When I first heard that Chicago was vying for the Olympic games, I wasn't surprised given that President Obama was now in office. As the events unfolded and it came to light that the President and first lady were going to Copenhagen to give their "pitch" on Chicago's behalf, I'll admit I was less than convinced as to the genuine nature of the visit.
Politics is perception. One of the things I learned from watching then President Clinton was that image was the most valuable commodity any President can ever have. If one projects confidence, chooses their venues wisely and watches what they say - the ability to leverage the inherent power of the Presidency is almost assured. That being said, I looked at the Olympic committee's selection of Chicago for the 2016 Olympics as a forgone conclusion. After all - the idea that the President would go through the dog and pony show of trying to convince the committee to select Chicago without knowing ahead of time that it was "in the bag" wasn't plausible.
When I found out that Chicago was not only rejected in the first round, but was completely creamed in the vote count, I was shocked speechless.
Every President who has ever held office has had to deal with situations that cast him in a less than favorable light. However, the ramifications of this event are unheard of within the realm of Presidential politics. For a man who is holding what is arguably the most powerful political office in the entire world - the nature of how the events that unfolded today became known were undoubtedly among the most embarrassing, demoralizing and humiliating combination of circumstances ever.
There is no redeemable spin that can be placed on this disaster. Look at the following possibilities:
- If the President went through with his personal pitch for Chicago because he had been given personal assurances that it was a done deal, then this decision on the part of the Olympic committee was orchestrated - purely and deliberately fabricated for the express purpose of humiliating him. That means that he is perceived as weak and has earned no respect, which undermines the entire premise of his campaign which portrayed him as a world uniter who would bring respect to America..
- If the President did this not knowing whether or not his pitch was guaranteed to succeed, it means that he and his advisers are monumentally stupid - naive and incapable of appreciating the depth of damage that this fiasco would have on his image, credibility, stature and respect before the world.
- If the President was compelled to take this personal risk because he was under pressure from Mayor Daley, then it demonstrates that he does not appreciate the nature and importance of his office because he is willing to risk the credibility of both the office and himself in an effort to ensure political payback for favors he took during his tenure in the corrupt Chicago political machine.
- If the President volunteered himself of his own accord because he truly believed in the hype surrounding his mythical ability to persuade and charm people simply by the nature of his campaigns' fabricated image, then it demonstrates a level of naivete, hubris and megalomania that makes former President Clinton's ego look like a mere shadow in comparison.
People are already trying to spin this by the most imaginative means possible, such as suggesting that the entire Olympic bid was a ruse to give the President a chance to meet in secret with the war in Afghanistan's General McChrystal for a whopping 25 minutes. Newsweek asserted that losing the Olympic bid was good for the President because "...the Olympics are notorious for running massively over budget. The organizing committees are always rife with infighting and power games, as all manner of colorful cronies badger members to get their paws on some of those coveted Olympics dollars. Public support for the Olympics in Chicago itself was already lukewarm. Residents would have been facing seven years of disruptive construction and roadworks as their city raced to prepare itself. It’s a recipe for serious disgruntlement."
Let's not forget, of course - that racism was also a part in the IOC's decision. Hell, just ask Jimmy Carter!
People can shake, spin and try to finess this into a varitable cornacopia of theoretical positives, but the bottom line is this: Our President limped away from Copenhagen humiliated - a laughing stock and a joke. But it's not funny at all, because the joke's on us.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The Pastor and the POTUS
Recently, a Pastor named Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Arizona made news again by repeating his wish that physical harm and death befall President Obama. When asked for specifics, he offered the following clarification:
“If you want to know how I’d like to see Obama die, I’d like him to die of natural causes,” said Anderson. “I don’t want him to be a martyr, we don’t need another holiday. I’d like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer.”
When I first read this, I could not help but marvel at how unbelievably brazen, foolish and naive a person has to be to think that their position as Pastor and a House of the Lord was an appropriate position or venue for that kind of opinion. I disliked Kennedy, and certainly do not think President Obama is doing a good job...but wish for his death? Of a horrific debilitating disease that strips you slowly of your mind and dignity? Not a chance.
I flat out believe that the Pastor is completely wrong to have - let alone express - that type of opinion, and certainly not in a forum that is supposed to be teaching about the principals of compassion and forgiveness set forth by Jesus Christ. President Obama does not deserve to have that kind of ill will pressed against him, regardless of his political affiliation or decisions.
It isn't difficult to figure out how we as a nation got to this point. Look at the past 8 years as an example:
When President Bush was in office there were books written regarding his assassination and even a movie created on the same subject. You also had plenty of people online openly coming out and promoting stories that dehumanized him, and there was no shortage of people who wished harm upon President Bush en-masse on a daily basis.
One could look up any current or archived blog and commentary on either the DailyKOS or democratunderground and find the most strung-out moonbats that have ever lived running around in circles fomenting the most lunatic-fringe hatred of the man, and they did it (and continue to do it) for 24 hours a day - every day - for 8 years straight. If a person who was unaware of the political workings of our world were to base their opinion of the former President solely by the content of either of the above two sources - they would swear that President Bush stood upon the fires of Mt. Doom and summoned Hurricane Katrina himself.
Think back and remember - What were the type of responses given to anyone who questioned any of the criticism or the personal nature of the extent of hate and personal animosity for him?
"This is a matter of Free Speech!" (OK, I can agree with that...)
"Dissent is patriotic" (Well...the Rosenbergs dissented to be sure, but patriotic they were not...)
"Nazis!" (...eh?)
The aggressor sets the rules in any fight. If the routine, outlandish nature of so many of the critiques of former President Bush made by the Left were not only acceptable, but were in fact patriotic, then the Left really has no business whatsoever getting their panties in a bunch over the rantings of one man when the very same unsavory nature of his message has been the very lifeblood of the democrat party. All of the hate, anger and outrage over the words of this one Pastor that they are now bemoaning was the very fuel that animated everything they did. It was hatred and anger that united them and allowed for the kind of political success that they were not even close to pulling off years before.
They are concerned that the words being spoken will incite violence? They should be. Welcome to the world conservatives live in every day. They're sitting out there worrying about what one man is saying? Try imagining what tens of thousands of people like him would look like online and you have what conservatives have to contend with. Hatred of President Bush has been liberals passion. Anger and outrage has been their sacraments, and now that their Messiah is running the show - the same dissent they practiced while prancing around calling it patriotic is now akin to "Hate Speech".
You reap what you sow.
For almost the entire length of both his terms, President Bush was assaulted and criticized for everything and anything he said, did, tried to do, wrote, expressed and even what others claimed he was thinking - and ANY attempt he made to defend himself was met with outrage over his "fascist" attempt to "silence" his critics. As time went on, he defended himself less and less, but none of that did anything to abate the torrent of criticism he received, and it certainly did nothing to assist in any ability to govern.
When personal hatred is allowed to act as the means to an end within the political arena, it doesn't just cause more problems by inciting violence or venom, it helps insulate and protect politicians from justifiable criticism.
How this works is simple: When personal attacks and insipid vitriol become the norm, the first thing it initially does is to cause the politician on the receiving end to become protected by supporters who instinctively close ranks around their candidate. This closes their minds to the remote possibility that the opposition might have a legitimate grievance, and they in turn lash out even stronger against their candidates adversaries. Because liberals attacked President Bush with such intensity, a large number of his supporters defended him even when they should not have, such as on his lack of fiscal discipline and refusal to enact immigration reform.
When this Pastor engages in this type of inexcusable attack, he is in fact giving President Obama a free pass on two fronts. First, because he immediately insulates the President from legitimate criticism regarding his policies - as it only reinforces the false notion that criticism of the President and hate speech are one in the same. Secondly, it only makes a bad situation worse, because when the bar is lowered - even someone of ill repute can come off looking reasonable.
“If you want to know how I’d like to see Obama die, I’d like him to die of natural causes,” said Anderson. “I don’t want him to be a martyr, we don’t need another holiday. I’d like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer.”
When I first read this, I could not help but marvel at how unbelievably brazen, foolish and naive a person has to be to think that their position as Pastor and a House of the Lord was an appropriate position or venue for that kind of opinion. I disliked Kennedy, and certainly do not think President Obama is doing a good job...but wish for his death? Of a horrific debilitating disease that strips you slowly of your mind and dignity? Not a chance.
I flat out believe that the Pastor is completely wrong to have - let alone express - that type of opinion, and certainly not in a forum that is supposed to be teaching about the principals of compassion and forgiveness set forth by Jesus Christ. President Obama does not deserve to have that kind of ill will pressed against him, regardless of his political affiliation or decisions.
It isn't difficult to figure out how we as a nation got to this point. Look at the past 8 years as an example:
When President Bush was in office there were books written regarding his assassination and even a movie created on the same subject. You also had plenty of people online openly coming out and promoting stories that dehumanized him, and there was no shortage of people who wished harm upon President Bush en-masse on a daily basis.
One could look up any current or archived blog and commentary on either the DailyKOS or democratunderground and find the most strung-out moonbats that have ever lived running around in circles fomenting the most lunatic-fringe hatred of the man, and they did it (and continue to do it) for 24 hours a day - every day - for 8 years straight. If a person who was unaware of the political workings of our world were to base their opinion of the former President solely by the content of either of the above two sources - they would swear that President Bush stood upon the fires of Mt. Doom and summoned Hurricane Katrina himself.
Think back and remember - What were the type of responses given to anyone who questioned any of the criticism or the personal nature of the extent of hate and personal animosity for him?
"This is a matter of Free Speech!" (OK, I can agree with that...)
"Dissent is patriotic" (Well...the Rosenbergs dissented to be sure, but patriotic they were not...)
"Nazis!" (...eh?)
The aggressor sets the rules in any fight. If the routine, outlandish nature of so many of the critiques of former President Bush made by the Left were not only acceptable, but were in fact patriotic, then the Left really has no business whatsoever getting their panties in a bunch over the rantings of one man when the very same unsavory nature of his message has been the very lifeblood of the democrat party. All of the hate, anger and outrage over the words of this one Pastor that they are now bemoaning was the very fuel that animated everything they did. It was hatred and anger that united them and allowed for the kind of political success that they were not even close to pulling off years before.
They are concerned that the words being spoken will incite violence? They should be. Welcome to the world conservatives live in every day. They're sitting out there worrying about what one man is saying? Try imagining what tens of thousands of people like him would look like online and you have what conservatives have to contend with. Hatred of President Bush has been liberals passion. Anger and outrage has been their sacraments, and now that their Messiah is running the show - the same dissent they practiced while prancing around calling it patriotic is now akin to "Hate Speech".
You reap what you sow.
For almost the entire length of both his terms, President Bush was assaulted and criticized for everything and anything he said, did, tried to do, wrote, expressed and even what others claimed he was thinking - and ANY attempt he made to defend himself was met with outrage over his "fascist" attempt to "silence" his critics. As time went on, he defended himself less and less, but none of that did anything to abate the torrent of criticism he received, and it certainly did nothing to assist in any ability to govern.
When personal hatred is allowed to act as the means to an end within the political arena, it doesn't just cause more problems by inciting violence or venom, it helps insulate and protect politicians from justifiable criticism.
How this works is simple: When personal attacks and insipid vitriol become the norm, the first thing it initially does is to cause the politician on the receiving end to become protected by supporters who instinctively close ranks around their candidate. This closes their minds to the remote possibility that the opposition might have a legitimate grievance, and they in turn lash out even stronger against their candidates adversaries. Because liberals attacked President Bush with such intensity, a large number of his supporters defended him even when they should not have, such as on his lack of fiscal discipline and refusal to enact immigration reform.
When this Pastor engages in this type of inexcusable attack, he is in fact giving President Obama a free pass on two fronts. First, because he immediately insulates the President from legitimate criticism regarding his policies - as it only reinforces the false notion that criticism of the President and hate speech are one in the same. Secondly, it only makes a bad situation worse, because when the bar is lowered - even someone of ill repute can come off looking reasonable.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Welcome Back, Carter
When Lech Walesa headed the Solidarity movement in Soviet besieged Poland, President Ronald Reagan had a choice: Support the Soviet backed domination of the Polish people or take a stand and support the voice of individual liberty, and in doing so potentially anger the Soviets. It was not a hard choice, and at the first opportunity he sided with Poland's Solidarity movement, drawing a line that stated in no uncertain terms where America stood.
Obama has now been witness to a similar historical event and given a golden opportunity to prove his critics wrong. However...he has let this terrific opportunity languish for too long and spoiled his chances of directly benefiting from it. When the "elections" in Iran took place and a sizable portion of the oppressed population took to the street, it gave him the perfect moment in time to come out in favor of genuine democracy and reform in the country which is responsible for more funding and personal acts of terrorism in the world. Iran - without equivocation - is at the heart of Islamic terrorism. He didn't take the opportunity to come down on the side of freedom. Instead, Obama initially opted to say that the United States was not going to interfere with the Iranian elections by injecting themselves into the debate. That statement had an expiration date of about one week. Now, the stance has changed by reaching out to the dictatorial leadership calling for nicer treatment of the demonstrators. From some of the footage I am seeing on TV, they aren't interested in listening.
The current Iranian government is hostile to the entire western world. The nuanced conventional wisdom that states that picking sides in their internal conflict can be a political risk is a fake argument. When you take a stand and voice support of the struggle for freedom and democracy in a country controlled by people who don't want to grant it - you win regardless of the outcome.
However - when you hold up your hands and instead opt to initially voice a vague, neutral Switzerland policy when presented with a choice between supporting the dictatorial status quo or young people wanting to reform their country for the better - it is a tremendous lost opportunity, because those people looking for support in the cause of freedom look at the US and genuinely want our support. It goes with the Compass theory: The US should first and always base their stances on the advancement of liberty over tyranny. From the Mullah's point of view, that initial wishy-washy response and subsequent attempt at a clarification only weakened Obama's hand.
For the record, I don't think Obama is out there wearing "I love Mullahs" tee-shirts. He will at some point discover that his changing stances on an issue will only erode any credibility he has left when he comes to the realization that support for liberty is a football he can't just punt to someone else.
When it comes to choosing and voicing support for individual liberty over tyranny -the choice should be easy and unwaveringly clear.
Obama has now been witness to a similar historical event and given a golden opportunity to prove his critics wrong. However...he has let this terrific opportunity languish for too long and spoiled his chances of directly benefiting from it. When the "elections" in Iran took place and a sizable portion of the oppressed population took to the street, it gave him the perfect moment in time to come out in favor of genuine democracy and reform in the country which is responsible for more funding and personal acts of terrorism in the world. Iran - without equivocation - is at the heart of Islamic terrorism. He didn't take the opportunity to come down on the side of freedom. Instead, Obama initially opted to say that the United States was not going to interfere with the Iranian elections by injecting themselves into the debate. That statement had an expiration date of about one week. Now, the stance has changed by reaching out to the dictatorial leadership calling for nicer treatment of the demonstrators. From some of the footage I am seeing on TV, they aren't interested in listening.
The current Iranian government is hostile to the entire western world. The nuanced conventional wisdom that states that picking sides in their internal conflict can be a political risk is a fake argument. When you take a stand and voice support of the struggle for freedom and democracy in a country controlled by people who don't want to grant it - you win regardless of the outcome.
However - when you hold up your hands and instead opt to initially voice a vague, neutral Switzerland policy when presented with a choice between supporting the dictatorial status quo or young people wanting to reform their country for the better - it is a tremendous lost opportunity, because those people looking for support in the cause of freedom look at the US and genuinely want our support. It goes with the Compass theory: The US should first and always base their stances on the advancement of liberty over tyranny. From the Mullah's point of view, that initial wishy-washy response and subsequent attempt at a clarification only weakened Obama's hand.
For the record, I don't think Obama is out there wearing "I love Mullahs" tee-shirts. He will at some point discover that his changing stances on an issue will only erode any credibility he has left when he comes to the realization that support for liberty is a football he can't just punt to someone else.
When it comes to choosing and voicing support for individual liberty over tyranny -the choice should be easy and unwaveringly clear.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise..."
There are fundamental differences in ideology between liberals and conservatives. Note that when I mention differences, I am not speaking on a party level between Republican or Democrat. Arlen Specter used to be a democrat when he was the District Attorney of Philadelphia and switched parties when the political opportunities for Republicans were on the rise. Now that the political pendulum has swung the other way, he is doing the same thing in reverse.
Admittedly, Arlen Specter has been good on some issues from a conservative perspective, such as affirming our 2nd Amendment rights and supporting tough prison sentencing guidelines for violent criminals. However, where he differs with conservatives has been growing more and more over the years. Once you get to a situation where you are voting more with the political opposition and are constantly at odds both both your own own party and base of supporters, there comes a point where you have to ask if you're really in the party that you fit in best. When Senator Specter started getting a huge earful from his constituency about Amnesty for Illegals and huge increases in entitlement and bailout spending, his solution was to have his staff disconnect his own phone system once he had heard enough. He didn't give a shit what the people who voted him in expected - he was going to do whatever he wanted regardless of how much it went against the wishes of the supporters who had voted him in. In reflection, he asked himself "Why not?" After all, once it became obvious from the plethora of inside tracking polls that he wouldn't get re-elected, he knew that in this political environment that he could switch parties.
Specter's defection has prompted other weak Republicans - such as the ever increasingly-irritating Olympia Snowe - to opine with whiny sophistry about how Specter's defection could have been prevented if Republicans would learn how to reach out to moderates instead of driving them away. The very notion that Republican moderates have no place in their party is pure, 100% NONSENSE. Moderates like Specter have been around forever. McCain, Snowe, Chaffee, Jeffords...the list goes on. What has irritated conservatives is that these spineless, limp-wristed watered-down copies of Diet Democrat-Lite routinely would vote with democrats and undermine conservatives on key votes that were crucial to our political goals. Sorry, honey - don't piss down our legs and try to tell us it's raining.
I have read some stories online where liberals are struggling to figure out why Republicans like myself are so happy about this when all it does is further erode our political power. That would make sense to people who only choose to see things from within the context of a political perspective, but that would be missing the mark. The first reason is that when you don't have any real power and influence left as it is, losing more makes no difference. Considering Arlen's voting history on key issues that drove conservatives the most, having him in the party was far more irritating. What the second and truest reason is this: Conservatives have more respect for genuine liberals who act like liberals and believe in whatever liberals believe in than for Republicans like Specter, who - over the course of time - has screwed over his own base in the name of political expediency. If he wants to run with the liberals, I have no beef with it. What I do have a beef with is his unreliability and skulduggery as a representative of my state. Never knowing exactly where he stood reliably on key issues with his base was a pain in the ass.
Understand something: Political moderation has never made for good leadership. Ever. Leaders are decisive. They are confident. They have the ability to gather people up and project their vision into the masses. They inspire those that agree, and yes - royally piss off the people who disagree. What true believers in a true philosophically empowered political goal gain is respect - even begrudgingly so from their adversaries. None of those things are attained from political moderation. When democrats wanted to rebuild their party, they didn't do it by reaching out to Republicans. No - they did it by marginalizing or eliminating what few centrists managed to exist in their party to make it more ideologically left. As such, when more Republicans stopped acting like conservatives and did nothing but pander to the left and left-leaning centrist voters for years - look at what it got them. Liberals simply voted for the real thing and left-leaning centrist libertarians voted against them out of anger at their intellectually dishonest pandering. Case in point - ask John McCain what sucking up to the left for years got him when the rubber actually met the road. They threw his ass to the curb - because nobody likes someone who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
Admittedly, Arlen Specter has been good on some issues from a conservative perspective, such as affirming our 2nd Amendment rights and supporting tough prison sentencing guidelines for violent criminals. However, where he differs with conservatives has been growing more and more over the years. Once you get to a situation where you are voting more with the political opposition and are constantly at odds both both your own own party and base of supporters, there comes a point where you have to ask if you're really in the party that you fit in best. When Senator Specter started getting a huge earful from his constituency about Amnesty for Illegals and huge increases in entitlement and bailout spending, his solution was to have his staff disconnect his own phone system once he had heard enough. He didn't give a shit what the people who voted him in expected - he was going to do whatever he wanted regardless of how much it went against the wishes of the supporters who had voted him in. In reflection, he asked himself "Why not?" After all, once it became obvious from the plethora of inside tracking polls that he wouldn't get re-elected, he knew that in this political environment that he could switch parties.
Specter's defection has prompted other weak Republicans - such as the ever increasingly-irritating Olympia Snowe - to opine with whiny sophistry about how Specter's defection could have been prevented if Republicans would learn how to reach out to moderates instead of driving them away. The very notion that Republican moderates have no place in their party is pure, 100% NONSENSE. Moderates like Specter have been around forever. McCain, Snowe, Chaffee, Jeffords...the list goes on. What has irritated conservatives is that these spineless, limp-wristed watered-down copies of Diet Democrat-Lite routinely would vote with democrats and undermine conservatives on key votes that were crucial to our political goals. Sorry, honey - don't piss down our legs and try to tell us it's raining.
I have read some stories online where liberals are struggling to figure out why Republicans like myself are so happy about this when all it does is further erode our political power. That would make sense to people who only choose to see things from within the context of a political perspective, but that would be missing the mark. The first reason is that when you don't have any real power and influence left as it is, losing more makes no difference. Considering Arlen's voting history on key issues that drove conservatives the most, having him in the party was far more irritating. What the second and truest reason is this: Conservatives have more respect for genuine liberals who act like liberals and believe in whatever liberals believe in than for Republicans like Specter, who - over the course of time - has screwed over his own base in the name of political expediency. If he wants to run with the liberals, I have no beef with it. What I do have a beef with is his unreliability and skulduggery as a representative of my state. Never knowing exactly where he stood reliably on key issues with his base was a pain in the ass.
Understand something: Political moderation has never made for good leadership. Ever. Leaders are decisive. They are confident. They have the ability to gather people up and project their vision into the masses. They inspire those that agree, and yes - royally piss off the people who disagree. What true believers in a true philosophically empowered political goal gain is respect - even begrudgingly so from their adversaries. None of those things are attained from political moderation. When democrats wanted to rebuild their party, they didn't do it by reaching out to Republicans. No - they did it by marginalizing or eliminating what few centrists managed to exist in their party to make it more ideologically left. As such, when more Republicans stopped acting like conservatives and did nothing but pander to the left and left-leaning centrist voters for years - look at what it got them. Liberals simply voted for the real thing and left-leaning centrist libertarians voted against them out of anger at their intellectually dishonest pandering. Case in point - ask John McCain what sucking up to the left for years got him when the rubber actually met the road. They threw his ass to the curb - because nobody likes someone who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The curious case of Beverly Giesbrecht
We hear all the time from terrorists about how we are to submit to Islam and turn away from the West. We are told by our friends on the left that if we just try to understand these people that we will build a bridge and heal the wounds of misunderstanding.
A woman named Beverly Giesbrecht did all of that. Giesbrecht, a Canadian citizen, decided to go against the West after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. She decided that she was not going to believe that the WTC was attacked by terrorists, but rather was a front story for a larger conspiracy. Naturally, she thought that the best way to learn the "truth" was to learn all things Islamic so that she could discern the "truth" from a balanced point of view. After setting out to attain this balance, she abandoned her Born-again Christian faith and converted to Islam. She abruptly changed her name to Khadija Abdul Qahaar and decided to follow Islam's laws, criticize President Bush, denigrate the United States and even started a website called Jihad Unspun - whose sole purpose is to spread Islamic propaganda and promote anti-Americanism. Despite doing all of this, the Taliban kidnapped her on November 13, 2008 in Pakistan. They are threatening to behead her in exchange for a $375,000 ransom.
Some have attempted to downplay the role of Islam in this case by trying to characterize this woman from the sympathetic viewpoint of her being someone that is a former alcoholic who suffers from mental illness. I could not agree more - it is called liberalism. Whenever a liberal tries to argue with you about how Islam is no different from any other religion - remember this scenario. We are not living in the Dark Ages. We are not trapped in a never-ending malaise of scientific hindrance or a lack of enlightenment. No, we are living in 21st century America - and we are expected to look at this woman’s history, actions and current plight with a mindful, sympathetic light that is supposed to should be shed on Islam? One would think that this woman’s' story would be the proverbial writing on the wall for those who choose to live with their heads in the sand when it comes recognizing Islamic terrorism for what it truly is.
I want you, for a moment - to imagine the impossible to comprehend sheer agony of feeling your own head being sawed off with a dull blade. You have been bound head to toe and cannot do anything to escape. The sound of the blade hacking and sawing through bone echoes in your own skull. You try to scream and instead let loose gurgled squealing and wheezing. In your panic, you violently struggle, urinating and defecating all over yourself. Then you experience the sick motion of disembodiment and as oblivion begins to sink in, you experience the brief horror of seeing your own headless corpse when the filthy animal that just beheaded you holds your head up as a trophy. Then, your face goes stupid - and it is all over.
This woman is most likely going to experience the horror above because she was stupid enough to hate her own civilized, western culture and that of the United States. She was seduced by an evil lie. The lie in question is the absurd belief that moral relativism can be used to justify any type of heinous behavior or belief simply by implying that everyone is entitled to the opinion they have based solely on their own point of view. This idiot so believed that terrorist animals had a right to their opinions and actions that she decided to convert to Islam in an effort to see their sick world view, thinking that this would make her a better person. Brilliant!
Anyone...and I do mean anyone - who either trusts, defends or attempts to rationalize the actions of these filthy animals suffers from a mental disorder. They are the lowest common denominator humanity has ever produced. Let this be a lesson to be learned by everyone: When you dance with the Devil - the Devil does not change - the Devil changes you.
A woman named Beverly Giesbrecht did all of that. Giesbrecht, a Canadian citizen, decided to go against the West after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. She decided that she was not going to believe that the WTC was attacked by terrorists, but rather was a front story for a larger conspiracy. Naturally, she thought that the best way to learn the "truth" was to learn all things Islamic so that she could discern the "truth" from a balanced point of view. After setting out to attain this balance, she abandoned her Born-again Christian faith and converted to Islam. She abruptly changed her name to Khadija Abdul Qahaar and decided to follow Islam's laws, criticize President Bush, denigrate the United States and even started a website called Jihad Unspun - whose sole purpose is to spread Islamic propaganda and promote anti-Americanism. Despite doing all of this, the Taliban kidnapped her on November 13, 2008 in Pakistan. They are threatening to behead her in exchange for a $375,000 ransom.
Some have attempted to downplay the role of Islam in this case by trying to characterize this woman from the sympathetic viewpoint of her being someone that is a former alcoholic who suffers from mental illness. I could not agree more - it is called liberalism. Whenever a liberal tries to argue with you about how Islam is no different from any other religion - remember this scenario. We are not living in the Dark Ages. We are not trapped in a never-ending malaise of scientific hindrance or a lack of enlightenment. No, we are living in 21st century America - and we are expected to look at this woman’s history, actions and current plight with a mindful, sympathetic light that is supposed to should be shed on Islam? One would think that this woman’s' story would be the proverbial writing on the wall for those who choose to live with their heads in the sand when it comes recognizing Islamic terrorism for what it truly is.
I want you, for a moment - to imagine the impossible to comprehend sheer agony of feeling your own head being sawed off with a dull blade. You have been bound head to toe and cannot do anything to escape. The sound of the blade hacking and sawing through bone echoes in your own skull. You try to scream and instead let loose gurgled squealing and wheezing. In your panic, you violently struggle, urinating and defecating all over yourself. Then you experience the sick motion of disembodiment and as oblivion begins to sink in, you experience the brief horror of seeing your own headless corpse when the filthy animal that just beheaded you holds your head up as a trophy. Then, your face goes stupid - and it is all over.
This woman is most likely going to experience the horror above because she was stupid enough to hate her own civilized, western culture and that of the United States. She was seduced by an evil lie. The lie in question is the absurd belief that moral relativism can be used to justify any type of heinous behavior or belief simply by implying that everyone is entitled to the opinion they have based solely on their own point of view. This idiot so believed that terrorist animals had a right to their opinions and actions that she decided to convert to Islam in an effort to see their sick world view, thinking that this would make her a better person. Brilliant!
Anyone...and I do mean anyone - who either trusts, defends or attempts to rationalize the actions of these filthy animals suffers from a mental disorder. They are the lowest common denominator humanity has ever produced. Let this be a lesson to be learned by everyone: When you dance with the Devil - the Devil does not change - the Devil changes you.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
God and Evolution
I am not someone who has ever taken the Creation story literally. Yet, I have always found it rather dubious how angry and obnoxious some scientists get when they are even challenged on the veracity of certain specifics of their beliefs or theories. In the case of the arguments between Intelligent Design vs Evolution, some of the most die-hard advocates pushing the edge regarding their attempt to find something irreducibly complex that cannot come about because of random chance are not people who are biblical scholars. They are, in fact, scientists who are just as educated and passionate about their theories as anyone else would be, they are just pursuing their attempt to find answers elsewhere. Evolution alone, by their beliefs, cannot account for or answer many of the basic questions people have regarding life and it's origins. Those that pursue I.D. are guilty of committing a scientific sin, their biggest sin being that in the eyes of other scientists, they are attempting to use science itself to question evolution. In reality, what they are doing is starting off with a theory and are attempting to prove it. Scientifically, Darwinism and it's most ardent secular supporters should have nothing to fear.
As I see it, evolution versus a belief in a Creator are simply not at odds with one another. Evolution on many levels makes absolutely logical sense (the strongest survive and procreate). Mutations are common and observable. Survival of the fittest is part of all life. If you want to see evolution in action, go to any beach and see who the beautiful girls are hanging out with, they do not just "randomly" gravitate towards just anybody. Science however, for all of the good it has produced in attempting to explain some of mysteries of our world, is incapable of answering the serious philosophical questions that have been echoed since the dawn of man.
I have looked at the argument that has been made that I.D. cannot be proven, therefore it cannot be science, compete with science or argue with science. This flies in the face of common sense because at one point, every scientific fact was an unknown. Every fact or principle discovered since was the result of having a theory and attempting to prove it. Scientific fact was built on it's pursuit based on reason, passion and prior knowledge from previous discoveries. What we have observed in this world regarding living things is the result of an evolutionary process, but evolution is incapable of explaining everything about what life is, or how it started from nothing. It can theorize like anything else, but proof to that bugger of a question has been nagging mankind since the beginning, and every discovery since has only led to more questions that science is not capable of answering.
For example, if you were to find, disassemble and go over the details of the parts that make up a high-end Mercedes, their individual purpose in creating a more complex object could be derived and made sense of. If, however, someone were to say that the car was randomly created or the result of chance, that person would be considered ridiculous. On the same level, a single-celled organism is not just a black-boxed mystery made of "globs of stuff". It's complexity would easily surpass a lot of the machines we use from day to day, and none of those machines are even capable of antonymous movement, self-sustaining consumption or reproduction. While a car is much different from a cell because a car is most certainly not alive, I draw my comparison based on the fact that a single celled organism AND that car did not exist at one point. Yes, they are both complex. Yes, the cell is more complex and can autonomously do things the car cannot because it is living. My question, how the hell did something like a cell come from non-living things and somehow become more than the sum of its parts? If I ever found the car as it exists now naturally (assuming I lived in a world where cars didn't exist), no one in their right mind would ever assume that it was a result of Natural Law.
Some people have expressed frustration and downright anger at me in the past for using the words "random" or "chance" when discussing such matters. Their reason was because the more I would deem any result of incremental steps leading to an evolutionary divergence as a random event (even random mutation), the more it would make the person I was discussing this with more and more uncomfortable because truly random events are not a plausible scientific building blocks for discussing an orderly and repeatable scientific process. To those people I would suggest this: Don't get hung up on the use of the words chance or random. Just do what scientists have done elsewhere by expressing them in more colorful euphemisms - such as saying 'mutation', 'alteration', 'modification', 'permutation' or 'variation'. Or my favorite...'Luck'. Yes, if I drop something gravity pulls it. If I break an egg I cannot pick it up and have it whole again. Those are observable laws. My question, how did those perfectly balanced and precise laws come from nothing?
The Big Bang theory believes that before the the universe existed, the sum of all matter was contained in a single, focused singularity that suddenly exploded. Prior to the universe existing...what we know as matter and energy were far different than they are perceived as now. All of the natural laws of nature that we know of and attempt to comprehend...from the physical to mathematical - simply did not exist. What also did not exist was life.
Some theories claim that life is an inevitable part of the existence of the universe, but when you delve into how complex the structure of DNA is, how synchronized and perfectly placed those pieces of the puzzle are, it is not an unreasonable thing to question how something that can arise from chaotic chance. I am a software engineer, and I can assure you of several things: First, a blank slate (such as a finite -state machine such as a computer or a pre-life universe) has no order or innate intelligence behind it. Second, any and all parts within would have to bend to the will of constraints imposed by the limitations of it's creation, meaning that both a computer and the universe can not do anything beyond either the will of it's user or the limits imposed on the nature of it's design.
Any software engineer knows right up front that when it comes to creating orderly, sustainable, reusable and practical source code - there are NO free features. Anything that encompasses what a program can do, how it interacts with information or when, where and why it executes any instruction is completely beholden to the logical constraints placed on it by the developer. Hence, a program can never make a mistake; it is doing exactly what it was designed to do (intentionally or unintentionally).
Consider the following: No matter how good the developer is, he is going to make mistakes. Any mistake, no matter how trivial - can hamper or completely ruin the viability of a program. He is going to have to go back and fix them.
Now imagine telling a developer that they had to create a program with the same amount of complexity of the most simplest of DNA structures for the most simple of lifeforms...with all of the future adaptobility of that program being planned ahead of time in it's design...except they had to get it right the first time and they only got one shot to get it perfect from the beginning. Also imagine that if the developer made a mistake, he didn't get a chance to start against from scratch - the task would go to a totally different person, and those same rules were passed on infinitum.
The odds of one person creating something so massively complex and antonymous without a single error or miscalculation would be mathematically impossible, but we are all expected to believe that life started out in such a manner when DNA spontaneously created itself from random poteins and amino acids combining to form the first DNA helix.
Human beings are intelligent, crafty and practical. Our sense of discovery, determination and imagination have surpassed anything that has ever existed on this planet. Despite everything we have going for us, we cannot (even with the use of all scientific knowledge and machines to assist us) create biological life from nothing, even the most simple of lifeforms. It's not that we're stupid or don't have good ideas. We can create things that mimic life, but unlike true life forms - anything we attempt to mimic is confined and constrained by the parameters of how we interpret life or define what life is. Random creation, if we are going to use that as our model - has no such limitations.
These are the things that have made me convinced that there is a God.
If I were to demand here and now under the penalty of death to every scientist in the world that they give me proof that life existed outside of our planet, every scientist would be dead, because no such proof exists. Yet, I believe it exists anyway. My reason is because since life exists on our planet, it would have a wonderful opportunity to exist elsewhere. On that note, look at the people who participate in purely scientific endeavors like the S.E.T.I. project. These poor souls have absolutely nothing going in their favor. They search, look and listen intently for any sign of life outside our planet despite the overwhelming odds that make the likelihood of any such discovery a fool's hope. They are treated as abused mascots by the scientific community because all of their work has not produced anything tangible. Their work is constantly under-funded and under-appreciated. They are also overworked and underpaid. In an ultimate example of irony - everything they do is based on the exact same principle that is the hallmark of all religious beliefs: Faith.
The belief in a Creator has been with mankind for as long as recorded history, and despite thousands and thousands of years of agonizingly slow technological advancement or the inability to record and save information for future generations (outside of word of mouth), our ancestors ascended with and passed on a belief in something greater than ourselves, looking at the world with the awe that comes from an inborn desire to seek out and understand our place in it. That is how I perceive the consciousness of the human soul, and I cannot deduce that something so beautiful can be a part of something unplanned.
As I see it, evolution versus a belief in a Creator are simply not at odds with one another. Evolution on many levels makes absolutely logical sense (the strongest survive and procreate). Mutations are common and observable. Survival of the fittest is part of all life. If you want to see evolution in action, go to any beach and see who the beautiful girls are hanging out with, they do not just "randomly" gravitate towards just anybody. Science however, for all of the good it has produced in attempting to explain some of mysteries of our world, is incapable of answering the serious philosophical questions that have been echoed since the dawn of man.
I have looked at the argument that has been made that I.D. cannot be proven, therefore it cannot be science, compete with science or argue with science. This flies in the face of common sense because at one point, every scientific fact was an unknown. Every fact or principle discovered since was the result of having a theory and attempting to prove it. Scientific fact was built on it's pursuit based on reason, passion and prior knowledge from previous discoveries. What we have observed in this world regarding living things is the result of an evolutionary process, but evolution is incapable of explaining everything about what life is, or how it started from nothing. It can theorize like anything else, but proof to that bugger of a question has been nagging mankind since the beginning, and every discovery since has only led to more questions that science is not capable of answering.
For example, if you were to find, disassemble and go over the details of the parts that make up a high-end Mercedes, their individual purpose in creating a more complex object could be derived and made sense of. If, however, someone were to say that the car was randomly created or the result of chance, that person would be considered ridiculous. On the same level, a single-celled organism is not just a black-boxed mystery made of "globs of stuff". It's complexity would easily surpass a lot of the machines we use from day to day, and none of those machines are even capable of antonymous movement, self-sustaining consumption or reproduction. While a car is much different from a cell because a car is most certainly not alive, I draw my comparison based on the fact that a single celled organism AND that car did not exist at one point. Yes, they are both complex. Yes, the cell is more complex and can autonomously do things the car cannot because it is living. My question, how the hell did something like a cell come from non-living things and somehow become more than the sum of its parts? If I ever found the car as it exists now naturally (assuming I lived in a world where cars didn't exist), no one in their right mind would ever assume that it was a result of Natural Law.
Some people have expressed frustration and downright anger at me in the past for using the words "random" or "chance" when discussing such matters. Their reason was because the more I would deem any result of incremental steps leading to an evolutionary divergence as a random event (even random mutation), the more it would make the person I was discussing this with more and more uncomfortable because truly random events are not a plausible scientific building blocks for discussing an orderly and repeatable scientific process. To those people I would suggest this: Don't get hung up on the use of the words chance or random. Just do what scientists have done elsewhere by expressing them in more colorful euphemisms - such as saying 'mutation', 'alteration', 'modification', 'permutation' or 'variation'. Or my favorite...'Luck'. Yes, if I drop something gravity pulls it. If I break an egg I cannot pick it up and have it whole again. Those are observable laws. My question, how did those perfectly balanced and precise laws come from nothing?
The Big Bang theory believes that before the the universe existed, the sum of all matter was contained in a single, focused singularity that suddenly exploded. Prior to the universe existing...what we know as matter and energy were far different than they are perceived as now. All of the natural laws of nature that we know of and attempt to comprehend...from the physical to mathematical - simply did not exist. What also did not exist was life.
Some theories claim that life is an inevitable part of the existence of the universe, but when you delve into how complex the structure of DNA is, how synchronized and perfectly placed those pieces of the puzzle are, it is not an unreasonable thing to question how something that can arise from chaotic chance. I am a software engineer, and I can assure you of several things: First, a blank slate (such as a finite -state machine such as a computer or a pre-life universe) has no order or innate intelligence behind it. Second, any and all parts within would have to bend to the will of constraints imposed by the limitations of it's creation, meaning that both a computer and the universe can not do anything beyond either the will of it's user or the limits imposed on the nature of it's design.
Any software engineer knows right up front that when it comes to creating orderly, sustainable, reusable and practical source code - there are NO free features. Anything that encompasses what a program can do, how it interacts with information or when, where and why it executes any instruction is completely beholden to the logical constraints placed on it by the developer. Hence, a program can never make a mistake; it is doing exactly what it was designed to do (intentionally or unintentionally).
Consider the following: No matter how good the developer is, he is going to make mistakes. Any mistake, no matter how trivial - can hamper or completely ruin the viability of a program. He is going to have to go back and fix them.
Now imagine telling a developer that they had to create a program with the same amount of complexity of the most simplest of DNA structures for the most simple of lifeforms...with all of the future adaptobility of that program being planned ahead of time in it's design...except they had to get it right the first time and they only got one shot to get it perfect from the beginning. Also imagine that if the developer made a mistake, he didn't get a chance to start against from scratch - the task would go to a totally different person, and those same rules were passed on infinitum.
The odds of one person creating something so massively complex and antonymous without a single error or miscalculation would be mathematically impossible, but we are all expected to believe that life started out in such a manner when DNA spontaneously created itself from random poteins and amino acids combining to form the first DNA helix.
Human beings are intelligent, crafty and practical. Our sense of discovery, determination and imagination have surpassed anything that has ever existed on this planet. Despite everything we have going for us, we cannot (even with the use of all scientific knowledge and machines to assist us) create biological life from nothing, even the most simple of lifeforms. It's not that we're stupid or don't have good ideas. We can create things that mimic life, but unlike true life forms - anything we attempt to mimic is confined and constrained by the parameters of how we interpret life or define what life is. Random creation, if we are going to use that as our model - has no such limitations.
These are the things that have made me convinced that there is a God.
If I were to demand here and now under the penalty of death to every scientist in the world that they give me proof that life existed outside of our planet, every scientist would be dead, because no such proof exists. Yet, I believe it exists anyway. My reason is because since life exists on our planet, it would have a wonderful opportunity to exist elsewhere. On that note, look at the people who participate in purely scientific endeavors like the S.E.T.I. project. These poor souls have absolutely nothing going in their favor. They search, look and listen intently for any sign of life outside our planet despite the overwhelming odds that make the likelihood of any such discovery a fool's hope. They are treated as abused mascots by the scientific community because all of their work has not produced anything tangible. Their work is constantly under-funded and under-appreciated. They are also overworked and underpaid. In an ultimate example of irony - everything they do is based on the exact same principle that is the hallmark of all religious beliefs: Faith.
The belief in a Creator has been with mankind for as long as recorded history, and despite thousands and thousands of years of agonizingly slow technological advancement or the inability to record and save information for future generations (outside of word of mouth), our ancestors ascended with and passed on a belief in something greater than ourselves, looking at the world with the awe that comes from an inborn desire to seek out and understand our place in it. That is how I perceive the consciousness of the human soul, and I cannot deduce that something so beautiful can be a part of something unplanned.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
All talk and no action.
In the past few weeks, former Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the rounds conducting some interviews. Much to the shock and rage of liberals everywhere, Cheney is not hiding or backing down from his beliefs - but rather he is articulating a no-holds-barred defense of his and President Bush's record regarding the Iraq War and economic issues. He has even had the audacity to cite how the current actions and inactions of the TOTUS are endangering Americans. This renewed set of appearances and defense has prompted liberals to once again scream for the prosecution of the former VP and President on "War Crimes".
Since the war started six years ago, we have heard this call for executive prosecution countless times. Not just from individuals on the blogosphere, mind you - we've also heard it from liberal members of the House and Senate. Yet, despite having the majority since 2006 - neither the Senate or House made a single move to hold President Bush accountable for any crime whatsoever. In fact, one of Nanzi Pelozi's first actions as Speaker of the House was to proclaim that impeachment was off the table. Likewise, President Obama - after promising his minions a reversal of the Patriot Act and executive powers used by President Bush during his terms - has refused to reverse or give up any of executive powers he inherited, and now has even defended keeping previously enacted executive powers because they offer him flexibility.
This has always left people with a boggled mind asking themselves: Why didn't (or why won't) democrats go after President Bush and VP Cheney for any of the alleged "crimes" for which they are supposedly guilty of?
"Why" they do not do anything about charging President Bush or VP Cheney for anything is simple:
After the democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994, their prospects for getting either branch back looked bleak for many years. When democrats signed off on the Iraq war, they purposefully made the calculated decision to leverage any bad news about the war to their political advantage. That negativity is what re-energized their base. They will never admit it, but had the Iraq war never happened and none of the negative aspects that it lent to Bush's presidency never occurred, Republicans would probably still be running both the House and Senate and President Bush's popularity numbers would never have been pulverized by the negativity foisted on him because of the war. Outside of criticizing the Iraq war, democrats had very little to go on.
Politically, Americans have always had short attention spans, and there are a lot of people who run around acting as if none of the counter-intelligence information that President Clinton or his liberal cohorts in the House and Senate had cited during the 90's about Iraq ever occurred. Democrats have persuaded a large portion of their uninformed followers that any covert information cited by President Bush was conjured up out of thin air and had never been presented or cited prior to his administration doing so. They have even tried to assert that information was cherry picked for it's effectiveness, regardless of the number of sources providing it. None of that is true. Given that the lefts' most gifted moonbats have run around for years making outrageous claims that the President orchestrated and arranged for the plane crashes and "demolition" of the World Trade Center, it lends a lot to their credit for purposefully whipping their base into a mindless frenzy based on false impressions they have purposefully created through the assistance of an enabling media.
If democrats were to actually act on any of their accusations towards President Bush, it would also mean that their (the democrats) full record of knowledge, support, culpability and all historical references regarding all aspects of the Iraq war would immediately be called front and center into the American political stage when the former administration would make their case. The absolute last thing the democrats want to do is give President Bush any opportunity or excuse to speak out and shove the official record back up their liberal asses. President Bush being *accused* of being a "war criminal" is far more useful for them than their having to actually make a true case that they know would fail and cause them to lose face.
Given that President Obama has already sold out his most ardent anti-war supporters by expanding the war in Afghanistan and refusal to relinquish powers he previously hailed as being unconstitutional, one wonders...how long it will be before any of his star-struck followers blinks and wake up to the reality that they were sold a bill of goods?
***UPDATE***
Here is another person who examines the same issue...
Since the war started six years ago, we have heard this call for executive prosecution countless times. Not just from individuals on the blogosphere, mind you - we've also heard it from liberal members of the House and Senate. Yet, despite having the majority since 2006 - neither the Senate or House made a single move to hold President Bush accountable for any crime whatsoever. In fact, one of Nanzi Pelozi's first actions as Speaker of the House was to proclaim that impeachment was off the table. Likewise, President Obama - after promising his minions a reversal of the Patriot Act and executive powers used by President Bush during his terms - has refused to reverse or give up any of executive powers he inherited, and now has even defended keeping previously enacted executive powers because they offer him flexibility.
This has always left people with a boggled mind asking themselves: Why didn't (or why won't) democrats go after President Bush and VP Cheney for any of the alleged "crimes" for which they are supposedly guilty of?
"Why" they do not do anything about charging President Bush or VP Cheney for anything is simple:
After the democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994, their prospects for getting either branch back looked bleak for many years. When democrats signed off on the Iraq war, they purposefully made the calculated decision to leverage any bad news about the war to their political advantage. That negativity is what re-energized their base. They will never admit it, but had the Iraq war never happened and none of the negative aspects that it lent to Bush's presidency never occurred, Republicans would probably still be running both the House and Senate and President Bush's popularity numbers would never have been pulverized by the negativity foisted on him because of the war. Outside of criticizing the Iraq war, democrats had very little to go on.
Politically, Americans have always had short attention spans, and there are a lot of people who run around acting as if none of the counter-intelligence information that President Clinton or his liberal cohorts in the House and Senate had cited during the 90's about Iraq ever occurred. Democrats have persuaded a large portion of their uninformed followers that any covert information cited by President Bush was conjured up out of thin air and had never been presented or cited prior to his administration doing so. They have even tried to assert that information was cherry picked for it's effectiveness, regardless of the number of sources providing it. None of that is true. Given that the lefts' most gifted moonbats have run around for years making outrageous claims that the President orchestrated and arranged for the plane crashes and "demolition" of the World Trade Center, it lends a lot to their credit for purposefully whipping their base into a mindless frenzy based on false impressions they have purposefully created through the assistance of an enabling media.
If democrats were to actually act on any of their accusations towards President Bush, it would also mean that their (the democrats) full record of knowledge, support, culpability and all historical references regarding all aspects of the Iraq war would immediately be called front and center into the American political stage when the former administration would make their case. The absolute last thing the democrats want to do is give President Bush any opportunity or excuse to speak out and shove the official record back up their liberal asses. President Bush being *accused* of being a "war criminal" is far more useful for them than their having to actually make a true case that they know would fail and cause them to lose face.
Given that President Obama has already sold out his most ardent anti-war supporters by expanding the war in Afghanistan and refusal to relinquish powers he previously hailed as being unconstitutional, one wonders...how long it will be before any of his star-struck followers blinks and wake up to the reality that they were sold a bill of goods?
***UPDATE***
Here is another person who examines the same issue...
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Why I won't watch the Inauguration
Today is Inauguration Day, and as Barrack Obama is officially sworn in as our 44th President, I will not be watching a single moment of the event. The initial response to such a declaration is obviously going to be that I am suffering from a case of Sour Grapes, but that would not be true.
Aside from the souring of the Republican brand, an unpopular incumbent Republican President and John McCain's stark brilliance in running an absolutely lousy campaign, Barrack Obama must be given credit for rising to the occasion and soundly beating his opponents. Running a successful campaign takes guts and raw stamina, and he demonstrated both.
As Inauguration Day approached, I began to reflect on my observations of past Presidential campaigns and events. I remember all the way back to Ronald Reagan's inauguration back in 1981, and I have been fortunate to see the celebration and coverage of every successful campaign since then. After careful consideration and reflection on how I felt about this past year in politics, it dawned on me that my negative reaction has nothing to do with Obama's election, Nanzi Pelozi, Harry Reid or even the democrat party as a whole.
After struggling for the past couple of months to coalesce my thoughts and feelings into a focused thread, I have come to realize that my sense of anger and absolute disgust is entirely the product of - and focused on - what we have come to call the "Mainstream Media".
The entire point of the Founder's reasoning behind the establishment of a free Press was to act as a watchdog of the government on behalf of the citizenry. The idea was that a fully informed citizenry would be educated on political issues of the day, thereby holding bad politicians accountable by them having to suffer the wrath of disillusioned voters who would subsequently remove them from power.
The Founders were brilliant men, but even their brilliance overlooked the worst possibility they could have envisioned: What would happen to the integrity of the checks and balances of government if the Press chose sides? Well, for at least the next four years, we're about to find out.
The coverage of this past election cycle has been the single largest case of journalistic malpractice ever foisted on a free society. I am not painting with a broad brush or stating it to be funny. I am dead serious. So serious, that I submit to you that if this malpractice was ever punishable by capital statute, the first order of business would be to send Oprah Winfrey, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and the rest of the liberal spam-monkeys at MSNBC, The New York Times, Time and Newsweek straight to the gas chambers. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200 dollars.
Let's take the Inauguration itself as a recent example. In the early part of his second term, President Bush celebrated with his second Inaugural party. The price tag: $40 Million dollars. The result? Numerous op-eds and opinion pieces criticizing the President for spending so much money on an Inauguration when we had troops fighting overseas. The cost of Barrack Obama's Inauguration? $170 Million dollars. The result? No "mainstream" media complaints, no calls for a reduction because of the troops being overseas or because our country is in dire economic times. No, we're told that now is the time when you want to display such celebration because it is so historical and raises the spirits of the country. Journalistic double-standard? Why, not at all!
The media has put Barrack Obama on such a high pedestal and has hung on his every word and action to such an extent that Moses' parting of the Red Sea would look like an amateur card trick in comparison to the advertised abilities of our next President. He was able to run a campaign on vague concepts such as Hope and Change, and instead of asking for - no, demanding specifics, he was lauded by the Press for running a campaign that captured the hearts of the American people by concerning himself and appealing to their needs, all while not getting mired in specifics. Whenever John McCain started highlighting or stated specific differences between their campaign or experiences, the press labeled McCain as erratic, desperate, grouchy, angry and unstable, while Barrack Obama was characterized as already "acting Presidential", calm, cool and collected. With that kind of positive coverage, why shouldn't he have acted cool? Obama himself said that at the moment when he accepted the nomination, it was the time when people would look back at that point and say "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Forget that such a claim demonstrates a line of thinking that is downright megalomaniacal and scary as hell in it's nature. It was far scarier that no one in the "mainstream" media saw fit to laugh him out of town for making such a ridiculous statement.
Today, Chris Mathews (who has been suffering from a near-terminal Man-Crush on our next President) will have to leave the Inauguration at least two times to change his shorts as a result of the "tingle" Obama gives him running too far up his legs. (Hey Chris, make sure you axe Obama if it was good for him, too.)
Regardless of how I feel about the media that helped get him there, Barrack Obama deserves his Inauguration and time in the sun, because he has rightfully earned it, and it would be wrong of me to deny or begrudge him his due as the result of his victory. What I will not do, however, is watch the media's coverage of the event. They have broken their Constitutional and journalistic duty to inform the American citizenry by taking their blatant bias to a never-before-seen level. As far as I am concerned, American journalism has less integrity and credibility than the BBC, Al Jazeera and Pravda.
Aside from the souring of the Republican brand, an unpopular incumbent Republican President and John McCain's stark brilliance in running an absolutely lousy campaign, Barrack Obama must be given credit for rising to the occasion and soundly beating his opponents. Running a successful campaign takes guts and raw stamina, and he demonstrated both.
As Inauguration Day approached, I began to reflect on my observations of past Presidential campaigns and events. I remember all the way back to Ronald Reagan's inauguration back in 1981, and I have been fortunate to see the celebration and coverage of every successful campaign since then. After careful consideration and reflection on how I felt about this past year in politics, it dawned on me that my negative reaction has nothing to do with Obama's election, Nanzi Pelozi, Harry Reid or even the democrat party as a whole.
After struggling for the past couple of months to coalesce my thoughts and feelings into a focused thread, I have come to realize that my sense of anger and absolute disgust is entirely the product of - and focused on - what we have come to call the "Mainstream Media".
The entire point of the Founder's reasoning behind the establishment of a free Press was to act as a watchdog of the government on behalf of the citizenry. The idea was that a fully informed citizenry would be educated on political issues of the day, thereby holding bad politicians accountable by them having to suffer the wrath of disillusioned voters who would subsequently remove them from power.
The Founders were brilliant men, but even their brilliance overlooked the worst possibility they could have envisioned: What would happen to the integrity of the checks and balances of government if the Press chose sides? Well, for at least the next four years, we're about to find out.
The coverage of this past election cycle has been the single largest case of journalistic malpractice ever foisted on a free society. I am not painting with a broad brush or stating it to be funny. I am dead serious. So serious, that I submit to you that if this malpractice was ever punishable by capital statute, the first order of business would be to send Oprah Winfrey, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and the rest of the liberal spam-monkeys at MSNBC, The New York Times, Time and Newsweek straight to the gas chambers. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200 dollars.
Let's take the Inauguration itself as a recent example. In the early part of his second term, President Bush celebrated with his second Inaugural party. The price tag: $40 Million dollars. The result? Numerous op-eds and opinion pieces criticizing the President for spending so much money on an Inauguration when we had troops fighting overseas. The cost of Barrack Obama's Inauguration? $170 Million dollars. The result? No "mainstream" media complaints, no calls for a reduction because of the troops being overseas or because our country is in dire economic times. No, we're told that now is the time when you want to display such celebration because it is so historical and raises the spirits of the country. Journalistic double-standard? Why, not at all!
The media has put Barrack Obama on such a high pedestal and has hung on his every word and action to such an extent that Moses' parting of the Red Sea would look like an amateur card trick in comparison to the advertised abilities of our next President. He was able to run a campaign on vague concepts such as Hope and Change, and instead of asking for - no, demanding specifics, he was lauded by the Press for running a campaign that captured the hearts of the American people by concerning himself and appealing to their needs, all while not getting mired in specifics. Whenever John McCain started highlighting or stated specific differences between their campaign or experiences, the press labeled McCain as erratic, desperate, grouchy, angry and unstable, while Barrack Obama was characterized as already "acting Presidential", calm, cool and collected. With that kind of positive coverage, why shouldn't he have acted cool? Obama himself said that at the moment when he accepted the nomination, it was the time when people would look back at that point and say "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Forget that such a claim demonstrates a line of thinking that is downright megalomaniacal and scary as hell in it's nature. It was far scarier that no one in the "mainstream" media saw fit to laugh him out of town for making such a ridiculous statement.
Today, Chris Mathews (who has been suffering from a near-terminal Man-Crush on our next President) will have to leave the Inauguration at least two times to change his shorts as a result of the "tingle" Obama gives him running too far up his legs. (Hey Chris, make sure you axe Obama if it was good for him, too.)
Regardless of how I feel about the media that helped get him there, Barrack Obama deserves his Inauguration and time in the sun, because he has rightfully earned it, and it would be wrong of me to deny or begrudge him his due as the result of his victory. What I will not do, however, is watch the media's coverage of the event. They have broken their Constitutional and journalistic duty to inform the American citizenry by taking their blatant bias to a never-before-seen level. As far as I am concerned, American journalism has less integrity and credibility than the BBC, Al Jazeera and Pravda.
Friday, January 16, 2009
A Narrow Path
After his final address to the nation was complete, beltway pundits began exchanging predictions about what President Bushs' legacy would be. As predicted, liberals came out in droves and continued calling the President a war criminal...guilty of torture, murder and treason. By their one dimensional line of reasoning, the only thing Obama needs to do in order to make the country a virtual Utopia is to simply do the opposite of everything President Bush did.
Obama, while he is not nearly as brilliant or omniscient as his supporters claim he is, he is certainly not stupid, either. Besides knowing full well that the typical democrat party talking points that portrayed the President as a heartless monster was contrived, red meat fodder to feed their liberal cattle, he is also now doubtlessly privy to information that - if it was to ever become public - would embarrass and seriously damage the remaining credibility of anti-war moonbats everywhere. Obama is now in possession of inconvenient knowledge that makes it very difficult to deal with certain segments of his constituency. On one hand, he and other democrats have gained political power by exploiting the outrage and lunacy of some people who have embraced the lowest common denominator in politics. Likewise, they also know that those people have to be managed like a carefully orchestrated balancing act, because much of the base nature of their beliefs is not rooted in the facts.
At some point, when Obama decides to use more troops, continue detaining terrorists, not set a withdraw date, spy on foreign phone calls and act unilaterally, etc - he is going to start being assaulted by a lot of the people who put him in power. That will be a major problem, because of the potential use of the race card.
Obama could never have been elected without the votes of whites, but urban blacks who had never even seen a voting machine before came out in overwhelming numbers. This left them with a huge sense of pride and empowerment. They, in effect, see Obama's election as an achievement of theirs, not Obama himself.
Inevitably, when white liberals begin to voice strong opposition to Obama's decisions not to undo everything President Bush enacted or set into motion, the first instinctual reaction on the part of all of those urban blacks who would follow Obama off a cliff if he asked them will be to defend him at any cost. They as sure as night following the day will absolutely use the race card at some point. And liberal whites, having felt that they had purged themselves of the guilt associated with the past mistreatment of blacks by voting for Obama, will become extremely pissed off for being called racists for simply voicing disagreement with a President that just happens to be black. To give you a recent example of how quickly white liberals will turn on fellow black liberals, look at how quickly white homosexuals in California started dropping the N-Bomb as soon as religious blacks voted to defeat gay marriage.
Obama has to now take a path more narrow than the edge of a knife. If he reverses any of the actions and orders President Bush put into place, it will only take a single terrorist act made possible by a resulting lax in security to permanently shatter his mystique of infallibility. If he does what is necessary to win the war and acts responsibly, he throws every die-hard supporter over the cliff and must then deal with an internal civil war between the disaffected liberal supporters and the Obama loyalists who believe he is incapable of failure.
Obama, while he is not nearly as brilliant or omniscient as his supporters claim he is, he is certainly not stupid, either. Besides knowing full well that the typical democrat party talking points that portrayed the President as a heartless monster was contrived, red meat fodder to feed their liberal cattle, he is also now doubtlessly privy to information that - if it was to ever become public - would embarrass and seriously damage the remaining credibility of anti-war moonbats everywhere. Obama is now in possession of inconvenient knowledge that makes it very difficult to deal with certain segments of his constituency. On one hand, he and other democrats have gained political power by exploiting the outrage and lunacy of some people who have embraced the lowest common denominator in politics. Likewise, they also know that those people have to be managed like a carefully orchestrated balancing act, because much of the base nature of their beliefs is not rooted in the facts.
At some point, when Obama decides to use more troops, continue detaining terrorists, not set a withdraw date, spy on foreign phone calls and act unilaterally, etc - he is going to start being assaulted by a lot of the people who put him in power. That will be a major problem, because of the potential use of the race card.
Obama could never have been elected without the votes of whites, but urban blacks who had never even seen a voting machine before came out in overwhelming numbers. This left them with a huge sense of pride and empowerment. They, in effect, see Obama's election as an achievement of theirs, not Obama himself.
Inevitably, when white liberals begin to voice strong opposition to Obama's decisions not to undo everything President Bush enacted or set into motion, the first instinctual reaction on the part of all of those urban blacks who would follow Obama off a cliff if he asked them will be to defend him at any cost. They as sure as night following the day will absolutely use the race card at some point. And liberal whites, having felt that they had purged themselves of the guilt associated with the past mistreatment of blacks by voting for Obama, will become extremely pissed off for being called racists for simply voicing disagreement with a President that just happens to be black. To give you a recent example of how quickly white liberals will turn on fellow black liberals, look at how quickly white homosexuals in California started dropping the N-Bomb as soon as religious blacks voted to defeat gay marriage.
Obama has to now take a path more narrow than the edge of a knife. If he reverses any of the actions and orders President Bush put into place, it will only take a single terrorist act made possible by a resulting lax in security to permanently shatter his mystique of infallibility. If he does what is necessary to win the war and acts responsibly, he throws every die-hard supporter over the cliff and must then deal with an internal civil war between the disaffected liberal supporters and the Obama loyalists who believe he is incapable of failure.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
I'll be the Judge of that...
As a conservative, I am completely used to my opinions not sitting well with a large segment of our country. Long before Republicans attained sizable political power, the obvious differences in both politcal and social beliefs became very apparent to me once I left home to enter the professional workforce. I saw that a large portion of my conservative tendencies came from my upbringing, and I instinctively knew that certain actions and attitudes did not...and would not...fly in my household. Respect for your elders, knowing the value of an education and the value of the money you earn...and learning to be judgmental regarding the moral consequences of bad behavior were lessons that were reinforced every single day.
That's right, I said judgmental.
We are taught from an early age that being "judgmental" is wrong or a sign of moral turpitude. When we are presented with an opportunity to demonstrate some independence, people who want to encourage our actions coax us along by saying "Go on, we trust your judgment." Yet, when presented with a situation where genuine moral conflicts that negatively effect either ourselves or others occur, we are bombarded with denouncements where the prevaricator of bad behavior attacks his accusers with demands that they "not be so judgmental".
Our society functions because, in large part, people are capable of taking care of themselves and making positive judgment calls in day to day affairs. That means they look at any situation, define limits for themselves, determine what is right and wrong and render value judgments based on the actions or inactions of the people around them. Those that do this are responsible human beings.
Despite it being part of our everyday life, liberals regard the mere mention of judgment or the making of firm, committed decisions based on a moral compass not as demonstrating restraint, consideration or maturity, but rather the product of intolerance and hate. Even California, a state that is as liberal left as it can possibly get, defeated gay marriage. Yet the moment people considered the consequences and decided to draw a line at giving homosexuals the right to marry, homosexuals immediately attacked and hurled racial and ethnic slurs at the black and Hispanic communities and compared Mormonism to Nazism, who's long-standing religious beliefs saw such a move as an abomination. Open-mindedness and tolerance towards the beliefs of others, as it seems, is only meant to be a one-way political street.
Experience is the greatest teacher. From our first forays into public life and interacting with others, people define boundaries and set limits for themselves and those around them. Invariably, conflicts occur, and it from our successes and failures that we gain confidence in ourselves and our abilities. Believing in yourself is more than just a frame of mind, it is a state attained through a long process of trial and error, self-examination and correction. That is the process of attaining maturity.
If maturity arises from experiences related to resolving conflict, learning from mistakes and making good choices, then consider what we have allowed the government sponsored teachers unions to do to our kids:
Children in our public school systems are now routinely insulated from having to make any of the decisions or deal with any of the problems people routinely encounter on the path to adulthood. Schools have created artificial "bully free" zones. Punishments or discipline can never involve shame or humiliation. Cheating has been reduced in most cases to a minor offense where the most the student has to worry about is the failing mark for the test they were caught cheating on. Teachers are not allowed to enforce discipline beyond asking nicely or handing out detentions. Homework is not nearly as difficult. The dress code is often lax. Let's also not forget the obvious - that educational standards for mathematics, science and history are among the lowest for industrialized nations.
All of these examples can be directly tied to a perverse culture that demeans and belittles value judgments and the people who make them, and subsequently seeks to insulate kids from the very experiences that will aid them into becoming responsible adults. Creating artificial bully-free zones discourages self-defense and people settling their own differences by promoting a false nation that your own protection and value is to be managed and determined by someone else. It also leave kids unprepared as to how to deal with difficult and unsavory people on their own. The lack of shame and humiliation on students who are punished for bad conduct comes from the morally relativistic idea that imposing harsher punishment produces and promotes more bad behavior. Cheating is treated as being passe because of the group-think mentality that promotes the idea that "everyone does it". Teachers cannot enforce strict discipline because schools are supposed to teach, not "tell how my kids are supposed to act!". Homework has become viewed as just another punishment that is leveraged as a tool to control kids. The dress code has been downplayed as just another prudish way of telling people what to do, with no redeeming value. Downplaying the value of mathematics, science and history has been done by teachers to make their jobs easier. All three of those subjects are bound by facts, not feelings. Since teachers are more at home with promoting relativistic ideas such as philosophy or debate over subjects where there is only one true correct answer, promoting those subjects is subtly discouraged. Is it any wonder that the moment you hand a teenager behind the register a few extra coins to make exact change, talk about science or use historical context to make a point...their eyes glaze over?
I remember when my father, who was beside himself over the average report card I brought home one semester, threw me into the truck and took me on a tour of depressed neighborhoods. I saw the run down houses, and often we would see able-bodied people sitting on their porches with beers in their hands, all of them slovenly dressed. He verbally laid into me harder than any other time in memory, and what sticks out the most was his descriptions of the people we passed by. He called some of them "bums", he used the word "lazy" a lot, and even referred to one unshaven guy running around in his wife-beater as an "animal". He said that people make bad decisions in life and have to pay a price for those mistakes. He then took me on a tour of some really nice houses, and bet me money that the people living there had good educations, worked hard and made good choices. At no time for either class of people did he ever use the word "luck" to describe the most likely cause of their fortunes.
Years later, I looked back at that day and realized that it was one of the most profound moments in my life. I saw it as a day where from that point on, I never looked at people or myself in the same fashion. I also realized that, by today's counter-culture standards - liberals would regard what my father did for me that day as barbaric and insensitive. As they would claim, my father would have had no right to call anyone a bum or lazy because he had never been a lazy bum. What that experience did was firmly cement two strikingly powerful ideas in my mind:
- My life is not the result of someone elses' responsibility or lack thereof.
- Value judgments are the bedrock of good decisions.
When liberals try to use the biblical phrase of "Judge not, lest ye be judged" often in a last ditch effort to diffuse the argument of conservatives they disagree with by trying to make appeals to their religious beliefs, they are intentionally leaving out the context of the warning. Using only Mathew 7:1 is entirely incomplete, as this passage is not speaking to not judging at all, but rather it is speaking to not judging others in an unfair light, or any other cheap and selfish way.
Being judgmental does not mean that one is unwilling or unable to hear another point of view or understand where an adversary stands on an issue. Being judgmental is the act of being able to make decisions based upon the perceived pros and cons associated with different choices, and based on that set of choices, make the one that has the most benefit and causes the least amount of harm to others. It is impossible to do the right thing for yourself and others without being able to dispassionately cut through watered-down notions of right and wrong by being firmly rooted in the truth about who you are.
I was never given a better gift, and I can think of no greater gift I could give to my children.
That's right, I said judgmental.
We are taught from an early age that being "judgmental" is wrong or a sign of moral turpitude. When we are presented with an opportunity to demonstrate some independence, people who want to encourage our actions coax us along by saying "Go on, we trust your judgment." Yet, when presented with a situation where genuine moral conflicts that negatively effect either ourselves or others occur, we are bombarded with denouncements where the prevaricator of bad behavior attacks his accusers with demands that they "not be so judgmental".
Our society functions because, in large part, people are capable of taking care of themselves and making positive judgment calls in day to day affairs. That means they look at any situation, define limits for themselves, determine what is right and wrong and render value judgments based on the actions or inactions of the people around them. Those that do this are responsible human beings.
Despite it being part of our everyday life, liberals regard the mere mention of judgment or the making of firm, committed decisions based on a moral compass not as demonstrating restraint, consideration or maturity, but rather the product of intolerance and hate. Even California, a state that is as liberal left as it can possibly get, defeated gay marriage. Yet the moment people considered the consequences and decided to draw a line at giving homosexuals the right to marry, homosexuals immediately attacked and hurled racial and ethnic slurs at the black and Hispanic communities and compared Mormonism to Nazism, who's long-standing religious beliefs saw such a move as an abomination. Open-mindedness and tolerance towards the beliefs of others, as it seems, is only meant to be a one-way political street.
Experience is the greatest teacher. From our first forays into public life and interacting with others, people define boundaries and set limits for themselves and those around them. Invariably, conflicts occur, and it from our successes and failures that we gain confidence in ourselves and our abilities. Believing in yourself is more than just a frame of mind, it is a state attained through a long process of trial and error, self-examination and correction. That is the process of attaining maturity.
If maturity arises from experiences related to resolving conflict, learning from mistakes and making good choices, then consider what we have allowed the government sponsored teachers unions to do to our kids:
Children in our public school systems are now routinely insulated from having to make any of the decisions or deal with any of the problems people routinely encounter on the path to adulthood. Schools have created artificial "bully free" zones. Punishments or discipline can never involve shame or humiliation. Cheating has been reduced in most cases to a minor offense where the most the student has to worry about is the failing mark for the test they were caught cheating on. Teachers are not allowed to enforce discipline beyond asking nicely or handing out detentions. Homework is not nearly as difficult. The dress code is often lax. Let's also not forget the obvious - that educational standards for mathematics, science and history are among the lowest for industrialized nations.
All of these examples can be directly tied to a perverse culture that demeans and belittles value judgments and the people who make them, and subsequently seeks to insulate kids from the very experiences that will aid them into becoming responsible adults. Creating artificial bully-free zones discourages self-defense and people settling their own differences by promoting a false nation that your own protection and value is to be managed and determined by someone else. It also leave kids unprepared as to how to deal with difficult and unsavory people on their own. The lack of shame and humiliation on students who are punished for bad conduct comes from the morally relativistic idea that imposing harsher punishment produces and promotes more bad behavior. Cheating is treated as being passe because of the group-think mentality that promotes the idea that "everyone does it". Teachers cannot enforce strict discipline because schools are supposed to teach, not "tell how my kids are supposed to act!". Homework has become viewed as just another punishment that is leveraged as a tool to control kids. The dress code has been downplayed as just another prudish way of telling people what to do, with no redeeming value. Downplaying the value of mathematics, science and history has been done by teachers to make their jobs easier. All three of those subjects are bound by facts, not feelings. Since teachers are more at home with promoting relativistic ideas such as philosophy or debate over subjects where there is only one true correct answer, promoting those subjects is subtly discouraged. Is it any wonder that the moment you hand a teenager behind the register a few extra coins to make exact change, talk about science or use historical context to make a point...their eyes glaze over?
I remember when my father, who was beside himself over the average report card I brought home one semester, threw me into the truck and took me on a tour of depressed neighborhoods. I saw the run down houses, and often we would see able-bodied people sitting on their porches with beers in their hands, all of them slovenly dressed. He verbally laid into me harder than any other time in memory, and what sticks out the most was his descriptions of the people we passed by. He called some of them "bums", he used the word "lazy" a lot, and even referred to one unshaven guy running around in his wife-beater as an "animal". He said that people make bad decisions in life and have to pay a price for those mistakes. He then took me on a tour of some really nice houses, and bet me money that the people living there had good educations, worked hard and made good choices. At no time for either class of people did he ever use the word "luck" to describe the most likely cause of their fortunes.
Years later, I looked back at that day and realized that it was one of the most profound moments in my life. I saw it as a day where from that point on, I never looked at people or myself in the same fashion. I also realized that, by today's counter-culture standards - liberals would regard what my father did for me that day as barbaric and insensitive. As they would claim, my father would have had no right to call anyone a bum or lazy because he had never been a lazy bum. What that experience did was firmly cement two strikingly powerful ideas in my mind:
- My life is not the result of someone elses' responsibility or lack thereof.
- Value judgments are the bedrock of good decisions.
When liberals try to use the biblical phrase of "Judge not, lest ye be judged" often in a last ditch effort to diffuse the argument of conservatives they disagree with by trying to make appeals to their religious beliefs, they are intentionally leaving out the context of the warning. Using only Mathew 7:1 is entirely incomplete, as this passage is not speaking to not judging at all, but rather it is speaking to not judging others in an unfair light, or any other cheap and selfish way.
Being judgmental does not mean that one is unwilling or unable to hear another point of view or understand where an adversary stands on an issue. Being judgmental is the act of being able to make decisions based upon the perceived pros and cons associated with different choices, and based on that set of choices, make the one that has the most benefit and causes the least amount of harm to others. It is impossible to do the right thing for yourself and others without being able to dispassionately cut through watered-down notions of right and wrong by being firmly rooted in the truth about who you are.
I was never given a better gift, and I can think of no greater gift I could give to my children.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)