Fall Theater Preview: Bush Con American Tour '06

By Kanrei As we approach the next anniversary of the September 11th attacks of 2001, we know certain things are coming, and we look forward to none of them. We know that every news station will be ignoring any events that have the bad luck of falling on September 11th 2006 because “News” will be concentrating on the past instead. We know every politician is going to make heart wrenching speeches that appear on the surface to address the families, but are really more campaign speeches for the November elections. We also know that Bush, like clockwork will be giving his annual “I am not tying Iraq to 9-11, it is just coincidence I am starting my support campaign at this time again this year” tour. Bush’s past strategy for convincing America this war is a good thing has been as effective as his plans for the occupation of Iraq. He has gone on two ineffective tours so far, with a third starting this week. The past two tours, both around the time of bad poll numbers (another coincidence from a President who never looks at polls) focused on the positive that was occurring in Iraq. The November/ December ’05 Selling the Drama tour was to convince the American people that the war we won in 43 days was winnable 3 years later. I hear that a man will land on the moon in 1969 too. Then in March, series two started dealing mainly with the progress of the Iraqis. “(W)e saw the capability of the Iraqi security forces [and] the determination of many of Iraq’s leaders”. The nation’s answer to both these tours was a resounding “great, then bring the troops home.” This was not the answer Bush was hoping for, so he will have to go on tour number three just around the fifth anniversary of September 11th. Gee, what a great break in an election year that his party is favored to lose big in. August 31st marks the beginning of “Bush Con America Tour 06” and is kicking off at the annual American Legion convention in Utah and continues through around the middle of September. The reports are that this should be a hot show and tickets will be going fast. After negative reviews for the show’s trial run, Bush and company have reworked the entire script and are taking the story in a new direction they are sure will thrill audiences around the world. Of course it is fully possible that the show’s trial runs were the result of bad casting with Donald “Known Knowns” Rumsfeld in the starting roll. This tour they return to the headliner cast and promises to be more of a “downer” in terms of the emotional appeal, but that is what this 5 year anniversary election year tour calls for. According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush is “likely to talk more about the importance of winning and how the U.S. is adapting to the changing nature of the struggle against terrorism in Iraq and beyond”. Winning something already won; priceless irony. A senior administration official also said in the WSJ terrorism is on the minds of Americans, and as we go into the fifth anniversary of the Sept 11 attacks, it’s appropriate and necessary that the nation continue to hear about the state of the war and the nature of our enemy” Nothing like blurring the line between separate realities when it serves a larger purpose. Who cares if one has nothing to do with the other? In fact, it reminds me a little of that master of the lie Goebbels and his famous quote: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until we overthrew Saddam. We left a power vacuum that Iran filled with their people. Now they are free to build all the nukes they want because they never feared us, they feared Saddam. They used us to take him out and Bush’s Oedipus fixation allowed him to do it. I mean the stupid neo-cons put their plans on the internet for all to see under P.N.A.C. The truly disgusting part is that none of this is Bush’s fault as usual. Just like no one expected the levies to break and no one expected planes to be used as missiles, this one has nothing to do with him either. Turns out that Bush is going to “remind” the American people that the day-to-day handling of this war is being run by the military and not him; it is their fault, not his. Kind of like me not giving you enough food or water and leaving you in the desert to find your way out and then I blame you for starving to death. He cares nothing for the troops. They are a distraction for him. They distract us from him and they distract the terrorists from America. We are not safe because of Iraq; he has just given them a closer target. He say so himself when he says that the “enemy will follow us home.” This president has “jumped the shark” long ago. His denial of reality is borderline psychotic in my untrained and completely amateur opinion. He is a third rate Baghdad Bob in his insistence that Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism. Bob was atleast funny. This is simply him trying to save face in the history books now. He does not want to be one of the few American presidents to lose a war after being the first one to start a pre-emptive one.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Mephistopheles and His Schizophrenia

By Kanrei You almost have to pity the devil these days. His entire purpose in life is to drive people into the arms of his foe and how do the followers of his foe repay him? By hurling even more upon him. Now they are blaming Hitler and Stalin on the red cloaked underworld dweller. They poor guy must listen to Styx everyday for G-d’s sake, no wonder he is a bit cranky. I read today that Father Gabriele Amorth feels Hitler and Stalin were possessed by the Devil. He should know too, he is “Pope Benedict XVI's 'caster out of demons'”. Know what scares me more than a pope who was in the Hitler Youth? A pope who has an official “caster out of demons” who is saying every Nazi was possessed. That means the current pope is possessed by the devil. Has the pope had an exorcism since he left the Hitler Youth? If not, then we may have a problem... "I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed. All you have to do is think about what Hitler - and Stalin did. Almost certainly they were possessed by the Devil. "You can tell by their behavior and their actions, from the horrors they committed and the atrocities that were committed on their orders. That's why we need to defend society from demons." This guy is the expert with the experience. In addition to being Pope Benedict XVI’s top demon hunter, he is said to have over 30,000 exorcisms under his belt. Do Fathers wear belts under their robes? Let's just say he has over 30 exorcised demons under his robe. No, that doesn't sound right either. How about he has performed over 30,000? That works. His favorite flick is the The Exorcist as well. Just cannot make stuff that good up. The truly interesting part of this to me is that Father Gabriele Amorth has revealed another facet of the devil never before spoken about by any religious person. It seems the devil suffers from dissociative identity disorder also known as Multiple Personality Disorder. A diagnosis such as this would explain so much. It is simple logic that the devil must be suffering from such an affliction if the pope’s expert demon hunter is correct. MPD is defined as “the existence in an individual of two or more distinct identities or ego-states, each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment.” This would explain the vicious war between Hitler and Stalin. Only a person with multiple personalities would fight so ruthlessly against themselves, right? So either we have a possessed pope, or there is no devil and Hitler and Stalin somehow fit into G-d’s plan or were just plain bad people. It would not be the first time Father Gabriele Amorth went after a fictional character. "Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil." For the record, this is just satire so please do not get offended. I am just playing with his logic. I do not think the Pope is possessed by the Devil simply because I do not believe in the devil.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Limbaugh's Rush to Racism

By Kanrei It appears Survivor is going to try a battle of the races next season. I just read that they are going to divide people into four groups instead of the usual two teams. The teams are going to be racial in their make up: Black; Asian; Hispanic; White. While that does not sit right with me, I am going to save my rant on that for another day. Instead, today, I am going to deal with Rush Limbaugh’s comments on this as reported by Media Matters. “We've been looking at this here amongst ourselves, and our early money is going on the Hispanic tribe, providing they stay unified... if they start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves, that could lead to problems. But our early money is on them anyway, because these people have shown a remarkable ability, ladies and gentlemen, to cross borders, boundaries -- they get anywhere they want to go. They can do it without water for a long time. They don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do. So, our money, early money, is on the Hispanics.” Oh my G-d Rush! Did you really just say that? That is…I am speechless. I wish I could say the same for you, but you just had to continue. “The Asian -- the Asian-American tribe probably will outsmart everybody, but will that help them in the ultimate survival contest? Intelligence is one thing, but raw, native understanding of the land and so forth -- this is probably why the Native Americans were excluded, because they were at one with the land here, and they probably would have an unfair advantage.” You got a two-fer on that one Rush. Native Americans are not even part of this show and you still just had to show yourself to be an equal opportunity offender, huh? “The African-American tribe, tough to handicap on this one, because you just -- it's -- it's -- there are many characteristics here that you would think give them the lead and the heads up in terms of skill and athleticism and so forth.” Oh, but Rush is only joking, right? I mean his tongue is firmly in his cheek with his white comments. “We're speculating among ourselves that if the white tribe behaves as it historically has, they will bring along vials of diseases; they will end up oppressing the other groups; they will deny them benefits; deny them their property, steal it from them, and you know, put them on some kind of a benefit program. The white tribe put everybody else on some kind of benefit program, but the benefit program, of course, will not be enough. There will be no education. The white tribe will not allow any health care.” So he must be joking about this. Sick jokes, but they are still jokes, right? Well a caller asked him what group would have the best swimmer on it. “Well, now, wait, wait a second, though. If the Hispanic tribe has a Cuban in it, those people swim 90 miles, you know, sometimes for freedom. So you know, you just never know. That's why you've got to watch the show.” When the caller reveals himself to be black, Rush immediately claims he is not the racist one because Survivor is the one showing this. “I am playing the racism card! I'm telling you what a major network is doing in its prime-time schedule. They're pitting races against each other in this stupid Survivor format, and you tell me I'm being racist.” That is like a Klansman saying “I am not burning the cross so you cannot say I am involved.” Bad example I know, but it is late. You get the point. I will change it tomorrow. In essence, think about the fact that he repeats stereotypes of races until he gets to the white race, then he switches to describing liberals. He has scorn for all those groups and it shows. His “humor” reveals his character because only he finds his jokes funny. Well, him and his “dittoheads”.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

President Harris or the End of the World: Tough Choice

By Kanrei Sometimes I cannot help but believe in a G-d. Things just happen “out of the blue” that are just too perfectly timed to have happened randomly. There has to be a hand guiding these things. Sure, we could miss them, but something put them there for us to notice in the first place. Just yesterday I was complaining about how all of our politicians have been too quiet lately and I have been reduced to writing about celebrity gossip. I love pop culture, but I hate celebrity gossip. The problem is it has been the only news that has been different lately. Everything else is the same story from a year ago and it sucks as a blogger. Today I got a gift from G-d and I was lucky enough to have taken notice. Thank you G-d and thank you Raw Story for finding my salvation from celebrity gossip hell. Florida Baptist Witness has been in publication since 1884 and is the weekly news journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. The purpose of their newsletter is to provide “news and information about Southern Baptist ministries across the United States and around the world, as well as discussion of current issues of interest to all Christians.” Although probably not on the internet since 1884, they are now and they have an interview with the “Wicked Witch of the 2000 Election” herself: Rep Katherine Harris. This interview has convinced me beyond any shadow of any possible doubt that she is not just the wrong choice for Florida, but she has larger plans that are bad for America. Just the name Katherine Harris gives me chills and I already know I will not be sleeping tonight because the interview had a photo, but sometimes one must do things to defend their country and exposing Katherine Harris is my duty. It starts off as a very cliché election year interview. She talks about how perfect her record is and how no one else could beat Florida incumbent Bill Nelson this year. She describes Bill Nelson as left of Hillary so he cannot be the moderate he claims. Like I said, all expected and then came the bomb. Being interviewed by the Florida Baptist Witness, I expected a religious slant, but she took the ball and just ran without looking back. It is almost as if she either forgets there are non-Christians in Florida or she just does not care about them. In fact, she outright brags about voting with the Christian Coalition and "other traditional values groups" 100% of the time. The Christian Coalition is onlt a small percent of Florida. As a Senator she will have to represent the entire state, not just those she feels deserve a voice. She has no concept of the principles this government was founded on either and brags of that as well. “If we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what G-d intended.” The founding fathers intended secular laws and she speaks for the All Mighty now? Is this really someone we want as a Senator? Don’t answer yet because it gets better, I mean worse. How does she feel about Gay Marriage or Civil Rights for Gay People? “Civil rights have to do with individual rights and I don’t think they apply to the gay issues." Gay people are not individuals? "I have not supported gay marriage and I do not support any civil rights actions with regard to homosexuality.” Now that is just cold hearted evil even beyond the typical GOP standards. I can understand opposing gay marriage. I do not agree with that position, but I can understand it, but what is up with “I do not support any civil rights actions with regard to homosexuality”? Even the Republican position allows for civil rights. That is too extreme of a view point to give her a six year job. I do not believe she has plans to sit in the Senate for six years if she wins anyway. She lays out her plans very clearly at the end of the interview when asked why Baptists should care about the upcoming primary. “What happens in Florida sets the trend for what happens nationally…whoever wins Florida will win the presidency” It seems she wants the presidency down the line and that is why she wants the Senate so badly. We cannot allow her to fulfill her evil plan to transform America into a Fundamentalist Christian nation that looks down on the non-Christians. Again, from her own words: “whenever we legislate sin and say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong…” As a non-Christian, I am personally offended by that remark. I hope everyone reads those words for what they are: elitist, bigoted crap. I am not opposed to Christianity at all and I actually have quite a bit of respect for the teachings of that faith, I only with those who claim to follow it would have some respect for the teachings. “If you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin.” That statement is not only narrow-minded, but weird. Narrow-minded because she speaks as if only Christians have an understanding of sin and weird because I though "G-d is the one who chooses our rulers." That would mean G-d legislates sin. She believes that if she loses, then they “will take western civilization, indeed other nations”. She is placing herself between the end of the world and Heaven I think. I am not really sure who "they" are, but it appears that one she can save us from "them". She is so delusional that I actually fear her. I do not think she can win, but that does not mean she will not beat Bill Nelson. She has cheated in elections before and I will never place it below her to do again. In her mind, she could justify it as work in G-d’s name. “You know we’re covered with, our sins are covered with His blood and so we are blameless before Him. We are as white as snow.”

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Into the Void

This is not a celebrity gossip blog. I must state that clearly to myself and to those new to here because it is starting to look like one. I am a political person who is just completely bored with the political scene right now. This lull in politics just happens to have coincided with my starting of my own blog. What are the odds of that? Five years of daily new stories, each more shocking than the one before and once I start my own page….NOTHING! Thanks a whole bunch world leaders! It is your fault I am writing about Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton. Can’t just one of you please do something noble or stupid so I can have something else to talk about? Please? I’ll give you a dollar. I’ll clean your room AND do your homework. All you have to do is something. I think you can handle that. Tony Snow? Paging Tony Snow. Please, you have been great for setting me off. Say something again. How about Rummy explains why Iraq is going so well? Bush, can you tell me more about how you are spreading democracy? Condi, make some peace in the Middle East. Israel, stop doing everything; same for you Lebanon. You have done enough already.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Cleansing the Past of Smoking Cats

“What do you do for a living?” “I make sure a cat and mouse never smokes.” By Kanrei Tom and Jerry are finding themselves under close scrutiny lately, so close in fact that Turner Broadcasting is “going through the entire catalogue” of cartoons to edit them for content. “This is a voluntary step we’ve taken in light of the changing times.” What changed exactly? Could it be that someone else has finally seen Tom and Jerry through my eyes? Can it be that, after thirty years of complaint someone actually took note of my points? Am I really that delusional to think I had anything to do with this? Am I actually so delusional that I think someone would actually protest a part of the show that makes sense to protest? Yea, I was. Silly me. Tom and Jerry has never been a cartoon I enjoyed. It has always just never sat right with me, even when I was a child. There were too many aspects of Tom and Jerry that were just plain mean to a sadistic level. Yes, Bugs Bunny was overly cruel to Elmer Fudd and the Roadrunner did push the Coyote off the cliff many times, but Tom and Jerry managed to take the violence even further. Jerry was, in reality, nothing more than an urban terrorist. How many times have you seen Jerry set up an IED (improvised explosive device) for Tom to stumble across? Sure, the IED was usually just a pie or liquid of some type, but still. Jerry screwed with Tom for no reason usually and this was presented to me as entertainment. “Come watch the tiny mouse and the giant cat eviscerate and cremate each other for the next thirty minutes." "We want you to grow up to be well adjusted.” “Why is Johnny so violent? That is not to say that Tom is an innocent victim. He is placed in the sadist's role just as often as Jerry is. Once in a while the animators will even team the two up to unleash their savagery on a third usually innocent victim. The entire cartoon is an expression of love directed at violence and animal cruelty. No, ironically it is not the violence that got Tom and Jerry in the crosshairs of the overly moral. So what exactly has their ire up then? If violence is not what they are talking about when they say “not appropriate in a cartoon aimed at children”, what can be so bad that they must protest a 60 year old cartoon? Well smoking obviously! Even though the complaints were registered in England, Turner Broadcasting will be changing how they show these cartoons world wide. Turner Broadcasting is the parent company of Boomerang who the complaints were initially against. It seems a viewer in England saw smoking in two "Tom and Jerry" cartoons and was outraged. The first offender was called "Texas Tom"(1950) and has Tom rolling, lighting and smoking a cigarette with one hand, er paw. The other offender was "Tennis Chumps"(1949) where the bad guy smoked a cigar. Having never really noticed titles when I was a kid, I looked these episodes up at "The Big Cartoon Database" to see what they were about. "Texas Tom" seemed harmless from what I could see there. To be honest, it did not give much information, but reading on "Tennis Chumps" makes me wonder why she focused on the smoking. The plot is described as Tom's oppoent "beating him soundly (and literally)" , so Jerry "comes to the rescue right in the middle of the court with a special "killer" tennis ball". Keep in mind the description on this one was vague as well, but we have assault and battery as well as poor sportsmanship. Add to that Jerry's IED tennisball (told you he was a terrorist) to the list of things “not appropriate in a cartoon aimed at children”and all someone can find wrong is that someone is smoking? I am sorry. I find this so silly it is almost hard to write a serious piece on. In essence we are telling our kids that we are fine with violence, sadism, cruelty, terrorism, and attempted murder as long as they don’t smoke. We need to get our priorities in line and quick. We have become so dysfunctional that we are seeing logic in our illogical actions. This is like being upset over Janet Jackson’s breast peaking out for less than a second right in the middle of a sixty minute tribute to war and violence AKA football. “Who put this sex in my violence? Have we run out of boogiemen or have we just given up trying to keep the tough ones away from our kids? I do not want children seeing the wrong message anymore than anyone else, but please get the right "wrong message". Violence or smoking and they pick smoking? Did I miss a memo? I am purposely being ridiculous in my outrage over the violence in Tom and Jerry cartoons for a reason. I know I am not going to be taken seriously, nor hope to be on this, where as the person protesting this does, did, and sadly is. They need to stop trying to change the world to their standards and raise their child to be prepared for the world's standards instead. Don't remove the things that will force your child to ask difficult or uncomfortable questions. Answer those questions instead or, better yet, watch with them and explain before they ask. While you will not always be there to protect your child, the world is always waiting. Prepare them for the future and stop changing the past. How will they learn from our mistakes if they never see them anyway?

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Throwing Stones from a Broken Glass House

By Kanrei I recently found myself stuck agreeing with someone I do not like. It feels wrong. There are reasons why you don't like a person and agreeing with them, even once, seems to weaken your case against them. I find myself in the same spot again. Kira O'Reilly is something. I know she calls herself an artist, but I just don'’t see it. I see her as a girl with many many issues that she needs to deal with. I see her as a beacon of depravity, symbolic of a society she thinks she mocks. Her "“art"” seems to consist of indulging in peoples voyeuristic and sadistic impulses. Her latest piece is called "”Inthewrongplaceness"””. It is currently on display (or is it being performed) at the Newlyn Art Gallery in PenzanceI, England. It consists of people being allowed entrance one at a time for up to ten minutes at a time. What they see is Kira O'Reilly sitting in a bed, naked with a dead pig in her lap. No, seriously. If you are brave, curious, or just sick, the photo is behind this link. Again, this is a picture of a naked woman with a dead pig. You have been warned. I looked her up at the British Council Arts page to try and understand this latest piece of something she is performing. They list some of her current projects and I am really afraid of this lady right now. Again, from British Council Arts, I found other performances that I find unsettling. Her show View (nearer to the time) is one where the artist and audience negotiate cutting on the artist's body or not. Action for... allows the audience individual experiences of "intimacy and tenderness" with this woman. Harvest is a video installation looking at openings in the skin. Blood Wall Drawings is, you guessed it, drawings made from Kira O’Reilly's own blood. Self mutilation is never art and having other mutilate you is even less artisic. She is sick. She needs help. She is not an artist in any context I have ever seen the word and I have used it to describe the "Jim Rose Circus Sideshow" in some intoxicated moments. Protesting this piece of "art"” is, you guessed it. No, not the Christian right! It's PETA, or as I like to think of them: Project Economic Terrorism Agenda. These are truly sick and depraved people. They stand for something noble, and degrade their cause by their tactics. It is a risky move to oppose a group that has such a noble cause. It makes you appear to not support their end-goal. Nothing can be further from the truth. I support an end to animal testing and I think fur coats are a pointless excess that should have ended long ago. That does not mean I agree with the way PETA brings these issue to the forefront. I cannot approve of destroying private property because you oppose the industry behind it. I cannot support harassment and assault to show how kind you are. I really cannot stand any organization that uses kids against their parents. Kira O'Reilly does not hand her filth out to children. Can PETA claim the same innocence? "Your Mommy Kills Animals!" is a comic book that was handed out by PETA to children in 2003 outside performances of the Nutcracker. They are using children against their parents to push their agenda. That is disgusting; almost as disgusting as this "“art"” performed by Kira O'’Reilly. "Lots of wonderful foxes, raccoons, and other animals are kept by mean farmers who squish them into cages so small that they can hardly move. They never get to play or swim or have fun. All they can do is cry-just so your greedy mommy can have that fur coat to show off in when she walks the streets." What side do I take? It is my nature to take a side when I so oppose something, but I oppose both sides on this one. She is a sick, twisted, and depraved symptom of a sick, twisted, and depraved society and the other is a terrorist organization pushing an extremist agenda. I think I side with Kira O'Reilly simply because I never would have heard of this if not for PETA'’s protest of it. They shined a spotlight on something that would have failed and now will succeed from the pure curiosity factor. Yet another case of Reactionary Protester Syndrome. RPS is responsible for more cases of self-fulfilling prophecy and the success of more bad entertainment ventures than any amount of brain-washed impressionable youth. For the record, the person I hate that I agreed with was Justin Timberlake. See Here for More

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Tony Tells The Truth???

By Kanrei Tony Snow tells the truth for once? I am surprised as well. He must have done it by mistake or something. Maybe he isn’t sleeping enough. He is so bad I miss Scotty. I am almost surprised he was a newsman, then I remember it was Fox he worked for. At today’s press briefing, the following answer was given by Tony "Tar Baby " Snow to a reporter's question. Q Is there a civil war going on in Iraq? And is the President frustrated with the lack of American public support for Iraq? MR. SNOW: No, number one, there is not a civil war going on. I was on the phone earlier today with Major General Caldwell in Baghdad -- Q One hundred [dead] people a day? Mr. Snow is 100% correct. There is nothing “civil” about what is happening in Iraq right now. There is nothing positive about it. It is beyond a mess and we must leave. We must go. We did everything we set out to do and now must leave. As Mr. Bush said in the October 11th, 2000 debate with Al Gore: And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator that's in our and it's in our when it's in our best interests. Our troops did exactly that. We sent them to disarm Saddam and make sure he could never be a threat again. They did that exactly. He was overthrown, his heirs were killed, his government turned over to its people, and there is no chance of him ever having WMD's. We did all that in 43 days with only 173 total coalition casualties. So why are there now over 2832 coalition casusalitues with over 2600 of those American? Our soldiers kill. They do that to protect us. They risk everything so we can sleep easy at night. We owe it to them to not risk their lives over anything less than defending us. They are not nation-builders, not police officers, not social workers so why are we making them play those parts in the middle of a very uncivil war? Bring them home now!

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

At Least Pretend to be Impartial

By Kanrei Both sides agree to a cease-fire and the AP is pissed. I cannot believe a supposed impartial news service is actually upset with a cease-fire, but it seems they are. Zeina Karam, a writer for the Associated Press filed a story reporting that Sheik Hassan Nasrallah will accept the cease-fire passed by the UN Security Council last Friday. I have never read a more depressing account of a peace plan in my life. I have accepted that the AP and Reuters has taken a side in this conflict. The constant barrage of Lebanese possible deaths and fake photos while virtually ignoring the Israeli casualties has shown me that beyond a reasonable doubt. That did not mean I believed the press was actually rooting for more bloodshed. I thought any human being, regardless of any personal feelings would always choose a peaceful solution. These are reporters for G-d’s sake, not soldiers or politicians! The fact that Israel and Hezbollah are actually talking about a cease-fire is great news for those of us who fear the possibility of this exploding into some US versus the UN type affair. The situation is such that it would not take much for it to tip the world from almost chaos to biblical chaos. So why is Zenia Karam so down on this step? Do I believe it will take? Probably not; the two sides are too invested in a war and I think they enjoy it. That does not mean a reporter should be interjecting their pessimistic views in a news article. A column is fine, but this is an AP News Report, not Zenia Karam’s opinion. I was going to let it go. That report was filed at Noon EST, but appears to be down now. I was going to just forget it until I saw this just now: “Cease-fire gains momentum Fighting continues as Lebanon approves deal and Israel reportedly plans to halt attacks.” Lebanon approves deal? Israel REPORTEDLY plans to halt attacks? Israel accepted the deal before Hezbollah did for one thing and Zenia Karam is not even hiding bias or pretending to be a reporter in these reports. Third paragraph speaks of injured Israeli soldiers, no mention of civilians or the dead. You must wait until the fourth for that, and then it is not even Hezbollah’s fault they died. “The military confirmed more than 70 soldiers were hurt. In addition, at least seven Israeli soldiers were killed Saturday, including two crushed in a tank accident. The helicopter shootdown marked Israel's first loss of a helicopter in Lebanon in the monthlong conflict. Two helicopters collided and crashed and a third crashed separately in northern Israel early on in the fighting.” The deaths were all Israel’s fault. I also notice this writer is a big fan of switching back and forth between Lebanon and Hezbollah. Success is Hezbollah while failure is Lebanese victims. It is always Israeli soldiers or civilians. And while Hezbollah “fought back hard”, sounds so heroic, the Israelis want “to seize control of the area”. Curse them! Seizing is not nice while fighting back is what the oppressed do. This Zenia Karam seems like a failed fiction writer to me. “Their ability to withstand the Israeli military assault has also made Hezbollah heroes across the Arab and Islamic worlds.” Seems like to this writer as well. “Hezbollah's Mohammed Fneish, minister of hydraulic resources, said the two members of the Islamic militant group who are part of the Cabinet expressed reservations. Particular concern was raised over an article in the resolution that "gives the impression that it exonerates Israel of responsibility for the crimes" and blames Hezbollah for the monthlong war, he said.” Hezbollah is to blame! They crossed into Israel, killed eight soldiers and kidnapped two more. They have launched hundreds of rockets into Israel daily. They are launching these rockets from residential areas and hiding among civilians. What exactly is Israel supposed to do when the UN declares them the criminals? “Israel flew hundreds of commandos into southern Lebanon on Saturday, tripling its troop strength to 30,000 and sending some army units as far as the Litani River even as both sides indicated they would accept a U.N. cease-fire plan to stop the heavy fighting. Airstrikes killed at least 19 people in Lebanon, including 15 in one village, and Hezbollah rockets wounded at least five people in Israel.” This writer, notice I refuse to say reporter, keeps creating this impression that Israel is faking all of this desire for peace. That Israel is to blame for starting all of this. That Hezbollah is Lebanon. Hezbollah is Syria and Iran. Never forget that. Iran, the nation sworn to wipe Israel off the map and Syria, the nation recently kicked out of Lebanon. Israel does not have the AP and Reuters faking photos to incriminate Hezbollah. I want to know why these supposedly non-bias news services have yet to show pictures of the Hezbollah terrorists firing from crowds? No, instead we end the article…sorry, I mean opinion piece with: “The highway was impassable, but drivers tried to maneuver through ruts and ditches. The only other exits from Lebanon are rugged pathways and back roads through deserts or mountains. Israel seeks to block supply routes for Hezbollah and disrupt their mobility and has warned it would target any vehicles on the roads in southern Lebanon and along other main highways.” This writer is entitled to their opinion, but I must question why the AP is using this obviously bias writer for its reporting? Every story I have seen today on Yahoo from the AP has been from this writer and every one has painted Hezbollah as the brave fighters defending Lebanon from Israeli invaders without ever so much as a mention of the still missing soldiers. Do I feel bad for the innocent Lebanese civilians? Of course I do, just as much as I feel bad for the innocent Israeli civilians. Maybe I feel a little more badly for them simply because they do not seem to have a government willing to fight Hezbollah and would rather surrender control to them. Lucky for Hezbollah, the press is on their side. I am not picking on Zenia Karam, they are just the one that happened to be writing the stories today and displaying the bias I have been talking about for so long.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

The Rise of the Rodem

By Kanrei There is a new creature cowering in the shadows of American politics. It is as much of a threat to our future as the Neocons are. Infact, they share the same affliction. You see them every day and fall under their spell without even knowing it has been cast. It is the Rovian Democrat, genus: Recognitionicon Species: Egoisticous; recently evolved/devolved into “Rodem, named for its tendency to behave in a "Karl Rove" like manner when it comes to elections and winning at any cost to anyone. The Rodem is a crafty creature, more cunning than an average rat in their ability to survive, often with uncanny political instincts. They can hide their true nature for years; some for decades. They are masters of camouflage. It must be stressed that the Rodem is, in reality, not a Democrat. It is more of a cancer on the Democratic Party. It can adapt to the political atmosphere of any region. It is a virus that spreads through a lack of power. Members of the Republican Party caught it in the early 90's and devolved into the Neocons. Now the power vacuum has moved to the left and so has the Rodem. The Rodem is a parasite at best, and, as I said, a member of the Virus family. It sustains its life by sucking the negative attitudes of its geographical location and, mimicking cancer, can actually accelerate the negative attitudes of their surroundings. They attach themselves to a political party that is completely out of power and begin to infect the party with hate and distrust. It is the infection caused by the Rodem that creates the major problem of a Rodem outbreak. Since the Rodem survives on negative political attitudes, it must do all it can to foster these attitudes and try to spread them throughout the nation. The Rodem outbreak was contained to Texas before 1992, but it broke out and seized power. It got a president impeached and devalued the office and the concept of impeachment in the process. The problem is that it did too well. It became the power and weakened. Lucky for the Rodem, the Florida 2000 election offered it a chance to spread into a new party and begin anew. The Rodem is a cannibalistic parasite that has no loyalty to anything other than itself. Because of this selfish and egocentric aspect of its nature, those infected are very easy to spot. They include Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Nancy Pelsoi. Past victims of this political career crippling disease include Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Rev. Al Sharpton, Dr. James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Jessie Helms, and Dan Rather. The symptoms of infection can include any of the following: lashing out at friends and co-workers; failure to find fault in one's own actions; feelings of persecution; inconsistent political views; attention to problems with unrealistic solutions or none at all; rambling; justifying actions by comparing them to another's; and/or press conferences over anything. I may have overstated the problem in my opening. Creature was probably harsh for those infected with Rodem. They were probably all once great people and true to their beliefs, but, since becoming infected, they are more animal now than man. They need our help, and the first step in their recovery is to take away their power. Stop listening to them, stop voting for them, stop following them and their infection will pass. They need our help, not our scorn. Hate the disease, not the victim.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Bush Reads Lincoln to Learn About Bush

Bush is on vacation! Again! By Kanrei No, I am not bashing the man for going on vacation. He has one of the hardest jobs there is, and sucking at it is "hard werk". I am, however, going to go off on his book selections. Not because Bush is reading them, but because of what message those books tell me. During his annual retreat to Crawford, President Bush is going to be reading historical books again. He read the same genre last summer on his vacation, only this year he is giving himself less time to do it in. Shorter vacation this year. Cindy must be putting a strain on his relaxing maybe? This summer, he is reading two books on Lincoln and one on the history of polio. The polio book sounds rather uninteresting to me, but to each his own. I would love to be in the room as he reads that book though: Karl, Laura! I need help! There are no horses in this book! How can you have a book about playing polio without horses? Oh, wait. It's probably water polio. Nevermind. Almost looked dumb there No, I am rather concerned by the Lincoln books. I see many parallels between Bush and Lincoln that only a person who is not a fan of either's performance as President could see. My opinion of Lincoln is not popular in America. Actually, I get yelled at quite a bit over my opinion of him. I believe Lincoln did more damage to this country than was done by the evils he fought against. Done throwing things at me yet? Good. Now, please hear me out. I am not a supporter of slavery, rather I am a proud Southerner who is not a racist redneck. There are many more of us down here than there are of them for the record. I am not positive if it was Lincoln's intent or the intent of historians after his death, but somehow everyone believes the South were all evil slavers while the North was the great emancipators. Give me a break, everything has two sides and history only records the winner's tale. The North cared about slavery? The North? The same North that fought against Unions? The same North that fought against the 40 hour work week? The same North that opposed overtime laws; ergonomic; worker safety; child labor laws; health insurance for workers; and a fair wage? This is the North that was so concerned over the enslavement of people in the South? I do love the irony of the Union fighting unions though. Let's say they were that concerned. Let's say the American Civil war was over slavery. Why didn't Lincoln try for a constitutional amendment to end slavery? Why did Lincoln feel the need to bully his ideas through when there was an already established way to change the Constitution? Who really broke the Constitution then? The South, who was following the Constitutional law regarding slavery, or the North that tried to change the rules without regard to process and procedure? This nation was founded so that the whim of those in leadership can NOT alter the course of the country. It takes two-thirds of each house to pass a Constitutional amendment and three-quarters of the states to approve. Slavery, while horrible, was constitutional. That means there is only one way to stop it, and Lincoln's power grab was not it. Never forget that Lincoln is the only President to suspend several constitutional rights. How did he get that power exactly? Now let's examine the set-up of the country at that time. The South was agricultural and the North was largely industrial. The South got its steel from the North and the North got its agriculture from the South. If the South left the nation, then the North would have to import its crops. The South would also be free to negotiate with Europe on its own for its cotton rather than have Congress do it. This would put the South in a greater economic position than the North. The North could not have that. While barely paying their people, they still had to pay them while the South got its labor for free. The North did not factor in the fact that the food, shelter, and clothing supplied to the slaves probably came to about as much as the salary the North paid their employees. No, the slaves of the South and the trapped workers of the North were both slaves. Lincoln is credited with saving this nation and that is true, sort of. He destroyed much of it while trying to save it. He killed a lot of what made America great by forcing a strong Central government that rules over the States opposed to the system the Founding Fathers created. A system where powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people is now a system where the States are only allowed to do what the country thinks is ok. You see this again and again in issue after issue, whether it is euthanasia, medical marijuana, drinking age, or almost any other nationally unpopular thing a state wants to pass for its residents. These United States of America has become The United States of America. The emphasis used to be on the States, now it is on the America. Where once there were several independent states banned together for common defense, now is an empire. Can't you feel it coming? EMPIRE! Can't you hear it coming EMPIRE! Can't someone here stop it...??!! -Queensryche:Empire Thank you Mr. Lincoln. Your intent was good, but the saying is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." You were a lawyer and should have known about precedent. In essence, you started a trend that has stuck to the Republican Party to this day: my way or war. Bush does not need to read up on Lincoln's history to learn this lesson. He has mastered it. The only difference is that Lincoln's unconstitutional power grab was done for the best reasons, while Bush's has no reason to it at all. DISCLAIMER: Anytime a person takes a stand against Lincoln's methods, they are usually labeled a racist. I am not racist in any fashion, nor do I support slavery. Slavery was ending and it did not require a war. If the South had left AFTER slavery was outlawed, Lincoln's method would have merit. He did not try, much like Bush going to the U.N. for that second vote, and I fault him for that. Both wars are the fault of the sitting President at the time who chose to follow their opinions instead of the established law.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

The Evo-Zax and the ID-Zax: Stuck in the Middle with You

By Kanrei The debate over evolution really makes me laugh. I know, there is nothing funny about the fight, but they remind me of the story of the Zax. For those who may not know it, it tells the story of a North-bound Zax and a South-bound Zax. By some freak of luck, they both happen to be walking on the same line and eventually meet up with each other. The North-bound Zax, being a North-bound Zax, cannot go any other way and waits for the other Zax to move. The other Zax is a South-bound Zax and cannot move out of the way. He only moves south. Each Zax demands the other move, and the other refuses. They begin to brag about how stubborn they are and how they will never move. The story ends with the two Zaxs still standing in the same place, with a highway built over them. The moral of the story to me was that the world will pass you by if you are stubbornly stick to following only your way. Sadly, the Zax are still alive and well in the world today. The North-bound Zax is named “Evolution” and the South-bound Zax is called “Intelligent Design”. Evolution denies any chance of something being behind life. They refuse to move in any other direction. The Intelligent Design is equally as stubborn in their beliefs. The chance they could have come from monkeys millions of years ago is an insult to them and thier beliefs. Well, the two have met recently and the path they were on, education has stalled. Instead of being together on teaching our kids, we are suing eachother back and forth over what to teach them. The highways are being built around us. I am not going to get into which is right or which I believe. I am neither a scientist nor a theologian. I am going to say that both rely heavily on theory and belief to justify themselves. The absolute inability of each side to admit that there is the possibility that the other side could be right has stopped all progress. We are so busy fighting over it now that we have only succeeded in dividing ourselves into yet two more camps. While not getting into my beliefs on the subject, I do have a solution that, if both Zax are willing to take a step aside, we can all move forward again. The solution is so simple, so easy, that it will be unpopular simply out of the shame those in power will feel over not thinking of it themselves. Before I say my solution, ask yourself this very important question: do you really think “they” will accept a solution that ends their ability to divide us? Ok, the solution is to add a new class in school. Have this class taught every year starting in say sixth grade. This class will be something to the effect of “Applied Philosophy” (AP class). We have so many classes that teach the kids what to think, we don’t offer them any on how to apply what they have learned. This would be the class for that. Science class teaches that things evolve. When the question of what started it all comes up, the teacher answers with three very simple honest words: We don’t know. The AP class would be where the children get to discuss and debate the merits of evolution versus what they have learned elsewhere. The teacher in the class would act more as a moderator than an instructor. The Zax stood there, face to face for all time. Each one had seen what the other wanted to, but they never shared their information. They just stood there and let time move on, not gaining, not growing. Society grew around them and passed them, but they were stuck. If the North-bound Zax is Evolution and the South-bound Zax is Intelligent Design, then the path they are on is America and the highway built around them is the rest of the world passing them by. Time we reread our Dr. Seuss I think.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Osama Bin Gibson?

By Kanrei I am not sure what is worse: Mel Gibson’s “freak out” or everyone’s apparent lack of caring. His slurs are nothing new to me or any other Jewish person. Jewish jokes are considered harmless. Even Jews tell them and usually better. What bothers me is a growing global attitude towards anti-Semitic things. The problem did not start as being anti-Jew, but rather started as being anti-Israel. Israel is simply a nation, and they do good things and do horrible things. People will support them, and people will oppose them. Opposing Israel should not mean opposing Jews. One is a faith and the other is a country. Those on left will yell that anyone who opposes Israel is labeled an anti-Semite. They take great offense to the label inspite of the fact that they address their anger towards Jews and not Israelis. I am not saying they are anti-Semitic at all, but they need to realize the impression they create. I oppose Bush and support gay marriage, but I always respond with “just as you label anyone against gay marriage a homophobe or anyone who supports Bush a fascist”. Hypocrisy knows no sides. One can turn on the news any day of the last few weeks and see a subtle anti-Israeli slant occurring. For example, it is fairly easy to hear about Lebanese victims (this information is usually in the head lines of a story), but there is only mention of rockets being launched into Israel. The Israeli innocents are given less value than the Lebanese innocent victims. The media has, in an attempt to seem fair and balanced, forgotten there are innocents on both sides. It is all Israel’s fault, and Lebanon is completely innocent in the matter. However, I am not justifying Israel’s actions at all. I have felt they have gone too far and, much like Bush as done in Iraq, Israel has created circumstances that will only strengthen Hezbollah. The report today of sixty dead innocent people in Lebanon probably just created 120 new recruits. Israel started off correctly. They were invaded, had soldiers killed, and two others kidnapped. They had to respond and one or two days of rockets in the very southern part of Lebanon was a message. They should have let Lebanon try and do something about Hezbollah. If Beirut was unable or unwilling, then Israel could invade. This current path they are on just appears like bullying. While not defending Israel’s actions, because I am Jewish, I am expected to. While not defending Israel’s actions, statements like "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." only serve to put people like me on the defensive. We suddenly find ourselves defending Israel because we have been lumped in with the Israelis based on our common faith. Are all Christians represented by the Vatican? Then why should all Jews be held accountable for Israel’s actions? I am American and Jewish. I have no loyalty to Israel. I have been there. There was no “home” feeling there. All my thirteen-year-old eyes could see were guys with guns everywhere: guns bigger than I was. We even went to the Lebanese border. Everywhere you looked, you knew you were in a country that was not only constantly in war, but it was their national past time. I was turned off right then and there. It takes two sides to make a fight. Both sides have to be really into it for a fight to grow as this one has. If the press is stressing that the terrorists do not represent most Muslims, where is the same statement defending those non-Israeli Jews? Mel Gibson is blaming his outburst on the fact that he was drunk. The problem with that is that being drunk does not make you say things you do not believe: it only makes it easier to say those things you think, but never say. I personally do not care if Gibson is anti-Semitic or not. My issues with him as a film maker are that I do not enjoy torture. His views on my faith mean nothing to me. Try and think of a Gibson movie that does not have a major torture scene. (Lethal Weapon? Mad Max? Payback? Braveheart? Passions?) However, blaming the Jews for “all the wars in the world” is nothing more than justification of prior hate. Everyone else who has said something similar should examine their own biases.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

The High Value of Low Thinking

The Rise of Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, and George W. Bush. By Kanrei Ask people what they think of President George W. Bush, and I am sure some form of the word “stupid” will be used. It may be the polite “he isn’t that sharp” or “he is not a reader” or my favorite one: “he is not a curious man”. Regardless of what form of the word one uses, his intelligence will certainly be called into question by every one of his detractors. If he is stupid, as some would say, then what does that say of a society that elected him at least one time? There are many examples of the President’s supposed lack of skill when it comes to public speaking. It does not take long to find numerous examples of these on the internet, one of the best places being Slate’s “Bushism of the Day”. All of these certainly point to a man who is in the process of learning the English language, but there is no way that Harvard educated Bush cannot properly speak English. One of his most well known gaffes is the famous “misunderestimate me” he once uttered about why he always seemed to win. Everyone, myself included, just listed this as the new Quayle. I looked forward to four years of humorous press conferences and great SNL skits. The more he spoke, the more these gaffes emerged. People began to seriously underestimate him as a thinker. He would feed this myth by stating that he did not read newspapers or watch the news. He came across as a vacant space ready to be filled. I began to think about the term “misunderestimate” and dissect it. To estimate is to make a guess. To underestimate is to guess to short. The prefix “mis” means "bad or wrong". So, to misunderestimate someone is to underestimate them the wrong way. With this one simple verbal play, he identified every hostile reporter out there. He also made the opposition relax, since they would now assume him to be a simpleton from Texas. Bush is not from Texas. Bush is from the same New England that Kerry was attacked for being from. The difference is that Kerry still lives there while Bush ran off to recreate himself. There is nothing wrong with leaving your home to recreate yourself. I have done it many times myself, but one should never deny who one was. Bush’s “man of the land cowboy anti-intellectual” image is a slap in the face to his upbringing and his education. During the 2004 campaign against Kerry, Bush was often portrayed as the dumber of the two. A few months after the election, once Bush had won, the grades of both candidates were released and Bush had a higher G.P.A. than Kerry. Most people, when their intelligence is attacked on a global scale, would seek to prove they were not an idiot. One possible reason why a person would not seek to correct this is if they wanted it to be assumed that they were stupid. I did not do drugs in high school, yet had the reputation of being one of my schools biggest burn-outs. It was due to my naturally large pupils. People would look at me and just assume I was stoned. I did nothing to correct this mistake either. Why? Because people underestimated me when they thought I was stoned. It gave me an advantage in dealing with them. I could use their confidence in my lack of ability against them. Now, I figured this trick out at 14, so it is not that far off to guess that Bush would know the same trick. Let me say for clarity that I am aware that all people do project upon others what they think they would do in a similar situation, so I could be fully projecting my trick on Bush, but I do not think so. The main reason I believe in my heart that Bush is faking his stupidity and encouraging the stories of his lack of intelligence can be summed up in two other success stories: Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton. Much like George Bush, when one thinks of either Jessica Simpson or Paris Hilton, the word “dumb” or some form there of is not too long in coming. Both of these women have made an entire celebrity career off of verbal gaffes and the impression of stupidity. Jessica Simpson had been trying for fame since she was a child. First trying out to be on the New Mickey Mouse club with Britney Spears and Christina Agularia, she has tried for the level of fame her peers have achieved. They came out with albums around the same time as she did, yet they rose to fame while she still remained mostly unknown. Then she got her big break, a reality show on MTV about her marriage. One simple verbal gaffe (“Is this chicken that I have, or is it fish? I know it’s tuna, but it says Chicken? By the sea. Is that stupid?”) and she was mocked on every late night comedy show. Jessica Simpson became the new word for “dumb blonde” and she encouraged it by giving more and more. Was turning down Buffalo wings because "I don't eat buffalo" a sign of being stupid? I do not think so at all. She later appeared in a Pizza Hut commercial for Buffalo wings looking at a buffalo with wings. She was now famous and everywhere. Paris Hilton, like Jessica Simpson, wanted to be famous. She tried being a model, and was quite good at it, but, even with her famous name, never rose to supermodel status. She was better known as a party girl, but I believe she knew her looks were the secret to success, so when a sex tape was “accidentally” released, she became big news. While sex sells, making someone feel superior to someone else will make one rich. The famous "Wal-Mart, what's that? Do they, like, make walls there?" quote made America feel so much smarter than her, that they needed more. She was now famous. Paris Hilton has recently admitted in the press that she is not as dumb as she came across, but found celebrity easier playing that part. Much like me in high school playing the stoner, they played up to people’s stereotypes and used them. I have no proof that Jessica Simpson or George Bush are faking their “gaffs” as Paris Hilton as admitted to, but when I look at how well they have used it for success and fame, I must assume they know exactly what they are doing. It does make me wonder: does the rise in number of “dumb” celebrities have any effect on the falling test scores in school? I mean, why be smart when stupid gets you further? Just thinking with my fingers.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

What exactly is free speech?

By Kanrei “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” That is all the Constitution has to say on the issue of “free speech”. The founding fathers seem to have left it up to each generation to define it. Does it mean that a person is free to say anything, free of consequences? Does it mean that a person is free to say anything as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences? Well, “Free speech” certainly cannot mean that a person is free to say anything, free of consequences because there are many cases where there are consequences for things said. It is illegal, for example, to scream “fire” in a crowded place. It is illegal to say “bomb” in an airport. It is illegal to say “bong” in a headshop…um. If there is even one place where free speech is legally limited, then there is not freedom given to all speech. It means that there are certain words and certain places where certain words are not free. “But certainly profanity must be legal.” Actually and technically, no. According to uslegalforms.com, “If any person profanely curses or swears...he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.” So, if the freedom to use certain words is limited, then what does “freedom of speech” mean? Speech is not necessarily the words one uses, it is the idea one conveys through the words. “Freedom of Speech” means that a person is free to express any idea they may have, no matter what that idea is. The founding fathers were very big on protecting the right to make speeches and debating political philosophies. This was something that they could have been imprisoned for in the past. They wanted to protect a person's right to complain. They wanted to, as Larry Flynt once said "protect the thought you hate the most and not the thought you love the most." Where he and I part ways is that I do not believe all words are given equal protection, only the thoughts behind the words are. I believe the founding fathers believed in "Decent Society" and private lives. Profanity, slander, libel, threats: all are illegal. This is not to limit one person's rights, but to protect another's. A person is free to make speeches about the evils of Bush (and they do). A person is free to blame Jews for any and everything (and they do). A person is free to express any idea they choose to, but they are not free to use any word. “Freedom of Speech” is not “Freedom of Words”. For example, you can make a speech about how much you hate black people. You can say anything on the subject you want, but the minute you start saying the "N" word, you are attacking another. "Freedom of Speech" is not freedom to assault another. And you can even use that "N" word in places, just not in every place. Understand? It is understandable for people to misunderstand this concept. They misquote and misuse words all the time. It is the love of money, not money that is the root of all evil. "Play it again, Sam" is never said in Casablanca. Most people who will quote the Constitution have not seen it since middle school, so it is understandable. The only unforgivable part is their refusal to admit that they could be wrong. Just thinking with my fingers.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Common Sense: Get It While You Can. Limited Supply.

By Kanrei I may see this through a prism because I am Jewish, but I have no special personal loyalty to Israel. I am told I should because it is the “Jewish Home Land”, but I personally don’t see it that way. Usually, I see Israel just as guilty as those they are fighting against. When they destroy a town in retribution for a suicide bomber, I think they tend to only fuel the fire that rages against them (if you pardon the cliché). This time is different from what I can see. This time I fully support most of what Israel has done. To the best of my knowledge, there has been a relative cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon. This seems on the surface to be an unprovoked attack that ended in the deaths of Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two others while they were within Israeli boundaries. Being in another country, I am not getting very much information from there, but I will get to that in a moment. Israel has more than a right; they have the duty to do everything they can to get those two soldiers back. (I know there are three total, but Palestine is a different battle using same tactics). Would we expect, no, demand anything less of our own country? In Israel, it is an even more pressing matter. If this tactic is successful once, it will happen many more times and everyone is Israel has a relative who is currently serving. It can touch any of them. Every area Israel has pulled out of has been used to attack them. Israel has lived up to their end of the deal and given back land they said they would and they have been smacked for it every time. There should come a time when enough is enough. That is my support of them, now comes the flip side. Israel has to be aware that this is not Lebanon doing this, but rather Hezbollah. Attacking Lebanon only strengthens Hezbollah’s grip on Lebanon. They were correct for the first few days, but they must stop and see what Lebanon is willing to do. Personally, I believe this to be Iran and Syria. Not a big guess or top secret revelation or anything, but I think this is mostly Syria with Iran backing them up. I think this is Syria’s attempt to regain control of Lebanon by having Israel topple the government and the Lebanese, seeking revenge, would turn to Hezbollah to lead them. Israel showed Lebanon that, if Beirut cannot clean its house, that Israel can. Now they should see what Beirut does. As to the coverage of this story, I read in the headlines daily about missiles being launched into Israel. Never any mention of deaths or casualties. When they report what Israel has done to Lebanon, the death count is almost always in the headline. I get the feeling there is an anti-Israel slant going on in the media. Like I said, I could just be looking through a prism.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Last Exit on the Path to WW3

By Kanrei I am sitting here, looking at the Drudge Report, and there is just too much here to even begin to find a story. The headlines I see now are each more disturbing that the one before it. “Hezbollah Wants To 'Transfer Captured Israeli Soldiers To Iran'...” “Now Jewish Extremist Group Declares: We Kidnapped 2 Palestinians!” “Rockets Hit Israel Port City; No Injuries...” “Israel Blasts Lebanon Airport, Air Bases...” “Russia and France condemned Israel's strikes...” ”Greece says Israel using 'excessive' and 'pointless' force...” This will not be news to most of us, but the world has gone insane. Any pretext of what is right or wrong has been lost to the pretext of right and left. I used to think it was an American dilemma, right vs left, but I see it is larger than ever before. What defines “right” and “left” has altered slightly. The “right” is now those who will defend Israel while the “left” is now those who will not. Just look at the headlines I just took off the Drudge Report. That is the right versus the left in just a few headlines. Hezbollah wants to bring Iran into it. The Jewish Extremists are now kidnapping Palestinians. Rockets are flying back and forth between. Both sides are committing horrible acts against each other over a few captured soldiers and Israel is the one being condemned for using “excessive and pointless” force. The more Bush defends Israel in this, the more the rest of the world will side with Hamas and Hezbollah. Even those who hate the Palestinians (like Lebannon) will join the fight. This is, in my opinion, just more fallout from the war in Iraq. I have to wonder if Iran would be doing what it has been doing if they had to worry about the US, Israel, and Saddam. I wonder if Syria would be so bold if we were not so bogged down in Iraq. I am getting myself bogged down in “what if”’s and I hate those. “What is” is we are now in a situation direr than anything we have ever seen ourselves in. The world has been on the brink many times in the past, but never before has the ability to kill everything been so wide spread. War and conflict has always been the reflex response from those in power when threatened. Israel, while they are defending themselves, needs to go a little slower. World War One started over far less and we have far more to lose today.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Attempted Schadenfreude

By Kanrei 'Schadenfreude' is a German word that means essentially, "Taking Joy at Another's Sorrows." It is a recurring theme in history and is displayed, albeit usually subconsciously, in most victory celebrations. The victors take pleasure in another's defeat. It really is, to be honest, a great feeling except when phrased the way I just did. Anyone who has won after an hours-long Monopoly marathon knows the feeling of which I write. The problem with schadenfreude is that it is addictive and inexpesnive -- yet it carries the risks of having it stuffed back in one's face. You see, it is very easy to make oneself feel good at an enemy's pain; especially when oneself is at no risk, personally. But what of getting slapped back before you are done laughing? This is what I like to call, "Attempted Schadenfreude." The British suffered from this in the Revolutionary War by laughing at the rebellion. The French suffered from it in South-East Asia (as did the United States), and the United States is feeling it now in Iraq. "Attempted Schadenfreude" then, in my lexicon, means to celebrate victory too early. In the run-up to the the wars in Iraq, I was priviliged to observe how this diheartening phenomenon occurs both from a politically aware "90's-hippie teenager" and again as an adult. I wasn't hip to it the first time, possibly because I was scared of that "D" (spell out the word) word rising from the dead to steal my youth. But this time in Iraq I noticed victory announced from the deepest wells of those in leadership long before it was even decided to go to war. We heard about being greeted with flowers and candy, about how it would take weeks, not months. We heard cakewalk. If the people planning this war were in this mindset while planning it, how could they ever concieve of anything outside their ideals? I call this "pre-emptive victory." Many wars are fought between nations and their armies. To them, war is a ritual. There is honor, there are rules. There is a clear idea of victory in mind and there is a plan to achieve it. They know when they have lost (one hopes) and when to surrender. The Revolutionary War was not that type of war to the Colonists. Southeast Asia was not that type of war to the Asians. Iraq is not that type of war to the Iraqis. To them, I can only assume from my limited access to information from there, that this is a fight for survival and it is "victory or death." They understand only one option and they see only one enemy. Their idea of victory is our leaving and their plan is to make it happen by any means neccessary. We won. The schadenfreude was justified in the beginning. We over threw Saddam and got his diabolical sons. We celebrated their misery and this was justified. Then we caught Saddam and humiliated him on global TV, fresh from his spider's hole. We celebrated his misery and was justified. We captured tons of suspected insurgents and put them in Abu Ghareb. We saw the photos and we celebrated their misery and this was fitting and well. We held multiple elections. We established a Government. We helped write a Constitution. Then we stayed. Another reason to stay kept coming up. More carbombs go off. Iraqis began killing Iraqis, but they are leaving us alone so we celebrate their misery and this was also ratified as pure & true. We comfort ourselves by saying only 2500 dead! Only? In the Revolutionary War, the South-East Asian Conflict, and the current whatever you-may-call-it happening now in Iraq, the larger forces all saw victory as assured when faced with a smaller, weaker, but determined group. The French did not learn from the English. So far, we have not learned from the French. People are saying we must stay and win, but I thought we already won. If the objectives are going to constantly change, how will anyone know what victory is? Those in support of this war right now, the cheerleaders from the sidelines I am speaking of, not the troops. The "chickenhawks" are keeping this whatever you-may-call-it happening now in Iraq alive by wrapping it in schadenfreude. Most of us started to taste the bitterness of the Schadenfreude.... some of us need it.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

The Car, The Wall, The Left & The Right

The Left seems to have an image problem these days. It is only a few months away from the mid-term elections and the President's numbers are not that good. The public thinks America has lost its way, they have lost faith in the President's vision, and have lost confidence in the abilities of Congress to steer us in any direction. This should be a banner year for the DNC. I am not so confident. I see a lot of infighting among Democrats and no clear message on any issue. The Democrats have no clear leader to help convey their lack of a clear message. Inshort, they are resting their political careers, and our futures, on the hopes that we are upset enough with the RNC to vote DNC. Sounds like I am bashing the DNC, doesn't it? I am not. It is not their fault they have no clear message. Infact, it is impossible for the Left to have a message at all. It goes against Liberalism. What defines liberalism? A desire for change. What defines a Conservative? A desire for things to remain how they are. It is easy for any two people to agree on how things should remain the same; there are no variables to consider. However, when considering changing something, the door for inifinite possibilites opens. It is possible for 100 different people to have 100 different ideas of how to change something. This does not mean that it should not be changed though. This point comes up in Iraq debates quite a bit. People ask most liberal supporters what is the Democrat's plan for Iraq? I watch over and over how the left try to answer this question, but then they begin fighting among themselves. The right has a clear message- stay the course. The left does not. "Do we get out now?" " Do we stay and train?" "Do we just build bases?" " Did I vote for the war?" That is because liberals all see things differently. The Left's greatest asset leads to their defeat when the argument is set by the right. Instead, the left should be asking what the right's plan is since the course has gone bad. Instead of answering, the left needs to point out how terrorism has increased since 9-11, not decreased so the War on Terror is not slowing it down but accelerating it. Personally, I would rather no message than a bad one. Think of it like this: you are in a car with two other people. The driver is planning on heading into a wall after hitting it already. The other person suggests getting out of the car and going somewhere else but does not know where yet. The driver insists that this time it will be different. Would you stay in the car with the driver or would you follow the person leaving? Iraq is the car and terrorism is the wall. The left needs to stop fighting like the right and remind America why they are different.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!