Update and New Post: Who Wins?

I have been away for a while doing research for several projects. Some of my new posts will reflect that research. For example, I have been researching Muslim expansion into the West since the death of Mohammed. I have also been examining and tracking political statements made before the election and actually tried to work for different candidates. I made phone calls on behalf of certain candidates and actually did some canvassing in my local area. I have also done a fair amount of reading about Islam and it's growth. Every time politicians would mention Islam or Muslims, I was being told that Islam is a tolerant religion that has been hijacked by a "few" radicals. Our current president is a proponent of this view. In addition: Most Muslims want to peacefully coexist with the West which supposedly includes Jews and Israel. If only Israel were more tolerant, there would be peace. Israel is expansionist and anti-Arab. Arabs are peaceful and want the same things we (American and the West) do except a few radicals have garnered the spotlight because radical is chic and moderation is a dirty word as far as the media is concerned. In other word, I was being fed a carefully constructed view of Islam and Muslims that completely ignores the history of the spread of Islam. Islamic propagandists have carefully and successfully created a view adopted by the West that is contradictory to historical facts. We are being lied to and believe the lie. Or have we?

In 1967, Andre Malraux, the French Information (1958) then Cultural Affairs Minister (1959 - 1969) wrote an interesting book in regards to art movements called "Museum Without Walls." (This isn't his most famous book which is probably "Man's Fate" -- originally published in the 1920's as "le Condition Humaine" an overtly communist/socialist work.) In it, he traced stylistic movements and not surprisingly, his rendition of history is somewhat different than the scholarly versions taught in schools and is evidenced in art history books. Some of it is accurate but, most importantly, the method brings up questions about structures. In this case, the structure of art history. Basically, Malraux posits that art historians are predisposed to track events following certain lines created by the historian by using a backward look and using facts that support the historical direction posited by the historian. In other words, art history is a self-serving/supporting system defined by relationships that may or may not be actually factual. In the musical world, this would be akin to stating that Beethoven was influenced by Mozart, with whom he briefly studied, and Mozart was influenced by Bach, who's style he copied in his "Requiem" and Bach was influenced by Buxtehuda and maybe his father. But, in fact, no such line really exists. Beethoven did not "follow" Mozart in the sense of a logical progression except as prominent composers. Paul Henry Lang wrote a historical survey called "Music In Western Civilization" which attempted to trace the extra musical elements at the root of musical stylistic changes. It's an interesting read. But Malraux had the idea that strictly artistic forces were not enough to alter artistic styles. Even with the publication of Ortega y Gasset's essay: "The Dehumanization of Art," Malraux still thought that social and extra-art forces had more of an effect on style than anything else. His view is that our accepted view of art history is simply that: An accepted view. In reality, art movements flowed completely differently than the "historical" view presented. The accepted history was based on a historian's perspective and "schools" were not defined by artists but by historians.

How does this fit into the current situation in the world vis-a-vis Islam or Christianity? The West is identified as Christian. Here is a fact: Every conflict ongoing currently worldwide can be traced to Islam. There are conflicts in Africa, Asia, Europe and even South America (Islam is embryonic in SA and there are other forces at work on the continent which are more pressing. But Islam is established there and Islamic militant influences are just starting to flex muscles.) In essence, the statement can be made that most military conflicts being waged today are the direct result of Islam. The tolerance we are being told about with every politician's speech is a lie. The truth is that Islam is motivated and moved by it's own impetus. Everyone else and every other system is an obstacle to Islam's internal motivations. Islam is at war with everyone who is not a believer. Islamic tolerance can be summed up as: We will tolerate your ability and potential to recognize Islam as the one true religion with Mohammed as it's main prophet even though you don't currently do so. What they are saying is that we don't recognize your right to be different but we do recognize your potential to accept our way. Why don't politicians see or acknowledge that? Is it even factual?

Right now, the biggest obstacle to Muslim expansion is the West and there is every possibility that we could change. We could disregard the constitution and adopt sharia law because a democracy and even a republic could elect people who view any other system as equally valid as our own. As soon as that intellectual wall is breeched, the next argument is why not enact the alternative instead of our constitution? It's already happening in England where courts have decided that sharia law can be used in cases where appropriate. The ultimate solution is that everything other than sharia law eventually falls away as unusable because it isn't based on perceived Islamic truth. We are promoting diversity and fighting a cultural influence based on lack of diversity. In fact, Muslims have been waring against each other long before the West became Islam's main obstacle. There is every indication that this will continue even if Islam becomes the only religion of the world. The followers of Mohammed's line will continually fight the followers of Ali's line.

Can we survive this onslaught? In the end, who wins? Historically, the society which has yielded to outside pressure to be inclusive of belief and legal systems not part of its core, eventually disintegrates as a major force in human events. The more we become inclusive and tolerant of intolerance, the less chance we have of maintaining a system founded on laws and the principles of humanism that was and is the basis of our country.

We are in a conflict that includes both physical and intellectual battlefields and as long as we try to see every side, will end up with no side. When we have no historical background or a distorted one, as Malraux states, we don't have the foundation to move forward in any kind of cohesive manner. In the end, who wins? The answer is pretty obvious.

Frank Benjamin

The Unconstitutional subtext of the movie Dodge City.

I grew up watching Errol Flynn movies. I first fell in love with "The Sea Hawk" made a favorite out of "Captain Blood" and enjoyed his many oaters. One of these is the wonderful movie "Dodge City" starring Flynn, Olivia De Havilland, Alan Hale (Father of a famous "Skipper.") and a list of extras each with a long line of credits of their own. In other words, a sterling cast and a great director: Michael Curtiz. But the plot is so full of subtexts that it barely rises above political indoctrination. And maybe it doesn't even do that. The movie is an exercise in perceived good over perceived bad.

The following ideology is presented as good:

1. Suspension of civil rights.

2. Ignoring the Constitution and constitutional rights.

3. Ignoring due process. Unlawful detention. No legal representation.

4. Rampant killing to preserve totalitarian rule.

5. Taxation without vote, representation or objection.

6. Land redistribution.

7. Murder justified by situation.

8. Government control.

This list is presented as bad:

1. Independent thinking and action.

2. Ownership.

3. Gun rights.

4. No taxation.

5. Desiring a lawyer and hearing before incarceration.

There are more but these are lumped as traits exhibited by a group of characters who are portrayed as really unpleasant people who are barely better than thugs. Even poor Ward Bond is cast as a low-watt thug who finally sells out everyone around him. At least he played the part well. Along with the listed "bad" actions are greed, murder, manipulation, drinking and gambling along with gun ownership and possession. So we have totalitarian government rule better than murder which the government does to gain power. When government does it, it's good. When ordinary people do it, it's bad.

You know, I used to think that movies were independent from government influence. Now, one must remember that this movie was made during the reign of FDR. Much of Hollywood received government money in one way or another. The FDR propaganda machine worked its way through many movies from Shirley Temple to Busby Berkeley along with a host of films even staring such luminaries as Ronald Reagan. The ideals and ideas of progressive socialism or at least the American version of the same fill movie scripts without restriction. But when one actually looks at the films with the idea that these are screenplays based on propaganda, one gets a completely different idea about the films. Basically, many films are nothing more than well-acted vehicles for Democrat propaganda. It's sad to say but even such a classic as "It's a Wonderful Life" is full of anti-American sentiment and full of collective thinking.

I have to admit that growing up, I had little or no political awareness on this level. Errol Flynn was simply a he-man kind of hero. He stood up for the downtrodden, abused and oppressed as far as I was concerned. "Captain Blood" was about abusive rule of monarchs and the limits that drive men to rebellion. Maybe there's another message that I missed in the film. With all film, reality is quite a distance from fantasy and film is fantasy. As it turns out, film (movies) is also propaganda. And this is propaganda of the most insidious sort. Sometimes political messages are obvious such as in war films made during WWII and after. Sometimes they are so direct as to be almost foolish like many of the anti-communist films made during the 1950s. But often, these messages are hidden behind seemingly innocent stories. One wonders if the book and cinema versions of "The Grapes of Wrath" are as close as one would expect. A close scrutiny of the screenplay would have to be made to ascertain where the movie inserted propaganda, if any.

So I will have to review films made under FDR to see how many "political" messages I have missed though youthful ignorance. Until then, take a look at "Dodge City." Whether or not it is propaganda, which I think it is, it's still a good view.

FB

Expecting Exceptional Expectations

I have been divorced. After the second divorce, I figured out that I was the problem and made some adjustments. But during both break ups, my wife and I had to go to relationship counseling to see if the contract could be saved. One of the things that came up was something called "managing expectations." When I first heard it, it didn't make sense. How could I manage what someone else expected from me if I didn't even know what that was? But people develop expectations in more than one way. They have an internal view of what they want out of their efforts and energy and they develop expectations based on what they are told by other people.

Nobody can successfully manage anyone's internal desires, goals and expectations. It just can't be done unless that person tells you what they are and what they want and what they expect based on a situation. Even then, it can be a difficult thing because sometimes people have unreasonable expectations. However, if you tell someone something, it is very important to make sure that what you say comes to fruition or you better have excuses and reasons and a work history that shows that the reason what you said didn't come to pass is due to situations outside your control so you have to settle for a partial victory and readjust your goals.

If people were completely truthful, this would be great. But people lie. If situations start going South, people make all kinds of excuses to cover their own missteps and this brings me the the topic of this post: Managing Expectations.

We are used to politicians making extravagant claims and promises they have no possibility of achieving. This is especially true with presidential candidates. If one were to look at what presidents have claimed they would do and what actually happened, the shock might be horrific. When I went to school, I was told how FDR saved our country from the ravages of President Hoover. We were inundated almost daily with how FDR saved us from the horrible, inhuman/inhumane, anti-poor, rich-groveling, enemy of the people and friend of the greedy: Herbert Hoover. (Lest you think I'm a Hoover apologist, you would be wrong. When the veterans known as the Bonus Marchers descended on Washington D.C. peacefully demanding promised bonuses for service, Hoover sent three stalwart military officers to root them out and destroy the veteran built "tent" cities. These officers were Pershing, MacArthur and Eisenhower. MacArthur and Eisernhower were not yet generals but they followed orders and routed and burned out the encamped veterans some of whom had families with them.)

But how wrong my teachers turned out to be. Oh, FDR substituted pump-priming for trickle down but it turns out that trickle down works where pump-priming doesn't. He nationalized industries in a way, promoted unionization and worked to get us into war. Why war? Because the problem with unlimited government spending is that no structure is built that can be used to repay the debt. Even war has limitations in that regard. At some point, the economy must start creating things that people want. Technology must change and advance and products must be created out of that effort. Those products replace older, less efficient ones and add to the quality of life as well as the quantity. Without that financial rebirth the society is doomed.

With FDRs programs, the sustaining force turned out to be the military industrial complex. But that behemoth is a tricky monster. Yes we need defense but the whole industry is more like a work-fare program than true capitalism. So it is difficult to say that the extension of the military industrial complex really aided to a free market recovery after the depression, double-dip recession and war. But it really didn't matter because people believed that FDR was solving economic problems. In a very real way, we was establishing expectations and managing to give the impression of meeting those expectations. It persisted all the way through the 1960s and is even prevalent today. FDR basically sold free market Americans that government control was better than the free market. Sadly, such is not the case but perception is difficult to change and a lifetime of education is impossible to change.

So presidential candidates lie and presidents lie and set up expectations that are never met. If the economy is sound and unemployment low, nobody holds the politicians' feet to the fire so to speak. But if things start heading south, people start caring and a politician's promises once met with cheers hang like lead weights around his neck. All presidents have been in the same situation but some like Clinton are lucky and others like Carter are unlucky. But all suffer the same fate if they do not manage expectations based on promises. Obama is having an especially difficult time in part because his campaign was so full of hype and hyperbole along with outright lies and people were so dissatisfied with W., that his candidacy was an easy sell. When people feel their president has let them down, they react and Obama is a reaction to Bush falling off of his conservative slant in an attempt to become popular. Ever since the contested election with Gore, Bush had never felt he had the full support of the American people and the Democrats didn't even support him after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In addition, they grudgingly supported him in his efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice or death. But W. set up expectations that he failed to deliver on and when tragedies like Katrina occurred, he was given absolutely no wiggle room to make errors.

But Obama is a different case. Because the press gave him such overwhelming support, they failed to listen with any skepticism as he rattled off promises and made statements that, as it turns out, are working out completely opposite from his promised outcomes. In a very real sense, Obama cast himself as a healer, unifier, financial wizard, commander in chief, diplomat, peacemaker, defender and world leader when, in fact, it was all lies. People can point to his success with "health care reform" but it is costing every American who buys insurance more money in a time when the value of that money is less because of spending initiated by Obama. Unemployment is much higher than he promised and there is every indication that the figures his administration give out for the unemployed are too low by at least two to three points. This means that real unemployment is closer to twelve to thirteen percent. Why isn't anyone other than his arch rivals pointing this out?

He came to office with the outstanding credentials of being a constitutional scholar. However, he has ruled by fiat and the case could be made that the only reason he studied the constitution was to find ways to get around it. His administration is marked by failure after failure and makes the Carter administration look incredibly successful when it was one of the worse in modern times. There is a price for using hyperbole and extravagant claims to sell one's self when those claims fail to materialize or are put into place at a cost that is unsustainable at any time. And yet we have a large portion of the supposedly critical media supporting him as if he is Christ risen. The ultimate sadness of this whole process is that no one but American people will pay anything for being lied to. We are lied to, forced to pay and nary an iota of representation. Obama will possibly lose some power in congress but he has done his best to make congress meaningless. He may not get reelected in 2012 but he will never be made to pay for the destruction he and his crew have done to America's stature in the world, our ability to defend ourselves and our ability to wield power in a world where power and influence are the only currency.

Obama has not only misled us, he has damaged us. He has supported our enemies over our friends and basically worked to bring America down. The fundamental transformation he so touted has proven to be the transformation of American leadership and solidarity in an unstable world into something a little better than a rogue African nation. He has set up a fantasy of expectations and he has failed to manage them in any meaningful way. Yet, yet, media groups that support him and anything that isn't W. report on his actions with a fervor of Orwellian proportions. The crash from this fantasy high will be horrific.

FB

Is Obama A Muslim?

There are certain Jewish holidays where so many people want to attend that local churches are often used for Jewish services. It's the same for certain Christian holiday observances. Synagogs are used for Christian worshipers when Churches have overflow attendance. One would wonder if Muslim mosques also follow this tradition? I have never heard about it.

This brings me to an interesting point. The Jewish trait is carried and transmitted by the mother or woman. I have no doubt that this was to deter "looting" of women by raiders. An invader was less likely to capture and have children with women if that woman also transmitted religion along with her genes.

In the Muslim religion, the religion is transmitted by the father. Possibly because when the religion went evangelical and promoted the religion by baptism by the sword, all the raping that went along with the raiding meant more Muslims. Call it baptism by insemination rather than by birth.

So Obama, being the son of a practicing Muslim would have been born a Muslim. However, he converted to Christianity at some point in his youth. Was he baptized? I don't know. But let's assume he was baptized by the Baptist church which is the basis of the church he joined with Rev. Wright as the leader. So would one call him a Muslim? Not if he adapted Christian dogma, was baptized and accepted Christ as his personal savior. That should be it. So why are people running around saying that Obama is a Muslim?

It's his actions. He spends a lot of time catering to Muslims. For example, he supports a Mosque being built near the wreckage of the Twin Towers but doesn't support the granting of a permit to rebuild a Christian church that was destroyed as part of the destruction. He made trips to the mideast with the so-called "Apology Tour" and has recently sent Imam Rouf on a state department paid mission to Muslim countries to raise funds for the Mosque to be built near ground zero. In addition, he has held talks with Muslim leaders, celebrated Ramadan while ignoring the National Day of Prayer and ordered the new NASA head to "reach out" to Muslim nations so they can feel good about their contributions to the general body of science we use to launch into space. All in all, he's bending over backwards to cater to Muslim interests in the world. Maybe he thinks this will make us safer because if they like us, they won't attack us. Who knows? It's possible that Obama doesn't even know. But he's shown a remarkable penchant for supporting those he thinks have been "done wrong" by the West. In that sense, he's anti-Western in many of his statements and his acts. We have a serving president who doesn't really like the country he is president of and is using all of his power to change it into something he thinks he will like.

Unfortunately, most of the rest of the people in that country don't seem to agree with him and are looking for anything to explain his actions. If he were a Muslim - which is fine with me - so be it. Religion shouldn't matter even if the president is from a minority religion like Mormon or Catholic or Judaism or Buddhism, etc. But we are again drawn to Obama's actions. If he isn't a closet Muslim, he is, at very least, a supporter of Muslim causes and therein lies the rub. See, a president is prohibited by the constitution from promoting any one religion over another. The government can't give money to religions or allocate funds for religious development like the building of churches, synagogs, pagodas or mosques. His and the state departments funding of Rouf is unconstitutional because it requires tax payers to fund religious activities without their consent. The congress nor the president cannot reallocate funds to a favorite religious group because taxpayers my not want that group funded. Not only is this discussed in the constitution but in literally hundreds of supporting documents from the founders. Most of them were Christians who practiced occasionally because of proximity of religious resources. But several attended church regularly and all quoted the bible in their writings. They didn't want ANY one religion supported over any other on a national level. Several wrote that states could do so if they wanted and a state can adopt a religion but this is not recognized by the federal government.

No president has made such overt overtures to a religion in lieu of other religions. Not a single president until Obama. So why? Why is he doing this? In my mind, he doesn't belong to the Muslim faith but he does identify with it because of his father. To honor his father, he has chosen to promote Islam in as many ways as he can until he is stopped. But why isn't anyone speaking up? It's clear that Obama is a Muslim sympathizer but to call him such in America in our current atmosphere is to open oneself to the labels of intolerance and bigotry. Since most Muslims in the world are people of color, the tag of racism is not far behind. But the real bigot is Obama and it's clear by his actions.

FB

Blatant violation of Separation of Church and State: Why must we tolerate intolerance?

Here is part of the first amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The founders were so concerned that the Federal government would promote a state religion or work on behalf of any one religion over another or work in any way to establish any religion that they addressed it first. They must have thought it pretty important.

But we have a situation where he state department has decided to hire imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to represent America and help fund raise for the ground zero mosque he wants to be built in New York. We are hiring this foul-mouthed zealot to represent our government in a push to show that Islam is more important to this administration than any other religion. The administration has chosen to support Islam and the concerns of Islam in a direct display of subservience. If this administration were not subservient to the tenets of Islam, there would be no concern over what private citizens do with any image of any aspect of the religion nor would there be any concern with the religion at all. After all, there are zoning laws in every major city that preclude certain types of business or organizations from building in the area. For example, Mayor Gulliani used zoning to eliminate sex oriented businesses in parts of the city. Sex is one thing but religion is another. The government is prohibited from getting involved with ANY religion.

The American photoartist Andres Serrano created an image of a crucifix in a beaker of urine. He called it "Piss Christ" and while many Catholics complained, the image was not censored because the first amendment prohibits government involvement in religious matters. Interestingly, the Constitution does not prohibit religion from being involved in politics but it prohibits government from acting on behalf or for the interests of any specific religion. In other words, we can't take federal funds and use them to promote the activities of any religion. NO PUBLIC FUNDS CAN BE USED TO PROMOTE THE ACTIVITIES OF ANY RELIGION.

Now how in the world does the administration justify any process where an Imam is sent into Muslim countries to promote. . what. . . how tolerant we are of their intolerance? Just what the hell is going on with this administration? Supposedly Obama is a Christian who went to a Christian church where a great deal of the sermons were anti-American in nature. But his orientation should still be Christian. He may subjugate his beliefs to laws which should be expected. For example, he may believe that abortion is the same as murder but as president, he must uphold the laws of the land and these laws allow abortion to occur. But how he deals with his own beliefs is a far cry from supporting a religion because that same religion threatens to wage war and bomb us and terrorize us for any number of reasons both false and factual. We have no prohibition on showing religious images in any way. The government can't control how we lampoon or laud any religious figure. But we can't show images of Mohammed because we are afraid of what? Just what does free speech mean when the government will fight to allow something like "Piss Christ" and fights to prohibit a simple representation of Mohammed?

I constantly hear that fundamental Christians are the same as fundamental Muslims but nobody and I mean nobody is afraid of offending Christianity because he knows that as loony as some zany Christian sects are, they don't go around bombing people over satire. The two are not comparable but we have been sold this illusion in a way to dull reality. That reality is that Islam is at war with the West and Christianity represents the West.

So I call for an immediate suspension of any "mission" carried out by Imam Rauf or any other Muslim cleric chartered by the state department to carry out any official or semi-official duties. This is like sending Reverand Ike to Germany or Denmark to show how Christianity works in his Christian sect and fund raise for his special project. (As a matter of fact, I have a lot of respect for Reverend Ike and his ministry.) But we can't do that because to send a Christian because he is a Christian would bring the first amendment howlers out of their closets and onto the streets. Where are the constitutional scholars protesting this plan to send a Muslim Cleric out to do state department business with Muslims? Nowhere. It's hip in intellectual circles to be tolerant of Islam and even to overtly support Muslim causes. In intellectual circles, Muslim inferiority feelings are believed as if Muslims are somehow not as successful as Western countries because of some overriding plot against Islam. Such is not the case. But remember, we are dealing with intellectuals. While they may ponder the why of things, as ee cummings noted: "they will never wholly kiss you." The absolute irony of this is that if one looks at the names of many of the Muslim apologists, they are predominantly Jewish. How could we have Jewish academics supporting the causes of a religion that has as a primary tenet the conversion or death of Jews? How can they support any religion with branches, like the Catholic Jesuits, who act as shock troops for the religion? How can they support the potential of groups who have the death of Israel and Jews as a basis for membership? How can the world have been turned so upside down?

If this is an attempt to show other countries that America is moving towards Islam, the administration is violating the constitution. Even sending this Imam because he is a Muslim is prohibited by the Constitution. It appears that the only reason Obama studied the Constitution was to find ways to get around it and potentially destroy the charter. It's time he is censured and thrown out of office. Nixon's cover up and "hit list" along with his misuse of the FBI is child's play compared to the liberties the Obama administration is taking with the constitution.

FB

Does Anyone Know a Way Out of This? Reinvention?

Where oh where did my country go

Where oh where can it be?

Oh where oh where did my country go

Radicals have taken it from me.

We voted for change. Obama said he would transform America and indeed a transformation has taken place. Race politics which had been sidelined and marginalized into the property of overt racists has risen again to the forefront. Accusations of "racist" fly freely and an atmosphere of race fear has been stoked and nurtured creating an absolute stench. Congressman Maxine Waters, long known as a race baiter and race apologist has risen to new heights by accusing her accusers of racial motivations. We have entered some kind of space-time warp where the country based on the rule of law has become the country of rule of race. It's disgusting.

How do we expect to use anything that is going on in politics as a model for our children? What can our children learn from this state of affairs? Here's some lessons they might learn:

1. Politicians lie. They have to lie to get elected and to stay in office.

2. Politicians are crooks. They all cheat, steal, misappropriate funds, dodge taxes and lie, lie, lie.

3. Politicians think they are better than everyone else. Remember back in grammar school when there would be class elections? The popular kids always won. They would lord their popularity over other kids in the class as if they were somehow better. The rest of the class were happy just to be in the presence of these "popular" kids. What a joy to be selected on one of these kid's team for 4-square. Of course, as soon as one of their real friends got on the court, they would turn on the odd ball and once again would rule supreme by working together to get rid of any interlopers.

4. Politicians think that we are stupid. While they might give speeches about how smart their constituents are, they really have contempt for them. Out in California there is a congressman named Lois Capps. She's singularly unqualified for the job and gets elected partly from sentimentality because her husband died while in office and partly because her district includes Santa Barbara which is just slightly less liberal than San Francisco. Election time is coming up so all of a sudden, people start getting newsletters from her office "informing" everyone of all the great legislation she has initiated and how she is doing so much for the area. She's an opportunist, liar and manipulator who thinks people are so stupid that this will pass for real work of which she does very little. But basically, politicians think they have answers and assume that because they are elected and have opinions that they are intelligent. Somehow they have forgotten that their opinions are no better than another's.

5. Politicians think that they are above the law. These are elected officials and through bribery, lies and manipulation stay elected if they can. Laws that apply to everyone else except the government elite don't apply to them because they are part of that elite. How else could anyone explain the disgraceful behavior of Edward Kennedy and the death of Mary Jo Kopechne? He swims across the narrow inlet to his house and calls emergency crews eight - yes it was eight hours later - hours later to report the "accident. Of course, he remembered to call all his political advisors first. Meanwhile, Mary Jo was fish bait. Yet our intrepid Senator was reelected again and again. If that situation had happened to any ordinary citizen, that person would be in the slammer. Of course, his wife was understanding. Sure. She understood that if she made too big a stink, she would risk her elite status. Maybe John Adams can write another "grand" opera based on "The Death of Mary Jo."

6. Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same but cast themselves as poles apart which is another lie. How do we really show our children the differences between the parties? While there may be parts of the parties that are more extreme, the average party member is the same kind of person both politically and intellectually for both parties: The average guy/gal wants prosperity, safety, opportunity and freedom. Politicians know that and cater to that while lining their pockets with raise after raise while making speeches about how congress spends too much money. If a private companies behaved as politicians, their CEOs would be in jail. Actually in the few cases where they have been caught, they are in jail. But the crimes committed by CEOs are dwarfed by those committed by politicians and all the politician gets is a reprimand.

7. Politicians make sure their cronies and big supporters are "taken care of" with lots of benefits and opportunities but anyone else with an idea, regardless of how much merit the idea may have, can beg until he is hoarse and his knees bleed and the request will go unheeded. Someone I know, worked for the McCain campaign. They put a lot of hours in and actually got to meet him. This person's child wanted to go to West Point and wrote a letter asking John to give a recommendation. What did this individual get back? A proforma letter from an aide which stated that McCain only gave recommendations to "large contributors" and "personal" friends. What kind of BS is this? In other words, my acquaintance didn't give John enough money to warrant a recommendation. Silly me, I thought the were supposed to be for kids who showed enough moxy and worked hard enough to be successful at one of the service academies. What a joke. It doesn't have anything to do with the applicant but has everything to do with how much silver crosses John's palm. What a great lesson this was. I'm sure the kid learned a lot from this futile exercise.

What we have is a government that we were given a Bill of Rights by our founders to prevent from happening. They warned us about such a government and envisioned the possibility that such could take place so they gave us tools to protect us from exactly what our government has become. But our tools have been blunted by the very government they were designed to protect us from. The tools have been reinterpreted in such a way that a hammer is now a saw and a screwdriver is a level. In other words, the tools have been so recast as to be barely shadows of what they were. As interpreted by our elected politicians over the years, the Bill of Rights has become a document of words rather than concepts. Who would have figured. Not the founders because if they had, they would have warned us about "interpretations" of the Bill. Oh wait, they did. Jefferson even thought we should have an armed revolution every twenty years to clear out the deadwood and revitalize the core concepts. But who reads that stuff anyway other than scholars looking to reinterpret the simple words for whatever purpose they deem important. I have been told that the Bill of Rights can't apply today because the founders never envisioned the complex world we live in. What a crock. They wrote it the way they did because they knew everything would change technologically but that people would still be motivated by the same truths they found important.

There's an interesting movie called "Instinct." It is about a gorilla expert who lived with gorillas in that wild. He is accused of murder and found to be mentally incompetent. He's put in an asylum where he runs afoul of everyone. He's asked about gorillas in a zoo and he replies that those a not real gorillas but shadows of gorillas. Real gorillas live wild and have social structure and live differently. Well, our Bill of Rights has been so interpreted that it is not much more than a shadow of what it is supposed to be. Government has seen to the demise of the very document meant to control that same government by politicians who operate from ideologies that are so far removed from those of the founders that there are no similarities.

Someone took the Bill of Rights to the streets of New York and asked people to sign it as if it were a petition. Few recognized the document and most people thought that they were advocating the overthrow of the government. Not many signed it and a few argued against it. What does this tell us? Maybe we are as stupid as politicians believe.

So how do we get out of this situation? How do we return to our core values and principles without going backwards? After all, the world has changed and other than a violent revolution which destroys everything, how do we go about reinventing ourselves in a way that gets rid of the excesses, controls government and expands freedom without losing some of the benefits good government can provide?

From time to time, I will posit what I think are possible solutions. Feel free to agree or disagree as the muse moves you. All the post will bear the title "Reinvention."

FB

The Intended Consequences of "Unintended Consequences"

I have been reading "Dare to Inquire" by Bruce I. Kodish, Ph.D. and am about 1/2 way through the book. It's a good but heavy read that I highly recommend. So when you read it, take your time and digest what Dr. Kodish presents. In a strange way, it fits with the purpose of this post but I don't think that was Dr. Kodishs' intent. I'll get back to DtI later. I think the best is yet to come although his chronicle of the history of GS is illuminating. So . . .

A friend called and during our conversation mentioned the book "Unintended Consequences" (UI) by John Ross. Even though I have a PDF copy downloaded some months ago I had never read the book. (Out of print copies can be purchased for between $200 and $400. There are announcements for a new release or a paperback edition but none are available. So I opted for a copy reportedly posted by the author. When an edition becomes available from a source where the author gets paid, I will purchase a copy. I quite honestly think the nature of the book discourages after-market or tiers of purchase price. I use Ross' discussion of the three-tiered pricing of certain weapons due to absolutely ridiculous weapons laws to justify the download.) The recent conversation brought it into focus so I sat down, read the novel (It's an easy read and I finished all 749 pages with research in just under 14 hours.) and researched some of the points made in the book. The following is my review/opinion of the book and contents.

First, let me say that Ross has taken the term unintended consequences to a new level of understanding. In essence, everything we do has unintended consequences but in the novel, consequences aren't always associated with or even mostly associated with negatives. This applies to seemingly meaningless things, things that are legal one day that turn illegal the next, use and misuse of power, egotistical behavior, government excess and arrogance and applications of ideology over human rights along with relationships, belief in freedom over slavery, self-reliance and the belief that the founders got it right. UI deals with the unintended consequences of weapons laws, the actions of totalitarian governments, government agents gone wild, (Ross used the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco to highlight government actions gone wild with disastrous consequences. Maybe Ross should have titled the novel: Disastrous Consequences.) and a basic situation where human rights have become subservient to those of self-appointed authorities. But the central character learns to fly and this has unintended consequences. He becomes a weapons expert and this has unintended consequences. He grows up with a belief in American values of freedom and self-reliance and these beliefs have unintended consequences. He meets others of similar mind and these meetings have unintended consequences. The Germans killed thousands of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and millions during the Holocaust and these have unintended consequences. As many Jewish, Democratic congressmen and senators as there are who advocate gun control in the name of progressivism, there are an equal number who belong to organizations like "GOA" Gun Owners Association and JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.)

The novel follows the exploits and life journey of Henry Bowman. Henry starts out as a kid who loves guns, shooting, targeting, hunting and all the other aspects of what has been described as "The Gun Culture." Basically this culture is comprised of law-abiding citizens with interests in all kinds of shooting from skeet, to target to just blasting off thousands of rounds through a machine gun for the pure fun of wielding that much fire power. As described in the novel, the gun culture has people from all walks of life and all income levels. Gun collectors tend to be financially stable professionals. There are the few "redneck gun nuts" but these are an isolated lot who are not embraced the great numbers of responsible owners. Race is not a factor and the novel delves into the idea that much gun control legislation was initially passed to keep minorities, including ex-slaves, from owning guns. Ross posits the theory that current gun laws are directly aimed at keeping blacks and hispanics from arming themselves. The fact that others come under the blanket of gun control is simply an intended consequence of such laws.

A side note from my own experience. Some twenty years back, I got involved with archery. When I was learning, I used to go to a range in a public park across from one of the movie studios. I met two other archers there regularly. What turned out to be a chance meeting became a friendship and they invited me hunting. They were great shots and showed me things about bows, aiming and hunting with a bow that I had never known. I bagged my first kill with a bow on our second trip and even though I moved some distance away, we still converse. These guys knew bow hunting but also shot rifles (Both had large collections.) and they got me involved with black powder rifles. All in all, we had a great time together and when I moved away, these guys threw me a barbecue and party. By the way, both of these guys were black and they mentioned several times that gun control was aimed at blacks. I never really believed them or thought that much about it until reading Ross' book.

Ross knows the culture well and research into the various gun meets, shoot outs, competitions all proved to be accurate. Also very accurate is his description of the kind of people in the "gun culture." They are universally law abiding, self-reliant, trustworthy hobbyists who like to shoot, collect, compete and talk about weapons of all kinds. The great majority feel that current gun control laws only affect them and do nothing to control criminal elements which are supposedly the cause of gun legislation in the first place. But I'll get into that later.

Henry is a product of the Midwest and contrary to popular opinion, the great heartland has seen some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the country. Henry gets the bug to collect weapons and his father supports his passion by buying and training his son in safe weapon use. By his teens, he has a large collection. He also learns to fly because his father was a flight trainer during WWII. Basically, Henry's an all-American kid growing up in a family that thought weapons were as much a part of life as a computer is now. But Henry is exceptional. He reads about famous marksmen/women who did amazing things with guns like shooting skeet with a bolt-action, centerfire rifle. He practices and gets quite proficient with different rifles and falls in love with a semi-auto configured BAR also known as the Browning Automatic Rifle made famous during WWII. He can shoot single shots at 2" blocks thrown into the air like famous marksmen from the past. He describes some, like Ed McGivern, who shot over 50,000 such cubes in a long time period with minimal misses.

So Henry can shoot and he gains a reputation as a crack shot. He is a respectful lad and makes friends of all ages he meets at gun shops, shows, meets and through acquaintances. He is a quick study and his fast mind is a library of knowledge about loads, calibers, rare and famous guns. His life-long quest is to get a 4-gauge, double-barrel rifle also known as an "elephant" gun. These were made in the late 1800s and were noted for the huge cartridge (It's just over 1" in diameter and about 4" to 5" long.) At eighteen, he gets a federal permit to collect and own machine guns and while he is a legal collector, this starts his troubles.

The novel takes place right after WWII to present (1995) and Henry meets several veterans. One of the people he meets is a relative named Max who married a Polish woman, brought her to America and later divorced her. But, he brought her to America which she found so incredible that she accepted the divorce even though it saddened her. Her sister married a Jew named Irwin Mann. Irwin was a grocer in Danzig who had never fired or owned a weapon in his life. When the Germans started relocating Jews into the Warsaw Ghetto, Irwin's family was broken apart, his wife sent to be a sex toy for German soldiers and he was moved to the Ghetto where he joined one of the resistance groups. In the ghetto, he did learn to shoot and learned the value of weapons to defend one's life. He was one of the few who escaped the Ghetto just before it was burned and he made his way to America.

What does the Jewish experience in Warsaw in WWII have to do with post war America? Just before the German soldiers isolated the Jews, they confiscated all guns by imposing legal but draconian weapons laws that severely limited the guns people could own. And this is a major point of the book: The right of American's to keep and bear arms. While the second amendment to the Bill of Rights states that citizens have this right, how it has been interpreted is a matter of debate. The interpretation Ross uses in his novel is based on letters and other writings found in The Federalist Papers, diaries and other documentation used to support the constitution. This interpretation is that to insure that the government cannot get so strong as to impose its will on the people, the people should be armed on par with the government forces. In other words, there is no special category to keep and bear certain arms for government employees than there is for the average, law abiding citizen. This point is brought out several times in the novel.

Henry's experience and world view are formed around his love of shooting in a responsible, safe way. His experiences are interesting and pointed. Each experience described in the novel is a lesson of sorts but the lesson isn't presented in cookbook form but thrown out as concepts. If one reads this book as a primer, one finds all kinds of ways to manipulate and operate in systems that are perceived to be moving towards totalitarian modes of operation. But those "lessons" are not the main point of the book and since the book was written in 1995, certain modes have changed in fifteen years. However, getting a new identity is easy even in this day of computer scans and id tracing. You see, these things only work on people who follow laws. People that break laws and do not adhere to the "formulas" used to track and identify people move through society quite easily. For example, if one wants a gun, current gun laws make it rather difficult. There are cooling off periods, registration requirements that you have to pay for and tracing as well as purchase limits. If you are a crook willing to purchase unregistered guns, any number are available and can be found even in such places as Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco and/or any other major American city. There is a whole industry based around unregistered weapons. This did not exist before the government decided to impose gun control laws on law-abiding citizens. But, interestingly enough, the only unregistered weapons used in the novel are those carried by law enforcement officers. These are commonly referred to as "throw aways."

While the novel focuses on registration and ownership requirements of machine guns or guns that can be "rewatted" (This means that more than one round fires when the trigger is pulled. Making a machine gun into a semi-auto weapon is known as "dewatting." Sometimes dewatting includes filling barrels with lead, sealing the trigger mechanism, drilling holes in the barrel or some other way to disable the gun.) into rapid fire weapons, rapid fire weapons are only used by government agents much to their detriment. Only certain qualified dealers can keep, sell and use these weapons. But getting a permit is next to impossible and even those that do must adhere to strict taxation.

Taxing of weapons is discussed in the novel quite extensively. I researched most of the references and found them to be accurate. The taxation is so onerous that few get involved in collecting the guns unless they have licenses grandfathered into current laws. But as much as the novel discusses laws governing machine guns, cannons and other weapons that exceed single shot or semi-automatic weapons, none of these weapons are used to achieve any of the goals defined in the novel. These goals are simply a complete reversal of all gun control laws where law-abiding citizens are concerned.

While Ross uses Ruby Ridge and Waco as examples, other incidents drawn from real events are used to support the generally anti-government tone of the novel. Several raids by BATF agents are described including one where a gun owner's cat was stomped to death when the agents could find no illegal weapons in the person's house. Was this a true story? Yes, as it turns out. In fact, a simple internet search turns up lots of evidence of misdeeds by agents from all federal agencies. Surprisingly, there are many more than ever make the news but do make for law suits against the agents and the agencies.

So in the novel, Henry and three other federally licensed machine gun collectors have their houses raided. The raids are illegal and a rogue BATF supervisor wants to plant evidence to get the collectors thrown into jail and their collections confiscated. This singular act set into motion a series of events that bring into focus one of several major questions posited by the novel: At what point does a person recognize that a government (In this case, the government of the United States.) has so grossly overstepped its bounds, that the average law-abiding citizen deems it necessary to kill off a sufficient number of federal agents to evoke change?

Also, other questions arise: At what point does the usurpation of civil rights by the government, regardless of how noble the intent, warrant it's demise? How does one justify a death based on legislative misdeeds? At what point is the limit reached where Jefferson's admonition (When people fear their government, there is tyrany, When government fears the people, there is liberty.) is finally recognized by the people and they do something about it? And ultimately: How would one go about forcing the government to change without using the ballot box but by using carefully applied force? Where should that force be used?

The novel answers these questions with one scenario. Is this scenario possible? I suggest getting a copy of "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross and find out for yourself.

Now back to "Dare to Inquire."

FB