Follow by Email

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Putin Envy

Vladimir Putin may be many things, but the man is not a wimp. This is a guy with whom George W. Bush famously had a wrestling match. He's a guy who actually blows ISIS installations sky-high. He's a guy who actively pursues territorial ambitions. He's straightforward and unapologetic.

Meanwhile, we've had Barack Obama, who has none of the positive qualities of Putin. Granted, Putin is a dictator who represses freedom of expression. Then again, the same could be said of President Obama. After all, he has infamously decreed that he will pursue his agenda whether Congress passes it or not. Very undemocratic for a Democrat, I must say.

 Republicans, meanwhile, are split between to candidates with very distinct personal styles. On one hand we have Ben Carson, a genius who is soft-spoken but direct and unapologetic in his views, much in the vein of Ronald Reagan. He is the literal incarnation of "Speak softly but carry a big stick." His domestic agenda would reshape the economy in a profound way, not radically but more in a reactionary fashion. Taxes would be set at a flat 10% for all Americans, a tithe. Obamacare would be repealed in favor of an HSA-based model that puts more purchasing power in the hands of health care consumers. Marriage would be restored to its historic definition as a union between a man and a woman. Internationally he would defend America's interests in an unapologetic manner.

Donald Trump is just the opposite. He is loud and brash and often sticks his foot in his mouth. He rarely if ever apologizes for these gaffes, however, choosing instead to attack anyone who points them out. His domestic agenda is only conservative with regard to immigration. On every other front he is rather liberal. His tax plan would be to raise taxes on the middle class and moderately wealthy and to reduce or remove taxes from both the lower class and the ├╝ber-rich. He would surely defend American interests abroad, but would also likely alienate key allies by attacking them unnecessarily. The traits that most attract people to him also make him unpresidential.

We want a Putin, someone who is an unapologetic nationalist. We want someone who will boldly defend our interests at home and abroad. That is why Trump's candidacy has some real clout; whether his domestic policy is sound or not, there is no doubt that the man loves America and will do his best to promote our interests. With Russia's economy in the toilet, Russians still love Putin for the same reason--he's a proud Russian, whether or not his domestic policies are working.

Personally, I favor Ben Carson. My only fear is the "Romney factor," that perhaps the man is too soft-spoken and nice to debate as forcefully as necessary to win. Trump will go for the jugular, not afraid of the personal attack. I'm hoping Carson will be just as forceful in his quiet-yet-powerful way. Trump is clever. Carson is wise. The question is, can a wise man win the presidency? I guess we'll find out.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Why can't gays leave Boy Scouts alone?

Well, they're at it again. The homosexual privileges crowd is once again attempting to hijack the Boy Scouts of America. They're using an old political hack who happens to hold office in the Boy Scouts as a mouthpiece for their agenda. The president of the BSA, Robert Gates, proclaimed:

"We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be... The status quo in our movement’s membership standards cannot be sustained. The one thing we cannot do is put our heads in the sand and pretend this challenge will go away or abate. Quite the opposite is happening."

Gay privilege organizations behaved predictably. They praised Gates' statement and then promised to push for more concessions. Chad Griffin, for example, stated:

"We welcome as a step in the right direction President Gates’ announcement that the organization will not revoke the charters of chapters that welcome LGBT Scout leaders and employees. But, as we have said many times previously, half measures are unacceptable, especially at one of America’s most storied institutions."

The issue should never be about who wants what or what percentage of the population believes in X, Y, or Z. The Boy Scouts of America stands for something. It stands for being, in part, "morally straight." You can't teach that convincingly if you change your moral code with every shift in public opinion. Moreover, the BSA has an obligation to protect our boys. We wouldn't want straight men taking a young group of Girl Scouts camping, would we? Does not this same principle apply to gay men and the Boy Scouts? We are told by the pundits that, in fact, it's the straight men we need to watch out for.

The statistics used to promote the lie that straight men are much more likely to molest boys (an idea that is ridiculous on its face) are so blatantly misrepresented that they deserve their own chapter in the history of propaganda. There are several facts to understand before the raw numbers will make any statistical sense. First, nearly all sexual abuse is committed by men, a fact that is a sad testament to the general moral inferiority of the male gender. I guess that's why the Boy Scout program needs to exist, though--young men need moral training. Secondly, only about three percent of the male population, as examined by multiple studies, is homosexual in orientation. Third, roughly one-third of sexual abuse cases involve boys. Using a simple ratio comparison, the ratio of female sexual abuse victims to straight men is 67:97 and the ratio of male sex abuse victims to gay men is 33:3. In context, gay men are almost sixteen times more likely to abuse their preferred victims.

You will not hear the facts in context from the mainstream media. You will not hear them from any politician wanting to go with the flow and avoid offending anyone, even when the safety of our young people is at stake. When placed in context, the data are clear. All most of you will ever hear is that twice as many straight abuse cases happen as gay ones. No proportionate analysis of the data will be tolerated.

It's like the old saw--there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics. The media will manipulate the numbers any way they have to in order to create the image they wish to portray. Journalism is dead, and we were too busy nodding our heads to notice. In the meantime, the Boy Scouts are in danger of both a loss of their founding principles and a wave of molestation cases. We have to protect our youth, whether or not this makes us popular. Giving up our principles will not save the movement; it will destroy it.

UPDATE: Well, it seems that the only safe Boy Scout troops are those sponsored by conservative religious institutions. You know where to register your boys. Nothing is 100%, but the odds are in your favor.

Friday, February 27, 2015

A Historical Framework for Ending Islamic Chauvinism

I realize the title of this post is a bit verbose, but it's really the most precise heading for what I want to say. I've spent a lot of time, years actually, pondering the parallels I'm about to describe here. After the events that have occurred since September 11, 2001, I don't see much of an alternative to the course of action I am about to lay out here. I don't relish the thought of these actions. They involve the deaths of thousands. They would result in the demise of a culture and a major world religion. And yet, to preserve all that is noble and true, I fear no other end is possible.

You see, Islamic chauvinism is becoming dangerous to the continued existence of the West. Those of you self-loathing liberals out there might see this as a good thing, yet consider what would replace us. Indeed, the very culture that permits you to question its superiority and express those doubts is the one that will die if it does not defend its existence. Western culture is unique in this way. Precisely the attributes that make it superior also make it difficult for us to admit its superiority. Western culture is unique in its open-mindedness. It is unique in the quality that allows for critical self-evaluation. The culture of the Muslim world does not permit criticism of its tenets. The Communist cultures of the world, China, Cuba, et al, punish through legal sanction criticism of a Statist value system. Those nations that permit and even encourage self-criticism do so inasmuch as they have absorbed the ideas and values of the West.

I introduce the topic in this way because we will never take the steps necessary to defend our liberties, our way of life, unless we recognize that it is worthy of drastic steps to defend it. We once recognized this, and were committed enough to destroy entire cities and terminate an entire religion to protect ourselves. We need such determination again.

Peace is never achieved without total victory. Such a victory is not merely political or the result of a treaty. It is psychological. It is the breaking of the will of the enemy, total and absolute domination of one society by another. It is achieved by the vanquishing of one party by the other. Only then will the conquered people be malleable enough to submit themselves to the will of the conqueror. For the self-doubting West, such a result is borderline anathema. Yet history demonstrates, over and over, that such is the case.

Let us use the defeat of Japan as an example. I was discussing this topic with a friend of mine, Hiroyuki Okano. He explained to me that the overwhelming defeat of Japan in World War II had the additional consequence of disproving the religion of Japan. Under Shinto beliefs, the emperor was a god. He was literally divine, a descendant of the sun god. As such, he was considered all-powerful. The Japanese, in this sense, worshiped Japan itself, personified in the emperor. After the decimation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the promise that Tokyo was next, the emperor was forced to submit himself to the will of the United States. By so doing, he admitted his fallibility, which proved that he was not all-powerful, that he was a mere mortal instead of a divine being. That tenet of the Shinto religion was destroyed. Shinto survives in cultural celebrations and traditions, but it is no longer chauvinistic. Nobody in Japan believes that the emperor is infallible. That aspect of their culture and religion was destroyed with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Islamic world has a very similar perspective to what Japan had at the onset of World War II. Foreign peoples were seen as filthy, inhuman enemies whose destiny was to be forcibly replaced by Japan. The same mindset exists in Islamic fundamentalism. It is all or nothing. Resistance to conquest is seen as the equivalent of violence against the religion. When the West resists invasion, it is portrayed as a new Crusade. Of course, such a perception ignores the very real geopolitical causes of the Crusades, which began with an Ottoman invasion of Byzantine territory. Even in that context, then, it was the West resisting conquest, even if the participants in the Crusades did commit some extremely vile atrocities against the residents of the lands they were ostensibly trying to free.

The only outcome I see that would result in a lasting peace and security for the West and our culture is massive destruction inflicted upon the Muslim world, a destruction never before seen. Nations that support or condone terrorism within their borders or as proxies for their political agendas will have to be virtually obliterated. We must force the Islamic world to sue for peace under any conditions necessary. We must demonstrate irrevocably that God is not on their side, that He does not accept the notion that Islam should be used as a weapon. ISIS-infested lands must be incinerated; pinpoint strikes via drones are not having a significant effect. The Muslim world must be crushed, its spirit and will broken. Yes, I am speaking of nuclear weapons.

We have foolishly robbed ourselves of the neutron bomb, which was a very merciful alternative to conventional nuclear weapons. A neutron bomb kills everything it touches, but leaves little radioactive residue to affect survivors. It decimates military targets within a limited area, much less than a conventional warhead, meaning that it could be used to destroy political and military targets within a 2.5 mile radius while leaving surrounding areas unscathed. Such a weapon would be ideal in the fight against militant Islam. ISIS troops and leaders could be vaporized while those under their oppression could be spared. Such a path would be both sufficiently forceful and the most moral alternative.

I do not wish to suggest that I see atomic warfare as a good thing. War is never good, but a sometimes necessary evil. However, it is vastly superior to having Western civilization replaced with a barbaric Ninth Century culture that sees women as chattel and enforces its religious zealotry with a death penalty. These are rapidly becoming our only realistic alternatives, as much as we may wish otherwise. I, for one, appreciate the value of our culture sufficiently to defend it no matter what the cost. Those who would criticize this post do not, period. I suppose that is their right and, ironically, a side-effect of the superiority of our culture.

Before you lambaste this post, please take the time to think unemotionally and realistically about its actual content. What I suggest is indeed horrifying. It is also necessary. Sadly, if history has taught us anything, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Monday, January 5, 2015

What the Media Have Done to America

This is a photo from Moscow, where shopkeepers are putting out our flag as doormats and enterprising businesses are selling toilet paper with our flag on it for a dollar a roll. While it is an insulting sight, to be sure, it is at least comprehensible. After all, to the Russians, it is the flag of a foreign power that they feel is destroying the national economy.

If this same doormat were placed outside a Marxist bookstore, the ACLU would be the first in line to defend it. Collegiate liberals would wipe their feet as a gesture of solidarity. Michael Moore would show up and shake hands with the shopkeepers. This in spite of the fact that America's president is, at present, a communist African-American Democrat.

We can see evidence of this disdain in the media's treatment of the cases in Ferguson and New York City. Especially in the Ferguson case, the media chose to broadcast inflammatory and false information without regard for how it would affect either the community in which the events were unfolding or the nation as a whole. While this behavior is fairly typical of the media these days, in this case it is displaying more than a simple desire to create news for the sake of gaining viewers or selling newspapers.

The media, especially the left-wing outlets, have been almost ecstatic in their reporting of the still-extant racial divide in the country. After declaring Barack Obama to be the post-racial president, the media have been hard-pressed to contend, as they are wont to do, that America is still a racist nation. As I like to say, the Race Card officially expired on January 20, 2009. However, the left-wing media template is to portray the nation as a bastion of racism, a throwback to darker, less-Progressive times.

They equate disparities in outcome to bias based on race as opposed to other factors. One study pointed out that resumes with equal qualifications but with names that sounded "white" rather than "black" garnered more interview requests under the "white" name. However, this ignores the influence of culture, which in this day and age is far more important than race. An African-American named Ronald or James will not be discriminated against because of his name. Why? His name indicates being raised in a middle-class culture. In fact, nearly any employer would hire an African-American of middle-class behavior and mannerisms over a white candidate with lower-class behavior and attitudes. This makes perfect sense, since the middle-class tends to be more cooperative and polite in its dealings with people of authority.

It is, in its way, extremely racist to equate race and culture as if the two were one and the same. This implies that race determines things such as behavior, work ethic, and the likelihood of criminality. This is, in fact, a form of racial profiling that is much more damaging than any performed by law enforcement. Let's face it--two white teenagers who are wearing hoodies, sagging their pants and walking like they're angry with the world are much more likely to be stopped and checked by the police than two black teenagers in properly-fitting slacks and a shirt and tie who are smiling pleasantly as the police drive by. In fact, I personally dare any university sociology department to run an experiment using precisely those parameters and prove me wrong.

The media in this country desire to perpetuate the impression that America is anything but the land of opportunity and justice for all. By so doing, they are desecrating the symbolism of America in a fashion that is much more disgraceful than wiping their feet on an image of the flag. It is less overt, certainly, but the intent to disparage America and all it stands for is the same. At least for the Russian shopkeepers, the action is not treasonous.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Timing and Bill Cosby: A Case for Suspicion

He said/she said disputes are always nerve-wracking for me, especially when they involve someone I admire personally. As a youngster, I loved Michael Jackson's Thriller album; I played the cassette so much it became warped and stopped playing. When the accusations came out, I was disappointed. However, when the plaintiffs settled out of court and won the litigation lottery, I felt vindicated in my belief in Jackson's innocence. After all, as a parent, I would have gone directly for criminal charges.

Now Bill Cosby is under the gun. He is accused of being a serial rapist. While I am not suggesting the man has a flawless record of personal behavior, my instinct in this case is that he is most likely innocent. I intend here to make my case; let me know what you think. My reasons are as follow:

1. Gloria Allred is involved. This individual is a camera-hogging ambulance chaser of the worst sort. She takes cases generally for the publicity and celebrity she may garnish. Though she presents herself as a champion for women's rights, she displays her true colors as a champion of the almighty dollar with every case she takes. I wonder if she is going to make public what her cut might be of any settlement in this case?

 2. The statute of limitations has run out on at least two of the cases. This makes me wonder, "Why now?" Why would you wait so long to address the issue, and then do so in such a public way? If an undeserved shame kept you from speaking out, one would assume that you'd stay away from the spotlight as much as possible. Since this is not happening, I suspect that another motive is at work here. As for the woman who claims to have been assaulted as a minor, if she is telling the truth she deserves both justice and sympathy; moreover, her case will not be affected by a statute of limitations. However, Gloria Allred is doing her a disservice by bringing all three cases up at the same time. This implies that her motives are the same as the other claimants--in other words, economic.

3. Bill Cosby is well-known as one of the few socially conservative voices among African-American celebrities. He often speaks out on issues of personal responsibility, the negative impact of "gangsta" culture on Blacks everywhere, and other things that make the Left cringe. Given the current crop of events in Ferguson and New York City, America desperately needs someone of Bill Cosby's notoriety to talk some sense into people. With these accusations, he has been effectively silenced. Indeed, due to the nature of these accusations his reputation will be forever tarnished. Those who would profit, both economically and politically, from his silence are well-served by this turn of events.

Why are these accusations happening right now? I suggest they have been timed precisely to silence one of "ghetto" culture's most ardent critics. Bill Cosby has always portrayed African-American life as one full of possibility. He portrays upper-middle-class homes of responsible parents and professionals. He does not glorify "ghetto" culture or behavior, and he does so in a way that is both charming and entertaining. His stories counter the dogma that the authentic African-American culture is that of vulgarity and crime.

 Well, you have silenced a great voice of common sense in America, Ms. Allred. Congratulations.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Teachers need the benefit of the doubt!

This subject is one of my pet peeves. You see, as a teacher I have sometimes been interpreted as making inappropriate comments. Much of it comes from the subject matter; the course standards for Spanish include a good amount of cultural analysis and comparison. This can lead to discussions of complex topics about which some people are quite sensitive.

As any reader may attest, I don't consider someone's race a very important factor in who that person is. Having lived in South America for years, my perspective on questions of nationality is similar.  Moreover, I find it useful sometimes to "illustrate absurdity by being absurd;" that is, point out cultural stereotypes in order to display their inaccuracy. Sometimes the only part of the discussion that makes its way home is the stereotype rather than the fact that it was subsequently analyzed and disproved. This is a shame. How am I to defeat cultural misconceptions if I must fear misrepresentation and reprisals for doing so?

Perhaps I should just ignore these issues. I should simply state, "Let's not talk about that" and allow the teachable moment to slide by. Certainly my life would be easier if I took that avenue, but that's not why I decided to be a teacher. Analyzing complex topics is what breeds human intelligence, and I went into this business to do just that.

Nevertheless, I am sometimes called upon to defend my honor, so to speak, as the result of concerns expressed directly to an administrator rather than to me. I cannot emphasize enough that all teachers hate this! We expect to be given at least the opportunity to clarify or explain the true circumstances in any given misunderstanding before having to explain ourselves before an administrator. Children are not exactly the best message-carriers. If you don't believe me, try having one of your children deliver a message for you after only hearing it once and waiting a few hours before repeating it. I rest my case.

Parents, please talk to the teacher before contacting anyone else! Nothing eats away at a good relationship between parents and teachers more than distrust, and so much of that could be very easily resolved through a simple phone call or email to the teacher. Nothing so annoys a good teacher than to be misrepresented negatively in front of the administration.

Let's think logically. What incentive does the teacher have to be purposefully offensive, to punish your child for no reason, or to otherwise create conflict? I have news for you--the teacher has none. Logic would therefore dictate that most second-hand information that seems to be questionable might be related in an inaccurate way. At the very least, let the teacher have the opportunity to defend himself. (I'll use the generic masculine here, which some might find offensive in and of itself. Oh well!)

Saturday, August 9, 2014

False Equivalency

I have noted that the news media, especially left-wing outlets. like to make comparisons that don't quite fit. For a long time, I've lamented the fact that the media equate the Gay Rights movement to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Race and sexual proclivity have nothing in common.

Race is an innate quality, and to discriminate against someone based solely on that criterion is illogical. In the modern era, most Americans cannot claim descent from solely one race, so such a bias is increasingly ridiculous. I am a blend of mostly European stock and a smaller percentage of Cherokee blood. Three of my children are 3/4 Mexican and 1/4 Pomo Indian, and the Mexican side is an unknown concentration of Amerindian, Spanish, and possibly African blood. Most Black Americans are, in fact, of mixed African and European descent. However, all of these lineages have one thing in common--they are inherent characteristics that came with birth.

Sexual preference is not. Period. All reputable studies confirm that homosexuality emerges as the result of key life experiences, often traumatic ones. Three studies have been used by proponents of garriage (my term for the contradiction in terms "gay marriage") to suggest that homosexuality is innate, however all three fail to pass the rigors of proper science. The most famous of these was done by Simon LeVay, who suggested that a certain area in the brain was larger for gay men and females in cadavers he had studied. However, the size range for both groups was equal, with some individuals in all groups having similar brain sizes in this area,  and it is unknown how he confirmed which cadavers were and were not homosexual. Moreover, the study was not blind, and the groups studied were not large enough to be statistically sound. In addition, no researcher has been able to reproduce his findings.

Science also confirms that there is a difference between the relationship that comprises a marriage and the relationship between a gay couple. For starters, biology itself has dictated that men and women are to procreate. It is the means of procreation for not only our species, but also most other complex animal species. The benefits of such an arrangement are myriad, but all lead to the production of hardier individuals and the survival of the species. Marriage simply formalizes what biology has already determined. Indeed, government did not create the concept of marriage, but simply recognizes it and authorizes people to perform recognized ceremonies.

However, the news and entertainment media insist that both relationships are the same, while simple logic and human anatomy would make the opposite case. Proponents make an argumentum ad ignorantiam, basically saying, "Why not?" However, this logical fallacy is neither unanswerable nor sufficient to make sweeping changes in the way we legislate.

Aside from that issue, we also see the media asserting a false equivalency between Hamas and Israel. Hamas is a terrorist group that attacks specifically non-military targets. Moreover, it fires its missiles from crowded residential areas to maximize civilian casualties when retaliatory strikes occur. It has dishonored truce after truce, and will accept nothing less than the utter annihilation of the Israeli state. It victimizes its own people purposefully, murdering in cold blood any Palestinian who voices dissent or refuses to cooperate.

Israel, meanwhile, uses its missiles to target the areas from which Hamas has fired its rockets. It takes extraordinary measures to minimize civilian casualties, even making phone calls to the places it intends to strike to warn civilians to clear out. It has negotiated truce after truce, and would stop its military actions the moment Hamas actually honored its bargains. Israel fires missiles away from its civilian population. Some have argued that Hamas cannot do so because all of Gaza consists of crowded urban sprawl, but a quick look at Google Maps will confirm that such is not the case.

Add to that the false equivalencies of the Occupy protests and the Tea Party, social conservatives and Nazis (who were anything but), et al ad infinitum. Those who fail to pay close attention fall victim to these tactics. They were used often by Goebbels, who made false equivalencies between Jews, communists and anarchists. The concept of the Big Lie is nothing new. It is shameful how readily we fall prey to it as Americans who should know better.