I had planned for this post to be a sort of return to erudition after that last rant. Sadly, that would require more discipline (and erudition) than I have. But I will offer this endorsement of the latest fascinating TED video I've watched:
(I can't get the $#%@! link to work so paste this in your browser and smoke it: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/
jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)
I don't know if I've ever actually gotten around to sharing how wonderful this whole TED thing is on here yet... I know I've meant to on several occasions when I've vowed to try to post something more than once a month, but I don't know that I ever did it.
Anyhoo, in this particular video, psychologist Jonathan Haidt gives a scientific explanation of the difference between liberals and conservatives. And get this, there's no screaming or name calling and he explains that BOTH have morals!! I know, I know... it's crazy. Anyhoo, I can't possibly do justice to his prepared 19 minute talk so you'll just have to watch it on your own. All I will say is that it gave me immeasurable insight into my own sort of multiple personality leanings. In fact, if there's any merit to his explanation, I'm probably not alone. His most salient point (IMHO) was that while liberals might be the ones who embrace new ideas, NO new ideas can be exchanged when either side assumes groupthink and fails to acknowledge ideas from the other. It's the teaming up that makes both sides stupid! Ain't it great how we minimize this weakness during election season?!
OK, now on to the real poup.
I was entertained by the morning's speech returns from McPalin, who derided Obama for "sitting on the sidelines" rather than getting involved, like McCain, in solving our current financial crisis. What was really entertaining was when this second attempt at getting involved failed. There are a couple of points here that McPalin seems to have missed, but first I have to instill my own false logic into the picture with one little reminder. McCain, suspending his campaign, except for about a day's worth of appearances in his "rush" to DC to solve the problem, arrived shortly after what seemed like a deal had been struck. Then the deal went sour.
That's a post hoc ergo proctor hoc there... it happened after so it must have happened because of. (It's a fallacy... not really logical to assume that McCain's presence shot the deal down) I know, I know, but I had to do it. It's what people do during the campaign season!
Anyhoo, this morning, McPalin was all "I got in there and rolled up my sleeves" and he was like "Obama was all sitting on the sidelines."
But then another deal went sour and the speeches changed a little. After the news that the latest version of corporate welfare had failed, leaving us precariously teetering on the edge of financial failure, McPlain was all, "Obama and his Democrat allies are playing a dangerous game in blocking this bill... toying with hard working Americans' money by calling Paulson's bluff." See how they did that - they pulled Obama off the sidelines, put him into the game, and then blamed him. Touche... no one will see through that!
But then the news broke that it was actually House Republicans who felt the deal was a little too pro-banker (which in this case was deemed "fiscally unconservative") and McPalin was all, "oh... now what?"
I can understand their shock. House Republicans voting against making the rich richer? Since when? Isn't that what this administration is all about? Where's the executive influence on the hill? Where's the Newt when we need him to put another contract on America? Has the world shifted off its axis?
While we're on the subject, let's call this bailout plan what it is: welfare. Remember how universal health care was called "socialist" or "too expensive" and any social program, hell, taxes in general were labeled a redistribution of wealth rewarding non-producers? Now why would it be called anything different when the money flows the other way? More importantly, why are we just now realizing only this latest round of it when it's been the MO of this administration since day one... corporate tax breaks, oil royalties forgiven, CEO's hiding behind corporate law ("no individual was to blame") and avoiding prosecution while accepting their golden parachutes funded by looting the savings of their middle class investors... how are we just noticing this full-on sell out of 95% of America to the wealthiest 5%? Oh, yeah, it's because the 5% gambled with their winnings and lost!
What Bush/Paulson have proposed to fix it is the largest single tax hike in American history. They are about to tax every single man, woman and child in the country to the tune of about $2500.00. (that's 700 billion/300 million with some rounding in my favor) That doesn't sound like much, but it makes their cheesy little "economic stimulus" checks sound like a really lame idea. Never mind that about half of those folks didn't report any income, or that this is about twice the amount of actual welfare in the 2006 budget. ("Means Tested Entitlements FY 2006")
It's welfare... only it's cool when it's for the rich, even if it's only necessary because their latest gamble didn't pay off. Not one penny of this will put a lower middle class family back into their foreclosed upon home after they missed one payment. And the real real shitty part is that we HAVE to do it! It won't make life any easier for those of us who have been paying the giant corporate salaries or whose money these guys have been gambling with but since Wall Street is on the verge of missing a whole bunch of payments - though no fault of the American taxpayer or investor, as a result of that gamble, WE have to cough it up. Because if we don't we'll see exactly to whom Bush has actually sold America: China, Japan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia...
Remember all that debt that Republican economists keep telling us isn't real money? I'm thinking the folks who hold the notes for it think it's pretty real and I'm thinking they'll want to cash out when AIG gets a taste of their own medicine. So yeah, we have no choice now. We have to pump mass cash into the "level playing field of the open market." And we will, but next time around, let's not forget the high water mark of this debacle.
As of now, it's only reached a few feet into the middle class, but by McPalin's standards, that middle class extends into those households that earn $5 million a year. If you're not in that top 5% to whom this welfare is being handed, you're not safe either. Who knows how high the water will actually reach before a bailout bill is finally accepted. I'm only cocky because all I own is debt. (of course, unlike naked short sellers, my debt is in the form of a house) Either way, when it's called in, I'm a free man... homeless, but free! I don't have much to lose. And I don't expect anyone to bail me out.
It certainly calls to mind one of my favorite bumper stickers: If you're a Republican and you're not rich, you're stupid." (don't go there, Ray, there are some good Dem stickers too, but they don't fit this particular rant)
Maybe stupid is too harsh a word, but for those of us firmly in the middle class who are one illness or one downsizing away from bankruptcy, this one comes dangerously close. Do you still think only Democrats tax and spend? Do you still think government shouldn't regulate industry upon which the national economy rests? Do you still think the war in Iraq was a good way to spend our money? Do you still think abortion is the most important issue facing the nation? I only mention abortion here cuz everyone's familiar with China's stance on it. Since they own a ton of our debt, we could soon be one of them! Your last pro-life vote could result in us being subsumed by the second largest pro-choice proponents in the universe!
Back to the point: The bail out is a tax funded welfare program. The biggest of it's kind in history. We either suck it up, or we become Chinese. Once it's in place, we'll be closer to socialism than we've ever been. We've become the French. At least our flag has the right colors!
Luth,
Out
Monday, September 29, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Still only a few points difference, seriously?
I felt an urgent need I could no longer ignore for this short, sweet post. I'll warn you right from the start that it's a rant, nothing more.
First, I must repeat it once again, I used to like this McCain guy. If he remains a senator I probably will again AFTER this election is over, but COME ON. How can anyone seriously be considering voting for this guy after the last seven years, the nasty campaign, the lessons learned over a similar 12-year experiment under Reagan and Bush 41 that resulted in a triple double (inflation, interest rates and unemployment) and the initial steps toward the deregulation that dumped today's economic crisis in our laps on top of everything else right now?
Does an attractive VP who says the right things on TV REALLY wash away her career that flies in the face of those TV promises? Wasn't her selection so blatant and obvious an attempt to inject gender and age (Hillary voters) to the ticket that even the most right-leaning Repub HAS to see through it? Even long-time Repubs are asking if there wasn't someone more qualified he could have picked... some congresswoman or governor. And how does family values now include pregnant, unwed teens? Isn't that what the family values folks always told us they'd do away with? Doesn't it strike anyone else as disingenuous at best that "at least she didn't abort" has become the standard to replace "just say no?!"
Are a few TV promises that are clearly contradictory to the pair's track record really all it takes to leave us in the complacency... now downward spiral where we don't even care about the issues as long as we get the party right? Are folks so bent on their party loyalty that the BS of the campaign is all it takes to make us forget our jobs, our homes, our health care, our children's futures, our common sense?
Look. If you don't like Obama or the Democratic Party that much, then vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, or just don't even vote. I never thought I'd say that, but how can you seriously consider McCain-Palin? Sure they're NOT the SAME as W, but they HAVE based their campaign on supporting his two favorite issues: the economy and the war. On those issues, they may not be the same, but they're certainly in the same camp and where has it gotten us? After choosing the candidate with whom you'd rather have a beer, can't we agree that being just like us isn't the best reason to choose the guy in the top post? Hell, if that's your criteria, then I want to be your president. I'm fun to have a beer with!
Yes, this is a challenge for someone to convince me that McCain is still the guy I thought he was as a senator who got the job done. It's the second time I've issued this challenge. If you bother to read more than the one little detail you came here to either agree with or rail against, you'd know that I'll consider just about any argument. I'll defend my position, but I'll also listen intently to and seriously weigh those of others. I've listened throughout the campaigns believing, at least at the beginning, that it would be the first in my lifetime that actually offered us two good choices as opposed to the lesser of two evils. I no longer believe that and given the lunacy of the McCain campaign, I can't believe anyone is still falling for it to the point that it's even remotely close.
Look, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent with a little "i" because it's not a party. I vote for the best candidate regardless of party and I've voted for more Repubs in the last 10 years than I have Dems. I'm liberal in that I expect others to consider new ideas and to bear some responsibility for the welfare of others when they can. I'm conservative when it comes to personal responsibility, including that responsibility to occasionally be my brother's keeper when I have the means and he has the need. And I really think that my fellow voters have a responsibility to give me something better than the party line to explain why this guy is still a viable presidential candidate. I really tried to find it on my own and I'm simply stunned that it just doesn't seem to be there when you strip away the party trappings and yet, the polls have it as just a few point difference. Somebody explain that to me.
Does anyone out there honestly believe McCain is backing out of the debate in order to save our economy after he worked so hard to do away with the kinds of regulation we're now considering imposing? C'mon. He's got no chance to come out of that debate with anything but lost support and he knows it. Like Obama or not, he's going to clean up... or maybe not. Maybe the debate is what I need to change my mind, but without McCain involved, I won't get the chance, so somebody's got to help me see what half of our polled voters see in this ticket. Broaden my perspective before the debate... or before McCain ducks it.
W is talking legacy still and it's time we all consider what that might actually be... first and foremost there's the war. No matter how you feel about that, the legacy of how it was sold to us and how it's gone thus far is not going to be pretty. Then there's the nationalizing of the banking industry - the closest move toward socialism we've had since the Depression all while telling us out the other side of the face that nationalized health care is a bad idea and government should keep its hands off industry. Then there's the growing divide between the top 1% of wage earners and the bottom 99% which was supposed to materialize into/trickle down by creating all kinds of economic growth but instead resulted in all kinds of foreign ownership and record unemployment. And finally there's what all of this luxury will cost us: yep the national debt! Now that's a legacy our great grandchildren can share!
Thus far, McCain has promised to shore up that legacy by augmenting it. He wants the war to continue to be the biggest drain on our economy indefinitely with no objectives to signal its success or failure or completion. He'll make up for that, apparently, by admitting that his laissez-fair economic policy for the last 26 years was wrong then borrowing even more taxpayer money to bail out the campaign contributors who benefited most from those policies and whose golden parachutes are apparently not enough to sustain them while the rest of us fall farther and farther into the hole supporting them by running their plants and building their products for paychecks that buy less and less and benefits that are all but extinct.
Does anyone out there still think that someone's stance on gay marriage or abortion means more than a rat's ass compared to the issues the next president must solve? Are those two issues and gun laws REALLY what we're voting on this year? Does a label like conservative or liberal or Dem or Repub REALLY factor into any of this anymore? Have we become that dependent on sound bites and empty rhetoric? I've read more articles on how the candidates are handling the press than I have on what the candidates actually intend to do.
I usually love the freedom to ignore the stupid "never talk politics or religion" rule during the campaign season. I enjoy little more than getting all fired up in a lively debate, but I'm getting nothing this year. No one seems interested in telling me why $700 billion to bail out spoiled bankers and insurers couldn't have been better spent on alternative fuel technology or why $2 billion a week in Iraq for the last five years couldn't have put electric or hydrogen cars on the road or at least bought a little health insurance for a few folks. Speaking of that, no one seems to want to apply the deregulation model (that did SO well with our mortgage institutions) to the insurance industry and predict when we'll have to bail them out as well once they finally price the rest of us out of their system and offer very little actual medical care in return.
I don't even bother explaining why I'll put up with some of Obama's bad ideas in exchange for a level-headed, intelligent, buck-stops-here type of leader with proven management ability anymore. It's so easy to support, it's not even fun. I mean, compare his opportunities and successes with the achievements W racked up before the White House... seriously. How does "failed baseball team" compare with "turned down top law firms after graduating at the top of my class at Harvard Law?" Or how about "failed Texas oil company bought out by the Saudis" against "successfully reclaimed dead neighborhoods" Or what about "awol from the Guard(and Vietnam) to pursue failed senate campaign" vs. "successful senate campaign" Or even "rehab, dui, sealed coke arrests" vs. "yeah, I smoked pot"
I know, I know, O's not running against W. How about the Repub convention rallying around their "service" signs one night, then picking on Obama's service to his community the next. (are slogans and chants really more important than actually doing something?) And if we must inject religion into the debate - though it should have even less relevance than the other non-issues I've mentioned, then O's definitely the man. We know what church he's attended consistently at least since his early Chicago days. We used his pastor against him! His opponent listed himself as one religion on his senate bio but didn't attend any church until he showed up at a "competing" venue one Sunday before the campaign began in earnest, but I guess his VP more than makes up for his lack of spiritual conviction.
And how about the family values as representatives of character and integrity? One guy's still married to his first wife. The other... well, I think it's all out of my system by now. I need to get to bed.
Thanks for listening.
Luth
Out
First, I must repeat it once again, I used to like this McCain guy. If he remains a senator I probably will again AFTER this election is over, but COME ON. How can anyone seriously be considering voting for this guy after the last seven years, the nasty campaign, the lessons learned over a similar 12-year experiment under Reagan and Bush 41 that resulted in a triple double (inflation, interest rates and unemployment) and the initial steps toward the deregulation that dumped today's economic crisis in our laps on top of everything else right now?
Does an attractive VP who says the right things on TV REALLY wash away her career that flies in the face of those TV promises? Wasn't her selection so blatant and obvious an attempt to inject gender and age (Hillary voters) to the ticket that even the most right-leaning Repub HAS to see through it? Even long-time Repubs are asking if there wasn't someone more qualified he could have picked... some congresswoman or governor. And how does family values now include pregnant, unwed teens? Isn't that what the family values folks always told us they'd do away with? Doesn't it strike anyone else as disingenuous at best that "at least she didn't abort" has become the standard to replace "just say no?!"
Are a few TV promises that are clearly contradictory to the pair's track record really all it takes to leave us in the complacency... now downward spiral where we don't even care about the issues as long as we get the party right? Are folks so bent on their party loyalty that the BS of the campaign is all it takes to make us forget our jobs, our homes, our health care, our children's futures, our common sense?
Look. If you don't like Obama or the Democratic Party that much, then vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, or just don't even vote. I never thought I'd say that, but how can you seriously consider McCain-Palin? Sure they're NOT the SAME as W, but they HAVE based their campaign on supporting his two favorite issues: the economy and the war. On those issues, they may not be the same, but they're certainly in the same camp and where has it gotten us? After choosing the candidate with whom you'd rather have a beer, can't we agree that being just like us isn't the best reason to choose the guy in the top post? Hell, if that's your criteria, then I want to be your president. I'm fun to have a beer with!
Yes, this is a challenge for someone to convince me that McCain is still the guy I thought he was as a senator who got the job done. It's the second time I've issued this challenge. If you bother to read more than the one little detail you came here to either agree with or rail against, you'd know that I'll consider just about any argument. I'll defend my position, but I'll also listen intently to and seriously weigh those of others. I've listened throughout the campaigns believing, at least at the beginning, that it would be the first in my lifetime that actually offered us two good choices as opposed to the lesser of two evils. I no longer believe that and given the lunacy of the McCain campaign, I can't believe anyone is still falling for it to the point that it's even remotely close.
Look, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent with a little "i" because it's not a party. I vote for the best candidate regardless of party and I've voted for more Repubs in the last 10 years than I have Dems. I'm liberal in that I expect others to consider new ideas and to bear some responsibility for the welfare of others when they can. I'm conservative when it comes to personal responsibility, including that responsibility to occasionally be my brother's keeper when I have the means and he has the need. And I really think that my fellow voters have a responsibility to give me something better than the party line to explain why this guy is still a viable presidential candidate. I really tried to find it on my own and I'm simply stunned that it just doesn't seem to be there when you strip away the party trappings and yet, the polls have it as just a few point difference. Somebody explain that to me.
Does anyone out there honestly believe McCain is backing out of the debate in order to save our economy after he worked so hard to do away with the kinds of regulation we're now considering imposing? C'mon. He's got no chance to come out of that debate with anything but lost support and he knows it. Like Obama or not, he's going to clean up... or maybe not. Maybe the debate is what I need to change my mind, but without McCain involved, I won't get the chance, so somebody's got to help me see what half of our polled voters see in this ticket. Broaden my perspective before the debate... or before McCain ducks it.
W is talking legacy still and it's time we all consider what that might actually be... first and foremost there's the war. No matter how you feel about that, the legacy of how it was sold to us and how it's gone thus far is not going to be pretty. Then there's the nationalizing of the banking industry - the closest move toward socialism we've had since the Depression all while telling us out the other side of the face that nationalized health care is a bad idea and government should keep its hands off industry. Then there's the growing divide between the top 1% of wage earners and the bottom 99% which was supposed to materialize into/trickle down by creating all kinds of economic growth but instead resulted in all kinds of foreign ownership and record unemployment. And finally there's what all of this luxury will cost us: yep the national debt! Now that's a legacy our great grandchildren can share!
Thus far, McCain has promised to shore up that legacy by augmenting it. He wants the war to continue to be the biggest drain on our economy indefinitely with no objectives to signal its success or failure or completion. He'll make up for that, apparently, by admitting that his laissez-fair economic policy for the last 26 years was wrong then borrowing even more taxpayer money to bail out the campaign contributors who benefited most from those policies and whose golden parachutes are apparently not enough to sustain them while the rest of us fall farther and farther into the hole supporting them by running their plants and building their products for paychecks that buy less and less and benefits that are all but extinct.
Does anyone out there still think that someone's stance on gay marriage or abortion means more than a rat's ass compared to the issues the next president must solve? Are those two issues and gun laws REALLY what we're voting on this year? Does a label like conservative or liberal or Dem or Repub REALLY factor into any of this anymore? Have we become that dependent on sound bites and empty rhetoric? I've read more articles on how the candidates are handling the press than I have on what the candidates actually intend to do.
I usually love the freedom to ignore the stupid "never talk politics or religion" rule during the campaign season. I enjoy little more than getting all fired up in a lively debate, but I'm getting nothing this year. No one seems interested in telling me why $700 billion to bail out spoiled bankers and insurers couldn't have been better spent on alternative fuel technology or why $2 billion a week in Iraq for the last five years couldn't have put electric or hydrogen cars on the road or at least bought a little health insurance for a few folks. Speaking of that, no one seems to want to apply the deregulation model (that did SO well with our mortgage institutions) to the insurance industry and predict when we'll have to bail them out as well once they finally price the rest of us out of their system and offer very little actual medical care in return.
I don't even bother explaining why I'll put up with some of Obama's bad ideas in exchange for a level-headed, intelligent, buck-stops-here type of leader with proven management ability anymore. It's so easy to support, it's not even fun. I mean, compare his opportunities and successes with the achievements W racked up before the White House... seriously. How does "failed baseball team" compare with "turned down top law firms after graduating at the top of my class at Harvard Law?" Or how about "failed Texas oil company bought out by the Saudis" against "successfully reclaimed dead neighborhoods" Or what about "awol from the Guard(and Vietnam) to pursue failed senate campaign" vs. "successful senate campaign" Or even "rehab, dui, sealed coke arrests" vs. "yeah, I smoked pot"
I know, I know, O's not running against W. How about the Repub convention rallying around their "service" signs one night, then picking on Obama's service to his community the next. (are slogans and chants really more important than actually doing something?) And if we must inject religion into the debate - though it should have even less relevance than the other non-issues I've mentioned, then O's definitely the man. We know what church he's attended consistently at least since his early Chicago days. We used his pastor against him! His opponent listed himself as one religion on his senate bio but didn't attend any church until he showed up at a "competing" venue one Sunday before the campaign began in earnest, but I guess his VP more than makes up for his lack of spiritual conviction.
And how about the family values as representatives of character and integrity? One guy's still married to his first wife. The other... well, I think it's all out of my system by now. I need to get to bed.
Thanks for listening.
Luth
Out
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Two Thumbs Up for Obsession
The sweetie and I were discussing what kind of movie we might watch Friday night when I noticed that both she and my mom got copies of a movie in the mail. At first I thought it was just some chick flick trailer, but the closer I looked, the more I realized it said it was the whole movie inside the very professionally printed envelope so I suggested we check it out.
The movie was called Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. It didn’t sound like anything we’d normally pick from the list available on cable or the local movie rental, but we like to mix it up a little every now and then so we decided to give it a shot. While sweetie finished up some to-do list items I read some more of the info on this weird envelope. I learned that the movie inside would teach me about a very serious threat that few Americans take seriously enough. I learned that the movie was paid for by the Clarion Fund and that it wasn’t rated by the MPAA.
That wasn’t much to go on so I Googled “Clarion Fund” and visited their web page. Turns out they’re “a non-profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to educate Americans about issues of national security.” Says they're a 501c3. Wikipedia told me a 501c3 is an organization most recognized as a religious non-profit, but that non-religious organizations can claim the status as well as long as they don’t “conduct political campaign activities to influence elections to public office.” This still didn’t tell me anything about the movie, so I clicked a link on the home page that took me to RadicalIslam.org. The logo of their header uses the twin towers as the “l” at the end of “radical” and the “I” at the beginning of “Islam.” The page is copyrighted by The Clarion Fund. Buttons on this page led to “Shari a Law, Radical Islam Overview, Fueling Terror, and Vote 2008.” I clicked on the "Vote 2008" button, not 'cuz I thought it would tell me about the movie, but because I'm kind of a political junkie. (perhaps you've noticed)
Links there took me to either McCain’s pages of anti-terror policy or to Obama’s or I could watch a short video called “The Stakes” which just showed a bunch of pictures of Muslims in traditional garb with angry expressions and ended with a picture of McCain and lots of text floating in and out bearing ominous warnings. I clicked a few more links from the Google search results and learned that this movie we were going to watch had been included as “paid advertising” in newpapers delivered to 28 million U.S. homes this week, but only homes in swing states. The “advertising” was paid for by the Clarion Fund. Strangely, I couldn't find out much more about The Clarion Fund or about the movie.
I gave up on learning any more about the movie and sweetie had finally made it to the couch so we fired up the DVD. Two disclaimers came first. One warned of the graphic nature of the movie. The other noted that the majority of Muslims are peace-loving people and that this movie was not about them. The movie then opened with video of the second plane hitting the twin towers followed by a series of other terrorist incidents and interviews with journalists, think-tank researchers, former terrorists and a few others interspersed with footage, often poorly shot, of radical Islamic fellows yelling hateful things (subtitled in English) to variously sized crowds, and scenes from terrorist strikes throughout the world.
15 minutes was about all we could stand, but we did skip to the beginning of each of the remaining chapters, sampling them to see if this pattern would change. We'd stop and read the chapter titles like "understanding the jihad culture" then watch for a while hoping we'd actually see some Arab culture, but instead it was just more video of some radical televangelist performing for a crowd of loyal followers.
Five minutes is all it took to convince us that instead of a free razor, pack of laundry detergent, or the other advertising items that often come in unsolicited mail or along with the Sunday paper, this particular delivery was pure propaganda. Then it occurred to me that it was clearly the propaganda out of the Carl Rove fear tactics playbook. That's when I went back and read the 501c3 restriction again about not campaigning for an elected official. Hmmm. Sounds like the IRS will be after someone soon!
As you might suspect, I couldn't wait to sign on to Poup where I would quickly tear Obsession a new one. I was going to talk about how un-subtle this endorsement of McCain really was... about how all this fear crap was clearly designed to retro-fit a legitimate reason for the invasion of Iraq... about how the comparisons of unnamed terrorist groups to Hitler's Reich were cheap, emotional appeals, but then I thought, "That's awfully narrow-minded of me. I must step back for a moment and see the bigger picture. Perhaps I've missed some detail that would make this film actually live up to the non-partisan claim of its sponsor." After all, my writing has been good therapy and has really helped me deal with those previous episodes of reactionary off the handle flying I used to do so frequently. It's time to grow up.
I was shocked at the results of this stunning display of maturity. Suddenly the scenes of the movie began to gel into one of the most powerful, non-partisan, rational statements I've ever seen in a free mailing arriving unsolicited to my mom and my wife. (I wonder why I didn't get my own copy?)
I was so ready to believe this secretly funded, produced, and covertly delivered piece of propaganda was the work of the Red Right Radicals that I almost missed the true, totally obvious message of the film. You'd think I'd learned not to do that anymore.
So yeah, there I was replaying the Hitler scenes in my mind when I also thought, don't trust your mind... you know where that's gotten you before, watch the damned movie again. So I replayed the scenes where Neville Chamberlain returns triumphantly with the accord Hitler signed bringing peace to Europe. And the scenes where Hitler's followers in Africa and Palestine met with him and promised to deliver nations of people ready to help him exterminate the Jews. Hitler was a big fan of the Muslims I guess. And, you have to admit, it would be an easy mistake to simply associate all things Muslim with all things Nazi at that point.
Somewhere in the middle of these scenes, former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, who makes quite a few contributions to the movie, notes that it takes more than just desperation and brainwashing to get people to act like this. Hitler may have been charismatic, but that alone doesn't move people to genocide. Shoebat says, "the secular fascism of the Nazis was far less dangerous than the Islamofascists of today because Islamofascism has a religious twist to it. It says God, the almighty ordered you to do this, not just the fuehrer."
And therein lies the real message of the film. I'm afraid; however, that it will be misinterpreted, so now I'll give a chapter by chapter translation of the film's main points:
Chapter 1: The Culture of Terror
Nonie Darwish, daughter of Palestinian suicide "martyr" explains that hers was a childhood of terrorism.
Translation: My father gave his life while taking the lives of others for his God. That was our (religious) culture.
Ch. 2: The Culture of Jihad
Several experts explain that the most accurate translation of Jihad is "struggle" or "personal struggle" or "inner struggle" proving that Muslims are not to be feared... followed by footage of radical Muslims doing frightening things.
Translation: Religion allows many irrational interpretations of its word leading to many frightening things.
Ch 3: The Culture of Hatred
A series of radical clerics tell stories on TV mostly based in one way or another on the blood libel that Jews (or any Westerners) use the blood of children or the elderly in various recipes. OR motivational films depicting all Western symbols as Demonic or Satanic.
Translation: Religious leaders use deceit to build and then manipulate their congregations. They create enemies with lies and proclaimed partnerships with the Devil. (your flock will only fight if they believe there is a threat)
Ch 4: The Media of Terrorism
This one's pretty funny actually. It starts with two kaftan-wearing folks in the Sunday political talk show format discussing the idea that Arab media pushes kids to terrorism, or at least violent fanaticism. They're subtitled in English. It sure looks like the interviewee is actually complaining, NOT bragging about this, especially when he goes on to say that starting suicide bomber training so young robs the youth of their childhood... that we "teach them how to die for Allah, but we don't teach them how to live for Allah." I'm not sure why this "evidence" that they are evil was included, but I'll still attempt a translation. (anyway, then the movie jumps to a series of bad MTV-like videos both humorous and frightening made my radical groups)
Translation: Any argument that stems from religion is, by definition, irrational. This particular argument is SO irrational that it fails to separate out that which does not make its case, but rather, seems to prove otherwise. By the way, it struck me as funny whenever the movie broke to its interviewees who then decried the Arabic media for doing exactly what they were doing. Let's face it, if I flipped the channels through the televangelist series, I could pick out some equally radical sounding footage of Christian "clerics" doing the same thing this chapter accuses ALL Muslim clerics of doing. Americans have heard a good 3 minutes of one Rev. Jeremiah Wright sermon and we've made up our minds about his 40 years as a preacher, right?
Ch 5: Jihad in the West
The "infiltration" of radical Islam in the West is described as the spreading of seeds. Hints of denial are included as foreshadowing for the next chapter, but the best scene is an interview wherein Dr. Ahmad Dwidar, Islamic Cleric (according to the footage) says he once heard a sermon that predicted that Muslims would march on the White House. When the interviewer asks what this means, Dr. Dwidar says, "through the domination and distribution of Islam, the White House will be changed. It will become a Muslim House." It's one of the most quiet, rational sounding pieces of footage featuring a "cleric" in the whole movie. It's such an obvious nod to the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein that I almost laughed out loud.
Translation: The religious right in this country will stop at nothing to get their boy into the big house... including subtly hinting that his opponent is a seed being spread by radical Islamists - a thought they KNOW the ignorant among us already believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In other words, folks who claim to know more about what's right, largely due to some religious claim of a direct connection with God, as opposed to observing anything like evidence, are the same all over. They'll lie, they'll cheat, they'll steal in their own form of Jihad if that's what it takes to put their chosen people in power.
Ch 6: The Culture of Denial
Basically, the world is being taken over by radical Muslims and we're denying it.
Translation: The world is being taken over by religious fanatics of all types and we're denying it. The longer we hide behind "religious tolerance," denying the irrationality of religion and perpetuating the one remaining mythical god we've chosen to keep while recognizing all the others for the myths they are, the longer we subject ourselves to the violent actions of irrational people who believe they're doing the work of this god and will thus stop at nothing until all of that work is done.
Ch 7: The Common Denominators
The movie draws many comparisons among the Nazis and today's Radical Muslims (as though that were a fixed, definite group like the Nazis.
Translation: Dictators, especially those bent on destroying all those they don't like, are always justified by some higher power. (Just as Mien Kampf is similar in meaning to Jihad, so were the religious justifications of the Nazis to today's religious radicals) Christians destroying pagans in Rome, Muslims in Spain...
Ch 8: Hitler & the Mufti
Hitler quickly befriended radical Muslim leaders because they shared the goal of getting rid of the Jews.
Translation: Hitler quickly befriended radical religious leaders because he knew no reasonable people would buy his irrational bullshit.
Ch 9: What do Radical Muslims Want?
The same as Hitler wanted: to destroy the Jews, bring down the West.
Translation: What do all religious groups want: world domination... their brand of irrationality to be the entire world's brand of irrationality. Granted, some are happy to try to accomplish this by more peaceful means, but you can't deny that's what they want. Except maybe, for the Masons... cuz they don't come after you. (2B1Ask1) Though I've been subject to some coercion to "ask1" before just like all the others!
Ch 10: We've Been Here Before
History repeats itself.
Translation: No shit! (Ancient Rome, Christopher Columbus, The Crusades, St. Patrick, Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scare, Church of England, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, pretty much every major war ever fought, you name it, we've seen it all before and yet, here we are again, tolerating the same irrationality in spite of the growing body of evidence against it.)
By the way again, the movie lists 13 chapters, but I didn't figure I needed to translate the intro credits, title scene, and I've already mentioned the disclaimer.
One more thing worthy of note: the movie begins and ends with the Edmund Burke quote:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Isn't it strange that they should quote a guy from a land where Christians ran off, converted, or killed all the pagans several hundred years ago and yet the land is still racked by the memories and lingering violence and hatred resulting from that invasion. It reminds one of a time when Christians played the role of today's radical Muslims. Hmmm, I guess history really does repeat itself... only the names change. You'd think that by now, the good men would have had their fill of this so-called source of all life, knowledge and morality they refer to as religion. You'd think by now we'd stop doing nothing and start calling for people to put aside their irrational beliefs and step into this modern world where physics, chemistry and biology really can shed light on most of the important questions.
So the movie turned out to be a pleasant surprise, but what's most surprising is that a work of the Right (and let's not pretend that it is otherwise) does such a great job of calling for the end of faith.
Bravo. Perhaps my loyalty really has been misplaced.
Luth,
Out.
The movie was called Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. It didn’t sound like anything we’d normally pick from the list available on cable or the local movie rental, but we like to mix it up a little every now and then so we decided to give it a shot. While sweetie finished up some to-do list items I read some more of the info on this weird envelope. I learned that the movie inside would teach me about a very serious threat that few Americans take seriously enough. I learned that the movie was paid for by the Clarion Fund and that it wasn’t rated by the MPAA.
That wasn’t much to go on so I Googled “Clarion Fund” and visited their web page. Turns out they’re “a non-profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to educate Americans about issues of national security.” Says they're a 501c3. Wikipedia told me a 501c3 is an organization most recognized as a religious non-profit, but that non-religious organizations can claim the status as well as long as they don’t “conduct political campaign activities to influence elections to public office.” This still didn’t tell me anything about the movie, so I clicked a link on the home page that took me to RadicalIslam.org. The logo of their header uses the twin towers as the “l” at the end of “radical” and the “I” at the beginning of “Islam.” The page is copyrighted by The Clarion Fund. Buttons on this page led to “Shari a Law, Radical Islam Overview, Fueling Terror, and Vote 2008.” I clicked on the "Vote 2008" button, not 'cuz I thought it would tell me about the movie, but because I'm kind of a political junkie. (perhaps you've noticed)
Links there took me to either McCain’s pages of anti-terror policy or to Obama’s or I could watch a short video called “The Stakes” which just showed a bunch of pictures of Muslims in traditional garb with angry expressions and ended with a picture of McCain and lots of text floating in and out bearing ominous warnings. I clicked a few more links from the Google search results and learned that this movie we were going to watch had been included as “paid advertising” in newpapers delivered to 28 million U.S. homes this week, but only homes in swing states. The “advertising” was paid for by the Clarion Fund. Strangely, I couldn't find out much more about The Clarion Fund or about the movie.
I gave up on learning any more about the movie and sweetie had finally made it to the couch so we fired up the DVD. Two disclaimers came first. One warned of the graphic nature of the movie. The other noted that the majority of Muslims are peace-loving people and that this movie was not about them. The movie then opened with video of the second plane hitting the twin towers followed by a series of other terrorist incidents and interviews with journalists, think-tank researchers, former terrorists and a few others interspersed with footage, often poorly shot, of radical Islamic fellows yelling hateful things (subtitled in English) to variously sized crowds, and scenes from terrorist strikes throughout the world.
15 minutes was about all we could stand, but we did skip to the beginning of each of the remaining chapters, sampling them to see if this pattern would change. We'd stop and read the chapter titles like "understanding the jihad culture" then watch for a while hoping we'd actually see some Arab culture, but instead it was just more video of some radical televangelist performing for a crowd of loyal followers.
Five minutes is all it took to convince us that instead of a free razor, pack of laundry detergent, or the other advertising items that often come in unsolicited mail or along with the Sunday paper, this particular delivery was pure propaganda. Then it occurred to me that it was clearly the propaganda out of the Carl Rove fear tactics playbook. That's when I went back and read the 501c3 restriction again about not campaigning for an elected official. Hmmm. Sounds like the IRS will be after someone soon!
As you might suspect, I couldn't wait to sign on to Poup where I would quickly tear Obsession a new one. I was going to talk about how un-subtle this endorsement of McCain really was... about how all this fear crap was clearly designed to retro-fit a legitimate reason for the invasion of Iraq... about how the comparisons of unnamed terrorist groups to Hitler's Reich were cheap, emotional appeals, but then I thought, "That's awfully narrow-minded of me. I must step back for a moment and see the bigger picture. Perhaps I've missed some detail that would make this film actually live up to the non-partisan claim of its sponsor." After all, my writing has been good therapy and has really helped me deal with those previous episodes of reactionary off the handle flying I used to do so frequently. It's time to grow up.
I was shocked at the results of this stunning display of maturity. Suddenly the scenes of the movie began to gel into one of the most powerful, non-partisan, rational statements I've ever seen in a free mailing arriving unsolicited to my mom and my wife. (I wonder why I didn't get my own copy?)
I was so ready to believe this secretly funded, produced, and covertly delivered piece of propaganda was the work of the Red Right Radicals that I almost missed the true, totally obvious message of the film. You'd think I'd learned not to do that anymore.
So yeah, there I was replaying the Hitler scenes in my mind when I also thought, don't trust your mind... you know where that's gotten you before, watch the damned movie again. So I replayed the scenes where Neville Chamberlain returns triumphantly with the accord Hitler signed bringing peace to Europe. And the scenes where Hitler's followers in Africa and Palestine met with him and promised to deliver nations of people ready to help him exterminate the Jews. Hitler was a big fan of the Muslims I guess. And, you have to admit, it would be an easy mistake to simply associate all things Muslim with all things Nazi at that point.
Somewhere in the middle of these scenes, former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, who makes quite a few contributions to the movie, notes that it takes more than just desperation and brainwashing to get people to act like this. Hitler may have been charismatic, but that alone doesn't move people to genocide. Shoebat says, "the secular fascism of the Nazis was far less dangerous than the Islamofascists of today because Islamofascism has a religious twist to it. It says God, the almighty ordered you to do this, not just the fuehrer."
And therein lies the real message of the film. I'm afraid; however, that it will be misinterpreted, so now I'll give a chapter by chapter translation of the film's main points:
Chapter 1: The Culture of Terror
Nonie Darwish, daughter of Palestinian suicide "martyr" explains that hers was a childhood of terrorism.
Translation: My father gave his life while taking the lives of others for his God. That was our (religious) culture.
Ch. 2: The Culture of Jihad
Several experts explain that the most accurate translation of Jihad is "struggle" or "personal struggle" or "inner struggle" proving that Muslims are not to be feared... followed by footage of radical Muslims doing frightening things.
Translation: Religion allows many irrational interpretations of its word leading to many frightening things.
Ch 3: The Culture of Hatred
A series of radical clerics tell stories on TV mostly based in one way or another on the blood libel that Jews (or any Westerners) use the blood of children or the elderly in various recipes. OR motivational films depicting all Western symbols as Demonic or Satanic.
Translation: Religious leaders use deceit to build and then manipulate their congregations. They create enemies with lies and proclaimed partnerships with the Devil. (your flock will only fight if they believe there is a threat)
Ch 4: The Media of Terrorism
This one's pretty funny actually. It starts with two kaftan-wearing folks in the Sunday political talk show format discussing the idea that Arab media pushes kids to terrorism, or at least violent fanaticism. They're subtitled in English. It sure looks like the interviewee is actually complaining, NOT bragging about this, especially when he goes on to say that starting suicide bomber training so young robs the youth of their childhood... that we "teach them how to die for Allah, but we don't teach them how to live for Allah." I'm not sure why this "evidence" that they are evil was included, but I'll still attempt a translation. (anyway, then the movie jumps to a series of bad MTV-like videos both humorous and frightening made my radical groups)
Translation: Any argument that stems from religion is, by definition, irrational. This particular argument is SO irrational that it fails to separate out that which does not make its case, but rather, seems to prove otherwise. By the way, it struck me as funny whenever the movie broke to its interviewees who then decried the Arabic media for doing exactly what they were doing. Let's face it, if I flipped the channels through the televangelist series, I could pick out some equally radical sounding footage of Christian "clerics" doing the same thing this chapter accuses ALL Muslim clerics of doing. Americans have heard a good 3 minutes of one Rev. Jeremiah Wright sermon and we've made up our minds about his 40 years as a preacher, right?
Ch 5: Jihad in the West
The "infiltration" of radical Islam in the West is described as the spreading of seeds. Hints of denial are included as foreshadowing for the next chapter, but the best scene is an interview wherein Dr. Ahmad Dwidar, Islamic Cleric (according to the footage) says he once heard a sermon that predicted that Muslims would march on the White House. When the interviewer asks what this means, Dr. Dwidar says, "through the domination and distribution of Islam, the White House will be changed. It will become a Muslim House." It's one of the most quiet, rational sounding pieces of footage featuring a "cleric" in the whole movie. It's such an obvious nod to the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein that I almost laughed out loud.
Translation: The religious right in this country will stop at nothing to get their boy into the big house... including subtly hinting that his opponent is a seed being spread by radical Islamists - a thought they KNOW the ignorant among us already believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In other words, folks who claim to know more about what's right, largely due to some religious claim of a direct connection with God, as opposed to observing anything like evidence, are the same all over. They'll lie, they'll cheat, they'll steal in their own form of Jihad if that's what it takes to put their chosen people in power.
Ch 6: The Culture of Denial
Basically, the world is being taken over by radical Muslims and we're denying it.
Translation: The world is being taken over by religious fanatics of all types and we're denying it. The longer we hide behind "religious tolerance," denying the irrationality of religion and perpetuating the one remaining mythical god we've chosen to keep while recognizing all the others for the myths they are, the longer we subject ourselves to the violent actions of irrational people who believe they're doing the work of this god and will thus stop at nothing until all of that work is done.
Ch 7: The Common Denominators
The movie draws many comparisons among the Nazis and today's Radical Muslims (as though that were a fixed, definite group like the Nazis.
Translation: Dictators, especially those bent on destroying all those they don't like, are always justified by some higher power. (Just as Mien Kampf is similar in meaning to Jihad, so were the religious justifications of the Nazis to today's religious radicals) Christians destroying pagans in Rome, Muslims in Spain...
Ch 8: Hitler & the Mufti
Hitler quickly befriended radical Muslim leaders because they shared the goal of getting rid of the Jews.
Translation: Hitler quickly befriended radical religious leaders because he knew no reasonable people would buy his irrational bullshit.
Ch 9: What do Radical Muslims Want?
The same as Hitler wanted: to destroy the Jews, bring down the West.
Translation: What do all religious groups want: world domination... their brand of irrationality to be the entire world's brand of irrationality. Granted, some are happy to try to accomplish this by more peaceful means, but you can't deny that's what they want. Except maybe, for the Masons... cuz they don't come after you. (2B1Ask1) Though I've been subject to some coercion to "ask1" before just like all the others!
Ch 10: We've Been Here Before
History repeats itself.
Translation: No shit! (Ancient Rome, Christopher Columbus, The Crusades, St. Patrick, Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scare, Church of England, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, pretty much every major war ever fought, you name it, we've seen it all before and yet, here we are again, tolerating the same irrationality in spite of the growing body of evidence against it.)
By the way again, the movie lists 13 chapters, but I didn't figure I needed to translate the intro credits, title scene, and I've already mentioned the disclaimer.
One more thing worthy of note: the movie begins and ends with the Edmund Burke quote:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Isn't it strange that they should quote a guy from a land where Christians ran off, converted, or killed all the pagans several hundred years ago and yet the land is still racked by the memories and lingering violence and hatred resulting from that invasion. It reminds one of a time when Christians played the role of today's radical Muslims. Hmmm, I guess history really does repeat itself... only the names change. You'd think that by now, the good men would have had their fill of this so-called source of all life, knowledge and morality they refer to as religion. You'd think by now we'd stop doing nothing and start calling for people to put aside their irrational beliefs and step into this modern world where physics, chemistry and biology really can shed light on most of the important questions.
So the movie turned out to be a pleasant surprise, but what's most surprising is that a work of the Right (and let's not pretend that it is otherwise) does such a great job of calling for the end of faith.
Bravo. Perhaps my loyalty really has been misplaced.
Luth,
Out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)