Category: Uncategorized

Russia is the Answer to Syrian Conflict

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-pushes-big-syria-meeting-not-sanctions-094625628.html  The Russian proposal for a international meeting of nations in order to address the continuing internal conflict in Syria is filled with hope.  This writer believes that the Russian along with the Chinese are better able to solve the crisis and stop the bloodshed.  As we move through the cited article we will look at it practically, you know, from a world politics 101 type of approach.  We will also parse what the writer is saying concerning the subject and how revealing that viewpoint might be.  Lastly, we will view the events under the idea that the nations closest to Syria have more at stake and are better able to address the Syrian situation than are countries many thousands of miles distant.

 

Gingrich Expected Fox to favor Him.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newt-gingrich-cnn-less-biased-fox-news-141511492.html In this article Speaker Gingrich plays loose with facts in favor of “…Callista and I…” Spouses are always very protective and defensive of their partner. I can imagine how difficult it is for the spouses, who are not running for office, to see their partner trashed in the news. However, this writer has exactly the opposite evaluation of Fox. I have wondered why Fox is against Romney and consistently, in my view, worked to give everyone other than Romney an opportunity to destroy Romney. Strange and filled with wonder, how two or more people can look at facts and come to completely different conclusions.

Ann Romney Does Support Her Family

http://news.yahoo.com/ann-romney-fights-back-debuts-twitter-counter-dnc-024814954–abc-news-politics.html The last comment from this Democrat spokesman is that Following the interview, “Rosen herself tweeted, “I’ve nothing against @AnnRomney. I just don’t want Mitt using her as an expert on women struggling $ to support their family. She isn’t.” A true stay at home mother most certainly does support her family in terms of money. The value of her work makes it possible for the spouse to work. This comment is typical of the Democrats who have no experience with reality. Many families cannot afford nannies, or private daycare for their infants and children. The spouse who stays at home, who is often female, contributes the equivalent in dollars and much more in value. Her contribution is dismissed by the likes of Rosen who is snotty about stay at home moms and their monetary value to the family.

Republican Anti Romneyism is Pathological not Ideological

“Yeah, I understand it. Everyone in the Republican establishment wants Romney and they’d like everyone else to go home,” Gingrich told ABC News’ Jon Karl in an interview Tuesday. “They’d like to have a coronation, but that’s not how this is done.”

There is weird thinking in the USA conservative movement that Governor Mitt Romney is not a true Conservative.  This kind of thinking betrays a pathological bias more than an ideological divide between Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich.

The best way I can describe it is to make analogy with the Christian Church. Firstly, let me say clearly that this analogy is not anger toward  or indiscreet criticism of the Christian Church.  I love the Christian Church, warts and all.  However, the analogy of Christian and indeed, Jewish and Moslem denominationalism fits the current Republican scene.

Christians, including Mormon Christians, proclaim that Jesus is the Christ.  They adhere to the creedal formulations of the Church and they distinguish themselves from other faith religions.  However, within Christianity, there are various labels for various Christian Churches.  The two big ones are Roman Catholic and Orthodox.  Then there are the many so-called Protestant  groups, like Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Baptist.

All of these groups aka. “denominations”, profess Jesus as the Christ, that God is Trinity in character, and that a person is granted eternal life through a relationship with God through Christ in faith.  That applies to 100% of the groups mentioned as being Christian.  So what’s the difference?  Why are there denominations?  An adequate answer to both questions would require a treatise.  However, a simplification would be to say that all the denominations are a result of social/economic/political and cultural differences between various people at the time of the inception of each denominational group.   Not much help in understanding the core basis of denominationalism, is it?  That’s because there is no simple answer, denominationalism is a phenomenon.

Today, the battle within the Republican party is between the so-called Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals.  They are all part of the established Republican party which party is the only Republican party there is and the only one entitled to be listed on the ballot in fifty States as Republican!  Like all the groups within Christianity are Christians, so all the groups within the Republican party are Republican.  The names they call themselves, their denominators, are self-imposed qualifiers.  Over time, these qualifiers have become nuanced so that a Conservative in 2012 is not the same as a Conservative of 1912.

It is this writer’s opinion that in other elections the nuances between the groups and even within the groups were allowed to blend.  This blending producted hybrids known as Moderate Liberals and Moderate Conservatives.  The adjective “moderate” allowed Republicans the flexibility to pull the right and the left toward the center of the Republican spectrum.  However, the advent of Talk Show radio has introduced an element of rigidity into the party which denies that such moderation is allowed.  Rather, Talk Show hosts insist upon a definition of Conservative which precludes the hybrid, Moderate-Conservative designator.  And in the present context, Governor Mitt Romney is seen to be a hybrid and not purely Conservative.

From my seat along the sidelines of politics, it seems that Liberals and Moderates are still willing to allow flexible definitions of a person’s political philosophy.  So, they allow that a person can be strictly Conservative in economic politics while being moderately Conservative in social politics and maybe, conservatively liberal regarding international politics.  It is possible, there may be many so-called “pure” Conservatives who also will allow flexibility regarding Governor Romney because they feel that he has the best chance of winning against President Obama.  Sadly, it is becoming evident that Talk Show hosts like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, (to name the best, biggest and most influential) are fundamentally opposed to any graduated designator.

In the title to this article I use the concept that this refusal to allow moderation of so-called “pure” Conservatism is pathological rather than ideological.  I believe that an ideological difference can become nuanced when influenced by reasoned conversation.  However, both Santorum and Gingrich and their promoters say that they are essentially anti Romney.  Since they denominate themselves as the true Conservative in distinction to Romney’s Moderate Conservatism, then, I believe, their opposition to him is unreasoned, ingrained, emotional and I suggest, pathological.

Advertisers Fail Their True Buyers Except Quicken Loans

Some companies indicate they’ll be sticking with Rush, though. “While we do not condone or agree with Limbaugh’s statements regarding Sandra Fluke, we respect his right to express his views, as well as those who disagree with him,” Quicken Loans spokeswoman Paula Silver said in an emailed statement. “As an advertiser, our goal is to reach a broad audience, which we accomplish by placing ads on a number of programs across the country representing diverse views.”

Congratulations to a true freedom loving, constitution respecting, American company and to spokes person Paula Silver for clearly stating what should be obvious to all namely “….we respect his right to express his views as well as those who disagree with him…As an Advertiser (see above)..”

Who are the callers to sleep Eze and the other advertisers who stopped advertisements or affiliation with the hugely popular Rush Limbaugh show.  I very much doubt they are regular listeners to his three-hour program.  I suggest instead that these are what are known today as “political drones” who are paid to complain or if not actually paid, they are people who sit before their computer screen eight or more hours a day in order to attack their political, social, or religious opponents.”

The existence of these kind of chronic E mail hacks, is known by just about everybody, except those advertisers who do not have the native intelligence nor the Internet savvy to understand that the so-called “firestorm” of protest about the Limbaugh comments was generated by people who never listen to his program and therefore would not buy their products anyway.  The mere fact that the news reports indicate that all Limbaugh advertisers received the same deluge of E mail complaints and telephone protests tells us that this was merely a coordinated sociopolitical motivated attempt at intimidation.  That even the Speaker of the House of Representative Mr. Boehner was subjected to this obviously organized barrage and that he responded to it tells this writer that the so-called outrage is phony.  Also the idea that President Barrack Hussein Obama called her to thank her for standing up for women’s rights is a clear indication that this supposed spontaneous public outcry is a sham.

Why do I care?  Actually, I do not know this woman.  I do not care what she does with her life.  I do not care if this makes her famous, like Joe the Plumber or not.  However, I do care that major USA corporations are so ill-informed concerning the American principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and yes, freedom to have sex or not to have sex, that they easily fall victim and become accomplices to those who would change our social/religious/political values by Internet intimidation.  That is worrisome.

Komen and Planned Parenthood- the case for fairness

This article indicates a very serious crisis in American Journalism.  The writer is allowed to use an anonymous source to contradict the open statements of an identified and verifiable source.  The person featured in this article is known, her credentials are known, her position in the organization is known, and if there were audio or print copies of board conversations, her exact words would be known.  Yet, the writer is allowed to contradict the featured person at every turn by citing a supposed anonymous source.  This source falls under the so-called “protected source, or whistle-blower” concept.  But the use of this so-called source is very open to gross abuse by the reporter.  We have absolutely no information about the so-called source. We don’t know if the source is the VP of human resources, the Exe. Director of funding or the window washer or the Mail room clerk, or even the figment of the reporters imagination.  So, let’s be fair here.  If I were a juror and this were a court case, I would find in favor of the defendant against the so-called “insider source.” Why? Because the law allows the accused to face their accuser.  Without this face to face confrontation, anybody could accuse anyone of anything and actually get away with it if the press agreed with the secret accuser against the public defendant.  Also, as a juror, I would be thinking of my own freedom and rights as I found in favor of the public defendant against the cowardly contra-witness.  The public officials named in this article are accountable but we are supposed to hold a voice from the dark to have credibility because , “…they feared reprisal.”  Well, such  non accountability is something this writer strongly condemns as dangerous to his own freedom.  And I believe it is dangerous to yours as well.

Hopkins an Individual inside of Society

http://news.yahoo.com/47-hopkins-knows-end-finally-near-050257090–boxing.html  Today seems to be the day for great stories of individuals who stand out for their individuality while remaining inside society.  All the stories featured today involve persons who are variously thrown out of the “normal” society and yet, they barge back into that society and thereby make the society that rejected them, bigger.  Wonderful reading.