives, but they are hell on the workers when they are in the process of taking place.
What do we tell our workers? That we are going to retrain them? Do you really expect to retrain workers in their late 40's and early 50's. We must find and establish programs to help these workers, but it is not the intention of this blog posting to make such suggestions here and now. Rather it is to point out what happens when such changes take place.
Racism and anti-Semitism (closely allied phenomena) are likely to arise. People find it convenient to scape goat someone, or some group, for their unhappiness. After the Civil War, these unworthy people, the blacks -- unworthy in the eyes of the lower class -- were taking away their livelihood. It wasn't fair. Who were these blacks to strive for jobs that weren't available even to whites? Add to that, blacks could go to a college and generally get a scholarship through affirmative action. These routes to a higher education are generally unavailable to whites. Turn on your TV and what do you see? You see more black people reading the weather reports and commenting on news channels. And, what of the black kids from the family of a wealthy automobile distributor, or from the family of a successful liquor distributor. Aren't they also getting scholarships simply because their color? And, then you have the Jews, people who always seem able to push their way to the head of the line.
What I find surprising is that while we have both racism and anti-Semitism. They are currently at a low level. Nevertheless, exceptions exist. College campuses are one such exception. Here you can now find rampant anti-Semitism. This, however, is fueled largely by pro-Palestinian activists and left oriented instructors and students. Such campus activists are often well funded and can make life pretty awful for Jewish students.
Blacks, on the other hand find relatively few on-campus displays of racist hostility on American campuses. Nevertheless, among some students, anti-black sentiments do exist.
Is there racism? Of course, but not nearly what it once was. As regards anti-Semitism, this has reemerged.
Some would dispute what was noted above. Such dissenters are likely to include protesters who have met in large cities for the last three nights to break store window and set cars afire.
The best was that we, today, are in a technology revolution. The effects of this revolution are no less profound than were those of the industrial revolution; especially, on how it impacts American workers and, in fact, workers throughout the world. Not all good paying jobs went overseas. But, undoubtedly some of the worst jobs did go overseas. Just as agriculture, in Andrew Jackson's day, accounted for roughly 80% of our GDP, the industrial jobs in time began to made up a large portion of our GDP. These jobs are now giving way to service jobs and jobs in healthcare.
The effect of this on America's workers is almost as awful as the as the industrial revolution was on workers of that day. Ultimately, these revolution greatly improve the quality of everyone's lives, but they are hell on the workers when they are in the process of taking place.
What do we tell our workers? That we are going to retrain them? Do you really expect to retrain workers in their late 40's and early 50's. We must find and establish programs to help these workers, but it is not the intention of this blog posting to make such suggestions here and now. Rather it is to point out what happens when such changes take place.
Racism and anti-Semitism (closely allied phenomena) are likely to arise. People find it convenient to scape goat someone, or some group, for their unhappiness. After the Civil War, these unworthy people, the blacks -- unworthy in the eyes of the lower class -- were taking away their livelihood. It wasn't fair. Who were these blacks to strive for jobs that weren't available even to whites? Add to that, blacks could go to a college and generally get a scholarship through affirmative action. These routes to a higher education are generally unavailable to whites. Turn on your TV and what do you see? You see more black people reading the weather reports and commenting on news channels. And, what of the black kids from the family of a wealthy automobile distributor, or from the family of a successful liquor distributor. Aren't they also getting scholarships simply because their color? And, then you have the Jews, people who always seem able to push their way to the head of the line.
What I find surprising is that while we have both racism and anti-Semitism. They are currently at a low level. Nevertheless, exceptions exist. College campuses are one such exception. Here you can now find rampant anti-Semitism. This, however, is fueled largely by pro-Palestinian activists and left oriented instructors and students. Such campus activists are often well funded and can make life pretty awful for Jewish students.
Blacks, on the other hand find relatively few on-campus displays of racist hostility on American campuses. Nevertheless, among some students, anti-black sentiments do exist.
Is there racism? Of course, but not nearly what it once was. As regards anti-Semitism, this has reemerged.
Some would dispute what was noted above. Such dissenters are likely to include protesters who have met in large cities for the last three nights to break store window and set cars afire.
Friday, November 11, 2016
This Snow Bird Has Arrived In FL
There's been a hiatus in my postings to this blog. It's resulted from the time and energy needed to make the move from NY to FL and then, later, back again. Things have now settled down and you can once again look forward to my sensible and, at times, politically incorrect observations.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
What Trump Should Say in Tonight's Debate.
The state of our union is clear to most of us. The economy is inching along. Jobs are unavailable to large segments of our society, our foreign policy has lost to us nations that should be our strongest supporters. I believe in trade, but it's got to be fair trade. I realize that America is a country of immigrants, but immigrants require absorption into our society and into our economy. The numbers in recent years have been enormous, and there's been no documentation. We've had no equivalent to Ellis Island. I do feel for the Syrians who've been subjected to genocidal treatment by ISIS and barrel bombing by Assad.
But, we've seen in Europe what happens if you expose yourself to Islamic extremists. We've even had a taste of it here in the U.S. That doesn't mean we can't do something for these people, but that doesn't mean the answer lies in admitting tens of thousands to our country; people who practice polygamy, who find "honor killings" acceptable, and who would wish to impose Islamic Sharia law on our society. Not all Muslims fit this description, but a great many do. We have to know what we're doing. Germany clearly did not. Nor did many of nations of the EU who are now facing the anger of their own citizens. I don't want that to happen here in America and I don't think you do either.
But, what is apparent to many Americans is that I am a flawed human. I said things 11 eleven years ago that should never be said; not by boys in the locker room, not by men who have entered entered middle age. Women who are now coming out after 20 and 30 years present American citizenry with another problem. There is no question that a very great number of women have experienced groping and that an unconscionable number of women have experienced rape. I hope you would not believe I am such a person. I still haven't been charged with rape but I have been charged with groping. And, of that I am innocent. The regrettable thoughts and words I used were real. The rest of it is not.
I am an imperfect candidate and against a perfect candidate I would deserve to lose this election. But, here is what I would never do. I would not allow our tax department to decide what sort of nonprofits deserved to get tax breaks on the basis of whether they were viewed as friends of mine or opponents. Regardless of the time of day or night, I would be there to act to the best of my abilities regarding impending threats to the lives or our people regardless of their rank and especially ambassadors whose travel to hazardous areas I had approved. I would never disregard the directives of our security personnel regarding the manner in which I should be communicating. Nor would I upon visiting foreign countries disregard the advice of security people who had planned for my arrival and had provided an especially secured vehicle to transport myself and our ambassador to his offices, in favor of traveling in a less secured vehicle with my personal secretary.
There's a lot more I wouldn't do, like painting red lines that I would then casually disregard. Human rights are important, but if two nations, each with questionable records on human rights, are threatening one another, or feeling threatened, I would support the nation that has been our friend for generations. When our businesses are beleaguered by out-of-date tax codes, I would work with Congress to simplify and make more rational such codes.
I would work to improve the lives of people living in crime ridden parts of our cities. We must do more for our people, whether black, white, yellow, or brown. It's been my experience that all people want what's best for their kids. We need programs and the kind of education that will help them fulfill their dreams.
There's a lot more I would do, but let me end with immigration. I have promised to secure our borders and a wall between the U.S. and Mexico is a part of that promise. And, where illegal immigrants have engaged in serious criminal behavior I would remove them from our nation post haste. But, all of us must acknowledge that, by means fair or not, some immigrants have adopted our culture, have worked strenuously to support themselves and their children, and have risen to positions of responsibility in their communities. These people, through their acts and hard work, have become de facto Americans; indeed, often outstanding Americans. We must clean up the records, but we must do it in a way that rewards good people; not simply in a manner that we think will build our voting blocs.
Good night and God bless.
But, we've seen in Europe what happens if you expose yourself to Islamic extremists. We've even had a taste of it here in the U.S. That doesn't mean we can't do something for these people, but that doesn't mean the answer lies in admitting tens of thousands to our country; people who practice polygamy, who find "honor killings" acceptable, and who would wish to impose Islamic Sharia law on our society. Not all Muslims fit this description, but a great many do. We have to know what we're doing. Germany clearly did not. Nor did many of nations of the EU who are now facing the anger of their own citizens. I don't want that to happen here in America and I don't think you do either.
But, what is apparent to many Americans is that I am a flawed human. I said things 11 eleven years ago that should never be said; not by boys in the locker room, not by men who have entered entered middle age. Women who are now coming out after 20 and 30 years present American citizenry with another problem. There is no question that a very great number of women have experienced groping and that an unconscionable number of women have experienced rape. I hope you would not believe I am such a person. I still haven't been charged with rape but I have been charged with groping. And, of that I am innocent. The regrettable thoughts and words I used were real. The rest of it is not.
I am an imperfect candidate and against a perfect candidate I would deserve to lose this election. But, here is what I would never do. I would not allow our tax department to decide what sort of nonprofits deserved to get tax breaks on the basis of whether they were viewed as friends of mine or opponents. Regardless of the time of day or night, I would be there to act to the best of my abilities regarding impending threats to the lives or our people regardless of their rank and especially ambassadors whose travel to hazardous areas I had approved. I would never disregard the directives of our security personnel regarding the manner in which I should be communicating. Nor would I upon visiting foreign countries disregard the advice of security people who had planned for my arrival and had provided an especially secured vehicle to transport myself and our ambassador to his offices, in favor of traveling in a less secured vehicle with my personal secretary.
There's a lot more I wouldn't do, like painting red lines that I would then casually disregard. Human rights are important, but if two nations, each with questionable records on human rights, are threatening one another, or feeling threatened, I would support the nation that has been our friend for generations. When our businesses are beleaguered by out-of-date tax codes, I would work with Congress to simplify and make more rational such codes.
I would work to improve the lives of people living in crime ridden parts of our cities. We must do more for our people, whether black, white, yellow, or brown. It's been my experience that all people want what's best for their kids. We need programs and the kind of education that will help them fulfill their dreams.
There's a lot more I would do, but let me end with immigration. I have promised to secure our borders and a wall between the U.S. and Mexico is a part of that promise. And, where illegal immigrants have engaged in serious criminal behavior I would remove them from our nation post haste. But, all of us must acknowledge that, by means fair or not, some immigrants have adopted our culture, have worked strenuously to support themselves and their children, and have risen to positions of responsibility in their communities. These people, through their acts and hard work, have become de facto Americans; indeed, often outstanding Americans. We must clean up the records, but we must do it in a way that rewards good people; not simply in a manner that we think will build our voting blocs.
Good night and God bless.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Trump: The Flawed Messenger
What America desperately wants and needs is an overhaul of how America does business. Most know that our policies in the Middle East have been a disaster. Most know that it's high time that we overhaul our tax code. Obama made a move in that direction with his Bowles-Simpson commission. Regrettably, the commission's recommendations were given short shrift by Obama and the Democrats. We have a great military, but it's been allowed to sink in its capabilities. Our planes and ships are old. You can give this equipment to the finest men, but it puts them at great disadvantage. This is what you get when you have business being done as usual.
Trump promises to end business-as-usual. Can he do it? Who knows ? But he seems like a person who will give it his best. The same can not be said for Hillary. That's clear from what she has communicated to her backers. Proving that major donors wanted quid pro quo for their money, can be difficult to prove. But the amount of money involved and the interests of the donors make it difficult to dismiss what's behind their generosity. Normally, we wouldn't get to see what's been going on behind closed doors. But, suddenly computer technology and its use by hackers has enabled us to see what actually has been going on. It's not pretty.
If you're looking for a messenger to clean up our ship of state, Trump's your man. But there's a problem; namely, his great flaw. What he was caught saying about women was taped 11 years ago. But, that's besides the point. He should never have uttered those words. His conversations with Howard Stern are equally disturbing. However, women coming out, after 20 and 30 years, saying he had groped them are highly suspect.
But messengers have historically been flawed individuals. Saul, the first king of the Jews, is one example. David, the king who built the first Temple, was also flawed. Napoleon, a great leader, was deeply flawed as was Thomas Edison. We would prefer our leaders to be free of flaws. But, sometimes it's important to have the services of a new leader despite his flaws.
Trump promises to end business-as-usual. Can he do it? Who knows ? But he seems like a person who will give it his best. The same can not be said for Hillary. That's clear from what she has communicated to her backers. Proving that major donors wanted quid pro quo for their money, can be difficult to prove. But the amount of money involved and the interests of the donors make it difficult to dismiss what's behind their generosity. Normally, we wouldn't get to see what's been going on behind closed doors. But, suddenly computer technology and its use by hackers has enabled us to see what actually has been going on. It's not pretty.
If you're looking for a messenger to clean up our ship of state, Trump's your man. But there's a problem; namely, his great flaw. What he was caught saying about women was taped 11 years ago. But, that's besides the point. He should never have uttered those words. His conversations with Howard Stern are equally disturbing. However, women coming out, after 20 and 30 years, saying he had groped them are highly suspect.
But messengers have historically been flawed individuals. Saul, the first king of the Jews, is one example. David, the king who built the first Temple, was also flawed. Napoleon, a great leader, was deeply flawed as was Thomas Edison. We would prefer our leaders to be free of flaws. But, sometimes it's important to have the services of a new leader despite his flaws.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Trump / Hillary -- Between a Rock and a Hard Place
For me this presidential election leaves me with two equally unpleasant choices. Trump or Hillary?
What are my key concerns?
The economy
I heard a Harvard prof explain that there was no shortage of jobs -- for those with an education.
Those with little or no education will continue to finds jobs scarce and the pay poor. In other words to help more people find jobs America needs to find a way to increase the education of its people.
But the economic road also needs the right policies on fiscal and monetary matters. Monetary matters are the responsibility of the Federal Reserve. The problem is mainly with fiscal policy which is mainly the responsibility of Congress. Obama called for a commission of Democrats and Republicans to draw up a fiscal plan. That was the Simpson-Bowles Commission. It was a workman like plan, but got no support from Obama.
Hillary wants to spend. Trump wants to cut taxes. Both approaches are deeply flawed. However, once elected I believe Trump could deal with vested interests better than Hillary.
American Overseas Strategy.
I believe Hillary would be tied to Obama's policies. Since our policies must have a strong military behind them, I would favor Trump.
Personal character
Hillary has been found to lie on numerous occasions. Trump is being taken to task by inappropriate remarks he made 10 and 20 years ago. Maybe he did make those remarks. It pales in significance to the issues that concern me. I suspect any politician who has made as much money as the Clintons have from the sale of their influence while in government.
What are my key concerns?
The economy
I heard a Harvard prof explain that there was no shortage of jobs -- for those with an education.
Those with little or no education will continue to finds jobs scarce and the pay poor. In other words to help more people find jobs America needs to find a way to increase the education of its people.
But the economic road also needs the right policies on fiscal and monetary matters. Monetary matters are the responsibility of the Federal Reserve. The problem is mainly with fiscal policy which is mainly the responsibility of Congress. Obama called for a commission of Democrats and Republicans to draw up a fiscal plan. That was the Simpson-Bowles Commission. It was a workman like plan, but got no support from Obama.
Hillary wants to spend. Trump wants to cut taxes. Both approaches are deeply flawed. However, once elected I believe Trump could deal with vested interests better than Hillary.
American Overseas Strategy.
I believe Hillary would be tied to Obama's policies. Since our policies must have a strong military behind them, I would favor Trump.
Personal character
Hillary has been found to lie on numerous occasions. Trump is being taken to task by inappropriate remarks he made 10 and 20 years ago. Maybe he did make those remarks. It pales in significance to the issues that concern me. I suspect any politician who has made as much money as the Clintons have from the sale of their influence while in government.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Why Trump?
After the less-than-stellar first debate with Hillary, I've been asked why I still favor Trump?
A. How we get our candidates and how have they done?
FDR -- Knew how to speak to the American public and was guided in many of his best works by his wife Eleanor. We should have helped the British a year or sooner than we did. Had we done so our actual casualties would have been much, much lower, but the American public wasn't ready until we were hit by Pearl Harbor.
Truman -- A nonentity who rose to greatness. He saw the world as it was and acted accordingly. He also integrated our military and did great good as regards civil rights. (He also properly put Gen. McArthur in his place.)
Eisenhower -- Kept the country on an even keel. Cut down McCarthy, when he threatened to probe the army for communist. Built America's highway system. Kept us out of Vietnam.
JFK -- Loved by Americans who, today, forget that it was he who put us into the Vietnam quagmire.
This was an even greater disaster than the Bay of Pigs.
LBJ -- Couldn't work his way out of JFK's disastrous war.
Nixon -- Was great on civil rights. Along with Kissinger, he negotiated a rapprochement with China and got us out of Vietnam. His sin: trying to cover up the Watergate break in.
Ford -- Pardoned Nixon
Carter -- Ineffectual. No friend of Israel.
Reagan -- Oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Bush (elder) -- Raised taxes despite his "read my lips" promise. Again, no friend of Israel.
Clinton -- Worked remarkably well with a Republican Congress.
Bush W -- He signaled the end of the conflict in the middle east when it was far from ended. He commended the work of a Mr. Brown who proved to be a disaster in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Bush was largely as good or as bad as his advisors.
Obama -- Worked not at all well with Congress. Pushed through deeply flawed health care legislation. Tried to force Israel into what would have been a disastrous agreement with the Palestinians. Bypassed Congress to sign a deeply flawed agreement with Iran. Declared "red lines" which were never supported by action. Saw a sharp deterioration in race relations.
B. So what can we expect from a Trump presidency? Here are my guesses:
He would negotiate with Congress far better than Obama. He understands what makes an economy function well far better than do people on the left. He understands governmental flaws which he's observed first hand through his years in the construction business. I believe he sees the world as it is and would deal with it accordingly.
C. Now let's look at the charges that have been directed at Trump.
1. He used tax loopholes to reduce his taxes -- Consequently he pays little or no taxes.
But that, of course, is what very wealthy business people do. That's why they hire great accountants, people who can find those loopholes. Not to take advantage of loopholes is poor business practice. If loopholes are unfair or work against the interests of the American public, then let's get rid of loopholes. In pursuing this matter, I believe Trump would be far better than Hillary who is all too ready to accept the money of lobbyists, the very people whose job it is to create loopholes.
2. Trump makes Trump ties overseas -- As a businessman, Trump has few options. Who in America makes their ties in the States? We could, I suppose, manipulate rules and regulations to make the importation of ties uneconomical. But is that really what we want to focus on? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?
3. Trump is a misogynist (his cruel words about a beauty contestant's weight) -- I researched this charge. The first thing to note is that this matter is 20 years old. I then went to You Tube and put in "1997 press conference Trump and Machado." There was nothing said in that conference that was inappropriate. Check for yourself. His past comments (11 years ago) have been deplorable. But, overall, is he better or worse for America than Hillary?
4. His disparaging of the Khan family who's son died in the service of the American military --
This was just plain stupid. Granted, it's hard being lectured to by an immigrant who waves about a copy of the Constitution. But, that's what it's like on the campaign trail. As stupid as this was for Trump to do, it wasn't disqualifying.
D. Where Trump should focus his attack:
1. Benghazi
2. Hillary's private server and her many lies in her attempt to cover up her emails. Then too there's the smashing of her cell phones after they were subpoenaed.
3. The Attorney General's cloak of protection that he spreads over Hillary.
4. There is the very real possibility that Hillary would pursue Obama's policies.
5. The risk of Hillary picking Supreme Court judges that would move the Court far to the left.
6. Hillary's use of her foundation to raise money in a way that allows the money to be spent anyway she chooses without oversight.
7. The raising of hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches to banks and foreign countries like Russia deserves to be aired.
8. Hillary's facilitating the purchase by Russia of 20% of America's uranium stockpile. (She'd do anything to make a buck even if it hurts America.)
A. How we get our candidates and how have they done?
FDR -- Knew how to speak to the American public and was guided in many of his best works by his wife Eleanor. We should have helped the British a year or sooner than we did. Had we done so our actual casualties would have been much, much lower, but the American public wasn't ready until we were hit by Pearl Harbor.
Truman -- A nonentity who rose to greatness. He saw the world as it was and acted accordingly. He also integrated our military and did great good as regards civil rights. (He also properly put Gen. McArthur in his place.)
Eisenhower -- Kept the country on an even keel. Cut down McCarthy, when he threatened to probe the army for communist. Built America's highway system. Kept us out of Vietnam.
JFK -- Loved by Americans who, today, forget that it was he who put us into the Vietnam quagmire.
This was an even greater disaster than the Bay of Pigs.
LBJ -- Couldn't work his way out of JFK's disastrous war.
Nixon -- Was great on civil rights. Along with Kissinger, he negotiated a rapprochement with China and got us out of Vietnam. His sin: trying to cover up the Watergate break in.
Ford -- Pardoned Nixon
Carter -- Ineffectual. No friend of Israel.
Reagan -- Oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Bush (elder) -- Raised taxes despite his "read my lips" promise. Again, no friend of Israel.
Clinton -- Worked remarkably well with a Republican Congress.
Bush W -- He signaled the end of the conflict in the middle east when it was far from ended. He commended the work of a Mr. Brown who proved to be a disaster in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Bush was largely as good or as bad as his advisors.
Obama -- Worked not at all well with Congress. Pushed through deeply flawed health care legislation. Tried to force Israel into what would have been a disastrous agreement with the Palestinians. Bypassed Congress to sign a deeply flawed agreement with Iran. Declared "red lines" which were never supported by action. Saw a sharp deterioration in race relations.
B. So what can we expect from a Trump presidency? Here are my guesses:
He would negotiate with Congress far better than Obama. He understands what makes an economy function well far better than do people on the left. He understands governmental flaws which he's observed first hand through his years in the construction business. I believe he sees the world as it is and would deal with it accordingly.
C. Now let's look at the charges that have been directed at Trump.
1. He used tax loopholes to reduce his taxes -- Consequently he pays little or no taxes.
But that, of course, is what very wealthy business people do. That's why they hire great accountants, people who can find those loopholes. Not to take advantage of loopholes is poor business practice. If loopholes are unfair or work against the interests of the American public, then let's get rid of loopholes. In pursuing this matter, I believe Trump would be far better than Hillary who is all too ready to accept the money of lobbyists, the very people whose job it is to create loopholes.
2. Trump makes Trump ties overseas -- As a businessman, Trump has few options. Who in America makes their ties in the States? We could, I suppose, manipulate rules and regulations to make the importation of ties uneconomical. But is that really what we want to focus on? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?
3. Trump is a misogynist (his cruel words about a beauty contestant's weight) -- I researched this charge. The first thing to note is that this matter is 20 years old. I then went to You Tube and put in "1997 press conference Trump and Machado." There was nothing said in that conference that was inappropriate. Check for yourself. His past comments (11 years ago) have been deplorable. But, overall, is he better or worse for America than Hillary?
4. His disparaging of the Khan family who's son died in the service of the American military --
This was just plain stupid. Granted, it's hard being lectured to by an immigrant who waves about a copy of the Constitution. But, that's what it's like on the campaign trail. As stupid as this was for Trump to do, it wasn't disqualifying.
D. Where Trump should focus his attack:
1. Benghazi
2. Hillary's private server and her many lies in her attempt to cover up her emails. Then too there's the smashing of her cell phones after they were subpoenaed.
3. The Attorney General's cloak of protection that he spreads over Hillary.
4. There is the very real possibility that Hillary would pursue Obama's policies.
5. The risk of Hillary picking Supreme Court judges that would move the Court far to the left.
6. Hillary's use of her foundation to raise money in a way that allows the money to be spent anyway she chooses without oversight.
7. The raising of hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches to banks and foreign countries like Russia deserves to be aired.
8. Hillary's facilitating the purchase by Russia of 20% of America's uranium stockpile. (She'd do anything to make a buck even if it hurts America.)
Friday, September 16, 2016
PUMA (Political Unity My Ass) Movement
I checked to see who started the birther thing regarding Obama. I found it came from a group that referred to itself as PUMA (Political Unity My Ass). This was a group of pro-Hillary Clinton people who in 2008 felt that Hillary and not Obama should be the Democratic nominee for president. They felt Hillary had been cheated and they were not going to take it lying down. It was they who first questioned Obama's place of birth.
They argued that Obama's mother had lived with his father for a short period of time in Kenya and that, because of her pregnancy, she was not allowed to travel by air back to Hawaii for Obama's birth. This was false. But, it was Hillary supporters who nurtured this rumor, not Trump. Only much later did Trump say that maybe PUMA might have had it right. He no doubt should have examined this issue more thoroughly, but he had nothing to do with starting the rumor. It was indeed the Hillary people who did that. But, of course, by this time we know Hillary is really good at establishing deniability when it comes to anything she might have done or did not do.
They argued that Obama's mother had lived with his father for a short period of time in Kenya and that, because of her pregnancy, she was not allowed to travel by air back to Hawaii for Obama's birth. This was false. But, it was Hillary supporters who nurtured this rumor, not Trump. Only much later did Trump say that maybe PUMA might have had it right. He no doubt should have examined this issue more thoroughly, but he had nothing to do with starting the rumor. It was indeed the Hillary people who did that. But, of course, by this time we know Hillary is really good at establishing deniability when it comes to anything she might have done or did not do.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Trump, Putin, Russia And The Clintons
The Democrats seem to have gotten their knickers in a twist over Trump saying that Putin was a great leader and that traits of leadership were to be admired. That's not a direct quote but I do believe it's the essence of what he said.
Frankly I'm wondering as to what is so terrible about what Trump said. Can terrible people be great leaders? Were Chairman Mao, or Stalin, or Gen. Pinochet, or Kamal Ataturk great leaders? Was JFK sending thousands of armed "observers" to Vietnam a great leader? And, what about Merkel of Germany and her immigration policy? And what about Gen. Mac Arthur and his flawed assessment as to what China would, or what not do; judgments that left our soldiers unprepared and needlessly cost thousands of American lives?
Answering those questions shows just how quixotic are our concepts of leadership. Does leadership depend on the merit of the goals being pursued by the "leader," or does it depend on a man, or woman's, success in pursuing those goals? What Trump was saying was that Putin has been remarkably successful in pursuing his goals, whether in Georgia, in the Ukraine, in Crimea, or in the middle east.
In all those areas, Putin's success has been counter to what America had wished and hoped for. But, to what do you attribute success? To your hopes and dreams or to achieving your goals. It must gall the Democrats to see Putin's success when it clearly highlights Obama's lack of leadership and a lack of leadership that has also marked the Clintons.
Putin draws no red lines. He simply puts men and weapons where they will serve his ends. How different from Obama who give warnings and makes empty threats. Is this how we define American leadership? It also explains why he feels free to set conditions for Israel. Who else is obliged to listen to his empty words?
If you were Putin and you wanted to increase your sources of uranium, would it enhance your respect for America to find that you could get a hold of a chunk of their critical stockpile? All you had to do was pay a half a million dollars for one of the stupid speeches of their loud mouth, ex-presidenta, Bill Clinton.
It must be great to be the Clintons. You can take Putin's money and stick it in your back pocket and the next day berate your political opponent for saying something positive about the man who just paid you for a chunk of America's stockpile.
Frankly I'm wondering as to what is so terrible about what Trump said. Can terrible people be great leaders? Were Chairman Mao, or Stalin, or Gen. Pinochet, or Kamal Ataturk great leaders? Was JFK sending thousands of armed "observers" to Vietnam a great leader? And, what about Merkel of Germany and her immigration policy? And what about Gen. Mac Arthur and his flawed assessment as to what China would, or what not do; judgments that left our soldiers unprepared and needlessly cost thousands of American lives?
Answering those questions shows just how quixotic are our concepts of leadership. Does leadership depend on the merit of the goals being pursued by the "leader," or does it depend on a man, or woman's, success in pursuing those goals? What Trump was saying was that Putin has been remarkably successful in pursuing his goals, whether in Georgia, in the Ukraine, in Crimea, or in the middle east.
In all those areas, Putin's success has been counter to what America had wished and hoped for. But, to what do you attribute success? To your hopes and dreams or to achieving your goals. It must gall the Democrats to see Putin's success when it clearly highlights Obama's lack of leadership and a lack of leadership that has also marked the Clintons.
Putin draws no red lines. He simply puts men and weapons where they will serve his ends. How different from Obama who give warnings and makes empty threats. Is this how we define American leadership? It also explains why he feels free to set conditions for Israel. Who else is obliged to listen to his empty words?
If you were Putin and you wanted to increase your sources of uranium, would it enhance your respect for America to find that you could get a hold of a chunk of their critical stockpile? All you had to do was pay a half a million dollars for one of the stupid speeches of their loud mouth, ex-presidenta, Bill Clinton.
It must be great to be the Clintons. You can take Putin's money and stick it in your back pocket and the next day berate your political opponent for saying something positive about the man who just paid you for a chunk of America's stockpile.
Monday, September 12, 2016
I Guess I'm Simply A "Deplorable"
So, I'm now a "deplorable." I'm probably also a racist and an Islamophobe. And, except for one detail, I find I fit that profile. I'm not a millennial. I'm white. But, I do have a college education -- three degrees, in fact, from highly respected colleges.
So how did I fall to such a depth? I became a Trump supporter. What is it that troubles me about an influx of Muslim refugees? The first thing that comes to mind is their blocking streets in New York City when they're called to prayer. Our streets are public thoroughfares. They're meant to facilitate traffic through the city. They shouldn't be praying in the middle of the street. Prayer is a religious act, and I have noting against religious acts per se as long as they don't interfere with the general public. No other religious group in America would do such a thing. Yes, we do have protests and, yes, we do have parades. In addition, we have freedom of speech. But, we also have separation of church and state. This has all been worked out and is understood by Americans, but it is something so many Muslims just don't get.
Muslims do things that may be fine in Islamic countries but that I as an American find objectionable. The other day I went to Nickerson Beach in Nassau County, New York. The public beach club has a pool in addition to the beach itself. As I passed the pool, I noticed three ladies with their flowing black burka robes swimming in the pool. Burkinis are one thing but swimming in the pool with yards and yards of black cloth is quite another. Perhaps I should not bother to change into swimming trunks. Perhaps I should just take off my shoes and jump into the pool with my jeans, shirt and socks.
But why wouldn't I do it? Is there a law that forbids it? No one asks such questions. It's just not America's custom to behave in such a way in a public pool. Muslims don't get it. And, then when the wet, burka wearers leave the pool, they go to the women's restrooms and use the electric hand driers to dry their yards of fabric. This of course denies the other women in the restroom the ability to use the driers for the purpose for which they were intended; namely, to dry their hands.
Most Muslims in America have the same hopes and ambitions as other Americans. However, a small number, especially those who come as refugees from Islamic countries, wish to live in the manner of Mohammed. They're called Salafists. And, in America it's virtually impossible to live that way. As a Salafist, you try to live by Islamic law, known as Sharia. This law violates American law in numerous ways. In my opinion (note: the opinion of a "deplorable" and an Islamophobe) I would deny entry to any Muslim, and especially Imams, who wish to live the way Mohammed lived.
Then too most refugees from Islamic countries carry with them anti -Semitic attitudes. I don't think its legal to exclude a person who's anti-Semitic, but, as a Jew, it scares me.
So how did I fall to such a depth? I became a Trump supporter. What is it that troubles me about an influx of Muslim refugees? The first thing that comes to mind is their blocking streets in New York City when they're called to prayer. Our streets are public thoroughfares. They're meant to facilitate traffic through the city. They shouldn't be praying in the middle of the street. Prayer is a religious act, and I have noting against religious acts per se as long as they don't interfere with the general public. No other religious group in America would do such a thing. Yes, we do have protests and, yes, we do have parades. In addition, we have freedom of speech. But, we also have separation of church and state. This has all been worked out and is understood by Americans, but it is something so many Muslims just don't get.
Muslims do things that may be fine in Islamic countries but that I as an American find objectionable. The other day I went to Nickerson Beach in Nassau County, New York. The public beach club has a pool in addition to the beach itself. As I passed the pool, I noticed three ladies with their flowing black burka robes swimming in the pool. Burkinis are one thing but swimming in the pool with yards and yards of black cloth is quite another. Perhaps I should not bother to change into swimming trunks. Perhaps I should just take off my shoes and jump into the pool with my jeans, shirt and socks.
But why wouldn't I do it? Is there a law that forbids it? No one asks such questions. It's just not America's custom to behave in such a way in a public pool. Muslims don't get it. And, then when the wet, burka wearers leave the pool, they go to the women's restrooms and use the electric hand driers to dry their yards of fabric. This of course denies the other women in the restroom the ability to use the driers for the purpose for which they were intended; namely, to dry their hands.
Most Muslims in America have the same hopes and ambitions as other Americans. However, a small number, especially those who come as refugees from Islamic countries, wish to live in the manner of Mohammed. They're called Salafists. And, in America it's virtually impossible to live that way. As a Salafist, you try to live by Islamic law, known as Sharia. This law violates American law in numerous ways. In my opinion (note: the opinion of a "deplorable" and an Islamophobe) I would deny entry to any Muslim, and especially Imams, who wish to live the way Mohammed lived.
Then too most refugees from Islamic countries carry with them anti -Semitic attitudes. I don't think its legal to exclude a person who's anti-Semitic, but, as a Jew, it scares me.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
The Lauer Commander-In-Chief Forum: Hillary vs. Trump
I thought Trump won in this contest with Hillary despite what appeared to be his lack of background in foreign affairs and his admiration for Putin.
First, to Trump's lack of background in foreign affairs. Trump, as we know, came from civilian life. He is probably no more aware of the fine points of foreign policy than you or I. But is that disqualifying? Truman knew almost nothing of the negotiants that FDR had conducted with Stalin. That's the way FDR wanted it. Truman's first day was like walking into a buzz saw. And, yet, he turned out to be a great president.
Nixon was great in the area of foreign affairs, but this was largely because he was guided by Kissinger. And, while he may have been wound a bit tight, Nixon was a champion in the field of civil rights.
The much loved JFK put us squarely into Vietnam. Need I say more? (For those who doubt this, I suggest they read The Best and The Brightest by David Halberstam.)
How much did Obama know when he entered office with his one, lack luster year in the Senate and his background as a community organizer?
As to Iraq, nobody got it right. I do not feel that invading Iraq was a mistake. The mistake came when they disassembled Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. It was this organization that held Iraq together. Firing everyone who belonged to the Baath Party -- the teachers, the police, military officers, garbage collectors, etc. -- was what tore this country apart. And, this was done, I might add, by American experts; namely, our State Department.
Before going on to Hillary's performance, let me first comment on Trump's favorable comments as regards Putin. I believe Trump said, in so many words, that there was much to admire in Putin's leadership qualities and that he felt he could arrive at understandings with Putin. That really brought out Trump's critics. Doesn't Trump know that Putin is a killer who jails journalists if they write anything about him that is unflattering? Doesn't he know that in all likelihood Putin has been hacking into America's files?
It's difficult to grasp the hypocrisy of these critics. Of course, we know that Putin manages affairs in Russia in a manner we would find abhorrent in America. But not realizing that Putin wants certain things in the area of foreign affairs and that, to date, he's been successful in getting them is to be blind. What Trump, or Hillary, or Obama say about their feelings as regards Putin's actions is irrelevant. It's what we do that counts. What did the the U.S. (or Europe) do when he tore off chunks of Georgia. What did we do when he occupied Crimea and then put Russian fighters into the Ukraine?
When a leader barrel bombs his own civilians, as did Assad, a strong case can be made for keeping the skies clear of his planes and helicopters. We don't have to stand by as he murders civilians. But that's what, under Obama, we did. Putin quickly understood that he could take advantage of our lack of response. That's when he brought in Russian planes to protect Assad's air force. It's not that Putin was so brilliant, but rather that the U.S. was so negligent in protecting its interests. And, I don't even want to talk about "red lines" and then doing nothing when these red lines are crossed. It's too embarrassing. What would Trump do in these circumstances? I have no idea, but he couldn't do much worse.
As to hacking: Face up to it. It's the new arm of warfare. Scolding Russia is not the answer. Protecting ourselves from the hackers and getting better at hacking than the Chinese and the Russians is the correct answer.
Okay, now on to Hillary's performance. Having been part of the Obama administration, clearly makes her vulnerable to attacks -- quite valid attacks -- on the administration's foreign policies. To say her failures make her more capable to perform in the future as president sounds, to this observer, unconvincing. And, then there is her lack of truth and candor as regards her handling of confidential information. That will plague her professional life as long as she has one. But then, I don't believe she worries about that all that much. She always has her foundation to fall back on.
I also find amusing the criticism being heaped on Matt Lauer for trying to rein in Hillary as she tried to obfuscate and explain away her mishandling of confidential information and then lying about it. Doesn't he know that he's part of the media and that he's been tasked to hide Hillary's flaws and to make her look as good as is possible.
First, to Trump's lack of background in foreign affairs. Trump, as we know, came from civilian life. He is probably no more aware of the fine points of foreign policy than you or I. But is that disqualifying? Truman knew almost nothing of the negotiants that FDR had conducted with Stalin. That's the way FDR wanted it. Truman's first day was like walking into a buzz saw. And, yet, he turned out to be a great president.
Nixon was great in the area of foreign affairs, but this was largely because he was guided by Kissinger. And, while he may have been wound a bit tight, Nixon was a champion in the field of civil rights.
The much loved JFK put us squarely into Vietnam. Need I say more? (For those who doubt this, I suggest they read The Best and The Brightest by David Halberstam.)
How much did Obama know when he entered office with his one, lack luster year in the Senate and his background as a community organizer?
As to Iraq, nobody got it right. I do not feel that invading Iraq was a mistake. The mistake came when they disassembled Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. It was this organization that held Iraq together. Firing everyone who belonged to the Baath Party -- the teachers, the police, military officers, garbage collectors, etc. -- was what tore this country apart. And, this was done, I might add, by American experts; namely, our State Department.
Before going on to Hillary's performance, let me first comment on Trump's favorable comments as regards Putin. I believe Trump said, in so many words, that there was much to admire in Putin's leadership qualities and that he felt he could arrive at understandings with Putin. That really brought out Trump's critics. Doesn't Trump know that Putin is a killer who jails journalists if they write anything about him that is unflattering? Doesn't he know that in all likelihood Putin has been hacking into America's files?
It's difficult to grasp the hypocrisy of these critics. Of course, we know that Putin manages affairs in Russia in a manner we would find abhorrent in America. But not realizing that Putin wants certain things in the area of foreign affairs and that, to date, he's been successful in getting them is to be blind. What Trump, or Hillary, or Obama say about their feelings as regards Putin's actions is irrelevant. It's what we do that counts. What did the the U.S. (or Europe) do when he tore off chunks of Georgia. What did we do when he occupied Crimea and then put Russian fighters into the Ukraine?
When a leader barrel bombs his own civilians, as did Assad, a strong case can be made for keeping the skies clear of his planes and helicopters. We don't have to stand by as he murders civilians. But that's what, under Obama, we did. Putin quickly understood that he could take advantage of our lack of response. That's when he brought in Russian planes to protect Assad's air force. It's not that Putin was so brilliant, but rather that the U.S. was so negligent in protecting its interests. And, I don't even want to talk about "red lines" and then doing nothing when these red lines are crossed. It's too embarrassing. What would Trump do in these circumstances? I have no idea, but he couldn't do much worse.
As to hacking: Face up to it. It's the new arm of warfare. Scolding Russia is not the answer. Protecting ourselves from the hackers and getting better at hacking than the Chinese and the Russians is the correct answer.
Okay, now on to Hillary's performance. Having been part of the Obama administration, clearly makes her vulnerable to attacks -- quite valid attacks -- on the administration's foreign policies. To say her failures make her more capable to perform in the future as president sounds, to this observer, unconvincing. And, then there is her lack of truth and candor as regards her handling of confidential information. That will plague her professional life as long as she has one. But then, I don't believe she worries about that all that much. She always has her foundation to fall back on.
I also find amusing the criticism being heaped on Matt Lauer for trying to rein in Hillary as she tried to obfuscate and explain away her mishandling of confidential information and then lying about it. Doesn't he know that he's part of the media and that he's been tasked to hide Hillary's flaws and to make her look as good as is possible.
Friday, August 19, 2016
The Muslim Primer
Here is today's list to be read and understood:
Wahhabi Muslim
Sufi Muslim
Salafi Muslim
Kurdish Sunni
Pakistani Sunni
Saudi Muslim (Sunni)
Secular Sunni
Daesh Sunni
Iranian Shiite
Iraqi Shiite
Secular Shiite
Ahmadiyya
Yazidi
Bahai
Two of the above are not considered muslim, and one considers itself muslim although not by other muslims.
Answers:
Yazidis are not Muslim
Bahai are not Muslims either, although they were derived from the Shiite denomination.
Secular Shiites and secular Sunnis are pretty much like secular people of other religions in that they view their religion largely in cultural terms rather in in theological terms. However, it should be noted that the Shiites in Iran speak farsi. The Shiites in Iraq speak Arabic.
The Kurds are Sunni The are muslims that speak a Turkic language. Also, culturally their relationship with women is more Western than Islamic.
Daesh is a fanatical Sunni movement that aspires to conquer the world in behalf of Islam. Their first goal is an Islamic State. Their movement is referred to by English speaking people as ISIS.
The Ahmadiyya are a variation of Sunni. They consider themselves Muslim but are not accepted as muslims by other muslims.
Sufis are a peaceful people who stem from the Shiite religion. From the sufis come the whirling dervishes.
Salafi muslims favor an extreme form of the Sunni religion. They strive live as Mohammed lived.
Wahhabism is an extreme form of the Sunni religion that is salafist in nature. It was fostered by a a Saudi Arabian cleric whose name was affixed to this extreme form of Islam.
The Sunnis and the Shiites differ primarily in who they believe should be viewed as the true inheritor of the prophet Mohammed's teachings. Today, it's come down to a struggle for dominance between the Saudis and the Iranians.
That's it for today. Study hard. And, here's a question for next time:
Is America allowed by law to draw a distinction between those groups we choose to admit to America and those we do not? Can we favor Ahmadiyya and Sufis and Kurdish muslims over the muslims who subscribe to Daesh and a Salafist way of life? And, can we make a special allowance for Yazidis and middle eastern Christians who are generally abused in muslim countries -- and, in the case of Yazidis, nearly wiped out?
Wahhabi Muslim
Sufi Muslim
Salafi Muslim
Kurdish Sunni
Pakistani Sunni
Saudi Muslim (Sunni)
Secular Sunni
Daesh Sunni
Iranian Shiite
Iraqi Shiite
Secular Shiite
Ahmadiyya
Yazidi
Bahai
Two of the above are not considered muslim, and one considers itself muslim although not by other muslims.
Answers:
Yazidis are not Muslim
Bahai are not Muslims either, although they were derived from the Shiite denomination.
Secular Shiites and secular Sunnis are pretty much like secular people of other religions in that they view their religion largely in cultural terms rather in in theological terms. However, it should be noted that the Shiites in Iran speak farsi. The Shiites in Iraq speak Arabic.
The Kurds are Sunni The are muslims that speak a Turkic language. Also, culturally their relationship with women is more Western than Islamic.
Daesh is a fanatical Sunni movement that aspires to conquer the world in behalf of Islam. Their first goal is an Islamic State. Their movement is referred to by English speaking people as ISIS.
The Ahmadiyya are a variation of Sunni. They consider themselves Muslim but are not accepted as muslims by other muslims.
Sufis are a peaceful people who stem from the Shiite religion. From the sufis come the whirling dervishes.
Salafi muslims favor an extreme form of the Sunni religion. They strive live as Mohammed lived.
Wahhabism is an extreme form of the Sunni religion that is salafist in nature. It was fostered by a a Saudi Arabian cleric whose name was affixed to this extreme form of Islam.
The Sunnis and the Shiites differ primarily in who they believe should be viewed as the true inheritor of the prophet Mohammed's teachings. Today, it's come down to a struggle for dominance between the Saudis and the Iranians.
That's it for today. Study hard. And, here's a question for next time:
Is America allowed by law to draw a distinction between those groups we choose to admit to America and those we do not? Can we favor Ahmadiyya and Sufis and Kurdish muslims over the muslims who subscribe to Daesh and a Salafist way of life? And, can we make a special allowance for Yazidis and middle eastern Christians who are generally abused in muslim countries -- and, in the case of Yazidis, nearly wiped out?
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
When A Mighty House Of Mirrored Glass Begins To Crack
This August of 2016 sees the Trump campaign begin to fall apart. What's going on? What happened? Didn't this man go through the primaries like a hot knife through butter? And, if there were inconsistencies in his message, why did they become apparent only now?
As I struggle to understand what happened to the Trump phenomenon, there comes to mind the image of a mighty house of mirrors that begin to crack. I see riots of African Americans, not in cities ruled by whites, but rather in cities with African American mayors and councilmen and police departments in which are found goodly numbers of African American officers. I see politicians, blind to the lack of economic opportunities for the less well educated, whether white or black, who tell us how great this country is. I see this country's leaders pointing to our wonderful fighting men and women and glossing over the realities of a military falling behind in equipping these men and women with the tools to conduct war. I see leaders who can't even identify our enemy or name those who would upend our way of life. How did we come to this sorry state?
I trace our present problems to a self delusional way thinking that can be found in JFK's quote, borrowed from George Bernard Shaw; namely, "Some men see things as they are and say why, I dream things that never were and say why not?" When you avoid seeing reality as it is and go to things that are not, you begin to build a house of glass mirrors. Consider issues faced by America in the past -- slavery and then Jim Crow. America was not unique in facing these problems. More slaves were shipped to Brazil and to Caribbean countries than were to America. But whether slavery was unique or not, America asked why? Why slavery? And, there was no answer consistent with the country's true values. It took a fearful war to end slavery, a war that saw enormous numbers killed and maimed. But, ultimately America ended the practice of slavery. Ending Jim Crow did not require near so many lives, but there was nevertheless a toll that had to be paid and required brave men and women, mostly black, but also many whites, to stand up to this dreadful way of treating our fellow man.
But despite our desire to see equality for all, we have long been aware that blacks have not faired as well as whites financially and educationally. Then too, street crime seems to be a feature of the black inner city. Why? Sen. Moynihan, a man who was both a sociologist and a legislator, studied the problem and arrived at what many considered to be the answer; namely, the breakdown of the black family. It was an answer many did not choose to hear. Indeed, the senator has been reviled for his findings ever since.
Liberal minded people see all people as being the same and that is true. However, they fail to understand that not all cultures are the same. Examine the cultures that prevail in countries throughout the world and this becomes immediately obvious. There is the Russian culture, the Italian culture, the Jewish culture, the Chinese culture, and an Islamic culture found in countries like Egypt and Pakistan. And, while the cultures of Pakistan and Egypt differ in a number of ways, they do share many beliefs and attitudes. Liberals tend to dismiss these differences. And, a man like Trump seems to exaggerate them, but they do exist and the failure to see this is just one more crack in the mirror.
We draw red lines which we disregard. We empty Guantanamo of truly dangerous terrorists. And, the question is why? Why do we do so many things that end in easily predictable failures? It seems to be because we don't want to accept reality. We'd rather dream things that never were (and never will be) and struggle with a pointless why not? It's not that there's anything wrong with asking why not, but it's in solving the knotty problems immediately before us that deserve the greatest attention and energy that we can bring to bear.
I am reminded of the tourist who was taken through a zoo in Israel. The the tourist was amazed to see a lion and a lamb share the same pen. "How did you manage to do that. How did you get a lion and a lamb to share the same space?
"Easy," chuckled the guard. "Every morning we put in a new lamb."
As I struggle to understand what happened to the Trump phenomenon, there comes to mind the image of a mighty house of mirrors that begin to crack. I see riots of African Americans, not in cities ruled by whites, but rather in cities with African American mayors and councilmen and police departments in which are found goodly numbers of African American officers. I see politicians, blind to the lack of economic opportunities for the less well educated, whether white or black, who tell us how great this country is. I see this country's leaders pointing to our wonderful fighting men and women and glossing over the realities of a military falling behind in equipping these men and women with the tools to conduct war. I see leaders who can't even identify our enemy or name those who would upend our way of life. How did we come to this sorry state?
I trace our present problems to a self delusional way thinking that can be found in JFK's quote, borrowed from George Bernard Shaw; namely, "Some men see things as they are and say why, I dream things that never were and say why not?" When you avoid seeing reality as it is and go to things that are not, you begin to build a house of glass mirrors. Consider issues faced by America in the past -- slavery and then Jim Crow. America was not unique in facing these problems. More slaves were shipped to Brazil and to Caribbean countries than were to America. But whether slavery was unique or not, America asked why? Why slavery? And, there was no answer consistent with the country's true values. It took a fearful war to end slavery, a war that saw enormous numbers killed and maimed. But, ultimately America ended the practice of slavery. Ending Jim Crow did not require near so many lives, but there was nevertheless a toll that had to be paid and required brave men and women, mostly black, but also many whites, to stand up to this dreadful way of treating our fellow man.
But despite our desire to see equality for all, we have long been aware that blacks have not faired as well as whites financially and educationally. Then too, street crime seems to be a feature of the black inner city. Why? Sen. Moynihan, a man who was both a sociologist and a legislator, studied the problem and arrived at what many considered to be the answer; namely, the breakdown of the black family. It was an answer many did not choose to hear. Indeed, the senator has been reviled for his findings ever since.
Liberal minded people see all people as being the same and that is true. However, they fail to understand that not all cultures are the same. Examine the cultures that prevail in countries throughout the world and this becomes immediately obvious. There is the Russian culture, the Italian culture, the Jewish culture, the Chinese culture, and an Islamic culture found in countries like Egypt and Pakistan. And, while the cultures of Pakistan and Egypt differ in a number of ways, they do share many beliefs and attitudes. Liberals tend to dismiss these differences. And, a man like Trump seems to exaggerate them, but they do exist and the failure to see this is just one more crack in the mirror.
We draw red lines which we disregard. We empty Guantanamo of truly dangerous terrorists. And, the question is why? Why do we do so many things that end in easily predictable failures? It seems to be because we don't want to accept reality. We'd rather dream things that never were (and never will be) and struggle with a pointless why not? It's not that there's anything wrong with asking why not, but it's in solving the knotty problems immediately before us that deserve the greatest attention and energy that we can bring to bear.
I am reminded of the tourist who was taken through a zoo in Israel. The the tourist was amazed to see a lion and a lamb share the same pen. "How did you manage to do that. How did you get a lion and a lamb to share the same space?
"Easy," chuckled the guard. "Every morning we put in a new lamb."
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Trump: Why I Continue To Support Him
The promise of a Trump presidency is beginning to fad a bit. Of course, we still have some time before the elections, but now, mid-August, it's not looking all that good. I, however, am still supporting Trump and here's why:
1. The press: There is absolutely no question as to the tremendous bias against Trump by the press.
When he was running for the candidacy of the Republican Party, the press was aghast. How could this new comer be wiping the slate clean of all the well known and seasoned Republican candidates? The press didn't realize that the Republican man-in-the-street was tired of the same-old-same-old. They wanted something new. For the press, which is largely Democratic, it was a phenomenon that warranted their full attention. And, the coverage they gave him did help him enormously.
Now, the situation is different. They might have thought that Jeb Bush, or the others, were better than Trump, but these other candidates were not people that they, themselves, would ever embrace. Now, that Trump has won the candidacy, the situation is entirely different. Hillary is their person. Sure, she's got a barrel of negatives. But, she represents the Obama legacy. She also represents a lot more. By becoming the next president, if that happens, she will have the Attorney General's office working for her. Prosecution for any wrong doing would now rest with the Congress, which can call for hearings (assuming the Republicans can hold on to the Congress), but which is not as good as the Attorney General's office for prosecuting illegal activities. Consider just one example; namely, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation. If ever there was a charity that deserved investigation, this is it.
But, with Hillary as president, it will never happen. Why do I put this comment under the category of "the press?" Because our fourth estate has often served to shed light on shady doings. Remember the work of Bernstein and Woodward in exposing the Nixon tapes? If only the press would pursue the wrong doings of Hillary as aggressively.
2. Republicans against Trump: You hear a lot of Republicans (Katich, Ridge, etc.) saying they will either vote for Hillary or some third party candidate. But, it is because of these Republican elites that rank and file Republicans voted for Trump. W.Bush was no prize and average Republicans know this. They want something different. They want a change. And, Trump is the only candidate who has any chance of giving them this. Will he succeed? Who knows?
I should also comment on the remarks made by the Collins woman from Maine who said she was voting for a third party candidate but felt it was important to keep a Republican Congress to maintain a check on Hillary. Really? Why not vote for Trump but keep a Republican Congress to maintain a check on Trump?
3. The Trump style: We should call to mind the presidential race of 1928, when Hoover ran against Smith. Smith lost for the following reasons: a. He was Catholic in an anti-Catholic country. b. He was against Prohibition. d. His name was connected with Tammany Hall. Hoover enjoyed a wave of support resulting from the prosperity that America enjoyed in the early and mid-twenties.
So what happened? Prohibition was happily ended, and America's prosperity went into depression. It could easily be argued that Al Smith would have been a better choice. Oh, and one more thing -- Al Smith had a terrible New York accent which didn't go well in the rest of the country. But, today, America is a different country. Trump's style seems to offend the media. Will it offend ordinary Americans?
1. The press: There is absolutely no question as to the tremendous bias against Trump by the press.
When he was running for the candidacy of the Republican Party, the press was aghast. How could this new comer be wiping the slate clean of all the well known and seasoned Republican candidates? The press didn't realize that the Republican man-in-the-street was tired of the same-old-same-old. They wanted something new. For the press, which is largely Democratic, it was a phenomenon that warranted their full attention. And, the coverage they gave him did help him enormously.
Now, the situation is different. They might have thought that Jeb Bush, or the others, were better than Trump, but these other candidates were not people that they, themselves, would ever embrace. Now, that Trump has won the candidacy, the situation is entirely different. Hillary is their person. Sure, she's got a barrel of negatives. But, she represents the Obama legacy. She also represents a lot more. By becoming the next president, if that happens, she will have the Attorney General's office working for her. Prosecution for any wrong doing would now rest with the Congress, which can call for hearings (assuming the Republicans can hold on to the Congress), but which is not as good as the Attorney General's office for prosecuting illegal activities. Consider just one example; namely, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation. If ever there was a charity that deserved investigation, this is it.
But, with Hillary as president, it will never happen. Why do I put this comment under the category of "the press?" Because our fourth estate has often served to shed light on shady doings. Remember the work of Bernstein and Woodward in exposing the Nixon tapes? If only the press would pursue the wrong doings of Hillary as aggressively.
2. Republicans against Trump: You hear a lot of Republicans (Katich, Ridge, etc.) saying they will either vote for Hillary or some third party candidate. But, it is because of these Republican elites that rank and file Republicans voted for Trump. W.Bush was no prize and average Republicans know this. They want something different. They want a change. And, Trump is the only candidate who has any chance of giving them this. Will he succeed? Who knows?
I should also comment on the remarks made by the Collins woman from Maine who said she was voting for a third party candidate but felt it was important to keep a Republican Congress to maintain a check on Hillary. Really? Why not vote for Trump but keep a Republican Congress to maintain a check on Trump?
3. The Trump style: We should call to mind the presidential race of 1928, when Hoover ran against Smith. Smith lost for the following reasons: a. He was Catholic in an anti-Catholic country. b. He was against Prohibition. d. His name was connected with Tammany Hall. Hoover enjoyed a wave of support resulting from the prosperity that America enjoyed in the early and mid-twenties.
So what happened? Prohibition was happily ended, and America's prosperity went into depression. It could easily be argued that Al Smith would have been a better choice. Oh, and one more thing -- Al Smith had a terrible New York accent which didn't go well in the rest of the country. But, today, America is a different country. Trump's style seems to offend the media. Will it offend ordinary Americans?
Monday, August 8, 2016
Trump: Why I Am Choosing Him
In a previous posting I pointed out why I felt the negatives of supporting Hillary were greater than whatever negatives one might perceive for Trump.
There are however factors in this election that would seem to make a reasonable citizen support Trump. Here is my listing:
1. Economic policy
Controlling inflation and developing a reasonable path forwards. The Democrats point to declining joblessness. The Republicans point to a sickly GDP growth figure. The problem is that statistics do sometimes lead the conditions that will ultimately face the American citizen and sometimes lag forthcoming events.
A conference was convened led by Simpson and Bowles. It set a path for the American economy, but was considered too severe. But, a path must be found if we are not to find ourselves with a very real economic disaster. Remember, things always look at their best before the bubble bursts. I see Trump trying to deal with this very difficult situation. The Democrats don't even try.
2. Education in America
This is a real can of worms, but it's also critically important. We discuss employment as growing or declining. Actually there are two sets of American citizens; the educated and the uneducated, or under educated. We must find ways of raising the educational level of our under educated people.
Educational Innovation must begin at the state level. America is too diverse for one system that will work well everywhere. I believe Trump understands this better than the Democrats. Certainly, Obama showed us nothing that worked during his tenure. As I see it, Hillary is simply a continuation of Obama.
3. Foreign policy -- Military/Political engagement. Our efforts in the international arena have been pitiful. We've drawn red lines that have no meaning. We destroyed the Iraqi government without doing anything to see that some sort of governance was maintained. And, in this the Republicans have been as bad as the Democrats. That's why you now see these military "experts" responsible for the present mess coming out against Trump. They want to keep digging the hole we find ourselves in.
4. Military -- I feel we're not doing what needs to be done. This really calls for a long and technical discussion. At this point, I'm just presenting my feelings.
5. Race relations -- Obama messed this up from the beginning. He is quoted as saying, "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin." But what he would look like is not the issue. The real question is whether he would act like Trayvon Martin acted. Some police officers have been coarsened by their work in the streets day after day. It seems to be an occupational hazard. We must do more to see that they maintain an appropriate attitude towards their work. But the criticism and abuse they have been suffering is uncalled for.
6. They say Trump is not fit to be president. But from what I see of the Benghazi situation and from the way Hillary treated America's secrets, I'm a lot more worried about her than I am about Trump.
7. Say what you will, I believe Trump understands women's rights and the needs of the LGBT community.
8. Israel: Anyone who follows the relationship between the current administration and Israel understands clearly how much better this relationship would be with a Republican administration.
9 Islamic fundamentalism: We see what's happening in Europe and Obama still doesn't perceive the threat to America's values!
10. The need for defined and controlled national borders. Trump gets it.
Anyway, that's my list for now.
There are however factors in this election that would seem to make a reasonable citizen support Trump. Here is my listing:
1. Economic policy
Controlling inflation and developing a reasonable path forwards. The Democrats point to declining joblessness. The Republicans point to a sickly GDP growth figure. The problem is that statistics do sometimes lead the conditions that will ultimately face the American citizen and sometimes lag forthcoming events.
A conference was convened led by Simpson and Bowles. It set a path for the American economy, but was considered too severe. But, a path must be found if we are not to find ourselves with a very real economic disaster. Remember, things always look at their best before the bubble bursts. I see Trump trying to deal with this very difficult situation. The Democrats don't even try.
2. Education in America
This is a real can of worms, but it's also critically important. We discuss employment as growing or declining. Actually there are two sets of American citizens; the educated and the uneducated, or under educated. We must find ways of raising the educational level of our under educated people.
Educational Innovation must begin at the state level. America is too diverse for one system that will work well everywhere. I believe Trump understands this better than the Democrats. Certainly, Obama showed us nothing that worked during his tenure. As I see it, Hillary is simply a continuation of Obama.
3. Foreign policy -- Military/Political engagement. Our efforts in the international arena have been pitiful. We've drawn red lines that have no meaning. We destroyed the Iraqi government without doing anything to see that some sort of governance was maintained. And, in this the Republicans have been as bad as the Democrats. That's why you now see these military "experts" responsible for the present mess coming out against Trump. They want to keep digging the hole we find ourselves in.
4. Military -- I feel we're not doing what needs to be done. This really calls for a long and technical discussion. At this point, I'm just presenting my feelings.
5. Race relations -- Obama messed this up from the beginning. He is quoted as saying, "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin." But what he would look like is not the issue. The real question is whether he would act like Trayvon Martin acted. Some police officers have been coarsened by their work in the streets day after day. It seems to be an occupational hazard. We must do more to see that they maintain an appropriate attitude towards their work. But the criticism and abuse they have been suffering is uncalled for.
6. They say Trump is not fit to be president. But from what I see of the Benghazi situation and from the way Hillary treated America's secrets, I'm a lot more worried about her than I am about Trump.
7. Say what you will, I believe Trump understands women's rights and the needs of the LGBT community.
8. Israel: Anyone who follows the relationship between the current administration and Israel understands clearly how much better this relationship would be with a Republican administration.
9 Islamic fundamentalism: We see what's happening in Europe and Obama still doesn't perceive the threat to America's values!
10. The need for defined and controlled national borders. Trump gets it.
Anyway, that's my list for now.
Saturday, July 23, 2016
A Post Script On Fundamentalist Islam
In a blog, preceding the last one, we discussed the problems we face with fundamental Islam. Let me take a moment now to make mention of an effort that has been made to create a reform movement within Islam. It is named, The Muslim Reform Movement. That such a movement has sprung up is a promising. But, how meaningful is it?
Basic questions we must ask are as follows:
1. When was this movement started. Answer: 2015. That's just last year. It's clearly an organization in its embryonic stage.
2. What are its chances of becoming a meaningful movement? In my opinion, slim, but not impossible. What might give hope to this embryonic movement are the following factors:
a. Todays's world events make the need for such a movement greater than ever. Muslims might be at a point where they can now begin to recognize this.
b. This movement began in America and was joined in by a few Muslims from England and Europe. It is entirely logical that such a movement should come to flower in America. It is here that Reform Judaism mushroomed. It's roots, of course, extend to Europe. Conservative Judaism, on the other hand, is an entirely American-made phenomenon.
c. Can this movement reach out and attract Muslims who have, to some degree, become secular?
3. In challenging fundamentalist Islam in America, the nascent Muslim Reform Movement faces a huge hurdle in proving to politicians in Washington that this movement has legs, that it has prospects for growth. The initial signs are not promising. For major Islamic events, the Obama administration extends invitations to the likes of CAIR, who happen to be a bulkhead of fundamentalism in America, not to mention their shady connections to terrorism as noted by the FBI.
The obstacles the Muslim Reform Movement faces are enormous. We can only hope and pray that they will become a force among American Muslims.
Basic questions we must ask are as follows:
1. When was this movement started. Answer: 2015. That's just last year. It's clearly an organization in its embryonic stage.
2. What are its chances of becoming a meaningful movement? In my opinion, slim, but not impossible. What might give hope to this embryonic movement are the following factors:
a. Todays's world events make the need for such a movement greater than ever. Muslims might be at a point where they can now begin to recognize this.
b. This movement began in America and was joined in by a few Muslims from England and Europe. It is entirely logical that such a movement should come to flower in America. It is here that Reform Judaism mushroomed. It's roots, of course, extend to Europe. Conservative Judaism, on the other hand, is an entirely American-made phenomenon.
c. Can this movement reach out and attract Muslims who have, to some degree, become secular?
3. In challenging fundamentalist Islam in America, the nascent Muslim Reform Movement faces a huge hurdle in proving to politicians in Washington that this movement has legs, that it has prospects for growth. The initial signs are not promising. For major Islamic events, the Obama administration extends invitations to the likes of CAIR, who happen to be a bulkhead of fundamentalism in America, not to mention their shady connections to terrorism as noted by the FBI.
The obstacles the Muslim Reform Movement faces are enormous. We can only hope and pray that they will become a force among American Muslims.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Why I'm Going With Trump
I'm going with Trump because of the odds. With Hillary, I'm 99% sure of what I'm going to get; namely, a person who's shown unbelievably poor judgement and a person committed to extending the policies of Obama for 4 more years.
With Trump, I can't be sure of what I'm going to get. There's a 50% chance he'll really change things for the better. That means, of course, that there's a 50% chance he'll exacerbate America's problems. I'll take my 50% odds of Trump doing a good job, over my 99% percent odds that Hillary will continue with decisions really bad for America.
What puzzles me are people, who should logically be supporting Trump, voicing opposition to Trump. they include some of the following:
Danial Pipes -- I am impressed with this man's analyses of the Middle East.
Ted Cruz -- A savvy politician who has allowed personal pique to cloud his mind.
Jeb Bush and John Kasich -- Old establishment GOPers who resent fresh blood.
Fundamentalist Christians who object to Trump (a really small minority)
Some find Trump not "pure" enough. Others, don't like a newcomer running off with their party's standard. Others are simply poor losers. What they all fail to understand, or simply won't acknowledge, is that we are all faced with a binary choice; namely, it's either Hillary or Trump. There is no realistic third choice. If you support Republican values but feel Trump doesn't live up to those values, or up to Christian values, how will rejecting Trump help you get closer to your goals when it clearly enables a person opposed to your goals to become president? How can those who espouse conservative values, who espouse Christian values find that to be a satisfactory outcome? And, how can anyone who loves Israel vote for someone who will extend the policies of Obama for 4 or 8 more years.
I see no choice other than voting for Trump.
With Trump, I can't be sure of what I'm going to get. There's a 50% chance he'll really change things for the better. That means, of course, that there's a 50% chance he'll exacerbate America's problems. I'll take my 50% odds of Trump doing a good job, over my 99% percent odds that Hillary will continue with decisions really bad for America.
What puzzles me are people, who should logically be supporting Trump, voicing opposition to Trump. they include some of the following:
Danial Pipes -- I am impressed with this man's analyses of the Middle East.
Ted Cruz -- A savvy politician who has allowed personal pique to cloud his mind.
Jeb Bush and John Kasich -- Old establishment GOPers who resent fresh blood.
Fundamentalist Christians who object to Trump (a really small minority)
Some find Trump not "pure" enough. Others, don't like a newcomer running off with their party's standard. Others are simply poor losers. What they all fail to understand, or simply won't acknowledge, is that we are all faced with a binary choice; namely, it's either Hillary or Trump. There is no realistic third choice. If you support Republican values but feel Trump doesn't live up to those values, or up to Christian values, how will rejecting Trump help you get closer to your goals when it clearly enables a person opposed to your goals to become president? How can those who espouse conservative values, who espouse Christian values find that to be a satisfactory outcome? And, how can anyone who loves Israel vote for someone who will extend the policies of Obama for 4 or 8 more years.
I see no choice other than voting for Trump.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Fundamentalist Islam (Salafism): A Muslim Problem
The opposite of fundamentalism is secularism. A Jew, a Catholic, or Protestant can still claim membership in their faith and yet enjoy the freedom to disagree. Those who disagree most are generally described as secular. In Judaism, secular Jews include Jews who don't really believe that G-d created the world in 6 days -- resting on the 7th. They believe in the 'big bag."
I have known Catholics who did not believe all truth came from the Vatican. Yet they felt that they had been born into the Church and were as Catholic as anyone. And, furthermore, they could find priests who supported them in this belief.
What should also be recognized is that when a particular line of belief can no longer be supported, alternate forms of the faith can be created. When the Catholic priest, Martin Luther, could no longer subscribe to all the tenets of his faith, he found alternate tenets. At the time, hundreds of years ago, that could be a dangerous thing. The Church tried to have him eliminated. But, luckily he had powerful supporters who helped him escape those who would murder him.
Deviancy is far rarer among Muslims. The only case, I am aware of are the Ahmadiyyas. There are, I have read, tens of millions of them. They deviate from conventional Muslims in a number of ways. Perhaps their greatest deviancy is that they believe G-d sent a prophet after Muhammed. This prophet came in the 1800's and he preached among other things that there should be a separation between mosque and state. In America, Ahmadiyyas are considered Muslims. Not so in Pakistan. Over there it is a crime for an Ahmadiyya to declare himself a Muslim.
Let's set the Ahmadiyyas aside for a moment. Instead, let's focus on most Muslims who, while they divide themselves into Sunni and Shiite camps, cleave to essentially the same belief system; namely, that the last word in all things are the words and actions of Muhammed, and that Islam is the last and final stage to which G-d (Allah) has elevated man. The laws of Islam derived from the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah, Muslims believe, apply to all people and have dominion above and beyond man's laws.
So how do you deal with fundamentalist Islam, if secular Muslims are simply Muslims who drink, shake women's hands and in other ways violate the tenets of their faith simply because they find it expedient to do so in places where other religions are dominant? Most such Muslims would not be uncomfortable living in America. The problem is that they still view fundamentalist Islam as the true faith. If they can't follow true Islam, so be it. But, for them, fundamentalist Islam is the true path to an Islamic life. This is unlike what we see with Presbyterians, who are often at odds with Baptists, and who will never convince Baptists that they, the Presbyterians, are the true Protestants. The Catholic Church has given up trying to convince Protestants that they, the Catholics, are the true Christians. Muslims may appear secular, but they generally agree that fundamentalist Islam is the true Islam.
In non-Muslim countries, where they have not yet established an overwhelming beachhead, Muslims generally behave much like other citizens. However, if one of their number becomes mentally unstable and seeks to meet Allah, such a person, or persons, can become dangerous to the community.
So what should be the American posture vis a vis Muslims? In my opinion, Muslims entering the country must be informed that the practice of Shariah in America will not be tolerated. They will be subject only to American law. If they can not touch alcoholic beverages, they should avoid working in a convenience store. If they can not look in the eyes of a woman, most sales positions will prove unsuitable for them.
Mostly however there should be heavy screening of the imams. One imam was recorded preaching at a mosque in Orlando, Florida. The message he was taped delivering was that to kill a gay man was to do him a favor. A gay man carries the burden of sin. By killing him you relieve him of this sin. America doesn't need such imams, either as visitors or as immigrants. The universities that turn out these imams -- even those overseas -- should be investigated and identified. So why hasn't this already been done? Here we must turn to Saudi Arabia one of the most fundamentalist of nations. Sen. Wm. Fulbright was one of their first lobbyists. They set up organizations like CAIR (Committee on American Islamic Relations) and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America). At present, with their money, these organizations are dedicated to preventing the type of screening this country must do if it is to screen out such fundamentalist imams.
Why can't we recognize and give preference to the Ahmadiyya, to the Yazidis, and other Middle Eastern religious groups that have been decimated by the genocide inflicted on them by Muslims.
It is high time that Muslims in America establish organizations that, while acknowledging the roots of their faith, now choose to reform that faith.
I have known Catholics who did not believe all truth came from the Vatican. Yet they felt that they had been born into the Church and were as Catholic as anyone. And, furthermore, they could find priests who supported them in this belief.
What should also be recognized is that when a particular line of belief can no longer be supported, alternate forms of the faith can be created. When the Catholic priest, Martin Luther, could no longer subscribe to all the tenets of his faith, he found alternate tenets. At the time, hundreds of years ago, that could be a dangerous thing. The Church tried to have him eliminated. But, luckily he had powerful supporters who helped him escape those who would murder him.
Deviancy is far rarer among Muslims. The only case, I am aware of are the Ahmadiyyas. There are, I have read, tens of millions of them. They deviate from conventional Muslims in a number of ways. Perhaps their greatest deviancy is that they believe G-d sent a prophet after Muhammed. This prophet came in the 1800's and he preached among other things that there should be a separation between mosque and state. In America, Ahmadiyyas are considered Muslims. Not so in Pakistan. Over there it is a crime for an Ahmadiyya to declare himself a Muslim.
Let's set the Ahmadiyyas aside for a moment. Instead, let's focus on most Muslims who, while they divide themselves into Sunni and Shiite camps, cleave to essentially the same belief system; namely, that the last word in all things are the words and actions of Muhammed, and that Islam is the last and final stage to which G-d (Allah) has elevated man. The laws of Islam derived from the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah, Muslims believe, apply to all people and have dominion above and beyond man's laws.
So how do you deal with fundamentalist Islam, if secular Muslims are simply Muslims who drink, shake women's hands and in other ways violate the tenets of their faith simply because they find it expedient to do so in places where other religions are dominant? Most such Muslims would not be uncomfortable living in America. The problem is that they still view fundamentalist Islam as the true faith. If they can't follow true Islam, so be it. But, for them, fundamentalist Islam is the true path to an Islamic life. This is unlike what we see with Presbyterians, who are often at odds with Baptists, and who will never convince Baptists that they, the Presbyterians, are the true Protestants. The Catholic Church has given up trying to convince Protestants that they, the Catholics, are the true Christians. Muslims may appear secular, but they generally agree that fundamentalist Islam is the true Islam.
In non-Muslim countries, where they have not yet established an overwhelming beachhead, Muslims generally behave much like other citizens. However, if one of their number becomes mentally unstable and seeks to meet Allah, such a person, or persons, can become dangerous to the community.
So what should be the American posture vis a vis Muslims? In my opinion, Muslims entering the country must be informed that the practice of Shariah in America will not be tolerated. They will be subject only to American law. If they can not touch alcoholic beverages, they should avoid working in a convenience store. If they can not look in the eyes of a woman, most sales positions will prove unsuitable for them.
Mostly however there should be heavy screening of the imams. One imam was recorded preaching at a mosque in Orlando, Florida. The message he was taped delivering was that to kill a gay man was to do him a favor. A gay man carries the burden of sin. By killing him you relieve him of this sin. America doesn't need such imams, either as visitors or as immigrants. The universities that turn out these imams -- even those overseas -- should be investigated and identified. So why hasn't this already been done? Here we must turn to Saudi Arabia one of the most fundamentalist of nations. Sen. Wm. Fulbright was one of their first lobbyists. They set up organizations like CAIR (Committee on American Islamic Relations) and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America). At present, with their money, these organizations are dedicated to preventing the type of screening this country must do if it is to screen out such fundamentalist imams.
Why can't we recognize and give preference to the Ahmadiyya, to the Yazidis, and other Middle Eastern religious groups that have been decimated by the genocide inflicted on them by Muslims.
It is high time that Muslims in America establish organizations that, while acknowledging the roots of their faith, now choose to reform that faith.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Orthodox Jews vs. Fundamentalist (Salafist) Muslims
I am writing this because of comments made to me by a friend. Unfortunately, the friend, a Jew, apparently knew little of Jewish history. If she did, it was not apparent when she lumped Orthodox Jews with Fundamentalist Muslims.
I know that a considerable number of ordinary, non-Orthodox Jews have a problem with Orthodox Jews. In the U.S., when Orthodox Jews, who generally have little appreciation for a well rounded curriculum, grow to sizable numbers in a town or community and are able to dominate that town's school system, they ruin it for non-Orthodox Jews and people of other beliefs. They want their money to go to Orthodox religious schools and will generally do what they can to starve the public school system of funds. That is a real problem for people of diverse backgrounds.
These ultra Orthodox Jews of whom I now speak, have been known to pray such words as, thank G-d for having made me a man. They see little point in educating women beyond high school, unless it is to go to some sort of religious finishing school. Marriages are often arranged. The men will not shake hands with a woman. Unless there has been a written prenuptial agreement, it is exceedingly difficult for a woman to obtain a divorce.
And, then too, they dress funny. The men will wear shtreimels (circular fur hats), or black fedoras, and always a kippah. Under their shirts, they will wear a rectangular fabric with a hole to put one's head through. At the corners of this garment will hang strings (tzitzit). Some men will wear knickers and white knee socks. They won't shave with a razor and some will let the hair in front of their ears go uncut (payes).
My friend, suggested that they were trying to dress like ancient Jews. And, in that, she is mostly wrong, except for the beard, the payes, and the tzitzit. The shtreimel and the knickers (worn by some) are in honor of their their teachers in Lithuania. Lithuania, next to Poland, was once a seat of Jewish learning and scholarship. To honor the learned teachers of that long-ago time and place, they continue to dress as their teachers did. (Why else wear a fur had in Israel?)
As to Orthodox women, they are to keep covered beyond their elbows. They skirts should reach their calf or lower. And, once married they are to keep their hair covered; generally, with a wig (sheitel).
There is more that distinguishes ultra Orthodox Jews, but you get the idea.
Muslim men who hold fundamentalist beliefs will, nevertheless, dress like most men of today. However, they do avoid shaking hands with women. Some will wear what resembles plain white pajamas. But, they generally do this in places they feel comfortable. It is not required. They do it only because they imagine that this is how Mohammed dressed and so they too want to dress in this manner.
But it's not a particular dress that is the meaningful difference between Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims. Rather, it is how each group has modified it's beliefs since ancient times. A basic change that came about for Jews at the time of their Babylonian exile was the development of the rabbinic class and the decline of the priestly class. Prayers to G-d began replacing animal sacrifice.
It is true that in ancient times, Jews practiced polygamy. However, in about the year 1000, Rabbi Gershom ben Judah issued an edict forbidding multiple marriages. That edict, however, applied only to Jews under his jurisdiction; namely, Ashkenazi Jews (most European Jews). Those Jews not covered were the Sephardic Jews, the Jews who at one point lived in Spain and who, after their expulsion, continued to live in Arab countries. For the Sephardic Jews, polygamy ended in 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was replaced early on as monetary value for an eye if you took another's eye and monetary value for a tooth if you took someone's tooth. Unfortunately, those not religious seem unaware of this.
For a fundamentalist Muslim, history has been quite different. Yes, Turkish Muslims were expelled from Greece and Greek Christians were expelled from Turkey. Hindus were expelled from Pakistan and Muslims were driven from their homes in India. However, in the case of India, there is today a population of Muslims of about 20% whose people avoided expulsion. The obverse is not true of Pakistan.
Muslims spread from Saudi Arabia throughout the Middle East and along the northern reaches of Africa. They spread east to Iran, Afghanistan and parts of India and China. They were never scattered in the manner of the Jews, and they never found the need to adjust to modernity other than in matters of commerce. Their understanding of shariah taken form the Quran, the Hadith and the Sunnah has remained the same since the time of Mohammed. This is not a problem for Muslims only when they enter in large numbers a country and a culture that does not follow shariah or shares the cultural values of Muslims such as honor killings, polygamy, a loathing of gays, and the approval of death for apostates.
You may not like certain, or a great number, of the characteristics of Orthodox Jews, but their values are far more compatible with America's secular culture.
I know that a considerable number of ordinary, non-Orthodox Jews have a problem with Orthodox Jews. In the U.S., when Orthodox Jews, who generally have little appreciation for a well rounded curriculum, grow to sizable numbers in a town or community and are able to dominate that town's school system, they ruin it for non-Orthodox Jews and people of other beliefs. They want their money to go to Orthodox religious schools and will generally do what they can to starve the public school system of funds. That is a real problem for people of diverse backgrounds.
These ultra Orthodox Jews of whom I now speak, have been known to pray such words as, thank G-d for having made me a man. They see little point in educating women beyond high school, unless it is to go to some sort of religious finishing school. Marriages are often arranged. The men will not shake hands with a woman. Unless there has been a written prenuptial agreement, it is exceedingly difficult for a woman to obtain a divorce.
And, then too, they dress funny. The men will wear shtreimels (circular fur hats), or black fedoras, and always a kippah. Under their shirts, they will wear a rectangular fabric with a hole to put one's head through. At the corners of this garment will hang strings (tzitzit). Some men will wear knickers and white knee socks. They won't shave with a razor and some will let the hair in front of their ears go uncut (payes).
My friend, suggested that they were trying to dress like ancient Jews. And, in that, she is mostly wrong, except for the beard, the payes, and the tzitzit. The shtreimel and the knickers (worn by some) are in honor of their their teachers in Lithuania. Lithuania, next to Poland, was once a seat of Jewish learning and scholarship. To honor the learned teachers of that long-ago time and place, they continue to dress as their teachers did. (Why else wear a fur had in Israel?)
As to Orthodox women, they are to keep covered beyond their elbows. They skirts should reach their calf or lower. And, once married they are to keep their hair covered; generally, with a wig (sheitel).
There is more that distinguishes ultra Orthodox Jews, but you get the idea.
Muslim men who hold fundamentalist beliefs will, nevertheless, dress like most men of today. However, they do avoid shaking hands with women. Some will wear what resembles plain white pajamas. But, they generally do this in places they feel comfortable. It is not required. They do it only because they imagine that this is how Mohammed dressed and so they too want to dress in this manner.
But it's not a particular dress that is the meaningful difference between Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims. Rather, it is how each group has modified it's beliefs since ancient times. A basic change that came about for Jews at the time of their Babylonian exile was the development of the rabbinic class and the decline of the priestly class. Prayers to G-d began replacing animal sacrifice.
It is true that in ancient times, Jews practiced polygamy. However, in about the year 1000, Rabbi Gershom ben Judah issued an edict forbidding multiple marriages. That edict, however, applied only to Jews under his jurisdiction; namely, Ashkenazi Jews (most European Jews). Those Jews not covered were the Sephardic Jews, the Jews who at one point lived in Spain and who, after their expulsion, continued to live in Arab countries. For the Sephardic Jews, polygamy ended in 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was replaced early on as monetary value for an eye if you took another's eye and monetary value for a tooth if you took someone's tooth. Unfortunately, those not religious seem unaware of this.
For a fundamentalist Muslim, history has been quite different. Yes, Turkish Muslims were expelled from Greece and Greek Christians were expelled from Turkey. Hindus were expelled from Pakistan and Muslims were driven from their homes in India. However, in the case of India, there is today a population of Muslims of about 20% whose people avoided expulsion. The obverse is not true of Pakistan.
Muslims spread from Saudi Arabia throughout the Middle East and along the northern reaches of Africa. They spread east to Iran, Afghanistan and parts of India and China. They were never scattered in the manner of the Jews, and they never found the need to adjust to modernity other than in matters of commerce. Their understanding of shariah taken form the Quran, the Hadith and the Sunnah has remained the same since the time of Mohammed. This is not a problem for Muslims only when they enter in large numbers a country and a culture that does not follow shariah or shares the cultural values of Muslims such as honor killings, polygamy, a loathing of gays, and the approval of death for apostates.
You may not like certain, or a great number, of the characteristics of Orthodox Jews, but their values are far more compatible with America's secular culture.
Friday, July 8, 2016
We've Come A Long Way in Race Relations Despite Poor Leaders
Slavery was bad. It was horrendous. And, in parts of the world, it still exists. America was not unique in practicing slavery. Half of all enslaved Africans sent to the New World were shipped to Brazil. Roughly, three eighth were shipped to countries in the Caribbean. Only about 12 % were shipped to America.
At the time, Europe did not have the kind of agricultural economy that would gain from slavery. Be that as it may, countries like England, Holland and others, with their commercial fleets, were deeply involved in buying, selling and shipping slaves.
When slavery in America ended, we still had a problem with Jim Crow laws that reflected a culture hostile to people of color. But with leaders like Martin Luther King, Jim Crow was brought low. And, it speaks well of America, that white Americans joined the Rev. King in this struggle. Indeed, American religious leaders, Jews, Catholics and Protestants joined him in Selma. Much earlier, Harriet Tubman was assisted by members of the white population in running her underground railroad.
Whites played an important role in the early days of the NAACP. Clearly, African-Americans have borne the heavy brunt of racism in America. But, to deny the role of white Americans in their support of black people does nothing to help America defeat racism.
This is a situation where the president seems to possess little insight. A black man is found looking in the rear windows of a house in Cambridge. A police officer notices the man, and asks to see his driver's license in order to establish who he is and where he lived. The black man refuses, and so the officer brings him to the station house.
As it happened, the black man was a Harvard professor who had misplaced his house keys and was trying to figure out how he could get into his house. So why didn't he produce his ID? Because he felt that he was so famous that the police officer should have recognized him for who he was, and should have known that this was his house. Was this a reasonable attitude for the professor, or was it simply arrogance. Obama's solution: Get the two men to sit down together and have a beer. Actually, not a bad outcome. It enabled the professor to demonstrate that he was not above having a beer with a Cambridge police officer. That must have made the cop feel very good.
Consider the Trayvon Martin story where a black kid in a hoody gets stopped by a community watchman in an area where there had been a number of break-ins. The watchman, by the name of Zimmerman, may not have had the coolest head, but it wasn't smart of Mr. Martin to punch him in the nose and then slam him onto the pavement. Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Mr. Martin as he, Zimmerman, was being pummeled.
President Obama then went on TV and told America that if, he had had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon. But, Travon Martin's looks are not the issue. The real question is if Obama had had a son, would he have acted like Trayvon Martin.
The airwaves were then filled by black fathers explaining how they had made clear to their sons how to act when stopped by a police officer. I thought that was funny. My dad never took the time to explain such a thing to me. He didn't have to. Not because I was white, but because I saw how he acted when in the presence of an officer.
Then we come to Ferguson, a town where an officer shot dead a black, unarmed youth by the name of Michael Brown. Not mentioned in the initial reports was that Michael Brown was a hulking, six foot three thug who was seen on an in-store camera robbing a convenience store just before the event. But, it wasn't robbing the store that got Mr. Brown killed. Rather it was charging towards a police officer with his head lowered. The officer had just gotten out of his squad car after Mr. Brown had reached into the car in an unsuccessful attempt to get the officer's pistol. When he failed to get the gun, Mr. Brown slugged the officer through the open window of the car. And, to think it was this scenario that led to the Black Lives Matter movement.
America racist? We elected a black president. We have had black jurists on the supreme court and we have black legislators in Congress. We see more black newscasters on TV and more marriages between blacks and whites. People should marry whomever they want, but mixed marriages can be used as one index of barriers coming down between blacks and whites.
What American has to guard itself against are the comments by race mongers like the Rev. Al Sharpton. As for Obama, the less he says the better.
At the time, Europe did not have the kind of agricultural economy that would gain from slavery. Be that as it may, countries like England, Holland and others, with their commercial fleets, were deeply involved in buying, selling and shipping slaves.
When slavery in America ended, we still had a problem with Jim Crow laws that reflected a culture hostile to people of color. But with leaders like Martin Luther King, Jim Crow was brought low. And, it speaks well of America, that white Americans joined the Rev. King in this struggle. Indeed, American religious leaders, Jews, Catholics and Protestants joined him in Selma. Much earlier, Harriet Tubman was assisted by members of the white population in running her underground railroad.
Whites played an important role in the early days of the NAACP. Clearly, African-Americans have borne the heavy brunt of racism in America. But, to deny the role of white Americans in their support of black people does nothing to help America defeat racism.
This is a situation where the president seems to possess little insight. A black man is found looking in the rear windows of a house in Cambridge. A police officer notices the man, and asks to see his driver's license in order to establish who he is and where he lived. The black man refuses, and so the officer brings him to the station house.
As it happened, the black man was a Harvard professor who had misplaced his house keys and was trying to figure out how he could get into his house. So why didn't he produce his ID? Because he felt that he was so famous that the police officer should have recognized him for who he was, and should have known that this was his house. Was this a reasonable attitude for the professor, or was it simply arrogance. Obama's solution: Get the two men to sit down together and have a beer. Actually, not a bad outcome. It enabled the professor to demonstrate that he was not above having a beer with a Cambridge police officer. That must have made the cop feel very good.
Consider the Trayvon Martin story where a black kid in a hoody gets stopped by a community watchman in an area where there had been a number of break-ins. The watchman, by the name of Zimmerman, may not have had the coolest head, but it wasn't smart of Mr. Martin to punch him in the nose and then slam him onto the pavement. Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Mr. Martin as he, Zimmerman, was being pummeled.
President Obama then went on TV and told America that if, he had had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon. But, Travon Martin's looks are not the issue. The real question is if Obama had had a son, would he have acted like Trayvon Martin.
The airwaves were then filled by black fathers explaining how they had made clear to their sons how to act when stopped by a police officer. I thought that was funny. My dad never took the time to explain such a thing to me. He didn't have to. Not because I was white, but because I saw how he acted when in the presence of an officer.
Then we come to Ferguson, a town where an officer shot dead a black, unarmed youth by the name of Michael Brown. Not mentioned in the initial reports was that Michael Brown was a hulking, six foot three thug who was seen on an in-store camera robbing a convenience store just before the event. But, it wasn't robbing the store that got Mr. Brown killed. Rather it was charging towards a police officer with his head lowered. The officer had just gotten out of his squad car after Mr. Brown had reached into the car in an unsuccessful attempt to get the officer's pistol. When he failed to get the gun, Mr. Brown slugged the officer through the open window of the car. And, to think it was this scenario that led to the Black Lives Matter movement.
America racist? We elected a black president. We have had black jurists on the supreme court and we have black legislators in Congress. We see more black newscasters on TV and more marriages between blacks and whites. People should marry whomever they want, but mixed marriages can be used as one index of barriers coming down between blacks and whites.
What American has to guard itself against are the comments by race mongers like the Rev. Al Sharpton. As for Obama, the less he says the better.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Nature Vs. Nurture -- A Concept Politically Unacceptable
That "nurture," the concept that holds that the environment can significantly mold human behavior, seems unacceptable to people on the left of social issues. Patrick Moynihan, for example, was pilloried for his Moynihan Report on the black family in America. In essence, the report pointed to deficiencies in the nurture of black youth due to broken homes. He was pilloried by many on the left for suggesting that there was any difference between blacks and whites.
We have the same situation now with Muslims. To applaud secular Muslims and to point to our problem with fundamentalist Muslims -- because of their greater likelihood for radicalization -- is unacceptable to liberals. For them, Muslims are Muslims. To distinguish between Muslims and to favor secular Muslims is racist and a threat to religious freedom. And, yet, to the average American the difference between a secular Muslim who will shake the hand of a woman, who is not of his family, or who will openly accept the friendship of fellow Americans who are not Muslim is glaringly obvious.
Call the Brits xenophobic for rebelling against the mass immigration of a people of another culture. Call Americans who believe in the importance of a safe and secure border racist. Tell Americans that there is no need for them to take exceptional pride in their country. And then tell them that they should be ashamed that someone like Michael Brown of Ferguson was gunned down by the police officer that Michael Brown was violently attacking. Do that and you should not surprised if the average American citizen begins to rebel agains the elitists who spout such nonsense.
We have the same situation now with Muslims. To applaud secular Muslims and to point to our problem with fundamentalist Muslims -- because of their greater likelihood for radicalization -- is unacceptable to liberals. For them, Muslims are Muslims. To distinguish between Muslims and to favor secular Muslims is racist and a threat to religious freedom. And, yet, to the average American the difference between a secular Muslim who will shake the hand of a woman, who is not of his family, or who will openly accept the friendship of fellow Americans who are not Muslim is glaringly obvious.
Call the Brits xenophobic for rebelling against the mass immigration of a people of another culture. Call Americans who believe in the importance of a safe and secure border racist. Tell Americans that there is no need for them to take exceptional pride in their country. And then tell them that they should be ashamed that someone like Michael Brown of Ferguson was gunned down by the police officer that Michael Brown was violently attacking. Do that and you should not surprised if the average American citizen begins to rebel agains the elitists who spout such nonsense.
Friday, June 24, 2016
What Brexis Has In Common With Trump's Wall
In a word, culture. That's what largely defines people. Wether it's Tony Blair, or Obama, or Biden, they all play the same tune. Let's all unite in a common effort to help mankind, they urge. And, who can be against that?
All people do seek good health and happiness. The problem is that people come from different cultures. Consider the fact that women coming from a culture of female genital mutilation, will generally make efforts to have their own female children genitally mutilated, as they once were mutilated. There are people who may wish well for all, but do not find members of the LGBT community as belonging to the "all" (as in "all people"). For people on the "right," this obtuseness as regards differences in the cultures is exasperating.
In Europe, people on the left see Europeans as one homogenous entity. And, yet, one need only compare the economies of Germany, France and Greece to see that they show significant differences. And, it doesn't take sophisticated analysis to see that the differences among these nations reflect differences in how the citizens of these countries view their responsibility to their fellow citizens and to the nation within which they make their living. These differences reflect their culture and the histories from which these cultures have emerged.
So why should one nation -- one culture -- accept the views of another. A nation can have trade agreements, defense agreements and all sorts of other agreements without having to morph into another culture. And, this is what people like Tony Blair and those on the left don't get.
I have nothing against Latinos. Indeed, I view their immigration to America as a very positive thing. However, that doesn't mean I favor an open border; one open to anyone who chooses to cross it without permission. For a nation to consciously maintain such a border is, in my view, irresponsible. Only after America has dealt with its border with Mexico can we resolve the matter of our illegal immigrants.
All people do seek good health and happiness. The problem is that people come from different cultures. Consider the fact that women coming from a culture of female genital mutilation, will generally make efforts to have their own female children genitally mutilated, as they once were mutilated. There are people who may wish well for all, but do not find members of the LGBT community as belonging to the "all" (as in "all people"). For people on the "right," this obtuseness as regards differences in the cultures is exasperating.
In Europe, people on the left see Europeans as one homogenous entity. And, yet, one need only compare the economies of Germany, France and Greece to see that they show significant differences. And, it doesn't take sophisticated analysis to see that the differences among these nations reflect differences in how the citizens of these countries view their responsibility to their fellow citizens and to the nation within which they make their living. These differences reflect their culture and the histories from which these cultures have emerged.
So why should one nation -- one culture -- accept the views of another. A nation can have trade agreements, defense agreements and all sorts of other agreements without having to morph into another culture. And, this is what people like Tony Blair and those on the left don't get.
I have nothing against Latinos. Indeed, I view their immigration to America as a very positive thing. However, that doesn't mean I favor an open border; one open to anyone who chooses to cross it without permission. For a nation to consciously maintain such a border is, in my view, irresponsible. Only after America has dealt with its border with Mexico can we resolve the matter of our illegal immigrants.
Monday, June 20, 2016
The Nexus of Mental Illness and Bad External Prompts (EPs)
The killing of 49 people in Orlando has moved the attention of America in many directions. Bigotry against the LGBT community has gotten attention, as well it should. The self identification of the killer, who may have been gay, and his extremist understanding of the Islamic faith has also gotten notice. And, the killer's use of a machine gun-like weapon has has brought renewed attention to gun laws.
But, what deserves more attention is the nexus of terrible deeds and mental illness. Gassing populations and then cremating them is more than a terrible deed. It is evil. What ISIS has done to the Yazidi people and to people they have captured is also evil. But these deeds have a nexus. They are not simply a result of mental illness. They have external prompts. In the case of the Holocaust it was extreme antisemitism that grew from generalized antisemitism. In the case of ISIS we have a evil being done on the basis of a deviant form of Islam.
But, how deviant? Is there any connection between the fundamental views of Islam and the deeds of a mass killer who no doubt suffered some sort of mental illness? It's high time we examined both aspects of this horrendous deed. The extremism found in Sharia law which is based on Islamic writings deserves to be examined, if for not other reason than to educate Muslims regarding their own religion.
Machine guns and assault weapons are a different matter. They can unquestionably be the instruments of evil, much as the gas used in gas chambers or the swords used by ISIS to decapitate prisoners. Automobiles driven by a drunks can also be an instrument of evil. That's why we license drivers. Gun owners should also be licensed. But, that's mainly an issue regarding hand gun owners. It is incomprehensible to me that ordinary civilians should be permitted to have machine guns.
But, what deserves more attention is the nexus of terrible deeds and mental illness. Gassing populations and then cremating them is more than a terrible deed. It is evil. What ISIS has done to the Yazidi people and to people they have captured is also evil. But these deeds have a nexus. They are not simply a result of mental illness. They have external prompts. In the case of the Holocaust it was extreme antisemitism that grew from generalized antisemitism. In the case of ISIS we have a evil being done on the basis of a deviant form of Islam.
But, how deviant? Is there any connection between the fundamental views of Islam and the deeds of a mass killer who no doubt suffered some sort of mental illness? It's high time we examined both aspects of this horrendous deed. The extremism found in Sharia law which is based on Islamic writings deserves to be examined, if for not other reason than to educate Muslims regarding their own religion.
Machine guns and assault weapons are a different matter. They can unquestionably be the instruments of evil, much as the gas used in gas chambers or the swords used by ISIS to decapitate prisoners. Automobiles driven by a drunks can also be an instrument of evil. That's why we license drivers. Gun owners should also be licensed. But, that's mainly an issue regarding hand gun owners. It is incomprehensible to me that ordinary civilians should be permitted to have machine guns.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Trump Gets No Credit For Trying to Bring The GOP Into The 21st Century
We can now see how tough it is to make positive change.
On women's rights: While abortion may truly be a marginal issue. . . . the abortion rate is way down because of day-after pills. Also, most abortions that do take place are generally in the first trimester. Finally, only the very poor and disadvantaged can't find their way into an abortion-friendly state. . . this remains a hot button issue and in my opinion the GOP is on the wrong side of this issue because of evangelicals and other members of fundamentalist religions. It's tough for any Republican candidate to fight against the standard Republican position.
Yet give some credit to Trump. He's the only Republican who has had anything good to say about Planned Parenthood. Yes, a reporter did get him to say something to the effect that anyone guilty of a crime should be punished. But that hardly makes him an Inspector Jean Valjean when it comes to women 's rights.
Next, consider the issue of control of guns and the NRA. This has always been a strong second amendment issue for Republicans. Massacre after massacre, the GOP has held its ground defending citizen's rights to possess guns. However, after the Orlando massacre, we see Trump calling for a meeting with the NRA. Mind you, the NRA was an early supporter of Trump. And, yet, we hear that Trump will try to modify the NRA's position. Admittedly, at the time of this writing, we don't know what the outcome of the meeting will be.
Does Trump get any credit for his efforts? No. The Democrats will continue to do their best to demonize him. What else would you expect? The Evangelicals are saying he is not a true conservative. And, the GOP elites join in tearing Trump down because he is not one of the boys. Making change isn't easy. Trump understands this, but does the American electorate?
On women's rights: While abortion may truly be a marginal issue. . . . the abortion rate is way down because of day-after pills. Also, most abortions that do take place are generally in the first trimester. Finally, only the very poor and disadvantaged can't find their way into an abortion-friendly state. . . this remains a hot button issue and in my opinion the GOP is on the wrong side of this issue because of evangelicals and other members of fundamentalist religions. It's tough for any Republican candidate to fight against the standard Republican position.
Yet give some credit to Trump. He's the only Republican who has had anything good to say about Planned Parenthood. Yes, a reporter did get him to say something to the effect that anyone guilty of a crime should be punished. But that hardly makes him an Inspector Jean Valjean when it comes to women 's rights.
Next, consider the issue of control of guns and the NRA. This has always been a strong second amendment issue for Republicans. Massacre after massacre, the GOP has held its ground defending citizen's rights to possess guns. However, after the Orlando massacre, we see Trump calling for a meeting with the NRA. Mind you, the NRA was an early supporter of Trump. And, yet, we hear that Trump will try to modify the NRA's position. Admittedly, at the time of this writing, we don't know what the outcome of the meeting will be.
Does Trump get any credit for his efforts? No. The Democrats will continue to do their best to demonize him. What else would you expect? The Evangelicals are saying he is not a true conservative. And, the GOP elites join in tearing Trump down because he is not one of the boys. Making change isn't easy. Trump understands this, but does the American electorate?
Why I Continue to Support Trump
Today Trump's numbers have fallen. Will this mark the end of Trump? I don't know, but I hope not, and here's why.
The irresponsible press and Islam. The two are connected. First, a bit of history. Sympathy for Hitler's Germany was rampant in the early years of his leadership. Lindberg, an American hero, loved Hitler. Father Coughlin loved Hitler. The American Bund loved Hitler. British royalty loved Hitler. American industrialists loved Hitler. And, then it suddenly changed. Why? Because of Pearl Harbor and the brilliant leadership of FDR. If Germany's ally, Japan, attacked us, what did that say about Germany?
Today, we face a similar situation as regards Islam. Having had Saudi Arabia in our corner for these many years in the fight against communism, we have overlooked the terrible form of Islam preached there; namely, Wahhabism. We can say that Islam is a faith of love, but see how this faith is practiced there, a country where no church may be built. Where the bigotry against all faiths, other than Islam, is clear and palpable. Where the treatment of women and gays runs against everything America believes in. And, it is this government that for decades has been building mosques throughout the world and sending preachers to these mosques to teach the Wahhabi version of Islam.
This gets little, if any, attention in our press, or by our leaders. Maybe it's because one of Saudi Arabia's early lobbyists in its behalf was Sen. William Fulbright, whose name is attached to the prestigious Fulbright scholarship. This was hardly novel. The path was already beaten by that rampant abuser of Africans, Cecil Rhodes, whose name is attached to the Rhodes scholarship.
Today, we have such forms of Islam as al Queda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. The press often cites Reactionary Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism as being equivalent to Salafist forms of Islam. But while we may find such forms of Catholicism and Judaism not to our liking, but it is false to equate them with Salafist Islam.
Then there is the issue of whether Obama is a Muslim. The answer is clearly no. You can't sit for 20 years in a church, even one where the Reverend Jeremiah preached, and be called a Muslim. But, with a Muslim father, Obama was clearly born a Muslim and in his early years in Indonesia he was taught as a Muslim. But, is he a Muslim? No.
To sum up, Trump seems to have a clearer grasp of the Islamic threat to America than anyone else in the press or in our political leadership, whether Republican or Democrat.
The immigration issue is closely tied to the religious issue. Among the thousands and thousands of refugees from Muslim countries, there are obviously any number of fundamentalist Muslims who abhor the American way of life. Such Muslims should not be admitted. They clearly present a threat. And, as we have seen, if they have children in America, those children are no less a threat. Vetting these refugees is absolutely essential. But, that's not easy. It would obviously take a great deal of time and manpower. So when Trump says that we've got to stop the immigration of Muslims until we get a handle on this problem, I, for one, support him.
Then there's the issue of Trump's attitude toward the press. That the press has it's bias, mostly favoring the left, is hardly news. MSNBC, with their Chris Matthews, the racist Rev Al Scharpton, and their other talking heads, clearly promotes the left's point of view. Joe Scarborough was their one talking head who offered a bit of impartiality. But, that's now gone too.
It's not that Scarborough has gone left. Rather it's that he's joined the Republican establishment that's never been in favor of Trump. Their man was Jeb Bush. And, if not Bush, then Marco Rubio. They could probably have lived with Gov. Katich. But, Trump? Never. And, that's another reason, I'm sticking with Trump. Until Trump came around, the GOP was a party of losers. I voted for McCain. I voted for Romney. I know.
Obama's disastrous foreign policy, his wrong headed attitude towards Guantanamo, his crippling Affordable Health Care Act, his cavalier attitude toward controlling America's borders -- all these issues leading us into the wrong direction are supported by the press. That however doesn't make them right.
The irresponsible press and Islam. The two are connected. First, a bit of history. Sympathy for Hitler's Germany was rampant in the early years of his leadership. Lindberg, an American hero, loved Hitler. Father Coughlin loved Hitler. The American Bund loved Hitler. British royalty loved Hitler. American industrialists loved Hitler. And, then it suddenly changed. Why? Because of Pearl Harbor and the brilliant leadership of FDR. If Germany's ally, Japan, attacked us, what did that say about Germany?
Today, we face a similar situation as regards Islam. Having had Saudi Arabia in our corner for these many years in the fight against communism, we have overlooked the terrible form of Islam preached there; namely, Wahhabism. We can say that Islam is a faith of love, but see how this faith is practiced there, a country where no church may be built. Where the bigotry against all faiths, other than Islam, is clear and palpable. Where the treatment of women and gays runs against everything America believes in. And, it is this government that for decades has been building mosques throughout the world and sending preachers to these mosques to teach the Wahhabi version of Islam.
This gets little, if any, attention in our press, or by our leaders. Maybe it's because one of Saudi Arabia's early lobbyists in its behalf was Sen. William Fulbright, whose name is attached to the prestigious Fulbright scholarship. This was hardly novel. The path was already beaten by that rampant abuser of Africans, Cecil Rhodes, whose name is attached to the Rhodes scholarship.
Today, we have such forms of Islam as al Queda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. The press often cites Reactionary Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism as being equivalent to Salafist forms of Islam. But while we may find such forms of Catholicism and Judaism not to our liking, but it is false to equate them with Salafist Islam.
Then there is the issue of whether Obama is a Muslim. The answer is clearly no. You can't sit for 20 years in a church, even one where the Reverend Jeremiah preached, and be called a Muslim. But, with a Muslim father, Obama was clearly born a Muslim and in his early years in Indonesia he was taught as a Muslim. But, is he a Muslim? No.
To sum up, Trump seems to have a clearer grasp of the Islamic threat to America than anyone else in the press or in our political leadership, whether Republican or Democrat.
The immigration issue is closely tied to the religious issue. Among the thousands and thousands of refugees from Muslim countries, there are obviously any number of fundamentalist Muslims who abhor the American way of life. Such Muslims should not be admitted. They clearly present a threat. And, as we have seen, if they have children in America, those children are no less a threat. Vetting these refugees is absolutely essential. But, that's not easy. It would obviously take a great deal of time and manpower. So when Trump says that we've got to stop the immigration of Muslims until we get a handle on this problem, I, for one, support him.
Then there's the issue of Trump's attitude toward the press. That the press has it's bias, mostly favoring the left, is hardly news. MSNBC, with their Chris Matthews, the racist Rev Al Scharpton, and their other talking heads, clearly promotes the left's point of view. Joe Scarborough was their one talking head who offered a bit of impartiality. But, that's now gone too.
It's not that Scarborough has gone left. Rather it's that he's joined the Republican establishment that's never been in favor of Trump. Their man was Jeb Bush. And, if not Bush, then Marco Rubio. They could probably have lived with Gov. Katich. But, Trump? Never. And, that's another reason, I'm sticking with Trump. Until Trump came around, the GOP was a party of losers. I voted for McCain. I voted for Romney. I know.
Obama's disastrous foreign policy, his wrong headed attitude towards Guantanamo, his crippling Affordable Health Care Act, his cavalier attitude toward controlling America's borders -- all these issues leading us into the wrong direction are supported by the press. That however doesn't make them right.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)