*NEW! - Iran's Bomb - A Thought From Israel
*NEW! - If The Bomb Was In Your Backyard?
*NEW! - Remove the firefighters? Close the station?
*NEW! - 'Occupy Wall Street'? The Left's Tea Party?
*NEW! - Mormon For President?
* Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
* Birth Certificates and Death Certificates
* It's Official! Born in Hawaii, not Bethlehem.
* Don't touch my junk (لا تلمس جسدي).
* 'Post racial' President? Or 'most' racial President?
* Is our country capable of sacrifice?
* Christian zealots
* Freedom of the press! At what cost?
* If it walks like a Jihad Duck, and quacks like a Jihad Duck ...
*Jihad events in the U.S. in last six months
* How is this for a Conservative health reform?
* Health Care. Why the rush Mr. President?
* When a President lies.
* Our defenders ... torturers?
* What is torture?
* My America vs. Obama's America
* Censored? Tehran Times removes an article from it's online news regarding the elections in Iraq.
* A captured image from the Tehran Times article mentioned above
* Obama's air raid on Pakistan
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Iran's Bomb - a thought from Israel
A friend of mine visiting in Israel who, while in Haifa, read the previous post entitled "If The Bomb Was In Your Backyard", asked to make sure my readers saw this thought and image.
"... if Iran bombs Israel, this is what will be lost.
Lots of beauty ... :-)
This center is built on a mountain side with these beautiful gardens, magnificent buildings and waterfalls giving off this strong feeling of peace, beauty and serenity. Need more of this not less."
Lots of beauty ... :-)
This center is built on a mountain side with these beautiful gardens, magnificent buildings and waterfalls giving off this strong feeling of peace, beauty and serenity. Need more of this not less."
Monday, February 27, 2012
If the bomb was in your backyard?
Does it matter if Iran ends up with a nuclear device, or several such devices? This blog is written under the assumption that Iran is indeed trying to build such weapons or, at the very least, have the technology completed to a degree to be able to assemble them in short order. (IAEA on Iran)
Let's remove all the worldwide myriad of discussions, guesswork, theorizing, punditry, forecasting of consequences, and the like. Let's focus instead on the perception of one group of theorizers, that being the group of people who would most likely experience the nuclear detonation over their house ... that being Israel.
The people of Israel have the most serious, and most existential stake in the game. We in America or Europe, though acknowledging the dangers of an Iranian bomb, seem more concerned about being dragged into another war, higher oil prices, increased terrorism, etc, when contemplating our actions regarding stopping Iran's march to the bomb.
However, the concern of the people of Israel in this matter is about being vaporized ... not oil prices. Indeed they are concerned about the literal loss of Israel as a functioning or existing country should such a weapon be used.
The United States could likely absorb several such blasts and continue to function. Israel cannot. One or two well placed 13 to 18 kiloton 'Hiroshima sized' nuclear detonations, (small by current standards), that came without warning time to prepare, could render Israel unable to regroup or recover as a functioning institution due to deaths and destruction, not to mention the possibility of large areas in a small country being uninhabitable to to the possibility of radioactive contamination. (Let us not forget the U.S. spent years recovering from just four deliberate airliner crashes). It would also be naive to believe that the first 'batch' out of Iran's nuclear production would be limited to just one device.
* (The question of whether Jerusalem, Israel's capital city, is a potential nuclear target of Iran has been a subject of debate as it is also a holy site to the Muslims).
In the last few years, the government and leadership of Iran has publicly advocated the elimination of Israel and publicly stated that Israel has no right to exist. The government of Iran has in fact been attacking Israel de facto with rockets and suicide bombers for years via their proxy army of Hezbollah, and other Iranian supported groups.
In the Iran/Iraq war, Iran demonstrated a willingness to send tens of thousands of it's citizens to senseless deaths and non-combatant women and children running across fields to clear minefields and face Saddam's poison gases and chemicals. They were considered an acceptable martyrdom loss for their country's ruling Ayatollahs' vision of Allah's will. These same leaders and this same philosophy remain in Iran today.
In light of Iran's history with Israel, and Iran's own history of acceptable losses in large martyrdom numbers, do we seriously believe that Israel will take us seriously when they hear world voices (with less of a stake) asking them to be patient about Iran's nuclear weapon plans? When the world asks Israel to practice restraint, or suggests that Iran 'may not' be building a bomb, are they even listening? Would we in the U.S be listening to such voices if we discovered the drug cartels next door to us were about to acquire a nuke?
From Israel's point of view, being 'patient', or 'guessing', about this matter is not an option. One second too late on the patience, or one wrong guess, and Israel does indeed cease to exist in a millisecond flash several times hotter than the core of the sun. We wouldn't wait to act preemptively and we shouldn't be surprised if they don't either. I doubt we'd accept the world asking us to 'take one (nuclear explosion) for the team'.
"But Iran doesn't have a missile to deliver the bomb"! True, but there's no reason a pickup truck or car trunk won't do the job. As a pragmatic matter Israel's decision for timing to act may not be based upon when Iran may actually have a bomb, or when Iran has the ability to build one. The 'go' moment may be when Israel can no longer see the progress and is unsure of the stage of development, or when Iran approaches the moment that they can make their facilities invulnerable to preemptive attack. That is the time when it is too late for Israel.
An 'attempt' to destroy the facilities would not suffice. There must be a guarantee the attack would be successful as there is no other acceptable outcome for Israel. There has been suggestion that Israel may not possess the military ability to destroy the facilities and would require the help of the U.S. (the only military with the capability to do so with non-nuclear weapons) in order to be successful.
The U.S has sent public signals that it may not help Israel. Israel is a nuclear armed country. If Israel is left to fend for itself and deems a preemptive attack necessary, and it cannot destroy the facilities with conventional weapons, and it deems it's survival and very existence are at stake, would they then resort to nuclear weapons to assure their survival? What would we do if it was our country (or house or chidren)?
It is not the purpose of this blog to support Israel and an attack on Iran, or to not support such an action. Indeed, even within Israel, there are many points of view on the issue of Iran's nukes, the severity of the situation, and appropriate course of action. The goal here is to inject a piece into the discussion of what actions to take or not take, based the reality of others with a more direct and serious stake in the matter. Israel's concerns about their very existence should be discussed in our equations, not just whether we pay more for oil.
In our Western cemented view that all things can have an acceptable outcome, we should recognize that there is no good ending to this situation for any parties - including Israel or any of the rest of us. In this matter, there are only outcomes that are less unacceptable than others and the severity of the outcome is determined by whose eyes it is being viewed though.
Let's remove all the worldwide myriad of discussions, guesswork, theorizing, punditry, forecasting of consequences, and the like. Let's focus instead on the perception of one group of theorizers, that being the group of people who would most likely experience the nuclear detonation over their house ... that being Israel.
The people of Israel have the most serious, and most existential stake in the game. We in America or Europe, though acknowledging the dangers of an Iranian bomb, seem more concerned about being dragged into another war, higher oil prices, increased terrorism, etc, when contemplating our actions regarding stopping Iran's march to the bomb.
However, the concern of the people of Israel in this matter is about being vaporized ... not oil prices. Indeed they are concerned about the literal loss of Israel as a functioning or existing country should such a weapon be used.
The United States could likely absorb several such blasts and continue to function. Israel cannot. One or two well placed 13 to 18 kiloton 'Hiroshima sized' nuclear detonations, (small by current standards), that came without warning time to prepare, could render Israel unable to regroup or recover as a functioning institution due to deaths and destruction, not to mention the possibility of large areas in a small country being uninhabitable to to the possibility of radioactive contamination. (Let us not forget the U.S. spent years recovering from just four deliberate airliner crashes). It would also be naive to believe that the first 'batch' out of Iran's nuclear production would be limited to just one device.
* (The question of whether Jerusalem, Israel's capital city, is a potential nuclear target of Iran has been a subject of debate as it is also a holy site to the Muslims).
In the last few years, the government and leadership of Iran has publicly advocated the elimination of Israel and publicly stated that Israel has no right to exist. The government of Iran has in fact been attacking Israel de facto with rockets and suicide bombers for years via their proxy army of Hezbollah, and other Iranian supported groups.
In the Iran/Iraq war, Iran demonstrated a willingness to send tens of thousands of it's citizens to senseless deaths and non-combatant women and children running across fields to clear minefields and face Saddam's poison gases and chemicals. They were considered an acceptable martyrdom loss for their country's ruling Ayatollahs' vision of Allah's will. These same leaders and this same philosophy remain in Iran today.
In light of Iran's history with Israel, and Iran's own history of acceptable losses in large martyrdom numbers, do we seriously believe that Israel will take us seriously when they hear world voices (with less of a stake) asking them to be patient about Iran's nuclear weapon plans? When the world asks Israel to practice restraint, or suggests that Iran 'may not' be building a bomb, are they even listening? Would we in the U.S be listening to such voices if we discovered the drug cartels next door to us were about to acquire a nuke?
From Israel's point of view, being 'patient', or 'guessing', about this matter is not an option. One second too late on the patience, or one wrong guess, and Israel does indeed cease to exist in a millisecond flash several times hotter than the core of the sun. We wouldn't wait to act preemptively and we shouldn't be surprised if they don't either. I doubt we'd accept the world asking us to 'take one (nuclear explosion) for the team'.
"But Iran doesn't have a missile to deliver the bomb"! True, but there's no reason a pickup truck or car trunk won't do the job. As a pragmatic matter Israel's decision for timing to act may not be based upon when Iran may actually have a bomb, or when Iran has the ability to build one. The 'go' moment may be when Israel can no longer see the progress and is unsure of the stage of development, or when Iran approaches the moment that they can make their facilities invulnerable to preemptive attack. That is the time when it is too late for Israel.
An 'attempt' to destroy the facilities would not suffice. There must be a guarantee the attack would be successful as there is no other acceptable outcome for Israel. There has been suggestion that Israel may not possess the military ability to destroy the facilities and would require the help of the U.S. (the only military with the capability to do so with non-nuclear weapons) in order to be successful.
The U.S has sent public signals that it may not help Israel. Israel is a nuclear armed country. If Israel is left to fend for itself and deems a preemptive attack necessary, and it cannot destroy the facilities with conventional weapons, and it deems it's survival and very existence are at stake, would they then resort to nuclear weapons to assure their survival? What would we do if it was our country (or house or chidren)?
It is not the purpose of this blog to support Israel and an attack on Iran, or to not support such an action. Indeed, even within Israel, there are many points of view on the issue of Iran's nukes, the severity of the situation, and appropriate course of action. The goal here is to inject a piece into the discussion of what actions to take or not take, based the reality of others with a more direct and serious stake in the matter. Israel's concerns about their very existence should be discussed in our equations, not just whether we pay more for oil.
In our Western cemented view that all things can have an acceptable outcome, we should recognize that there is no good ending to this situation for any parties - including Israel or any of the rest of us. In this matter, there are only outcomes that are less unacceptable than others and the severity of the outcome is determined by whose eyes it is being viewed though.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Close the fire station and remove the firefighters?
Recent polls have revealed a majority of the public weary and skeptical of war and, in particular, the conflict in Afghanistan. Try a new mentality on this.
Radical Islam, and it's associated weekly terrorism and body count around the world, is not a temporary phenomena. Radical Islam is forever, like our occasional forest fires. We need firefighters in the forest to contain the fires, (which we know will continue to occur forever) from getting out of hand and buring down the entire forest and surrounding neighborhoods. Would we close the fire stations knowing that such fires might, and would, happen? Of course not. Are you weary of your firefighters?
View radical Islam in this light here with me for a few minutes. View it as a long term management problem with no ultimate solution, only a problem to be contained to small flare ups - in the same light as forest fires, drought, disease, economic downturns, crime , etc. You wouldn't remove the firewall between yourself and those problems, why would you remove the firewalls between yourself and the problem of radical Islam?
~ It is not a 'war' with a win or solution.
~ It is not economically driven or caused by perceived 'oppressive U.S. policy'. If it was, then similarly oppressed Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists, around the world - and Canadians - would also be attempting to harm us every day.
~ It is not about repression in countries dominated by radical Islamic clerics. There have been dozens of U.S citizens convicted of Islamically motivated conspiracies right here in the U.S.
~ It is not about education or poverty. Many of the the perpetrators have been surgeons, medical students, professors, and millionaires (some of whom would be taxed as the top 1% in the U.S.). Many have educations in the U.S., including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the so called 9/11 mastermind.
It is ultimately about the book they read - The Koran. It's the book!
As long as a billion and a half people read it, and as long as even one half of one percent of the readers interpret their reading in a manner advocating violence, there will be no end to the violence. Such people are not radicals or "misguided" (a popular U.S reality denial). They are fervent religious people who believe their God advocates different types of violence and hostility towards non believers - and against other Muslims who do not believe similarly.
Do we seriously believe we can change such attitudes in well educated, very intelligent, well read, very cerebral, men and women who believe their God commands them to do such things? No is the answer. We cannot do so, any more than we can change the attitude or beliefs of a North American pro-life Christian evangelical. Think such a Christian could be talked out of what they believe their God told them?
There-in lies the problem. Yes, the occasional solitary Christian goes off the reservation every few years in an act of violence inspired by reading a passage in the New Testament, and does so with no promise of reward from his or her God for doing so. There are only two or three passages in the New Testament of the Bible which might act as a trigger for such a fervent literalist, hence so few such acts of violence.
The Koran, on the other hand, contains hundreds of such potential triggers for it's readers, not just two or three. This book, with so many triggers, is followed by close to a billion and a half readers, who - man for man and woman for woman - tend to be much more devout in their beliefs than other members of other religious beliefs, and who have tens of millions of fervent literalists within their ranks.
An added feature for the literalists inspired to violence by the Koran, unlike occasional inspirations from the New Testament, is that Koranic inspirations often promise a reward for the violence or the martyr, including possible rewards and benefits for the perpetrator's family left behind on earth. Hence added encouragement for the almost most daily acts of violence around the world in the name of the religion.
It does no good for the rest of us to say that enlightened Muslims must take responsibility and enlighten the unenlightened, as 95% of all people killed by Muslims in the last ten years ... were other Muslims! They were killed either as Koranically justified 'collateral damage' who would be given a reward in paradise for being such, or they were killed as apostates who did not believe in the pure Islam of their killers.
Bottom line, there is no solution in the manner we are accustomed to. It is forever, we need to live with it, and treat it as an ongoing forest fire management issue. The sparks from these fires can jump the fire lines, even ones that have 3000 miles of ocean as the line.
The Afghanistan fire station, and many stations around the world designed to contain the fires of radical Islam, must be kept open. We are not there to engage in the fruitless, feel good, exercise of enhancing their culture We are there to keep fires from spreading from there to other areas. That is the reason we opened the fire station there in the first place. The Afghans have no suitable fire fighting force. If we leave, the fires will spread. It is a fire station we must keep open for years, if not our lifetime. This particular station happens to need several thousand firefighters as the forest is big.
Is closing the station as a reelection bid more important than the risk of the fire?
Radical Islam, and it's associated weekly terrorism and body count around the world, is not a temporary phenomena. Radical Islam is forever, like our occasional forest fires. We need firefighters in the forest to contain the fires, (which we know will continue to occur forever) from getting out of hand and buring down the entire forest and surrounding neighborhoods. Would we close the fire stations knowing that such fires might, and would, happen? Of course not. Are you weary of your firefighters?
View radical Islam in this light here with me for a few minutes. View it as a long term management problem with no ultimate solution, only a problem to be contained to small flare ups - in the same light as forest fires, drought, disease, economic downturns, crime , etc. You wouldn't remove the firewall between yourself and those problems, why would you remove the firewalls between yourself and the problem of radical Islam?
~ It is not a 'war' with a win or solution.
~ It is not economically driven or caused by perceived 'oppressive U.S. policy'. If it was, then similarly oppressed Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists, around the world - and Canadians - would also be attempting to harm us every day.
~ It is not about repression in countries dominated by radical Islamic clerics. There have been dozens of U.S citizens convicted of Islamically motivated conspiracies right here in the U.S.
~ It is not about education or poverty. Many of the the perpetrators have been surgeons, medical students, professors, and millionaires (some of whom would be taxed as the top 1% in the U.S.). Many have educations in the U.S., including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the so called 9/11 mastermind.
It is ultimately about the book they read - The Koran. It's the book!
As long as a billion and a half people read it, and as long as even one half of one percent of the readers interpret their reading in a manner advocating violence, there will be no end to the violence. Such people are not radicals or "misguided" (a popular U.S reality denial). They are fervent religious people who believe their God advocates different types of violence and hostility towards non believers - and against other Muslims who do not believe similarly.
Do we seriously believe we can change such attitudes in well educated, very intelligent, well read, very cerebral, men and women who believe their God commands them to do such things? No is the answer. We cannot do so, any more than we can change the attitude or beliefs of a North American pro-life Christian evangelical. Think such a Christian could be talked out of what they believe their God told them?
There-in lies the problem. Yes, the occasional solitary Christian goes off the reservation every few years in an act of violence inspired by reading a passage in the New Testament, and does so with no promise of reward from his or her God for doing so. There are only two or three passages in the New Testament of the Bible which might act as a trigger for such a fervent literalist, hence so few such acts of violence.
The Koran, on the other hand, contains hundreds of such potential triggers for it's readers, not just two or three. This book, with so many triggers, is followed by close to a billion and a half readers, who - man for man and woman for woman - tend to be much more devout in their beliefs than other members of other religious beliefs, and who have tens of millions of fervent literalists within their ranks.
An added feature for the literalists inspired to violence by the Koran, unlike occasional inspirations from the New Testament, is that Koranic inspirations often promise a reward for the violence or the martyr, including possible rewards and benefits for the perpetrator's family left behind on earth. Hence added encouragement for the almost most daily acts of violence around the world in the name of the religion.
It does no good for the rest of us to say that enlightened Muslims must take responsibility and enlighten the unenlightened, as 95% of all people killed by Muslims in the last ten years ... were other Muslims! They were killed either as Koranically justified 'collateral damage' who would be given a reward in paradise for being such, or they were killed as apostates who did not believe in the pure Islam of their killers.
Bottom line, there is no solution in the manner we are accustomed to. It is forever, we need to live with it, and treat it as an ongoing forest fire management issue. The sparks from these fires can jump the fire lines, even ones that have 3000 miles of ocean as the line.
The Afghanistan fire station, and many stations around the world designed to contain the fires of radical Islam, must be kept open. We are not there to engage in the fruitless, feel good, exercise of enhancing their culture We are there to keep fires from spreading from there to other areas. That is the reason we opened the fire station there in the first place. The Afghans have no suitable fire fighting force. If we leave, the fires will spread. It is a fire station we must keep open for years, if not our lifetime. This particular station happens to need several thousand firefighters as the forest is big.
Is closing the station as a reelection bid more important than the risk of the fire?
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Is 'Occupy Wall Street' the Left's Tea Party?
The Left's new spin on the 'Wall Street' protests around the country is that these rallies are the Left's answer to the Tea Party movement, and attempts to compare and put it on a par with the Tea Party and it's message abound.
Even President Obama, 'the unifier', who does not endorse the people's voice of the Tea Party - and indeed mocks it - took time recently to endorse the Wall Street protests as the voice of the people speaking their frustrations. In his past diminishing of 'people waving tea bags' to express their voice, he recently took the time to endorse and enable people turning streets into toilets to express their voice.
Some differences between Tea Party and Wall Street Rallies?
~ The President did not endorse the Tea Party
~ The President of the United States and the Democrat Party attack the Tea Party.
~ The Republican party adjusts it's thinking to accommodate the Tea Party.
~ Tea Party members are included in Presidential debates
~ Tea Party rallies include rental toilets so as to not abuse facilities of local merchants.
~ Tea Party rally members defecate and urinate in toilets, not on police cars or the ground.
~ Tea party rally members wear clothes.
~ Tea Party members are crystal clear and unified on the core beliefs.
~ Tea Party members do not require that others work harder in order that they may live for free.
~ Tea Party rally members sleep in their own beds afterwards and not in a tent on someone else's property.
~ Tea Party rallies have a permit, obey local laws, and do no require forcible ejection by authorities.
~ Tea Party members actually recognize that their transportation to their rally was built by a large profit making car company (or Boeing), and that the media outlets that make their causes known are also corporate giants.
... just to name a few differences!
Even President Obama, 'the unifier', who does not endorse the people's voice of the Tea Party - and indeed mocks it - took time recently to endorse the Wall Street protests as the voice of the people speaking their frustrations. In his past diminishing of 'people waving tea bags' to express their voice, he recently took the time to endorse and enable people turning streets into toilets to express their voice.
Some differences between Tea Party and Wall Street Rallies?
~ The President did not endorse the Tea Party
~ The President of the United States and the Democrat Party attack the Tea Party.
~ The Republican party adjusts it's thinking to accommodate the Tea Party.
~ Tea Party members are included in Presidential debates
~ Tea Party rallies include rental toilets so as to not abuse facilities of local merchants.
~ Tea Party rally members defecate and urinate in toilets, not on police cars or the ground.
~ Tea party rally members wear clothes.
~ Tea Party members are crystal clear and unified on the core beliefs.
~ Tea Party members do not require that others work harder in order that they may live for free.
~ Tea Party rally members sleep in their own beds afterwards and not in a tent on someone else's property.
~ Tea Party rallies have a permit, obey local laws, and do no require forcible ejection by authorities.
~ Tea Party members actually recognize that their transportation to their rally was built by a large profit making car company (or Boeing), and that the media outlets that make their causes known are also corporate giants.
... just to name a few differences!
Friday, October 14, 2011
Mormon for President?
Are you a traditionally Republican voter who cannot stomach the idea of Mormon president?
If the ballot comes down to Republican Mormon Mitt Romney vs. Democrat (religion unknown) Barack Obama, what do you intend to do? Would you run the possibility of an Obama win because millions of anti-Mormon Republican voters refused to vote for Romney? You essentially have three choices unless you intend to vote for the Workers World Party candidate;
A.Vote for Romney
B. Vote for Obama
C. Stay home
Pew Research recently conducted a poll which included voters views on a Mormon President. In the respondents answers;
~ 12% of Americans identified themselves as 'Evangelical Christians'
~ However, almost 40% of voters identifying themselves as Republican were Evangelical Christians.
~ Within that 40%, 35-40% expressed misgivings over a Mormon president
~ Evangelical Christians had a 95% voter turnout in the last election.
After the math, this means that if all the Evangelical Republicans who have an issue with a Mormon president voted otherwise, or didn't vote at all, then approximately 15% of the traditionally Republican vote went elsewhere. Of an estimated 55 million registered Republican voters, that is potentially 8 million Republican votes that didn't happen. By the measuring sticks of the current Romney vs. Obama polling, or by the the results of vote totals in past elections, Obama wins. Rephrase that a bit - Obama wins because he isn't a Mormon. This acceptable to you?
Ok Evangelical Christians, I get you're worried about electing a 'cult member' as president. What do you think would happen with a Mormon president? Do you think we would all be required to attend Temple? Do you think the white-shirted bicycle guys would be at your door the next day? Mass conversions? Polygamy? Of course not. Are you fearful that voting for a Mormon will 'legitimize' the cult. Are you aware of how many of the major grocery stores you shop at for your food are Mormon owned?
Would you vote for Obama because he claims he's a Christian (though 62% of Americans doubt that), since Romney doesn't make such a claim? We already have experience with electing a Messiah in 2008. How did that work out?
If Jesus Christ Himself ran for president, would you vote for him? What if Jesus proposed a two trillion dollar stimulus package, or wanted gave jobs away to China? What if he increased income tax? What if He required all of us to work in solar panel factories and took away our Suburbans? If Jesus was a Democrat, would that change your vote for Him?
If you vote for Romney the Mormon for president, you will get exactly what you got when you voted for Christian Republican presidents .... that would be a Republican president!
If the ballot comes down to Republican Mormon Mitt Romney vs. Democrat (religion unknown) Barack Obama, what do you intend to do? Would you run the possibility of an Obama win because millions of anti-Mormon Republican voters refused to vote for Romney? You essentially have three choices unless you intend to vote for the Workers World Party candidate;
A.Vote for Romney
B. Vote for Obama
C. Stay home
Pew Research recently conducted a poll which included voters views on a Mormon President. In the respondents answers;
~ 12% of Americans identified themselves as 'Evangelical Christians'
~ However, almost 40% of voters identifying themselves as Republican were Evangelical Christians.
~ Within that 40%, 35-40% expressed misgivings over a Mormon president
~ Evangelical Christians had a 95% voter turnout in the last election.
After the math, this means that if all the Evangelical Republicans who have an issue with a Mormon president voted otherwise, or didn't vote at all, then approximately 15% of the traditionally Republican vote went elsewhere. Of an estimated 55 million registered Republican voters, that is potentially 8 million Republican votes that didn't happen. By the measuring sticks of the current Romney vs. Obama polling, or by the the results of vote totals in past elections, Obama wins. Rephrase that a bit - Obama wins because he isn't a Mormon. This acceptable to you?
Ok Evangelical Christians, I get you're worried about electing a 'cult member' as president. What do you think would happen with a Mormon president? Do you think we would all be required to attend Temple? Do you think the white-shirted bicycle guys would be at your door the next day? Mass conversions? Polygamy? Of course not. Are you fearful that voting for a Mormon will 'legitimize' the cult. Are you aware of how many of the major grocery stores you shop at for your food are Mormon owned?
Would you vote for Obama because he claims he's a Christian (though 62% of Americans doubt that), since Romney doesn't make such a claim? We already have experience with electing a Messiah in 2008. How did that work out?
If Jesus Christ Himself ran for president, would you vote for him? What if Jesus proposed a two trillion dollar stimulus package, or wanted gave jobs away to China? What if he increased income tax? What if He required all of us to work in solar panel factories and took away our Suburbans? If Jesus was a Democrat, would that change your vote for Him?
If you vote for Romney the Mormon for president, you will get exactly what you got when you voted for Christian Republican presidents .... that would be a Republican president!
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
Do you have the perception that Congress and the President cannot agree on issues and policy? Do you feel that the government is spinning it's wheels, or is in gridlock? Have you used or heard phrases like 'partisan politics', divisiveness', 'intransigence', or 'uncompromising'? Have you heard accusations that the other party won't budge, or won't cross the aisle? Have you heard politicians accuse the other of not acting in the interests of 'the American people'?
Are you therefore waiting for it to end? See it as a temporary phenomena? Waiting for the other side to come to it's senses? Thinking cooler heads will prevail? Thinking a savior will come along to "heal the divide" or reach across the political aisle? (Hope and Change).
Consider the possibility that it will not end. Our country may now be too big, too populated, and too ideologically diverse, for our current system of government to continue to function fluidly. We may have too many extreme desired outcomes, from too many divergent groups of political interests, for any reasonable compromise on any major single issue.
Have you considered that our current system of representative government is not actually broken, but rather that it is obsolete? Have you considered that the system, as designed so long ago, no longer works for this new America and is simply outdated? Was it designed for an America that no longer exists, hence the gridlock and slow forward motion?
The men that designed our independence from England, created our system of government, and wrote our Constitution, are often hailed as visionary prophets with an ability to see the future and designing documents for all time. How often have you heard the phrase 'the framers of our Constitution and government foresaw __________ '(insert applicable prophecy).
Without a doubt they were extraordinary pioneers but let us not forget they were mere humans, not clairvoyant men possessed of divine power. They designed a government to fit the immediate needs of the new country, and it's future needs - based on the world as they knew it! They were British citizens, not 'Americans'. They tailored their independence to rid themselves of particular disagreements with the British way of government. Their newly designed representative government was indeed designed to allow for competing differences and then find middle ground which most could agree to. The differences at the time were varying lighter shades of agreement and disagreement, and competing interests were only a few degrees apart, but operating from the same book, be it not on the same page. Agreements were relatively easy to come by.
At the time of independence, the area declared independent stretched about 900 miles long, a couple of hundred miles wide, and had 2.5 million people living in it. North America beyond that, as known to the colonists at the time, was barely a fourth of the size of the United States known to us now. Prior to the Lewis and Clark expedition opening up the continent west of the Missouri river at the beginning of the 1800's, people in the U.S at that time literally thought monsters and unknown beings lived beyond the Missouri.
The human framers of our government would have had no idea that 250 years later the the country would stretch 3000 miles across, have 312 million people, (125 times their own population), be composed of dozens of ethnicities from 200 countries other than England, and speak dozens of languages other than English (British). In particular, the system they designed, would not have accounted for the possibility the these divergent groups would have local and self interests as the primary good and goal, rather than the interests of a overall fledgling country at large such as the one they lived in. They'd have had no concept that the independent 'colonies' of the future would have disagreements which were not limited to different pages of the same book as they were, but rather were not even in the same book, let alone the same bookshelf, let alone the same library.
Are we due for a rewrite?
Are you therefore waiting for it to end? See it as a temporary phenomena? Waiting for the other side to come to it's senses? Thinking cooler heads will prevail? Thinking a savior will come along to "heal the divide" or reach across the political aisle? (Hope and Change).
Consider the possibility that it will not end. Our country may now be too big, too populated, and too ideologically diverse, for our current system of government to continue to function fluidly. We may have too many extreme desired outcomes, from too many divergent groups of political interests, for any reasonable compromise on any major single issue.
Have you considered that our current system of representative government is not actually broken, but rather that it is obsolete? Have you considered that the system, as designed so long ago, no longer works for this new America and is simply outdated? Was it designed for an America that no longer exists, hence the gridlock and slow forward motion?
The men that designed our independence from England, created our system of government, and wrote our Constitution, are often hailed as visionary prophets with an ability to see the future and designing documents for all time. How often have you heard the phrase 'the framers of our Constitution and government foresaw __________ '(insert applicable prophecy).
Without a doubt they were extraordinary pioneers but let us not forget they were mere humans, not clairvoyant men possessed of divine power. They designed a government to fit the immediate needs of the new country, and it's future needs - based on the world as they knew it! They were British citizens, not 'Americans'. They tailored their independence to rid themselves of particular disagreements with the British way of government. Their newly designed representative government was indeed designed to allow for competing differences and then find middle ground which most could agree to. The differences at the time were varying lighter shades of agreement and disagreement, and competing interests were only a few degrees apart, but operating from the same book, be it not on the same page. Agreements were relatively easy to come by.
At the time of independence, the area declared independent stretched about 900 miles long, a couple of hundred miles wide, and had 2.5 million people living in it. North America beyond that, as known to the colonists at the time, was barely a fourth of the size of the United States known to us now. Prior to the Lewis and Clark expedition opening up the continent west of the Missouri river at the beginning of the 1800's, people in the U.S at that time literally thought monsters and unknown beings lived beyond the Missouri.
The human framers of our government would have had no idea that 250 years later the the country would stretch 3000 miles across, have 312 million people, (125 times their own population), be composed of dozens of ethnicities from 200 countries other than England, and speak dozens of languages other than English (British). In particular, the system they designed, would not have accounted for the possibility the these divergent groups would have local and self interests as the primary good and goal, rather than the interests of a overall fledgling country at large such as the one they lived in. They'd have had no concept that the independent 'colonies' of the future would have disagreements which were not limited to different pages of the same book as they were, but rather were not even in the same book, let alone the same bookshelf, let alone the same library.
Are we due for a rewrite?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
