Wednesday, April 27, 2005

It's IRAN Stupid!

April 20, 2005: Unrest continues among the Arab population along the Iraqi border. Iran is actually a multi-ethnic empire, with a core of ethnic Iranians surrounded by other minorities. North of the Arabs are Kurds and Turks (Azeris). In eastern Iran there are Afghans and Baluchis. These minorities comprise over a third of the population. The Arab minority, however, is special, as they sit on top of most of Iran's oil. Saddam Hussein thought these Arabs would would rise in rebellion when invading Iraqi troops entered the area in 1980. Didn't happen. But the Arab-Iranians do maintain their culture, and the Iranian majority has never been happy with this. The current unrest was caused by government efforts to control Arab language press. A lot of this censorship is not just being hard on Arab media, but the continuing efforts of the Islamic conservatives to stamp out dissident media. There is no press freedom in Iran, and hasn't been any for over two decades. Iran is blaming foreign media, and, of course, the United States, for the unrest. Al Jazeera operations in Iran have been shut down, and other foreign media threatened.

The Most Rabid Mr. Brin

OK, so I am cruising around the internet, looking for authors to highlight here in my journal and recommend to anyone who reads my LJ, and I stumble acorss David Brins' website. Now, I liked David Brins' works, and his "Startide Rising" is classic sci-fi to many people, but when I saw his political rants on his site I was intrigued.....and then began reading. Now, I, being the right wing guy that I am, was utterly horrified at his vicious attack on Bush, conservatives, Republicans, relgious people, Christians, the "Right", and even the mainstream media. He actually told me that the major media outlets in the USA were "right wing". Here is the money quote:

"To call CNN anything but utter neocon propaganda mill is absurd."

Right...the CNN that cohorted with Saddam Hussein. The CNN that bashes the US military by saying that they used chemical weapons in Cambodia. The CNN that accused the US military of DELIBERATELY killing US journalists (the head of CNN made that quote and was forced to resign). CNN, the TED TURNER CNN, which hates Christians and the Pope more than just about anybody in the world. And let's not forget about the New York Times, one of the most anti-USA media in the country, or the Washington Post, or the Denver Post (where I live), or the Seattle Times, or LA Times. I challenged Mr. Brin on the point that these media outlets were right wing. I told him that NONE of them had positive things to say about pro-life people or anti-gay people (both strong right wing positions). He of course dodged that question.

He also railed heartily against the "aristocracy" that is now in power in Washington DC, but when I emailed him about these issues, he actualy had the GALL to say this too me:

"You deride as bizarre the views of the best educated people in this country."

I mean, this is WILD. He bashes Bush and Co. for being elitist, but then attacks me with this elitist remark. I don't give two SHITS what your education level is. Some of the most educated people in the world have brought us the greatest horrors in the world, thank you very much.

Then he went on to make this ridiculous "coup" point.

"I am in this fight because I care about my children and I see a coup taking place. If the left were doing it, I would fight THEM, as I fought communism all my life. (Far more effectively than you ever did.)"

Now of course this pissed me off, first because I was actually black balled at a university because I fought against the prevalent communist viewpoints of some professors (which bring sme to another point, the total LEFT-dominated academia in America today, a point which Brin dodged as well). My grades were also lowered because of the right wing viewpoint that I held. I also pointed out to Mr. Brin after this ludicrous statement that people ELECTED Bush Jr, twice, and that their was no "coup". They also elected larger and larger elements of the Republican party, for many many reasons. He also said the follwing:

"But the left is a spent joke. They could not take over a library. The threat is from your pals, who have already taken over everything."

Now this of course is absurd, and I will tell you why. If ANYONE was paying attention to the widespread intimidation tactics that the left used in the last election, you would have noticed that it all came from the Democratic side. Not only were Republicans threatened, shot at, delibrately run down (Katherine Harris), computers stolen, cars vandalized, etc ad naseum, but I noticed that it only came from the left. The left wants to deny people their right to vote, as seen from the tire slashing event back east where Democratic "activists" slashed something like 40+ cars tires that were rented by Republicans to "get out the vote". The political violence, which I pointed out to Mr. Brin and which he pointedly ignored, was shocking to me. VIOLENCE is not part of the USA political process, and anyone who supports such a position should be drummed out of the country. Only leftist hold this point of view in America btw, you don't see people on the right advocating this type of behavior.

Mr. Brin also said this to me: "Not one thing this administration does is "conservative". EVRYTHING it does serves the aristocracy. Find one counter example. One."

Now of course anyone who knows anything about Republicans knows that Bush is a conservative on many issues, but not on others. And I replied to Mr. Brin that Bush has done many things that are conservative and that do not support the "aristocracy". One was to appoint a gay man to the federal office of HIV. That move cost him dearly at his "base", which attacked him over it. He also appointed blacks (Colin Powell and Condi Rice) to high level government positions, even though 95% of blacks supported DEMOCRATS in the last election. I also could not fathom this "aristocracy" viewpoint. So I just put it down to normal left-wing hyperbole. I mean from Mr. Brins limited viewpoint, if Democrats get elected then they are "high minded statemen" but when Republican sget elected they are "aristocrats". How sad. A great mind like Mr. Brin goes off the deep end. How far left can you POSSIBLY be to think that the USA is ruled by aristocrats and that the major media is right wing? Elites yes, aristocrats no. Just because Bush Jr was the son of Bush Sr does not automatically mean that we are some sort of aristocracy. And by the way, Bill Clinton did far more to damage the White House, the US military, government, the USs' position in the world, and the internal political discourse in our country than any other President in history, IMO.

Oh well......see MY books in the bookstore sometime ;) Damon

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Beginning Blog

Okay, I am going to begin blogging here because my LiveJournal (God bless em) isn't really the place for all this political stuff. It is mainly for personal reflections and feedback from my friends, some of whom are spread out all over the country. I wanted to have a specific spot where I could rant and rave from the right, so here it goes:

GREEN DAY: In a recent Newsweek article (why do I read this trash mag?) the music band Green Day was quoted as saying, "...whatever musical direction they were headed in, they want to produce something complete. We didn't want to be a band bitching about downloading," says Cool, "which happens when you put out one good song and a bunch of filler." He couldn't possibly have been more right. Many people, myself included, hate to buy entire albums for just one or two really good songs. This sort of mindset is an excellent response to downloaders and forces bands to be more professional, putting out more good music in one album, instead of adding "filler". I am grateful that Green Day has seen the light. One hopes that other popular music bands, who shall remain un-named, will also see the light, put out better albums, stop suing their fanbase.

ANDREW SULLIVAN: He just never seems to get it right anymore. As a gay man and a conservative, I used to love reading his rants. However, in recent years he has gone off on the deep end and is becoming more and more Democratic in his stances. Yes he has brilliant conservative spurts now and again, but I confess I have stopped reading his blog for various reasons, some of which I will address here:

Gay Marriage is a major issue for Andrew Sullivan and apparently a huge number of gays according to the coverage put out by the left-wing media. This however is a farce as there has been literally no debate within gay circles on the issue of gay marriage. Many gays feel that being like straights in issues like marriage is acting and thinking like straights, an anathema to many gays. In fact, I have heard very few issues that spark such hateful rants as gay marriage within the gay community. Other gays, because of the way they live, do not even think about gay marriage. Large numbers of gay men live in three-way or "open" relationships. These men would find it impossible to get a marriage license for a three-way marriage and thus do not support gay marriage at all. Most gay men are not into monogmay at all, seeing their current sexual partner as a temporary one and thus have no stance on gay marriage.
It seems that a small click of gay men, backed up by power left-wing media, is promoting the gay marriage agenda, and many gay conservatives feel that the issue is badly damaging gay-straight relationships. Of course their voices are not being heard. I mean, when was the last time you heard a gay conservative (and boy are there alot of them now) speak against gay marriage in the mainstream media???

CHURCH AND STATE: Mr. Sullivan had this email quoted on his blog today, something I cannot ignore. It said "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference." Now obviously Mr. Sullivan believes in this stance as well otherwise he would have refuted it on his webpage or at least not highlighted it there. However, there are some fundamental problems with this sort of political stance.
First off, it denies religious people of fundamental rights of political organization. It is supremely undemocratic for the left (and obviously this is a Leftist) to say that people on the right (who are mainly Christians, at least here in Ameria) should have no political say. For Leftists to deny Christians the ability to organize and vote at a group level is surpising (well maybe it isn't, they hate anyone on the right so much anyways they seem quite insane now). Imagine if some right wing group tried to prevent blacks from organizing politically, or Jews. My god, the outcry would be heard around the world from tleftist groups and US "mainstream media".
As far as I know, no President, be him Catholic or not, has ever told a US President what to do. As if a sitting US President would ever listen. The Lefts preoccupation with (or lies about) a right wing theocracy being formed in America is a red herring. It's the only way they hold onto power on the left, to threaten a right-wing "takeover" or "coup" (oh how I have heard this language so often now). BTW, I notice that only the left uses the word "coup", no one of the right uses it with any regularity.
"And no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote". Oh yes, wouldn't Leftists love to have this sort of power over religious leaders in the United States? It is exactly what they did in the former Soviet Union by the way; politically gagged religious authorities. The Lefts' habitual flirting with totalitarian leanings is shocking and should be shown more pointedly by right wing bloggers. It is only the fact that stupid Christian churches exchange freedom from taxes for political muzzling that allows this travesty to continue. Christian people and Christian churches have every right and are responsible to God for being involved in the political process in the United States. Whenever men of good concious sit out of the political debate, tyranny surely follows.

Side Note: it's okay when Clinton, Gore, and other Dems go to black churches to "get out the vote" but its wrong for white churches to try and do the same, riiiiight. We call that hypocrisy in my church.

GAY CATHOLIC PRIESTS: I am outraged by the lies that Mr. Sullivan sometimes promotes on his website. Here is one from today: "My prediction: the pedophiles and their protectors will remain (in the catholic Church, by the new Pope Benedicts hand). The gay men will be scapegoated and purged."
As if none of the gay men in Catholic robes never raped a little boy. I myself am a gay man and I am more than sure that some gay men do molest children from time to time (the two men that molested me were homosexual btw). And if anyone in the straight community didn't know, there is a huge segment of the gay community that likes extremely young boys. For Mr. Sullivan to not address gays in the Catholic priesthood, and there sins, seems progandistic at best. I cannot imagine in my mind why any straight man would molest little boys. Little girls yes, but little boys? It just doesn't seem logical. I would like to see some hard facts on this issue, since there is many lies circulating about the supposed sexual preferences of religious straight men. (On a side note, I cannot believe that Mr. Sullivan actually says this, that straight religious men are more prone to sexual abuse of little boys than gay men are, what an unbelievable lie).

THE BBC: At it again. Now why does this surprise me (it shouldn't, really)? I am sure that US MSM has done the same thing over and over again and it would be interesting to see if other media could track down phony stories created and developed by the MSM. I mean, this tactic seems alot like something Michael Moore would do. So the BBC is now using Michael Moore practices, hmm......

GOOD RIDDANCE (or die wolf die!): See it here. See the problem with the Looney Left is this: they just do not promote humanity over nature. I have personal experience with the reintroduction of wolves because I lived in northern Idaho where it was done recently. People who actually live in the area protested the federal governments reintroduction of wolves because they are a danger to humans and people's pets and livestock. Of course their fears were not even addressed and wolves would repopulated into the area, and the wolves promptly began killing sheep and pets. And they spread of course, into Montana, where they caused serious problems for that regions sheep farmers. Now the US government wants to reintroduce grizzy bears (titanic 2,000 pound human killers) back into Idaho. Over my dead body.....

FINALLY, HILLARY: You know, I don't know why this woman bothers me so much (actually I do know; it was her 8 years in the White House and all the illegal crap her and her husband pulled) but one sentence she said several months ago still haunts me and I need to blog it. She said, "It’s impossible to be both a Christian and a Republican.” Is she kidding me?! How anyone could vote Democratic and be Christian is the real question! I mean, isn't it the Democrats that are the Party of Death? They promote abortion (which is murder of the unborn) and euthanasia (murder of the elderly, handicapped, dying, suicidal, etc). They also promote homosexuality on a national level. Jesus did neither of these things, nor would He ever promote such ideas. This woman is clearly nuts, and is the most dangerous Democrat to ever run for office. I also worry a great deal now about how far the left is from the mainstream, and how far the right is from ever working with the left. Both parties have purged their "moderates". It reminds me of the fall of Rome.

Side note: the only Christian group of any size that acyually votes Democratic is, surprise, the Catholics.



GAY AND CONSERVATIVE? See my buddy Dreadnoughts' blog. He's great, even though he is Catholic.

OTHER BLOGS: I don't really read other political blogs on a regular basis, so I do not know if they are covering the same thing as I do. Let's hope not, I like to be original. Warm regards, Damon