Death of Sir Edmund Hillary (Hillary Clinton Namesake)

Mrs Pinnochio for President!


Today we have learned of the death of Sir Edmund Hillary, famed mountain climber who burst upon the world scene in 1953 when he and his Sherpa guide became the first persons to reach the summit of Mt Everest. His feat was so great that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has claimed that she was named after Sir Edmund.

Just for the record, Hillary Rodham Clinton was born in 1947, six years before Sir Edmund Hillary made history.

German Beer Fests? Consider Erlangen

I thought I would take a break from all the serious topics that I usually write about. This posting is about one of the most pleasant topics imaginable. A real German beer fest. When I was stationed in Germany in the late 1960s, I became introduced to the greatest beverage man ever invented-German beer. For those of you beer drinkers who have never been to Germany, you don't know what real beer is. And for those who have tried various kinds of imported German beers in the US-you don't know what real German beer is.

The most famous beer fest in Germany is, of course, Munich's Oktoberfest. Every year, the city attracts about one million visitors from all over the world to partake in the festivities. What a lot of people don't realize is that countless towns in Germany have their own annual beer fest-not just in October-but in other months when the weather is good. One such beer fest is held every spring in the northern Bavarian town of Erlangen. It is not only older than the Oktoberfest, but is considered one of Bavaria's (indeed Germany's) top beer fests.

Erlangen is a university town about 20 kilometers north of Nuremberg in the Middle Franconian region of Bavaria. It is also a co-hqs, along with Munich, of the Siemens Corporation. At present, the city has a population of about 100,000. It is a pleasant town, not in the touristic sense of Heidelberg or Munich, but a great place nonetheless.

I must admit at this point that I am highly biased about Erlangen. I spent over 2 years there in the late 1960s as a US Army soldier. Those two years were a formative time in my life; thus, I have returned many times over the years, and, in 2005, published a book on the history of the city.

Let me give you some background on the beerfest itself (called the Bergkirchweih in German). While the Munich Oktoberfest originated in 1810, Erlangen's beerfest dates back to 1755, making it the oldest in Germany. (Actually, until the 20th century, Erlangen was one of Germany's leading beer production cities.) Every year during the Whitsuntide period (late May-early June), the city holds its Bergkirchweih for a 12 day period. The site of the fest is on the northern edge of the town, an area called the Burgberg. The fest grounds are located at the foot of a hilly area bearing the above name. In the old days before refrigeration, Erlangen's breweries cooled their brew in caves dug into the sandstone sides of the hill.

During the fest, a special festbrew is prepared by the local breweries and served from the cave entrances. There are also several food stands with chicken, sausages-and, even an entire ox roasted daily each day. For entertainment, there is a tent with German traditional music and more modern music for the younger crowd, which is played near the benches where people also eat and drink.

Whereas Munich's Oktoberfest is noted for rowdy behavior and public drunkeness, the Erlangen fest is more subdued and suitable for the entire family-notwithstanding isolated incidents as would be expected. In addition, I recently learned from a German-American colleague, whose family is from Munich, that the Oktoberfest, due to the drunkeness problem, has resorted to serving watered-down beer, with special tents with real beer reserved for Munich's own denizens. Not so in Erlangen. The beer is a little stronger than normal and better tasting. Erlangen has two local brews, Kitzmann and Steinbach, but also serves Tuecher, which is Nuremberg's main brewery. In addition, the original recipes from a couple of now-defunct Erlangen breweries are brought back just for the fest. One other advantage is that you can get hotel reservations in or near Erlangen without much trouble-unlike Munich, which is impossible.

Although the fest ends at 11pm, the crowd only has to walk a short distance to the main street pubs where the fun continues into the wee hours. In short, if you are planning a trip to Germany, would like to attend a great beer fest-without all the hassles associated with the Munich Oktoberfest, you can't do any better than Erlangen. This year's fest runs May 8-19, 2008.

Hillary Wins in NH

"Let's see- a pound of BS, add a touch of salt and a few teardrops-Voila! I am still the fairest of them all, Fousesquawk!"


Polls-shmolls! So much for the "experts", the pundits and the pollsters who were all telling us that Obama was running away with the New Hampshire Primary. Double digits, indeed! Maybe that will teach us a lesson about the value of listening to the talking heads who are "so much more knowledgable" than the rest of us. When the polls opened in New Hampshire, everyone-including the Clinton camp was of the opinion that Obama would win in a cakewalk. What happened?

Whatever it was-and there are a lot of explanations- I hope that it wasn't simply because of Hillary's show of "emotion" the other day. If that is enough to swing an election-or primary-then heaven help us all. Ralph Reed even opined that if Clinton goes on to victory, then that episode will go down as the signature turning point of the campaign. If true, what does that say about the electorate-especially that super-sophisticated electorate in New Hampshire? Some others say that possibly the voters in the Granite State were rebelling against the conventional wisdom that they were going to go for Obama. Who knows? Rest assured that many of the same pundits who predicted a double-digit Obama win will now explain to us how Hillary pulled it out.

Was it just me, or was John Edwards angry in his speech last night? I thought his references to the other 99% of the electorate who have yet to vote was kind of a slap at the tiny states of New Hampshire and Iowa. Of course, he dragged out his old Oliver Twist speech again. With all due respect to the names of the unfortunate people he mentioned and their families,how many times can you repeat the same lines?

Obama, for his part, adopted more of the preacher style in his concession speech, trying to fire up his obviously disappointed followers.

Hillary was classic Hillary. No more tears. Now she has her confidence and her arrogance back. The question is-will she try to repeat the emotion act? How many times can you shed crocodile tears if you want to be president?

The best speech, in my view, was from the Republican victor, McCain, in spite of the fact that he had to read it and occasionally stumbled. The words (at least to me) were inspiring and focused on the real number one issue-the War against Islamic Terror-an issue all but ignored in the Democratic speeches. Huckabee focused on the kindness and hospitality of the New Hampshire people-very classy.

Thompson, of course, had already gotten out of Dodge (to South Carolina) and wasn't around to express his gratitude for the single digits that had voted for him.

Hey Rudy! How's the weather down there in Florida?

I guess we will all have to wait for "Super Tuesday" to get a real idea how this will end up. In the meantime, we should take the prognostications with a grain of salt. (As I write this, I am watching the Fox News polls for South Carolina.)

Random Shots in the Dark

In the absence of a complete, one-topic essay, I thought I would "shotgun" a few observations. Here they are.

To all you Ron Paul supporters:

Aren't you embarrassed by the 200+ crowd who demonstrated against the Fox exclusion of Paul in the New Hampshire debate-specifically hooting Sean Hannity, following him back to his hotel and throwing snowballs at him?

Aren't you embarrassed about the old Ron Paul newsletters (authored by him) that are just coming out? Will you still support him after you have read them?

To the Hillary camp:

If Democratic voters are finally waking up to your candidate now, how do you think she'll do in a general election?

Regarding the op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem in the NY Times- do you really think playing the victim (in this case of sexism) card will win Hillary an election? Do you really think pity will put a person in the White House? Do you really think the public wants a victim as president?

To Hillary:

How's the release of your White House records coming along?

Are you going to cry again for the cameras to show us your "human" side?

To liberals:

This is a great country. Why can't you view the glass as half-full instead of nearly empty?

To John Edwards:

Same message. This is not England in the times of Dickins.

To all the Democrats:

Why is it that none of you are willing to use the term "Islamo-terrorists"?

To Muslims world-wide. This is a beautiful world. Life can be great. Why not enjoy it with the rest of us?

To Fred Thompson:

You have a lot of good beliefs. You could win. Start acting like you want this and stop acting like you are just doing it to make your wife happy.

To Mitt Romney:

You just might get a few more votes if you let your hair get mussed once in a while. After all, you don't have to look like the Masters Golf Course for crying out loud.

To Rudy Giuilani:

The old "I did this in New York" line doesn't play well with the rest of the country. The rest of us don't really care about the Big Apple.

To John McCain:

You have the best experience resume of all. Stop treating those who disagree with you as if they are errant schoolchildren. Wake up on the illegal immigration issue and start paying attention to that outlaw polygamist community that exists in your own state. You know, the one I wrote you about and never got a response.

To Bill Clinton:

It's over, Bill. Just go back to your hotel room with some babe and have fun.

To Barack Obama:

OK, you have the charisma. All the touchy-feely liberals are attracted to you. What specifically do you want to do if elected president?

To Bill Richardson:

So what exactly happened when you "faced those North Koreans"?

To all the Democratic candidates(and Ron Paul):

What role will our military play in the War on Terror if you are president?

To Al Gore:

What are you gonna do in 20 years when the world realizes that nothing has changed and everyone starts laughing at you? Will you give all those awards back?

To the Baseball Hall of Fame:

How in blazes can you elect "Goose" Gossage and not Ron Santo? (OK, I'm a Cubs fan.)

To the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR):

If you think you are the new NAACP, you are sadly mistaken.

To the secular Europeans:

Wake up! In two generations, you are going to be majority Muslim-but you won't be secular.

To the UN:

What have you guys been up to lately?- Besides nothing.

What are you going to do about Darfur?

To Keith Olbermann:

Can anybody be your "Worst Person in the World" besides Bill O'Reilly and Republicans?

To Al Sharpton:

When are you coming back to California to demonstrate on behalf of the "Palmdale 4"?

What will you say about this "racist" country if Obama is elected president?

To Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson:

Why so quiet about the Obama campaign. Jealous, perhaps?

To all the candidates:

What's with this "CHANGE" business? When you speak of "CHANGE", let's be more specific.

Just some random thoughts. I reserve the right to add more later.

Is America's Evita Crying?

"Don't cry for me...(fill in the blank)"





Today's "big news" on the campaign trail is Hillary Clinton choking up at a public meeting when asked by a supporter how she manages to fight on-or something like that. In her long answer, Hillary, her voice breaking, rambled on about how she wants so much to fix the problems this country is facing and ......"boo-hoo-hoo".
So now all the pundits are debating whether this was real or contrived and whether this incident will help or hurt her.

First of all, I didn't see any tears, so it may just be one of those "break downs" we are used to seeing on Barbara Walters interviews.

If, in fact, she was on the verge of crying, the question is why? Is it because she is so sad to see the direction our country is going-as she said? Well, I doubt that. Hillary Clinton is made of tougher stuff than that. It has nothing to do with "the Children".

Is it because she is simply tired from the demands of the never-ending campaign? Sure, that is a distinct possibility when the campaign is not going well. If that is the case, should we just chalk it up to her being a woman (more subject to displays of emotion)and let it slide? Could be. (All you feminists, save your cards and letters.) Should this make us less inclined to elect a woman as Commander-in Chief? Not in my view, not after seeing Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir. No-America is ready for a woman in the White House, just as the country is ready for a black president. But it depends on who.

In my view, if Hillary truly was getting emotional-and I'm not convinced that this wasn't contrived-then I would say she is upset over her own faltering dreams of being president. This has apparently been something she has been aiming for ever since her husband first ran for president. Up to now, everything has run like clockwork. From First Lady, she became Senator from New York-even though she wasn't from New York. When she announced for president, the conventional thinking was that the nomination was hers. She was "entitled". It would be a coronation (the nomination). Ever since Mrs Clinton burst upon the political scene, I have felt that she was an American version of Eva Peron (Evita), Argentina's vain-glorious first lady, who, had she not died prematurely, probably would have become its president.

Then came Obama-the ultimate "Johnny come lately". He is taking it all away from Mrs Clinton. As it stands now, Hillary is seeing the whole house crashing down on her head. It hurts. And I will wager that the stress and strain is being shown in other ways behind the scenes. Do you doubt for a minute that she is probably screaming and swearing at her staff members and Secret Service protection?

Anyway, let's not let two states convince us that Obama has it locked down. There is a long way to go. But if so many Democratic voters are turned off (finally) by Clinton, what does that tell you about her chances in a general election nationwide?

I don't plan to vote for Obama in the general election, but I sure am enjoying his success. And there is no need to cry for Mrs Clinton. She may be many things, but she is nobody's victim.

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Is this the true face of Islam-or simply an aberration?


* There is a great video on the Internet from Dubai TV. It is a debate between an Arab woman on one hand and an Islamic cleric on the other. The conversation is in Arabic with English sub-titles. In the debate, the woman (whose name I don't know) harshly condemns Islam (she apparently does not subscribe to any religion.)for its hatred and violence. She makes the point that neither Christianity nor Judaism engages in this kind of barbaric behavior. The man accuses her of being a heretic. This video can be found on;

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul

One of the first things I did in the wake of 9-11 was to check out an English-language Koran from the library. The question had been growing about the true nature of Islam even before 9-11 since Islamic terrorism had already been active in the world for several decades. I should concede here that the Koran, like the Bible, can be open to different interpretations in many areas. Since then, we have continued to witness the War on Terror and inumerable acts of terror committed in the name of Islam. So the question remains- what is the true nature of Islam? Is it a peaceful religion that is being hijacked by fanatics? Or is Islam really a religion that preaches violence against those who refuse to accept its teachings?

When I read the Koran, I noted that much of its prose resembles that of the Bible. It preaches the love of God (Allah) and love towards other Muslims. It is the writings directed toward non-Muslims that I found troubling. Some passages that critics point out to prove a message of violence are disputed by Muslims as being open to other interpretations. Yet what struck me was that in virtually every Sura (chapter), indeed on countless pages, there are references to non-believers burning in Hell. Now I must point out here that, according to Christian doctrine, non-Christians will go to Hell as well. The difference here is the constant reinforcement of this doctrine in the Koran. Is it any wonder that so many Muslims don't respect other religions?

I have also read about the life of the Prophet Mohammed. It is not meant to be an insult in pointing out that Mohammed was a warrior-a military leader who spread Islam at the point of a sword. He personally brought about the death of thousands. Muslims simply cannot dispute that as historical fact.

Before I get to the obvious issue of terror and killing, I should also point out that my own religion (Christianity) has engaged in this practice in history. First, we have the Crusades. (I don't know which side was right and which side was wrong-nor do I much care.)Second, we had the Inquisition. There is no escaping this fact, and there is no defending it. There was also considerable corruption in the Church (Vatican) that led to a Reformation. What is important, however, is that in the past several centuries, Christianity (and Judaism) have not been involved in organized violent campaigns. Scandals? Of course. The biggest example today is the pedophile priest scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church. We have also seen instances of Christian-based cults, such as the James Jones Church and the Branch Davidians, both of whom engaged in mind-control and violence.

But it is undeniably Islam that, in recent decades, has witnessed countless acts of violence, intimidation, murder and outright terror-worldwide. It is not necessary to recount 9-11 and all the others. They are out there for all to see. The question is- how much of the Muslim world subscribes to this?

Before dealing with that question, it is useful to ask-how did this all explode upon the world in the late 20th Century? Was Islam merely aleep for several centuries? I am no expert on Islamic history, but it seems to me that the Muslim world has basically never experienced freedom or democracy. When certain parts of the Middle East became fabulously wealthy due to oil, the ruling classes managed to expropriate most of it for themselves. Then came the creation of Israel and the Palestinian issue. That has enabled the Arab rulers to blame Israel and the West for all the problems affecting their peoples. Add to that the growing exposure of Muslim societies to the Western world-and all its vices and temptations. Indeed, the growing fundamentalism of Muslim mosques and madrassahs have found a fertile field of resentment against this Western culture that they see as a threat to their own traditional culture.

So here, in the 21st century, we find ourselves threatened with the rise in worldwide Islamic fanaticism and terror. We see it not only in the Middle East, but in immigrant Muslim communities in the West (principly Europe). Violence and hate are being preached, plotted and carried out by Muslim clerics and their followers, almost everywhere that Muslims have immigrated to. Here in the US, we have congratulated ourselves on having a more educated and assimilated Muslim community than European countries who imported manual laborors without trying to assimilate them. The violence in France and the UK far overshadow our problems here in the US. Yet, it is undeniable that US Muslims are feeling increasingly disaffected in US society since 9-11. They feel that Americans hold them in suspicion. They hear and read about the attacks against Islam among Americans and Europeans. Most seem to be critical of our Middle East policy. Most seem stridently against Israel. On our college campuses, Muslim Student Unions organize demonstrations against Israel, often bringing in radical Imams to speak. Many of them preach a message of hate-not only against Israel, but against Jews and America as well. (I cite my own campus, University of California at Irvine as a prime example.)And occasionally, our law enforcement agencies have broken up terrorist plots to be carried out on our soil.

More to the point; are most Muslims involved in terror? Of course not. Do most Muslims sympathize with the Jihadists. I don't think so, but we really don't know how most Muslims feel. We watch the news on TV and every day, we see images of Muslim mobs in the streets of Pakistan or some other Muslim country burning flags, torching cars, fighting the police and calling for someone to be killed. What are we supposed to think? We hear about the car bombs, the suicide Palestinian bombers in Israel and what are we supposed to think? We hear about Muslim clerics preaching hatred and the worldwide imposition of Islam. What are we supposed to think? It is pointed out that there are some 2 billion Muslims in the world and that most are simply trying to go about their normal lives and live in peace with others around them. But what if one-half of 1% are ready to join the Jihad? That would be a lot of people we need to worry about.

It is clear that Islam is facing the greatest crisis in its history, at least since the Crusades. As yet, we don't know who will win control of the religion-the so-called peaceful moderates or the Jihadists. After all, in the final analysis, a religion is only what its believers and leaders say it is. Certainly, we should do all we can to assist and encourage the peaceful elements. People like the woman on Dubai TV, Nonie Darwish, Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali must be supported, encouraged and protected. Yet, I feel strongly that the moderates, if they are to prevail, will have to resort to violent means to defeat those who preach hatred and terror. (And I really don't much care.)

We also need many more voices like the names I listed above. Sadly, they seem to be few and far between. It is not enough to simply argue that most Muslims are non-violent and should not be stigmatized or discriminated against. I have argued in the past that Muslims should indeed defend their religion-not against non-Muslims or critics-but against those Muslims who are engaged in hatred and terror, thus destroying Islam's name in the eyes of the world.

But why are so many Muslims-otherwise decent people-unwilling to stand up, speak out and take action against the Jihadists? There are some possible answers.

First, many obviously are afraid to stand up and subject themselves and their families to violent retribution.

Some, I am sure, while not engaged in Jihad, probably sympathize with their goals and methods.

Some, while not agreeing with violence, don't want to engage in actions against other Muslims-on behalf of non-Muslim societies.

There is one other possible reason- and I am merely speculating here-after having read the Koran and the life of the Prophet Mohammed. Is it possible that many Muslims, while personally rejecting violence, feel that based on the Koran and the life of Mohammed, they simply cannot win a theological debate against the Jihadists?

The New Hampshire Debates- Change, Change, Change

"It's time for a change"


Didn't I tell you it was all about Change? How many times did the Democratic candidates mention the word "change" in last night's debate in New Hampshire? On some occasions, they used the word several times in the same sentence. The moderators and pundits kept using the word. Charles Gibson even made it the second topic of the debate, after nuclear terrorism. Frank Luntz asked a Democratic voter focus group if they thought "change" was an important issue. (Almost unanimously, they said it was.)It is all about "Change" Don't just stand there! Change something!

One thing that is changing is the expectation that Hillary Clinton was going to waltz her way to the Democratic nomination. She came into New Hampshire with a lead in the polls that Obama is rapidly wiping out. Polls-shmolls-now that people are starting to VOTE, it is becoming apparent that she is not what the Democratic voters want. She seems to be trapped between convincing people that she is the most "experienced" on the one hand, and the one who will bring change on the other hand. Tough balancing act. Many in Luntz's focus group indicated that she once supported Clinton, but have switched to someone else-like Obama. Then there is the likability factor. After that, there is the credibility factor. Not good, Mrs Clinton.

In last night's debate, she seemed to cement her position as the 3rd most likeable candidate. Obama seemed poised and confident. Edwards showed angry passion (as he continued his theme of America as Calcutta). Hillary, in turn, was the same old tired Hillary, reiterating that she has been "an agent of change for 35 years". It is truly getting tiresome-even to Democratic voters. Now, the pundits are predicting that she will not win New Hampshire.

Richardson was really bad. He seemed to be struggling to find words to show voters why his experience should count (and he was the most experienced candidate on the stage). His answers to the questions about Iraq and the threat of nuclear terrorism were weak. He talked about diplomacy, convincing Musharraf to resign, and bringing the troops home from Iraq so we could spend the money on health care and other domestic needs.

The other candidates actually said some strong things about terrorism. Obama repeated his statement in answer to a question, that he would go into Pakistan if he had intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts-even without Pakistan's permission if that government refused to take action. I liked Clinton's suggestion about a US/ international venture to help Pakistan safeguard their nukes. Edwards said he would use "every tool" to stop terrorists. (Does that include NSA wiretaps, Guantanemo Bay, military force, aggressive interrogation techniques and military tribunals, Mr Edwards?)

On the Republican side where Romney was supposed to be the leading candidate (in New Hampshire), he took most of the attacks from McCain and Huckabee. More than one pundit commented that Romney is obviously not well-liked by the other candidates. The one that really turned me off was-once again- Ron Paul. He repeated his belief that we are hated by the Islamic world because we are occupying their lands, then added that Islam was no more infected by hatred and violence than any other religion (I am paraphrasing). Is that right?

I still have not decided which Republican I will vote for in the California Primary. Several months ago in this blog, I wrote McCain off. I was premature, and I admit that I am taking a strong second look at him. I like what he says about the war on Islamic terror, and I like what he says about limiting government spending. It is his weak position on illegal immigration that turns me off. Nevertheless, he is back in strong contention-and looking more energetic.

By the way, is it just me or is anyone else wondering how these candidates (who have elected positions) can take a 2 year sabatical from their jobs to run for president?

I have a suggestion as regards to Change. Let's bring back Kucinich and Gravel for the next debate. They can replace Hillary and Richardson. And let's bring back Duncan Hunter as well.

One thing that won't change is the Islamoterrorists trying to kill us.

Meanwhile, I'll stop here. I gotta go change my oil.

The New Hampshire Primary-It's All About "Change"

L-R Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Richardson

"Gee Hillary, this doesn't look like New Hampshire"

"Don't worry- I can change that"

With Iowa now behind them, the Democratic and Republican candidates are now in New Hampshire. As expected, the winners in Iowa (Huckabee and Obama) are getting singled out for criticism from the also-rans. There is an interesting trend going on in both parties. The word of the day is "Change". Apparently, everyone has gotten the message that the country is hungry for "Change". So, most of the candidates are presenting themselves as the agent of "Change". I would like to point out (as a language purist)that "Change" is a very vague word when used as a noun. Therefore, my question to both the candidates and voters is this: What specific changes are we talking about? What changes do the candidates (specifically) plan to bring about that they will be open and honest about during the campaign?

Let's start with Obama. He presents himself as a candidate of "Change". Unfortunately, his speeches, while soaring, are very general. Does a "Change" mean that his election will bring about "A NEW DAY" in politics? Not good enough, Senator. You need to be more specific. You say you will bring the troops home. When? Day one of your presidency? Does it depend on the situation in Iraq when you take office? What will you change in regard to Afghanistan? How are you going to fight Islamic extremists? What will you change in regards to our out of control illegal immigration problem? What about taxes? Are you going to change them-higher or lower?

Now Hillary. According to her, she has been making "Changes" in the lives of people for 35 years. Could you please be specific? You didn't change health care although you tried to (behind closed doors, I might add). I would ask the same question to voters. How specifically has Hillary Clinton changed your lives? As for your plans, Mrs Clinton, I would present the same questions to you as I did to Obama. Is it possible, Mrs Clinton, that you are trying to keep your planned changes secret from the public until you become president? Are you planning to radically socialize America?

Edwards talks an awful lot about what is wrong with our "Two Americas". How about your solution? Are you goiong to bring about income re-distribution through massive tax increases-not just on "the rich fat cats" (however you define rich), but on the middle class as well? We hear a lot of Democratic rhetoric about the rich, the middle class, "working families" etc, but we don't hear much about what these people consider rich, middle class or who are "working families".

Also Mr Edwards, since you are against the war in Iraq, just when will you bring the troops home? What about Afghanistan? What about the War on Terror. You don't like Guantanemo? What are you going to do with those prisoners?

The problem is, the Democratic candidates know that their voters care more about domestic social issues than the War on Terror. They know that most Democratic voters want us out of Iraq NOW. The result is that they are basically running their campaigns on social issues and "get out of Iraq". It's like they won't have to face this terror issue when they become president. When asked, they just say that they will fight a "more effective War on Terror", get out of Iraq (no matter the situation), "improve intelligence" and work closely with "our allies". What allies?

On the Republican side, we also hear words of tribute to "Change". Mitt Romney tells people he is a Washington outsider. Thus, only he can bring "Change". John McCain reminds us that he is the one who brought "Change" to the effort in Iraq since he urged that more troops be sent there. Huckabee also would have us belive that he is the one to bring about "Change". I have gotten the impression that the Republican idea of "Change" is changing the way they do business in Washington. That would be a worthy goal, but, again, it cries out for specifics. For example, how are you going to change this rotten, corrupt system that infects both parties? McCain says he will veto excessive spending bills. That is a start, but there is an entrenced culture at work in our national government. Reform will not be easy.

My conclusion is simply this: Most of us want some form of change, but hearing candidates merely talk of change is not enough. When you hear a candidate start talking about "Change", listen for specifics. Also think whether the suggested change is actually good. I think all of the top three Democratic candidates do indeed have plans for big changes. I just don't think they want us to know specifically what they are until they become president and start making those changes. That tells me that some of those changes are scary.

posted by Gary Fouse @ 12:51 PM 0 Comments

Friday, January 4, 2008

technorati

Technorati Profile

The Iowa Caucus

"Hi ho, hi ho. It's off to vote we go"





"It's Obama-and Edwards too!"



I guess I had better write something fast about the Iowa Caucus since the New Hampshire primary is fast on its heels. I followed the events in Iowa with more interest on the Democratic side than Republican, mainly because I was itching to see Mrs Clinton come in third-as she did. Interesting how the candidate with the biggest organization in the field couldn't overcome even John Edwards, who is rapidly running out of resources to continue.

A comment about the caucus itself. While the Republicans did it the traditional way-going to a voting site, voting and going home, the Democrats have their own customized version. As I understand it, they proceed to someones home or other public venue, then separate into groups according to candidate preference. If one candidate doesn't have 15% of the crowd, then those voters choose a second choice candidate. I watched a clip of one such gathering at a public facility last night. It looked like a giant cattle auction (whatever that looks like.)

Anyway, as the whole world knows by now (at least according to the hysterical Chris Matthews, who painted the Obama victory as the most significant political event since the Reagan defeat of Carter), Obama was the clear winner with 38% of the vote (Edwards 30%)and Hillary at 29%. My question is; what went wrong with Hillary? In the last 24 hours prior to the voting, it was reported that her organization had hundreds of snow plows, snow shovels and drivers to get voters to the polls. I would hate to think that would have been the difference had she won. Apparently, all the queen's snowplows and all the queen's men were not enough to overcome her phoniness, obnoxiousness and lies about her "unique experience". Interestingly enough, the two most experienced Democratic candidates, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, immediately announced that they are dropping out. Does that now make Hillary the "most experienced" Democratic candidate? Well, there is still Dennis Kucinich, but he is also out of the running-he just doesn't know it yet.

I also watched the three top Democrats give their post-caucus speeches. Hillary, pretending that she hadn't lost anything, talked about what a great night it was for Democrats. While her erstwhile husband, Bill, and the hapless Madeline Albright stood behind her, Hillary never even bothered to congratulate Obama for his victory-never even mentioned him. Bill, for his part, looked like he had spent the last 24 hours doing what Bill does best, while Albright looked like she usually does-lost.

Edwards' speech was typical Edwards-the whole country is starving to death while Bush, the evil Republicans and their corporate cronies are gorging themselves on prime rib breakfasts. Edwards is a gifted public speaker, honed by years in the courtroom buffaloing jurors into bringing huge financial verdicts against doctors and hospitals. This is the same guy who, 4 years ago, was claiming that once he and John Kerry were elected, Christopher Reeve was going to get out of his wheelchair and walk again. (Of course, Kerry-Edwards were defeated, so Reeve died instead.) Folks, remember one thing: Edwards is a PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER.

Obama's speech was classical Obama. Also a gifted speaker, he gave one of his typical stemwinders-great oratory-nothing said. No specifics, no substance. Watching him walk onto the stage with his family, I realized he has one great thing going for him- you see those beautiful kids and you want to vote for Obama. But that is emotion-not reason. I must say that his wife, Michelle, is also attractive and a talented speaker in her own right. It is just that every time I have heard her speak, her tone is pretty negative about the state of things in America. It seems that's what Democrats like to hear, however. The glass is always empty.

One thing should be noted, however. That Obama would win in a state like Iowa, with a white population over 90% is encouraging in itself. There was virtually no black voting block that won it for him.

On the Republican side, since I have been largely turned off by Huckabee, I was somewhat disappointed he won. Yet, aside from the Evangelical support he garnered in Iowa, I must say that the man expresses himself pretty well, comes across as a regular guy-and is willing to subject himself to questions from all sides. That has to be counting for something.

According to the news analysts (who, of course, are smarter than me), Romney took a major blow in Iowa with his second place finish, while McCain kept his hopes alive as he finished below Romney and about even with Thompson. Speaking of Thompson, who will apparently live to fight another day, I am starting to agree with the pundits who say his wife, Jeri, wants this White House gig more than Fred. No question, she is young, attractive and intelligent, but in her interviews, she comes across as a professional spin doctor as she tells the interviewer that "Fred Thompson is the only one who....."

The reporters have also told us that the Democratic voters seemed much more energized than their Republican counterparts. That may be. Will it continue throughout the election process? Possibly, but if Hillary is the eventual nominee, that situation will change immediately.

UN Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions

United Nations Commission on Human Rights- "Be it resolved....."


Just before New Year, and after several years of drafts and debate, the UN General Assembly passed what is called the Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions. The name sounds noble enough, and many of the articles contained herein also sound noble if not inocuous. The problem is, however, that it is only aimed at the defamation of one religion-Islam. There is no mention of any other religion being subject to persecution or defamation. There is also no mention of the true perpetrators of religious intolerance in the world today-radical Islam. As it is, it is just another example of the moral corruption epitomized by the United Nations.

I won't bother to reprint the entire document-rather, I will leave that to the reader to look it up. I will, however, list some of the paragraphs-those that single out the one religion that, according to the UN, is being subjected to defamation and persecution.

"The General Assembly,...."

* "Noting with deep concern the increasing trend in recent years of statements attacking religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums."

* "Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamtion of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001."

* "Expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

* "Deplores the use of print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion."

* "Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of September 11, 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims."

What is so striking about this resolution is that only one religion is singled out as being defamed/persecuted- Islam. There are only a couple of references to "the tragic events of September 11 2001-with no mention of who carried those events out and for what motive. There are only a couple of references to defamation of "any other religion".

Yet, nowhere is there a word about true acts of violence, murder and terror being carried out by Muslims in the name of Jihad virtually every day against non-Muslims.

Nor is there a word about the daily acts of violence, murder and terror being carried out by Muslims against other Muslims (e.g- Shia against Sunni and vice-versa).

Not a word about why 9-11 was carried out or by whom.

Not a word about the London bombings, who did it and why.

Not a word about the Madrid bombings-who did it or why.

Not a word about the bombing in Bali-who did it or why.

Not a word about Darfur.

Not a word about the beheadings of Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg as their killers shouted "Allahu Akbar".

Not a word about Saudi law that makes it illegal to openly practice any other religion in the Kingdom.

Not a word about the persecution of members of the Ba'hai faith in the Islamic Republic of Iran-persecution that includes murder.

Not a word about demonstrations by UK Muslims calling for the beheadings or slaughter those who defame Islam.

Not a word about the proclamations of Imams and their followers calling for the imposition of Islam and Shariah law in their adopted Western countries-and indeed, all over the world.

Not a word about Fatwas-orders for the killing of people in the west, like Salmon Rushdie, for defaming Islam.

Not a word about the riots and killings carried out by Muslims in reaction to a bunch of silly Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed in a negative light.

Not a word about the rise of anti-Semitism (Jewish)fomented by western Muslims.

Not a word about textbooks and main stream newspapers throughout the Middle East that portray Jews as sub-humans, monkeys and pigs.

Not a word about the desecration of Jewish synagogues and cemeteries by Muslim immigrants in France.

Not a word about the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.

Not a word about a culture that raises children to want to become martyrs and blow themselves up-killing scores of innocents in the process.

Not a word about so-called "honor killings"-sometimes practiced in Muslim families in the West in contravention of law.

Not a word about forced female circumcision, also often practiced in Muslim enclaves in the West, in contravention of law.

Not a word about the stoning or hanging of women in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia-who were unfortunate enough to have been raped-thus becoming in the eyes of those societies, "impure".

Not a word about the Taliban executions of women in soccer stadiums for the crime of adultery.

Not a word about the blowing up of ancient Buddhist sculptures in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Not a word about the on-going campaign of terror against Buddhists in southern Thailand by Islamic separatists.

Not one word.

Below are listed the countries on the UN Commission on Human Rights that authored this resolution, and how they voted.

Voting in favor:

Argentina
Bahrain
Bhutan
Brazil
Burkina Faso
China
Congo
Costa Rica
Cuba
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Honduras
Indonesia
Mauritania
Nigeria
Pakistan
Paraguay
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Togo
Uganda
Zimbabwe

Voting against:

Australia
Austria
Croatia
Domincan Republic
France
Germany
Guatemala
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
Sweden
Ukraine
United Kingdom
USA

There are two ways to interpret the identification of the countries involved in this resolution. Some would interpret it (with a few exceptions) as white vs non-white or East vs West. I would interpret it(with few exceptions) as free vs non-free.

My point is three-fold: First, this is just another example of the moral rot in the UN-a corrupt organization made up mostly of corrupt, non-democratic nations, hostile to the West and hostile to true democracy.

Second: This is just another example of the UN's desire to accommodate Islam-a form of Djimmitud, if you will, that will only lead to the creeping authority of the Muslim world and the loss of our own hard-earned freedoms.

Third: Notice how much of the resolution's language is focused not just on laws and discriminatory practices, but words and thought, for example the press and Internet. Does the United Nations want its member countries to crack down on any criticism of Islam and its terroristic elements? Is any criticism of Islam to be outlawed? Are we to have censureship?

I hope this resolution gets the widest publicity possible. Maybe someday, America will wake up to the fact that the United Nations is a failed experiment that no longer deserves the financial support or the membership of the US-or any other free and democratic nation.

What's up with Huckabee?

Mitt Romney


"I'm Mike Huckabee, and I app.....- cancelled this ad."


The more I see Mike Huckabee in action, the farther he falls in my list of possible Republican nominees. In a previous post, I listed some of the positions and past actions of the former Arkansas governor that I had a problem with. This week's news conference held by the governor regarding the attack ad against Mitt Romney really has me wondering about this guy.

Of course, the backdrop to all this is the Iowa primary that, if you trust in polls, seems to be between Huckabee and Romney. Thus, the two have been taking pot shots at each other in Iowa. Huckabee's camp, led by the ever-feisty Ed Rollins, had produced an ad attacking Romney that was all set to be aired in Iowa this week. Then (apparently), Huckabee decided in the last hours that he didn't want it to run. It seems to me that the natural thing to do would be to just can it and forget about it. Huckabee, however, decided to go through with a news conference scheduled to launch the ad, but announce its cancellation instead. As if that wasn't weird enough, Huckabee (with Rollins present)left standing posters with anti-Romney tidbits-then proceeded to show the assembled reporters the ad-all the while explaining that he (Huckabee) wanted to remain above the fray! So why show the ad to the reporters (insuring that it gets publicity)? Huckabee's explanation is that he felt he had to prove to the press that the ad had actually been made. And those posters in the background? Oh yeah! The decision to cancel the ad was made so late in the game that there wasn't time to take the posters down. If that isn't enough, we have Rollins telling reporters that he would like to punch Romney's teeth in.

What?

Note to Ed: Your services are not needed. Huckabee already has Chuck Norris on board. You know, the guy Huckabee says pushes the ground down when he does pushups?

This guy Huckabee is starting to remind me (a little) of Ross Perot, especially the news conference he called to tell the world about the guys in black ski masks who ran across his front lawn one night (while he was in the garage checking under the hood). Again, few can match Perot for weirdness, but Huckabee now stands, in my view, about one notch above Ron Paul.

To voters who would like to see some civility, at least in the party we plan to vote for, these attacks among Republicans are getting tiresome. Can't you just tell us who you are, what you have done in your lives, what you want to do as president and tell us what policy disagreements you have with the others without trying to paint them as Dudley Nightshade? I know. You say I am naive and know nothing about the real workings of our political system. You are probably correct, but this is a big reason why we get such mediocrity in our elected leaders.