Hollywood's Night

Oscar

Not a Big Fan

I'm a big fan of movies, but not of present-day Hollywood. Since the present crop of stars are so shallow, in my opinion, I am not overly eager to watch their annual self-worship.

One thing I dislike is the hypocrisy. These guys, with their air-conditioned limousines, energy-guzzling mansions, gas-powered boats, private jets, and other toys for the rich deliver more CO2 into the atmosphere than a thousand coal plants, yet they are so sanctimonious about the environment.

Fact: A Gulfstream III private jet releases 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour.

See Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe - USATODAY.com:

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

They bash capitalism, which provides them their living. They are anti-business, while at the same time stuffing cash in their pockets from the companies paying for commercials they star in. They are anti-war, any war, just or not, though it's these wars that ensure them their freedom. Many of them are even anti-American, with a snobbism about the country that elevated them to fame and fortune.

It Wasn't Too Bad

The Oscars last night did not inflame me as much as they sometimes can. I am always aware of watching them with two personas. One persona is Rock the everyday guy, who likes to just relax and have a good time with them. The other persona is Rock the concerned citizen, who is focused on the usual harm that Hollywood does to our society. I was able to relax most of this Oscar presentation and not get overly concerned. One reason might be that I TIVO the thing now instead of listening to it raw. So, I skip over the endless Thank You's and most of the commercials. I admit that maybe I missed some inflammatory remarks.

All Praise Be to Gore Almighty

The segment that did bother me was the hero worship of the inconveniently truthy Al Gore.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

I know that some of my Republican friends are taken in by the global warming hysteria too, so I find myself quite alone sometimes in calling for calm and perspective on the subject. Nonetheless, every week now, more and more reputable scientists are saying that we don't yet know if global warming is a serious problem or not, and we certainly aren't sure that it is manmade. Yet, for leftists, the thing has taken on the air of a religion, much like liberalism in general.

Al Gore is God now. They might as well just open up the heavens and take him up. I'm convinced that if he ran for president this time, he'd have a real chance.

Most of the Time, They Shut Up and Sang

Anyway, Hollywood seemed to be somewhat muted on the political front this Oscars, thank goodness. Ellen DeGeneris only made one dumb liberal remark, the usual leftist slur that Al Gore really won the election, laugh laugh. Most of the time, though, she and the actors, actresses, singers and dancers shut up and sang. Of course, there were the usual liberal choices for awards, like Gore's flick and Melissa Etheridge's song for it, I Need to Wake Up. I do agree that she needs to wake up, as do all her liberal friends. If she wants to go green, then let her carpool to the next Oscars.

Good Day for Minorities

I'm happy that it was a good day for African Americans and other minorities, except for Eddie Murphy. Forest Whitaker won best actor for his charismatic performance as Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. Jennifer Hudson, a former American Idol contestant, scored the best supporting actress award for her debut performance in the musical Dreamgirls. Murphy was the favorite in the Best Supporting Actor category, but Alan Arkin got the nod. Some say it was because of Murphy's recent release of the low-brow Norbit that hurt his chances.

click to hide most of this post

It Was a Bit Boring, and I Know What Could Rev It Up

DeGeneres, I think, did a good job, but the show was a bit boring. They ought to ban people reading from lists. Thank goodness for TIVO.

I repeat, again, and again, just think what a patriotic Hollywood could accomplish for themselves, let alone for America. Their ratings would soar. They'd have the country cheering and tuning in, I believe, if they were gung ho behind the troops, praising the President, and showing respect for America. I'd watch that show without my TIVO.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: The Oscars, Hollywood, Hollywood Liberals, Ellen DeGeneres, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Melissa Etheridge, Forest Whitaker, Eddie Murphy, Jennifer Hudson, American Idol, Dreamgirls, Alan Arkin, Norbit

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Bush's Star and the American Future

Bush

And
merica

Bush and Bush's Progress on Some Important Issues of Our Time

There are many things going on at this time on the world news platform. Everything seems in flux. This post is a gut check on our future with Bush at this moment in time with regard to some of the important issues. It is personal and subjective. The connection with truth is just one person's view of things, and it will only be valid to the extent that other people's views are added.

Bush Overall

Bush appears to be on the upswing at this time. His poll numbers are lower than ever, yet there is something noble and presidential about him lately. He seems to be combining persistence with flexibility.




He is sticking with his positions on important issues, but is open to other ways of seeing things. I've listened to him speaking both on and off the cuff, and he is actually more eloquent than ever. He has taken the path of effectiveness. He concedes reality, that he is a lame duck president and that he might not be articulate at times; but he still wields power, and his communicating skills are improving with his self-acceptance. He certainly has a vision for the world, and he is starting to depict it with some skill.

I think this puts Bush in a good position. His poll numbers will rise.

Iraq

Bush is following through with his idea of a troop surge in Iraq despite opposition in America from most Democrats, some Republicans, and many voters. He is listening to the military commanders on the ground. One huge problem lately is American losses of helicopters, along with their personnel.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

I am reminded that this is exactly how Osama bin Laden, with American help and shoulder fired missiles, drove the Soviets from Afghanistan several years ago. The military, with Bush's blessing, is going to adjust to this new threat, however, unlike the Russians.

Democrats are the ones, I believe, in the untenable position on Iraq. Though the American people are disillusioned with Iraq and want the U.S. to get out, they are becoming aware of the bloody aftermath that will follow if the U.S. leaves. Moderate Democrats have gone on record with their votes and statements that they think the surge will fail. This puts them in the position of having to cheer for American failure in Iraq. They have always cheered for American failure in Iraq, in my opinion; but with these votes, this anti-American sentiment is exposed. Will Ted Kennedy, for example, ever say "Good job!" to Bush if the troop surge works? Never. Kennedy has committed to the failure of the surge, and will be looking for any signs that he has been right.

The Democrats have made the mistake of playing to the polls, instead of doing what is right. The American people will see through this.

If the surge doesn't work, then at least Bush will have tried. If it does work, then the world will be a better place; Democrats will be exposed as the demagogues they are; and Bush's stature will soar.

Nuclear Issues with Korea and Iran

Bush just had a major success with his "stubborn" policy with Korea. Thanks to the arm-twisting of the Chinese, Korea has agreed to stop developing nuclear weapons. This is a major diplomatic success for Bush. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, independent as ever, thinks the United States is being bamboozled, much like happened to Clinton, where the North Koreans sign an agreement and then ignore it. In my opinion, though, this time is different, since, thanks to Bush's wisdom, China is included in the enforcement of the agreement; and North Korea does not want to cross China. Here again, the Democrats will not give Bush credit for this historic achievement, but the American people will.

If Bush is lucky, he can turn around now and use much the same tactic with Iran. In this case, with Korea as the model, he can urge the European powers, and Russia, to do the arm-twisting with Iran. This is not so far-fetched as it once seemed now that the Korean situation seems to have been solved.

Putin has been sounding hysterically critical of the U.S. lately, but Bush is not taking the bait. He is not responding in kind to Russia. This is just more evidence that Bush has matured into quite a diplomat as of late. He is acting and sounding presidential on the world stage, and his steadfastness is bearing fruit.

Global Warming

Every day now there is another scientist speaking up that the world is in hysteria about global warming, and that there is no evidence that the warming is caused by mankind's behavior. Yet, the consensus is there that Al Gore is right about the issue. To me, we are in the middle of another Copernicus syndrome. It is as if 75% of the scientists and an even higher percentage of the people were saying the sun revolves around the earth and not vice versa.

All I can do is keep expressing the truth, along with the 25% of the scientists who know what they are talking about.

This is the truth:

The earth may be getting warmer, but not as dramatically as feared. Some ice is melting on the globe, but other ice is thickening. Sea levels may rise, but only inches, and not the twenty feet that Al Gore preaches. Climate change may occur, but this is largely unpredictable. Computer models are highly complex, and bear little resemblance to reality. Plus, the effect of CO2 levels on global warming is not proven. There have been times in earth's history when CO2 levels were higher than now, and the earth was colder at those times than it is now. According to the same scientists who believe in the global warming hysteria, following Kyoto and decreasing CO2 levels will have a negligible effect on global warming anyway.

Unfortunately, Bush is buying in to the hysteria, as most world leaders have. So, we are on the verge of spending billions of dollars on corrective measures that have no guarantee of success. As I've said before, I think we ought to go green, and develop alternative forms of renewable energy, but we ought not to get hysterical about it. The sky is not falling.

Bush is wrong on this one. Let's hope he doesn't become a lemming.

Social Security

The Democrats have successfully demagogued this issue, and it is dead. The left have frightened Americans and especially seniors that privatizing Social Security would mean fewer or less secure benefits, while the opposite is true. Bush never did a good job of explaining this issue to the American people, and it appears as if his time is running out on it.

Capitalism

The Social Security issue is emblematic of Bush's inability to preach capitalism to the people. This is why the socialist left is rising, with people like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy taking center stage. It would be very easy to use socialist countries as illustrations, for example, of the kind of bureaucratic nightmares that occur with socialized medicine. Bush, the first president in history with an M.B.A., is just not teaching capitalism effectively.

click to hide most of this post

The Future

I deliberately deferred some important issues to another time, like immigration.

That said, I sense that the future for Bush will be positive, with some setbacks along the way. Iraq will work out better than expected, although not ideal. Bush's Korean policy will succeed, and even Iran will come around. America will go green, hopefully not hysterically. Because of Bush's rising stature, at home and around the world, the U.S. will even take one last look at some of Bush's overlooked programs, like Social Security.

In short, I believe the worst is over for Bush, and for America. Bush's star is rising. I believe historians will agree that we have just now reached a positive tipping point. They will judge that Iraq was worth it. They will perceive that the world was made a better and safer place thanks to Bush, the American military, and a steadfast diplomacy that can only come after a demonstration of resolve.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Ted Kennedy, the Iraq War, Korea, Iran, nuclear weapons, troop surge, Social Security reform, Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, global warming, Al Gore, John Bolton

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Obamamania

Barack

Historic Election

This is going to be one of the most fascinating presidential races in U.S. history. For the first time in 80 years there is no one running who was a Vice President or President, and the field is wide open. It is open in this way, and in every other way. This race will be multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-gender, and multi-religious.







There is the first Hispanic running. The first Black with a real chance of winning. The first female with a real chance of winning. A Mormon. True liberals, and true conservatives, and those in-between.

All this in the middle of an unpopular war that will determine the fate of mankind, let alone of this country. The United States is on the brink of turning into a socialist country too, worried so much about global warming and other manufactured issues and myths that the far left has a real chance of taking over the country. It is even rumored that a sleeper candidate could announce at any time now, and instantly overtake the whole crowd, Mr. Al "Inconvenient Truth" Gore, father of all demagogues.

Obama and Other Great Speakers

I watched, as many of you did too, Barack Obama's declaration of candidacy in Springfield, Illinois, where Lincoln once announced his candidacy too. Though I am, as you know, a conservative on many issues, a libertarian on others, a liberal on some, and on a few issues a libertine; with the nomer neo-con being the closest philosophy to my heart—I was enthralled with Barack's speech and delivery. To me, it was electrifying, and it sent chills down my back. Finally, a politician who can deliver a great speech.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

I haven't seen this in my lifetime since John F. Kennedy. Yes, you're right, Bill Clinton could do it too, but Clinton was so much a demagogue in my eyes that the words did not chill my backbone, they chilled my heart. Other great speakers of the 20th and 21st century were Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler (a great spokesperson for evil), Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan. Barrack is not in their league, none of them. But he stands head and shoulders over the rest of the current pack. Compare him with Hillary and she comes off as shrill, marmish, with a pinched face, anger in her heart, and with a stick up her rear.

Articulosity

Plus, he is ARTICULATE. There, I've said it. The African-American community is all a twitter about Biden and now Bush calling Barack this nasty word. It demeans, they think, all African-Americans. That's how far political correctness has come, my friends. We can't even compliment Blacks now without being called racists. Well, I do understand the concern. After all, the implication is that this Black is articulate, which is surprising—after all, there are very few articulate African-Americans. Ouch.

So, let me clarify for all of you, and for my dear African-American friends. It is not surprising to me that we've discovered an articulate Black. There are many well-spoken African-Americans. When I say that Barack Obama is articulate, I don't mean to compare him with other Blacks. I mean to say that this guy is A R T I C U L A T E period. He is articulate compared to all races, to all White folks, to all humans. The guy can speak. He can communicate. He is bright, insightful, and his words flow easily and with passion.

I'm not surprised that we have found an articulate Black. I'm surprised that we've found an articulate politician. They are rare these days. You don't have to just think of the anti-articulate Bush. Just think of Hillary. Compared to her husband Bill, she's autistic. Like I say, Barack is not in the same league as Martin Luther King or John F. Kennedy, but he's a person that can mesmerize a crowd.

Othello versus Lady Macbeth

I also sense in him that he has a kind of goodness. He does have the fire in the belly that a presidential candidate needs, but I don't sense he has any lizard-like go-for-the-throat coldness that Hillary has, thank God. Hillary would slash the jugular of her child to become President. Barack would try to find another way. He truly believes, it appears, in his mission of goodness. Barack is Othello, misguided into liberalism, but with a good heart. Hillary is our Lady Macbeth, plotting for political power regardless of casualties like the truth.

click to hide most of this post

What to Do With Barack?

Talent Wasted on Liberalism

Alas, Barack is an idiot by default, by my definition. He's a liberal.

Left of Center But Less Of a Demagogue

I could love this man, almost. It's a crying shame he's on the wrong side. It's disastrous that he really is a bleeding heart liberal with a soak the rich, class warfare, socialist, anti-military, multi-cultural mushy mushy heart and head. He is all this, believe me. Just examine his voting record. He's a liberal to the bone. The enemy. Yet, my deepest antipathy for the left is reserved for demagogues, and I get the feeling that he is less of a demagogue than the rest of them. He truly believes in his liberal nonsense.

What do I do with him? He will be president one day, or vice president, or hold some other high office beyond Senator.

I don't know what to do with him. I rest assured, though, that he sounds like a reasonable idiot. He seems practical. He won't totally destroy the country, it appears, like Hillary would. So, my decision for now is to thank God that He has sent us an attractive liberal who could break down racial barriers and add a bit of honor and character to the dismal crowd of leftists inhabiting the Democratic Party.

Amen.

Advice for the Republican Party

As for the Republicans, the only way that you can beat a ticket with Obama on it, would be for you to nominate a Giuliani/McCain ticket, or, better yet, a Giuliani/Condoleeza Rice ticket. Or, make sure that if Hillary is the nominee, that you contrast this female crocodile with the sweet brilliance of her charismatic running mate. Ensure that the country sees Hillary for what is in her arctic heart. If the people look past Hillary and concentrate more on Obama, then you, conservatives, are in trouble.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Othello, Lady Macbeth, John McCain, Condoleeza Rice, Rudy Giuliani

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

The War in Iraq and Paris Hilton

Paris

Reinventing the Taliban?

I saw a wonderful film this week, Reinventing the Taliban?, which showed some of the rich cultural life in Pakistan and helped me jump to my obvious conclusion about one major reason why radical Muslims hate the United States.




See: Reinventing the Taliban?, a a Discovery Channel Production.

When Sharmeen Obaid returned to Karachi after attending college in the U.S., she was alarmed by what she saw: a fundamentalist political party on the rise and strictly interpreted Islamic laws that were gradually eliminating freedom of expression. This program follows Ms. Obaid in her travels throughout Pakistan as she exposes inequity and injustice, particularly in regard to women, while seeking to understand why and how the Taliban's ideology is being given new life in her home country. A diverse sampling of pro- and anti-Taliban voices is heard, and footage of rallies and protests is included.

Sharmeen Obaid:

is a journalist and a documentary filmmaker. She was born and raised in Pakistan and has received her higher education in the United States. Her documentary films have been aired on Discovery Times channel and PBS/Frontline World. Her first documentary, "Terror's Children," addresses the plight of Afghan children living in refugee camps in Pakistan. The film won the American Women in Radio and Television Gracie Award and the Overseas Press Club Award this year. Sharmeen's second documentary, "Re-inventing the Taliban," is about the rise of religious fundamentalism in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. That documentary just earned her the Banff Rockie Special Jury Award. Her most recent film is "On A Razor's Edge," which aired on PBS Frontline World on March 25th 2004. It is a documentary about the recent peace movement between India and Pakistan.

The Players

Pervez Musharraf

Ms. Obaid describes Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as progressive, and tolerant. Indeed, the clips she showed of him do confirm this. He is of Muhajir descent and considered to be the first Pakistani Muhajir to be able to get to the highest rank both in Pakistani government and military.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

The Taliban

Mostly Pashtuns, The Taliban are:

a Sunni strictly puritanical Islamist movement that ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, and are currently engaged in a protracted guerilla war against NATO forces within Afghanistan.

The word Taliban is the Pashto plural form of the Arabic طالب Tālib, "student". The group gets its name from the fact that its membership is drawn from the students of religious seminaries, or madrasahs, in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian militant Islamist and is widely believed to be one of the founders of the organization called al-Qaeda, responsible for terror, including the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. In conjunction with several other Islamic scholars, bin Laden issued a fatwa (Islamic religious edict), that Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic countries.

The MMA

The major fundamentalist Islamic Party in Pakistan is the MMA, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, an Islamic alliance between religious-political parties in Pakistan.

In the Pakistani parliament, the MMA is a coalition opposition, formed after Pakistan became a part of the "Global War on Terror". The coalition is united against the current government of President Pervez Musharraf because of his support for the United States' fight against what they consider to be global terrorism and allegedly putting the demands of the United States above the demands of his own people.

The MMA's

leaders are strongly opposed to the US-led anti-terrorism campaign in neighboring Afghanistan that ousted the Taliban from power. The group believed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had become a tool of US foreign policy. The MMA campaigned on promises to enforce Sharia law and in support of the withdrawal of US forces based in Pakistan in the campaign against international terrorism.

click to hide most of this section

From the Sacred to the Profane

Ms. Obaid's tour of Pakistan took us inside the people sympathizing with the fundamentalist MMA, with the Taliban, and with Osama bin Laden. It also took us, however, inside what she calls 90% of the country, the secular Islamists.

The Taliban Sympathizers

were male-dominated, with women wearing Burkas and staying off the streets.

The Secular Islamists

See Liberal movements within Islam:

Since the 19th century, Muslim progressives have produced a considerable body of liberal thoughts within Islam (in Arabic: "interpretation-based Islam"; or "progressive Islam" - but some consider progressive Islam and liberal Islam as two distinct movements. These have in common a religious outlook that depends mainly on ijtihad or re-interpretations of scriptures. Liberal Muslims interpret the Qur'an and Hadith from their personal perspective rather than the traditional Muslim point of view. Liberals generally claim that they are returning to the principles of the early Muslim community and to the ethical and pluralistic intent of their scripture.

You have at one end of the cultural spectrum the fundamentalist MMA, and at the other end, the secular Muslims who allow sexy Pakistani models at the Lahore fashion show, slightly more demure than in the U.S., but still with the same half-naked, sexualized performances. In fact, one group of actresses covered in the film was putting on The Vagina Monologues.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

The Vagina Monologues is an Obie Award-winning episodic play written by Eve Ensler, which premiered at the off-Broadway Westside Theatre in 1996. Ensler originally starred in the production, playing all the various women who share their views about their vaginas with the audience; when she left the play it was recast with three celebrity monologists. The production has been staged internationally, and a television version featuring Ensler was produced by cable TV channel HBO.

The play, risqué in any culture, is an invitation only event in Pakistan. Beautiful Pakistani actress Ayesha Alam, who is a member of the troupe that is staging the production in India, told BBC News Online about the problems of showing it in her own country.

It was very difficult to perform the Monologues in Pakistan. It even got discussed in the national assembly. Many thought that the play was promoting promiscuity, was against our culture and our religion.

Ms. Alam has received death threats, and six playhouses in Lahore have been shut down due to the performances. Ayesha is brave in the face of other threats too, like someone throwing acid on her face. She says the majority of Pakistanis want nothing to do with extremist Islam, and their "narrow view," although their "popularity is gaining." Ayesha says that though the MMA is a minority, they are more powerful than their numbers because of death threats.

click to hide most of this section

Fundamentalism versus Secularism in Pakistan

My overall impression of Pakistan is that it is a wonderful country with an exquisite cultural background. One of the most beautiful arts is the magnificent male dancing. This is emblematic of the problems, though. Only males show up for anything important, including the dancing. This occurs even with the secular Muslims. With the fundamentalist Muslims it's even worse—with their women unseen anywhere, and when they do peek out, you catch them covered head to toe, some even without eye slits. According to Ms. Obaid and Ms. Alum, the MMA represents a highly motivated minority of millions and millions who are gaining momentum.

Why are They Angry? Why Do They Hate Us?

What then, is all the fuss? Why are these people so enraged? What motivates them to support Osama bin Laden, al-Queda, and the Taliban; cheer when U.S. towers fall; travel to the United States with evil in mind, and to Iraq; and strap bombs to their children's chests?

Control over Women; Order in the Family

It's obvious. The fundamentalists want control over their women. They view females as their property, and as sexual creatures that must be imprisoned. Their women must be covered head to toe, and not allowed out. They must be watched, and guarded. They will be punished if they stray. The man can divorce her easily. They want her to have no property rights, no voting rights, no sexual rights, no rights at all.












Paris burning

The Abomination of the West

The West, to the fundamentalists, is a nightmare. Western values bring sexy models, women dressing provocatively, strippers, whores, and the Vagina Monologues. Their biggest fear is Paris Hilton, an unchained, unleashed, unclothed sexual machine, without any purpose except to enjoy the flesh and wallow in decadence. This is their nightmare daughter, or wife.

Their women emulating the sexy models or Paris Hilton would mean, to them, the emasculation of the men, the breakup of family and tradition, and the end of order in society.

Family Values

The fundamentalist Muslims are fighting for family values! Not our family values, to be sure, but theirs.

An average American guy might understand this for a moment if he considers his view of strippers and prostitutes. This average American Joe might think exotic dancers and "whores" are just fine, but he doesn't want his girlfriend or his wife doing it. A lot of American men are not even happy about their partners going to Chippendales, or to a bachelorette party that has male strippers. American men can feel quite possessive of their ladies.

Fundamentalist Muslims feel they've got a good thing going. They have a patriarchy with the backing of law, Sharia. They are in total control. If they catch their wife cheating, they are allowed to kill her.

The advance of the West means an end to this control for them. Secularization is their enemy. They are fighting against the idea of Paris Hilton. They hate the West because of what she represents.

Disclaimer

click to show/hide the rest of this section

I'm not blaming Paris Hilton for the War in Iraq. I blame the fundamentalists. I'm fine with Hilton, ditz and all. Yet I do understand where the fundamentalist urge comes from. Men have always had a hard time not thinking of their women as property, even in the West. After all, though I love looking at Paris Hilton, and enjoy her antics from afar, I wouldn't want her as my wife, would you? (Except in California, where there is community property!)

Hope

I was pleased to hear that in Pakistan 90% of the people are secular Muslims, and that they don't support extremism. This is a great relief, if this is true. On the other hand, even the secularists there have a ways to go, it seems, when it comes to true freedom.

click to hide most of this section

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post:
Paris Hilton, The Vagina Monologues, Burka, fundamentalist Islam, the Taliban, MMA, Pakistan, al-Queda, Osama bin Laden, Reinventing the Taliban?, secular Islam, Pervez Musharraf, Pashtun, Sunni, Fatwa, War on Terror, ijtihad, Qur'an, Hadith, Sharia

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Comment Post: Based on Republicans versus Democrats on Race Issues

Comment Post




This is what I'll call a Comment Post. It is not a true post, as it is more informal. It elevates a comment, or a comment exchange between a reader and myself, into a post. It can give prominence to an extended or astute comment. I'll be using these occasionally on Tuesday through Sunday's, as I post on Mondays now.

The following is a comment exchange between paz y amour and myself on Friday's post, Republicans versus Democrats on Race Issues.

The Comment Exchange

Paz, thank you so much for your comments. You said:

I wasn't arguing the historical merits of Democrat/Republican help to the causes of Black progression, I was saying that the perception of Republicans is not popular in the Black community as a whole and giving the historical elements that give rise to that sentiment. I'm not saying one is better than the other- in fact, they're more alike than ever before in history!

Interesting point. My goal, as you know, is to counter wrong perceptions. The perception that Republicans are anti-Black now is wrong. The idea that both parties are the same on this issue is wrong. I've stated my case in my comments in the post. I can't state it any better. I still think there is a qualitative difference between the pandering Democrats and the homage to Blacks given by Bush, in the form of real power.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

"Paz, every time a White Democrat goes into a Black church or speaks to a Black audience and agrees with the audience that there is widespread racism against Blacks...this is pandering and enabling"

How is this any different than a "conservative" politician speaking in front of a Evangelist Christian audience and saying that there are wide-spread anti-Christian activities, the government is anti-family values and gays shouldn't be able to get married. Isn't THAT what the audience would want to hear in order for them to support that lawmaker seeking election? Politicians of both sides pander to get support- that's what they do BEST. Isn't that how Bush and A LOT of Republicans got elected in 2000/2004- pandering to jaded religious conservatives? In fact I would argue that the folks in office who DON'T pander are vastly in the minority.

You have a point here. Bush does pander. When I've seen him do it I've cringed. Yet, he genuinely likes Blacks too, and he's proven it. Again, he's given them real power. As far as issues like anti-Christian activities, anti-family values, and gays not being able to be married, yes, these are wedge issues. The Republicans do use them when they are in trouble in elections. They did it in 2006 and it didn't work. The idea that all politicians pander might be true for most politicians, but we can always hope for a true leader. I don't see one at present.

I've noticed more Black republican strategists and spokespeople on CNN and Fox "news" over the past few years. Could giving Republicans more color on television be perceived as gratuitous pandering? Maybe.

How cynical, paz. This means that FOX can never win in your eyes. Whites can never win. If you ignore Blacks you are racist. If you include them you're racist. Give me a break. Again, this is the liberal tendency, whether you classify yourself as liberal or not, to place so much emphasis on motive. Forget motives. You can't read people's minds. Pay attention to their behaviors. If they include Blacks, be happy, no matter the motivation.

Pandering means doing or saying things just to gain favor, while abandoning core values. If you are anti-Black and you honor Blacks, who cares? If this is the way they "pander" then pray for more pandering! Destructive pandering is when a politician says to Blacks, "You haven't a chance to succeed in this racist society," gaining votes, but causing real psychological harm to his audience.

You cannot ever watch FOX news and find any concrete evidence of any anti-Black sentiment. In fact, they are very inclusive. To accuse them of pandering by having Blacks on the program is absurd, and an example of reaching to find discrimination. A real paranoia.

"Historically, the Republican Party was founded on an anti-slavery platform, as opposed to the slave-holding and pro-slavery Democrats."

And historically, Black people overwhelmingly supported Republicans- that is until the late 30's when most overwhelmingly shifted to the Democratic party, due in large part to the lack of REAL social change since Reconstruction and feelings of political abandonment. Democrats as a whole weren't opposed to civil rights as you claim- you're referring to the so-called racist Dixiecrats of the 50's who were "democrats" by name, but didn't embrace the ideals of their noble predecessors. They obviously had NO support from Black folks. And just a side note, the most vehement Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond became a (gasp) Republican in 1964-right in the heart of the civil rights movement. I'm sure that helped bring Black people back into the Republican folds.

I disagree with your facts and conclusions. See my post comments. You ignore many of the points I brought up. You label Democrats who were racists as "Dixiecrats." Yes, that's what they were called, but they were registered Democrats, and racists. Period. You can't just disown them from the party. While the Northern Republicans fought the Civil War to free the slaves, Blacks after the Civil War won seats in legislatures and statehouses, and these Blacks were removed, and the election laws were changed. By whom? By Democrats.

Hey, the Dems have Rob Byrd (among others), the Repubs have George Allen (among others)...

You compare Robert Byrd's leadership in the Ku Klux Klan with George Allen's faux pax? How insulting, and how absurd.

"Again, "trickle-down Reaganomics" did work, as evidenced in the Clinton years"

As your reliable Wikipedia says, Reagan's economic success is still being debated (just like global warming, no?). All I know is that when Black people talk of the 80's, not much positive is said about it. I can agree that Clinton may have benefited from Reagan's policies, but the perception is that Black prosperity was hindered in the 80's, not helped.

Again, wrong perceptions are what I am fighting.

By the way, if you haven't noticed, Wikepedia veers far left. It is not reliable in its politics; it is dead wrong. Every article has a leftist slant. So, I never trust its conclusions. However, it is pretty good on facts. So, when it concludes something like, "global warming is caused by human pollution," they are in the hysteria, cuckoo, twilight zone. But, when they say that the earth has been warming, a fact, I trust them.

"Katrina.... This was not a race thing, paz. This was an incompetence thing."

Grand ole Katrina. I didn't say that Bush's incompetence was racially based, I was saying the PERCEPTION is that it was and another "example" of Republicans not caring about the welfare of Black people. Regardless, it's hard for be to believe that if Beverly Hills had been flooded that it would have taken almost a week for help to arrive- hmmm....

Bush took the same time to respond in Mississippi. You don't hear about any Bush "racism" in Mississippi, though, because that state had a competent governor and local governments that did not have busses left unused. The equally incompetent Mayor and Governor of Louisiana pass unscathed with your criticism. Are they racist?

"Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Bush are three presidents who have made great contributions to Black advancement."

2 out of 3 aren't bad. It's hard to say what contribution Bush has had on Black advancement. Yes he has high ranking Black members of his cabinet- some of the smartest people in US government I might add, but don't you think it's a bit too early to tell how it will effect Blacks in the future?

Appointing Blacks to high office can't hurt. Plus, the perception that he is racist, if anyone believes this, is absurd.

I know how much you love the guy, but we'll be able to judge in say 20 years, but not now.

I don't love the guy. Sarge Charlie loves him, and I understand why he does. I am personally disappointed in him. He is too much a panderer for my taste, too much of a "good guy" in Iraq, and has given away our country with his immigration policies. I like him because of his War on Terror, and invading Iraq, and keeping taxes low. Otherwise, he is a leftist or a panderer, and an ineffective communicator.

click to hide most of this post

"Republicans have the best record, on everything from civil rights to economics, that can lift the Blacks into the middle class."

Another debatable point. It seems that each "good" leader with regard to race has made good decisions based on their predecessors- FDR-Truman-Eisenhower-JFK-LBJ etc. Are Republicans really the "best" or is it your bias? I can readily admit that growing up in a house that voted for Democrats has caused me to look less favorably at Repubs, BUT I will vote for anyone if I like their politics better than the next person- thus bucking the "perception" of republicans. I don't believe either of them have Black interests at heart, regardless of what they say.

Respectfully, I believe Republicans are sincere in their caring for Blacks, while Democrats are using them to gain votes. Again, you put Whites, and Republicans, in no-win situations. If they ignore Blacks or do them harm, they are racists. If they do good things for Blacks, they are still racists, because of what is in their hearts, according to you. They can't win, and that's not fair, paz.

Rock

Announcement: Truth on Monday Mornings

To My Dear Readers

New Policy: A Post Each Monday Morning

I assume there will be several changes in this blog over its life. This will be one of them.

I've been considering this a long time and have finally decided to do it. I am transforming this blog from a daily to a weekly post. I will from now on post once a week, on Monday mornings. This will be in effect, I assume, until I can go professional as a blogger or journalist, or in some other way have more time.

I'll reserve the right to post a comment or two as an informal post during the week, or an observation, or a new cartoon, and so on. I'll also elevate extended or astute comments into informal posts during the week. Plus, I'll update my header daily, with a pithy comment. Otherwise, I'll wait for Monday mornings.

My reasons for doing this are: I will be able to research a whole week if I need it for any one article. I will have time to visit other blogs and leave comments. Plus, this format will give my readers a whole week to comment on any particular post, if they want. This is good for me, as I invest my heart into each article, and one week's consideration of each post seems appropriate.

As I love researching, writing, and posting, I will miss the daily post, and I will return to it, or its equivalent, whenever I can.

Unchained Memories

I was watching this morning Unchained Memories: Readings from the Slave Narratives, and it was deeply moving. Yes, I am appalled at slavery and what it wrought on our dear brothers and sisters. I am also appalled, though, at the thought of man's inhumanity to man. It's just hard to believe, sometimes, how cruel we can be.

We've seen this kind of brutality in the behaviors of tyrants, in good folks turning bad in hard times or war, and in minor ways through such things as cuttroat business practices.

God sure set us up for many tests while we live on this earth.

Next post is on Monday morning.

God bless.

Rock

Republicans versus Democrats on Race Issues

Bigotry

An African-American Viewpoint on the Republican Party versus a Compassionate Conservative White's Response

Once again, I am indebted to paz y amour, from the wonderful blog the path, for an extensive comment that shows deep consideration on his part. It is a well-thought-out treatise on how Blacks feel about the Republican Party, a response to yesterday's post, Shoulda Been Biden His Time, about Senator Joe Biden's unfortunate and unintentionally racist but revealing remarks about Senator Barack Obama.

Since paz so well communicates one point of view, I am again elevating a paz comment to a post. This time, though, I am including my comments as part of the post, since I am so passionately opposed to paz' view on this. Where does the truth lie? I believe it lies with my viewpoint. Paz believes it lies with his.

Please be advised, while paz' arguments are well presented, he was unaware that I would be posting them. I have his permission from the past to use his comments, when warranted, as posts. Still, he did not have the time in his comments to research, and he therefore is at somewhat of a disadvantage to me. So, this duel is unfair. With time and preparation, paz could have offered further points to advance his thesis, and counter mine. Therefore, don't look upon it as who won or lost the debate. Rather, view it as an expression of two opposing points of view, and learn from both sides.

After all, we're dealing not just with facts, but also with feelings, perceptions, and apperceptions.

Paz on How African-Americans Feel About the Republican Party

Rock's Counter Arguments

The Oops Comment

Ah, the power of the "oops" comment. Apparently your president isn't the only one who says stupid things. I agree that comments like this are unspoken thoughts that slip out from time to time and speak volumes about how some rich White (undercover)racist politicians feel about minorities-





Forgive me paz, but Bush is not just "my" president, he is also "your" president.

It's good, though, that we agree on the nature of Senator Biden's comment.

Ignorance or Racism?

and I loved your line about them being "marveled when they just show up". So true, at least that is how it comes out. As usual, I have to disagree though with your view that it's a demogoguing Democrat issue when in fact it's evidence of individual ignorance- NOT widespread racism on the part of the democrats.

Paz, every time a White Democrat goes into a Black church or speaks to a Black audience and agrees with the audience that there is widespread racism against Blacks, or accepts the plea for a bigger welfare state, or trumpets the view that cops are prejudiced against Blacks, this is pandering and enabling. I realize that Bush has the same tendency, but Democrats on the whole use this strategy as a mainstay.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Republicans versus Democrats on Pandering

I would argue that Republicans are just as likely as Democrats to have a pandering racist attitude- however your disdain for Dems will surely bias you from seeing that.

My disdain for Dems is based on example after example. Yes, there are Republicans who do this too, but fewer by far.

The True History and Present Reality

Black people have traditionally been distrustful of politicians, regardless of party. You feel that Dems "demagogue" Black people but the point you're missing is that the Republican party offers (and has historically offered) little or no rational alternative. All the recent scandals that have plagued Republicans haven't helped!

Historically, the Republican Party was founded on an anti-slavery platform, as opposed to the slave-holding and pro-slavery Democrats. The rational alternatives now that Republicans offer are: a rising middle class thanks to Bush's tax cuts; the highest level of Black home ownership in history; African-American cabinet members, government appointees, a Supreme Court Justice, and a drive for African-American party membership and power. These are not just talk, but real action.

As far as the scandals go, I concede your point on this issue.

Black Advancement: Greater under Republicans or Democrats?

Consider that over the last century, the U.S. presidents who presided over periods of great strides in Black history were ALL Democrats. FDR- when Blacks were allowed into the military as equals for the first time, LBJ when Blacks gained LEGAL social/political equality, and Clinton when Blacks FINALLY gained economic equality. Black folks LOVE Bill Clinton because so many moved into the middle class bracket during those 8 years. Whatever their motivation for bringing about social change for African Americans, Democrats as a party have been perceived as having a HUGE positive impact on the lives of Black people in this country. The same can't be said for their Republican counterparts- not in the least.

How about the U.S. president who made the greatest stride of all for Blacks, Abraham Lincoln? Blacks love Clinton for their moving into the middle class, when in reality it was Reagan lowering taxes that was responsible for the Clinton prosperity. Yes, Clinton didn't muck it up, like so many Democrats have, so I give him credit for this, but it was Reagan that led to the rise. Under Bush, there are more African-American homeowners than at any time in history, with the biggest African-American middle class in history.

Eisenhower

Think about the Eisenhower days when Black soldiers went to
Korea thinking it would help with social change only to return as second-class citizens under segregation and Jim Crow.

Soldiers sent by Eisenhower to protect Black students in Little Rock, Arkansas, 1957

Au contraire. The worst of the bigotry and segregation at that time occurred in the South, under universal Democratic Party rule. Eisenhower inherited FDR and Truman's policies on the armed forces, and also the Black soldiers' treatment when they returned from war. Much of the Korean War was under Truman. Eisenhower was not happy with the treatment of Blacks. He took action. Eisenhower was the first modern president to pass and enforce civil rights legislation.Under this Republican president, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, on May 17, 1954. The decision declared all laws establishing segregated schools to be unconstitutional, and it called for the desegregation of all schools in the nation. Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to enforce the Supreme Courts' historic decision. Opposing Eisenhower was Orval Eugene Faubus (7 January 1910–14 December 1994), a six-term Democratic Governor of Arkansas, infamous for his 1957 stand against integration of Little Rock, Arkansas, schools in defiance of U.S. Supreme Court rulings

Eisenhower also took steps to end segregation in federal jurisdiction, and hired African-Americans to work at the White House. Growing awareness of racial injustice in the South prompted the Eisenhower administration to draft legislation leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil rights legislation enacted in the United States since Reconstruction. The new law was a building block for the sweeping Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. LBJ was the beneficiary of Eisenhower's groundbreaking work.

Reagan

Think about the Reagan days when "trickle-down Reaganomics" basically kept Blacks OUT of the Middle Class.

Again, "trickle-down Reaganomics" did work, as evidenced in the Clinton years, when Clinton, unlike past Democrats, did not dismantle the Reagan Revolution, and in fact was distinctly conservative on economics, much like Republicans. Clinton, you remember, enacted welfare reform, a Republican idea.

Katrina

Think about a year and a half ago when GWB simply flew over flooded New Orleans and returned to his ranch without doing a thing- while thousands were stranded.

This was not a race thing, paz. This was an incompetence thing. You can't keep pummeling Bush that he is incompetent on a whole host of issues and then suddenly say that he could have been competent on New Orleans but chose not to be because of race.

Republican versus Democratic Track Record with Blacks

In other words, Republican leaders (besides Lincoln of course) have a bad track record as far a Black people are concerned and it's gonna take A LOT to change the negative view. In other words, Dems are the lesser of two evils- and isn't that how we usually vote anyway?

Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Bush are three presidents who have made great contributions to Black advancement. Lincoln freed the slaves and was loved by Blacks. Eisenhower sent in troops to enforce civil rights, and appointed Blacks, for the first time, to positions in government. Bush has appointed more Blacks to positions of high power than any other president, bar none. You have proven my point. You seem blind to these contributions. Why? Because you've heard so often that Republicans are against Blacks. It simply isn't true. It may have been true at one time, just as with Democrats. Dems still have an ex Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops as a Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd.

click to hide most of this post

Trickery, Demagoguery, or Loyalty?

So my dear Rock, you view Black support of the Democrats as a result of severe trickery, when in fact, it's the result of severe loyalty. Though you think the Dems are insulting in their "pandering" of Black people, there is nothing more insulting than the lack of political support Blacks have gotten from Republicans over the years. Will it change? Maybe. But for now, you'll have to continue to wonder why Blacks are "blind" in their support, when in fact, we are not so blind. History is a bit hard to forget....

Paz, you obviously are sincere. I believe, though, that not only does the Republican Party hold the key to the Black middle class for the future, but that history does show a great devotion to civil rights from the Republicans. Yes, it took a long time to develop, but those growing pains are over. In truth, the most virulent bigots in our history have been Democrats, with their pro-slavery stance at the beginning, their support of the Ku Klux Klan after that, their bigotry in the South in the fifties (which Eisenhower fought), and their soft bigotry and pandering now.

My Conclusion

If Blacks want to continue looking to the past, fine—Republicans have the best record, on everything from civil rights to economics, that can lift the Blacks into the middle class. As for the present, just look at the pictures of Bush's previous and present cabinet, and power brokers. Peruse the photos of the Supreme Court. This is unacknowledged groundbreaking advancement on all fronts, under a Republican, again.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post:
racism, Ku Klux Klan, Democrat, Republican, Little Rock, Eisenhower, LBJ, FDR, George W. Bush, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Abraham Lincoln, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Ronald Reagan, Reaganomics, The Reagan Revolution, Korean War, Civil Rights Movement

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth