Monday, July 03, 2006
The Aim of Al Quada and PETA
When people use tactics to force others to accept their beliefs other than a reasoned argument they assume they have a revealed truth that must be imposed. The incident at a New York Dinner where PETA obtained tickets to harass the guest of honor, Beyonce Knowles, for her use of fur in her clothing line was an example of poor taste, primitive tactics and frankly an admission they want to impose their beliefs through intimidation. Read the full account at http://www.sierratimes.com/06/06/18/64_12_117_8_31860.htm This is the same approach Al Quada has used and is using to get deference to their beliefs regarding what is appropriate ( in their view ). The Danish cartoon episode used intimidation via riots to quell free expression. Yet they want the ability to freely express their religious views and of all things, respect. Expecting respect while not granting it is a one way street culminating in the tactic of intimidation.
Respecting one person’s right to produce clothing and refusing to buy it is one thing. Trying to embarrass and intimidate is not an acceptable alternative. This fanatic urgency to attack those who you do not agree with is common among those who have insufficient intellectual ammunition to support their views. Convincing others to accept your view is the humane way to approach ideology. Pushy intimidation is the school yard bully approach. Evidently neither of these intimidators cannot envision people rationally accepting their viewpoint. A simple argument doesn’t get attention or the instant results they demand. Galilio presented a true picture of the universe and was intimidated into recanting. That did not change the truth of his views. Likewise the intimidation of al Quada and PETA will not change minds but may instill fear. Fear will only be felt by those who misunderstand the nature of courage and the impractical consequences of appeasement.
People who think getting attention for their cause is sufficient to instill conviction of their ideas have not looked at history. The British tried to intimidate the Colonists and theyfailed. The Soviets tried to intimidate the world and they lost. The lessons of history regarding the futility of this approach have been endless, yet those who would rather rant and chant than learn and progress erupt constantly to try once again to try the impossible. In the case of Al Quada it has evolved into a fight to the death. In the case of PETA it is evolving into a demonstration of goofy embarrassment for victims and perpetrators.
Respecting one person’s right to produce clothing and refusing to buy it is one thing. Trying to embarrass and intimidate is not an acceptable alternative. This fanatic urgency to attack those who you do not agree with is common among those who have insufficient intellectual ammunition to support their views. Convincing others to accept your view is the humane way to approach ideology. Pushy intimidation is the school yard bully approach. Evidently neither of these intimidators cannot envision people rationally accepting their viewpoint. A simple argument doesn’t get attention or the instant results they demand. Galilio presented a true picture of the universe and was intimidated into recanting. That did not change the truth of his views. Likewise the intimidation of al Quada and PETA will not change minds but may instill fear. Fear will only be felt by those who misunderstand the nature of courage and the impractical consequences of appeasement.
People who think getting attention for their cause is sufficient to instill conviction of their ideas have not looked at history. The British tried to intimidate the Colonists and theyfailed. The Soviets tried to intimidate the world and they lost. The lessons of history regarding the futility of this approach have been endless, yet those who would rather rant and chant than learn and progress erupt constantly to try once again to try the impossible. In the case of Al Quada it has evolved into a fight to the death. In the case of PETA it is evolving into a demonstration of goofy embarrassment for victims and perpetrators.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Competition-What the Government Cannot Provide
When you see the price of computers drop as they have over the last decade and you look for an explanation you find there are a lot of manufacturers making and selling many different makes and models. The interrelationship between these manufacturers is one of competition. Each is trying to provide a potential buyer with a model that will be preferable tot the consumer over the one the competition is offering. One of the features a consumer looks at is price and so the more you can offer for the least amount of money will entice more buyers to your machine than your competitor. So in order for your competitor to compete he must either offer more or cut his price if he wishes to stay in business. If he is successful it is your turn to respond with better features or a lower price and the cycle continues.
Now lets look at how the government “runs” a business. Lets use the Post Office as an example. Since there is no competition because the government outlaws the delivery of first class mail be any private party we see a different result. The price of stamps never falls, it only increases. There is no competition to provide better service or lower prices so the government charges what it wants to and the consumer must pay or do without. Yet the government talks via the politicians about running the nation’s health care, it’s railroads and monitoring business and trade with federal commissions as if it was private commerce that was the problem. The government disallow private monopolies ( as if there could actually be such a thing for long ) yet when it enters the market place it excludes all competition and therefore price reduction and quality innovations.
This contrast is visible to every person who contrasts the results. Yet we have politicians proposing schemes that propagate the growth of government into the market and voters agreeing with them. What is it that consumers don’t understand about competition and the fact that government eliminates it? It isn’t because it cannot be understood or observed. It is the priority of most consumers to let the politician go unchallenged. Why? They look at what they buy and they want the best the market has to offer at the lowest price. But when they see an agency making that choice impossible they don’t react at all. Those who fall into that category will have to answer that question for themselves.
Washington has shown that it can only deal with the topic of the moment and that which is getting the most attention. It is analogous to a fireman fighting a fire over a basement full of explosives. The major concern is being ignored and the current action is only giving the impression that the right thing is being done. As more and more government brings into play less and less competition the choices and quality of life deteriorates.
This is most apparent in the public school system. LIke foreign aid ,the billions that go into public education are propping up a system that desperately needs competition. The educators who should act as intellectuals and seek honest answers to the issue of poor test results and undereducated “graduates” are hiding their heads in the sand of unified action to protect the status quo. An honest businessman knows competition is good for his business. He knows he must innovate and cut costs and effectively market his product or service and this will drive him to do his best and be the best he can be.
There is no such incentive for people in the public education monopoly because their efforts must be centered around getting as much redistributed funds it can to perpetuate dictates from the bureaucrats. The results of the likes of Marva Collins et al proves what it takes to get genuine excellence in education and it isn’t whining for more government money. A private educational system is long overdue. Keeping education under the thumb of politicians who can’t balance a budget is a losing proposition.
Without competition education, like the price of stamps, will constantly become more and more expensive. Innovation will only be goofy theories like “new math” or “look-say” reading which will fade as they prove to be nothing more than attempts to change for the sake of change. A competitor ( and Marva Collins did ) shoot down such superficial notions in a heartbeat and those that saw her wisdom flocked to her school. And the children learned and they performed. This microcosm of competition was lost to the educational community who preferred to ignore what had been presented to them as something they were either too afraid of to try or too apathetic to change. For that shameful ignoring of a clear model they want higher wages?
Competition is to the market place what profit is to a business. You either have it or you don’t survive. You may exist as a ward of the state muttering their dictates but in term s of progress you must necessarily regress. Competition must be preserved, promoted and encouraged and most of all not stifled by government. The world of production and trade works at it s best when better ideas can be implemented and capitalized on. This produces a win win scenario for the consumer and the producer. And it is the job of government to protect this interaction not to interfere with it. The government sham of economic development is another muddled interference process which will be addressed more fully at a later date. Meanwhile it is competition that creates real economic development by lowering prices which means more can be consumed or saved and therefore a higher standard of living obtained. When the government talks of foreign trade and calls for a level playing field, they never acknowledge the ruts they are creating at home with their restriction of competition. It is long past time to point out their flawed approach to “helping” the American people. If they really cared they would be sure unfair competition on their part was outlawed.
Now lets look at how the government “runs” a business. Lets use the Post Office as an example. Since there is no competition because the government outlaws the delivery of first class mail be any private party we see a different result. The price of stamps never falls, it only increases. There is no competition to provide better service or lower prices so the government charges what it wants to and the consumer must pay or do without. Yet the government talks via the politicians about running the nation’s health care, it’s railroads and monitoring business and trade with federal commissions as if it was private commerce that was the problem. The government disallow private monopolies ( as if there could actually be such a thing for long ) yet when it enters the market place it excludes all competition and therefore price reduction and quality innovations.
This contrast is visible to every person who contrasts the results. Yet we have politicians proposing schemes that propagate the growth of government into the market and voters agreeing with them. What is it that consumers don’t understand about competition and the fact that government eliminates it? It isn’t because it cannot be understood or observed. It is the priority of most consumers to let the politician go unchallenged. Why? They look at what they buy and they want the best the market has to offer at the lowest price. But when they see an agency making that choice impossible they don’t react at all. Those who fall into that category will have to answer that question for themselves.
Washington has shown that it can only deal with the topic of the moment and that which is getting the most attention. It is analogous to a fireman fighting a fire over a basement full of explosives. The major concern is being ignored and the current action is only giving the impression that the right thing is being done. As more and more government brings into play less and less competition the choices and quality of life deteriorates.
This is most apparent in the public school system. LIke foreign aid ,the billions that go into public education are propping up a system that desperately needs competition. The educators who should act as intellectuals and seek honest answers to the issue of poor test results and undereducated “graduates” are hiding their heads in the sand of unified action to protect the status quo. An honest businessman knows competition is good for his business. He knows he must innovate and cut costs and effectively market his product or service and this will drive him to do his best and be the best he can be.
There is no such incentive for people in the public education monopoly because their efforts must be centered around getting as much redistributed funds it can to perpetuate dictates from the bureaucrats. The results of the likes of Marva Collins et al proves what it takes to get genuine excellence in education and it isn’t whining for more government money. A private educational system is long overdue. Keeping education under the thumb of politicians who can’t balance a budget is a losing proposition.
Without competition education, like the price of stamps, will constantly become more and more expensive. Innovation will only be goofy theories like “new math” or “look-say” reading which will fade as they prove to be nothing more than attempts to change for the sake of change. A competitor ( and Marva Collins did ) shoot down such superficial notions in a heartbeat and those that saw her wisdom flocked to her school. And the children learned and they performed. This microcosm of competition was lost to the educational community who preferred to ignore what had been presented to them as something they were either too afraid of to try or too apathetic to change. For that shameful ignoring of a clear model they want higher wages?
Competition is to the market place what profit is to a business. You either have it or you don’t survive. You may exist as a ward of the state muttering their dictates but in term s of progress you must necessarily regress. Competition must be preserved, promoted and encouraged and most of all not stifled by government. The world of production and trade works at it s best when better ideas can be implemented and capitalized on. This produces a win win scenario for the consumer and the producer. And it is the job of government to protect this interaction not to interfere with it. The government sham of economic development is another muddled interference process which will be addressed more fully at a later date. Meanwhile it is competition that creates real economic development by lowering prices which means more can be consumed or saved and therefore a higher standard of living obtained. When the government talks of foreign trade and calls for a level playing field, they never acknowledge the ruts they are creating at home with their restriction of competition. It is long past time to point out their flawed approach to “helping” the American people. If they really cared they would be sure unfair competition on their part was outlawed.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
The Case for Martial Law in Iraq
Suppose the United States was faced with insurrection on the home front. Suppose we had insurgents bombing and killing and creating chaos. Suppose the police was understaffed to handle mounting attacks and the safety and security of American citizens was threatened to the extent that a breakdown in law and order was imminent. Were this the situation, would there be any hesitancy in imposing martial law, taking control of the situation and restoring law and order? Or would we stand around wringing our hands hoping local and /or state police would somehow get control of the situation and tell the country that everything is going fine , there are signs of improvement and be patient? You know the answer to this hypothetical situation but this latter response is exactly what we are doing in Iraq today.
There is a line in “Heartbreak Ridge” the movie, referring to the Korean and Vietnam Wars which depicts the ongoing status of our military’s role in world conflicts post WWII. The line spoken by Clint Eastwood is,” We may have lost the war but we won the battles.” This is exactly why our military knows they are doing a good job and yet are faced with a letdown when the war ends. They won the battles and their country lost the war. Only the politicians who start the wars ( and some wars, like in Iraq ,are justified ) are to blame for the war losses. They go into the war saying they will listen to the military and then they don’t define or insist on complete and total victory. There was no imposition of martial law in Korea nor Vietnam. There was a commander of the military operation but there was no military commander to oversee the institution of the protection and institution of individual rights after the fighting was done. The contrast with Japan and how it was handled and the ensuing success is so obvious you would think it would be a no brainer to follow that pattern. But instead of taking a lesson from history we have politicians who are so programed to try to please the majority that they ignore what it is their job to do and end up pandering to the perceived feelings of “world ”opinion. The question they should face is,” Do we want to see if we can not be seen wrong by the “world” or do we want to protect the American citizens and their country from harm?” These politicians were not elected to create an impossible image of America where all countries look upon us as strong and benign. They were elected to protect us from foreign invasion and to defend our interests in the world from acts of violence.
No matter how much reassurance is offered about our “progress’ in Iraq, this will not change the hatred and ongoing violence between the sectarian militias. Putting a regime in power that favors their sect over others is a sure recipe for further conflict and insurgency. Calling for elections to establish this power doesn’t change the resentment of those out of power. Hoping for reconciliation between the factions is like asking the Republicans to share power with the Democrats even though they won the election. Which brings up another obvious observation our politicians overlooked. If the Republicans and Democrats can’t “come together” in defending our nation, what makes them think another country will form a coalition to defend their country? Peace and security via law and order do not just happen. They must be established and maintained. So now that we are pursuing a no win policy relying on Iraqis to “come together” on their own, how do we correct this erroneous approach?
First of all our leaders need to recognize that relying on others in a country torn by rival gangs to have a revelation that our way of life is superior and ought to be emulated is a venture into la-la land. Then they need to announce that our current plan needs revision and the place to start is to reinstitute control via martial law and establishing a country where law and order thrive and is enforced. Elections are meaningless when anarchy reigns. If they must give altruistic rationale they could always say it is for the good of the Iraqi people to have law and order. Such a stance would be an undercover excuse for our overall mission of preempting terrorism for our own protection but if our politicians can’t seem to understand or articulate the truth of our mission maybe they could at least do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Finally the policy must be made clear that this is not a one time experiment but our strategy on the war on terrorist states ( i.e. those that harbor and support terrorists ) is ongoing. We need to issue a list of those nations we are suspicious of and warn them any verification will bring down the same operation on their country. We should not be content to live in a world where tin horn dictators, barbaric mullahs and jumping gun waving crowds cause us to wonder what they are up to and whether they will get weapons and use them to destroy our security and safety.
This is all that is necessary to turn this latest stalemate into victory. When playing chess and you see a stalemate developing you protect your resources, plan a strategy for victory or you relent with the fact that a stalemate is all you are capable of achieving. We do not have to settle for another stalemate in Iraq ( and declare a limited “victory” ). No one looks on the peace “achieved” in Vietnam or Korea as conclusive victory. And it was all because we did not finish the job. We were fuzzy going in and we knew not how to handle the end game. We need the power utilized we have demonstrated to control the outcome. This cannot happen without a period to establish law and order. And the mechanism to do this is martial law.
There is a line in “Heartbreak Ridge” the movie, referring to the Korean and Vietnam Wars which depicts the ongoing status of our military’s role in world conflicts post WWII. The line spoken by Clint Eastwood is,” We may have lost the war but we won the battles.” This is exactly why our military knows they are doing a good job and yet are faced with a letdown when the war ends. They won the battles and their country lost the war. Only the politicians who start the wars ( and some wars, like in Iraq ,are justified ) are to blame for the war losses. They go into the war saying they will listen to the military and then they don’t define or insist on complete and total victory. There was no imposition of martial law in Korea nor Vietnam. There was a commander of the military operation but there was no military commander to oversee the institution of the protection and institution of individual rights after the fighting was done. The contrast with Japan and how it was handled and the ensuing success is so obvious you would think it would be a no brainer to follow that pattern. But instead of taking a lesson from history we have politicians who are so programed to try to please the majority that they ignore what it is their job to do and end up pandering to the perceived feelings of “world ”opinion. The question they should face is,” Do we want to see if we can not be seen wrong by the “world” or do we want to protect the American citizens and their country from harm?” These politicians were not elected to create an impossible image of America where all countries look upon us as strong and benign. They were elected to protect us from foreign invasion and to defend our interests in the world from acts of violence.
No matter how much reassurance is offered about our “progress’ in Iraq, this will not change the hatred and ongoing violence between the sectarian militias. Putting a regime in power that favors their sect over others is a sure recipe for further conflict and insurgency. Calling for elections to establish this power doesn’t change the resentment of those out of power. Hoping for reconciliation between the factions is like asking the Republicans to share power with the Democrats even though they won the election. Which brings up another obvious observation our politicians overlooked. If the Republicans and Democrats can’t “come together” in defending our nation, what makes them think another country will form a coalition to defend their country? Peace and security via law and order do not just happen. They must be established and maintained. So now that we are pursuing a no win policy relying on Iraqis to “come together” on their own, how do we correct this erroneous approach?
First of all our leaders need to recognize that relying on others in a country torn by rival gangs to have a revelation that our way of life is superior and ought to be emulated is a venture into la-la land. Then they need to announce that our current plan needs revision and the place to start is to reinstitute control via martial law and establishing a country where law and order thrive and is enforced. Elections are meaningless when anarchy reigns. If they must give altruistic rationale they could always say it is for the good of the Iraqi people to have law and order. Such a stance would be an undercover excuse for our overall mission of preempting terrorism for our own protection but if our politicians can’t seem to understand or articulate the truth of our mission maybe they could at least do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Finally the policy must be made clear that this is not a one time experiment but our strategy on the war on terrorist states ( i.e. those that harbor and support terrorists ) is ongoing. We need to issue a list of those nations we are suspicious of and warn them any verification will bring down the same operation on their country. We should not be content to live in a world where tin horn dictators, barbaric mullahs and jumping gun waving crowds cause us to wonder what they are up to and whether they will get weapons and use them to destroy our security and safety.
This is all that is necessary to turn this latest stalemate into victory. When playing chess and you see a stalemate developing you protect your resources, plan a strategy for victory or you relent with the fact that a stalemate is all you are capable of achieving. We do not have to settle for another stalemate in Iraq ( and declare a limited “victory” ). No one looks on the peace “achieved” in Vietnam or Korea as conclusive victory. And it was all because we did not finish the job. We were fuzzy going in and we knew not how to handle the end game. We need the power utilized we have demonstrated to control the outcome. This cannot happen without a period to establish law and order. And the mechanism to do this is martial law.
An Evaded Natalee HollowayTheory
After months and months of investigations and a one track search for a dead Natalee Holloway there is one common thread that seems to be constantly overlooked. First of all there is the bizarre range of theories offered by the Aruba authorities. For instance take the latest from Gerald Dompig (Deputy Chief of Police for Aruba). To quote Officer Dompig ,” We feel strongly that she probably went into shock or something happened to her system with all the alcohol-maybe on top of that, other drugs, which either she took or they gave her- and that she...just collapsed”. (Associated Press March 23, 2006).
Now what is wrong with this theory? Deputy Dompig says nothing about why he feels so strongly (on the basis of what evidence), nor does he indicate what happened to Natalee’s body and who is he saying gave her drugs and by what evidence does he arrive at the conclusion that drugs even played a part in her disappearance? Beth Twitty has repeatedly indicated the Aruba authorities are hard to get information out of. Who should be under suspicion when they utter nonsensical theories and withhold information?
Let’s look at the motive for killing Natalee? Having sex (if that occurred) is hardly a motive for killing and if it was rape wouldn’t there be some kind of wounds on the perpetrator(s)? *There was evidence of wounds/bruises on Joran immediately after he was taken into custody. If these came from Natalee what happens to Deputy Dompig's theory that she passed out from a failure of her "system"? What other motive would be plausible? A robber wouldn’t have bothered killing over what could have been nothing more than a purse snatching. Imagine three young boys so adept at killing and disposing of a body that not a trace of evidence can be found. Even the most cleverly planned crimes leave traces of inconsistencies that evolve into leads. But nothing in the physical realm is found and the question must be asked why? A teenager who killed would be in a state of panic and make a panic decision to cover up the evidence. It hardly seems plausible that this panic would produce a perfect crime. Plus what would unite the three boys to concoct obvious stories that could be easily discredited? The answer lies in the false assumptions directing the investigation.
False assumptions without evidence to contradict them leaves only the option to examine the assumptions leading nowhere and formulate a theory that makes all of the components fit. This has not been done by the Aruba authorities and it has not been done by the media hounds playing detective. There is a common assumption that Natalee was killed and that assumption is blocking any investigation into what explains the lack of motive, the Aruba authorities lack of disclosure, the theories that don’t add up and the perceived cleverness of the perpetrator(s). This leaves us with rejecting all of this hodge podge of inconclusive findings and conjectures and starting from a fresh perspective.
To begin, let’s ask why a 17 year old boy would be able to gamble where he is underage? What would sanction such behavior? Most businesses are very conscious of breaking the law and are careful to check I.D.s, spot possible violators and avoid fines or punishment. There did not seem to be any such concern by the casino owners/employees. Joran was not only sanctioned in these places but he was known and very visible. If there was no concern with the violation he was committing by the proprietors what does this say about their relationship with the authorities? Would it not be reasonable to assume the proprietors had little or nothing to fear from the authorities? Why? Did they have some common interest that superseded compliance with the law? One has to wonder.
There was the statement by Joran’s father that indicated without a body there is no case. Why would he say that? What made him think a body was not going to turn up? Was this some form of reassurance that Natalee was unlikely to be located? And what kind of a father allows his son to roam the casinos until late at night without knowing how he is able to afford such a lifestyle? There is developing a common thread that there are many parties involved in bizarre behavior indicating a common cause.
Realizing there are many inconsistencies in what we know by following the premise that Natalee was murdered , Let’s look at another possibility and see how that fits with the knowledge we have. Suppose Natalee was lured by Joran to a location where an abductor (s) were waiting to take Natalee away from the island for the purpose of trafficking her to a pimp in another country. Suppose the casino owner and or/an employee and the Aruba government were in on the scheme. This scenario begins to explain a lot of former inconsistencies.
First of all it would explain why no body or evidence has been found. Secondly it would explain the strange statement by Joran’s father. Third it would explain how Joran could roam the casinos and have money for gambling. Fourth it would explain the lack of disclosure by the Aruba police and the poor methods of investigation and interrogation. It would also explain how a 17 year old could commit a crime without getting caught. It would also explain the red herrings of Deputy Dompig. Further it would explain the involvement of Joran as a hustler to lure an attractive girl into the hands of abductors paid off by the casinos and protected by the government.
If there was some way the government of Aruba could exonerate itself from any involvement such as producing a body or getting a confession from a suspect they would have done so by now. But I suspect they feel their only strategy at this point is to play dumb and try to throw off any further inquiry by concentrating on possible causes of death, the shifting sands , the vast area that would take more effort to search than they have resources to accomplish, etc, etc, etc.
Only if they are put under investigation themselves will you get a rat to squeal to save his own skin. And none of our media giants seem willing to go down that road. Those who have been following the story and reporting on it have bought into the innocence of the Aruba government and it is this trepidation that very well could be leaving Natalee at the mercy of a human trafficker. It is inconceivable that a girl would disappear without a trace in a part of the world where others have mysteriously disappeared without someone profiting to the extent they could buy off the government. This explains the problem of motive and all of the other aspects of the case that do not fit with the killing of Natalee. If she is still alive I am sure she wonders why no one is searching for her where she is. The reason rests with a false assumption which is the source of all failed attempts at solving a problem and/or a crime. If you’re looking for a killer you first must establish he killed. If you’re looking for the missing you cannot assume missing is equivalent to murdered. To get the right answers you have to ask the right questions. The unasked question that is pertinent to the case is, “ What best explains what we know?” This is the question that, if answered, will lead us to finding a missing Alabama girl.
* This is information I was unaware of in my article in American Chronicles ( linked above).
Now what is wrong with this theory? Deputy Dompig says nothing about why he feels so strongly (on the basis of what evidence), nor does he indicate what happened to Natalee’s body and who is he saying gave her drugs and by what evidence does he arrive at the conclusion that drugs even played a part in her disappearance? Beth Twitty has repeatedly indicated the Aruba authorities are hard to get information out of. Who should be under suspicion when they utter nonsensical theories and withhold information?
Let’s look at the motive for killing Natalee? Having sex (if that occurred) is hardly a motive for killing and if it was rape wouldn’t there be some kind of wounds on the perpetrator(s)? *There was evidence of wounds/bruises on Joran immediately after he was taken into custody. If these came from Natalee what happens to Deputy Dompig's theory that she passed out from a failure of her "system"? What other motive would be plausible? A robber wouldn’t have bothered killing over what could have been nothing more than a purse snatching. Imagine three young boys so adept at killing and disposing of a body that not a trace of evidence can be found. Even the most cleverly planned crimes leave traces of inconsistencies that evolve into leads. But nothing in the physical realm is found and the question must be asked why? A teenager who killed would be in a state of panic and make a panic decision to cover up the evidence. It hardly seems plausible that this panic would produce a perfect crime. Plus what would unite the three boys to concoct obvious stories that could be easily discredited? The answer lies in the false assumptions directing the investigation.
False assumptions without evidence to contradict them leaves only the option to examine the assumptions leading nowhere and formulate a theory that makes all of the components fit. This has not been done by the Aruba authorities and it has not been done by the media hounds playing detective. There is a common assumption that Natalee was killed and that assumption is blocking any investigation into what explains the lack of motive, the Aruba authorities lack of disclosure, the theories that don’t add up and the perceived cleverness of the perpetrator(s). This leaves us with rejecting all of this hodge podge of inconclusive findings and conjectures and starting from a fresh perspective.
To begin, let’s ask why a 17 year old boy would be able to gamble where he is underage? What would sanction such behavior? Most businesses are very conscious of breaking the law and are careful to check I.D.s, spot possible violators and avoid fines or punishment. There did not seem to be any such concern by the casino owners/employees. Joran was not only sanctioned in these places but he was known and very visible. If there was no concern with the violation he was committing by the proprietors what does this say about their relationship with the authorities? Would it not be reasonable to assume the proprietors had little or nothing to fear from the authorities? Why? Did they have some common interest that superseded compliance with the law? One has to wonder.
There was the statement by Joran’s father that indicated without a body there is no case. Why would he say that? What made him think a body was not going to turn up? Was this some form of reassurance that Natalee was unlikely to be located? And what kind of a father allows his son to roam the casinos until late at night without knowing how he is able to afford such a lifestyle? There is developing a common thread that there are many parties involved in bizarre behavior indicating a common cause.
Realizing there are many inconsistencies in what we know by following the premise that Natalee was murdered , Let’s look at another possibility and see how that fits with the knowledge we have. Suppose Natalee was lured by Joran to a location where an abductor (s) were waiting to take Natalee away from the island for the purpose of trafficking her to a pimp in another country. Suppose the casino owner and or/an employee and the Aruba government were in on the scheme. This scenario begins to explain a lot of former inconsistencies.
First of all it would explain why no body or evidence has been found. Secondly it would explain the strange statement by Joran’s father. Third it would explain how Joran could roam the casinos and have money for gambling. Fourth it would explain the lack of disclosure by the Aruba police and the poor methods of investigation and interrogation. It would also explain how a 17 year old could commit a crime without getting caught. It would also explain the red herrings of Deputy Dompig. Further it would explain the involvement of Joran as a hustler to lure an attractive girl into the hands of abductors paid off by the casinos and protected by the government.
If there was some way the government of Aruba could exonerate itself from any involvement such as producing a body or getting a confession from a suspect they would have done so by now. But I suspect they feel their only strategy at this point is to play dumb and try to throw off any further inquiry by concentrating on possible causes of death, the shifting sands , the vast area that would take more effort to search than they have resources to accomplish, etc, etc, etc.
Only if they are put under investigation themselves will you get a rat to squeal to save his own skin. And none of our media giants seem willing to go down that road. Those who have been following the story and reporting on it have bought into the innocence of the Aruba government and it is this trepidation that very well could be leaving Natalee at the mercy of a human trafficker. It is inconceivable that a girl would disappear without a trace in a part of the world where others have mysteriously disappeared without someone profiting to the extent they could buy off the government. This explains the problem of motive and all of the other aspects of the case that do not fit with the killing of Natalee. If she is still alive I am sure she wonders why no one is searching for her where she is. The reason rests with a false assumption which is the source of all failed attempts at solving a problem and/or a crime. If you’re looking for a killer you first must establish he killed. If you’re looking for the missing you cannot assume missing is equivalent to murdered. To get the right answers you have to ask the right questions. The unasked question that is pertinent to the case is, “ What best explains what we know?” This is the question that, if answered, will lead us to finding a missing Alabama girl.
* This is information I was unaware of in my article in American Chronicles ( linked above).
Monday, March 13, 2006
The Solution for Iraq
After seeing what our current policy has accomplished and recognizing that a change in policy is necessary, it is time to begin laying the groundwork for results other than a long drawn out hope for withdrawal with dignity. The first thing to recognize is the source of the biggest problem in Iraq is: the existence of armed militias. To have a stable country there cannot be armed factions enforcing their version of law simultaneously while a “coalition” of national representatives haggle over who should be in charge. The only sensible answer to reigning in the various militias is a declaration and enforcement of martial law. This is the purpose of martial law i.e. to bring order to a chaotic situation.
The silliness of waiting for the warring factions to come to an agreement when they have been brawling and hating for centuries is relying on nothing but a vanishing hope that our background presence will somehow encourage a change. Pouring American taxpayer dollars into rebuilding what the militias blow up is a fool hardy notion that only reinforces our reputation as give-away artists. We are not fighting a war in Iraq any longer we are merely stationing troops and material in a country that is disintegrating into chaos. It would be the same thing for a parent to toss their children in a room, lock the door and hope no one would fight. This is not how to create peace and harmony.
First you lay down the rules, then you enforce them. Take away the weapons , imprison the troublemakers and draw up a constitution that forbids the violation of individual rights. This in essence was the approach in Japan after their surrender after WWII. It worked. This is not the plan in Iraq, yet. If there is to be a plan this is the only one that makes any sense. We cannot withdraw without planning another invasion to depose the next tyrant. We have tried to train the Iraqi’s to handle their own security and without an outline of what the expectation is we simply have a rag tag band of Summer soldiers and police vulnerable to wandering militias led by various mullahs of various Muslim sects. This is unworkable, which we have seen and we do not need to waste any more time, money and personnel wringing our hands on what to do. It’s time to get over this nonsense of feigned compassion and show that we mean business. Instead of a figurehead commander we need a supreme governor of Iraq to impose martial law and take out any infiltration from surrounding countries. We need to tell Tehran that they are next on the list and our survival depends on them adopting a constitution that insures individual rights, their nuclear ambitions must be immediately renounced and any infiltration will be an act of war.
With these declarations in place we can get to work and actually get something done that will ensure our security. It won’t take long for the Iraqi’s to realize that order and respect for the law is vastly preferable to daily bombings of innocents. What we are trying to do now to no avail is to use our vehicle of force to persuade. It isn’t working and it won’t work. You have to show people what you mean by setting up the model and show then what happens to those who don’t want to live in peace and kill innocents. This is how the message gets across. Waiting for them to see the light is the road to the long drawn out disaster that doesn’t enhance our security and accomplishes more losses for us.
Now how do you get such a plan into the minds of our leaders? First you formulate it and then you advertise it. You point out that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a plan for enforcing martial law and building a free country after order is established. You can’t build anything on discord. When someone asks,” What are we going to do about Iraq?’ Ask them, “What about martial law?” Martial law is putting the military in charge of the country they conquered and is the only way to establish the victor's priorities. We are not interested in looting their country ( what would we loot ? ). We’re interested in establishing a free society that is governed by the rule of law and respects individual rights. This is in our interest for our security. We are not interested in them voting in another tyrant who will rattle sabers at us, have or pretend to have WMD’s and be a disruption to peace in the world. If the world knew that any threat to us would be met with an invasion, a replacement of tyranny with liberty via the imposition of martial law and the establishment of a constitutional government based on individual rights- there would be no more defiance in the name of some religion or sect. Each would be insured the free practice of their beliefs only if they respected the beliefs of those who disagreed with them. This is the American way and it beats the hell out of these jumping, violent mobs chanting for nothing but chaos and ultimate tyranny.
Now if someone should ask if such an approach by American’s would be tyrannical, they would have to be informed that it is not tyrannical to establish a free country based on individual rights. The United States was established to eliminate tyranny at home and if it must be established elsewhere in the world because it is a threat to us at home, then that is our call and our mission. The central fight is- and will always be- the right of the individual to be secure from tyranny. This requires constitutional guarantees enforced by a limited government. Necessarily limited so that the rights it is charged with protecting are not violated by ensuing statutes. But the beginning of this establishment of liberty must begin with a government that is effective in reducing chaos and the violation of individual rights. Wandering bands of vigilantes will not produce a nation of law and freedom no matter where it is. The United States would be the middle East reincarnated if we permitted gangs of religious zealots to enforce their rules on all they could intimidate and control. We wouldn’t permit that here why should we permit it in a country we invaded and conquered? There must be a realization that conquering a country by a free nation implies a rational purpose. If we want free trade we must have free traders. If we want security we cannot conquer and let the residual band of hooligans take over what we have conquered and turn it back into a threat. The sequence of our mission in the world if we are to survive as a free nation is as follows: 1. Warn the world’s nations we will not condone threats. 2. Any plausible threat will be considered an act of war. 3. We will invade and conquer such threatening nations . 4. We will establish martial law and draw up and enforce a constitution based on individual rights. 5. the new government will be backed by our presence until it has proven that it can function on its own. 6. We will withdraw.
This approach will work but it takes the courage to quit being apologetic for our way of life. Either we enforce it where necessary or we watch it disappear in a wave of chaos- wringing our hands about what it was we had that no one would accept. The zealots have no compunction about enforcing their way of life on others and this initiation of force must be met with retaliatory force by us. It is justified , It is necessary . And anything less is Un-American.
The silliness of waiting for the warring factions to come to an agreement when they have been brawling and hating for centuries is relying on nothing but a vanishing hope that our background presence will somehow encourage a change. Pouring American taxpayer dollars into rebuilding what the militias blow up is a fool hardy notion that only reinforces our reputation as give-away artists. We are not fighting a war in Iraq any longer we are merely stationing troops and material in a country that is disintegrating into chaos. It would be the same thing for a parent to toss their children in a room, lock the door and hope no one would fight. This is not how to create peace and harmony.
First you lay down the rules, then you enforce them. Take away the weapons , imprison the troublemakers and draw up a constitution that forbids the violation of individual rights. This in essence was the approach in Japan after their surrender after WWII. It worked. This is not the plan in Iraq, yet. If there is to be a plan this is the only one that makes any sense. We cannot withdraw without planning another invasion to depose the next tyrant. We have tried to train the Iraqi’s to handle their own security and without an outline of what the expectation is we simply have a rag tag band of Summer soldiers and police vulnerable to wandering militias led by various mullahs of various Muslim sects. This is unworkable, which we have seen and we do not need to waste any more time, money and personnel wringing our hands on what to do. It’s time to get over this nonsense of feigned compassion and show that we mean business. Instead of a figurehead commander we need a supreme governor of Iraq to impose martial law and take out any infiltration from surrounding countries. We need to tell Tehran that they are next on the list and our survival depends on them adopting a constitution that insures individual rights, their nuclear ambitions must be immediately renounced and any infiltration will be an act of war.
With these declarations in place we can get to work and actually get something done that will ensure our security. It won’t take long for the Iraqi’s to realize that order and respect for the law is vastly preferable to daily bombings of innocents. What we are trying to do now to no avail is to use our vehicle of force to persuade. It isn’t working and it won’t work. You have to show people what you mean by setting up the model and show then what happens to those who don’t want to live in peace and kill innocents. This is how the message gets across. Waiting for them to see the light is the road to the long drawn out disaster that doesn’t enhance our security and accomplishes more losses for us.
Now how do you get such a plan into the minds of our leaders? First you formulate it and then you advertise it. You point out that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a plan for enforcing martial law and building a free country after order is established. You can’t build anything on discord. When someone asks,” What are we going to do about Iraq?’ Ask them, “What about martial law?” Martial law is putting the military in charge of the country they conquered and is the only way to establish the victor's priorities. We are not interested in looting their country ( what would we loot ? ). We’re interested in establishing a free society that is governed by the rule of law and respects individual rights. This is in our interest for our security. We are not interested in them voting in another tyrant who will rattle sabers at us, have or pretend to have WMD’s and be a disruption to peace in the world. If the world knew that any threat to us would be met with an invasion, a replacement of tyranny with liberty via the imposition of martial law and the establishment of a constitutional government based on individual rights- there would be no more defiance in the name of some religion or sect. Each would be insured the free practice of their beliefs only if they respected the beliefs of those who disagreed with them. This is the American way and it beats the hell out of these jumping, violent mobs chanting for nothing but chaos and ultimate tyranny.
Now if someone should ask if such an approach by American’s would be tyrannical, they would have to be informed that it is not tyrannical to establish a free country based on individual rights. The United States was established to eliminate tyranny at home and if it must be established elsewhere in the world because it is a threat to us at home, then that is our call and our mission. The central fight is- and will always be- the right of the individual to be secure from tyranny. This requires constitutional guarantees enforced by a limited government. Necessarily limited so that the rights it is charged with protecting are not violated by ensuing statutes. But the beginning of this establishment of liberty must begin with a government that is effective in reducing chaos and the violation of individual rights. Wandering bands of vigilantes will not produce a nation of law and freedom no matter where it is. The United States would be the middle East reincarnated if we permitted gangs of religious zealots to enforce their rules on all they could intimidate and control. We wouldn’t permit that here why should we permit it in a country we invaded and conquered? There must be a realization that conquering a country by a free nation implies a rational purpose. If we want free trade we must have free traders. If we want security we cannot conquer and let the residual band of hooligans take over what we have conquered and turn it back into a threat. The sequence of our mission in the world if we are to survive as a free nation is as follows: 1. Warn the world’s nations we will not condone threats. 2. Any plausible threat will be considered an act of war. 3. We will invade and conquer such threatening nations . 4. We will establish martial law and draw up and enforce a constitution based on individual rights. 5. the new government will be backed by our presence until it has proven that it can function on its own. 6. We will withdraw.
This approach will work but it takes the courage to quit being apologetic for our way of life. Either we enforce it where necessary or we watch it disappear in a wave of chaos- wringing our hands about what it was we had that no one would accept. The zealots have no compunction about enforcing their way of life on others and this initiation of force must be met with retaliatory force by us. It is justified , It is necessary . And anything less is Un-American.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Display a Picture - Create a Mob
Has anyone noticed the disappearance of the written word as a rallying cry? The anti-abortion mob displays a bloody fetus and immediately concludes that is all that is necessary for making a convincing case for violence. The Muslims point to a picture that may or may not look like the Prophet Mohammed (they don’t know what he looked like) and immediately respond with outrage (after a few orders from their mullahs). PETA shows a choked chicken and they stage pickets for hours about a picture. There are many more examples, but the commonality of using pictures instead of reasonable arguments emerges every time the arguments are weak. These mob-mongers are not interested in convincing other people ,they are interested in intimidating other people. They all have targets to blame the pictures on. The Muslims have the West, The anti-abortionists have the doctors and the women who want to decide for themselves and of course PETA wants to attack all men that don’t worship as they do.
When you see a commonality of response to the same phenomena it should give you pause that there is some fundamental driving force that is creating this commonality. What do these groups have in common? They all chant. They thrive on being a part of a group. They are a part of organizations that have creeds that have no sound philosophical foundations and they take their lead from a dictatorial spokesman. They seek their moral sanction from the tenets of altruism and they ask for sacrifice by others for the sake of something other than themselves. And all of this leads to the ability to be aroused to a hearted pitch when surrounded by like minded fanatics at the sight of a picture or a simple phrase such as “Seig Heil”.
This phenomena of mob mentality is nothing new. It has been seen throughout history and always with the same result. Destruction, violence and hate. You would think (notice the operative word) people watching destruction and violence and hate would wonder ,” Is this the kind of world I want to live in?” In the case of the Muslims the view of this world is immaterial . They live under an illusion that the glory of death is the answer to their problems. They’ll never know they are giving up the only life they’ll ever have. In the case of PETA the world they project is a complete fantasy where animals are revered and man’s rights (especially the pursuit of happiness) are destroyed. The anti-abortionists merely want to ignore the past and return to black market abortions, unsafe procedures, ruined lives and the government forcing women to give birth. All of these groups want sacrifice for something outside of themselves by others. They are not content to live and let live, but to demand adherence to their notions of how the world should be. They may even think they are idealists but in fact they are grasping for the impossible. The reach to make man into a sacrificial animal.
But man is not by nature an object of sacrifice. Only evil minded men think it is okay (some think they are morally driven) to make other men sacrifice. This was the drive behind slavery and every other movement that subjugated the rights of man (his right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness). The Muslims attack the right to life, the anti- abortionist’s attack liberty and PETA attacks the pursuit of happiness. This triumvirate has captured the world stage and in the process exposed their commonality and their vulnerability. They cannot effectively debate their stance: therefore, they demonstrate. They need the sound of the crowd to substantiate their belief they are in the right. But millions cannot dictate truth. Remember the mobs that scoffed at the inventions of the thinkers. Remember the mobs that idolized Hitler and Mussolini. Remember there has never been or will there ever be a distinguished mob member.
The shame and guilt that engulfed the Germans who realized what they had supported either out of fear or just to “belong” should give one pause to think. What is the result of my protest and why am I seeking sacrifice by my fellow man? Who ever said sacrifice was good and why have I accepted it as an axiom? Am I being duped? Is there a Jim Jones at the helm? If what I am calling for is fully implemented what will be the downside? These are all questions members of these groups are not asking themselves. They are waiting for direction from their leaders. And they don’t question where their leaders are taking them. With this approach they can only chant. If their friends are acting convinced , they act convinced. But to find truth one must seek it. This requires a questioning mind and the rejection of intimidation of others. Stifling the mind of man by violence and destruction is only a sure way to return to barbarism which by the way was an era of sacrifice. The future , if there is to be one, will not come from the mob mentality. They will not change the world. They will only continue to perpetuate the abyss of the uncivilized. An emotional rant has not raised the stature of man an iota. A clear thought and thinking process is the beginning of civilized behavior. Presenting reasons for stances is asking the most of man and gaining understanding through persuasion is a vastly preferable way of living. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but the words must be convincing and true. To display or denounce a picture does nothing to explain or persuade. As Dr. Leonard Peikoff brilliantly concluded,” A picture is not an argument”.
When you see a commonality of response to the same phenomena it should give you pause that there is some fundamental driving force that is creating this commonality. What do these groups have in common? They all chant. They thrive on being a part of a group. They are a part of organizations that have creeds that have no sound philosophical foundations and they take their lead from a dictatorial spokesman. They seek their moral sanction from the tenets of altruism and they ask for sacrifice by others for the sake of something other than themselves. And all of this leads to the ability to be aroused to a hearted pitch when surrounded by like minded fanatics at the sight of a picture or a simple phrase such as “Seig Heil”.
This phenomena of mob mentality is nothing new. It has been seen throughout history and always with the same result. Destruction, violence and hate. You would think (notice the operative word) people watching destruction and violence and hate would wonder ,” Is this the kind of world I want to live in?” In the case of the Muslims the view of this world is immaterial . They live under an illusion that the glory of death is the answer to their problems. They’ll never know they are giving up the only life they’ll ever have. In the case of PETA the world they project is a complete fantasy where animals are revered and man’s rights (especially the pursuit of happiness) are destroyed. The anti-abortionists merely want to ignore the past and return to black market abortions, unsafe procedures, ruined lives and the government forcing women to give birth. All of these groups want sacrifice for something outside of themselves by others. They are not content to live and let live, but to demand adherence to their notions of how the world should be. They may even think they are idealists but in fact they are grasping for the impossible. The reach to make man into a sacrificial animal.
But man is not by nature an object of sacrifice. Only evil minded men think it is okay (some think they are morally driven) to make other men sacrifice. This was the drive behind slavery and every other movement that subjugated the rights of man (his right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness). The Muslims attack the right to life, the anti- abortionist’s attack liberty and PETA attacks the pursuit of happiness. This triumvirate has captured the world stage and in the process exposed their commonality and their vulnerability. They cannot effectively debate their stance: therefore, they demonstrate. They need the sound of the crowd to substantiate their belief they are in the right. But millions cannot dictate truth. Remember the mobs that scoffed at the inventions of the thinkers. Remember the mobs that idolized Hitler and Mussolini. Remember there has never been or will there ever be a distinguished mob member.
The shame and guilt that engulfed the Germans who realized what they had supported either out of fear or just to “belong” should give one pause to think. What is the result of my protest and why am I seeking sacrifice by my fellow man? Who ever said sacrifice was good and why have I accepted it as an axiom? Am I being duped? Is there a Jim Jones at the helm? If what I am calling for is fully implemented what will be the downside? These are all questions members of these groups are not asking themselves. They are waiting for direction from their leaders. And they don’t question where their leaders are taking them. With this approach they can only chant. If their friends are acting convinced , they act convinced. But to find truth one must seek it. This requires a questioning mind and the rejection of intimidation of others. Stifling the mind of man by violence and destruction is only a sure way to return to barbarism which by the way was an era of sacrifice. The future , if there is to be one, will not come from the mob mentality. They will not change the world. They will only continue to perpetuate the abyss of the uncivilized. An emotional rant has not raised the stature of man an iota. A clear thought and thinking process is the beginning of civilized behavior. Presenting reasons for stances is asking the most of man and gaining understanding through persuasion is a vastly preferable way of living. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but the words must be convincing and true. To display or denounce a picture does nothing to explain or persuade. As Dr. Leonard Peikoff brilliantly concluded,” A picture is not an argument”.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Breaking the Cowboy Spirit
Cowboys have been known for many decades by their independence, their bravery and willingness to confront evil in a land where law and order was only on the far eastern horizon. They represented Romanticism as heroes of the silver screen for many decades. Men who displayed competence, determination, bravery, honor summed up with a vision of “manliness’. The heroes were never portrayed as “vulnerable”, feminine, cowardly or deceitful unable to control their destiny and way of life. Not until now.
Broke Back Mountain is aptly named. For breaking the back of the “mountain” that was the cowboy image has certainly been an attempt to re-portray the cowboy. It is a despicable idea that the man who lived , fought and died in the wild west of old could somehow be a coward who hid his desires for aberrant behavior. No doubt there were homosexual cowboys but they were seen as deviants and certainly not heroes that could face down danger, stand up to the crowd and fight for justice. The heroic cowboy had no hang-ups. There was no whispering behind his back nor whispering on his part. He faced all kinds of dangers but the disapproval of his peers was not a concern he bothered with. The cowboy has always in the past brought up the vision of the man who would be admired. He would be seen as the best a man could be in the environment he chose to abide. He would be most of all an individual and not a “pair”. He was not all about relationships. He was not confused about his sexual identitiy. When the true cowboy rode off in the West leaving the girl behind it was not because he was looking for a man. He was portraying his love for this life as an independent drifter that could not be compromised. He had no ties and wanted none. This was the individual portrayed in the character of the cowboy. The villains could be perverts, deviants fops, crooks, thugs and sissies but the cowboy was not. His character demanded the virtues of independence and strength. Imagine the bar room scene where the villain threatens the cowboy hero with shooting his male lover. The hero would be only a pawn of his dependency to his desires for sexual gratification. He might drop his gun for a friend or a girl, but a male lover just doesn’t fit . This is not a cowboy hero that America can respect or admire. Why? Because no matter how you rationalize the equivalence of heterosexuality with homosexuality there is a difference. And that difference is the same difference as sex between humans and animals. It can be done but it is not normal. It requires an identification of the nature of man and woman. It requires discrimination of the differences in both anatomy and function. If one cannot help their desires they have not looked at values they are relying on to trigger emotional responses. A woman who falls for the same kind of bum repeatedly also says ,”she can’t help it”. As long as she ignores the identification process she’ll make the same wrong choices. The same phenomena is the reason for homosexuality. If it is clouded with emotional desire, it does not change the fact of the identity. But Hollywood is all about feelings and forget the facts.
So what motivates Hollywood to destroy that which is the best of America. What makes the writers look at the past and instead of seeing the value of the portrayal of a hero see only how can they sneak the shock power of homosexual activity into mainstream acceptance? It can be explained but it isn’t a pretty sight. They hate John Wayne. They hate the image he portrayed. Their view of the universe is paramount in their politics and now in their productions. They hate George Bush and because he has been portrayed as a cowboy, if you can denigrate the vision of the cowboy you can denigrate George Bush. The logic works this way. Portray and promote cowboys as less than heroic and it will be one more blow that will eliminate future George Bushes. They think and portray the following: Cowboys can’t be macho because that is so passe’. Cowboys are no longer bigger than life, but a mishmash of human frailties. Cowboys weren’t so hot. Cowboys can be vulnerable too. This is the swill that they rave about and give awards to. And it all comes from a grimy little vision that says heroes don’t exist, life is a cess pool of dependency and we want to rule . We want to rule with the free wheeling whims of the Clintons and we don’t want any tough guys standing up to enemies. We can make friends, be sensitive and be all inclusive except for the heroes which we don’t want people to turn to and admire. That’s why we don’t make good westerns any more, why our TV sitcoms are filled with snide innuendo and unless a production has shock value it isn’t in sync with our vision of what might and ought to be which excludes heroism. Our feelings tell us that if it feels good then do it. We don’t ask or seek where our feelings come from and we despise those who would attack us for our feelings. We want emotional rule and we’ll stoop to any level to achieve it. If it is shocking and denigrating we will praise it. If it destroys that which is a threat to our free wheeling distortions it must be ignored or denigrated. We will not succumb to hero worship but we will elevate our feelings to prominence,. Our feelings are our heroes. This is the unspoken creed of today’s Hollywood and those who admire and support its notions.
There have been writers in the past who admired and portrayed heroes. They recognized the possibilities of their art to show the best of humanity and the inspiration it had. They were heroes for their recognition and portrayal. Today’s writers are supporting the opposite notion and they too mirror their creation.
Broke Back Mountain is aptly named. For breaking the back of the “mountain” that was the cowboy image has certainly been an attempt to re-portray the cowboy. It is a despicable idea that the man who lived , fought and died in the wild west of old could somehow be a coward who hid his desires for aberrant behavior. No doubt there were homosexual cowboys but they were seen as deviants and certainly not heroes that could face down danger, stand up to the crowd and fight for justice. The heroic cowboy had no hang-ups. There was no whispering behind his back nor whispering on his part. He faced all kinds of dangers but the disapproval of his peers was not a concern he bothered with. The cowboy has always in the past brought up the vision of the man who would be admired. He would be seen as the best a man could be in the environment he chose to abide. He would be most of all an individual and not a “pair”. He was not all about relationships. He was not confused about his sexual identitiy. When the true cowboy rode off in the West leaving the girl behind it was not because he was looking for a man. He was portraying his love for this life as an independent drifter that could not be compromised. He had no ties and wanted none. This was the individual portrayed in the character of the cowboy. The villains could be perverts, deviants fops, crooks, thugs and sissies but the cowboy was not. His character demanded the virtues of independence and strength. Imagine the bar room scene where the villain threatens the cowboy hero with shooting his male lover. The hero would be only a pawn of his dependency to his desires for sexual gratification. He might drop his gun for a friend or a girl, but a male lover just doesn’t fit . This is not a cowboy hero that America can respect or admire. Why? Because no matter how you rationalize the equivalence of heterosexuality with homosexuality there is a difference. And that difference is the same difference as sex between humans and animals. It can be done but it is not normal. It requires an identification of the nature of man and woman. It requires discrimination of the differences in both anatomy and function. If one cannot help their desires they have not looked at values they are relying on to trigger emotional responses. A woman who falls for the same kind of bum repeatedly also says ,”she can’t help it”. As long as she ignores the identification process she’ll make the same wrong choices. The same phenomena is the reason for homosexuality. If it is clouded with emotional desire, it does not change the fact of the identity. But Hollywood is all about feelings and forget the facts.
So what motivates Hollywood to destroy that which is the best of America. What makes the writers look at the past and instead of seeing the value of the portrayal of a hero see only how can they sneak the shock power of homosexual activity into mainstream acceptance? It can be explained but it isn’t a pretty sight. They hate John Wayne. They hate the image he portrayed. Their view of the universe is paramount in their politics and now in their productions. They hate George Bush and because he has been portrayed as a cowboy, if you can denigrate the vision of the cowboy you can denigrate George Bush. The logic works this way. Portray and promote cowboys as less than heroic and it will be one more blow that will eliminate future George Bushes. They think and portray the following: Cowboys can’t be macho because that is so passe’. Cowboys are no longer bigger than life, but a mishmash of human frailties. Cowboys weren’t so hot. Cowboys can be vulnerable too. This is the swill that they rave about and give awards to. And it all comes from a grimy little vision that says heroes don’t exist, life is a cess pool of dependency and we want to rule . We want to rule with the free wheeling whims of the Clintons and we don’t want any tough guys standing up to enemies. We can make friends, be sensitive and be all inclusive except for the heroes which we don’t want people to turn to and admire. That’s why we don’t make good westerns any more, why our TV sitcoms are filled with snide innuendo and unless a production has shock value it isn’t in sync with our vision of what might and ought to be which excludes heroism. Our feelings tell us that if it feels good then do it. We don’t ask or seek where our feelings come from and we despise those who would attack us for our feelings. We want emotional rule and we’ll stoop to any level to achieve it. If it is shocking and denigrating we will praise it. If it destroys that which is a threat to our free wheeling distortions it must be ignored or denigrated. We will not succumb to hero worship but we will elevate our feelings to prominence,. Our feelings are our heroes. This is the unspoken creed of today’s Hollywood and those who admire and support its notions.
There have been writers in the past who admired and portrayed heroes. They recognized the possibilities of their art to show the best of humanity and the inspiration it had. They were heroes for their recognition and portrayal. Today’s writers are supporting the opposite notion and they too mirror their creation.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Politician's Purgatory: No WMDs, No Big Deal
No WMDs, No Big Deal
Let’s suppose for a moment that a country ( like Iran) with a fanatical leader that has been known to lie and threaten extermination of nations, issues a statement that they have no intention of building or dispatching a nuclear weapon. What would be a rational response? Certainly skepticism as to his veracity comes to mind. Now to carry that skepticism a little farther, let’s suppose we are suspicious that nuclear capability is progressing although we do not have hard proof. Since we are not sitting in a court room with the burden of proof on us as prosecutors, how important is it that we give the fanatic the benefit of the doubt? If we only act to defend ourselves or our allies if we can conclusively prove that a country has WMD’s and will definitely use them in an aggressive manner, we can never act preemptively and can only act after we have been attacked. The attack proves intention but it does not prevent the killing of innocent lives. And this I submit is the government’s primary function,to protect the lives of it’s citizens. The government created by its citizens to protect their individual rights is expected to fulfill this obligation. It cannot do so if it must carry over the legal propriety in protecting its citizens to dealing with a nation that potentially could wipe out the proprieties along with the nation itself. The United States does not owe our standards of proof to those who we do not trust. Our system relies on an oath of honesty and this we know is not what we can expect from those who will not submit to inspections. Sure they may not have what they want to have and are willing to pretend they have, but unless they are willing to show us what they do have or do not have, we have little recourse.
This cry for proof has been a cry for the impossible and the irrational. If we would have had proof it would have been easy to target the locations and eliminate them. But what we had was a strong suspicion that Sadaam might have WMDs. With Iran we have more than a suspicion that they are intent on enriching uranium and that their leader is willing to threaten the extinction of Israel. Because Sadaam lied is no reason to give Iran a pass. If the world realized that our suspicions were not something we were going to ignore, the would be tyrants and conquerers would consider long and hard before they instigated a threat of military or terrorist action against us or our allies. Our current position is trending toward such a timid approach to confrontation with our enemies that we are giving them the impression that they have time to show us otherwise. This may be all they require to hit us with an attack that will leave us reeling. We should be smarter than that. An athlete doesn’t wait for his opponent to score and then respond, he begins by trying to score and score repeatedly until the contest is won. Likewise our foreign policy should follow this principle. If you want to win, don’t give your enemy any advantage either before or during an encounter. It is totally naive to assume that nations enriching uranium and issuing threats are going to suddenly change their course via persuasion or diplomatic bribery. If they threaten, what is to prevent us from returning the treat and if necessary following up on it. Now when we receive a threat we downplay it as something we can talk away. This hasn’t happened nor will it happen. People who are willing to recruit and send their followers to suicide in the name of conquest have no concern about the good intentions we are attempting to portray to the “world”. Once they make a successful attack you will see dancing in their streets whether it was an honorable attack or not. Japan, a country that talked heavily of honor, pulled off the most cowardly attack in history. The words of the tyrants are not to be treated as insignificant nor gospel. Eternal vigilance requires a suspicious attitude when confronting foreign adversaries. Their doctrines indicate their intentions and since they are not interested in rejecting these doctrines we must not surrender our lives and country to that which we know they are capable of.
The answer is really quite simple. Answer every threat with a bigger threat. If we are threatened we need to point out that we will not dismiss the treat but prepare for all out war. If our citizens are captured and held hostage that is an act of war. If weapons are being pursued that could endanger our citizens or our allies ,that is an act of war. We need to define the initiation of war as any action that initiates any force or threat of force against us. When we receive these threats we need to point out the consequences. Just as a boss’s bottom line to a subordinate is the loss of their job for ill behavior so should our nation warn the threateners that the bottom line is war and we will begin immediately to prepare, with a full outline of the consequences should we prevail which we have every intention of doing.
No nation should arise and let its tyrants pursue slavery of its citizens, threaten its neighbors or its perceived “ enemies” with impunity. We have let this happen and the boldest of the tin horns have attempted to show how defiant they can be to our wishes to be left alone and at peace. We need to change this attitude. We need to let it be known that bullying is not something we as the strongest nation of earth are willing to tolerate. We built this country on the supremacy of individual rights and we mean to defend them from all quarters , foreign and domestic. Only when the bullies understand we will not tolerate their behavior will we have a truly lasting peace; enforced by a police action that shows no mercy for tyrants and threats. Just as law enforcement must take a hard line domestically to be effective so too must our foreign policy reflect this same attitude. WMDs or not we will not be cowered.
This cry for proof has been a cry for the impossible and the irrational. If we would have had proof it would have been easy to target the locations and eliminate them. But what we had was a strong suspicion that Sadaam might have WMDs. With Iran we have more than a suspicion that they are intent on enriching uranium and that their leader is willing to threaten the extinction of Israel. Because Sadaam lied is no reason to give Iran a pass. If the world realized that our suspicions were not something we were going to ignore, the would be tyrants and conquerers would consider long and hard before they instigated a threat of military or terrorist action against us or our allies. Our current position is trending toward such a timid approach to confrontation with our enemies that we are giving them the impression that they have time to show us otherwise. This may be all they require to hit us with an attack that will leave us reeling. We should be smarter than that. An athlete doesn’t wait for his opponent to score and then respond, he begins by trying to score and score repeatedly until the contest is won. Likewise our foreign policy should follow this principle. If you want to win, don’t give your enemy any advantage either before or during an encounter. It is totally naive to assume that nations enriching uranium and issuing threats are going to suddenly change their course via persuasion or diplomatic bribery. If they threaten, what is to prevent us from returning the treat and if necessary following up on it. Now when we receive a threat we downplay it as something we can talk away. This hasn’t happened nor will it happen. People who are willing to recruit and send their followers to suicide in the name of conquest have no concern about the good intentions we are attempting to portray to the “world”. Once they make a successful attack you will see dancing in their streets whether it was an honorable attack or not. Japan, a country that talked heavily of honor, pulled off the most cowardly attack in history. The words of the tyrants are not to be treated as insignificant nor gospel. Eternal vigilance requires a suspicious attitude when confronting foreign adversaries. Their doctrines indicate their intentions and since they are not interested in rejecting these doctrines we must not surrender our lives and country to that which we know they are capable of.
The answer is really quite simple. Answer every threat with a bigger threat. If we are threatened we need to point out that we will not dismiss the treat but prepare for all out war. If our citizens are captured and held hostage that is an act of war. If weapons are being pursued that could endanger our citizens or our allies ,that is an act of war. We need to define the initiation of war as any action that initiates any force or threat of force against us. When we receive these threats we need to point out the consequences. Just as a boss’s bottom line to a subordinate is the loss of their job for ill behavior so should our nation warn the threateners that the bottom line is war and we will begin immediately to prepare, with a full outline of the consequences should we prevail which we have every intention of doing.
No nation should arise and let its tyrants pursue slavery of its citizens, threaten its neighbors or its perceived “ enemies” with impunity. We have let this happen and the boldest of the tin horns have attempted to show how defiant they can be to our wishes to be left alone and at peace. We need to change this attitude. We need to let it be known that bullying is not something we as the strongest nation of earth are willing to tolerate. We built this country on the supremacy of individual rights and we mean to defend them from all quarters , foreign and domestic. Only when the bullies understand we will not tolerate their behavior will we have a truly lasting peace; enforced by a police action that shows no mercy for tyrants and threats. Just as law enforcement must take a hard line domestically to be effective so too must our foreign policy reflect this same attitude. WMDs or not we will not be cowered.
