India for Dummies

I have always been fascinated by India and that fascination refuses to subside. Rather, it is increasing. Some systems of thought within Judaism believe in reincarnation and given my comfort with all things India and Indian food it does make me wonder.

Do you want to learn about India? If so, I want to share three books with you that I highly recommend. The two things all these books have in common is that they are about some facet of India and they are big books with many pages. Not quick reads. Also, I suppose I should mention one other item. All three authors are excellent epic writers. I rather prefer long books and I absolutely love each one of these works. I was disappointed and a little sad when I finished each and every one of them. I suggest reading them in the order I have listed here:

Start your reading with a sumptuous four course banquet courtesy of Paul Scott who wrote a set of four novels collectively titled the Raj Quartet. This is the only item on my reading list which is not written by somebody from India but rather from an Englishman who ended up serving the Crown in India during World War II. Scott ended his military service as a captain in the Indian Army Service Corps and writes knowledgeable about British Imperialism and India as it breaks free from that grip. Scott does a remarkable job of creating some of the most memorable characters and then weaving them together. None of the characters seem to be thrown away as they come back and interact with other characters in different ways and from different directions. For instance, somebody may be introduced in one book and then disappear only to reappear again two or even three books latter. The characters are also multifacated and you have the opportunity to examine them from many critical perspectives. I have never read anything like it. The Raj Quartet chronicles the transistion of Colonial India into a democracy and the main character is Daphne Manners, her Indian lover, and their nemesis in the form of Ronald Merrick a British police officer serving with the Indian Police Services. Although this is a work of fiction it provides a good historical introduction to modern Indian before the British left and sets up the other two books nicely.

A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth is a work of art and I think that Vikram Seth is a genius. This is a novel that opens the door to India for you to walk in and explore. This book artfully compares and contrasts different pairs of seemingly opposed but yet connected ideas or entities such as Hinduism and Islam, India and Pakistan, religious and profane, rural and urban, man and woman, duty and love. This is a book that helps you to at least begin exploring the complexities of India. The main topic of the book, everything else sort of revolves around it, is the search for a suitable boy for young Lata to marry. However, as Lata and her family search for that suitable boy you learn a lot about India in the process. You will learn that these marriages are not arranged but rather negotiated as events which the whole family has an interest in. Frankly, I kind of like the way it works out since it views marriage on a much larger and important scale than just some romantic tryst.

Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found by Suketu Mehta. By far this is the least romantic book on the list and the only nonfiction one as well. In this book the author's experience as a journalist is put to good use and as far as I can see he holds nothing back - neither the good nor the bad. Explore Bombay, now named Mumbai, with the author who returns to his original homeland with his family from the United States for an extended stay. Read about police methods (rather heavy handed), the slums, Bollywood, organized crime, and how they are all linked together. Along the way you will meet killers both Muslim and Hindu, poets, rogue police officers, everyday people, and even a family of wealthy Jains who renounce everything to find salvation.

If you like to read these three books will provide you with an outstanding introduction to all facets of Indian culture and society which is exceedingly complex. Systems theory holds that as systems age they become more complex and that is surely the reason for India's complexity. India is a mixture of very old cultures and civilizations where the very modern and the very ancient influence life on the same level at any given moment. This happens elsewhere but not with the magnitude that you will find in India. And, somehow it seems to work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose I need to offer a fourth book to complete your journey. This is not a book about India but a book that does help you place India within its context of the modern world. It is also considerably shorter than the other three works I have recommended to you. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas Friedman explains the modern and emerging India. Friedman focuses not on the slums and the poverty but the rise of technology and a nation emerging as an economic and scientific power. You will understand why India has so many call centers and the importance that those centers have as a source of prestigious employment with excellent benefits. It places India in perspective on a world wide basis. As China and India become more and more influential and powerful, and make no mistake that is inevitable, those of us from America and the Western world need to learn more about our neighbors.

Here are two movies for your enjoyment:

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

I love this video! Dedicated to all the bigots and ignoramuses out there for they are legion.

Hiring A President

We vote for presidential candidates without knowing who they really are.

Sure, I know that supposedly there is a lot of information out there about the candidates, their past, and their views on the issues. But, it is very hard to get a sense of what kind of person they are. Also, most of the information is either carefully orchestrated image building, or venomous character attacks of partisan snipers from the opposing party. For example, Hillery Clinton is either the savior of our country or a devious and conniving witch. I can not make up my mind about her or a lot of the other candidates! Also, I am fairly well educated, a prolific reader, and a news junkie. The information I am looking for is either not there or hiding in plain sight among a lot of just plain junk. Unfortunately, I don't trust the image I have of the candidates. I have learned that the image is too often carefully orchestrated and polished having little, or nothing, to do with who the person actually is. This is particularly vexing when there are so many people viaing for their parties nomination.

I remember that after Bob Dole's disastrous presidential bid, against Bill Clinton in 1996, something mysterious happened. The stiff and awkward candidate disappeared and was replaced by a witty and much more relaxed persona. He seemed human and a lot of the people I talked to back then commented on what a positive impression he had made after the fact. Many said that had he come across as positively during the election they would have voted for him. Was this a "new" Bob Dole or the real Bob Dole that had been hidden from view by the mechanisms of his campaign organization?

We have all these job applicants who want to run the most powerful country in the world during a time when America's place in the world is evolving (thanks in part to a big push by George Bush). It is an understatement to say it is an important decision. The one bright spot is that the debates seem to be helping now that the strangle hold by the League of Women Voters has been broken. The sheer number of debates has made it increasingly harder to put up a false front and we are beginning to see the facade crack and peel allowing us to catch a glimpse of what is under all that pancake makeup.

It's Official! United States and Iraq are Breaking Up

One of the things I have learned in social work is that the person who is the least invested in a relationship has the most power. Another thing I have learned is that when a relationship begins to disintegrate that one, or both, of the parties will become disenchanted with the other. This makes the breakup easier. Inevitably when friends or couples part ways something comes up to fight about which makes the parting easier. It provides an excuse. It is easier to stomp off mad, than it is to come to some reasonable understanding of what went wrong in a relationship. Much easier. It occurred to me tonight that these dynamics are what is happening with the United States and Iraq. They are also what is happening with President Bush and both political parties.

Clearly the Democrats are not invested in the Iraq fiasco and their past support is an embarrassment that few have been able to explain away. Hillary Clinton is a prime example. The Republicans have steadily grown weary with a president whose stubbornness is only matched by lack of clear and intelligent thinking. The war is a political liability with absolutely no redeeming value since we are clearly loosing the peace. John McCain who has a good deal of integrity has become shipwrecked on the war because although he has disagreed and criticized the present administration on a regular basis he believes that Iraq is our mess to clean up. That has most certainly cost him any chance he ever had of being the Republican presidential candidate. As the conflict drags on with absolutely no sign that there is any improvement whatsoever with anything the war is becoming an administration only concern. The Democrats, and now even the Republican Party, will be able to successfully decouple their selves from the conflict. President Bush will find his administration increasingly isolated from the rest of the world, nationally and internationally, as everyone counts down the days until he leaves.

The criticism of the Maliki government has slowly but surely increased. Rather than trying to fix it or engage as a friend and ally we are criticizing it. Never mind that the criticism may be justified. That is not even the point. What matters is that the Iraq of today is our creation, our Frankenstein, and we are disavowing ourselves of it. It is a shameful and cowardly thing to do but we will do it. We will do it because it allows us the excuse to blame the Iraq’s for our failure – a failure that the rest of the world predicted. Instead of asking for help, instead of engaging other nations in the area in a reasonable dialogue, we are going to let Iraq fall. Then we will blame it on a government which was totally and completely our creation and which was totally dependent on us.

We will abandon Iraq. For a long time I wondered how we would justify it but now I know. The headlines shout out the solution. After a marriage of convenience we are breaking up. It is not us but Maliki and his government. In typical modern fashion everyone is scrambling to get into a new relationship before the old one is dead. Maliki has already been to Iran and Syria looking for a new partnership. Already some Republican politicians are calling for a partial troop withdrawal as a punishment to the Maliki government. Interesting, since the problem all along has been too few troops as we allowed the country to disintegrate into chaos.

We made this mess and we have a moral obligation to do whatever we can to help clean it up. It is to President Bush’s everlasting shame that he made Iraq worse than it was under Saddam Hussein. What truly sickens me is that we will abandon Iraq and not pay child support. Iraq will struggle and suffer because of our actions and we will deride and gossip about her like a wife we left behind who was once the apple of our eye.

Make no mistake about it. We went into Iraq largely because one man wanted to redeem his father. It was not about oil and it was not about Iraq supporting terrorist or developing weapons of mass destruction. Everything else was just an excuse to provide cover for George Bush’s neurotic and adolescent need to overthrow Saddam. The stampede for the exit sign is now on. Get out of the way because the donkeys have been joined by the elephants and anyone who gets in their way during this panic will be trampled. I predict that we will be well on our way out of Iraq in time for the election.

Wikipedia is not the Devil

Higher education has a fascination and a love/hate relationship with Facebook and Wikipedia. Today I want to focus on Wikipedia. In the case of Wikipedia it is mostly hate. As a matter of fact, in an act that would be laughable if it were not so pathetic, the history department at Middlebury College has boldly proclaimed thier stand against Wikipedia. How is that for academic freedom?

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education discusses a web site , designed and maintained by Virgil Griffith, that will show you "who" edited a particular Wikipedia article. Not really who but maybe just what domain they came from. If you are interested Wired has a more detailed and technical oriented article which I recommend.

It is no secret that the information in Wikipedia has at times been fiendishly skewed to reflect a particular bias. Here is a quote from the Chronicle of Higher Education article: You " gasp as an official with Diebold, the company that makes a controversial line of e-voting machines, deletes wholesale a 15-paragraph section describing computer scientists’ concerns with the devices." Gasp? Pretty melodramatic stuff. Doesn't surprise me at all though. But, it does scare me. If an official at Diebold is so ignorant as to the workings of Wikipedia that they think they can get away with deleting information which might reflect negatively on the company the have no business working on any kind of e-voting initiative. As a matter of fact, if I was a disgruntled employee with Diebold I just might use my work internet connection to do that kind of editing just to make the company look bad.

Wikipedia is a battle ground for influence and ideas. All media and forms of communication are. What the articles don't say is that edits and revisions are tracked, and Wikipedia is feature rich including the ability to undo such malicious nonsense. Everything has been done to make the whole process democratic and transparent. You have to register to edit an article and although you can certainly use a fake name and open up a freebie web email account, everything on the web is tracked. So, it is possible to tell which domain you came from. So you can tell that the deletions about the Diebold voting machine came from somebody from the Diebold domain. Anonymity is a pretty rare commodity on the web nowdays. I might not be able to know everything about you, but I can know a lot. The article at Wikipedia about Diebold now mentions the deletion of the information, and the whole history of edits, including the infamous deletion of information back in 2005, can be found online for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diebold&action=history

Personally I think that bias is a normal part of life. As a social worker I know that most social work journals reflect a particular bias. Walk into any academic library and the stacks and the shelves are full of material that has a bias. We are starting to discover that the "hard sciences" are not immune to bias. It is not just something that infects the social sciences or the humanities. What gets researched, funded, and published is in large part a political question rather than an empirical one. Don't kid yourself.

Many professors hate it when students use Wikipedia. Why don't those same critics put their expensive education to productive use and go online and become editors in their specialized field instead of just being critical? Most in academia struggle for the privilege to write articles for academic journals that will be read by fewer than one hundred people, but bulk at the idea of writing an article that will be available to millions? I also think it would be a pretty good assignment to give to students. Have students become contributers to an article and participate under the guidance of their professor. As far as I know that has not been done yet.

The quality of articles does vary wildly but I am at times awed at how much time and effort some of the contributors devote to the cause, and how knowledgeable they can be. An article from the Wall Street Journal eloquently describes the editorial wars that go on behind the scenes. These are not secret debates, but are open and available for anyone to read in the discussion section attached to any article. I don't think that Wikipedia was ever intended to be the authoritative answer on anything, and it isn't. It is one source. However, it is a remarkable and unprecedented achievement with over two million articles online in the English edition. Lets teach students to use it responsibly. Wikipedia is a good place to begin a search particularly when you do not know much about a topic. It is indeed foolish for anyone beyond grade 3 to stop at Wikipedia and not pursue other sources. Wikipedia is nothing more than a large dynamic open source encyclopedia.

Encyclopedias are known to be full of errors, ignorance, and even bias or prejudice. Wikipedia is full of errors, ignorance, and even bias or prejudice. Not surprising. But, encyclopedias are also beautiful things. Encyclopedias are reflections of the human spirits desire to know, discover, and learn about the world around us. Many times we miss the real point of what Wikipedia is about.

Wikipedia is a dynamic way of knowing, sharing, collaborating, communicating, and organizing information. Perhaps the operative word here is dynamic. While older versions of encyclopedias had to wait for new editions to correct omissions or errors, Wikipedia is in a constant state of growth and development. The Wikipedia of tomorrow will be very much different than the Wikipedia of today. I believe it will also be a little bit better. Now, more than ever we need to teach our students about information literacy.

You can not fight this technology, all of the technology we are developing (including the powerful social networking infrastructure which includes Wikipedia, Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube) but you can influence it. Universities and colleges should be encouraging their faculty and students to contribute to the effort rather than deride it.

By the way, do you want to know how to cite Wikipedia for your APA, MLA, or Turabian style paper? Here is an excellent article, from Wikipedia, on how to do just that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citing_Wikipedia#APA_style

NAACP Protest Rally Against Neo-Nazi Parade of Fools

Hate came to Missouri in the form of a neo-Nazi group on 10 March 2007. They obtained a permit, and marched for about 45 minutes before leaving.

About an hour before that scheduled march, the NAACP held a rally to protest. I attended and the link above takes you to some pictures and speaker comments.

The city of Columbia spent a fortune on providing a police presence and there is some question as to why the city did not deny the permit. There is no absolute right for freedom of speech under all possible circumstances. You can not yell fire in a crowded theater.

History of Israel

The History of Israel in a Nutshell

• The situation in Israel is more complex than most people realize. For example, most people do not know that certain elements of UN forces have been implicated in taking bribes and assisting Hezballah in years past. Also, that in the past UN forces witnessed and videotaped the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers but would not turn over the information to Israel in a timely fashion. When information was turned over the faces of the kidnappers were obscured.
  
• Great short, and visual, history of Israel. - post by mrperkin

No Left or Right: Good vs. Evil

Today the Brits, our on-again-off-again allies, shattered a plot that would have sent many innocent airline travelers to their death. We truly are in a new era with new rules, and we are being slow in catching onto what must be done. This new era started well before the tragic events of 9-11. So, that begs the question: what is going on? For one thing, any meaningful dichotomy between the left and the right has disappeared. Forget about it. Forget about Democrat and Republican and all that nonsense. It goes deeper now, and it has gotten very strange. The old political lines mean nothing now as we emerge and transcend from the postmodern world (that bastard child of liberalism) into a new era.

Weird Allies

We have reached a state of ultimate polarization where we go beyond disagreement to vilification. It is an existential battle between two sides composed of seemingly odd, even paradoxical, allies. Each side agrees who the enemy is, on the "big picture," and vaguely on what needs to be done. Yet the future as envisioned by these allies would have no place for their current partners of convenience. For example, on one side you have militant Islam and what used to be the radical left. This side is converging on a world vision where the United States is the bully of the world, and Israel is an aggressive apartheid state. In essence the enemy is the United States and the Jews. At the end of the day, Israel is nothing but a codeword for Jews anyway. This side sees terrorism as a logical, inevitable, and even welcomed (opportunity for joyful martyrdom), outgrowth of oppression. This side is very much into the belief that the ends do justify the means. This side also sees market capitalism as a degenerate cancer on humankind creating an erotic world of material indulgence. Oddly enough, Islamic fundamentalist think that erotic and material indulgence on this world is sinful, but erotic and material indulgence is the reward of heaven in the world to come. You figure it out. Anyway, an example of these strange bedfellows would be Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Interestingly enough, radical Islam is emerging with a strong penchant for socialism. Now that I think about it, maybe there is not that great a difference between the practitioners of world terrorism, and their fellow travelers who gleefully encourage them in their wanton vandalism of civilization.

We are also facing a new paradigm where the enemies of freedom have learned to rape democracy and use it as a means to achieve totalitarian goals. The best example of that is the Palestinian election of Hamas, and the increasing voter appeal of other Islamic fundamentalist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah.

Jews and Christians

On the other side you have the conservative Christian evangelicals who are into Jew hugging these days. At the synagogue that I attend we can't keep the Christians out. They come all starry eyed to participate and are awed by the use of Hebrew and ancient prayers. You have to admit that this is kind of disconcerting when the history of Jews and Christians has not been a pretty one for most of our history together. Yet, you really must take this at face value. They want to draw near to Jews, to hear our payers, and are honored to participate in our services. That my friend is powerful. Many Jews, particularly the ultra-religious and the ultra-liberal, are uncomfortable with all of this for very different reasons. The ultra-religious are uncomfortable for theological reasons and a healthy suspicion of anything that Christians do (this was learned through years of persecution and getting kicked out of every Christian nation I can think of). Orthodox Jews have long memories. On the other hand, liberal Jews have no memory. Liberal Jews are very much pained by the conservative views of evangelical Christians and see their advances as embarrassing. Evangelicals are against abortion, support the death penalty, join the National Rifle Association, they tear up when they see the flag, and they like to vote Republican. Liberal Jews cringe at all that, and are embarrassed to be seen with their new found best buddies. They better get over that aversion real quick. The reason is that Evangelical Christians, as opposed to the more liberal protestant denominations, are really and truly among the only real friends Jews (and remember Jews and Israel are synonymous) have. Forget about the political left as well. The political left will, and are, turning on Israel and profess ignorance in the fact that to turn on Israel is to turn on Jews as well. That is the bitter truth.

My Apologies

As a witness to all this I hereby take back every negative thought and comment I have made about evangelical Christians. I hereby apologize for all of it. The past is the past. We must work from this point on with the realities that are before us. The first order of business as we get our bearings in this new reality, which is beyond the petty arguments of conservatism and liberalism, is to understand very clearly who is with us, and who is against us.

Still Life:  Boy Underneath a Tree Reading

A couple of weeks ago I saw something startling on the campus where I teach.  It was an adolescent boy sitting under a tree reading a book.  Just reading.  Not a textbook, not listening to his I-Pod, not using a laptop, not taking notes, but just reading a book for the sheer pleasure of it.  It is sad that it is such an unusual sight nowadays even for a college campus.  You usually see students outside smoking, talking, using their cell phones, or some combination of the three. If they have a test that day they might franticly be going over their notes or exploring a neglected text book which heretofore has severed no other purpose than a profitable commodity for some publisher or as ballast in a backpack. Think about that, on a college campus it is unusual to see somebody just sitting under a tree reading a book.  He wasn't even a student, but I hope one day he will be.  It is nice to have students that actually like to read, or even students that will read if pressed. 

When I was a young man I spent several weeks in France.  Most of that time I was in Paris, and one thing impressed me.  The street people in Paris always had paperback books.   Say what you want about France, but that impressed me, and I have never heard anyone else mention it.  Every single street person I saw had a book, and usually they were even reading it. 

My oldest daughter, to my surprise, was deficient in her reading when she finished the third grade.  That summer I launched one of my most successful parenting initiatives ever.  That summer I took her and my son to the library each week, and they were allowed to check out anything they wanted.  I also selected various books for each of them.  Everyday they had an hour of sustained silent reading.  No television, no stereo or radio, but just reading whatever they liked.  The books were stored in milk crates at the end of the hallway.  The one thing I asked was that they try to remember to put the books back in the crate so that our cards would not be blocked.  The first few days were tough.  They complained, they were inattentive, and I spent more time redirecting them than they did reading.  But, by the end of the week they were into it.  I never told them when the hour was up and before long they were going way over the required time.  My daughter today is an English major and an avid reader. 

Of all the inventions and gadgets we have produced as a species I doubt if anything has been, or will be, as marvelous as the written word.  I also think it will stand the test of time.  Audio recordings and video are nice, but there is something very very special about books. After that I think the next best innovation we have come up with is the public lending library. 

In my own life I have been profoundly moved, educated, and inspired by books of all kinds.  To me reading is one of life's sweetest pleasures, and it opens up the world.  I can read about what it is like to live in Casablanca and restore an old house that was once occupied by a caliph (Tahir Shah's outstanding A Year in Casablanca:  The Caliph's House).  I can read the exquisite science fiction of Arthur C. Clark, the visionary/prophetic science fiction of Isaac Asimov, and sweeping historical novels such as the Raj Quartet.  I do not understand people that do not read. They are as mysterious to me as country music.

This summer, many years after my oldest daughter had her successful summer of reading, I have two younger daughters.  As a family we have severely curtailed television, and are very near the point of eliminating it altogether.  Frankly it was a hard thing to do for all of us.  It is so easy to just park kids in front of the television and have their minds turned into mush rather than finding something productive for them to do.  Something like playing outside, conversing, writing a letter, or reading.  I shudder to think of the time we have all wasted preoccupied with something as totally useless as television, and frankly sports comes in a close second.

I wonder what that boy was reading.  I wish now I had asked him, but at the time I did not want to disturb him. 

White Bread Television

 

Sitting in the shade at the pool I was waiting for my daughter to finish swim class.  Sitting on the sidelines a couple of chairs down was another parent talking on her cell phone.  She was involved in a detailed conversation about that inane talk show The View.

 

The focus of the conversation was on the controversy surrounding Barbra Walters, that faux newsperson, along with what various web sites or articles were saying about this riveting issue.  In order not to overhear I would have had to have gotten up and moved to another location – I was not trying to eavesdrop.  It is amazing how people will have these open conversations in public as if their cell phone emits some kind of privacy screen.  Anyway, this was obviously a conversation between experts who were well informed and big fans of the show.  It was amazing to me that I was sharing my time on this earth with two adults who actually had nothing else better to do with their time than:

 

A:  Watch The View

B:  Read articles and related information about the show.

C:  Actually cared about what happened concerning the show, and if Barbra Walters was an asset or liability (seems like they approved of her).

D:  Would spend well over a half hour discussing it.

 

As I write this there are several major crises in the world including the ongoing agony of the train wreck of our involvement in Iraq, and a new crisis between Hezbollah and Israel.  Not to mention the possibility of global warming, the Sudan, and dozens of other tragedies playing themselves out throughout the world.  Forget about other such issues as homelessness, the debate over minimum wage, and the chronically under funded mental health infrastructure.  These fans were not bad people, they are just numb people.  Let me explain.

 

I have noticed that many Americans just don't want to hear it. Any of it. We have already forgotten about 9-11 as if it happened in another era and maybe it did.  We are on the fast track with short memories caught up in the moment consumed by consumerism.  So we tune it out.  We have no efficient filter mechanism and we either hear too much about some issue or too little.  It seems like that most people, except cranks and those who show up at city council meetings, opt for hearing less rather than more.  Otherwise it is too overwhelming.  Yet, what bothers me the most is what people choose to do instead.  I call it White Bread Television.

 

Ever look at the ingredients for store bought manufactured white bread?  Probably the only people who really know what is in it are the manufacturers, a handful of nutritionist or food scientist, and the Orthodox Union.  It is a bland, unhealthy, staple of the American diet.  Just like television.  It contains additives, we consume it without thinking, we consume a lot of it, and while there are better alternatives we just keep shoving it down our gullets.  White bread numbs the pallet just as television numbs the mind.

 

There are better alternatives to store bought white bread.  There are also better alternatives on television other than The View but somehow we just consume what is in front of us that does not make us think or call for any effort on our part. It is truly amazing that most cable channels are as horrific as network television so that the promise of some kind of redemption for television arising out of cable has just not materialized. 

 

If you have ever made homemade bread, even white bread, you know how good it tastes, but also how much trouble it is to make it.  You have to be mindful, you have to plan ahead, and you have to actually do something.  Good television is like that.  Good television is something that inspires and informs.  Yes, good television can even entertain. 

 

My next posting will be about reading. 

Bush Lost The Debate

I am watching the debate between Kerry and Bush. Man. Kerry kicked Bush's ass. Bush's voice is cracking, he is befuddled, and so angry. He becomes lost for words. He reminds me of a bully who somebody is standing up to. If anybody ever doubted the intellectual and character capacity of Bush that should now be over. Bush is weak. I can not believe how he folds and how weak he appears. Sticking his little pouty lip out like some spoilt brat. Our president is truely a horses ass.

I'll Take Sir Fergus Montgomery Any Day

Today the news reported that two American's were beheaded in Iraq. Today "President" Bush spoke to the United Nations and jutted out his jaw - the tough cowboy sticking to his guns still defying the opinion of the rest of the world. Bush still insists that Iraq and Afghanistan will be shining examples of democracy, but the military is having to go into next year's budget to finance the call up for troops that are going to be required for the elections. Gosh, those Iraq's sure show their gratitude in strange ways (beheading, and car bombs - those guys party scary). All of this and Bush is still leading in the polls.

Bush has had his chance. He was 100% right about Afghanistan although we have not finished the job. I was not sure going into Iraq if it was the right thing to do, but I thought that maybe Bush was right. I support the missile defense initiative, and I mention that to show that I am not 100% a liberal nut. What is wrong with being able to shoot down incoming missiles? Yet, Bush has blown it on Iraq. He has made our nation an outcast, he LIED about why we should be going into Iraq, and he has bungled the rebuilding of Iraq.

Will Kerry be better? I have no idea, but he will not be worse. Bush is a failed president who has LIED to us, and mismanaged our military might. Why are we so stupid about this?

Last night I heard a local newsperson say that 90% of the Iraq people support us. Why in the world did that bonehead say that? Is he some expert on Iraq? Does he have some inside information that nobody else has? How many people believed the stupid thing that said?

Well, Bush is leading in the polls and one thing remains absolutely true. The American people always get the president they deserve.

I met Sir Fergus Montgomery today. He is a member of the Conservative Party in England and a friend of Margaret Thatcher. He was a Conservative MP for many a year. He is living proof that conservatives do not have to be stupid, and that they can have a sense of humor. It is not conservatism that is dangerous, not at all, but a lack of intellectual depth. I'll take Sir Fergus Montgomery any day.

God bless Sir Fergus Montgomery, God bless England, God bless America, and God save us from George Bush. I'm not kidding. Ask yourself this. Is it pleasing in the eyes of God for us to do what we have done Iraq? I really do not think so.

Ted Koppel - Tell Us It Ain't So!

Is Ted Koppel sleeping with Barbara Walters? Does Barbara Walters have some kind of dirt on Ted Koppel?

I like Ted Koppel but I'm worried. No, I'm scared - please hold me. Ted (notice I'm writing like he and I know each other when in actuality we have never met) is one of the last true news reporters on network TV. Oh, he has his little flaws like that hair piece (Ted, we know it is a hair piece so be a man and go bare headed we don't gave damn) but you can overlook that. True confession: I experimented with Grecian Formula this year so who am I to throw stones. Yet, he has been a real news person when everybody else is doing crap. He is no Jim Lehrer but who is?

Tonight he actually did a special on Barbara Walters. Do you realize tonight that we actually had a one hour news special about nothing more than another blindly ambitious half-talented news person? Is that metanews? I do not think I have to say anything more than that.

Why is it that people like Ted Koppel and Barbara Walters are so vain that they think we actually want to hear drivel about them? I am so tired of people who think they are "stars" being so full of themselves that they actually interview each other.

Important things are going on. No wonder the American public is profoundly stupid. You are what you eat and the networks are feeding us shit.

Cheny A Coward? No, Just A Hypocrite

Okay. Let's see if we can straighten this out. Sen Harkin called Cheney a coward! Now, where I come from those are fighting words, and Tom Harkin hadn't ought of called our vice president a coward unless there is evidence to back it up. In the public interest I have decided to set down and attempt to sort of cypher out this mystery. The following is the result of my exhaustive examination of the evidence at hand:

Part 1
Kerry - volunteered for Vietnam and actually experienced combat.
Bush - "served proudly" in the Air National Guard but never attempted to actually prove his mettle in combat (unlike his father who DID put his life on the line).
Cheney - received five deferments and never served in the military.

Part 2
Kerry - after firsthand experience, actually in Vietnam, decided that he was against the war.
Bush - kept his mouth shut and partied his ass off.
Cheney - kept going to school and NEVER served in the military.

Part 3
Kerry - least Hawkish
Bush - moderately Hawkish
Cheney - extremely Hawkish


Discussion:

If anybody has evidence of Cheney actually showing physical courage such as rescuing someone at the peril of his own life, standing up to a bully, or any other act that would demonstrate real courage please let me know. "Standing up to the democrats" or "those commie bastards" is only rhetorical so we can not count that kind of nonsense. Until then, I will have to stick with my conviction that if I was going into a real fight Kerry would be the one who I would want on my side. Oh, he would probably whine about it latter but at least he would be there for you. Bush and Cheney have not been proven in any kind of real trial by fire. But, is Cheney a coward? No, he is just a hypocrite.

Conclusions:

A. At least with these three men their tendency to be war mongers is inversely related to their actual military experience.
B. Republicans send democrats into combat to actually do the fighting .
B. Sen. Tom Harkin was incorrect to call Cheney a coward. He is just a belligerent, bullying, pathetic hypocrite.

Don't even tell me that Bush or Cheney have shown their courage in the fight against terrorism. Please. It is easy to act big with the Secret Service guarding you, and the whole United States military at your beck and call.

You know what I would pay good money to see? Let Cheney prove he is a big man. Put him and Saddam Hussein in their underwear and let them wrestle in pay-per-view. Just image what kind of world audiance that would have. Every Arab, and every red blooded American would be glued to their seats. I know I would. Who do you think would win?

Culture of Fear
Part 1: Christianity

This country, the United States, is controlled by fear. Stephen King is one of our best selling writers and the underlying theme of his books is fear. We tote guns out of fear. Americans demand the "right" to keep guns in their homes to shoot criminals that just might happen by, and those same criminals often carry guns because they are afraid of being shot by homeowners who keep guns because of criminals. What is interesting about that situation is that more children, the very ones we are trying to protect from the criminals who might have guns, are killed by those guns we use for their very protection than are actual criminals! Everybody is armed. It is some kind of pistol packing mutually assured destruction - just like MAD from the cold war days. More on guns at a future date.

Then there is Christianity. But, not just any kind of Christianity because Christianity as a whole is really a pretty good religion. I admire it a lot. Who on earth could argue with the Golden Rule or the Sermon on the Mount! Unfortunately here in the U. S. we have a special kind of Christianity that scares the bejesus out of the rest of the world that sees us as a nation populated by trained marksman (remember we have to have guns at home to protect our children from the possibility of criminals who are armed because we are ... anyway), and we have a born again president in the form of a rather dull witted George Bush Jr, who is not shy about bitch slapping whatever country gets in our way. You see, George had kind of a substance abuse problem awhile back. Instead of AA he went to Jesus because he was afraid of his own out of control behavior (Jesus is a whole lot easier than AA which requires reading and regular ongoing attendance at meetings). He was also motivated by fear of going to hell. You see, George Bush is an Evangelical Christian. Let us take a look at Evangelical Christianity.

Evangelical Christianity is the dominant religious bent, besides indifference, in the United States and it has a peculiarity about it that is not characteristic of Christianity in the rest of the world. Our homegrown flavor of evangelical Christianity is full of apocalypse, hell, and visions of doom unless you accept Jesus as your Saviour. We are all going to hell because we can not meet God's standards. Think about this sequence:

1. You are a sinner and deserve to go to hell for breaking the rules even if you were never told what the rules actually are.
2. Even if you tried like heck to be good and made up all kinds of rules (like Jews and Muslims) to govern your behavior it is a vain attempt to please G-d because we can never be good enough. And my kids think I am hard to please.
2. People go to hell for eternity. So, there is NO end to their punishment no matter how short their life was on earth.
3. G-d came down here to earth in the form of Jesus who was really G-d (evidently there are three versions of G-d but there is really one - you figure it out but this drives Muslims to distraction as they trip over the logic while Jews just try to ignore the shennanegans of those wacky goyim who have always been so well armed, and Buddhist just smile politely as they walk quickly away).
4. Jesus died and Mel Gibson made a documentary of G-d's death. There is something fundamental to our nature in that scary film.
5. Jesus died so you do not have to go to hell but there is a catch.
6. The fine print, the catch, is that you have to believe and accept that Jesus died for you. If you do not accept it then the whole deal is null and void and you go straight to hell because you are a sinner no matter what you do or do not do.

That is kind of how it works. Now, what is the net effect of this form of Christianity? What effect does it have when the emphasis is on avoiding hell rather than being a decent neighbor, an honest person, and a competant person? Pardon the sexist language but it is kind of an "every man for themself" type of thing. You gotta grab onto Jesus first and hold tight before anything else.

The first effect is that this creates the illusion of their being only ONE path to heaven and you are either on that path or not. Buddhist, Jews, Muslim, Hindus, and folks too confused or hungry to declare an official religion are all going to hell. You are either with us or against us. Now, you tell me. How far does this type of thinking go into creating a tolerant, diverse world? I think not very far. Maybe that is why we are so dogmatic about everything else. America is the best, democracy is the best, our way is the best (no matter what others say or what kind of logic you may try to trick us with). Everybody else is going to hell anyway so how could they possibly offer us anything culturally, politically, or especially on a spiritual level. Oh, they may have oil, gold, aluminum, uranium, or some other natural resource that we need. They may have lots of cheap labor, poor souls going to hell anyway, that we can exploit, but we really must not take them seriously as people. We are willing to do business with them but we can not leave it at that because fundamentally we are missionairies spreading the gospel of Jesus and market capitalism (market capitalism is sort of tangled up in all of the relegious stuff in a way that is hard to sort through). We are obligated to correct their misguided behavior, and particularly their misguided beliefs.

Don't believe me? Why is the rest of the world so pissed off at us? It is not because we bought their oil or whatever they had to sell. Nobody had an argument with that. It was because we could not stay out of their business, we were arrogant, and we tried to tell everybody else what to do. Not only that, we had the will, resources, and skill (remember we are a nation of excellent marksman) to try to make others into our own image. In other words, the proselytizing we learned in church, saving sinners from hell, carried over into our diplomacy, foreign trade, and world view.