Henry Imler January 5th, 2007

Travis Gilmore has introduced and lent me a book by J. Budziszewski entitled The Revenge of Conscience, Politics and the Fall of Man.
I am only into the first chapter, but it has been engaging and
challenging. It hits on several things that I often find myself
drifting towards in thought.

I believe the book serves as a introduction to genuine Christian
Political Philosophy. Budziszewski suggests that in all the politics we
see around us, Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Libertarian and
others, there is a lack original sin. Correcting this fundamental flaw
will guide us to developing a proper, more helpful political
philosophy. He defines original sin as humans that are created good,
but broken. Thereby bypassing the either-or of humans being basically
good or bad.

So far, he has discussed his foray into and retreat from nihilism.
He has argued against Pluralism and for a return to Classicism.
Pluralism, for Budziszewski, is the maintaining of all worldviews as
fundamentally compatible. Classicism, on the other hand, allows for one
worldview being correct, and has the participants of Babel struggle to
convince others of the truth that they have.

“Each
makes some one voice in the Babel his own and then takes on his
competitors by arguing the issues on their merits. The Epicurean tells
you why he thinks pleasure is the sovereign good; the Christian tells
you why he thinks Jesus the risen son of God; the Gnostic tells you why
he thinks evil coeval with good.” (p. 7)

Pluralism’s acceptance of each particular truth leads to a denial of all truth.

This and the continuing discussion in the book is of particular
importance to me. This is the POV that I am required to assume in my
writing, the assumption of Atheism. I cannot, in academic writing,
betray to the reader my faith, nor let it influence my work. There are
areas where this can be a good thing. In the area of textual
scholarship, I should not let my theological views influence a study of
the 1^st Century worldview and culture, nor allow Church
Traditions or theological implications have the final say in a study of
the authorship of the Pauline letters.

However, after a while all of this is just speech on the first
things, or the foundations of theological study, or any kind of
ultimate evaluative determinations. Ultimately, we need to, in addition
to merely discussing how things are, discuss how things should be. A
return to Classicism does that. In my personal reflections durring this
past semester, I had come to similar conclusions, albeit poorly worded
conclusions.

But all of this is a side-track to what the book is really about. I
am looking forward to finishing the book. From the little that Travis
has told me about his criticisms of Progressivism, Libertarianism, and
Conservatism, they seem to be spot on with my personal reservations.

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler January 5th, 2007

House Approves Democratic `Pay-Go’ Spending-Control Measure

The chamber voted 280-152 to impose so-called
pay-as-you-go budget rules requiring lawmakers to offset the cost of
tax cuts or spending on new entitlement programs by finding savings
elsewhere in the budget to avoid adding to the deficit.

The pay-go measure is one of a series of initiatives House Democrats
pushed through on their second day in the majority, including requiring
sponsors of spending proposals for pet projects, known as earmarks, to
be publicly identified, and ensuring that members of the minority party
are included in committees that negotiate the final wording of
legislation.

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler January 2nd, 2007

Gallup has an interesting poll, the most admired people in the world. Here are the top ten men.

1. George W. Bush
2. Bill Clinton
3. Jimmy Carter
4. Barack Obama
5. (Reverend) Billy Graham
6. Colin Powell
7. Pope Benedict XVI
8. Nelson Mandela
   George H.W. Bush
9. Bill Gates

They also have the top 10 most admired women in the world. Here are the results:

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton
2. Oprah Winfrey
3. Condoleezza Rice
4. Laura Bush
5. Margaret Thatcher
6. Angelina Jolie
7. Nancy Pelosi
8. Madeleine Albright
   Barbara Bush
9. Maya Angelou

• Politics
• Comments(1)

Henry Imler December 31st, 2006

The Anal Philosopher talks about “is”s, “oughts”s, and Iraq.

Anal Philosopher :: Intellectual Dishonesty

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler December 31st, 2006

From Slashgear via Digg.

After the news that China has decided to force
manufacturers to standardise phone charging ports to the mini-USB
format, it turns out that there’s an even easier way to get the
industry-wide feature you want implemented: just be the FBI. What
cellphone manufacturers are reluctant to include in-among all the blurb
about Bluetooth and high-speed data connectivity is that apparently
every recent phone sold in the US has a built-in tracking device that,
once activated remotely, can be set to keep the microphone powered on
even when the phone itself is switched off.

The FBI used the technology in collecting evidence for the recent
Genovese crime family trial, and it should be made clear that they can
only do so with the relevant court order. Saying that, just how
difficult is it to get a court order in our age of super-terror? The
only way to circumnavigate the tracker is removing the battery, which
then makes the phone rather useless. In fact, you’d be better off
carrying a small child’s shoe, which could at least be used for storing
your keys.

Oh, and as always, the pun was intended.

• Politics
• Comments(2)

Henry Imler December 18th, 2006

Bush seeks to halt Congress pet projects - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON -
President Bush said Saturday that his administration will outline a
series of changes that would clamp down on the common Capitol Hill
practice of slipping pet projects into spending bills.

These projects, called earmarks, are spending provisions that often
are put into bills at the last minute, so they never get debated or
discussed, Bush said in his weekly radio address.

“It is not surprising that this often leads to unnecessary federal
spending, such as a swimming pool or a teapot museum tucked into a big
spending bill,” he said.

Favorite four words: “These projects, called earmarks…” This phrase, called redundant…

But seriously Mr. President, while nice now, would have been great
when you began office. Too bad you wanted to play nice with your own
party. And the dems already beat you to it:

Democrats, who will take control of Congress on Jan. 4,
already announced their plan to wipe out billions of dollars in
lawmakers’ home-state projects in unfinished spending bills. On Monday,
the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations
committees announced that they would eliminate earmarks from the nine
unfinished spending bills for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

Update: I took a basic math course, double checked my subtraction and modified the title.

• Politics
• Comments(3)

Henry Imler December 4th, 2006

neoconned: 3 simple starts

1. Bush is about to give his newest supplemental for the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I want the Democrats to approve what ever he
asks for plus an additional 500 million. There will be 1 paragraph
added to it that says:

Starting immediately War and Natural Disaster profiteering is
illegal. The extra money will go into funding investigations of illegal
profiteering. If 1 person gets injured or killed in any conflict or if
a natural disaster is declared their will be a 115% fine on every
dollar of profit. Any company that accepts any American money will have
to follow this rule. The only exception would be a company from a
country that employees 95% or more nationals are exempt in conflicts.

2. Immediately cut off all tax breaks and giveaways to
the oil industry. Take that money and invest it in grants to
individuals, schools and business to create new technology that will
get us off of oil. That helps our national security, creates good jobs
and helps the world environment.

3. Our voting machines are all created by the ATM
makers. ATM machines all have paper receipts. Democrats should require
and fund paper receipts on all voting machines. The computers prints
out a receipt that the voter can look at and then drop into a box. The
vote count that night comes from the machines but the official count
isn’t done until the paper receipts have been hand counted. They also
needs to do public funding of our elections. If companies can no longer
pay to get people elected there would be no reason for our elected
officials to let them write our laws. It would also do a lot to end the
corruption problems this country has.

I love all of the ideas (and the fairtax or something similar) but
in regards to #3, I think that it is paramount that no person can give
a reciept to someone that has intimidated the voter. With that said, it
is also paramount that there is a paper trail to verify the votes.

I myself really like the paper ballots that are scanned as a way to count them.

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler November 7th, 2006

Cox & Forkum: Recognition

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler November 7th, 2006

Damn you Republicans and Democrats.

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler October 25th, 2006

This is the first in what I hope becomes a series of post on
sensitive or controversial topics in a 1,000 words or less. It was
going to be 100 words, and then 500 words, but it kinda ballooned and
is still woefully short and incomprehensive.

The Iraqi War… three and a half years later and it is a huge
election issue. Should we have gone? Were we justified? What do we do
now that we are there? Most importantly (for the parties), who is to
blame? Should war crime charges be brought up? Most of this is a casual
observer’s opinion.

Many Reasons, Many Gambles
I think we went in there on good faith that there were lots o’ WMD with
intent to sell. There were not, but the will, the means and the plan was there to implement them as soon as Saddam could get the sanctions off his back.

I think there were multiple reasons to go in; the one that could
most rally the American people and hopefully other nations was that
Saddam funded terror (i.e. payments to Palestinian suicide murder’s
families), had and was producing WMD with the intent to sell them to
terrorist cells. Other reasons include reforming the region and pinning
Iran. Many people say that one has to tackle the root causes of
terrorism. If the way to have peaceful societies and peaceful peoples
is thru socio-political freedoms and economic development, then reform
in the region is needed. Iraq was a gamble to create that. I think that
you can still make the argument on humanitarian grounds, but if we did and were consistent, we would have to conquer the world to give it back. That is something that we do not have the will power, the resources, or the right to do.

Since the fall of Baghdad, we have played the gamble terribly. We
did not lock down the border; we did not keep Fallujah once we took it;
Iraqi security forces have not been trained well enough, quick enough.
Many excuses can be made.

Historic Accomplishment and Failure
I still think that we are not the bad people over there, the insurgent and sectarian terrorists are. I also recognize that dramatic steps have been made, such as the repeated elections and the somewhat flawed and wildly progressive constitution.

On the one hand, I see a genocidal dictator and his oppressive
regime toppled and a new, popularly elected government and constitution
in place all in less than 4 years and less than 3,000 American lives
lost. Those are remarkable historical achievements. On the other hand,
I see signs that what little peace was there has been shattered beyond
recognition. I see backtracking instead of progress.

We can’t change the past; we can only go forward.
The fact remains that we do not have the choice to start the Iraqi War;
the nation only has a choice on how to end it. What is the best way to
do that? I remain committed to the idea that once one breaks something,
one fixes it. That is why I still think a sudden and immediate withdraw is a bad idea. The question is not “War or No War?”, but “How to finish the War that is?”.
I would accept three states, three autonomous regions with a loose
central government and oil revenue sharing, or one strongly politically
unified Iraq. What I would like to see is what I think everyone wants
to see, the Iraqi’s able to defend their society, their people, their
government by themselves. Then I think we should leave.

If we do not succeed in that, then the Iraqi War becomes more
connected to the “War on Terror™” than anyone, right or left, wants it
to be. If we fail, then Iraq continues to be a breeding ground for
terrorists, as it is now. You can argue one way or another about the
relationship before hand, but our goal above anything else should be
that it is not one in the future.

So what is the fabled “way ahead?”
How is this best put into practice? Consider a letter published in today’s Opinion Journal’s “Best of the Web:” A View from Iraq. The letter claims to be from a person inside the US Military stationed in Iraq.

Basically he/she claims that we have failed miserably because we
have tried to do things way too fast with way too little support.
He/she suggests the following:

We need to backtrack. We need to publicly admit we’re
backtracking. This is the opening battle of the ideological struggle of
the 21st century. We cannot afford to lose it because of political
inconveniences. Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000
American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police
and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a
military that’s fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction.
Reassure the Iraqi people that we’re going to provide them security and
then follow through. Disarm the nation: Sunnis, Shias, militia groups,
everyone. Issue national ID cards to everyone and control the movement
of the population.

That is the best thing I have heard so far.

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler October 20th, 2006

Questions for Friday:

How does the Iraq War relate to the government’s anti-terror policies?

Are we as a society giving up too much of our privacy?

Should we continue to engage China economically or punish them economically?

Meredith and I are about to head south and hit Little Rock tonight to see our newest niece. See you all later.

• Politics
• Comments(3)

Henry Imler October 9th, 2006

A polemicist
is someone “who argues in opposition to others.” Try to think of the
opposing talking heads one sees so much on quasi-news programs. These
people are in such direct opposition to each other that they become
entrenched. They do not fight for truth for its own sake, but for their
view.

“The polemicist
, on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses
in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he possesses
rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just
undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in search for the
truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is armful, and whose
very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then the game consists
not of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak
but of abolishing him as interlocutor,
from any possible dialogue; and his final objective will be not to come
as close as possible to a difficult truth but to bring about the
triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the
beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is
by definition denied.”

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler October 8th, 2006

Bizzyblog » The Federal Budget Deficit: Bush Benchmark Achieved, Ignored

I am staying pretty ignorant of specific policies. I just don’t have
the time to catch up, stay abreast of everything to where I can say
something that is not just a regurgitation of talking points. With that
said, I don’t know if what is said in the above think is completely
accurate. With those disclaimers out of the way, check this out:

A huge point has been virtually if not totally ignored
since the announcement on Friday that the reported federal deficit for
the fiscal year that ended a week ago was $250 billion — The Bush
Administration has done what it said it would do about the deficit
three years ago, and has done it a full three years early, i.e., in
half the time predicted.

A deficit of $250,000,000,000 dollars is huge and I don’t like it;
so don’t get me wrong. However, it is a whole lot better than a
$250,000,000,000 and a $250,000,000,000 deficit.

Here are some of the headlines from the article I quoted:

1. Tax receipts have soared by over 35%
2. the
   administration has accomplished its goal of cutting the reported
   deficit in half by the time it leaves office a full three years early
3. Economic growth has averaged an annualized 3.89% during the past 13 quarters since the 2003 Bush tax cuts were passed.
4. “it will be fiscal nirvana — a honest-to-goodness REAL budget surplus will occur in fiscal 2011, less than five years from now.”
   - This is without the social security surplus being added to the
   receipts, which is how Washington has made the budget deficit loot
   smaller than it really has for decades.

Every time I think about the budget, I get really, really depressed.
This has kinda given me some hope for the future of this nation’s
finances.

• Politics
• Comments(3)

Henry Imler October 4th, 2006

CNN.com - Transcripts

Absolutely great interview by Glenn Beck with Lou Dobbs. Here is a sampling:

BECK: Was Carroll Quigley right on the
shadow government, on the companies taking over and really controlling
everything? Because it`s really the only thing that I can put my finger
on to say, “Why aren`t we doing anything about illegal immigration?”
We`re run by companies now, aren`t we?

DOBBS: Well, both political parties are run by
the very same people, corporate America, $2.4 billion in lobbying each
year. No other special interest comes that close.

The power of corporate America — and I`m talking about big
business. I`m not talking about small business. There`s even a fiction
in this country now that small business, medium-size business, and
corporate America are all the same. They`re not.

Corporate America is working against the interest of the medium- and
small-size businesses, are working against the middle class, destroying
jobs, not creating them. Small business continues to create jobs in
this country, more than 80 percent of them. But the truth is that
corporate America is dominating our legislative and our electoral
system.

BECK: Wouldn`t you go further than that? It`s not
just corporate America. I mean, it`s global corporations. I think we`re
being turned into MexAmeriCanada.

DOBBS: Well, there are some obviously who would
like to do that through the North American Union. And I think the Bush
administration should be held to account for what they`ve tried to do
with the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership. It`s absolutely
disgusting, by any standard, what these elites have tried to do in this
country.

And, frankly, I can`t wait. We`ve been examining this problem for
some time, this story, this issue. I find these people so repugnant I
can`t even express my disgust on a family broadcast like yours.

BECK: But I have to tell you, you know, you say
this, and the way I hear you phrase that right now, it`s the Bush
administration. And I feel the same way. I`m a conservative. I voted
for Bush. I can`t even begin to explain what they`re doing. But it`s –
you know, I feel as if…

DOBBS: By the way, they can`t either.

BECK: I know they can`t. The Democrats and the
Republicans are taking us to the same frickin` destination. One`s just
taking us in a train, and the other is taking us in a plane.

DOBBS: Well, it`s about time people woke up to one
thing, though: They`re taking us. But the fact that we`re rolling over
and allowing people to claim they`re Democrats and claim they`re
Republicans, and not a single — you just described yourself as a
conservative.

BECK: Right.

DOBBS: What the heck does that mean? The difference between a conservative and a liberal today, a Democrat and a Republican?

BECK: There`s a difference between a liberal and conservative, not Republican…

DOBBS: Let me tell you. You may in your mind have a
fixed understanding of that. But as a political force and any way in
which to express your political will, it means nothing.

BECK: Yes, you`re exactly right. You are exactly right.

DOBBS: Because if this country does not awaken to
what we`re doing to our middle class and the fact that traditional
American values — independence, equality, self-reliance, the common
good, the national interest — are the values that we all should be
working toward, whatever label you want to aside in partisanship, fine.
But those are the values we`ve got to turn to, and we`ve got to become
an aspirational society again.

BECK: What is going to finally wake us up?

DOBBS: Leadership. Leadership.

BECK: Where are they?

DOBBS: Well, I`ll tell you what: They`re out there.
The fact is there`s so much noise and silliness over all of these wedge
issues — gay marriage, gun control, abortion, whether we have “under
God” in the pledge of allegiance. For God`s sake, it`s America. If you
want to say “under God,” say “under God.” If you don`t, don`t. It`s
individual liberty, individual responsibility.

Why do we even allow the airwaves, the national dialogue to be polluted with this nonsense?

BECK: I`d just ask you though: Where are the leaders? I don`t see them.

The whole interview can be found in the extended entry:

=> Read more!

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler September 12th, 2006

Activism Is in the Eye of the Ideologist

The conservative justices were far more willing than the liberals to strike down federal laws — clearly an activist stance, since they were substituting their own judgment for that of the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

Really?

What about this: Anal Philosopher: Judicial Activism

Suppose Congress and the president enacted a law that
made Roman Catholicism the official religion of the United States. The
United States Supreme Court would strike it down in a heartbeat as a
violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits, inter alia, the
establishment of religion. This Supreme Court ruling, according to the
study cited, would constitute judicial activism, despite the fact that
it enforces a clear constitutional norm…

For the record, judicial activism is not the striking down
of legislation. It is the striking down of constitutional legislation,
i.e., legislation that comports with the Constitution. The
judge’s job is twofold: first, to uphold constitutional legislation;
and second, to strike down unconstitutional legislation. If the judge
either upholds unconstitutional legislation or strikes down
constitutional legislation, then the judge is engaged in activism.
Activism means substituting one’s own norms for those of the
Constitution.

That is not to say that conservative judges are more activist than
liberal judges. The study just used a bad definition of judicial
activism.

• Politics
• Comments(3)

Henry Imler September 11th, 2006

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler September 10th, 2006

ThreatsWatch.Org: InBrief: Iraq and al-Qaeda Untied

By the report’s own acknowledgement, there has yet to be
produced a “‘fully researched, coordinated and approved position’ on
the postwar reporting on the former regime’s links to al-Qa’ida” by the
Intelligence Community with which to compare to prewar assessments.
Furthermore, especially with regard to WMD capabilities and ‘Regime
Intent,’ the incredibly thorough Iraqi Perspectives Project postwar
study produced by United States Joint Forces Command, Joint Center for
Operational Analysis, was not even considered with other postwar
assessments.

“[S]aying that you have a strong grasp on what was and
wasn’t going on in Iraq based on an “initial review” is akin to saying
that you don’t need to read the bible because you’ve memorized the ten
commandments.”

Weekly Standard: Rules of Evidence

Senator Carl Levin says that the report is “a
devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting,
misleading, and deceptive attempts” to connect Saddam’s regime to bin
Laden’s al Qaeda. Senator Jay Rockefeller agrees with Senator Levin’s
assessment, saying the report will confirm that “the Bush
administration’s case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading.”

CONSIDER TWO BRIEF examples, chosen from many:

The committee’s staff made little effort to determine whether or not
the testimony of former Iraqi regime officials was truthful. In fact,
Saddam Hussein and several of his top operatives–all of whom have an
obvious incentive to lie–are cited or quoted without caveats of any
sort. In Saddam’s debriefing it was suggested that he may cooperate
with al Qaeda because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” According
to the report, “Saddam answered that the United States was not Iraq’s
enemy. He claimed that Iraq only opposed U.S. policies. He specified
that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would
have allied with North Korea or China.”

Anyone with even a partial recollection of the controversy
surrounding Iraq in the 1990s will recall that Saddam made it a habit
of cursing and threatening the United States. His annual January “Army
Day” speeches were laced with threats and promises of retaliation
against American assets. That is, when Saddam claimed that the United
States was “not Iraq’s enemy,” he was quite obviously lying. But
nowhere in the staff’s report is it noted that Saddam’s debriefing was
substantially at odds with more than a decade of his rhetoric.

The testimony of another former senior Iraqi official is
more starkly disturbing. One of Saddam’s senior intelligence
operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was questioned about his contacts with bin
Laden and al Qaeda. There is a substantial body of reporting on
Hijazi’s ties to al Qaeda throughout the 1990s.

Hijazi admitted to meeting bin Laden once in 1995, but claimed that
“this was his sole meeting with bin Ladin or a member of al Qaeda and
he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial
contact.”

This is not true. Hijazi’s best known contact with bin Laden came in
December 1998, days after the Clinton administration’s Operation Desert
Fox concluded. We know the meeting happened because the worldwide media
reported it.

Here is a blog dedicated to looking at Saddam and Terror: Regime of Terror.

Note: Having ties to terror groups does not in anyway mean that Iraq
had anything to do with 911. But part of the war rationale was that if Saddam had WMDs,
wished to attack the United States, or get back at them for spoiling
his pan-Arabia plans, employing terror groups as delivery methods is a
possibility.

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler September 10th, 2006

I thought this was kind of interesting: Fighting Terror Five Years Later

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Mueller writes, “Although it
remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of
the omnipotent terrorist . . . may have been overblown, the threat
presented within the United States by Al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The
massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11
may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and
taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely
exists.”

Mueller goes farther than I would, but his point general point makes
sense. Certainly, our government should continue to seek out and thwart
those who would do us harm. But short of a stray nuclear weapon — a
real but unlikely threat, and a threat the objectionable parts of the
government’s war on terror do nothing to diminish — there’s little Al
Qaeda or other Islamic fundamentalist groups can do to us that any
other individual or group with violent ambitions could. Making them
anything larger than that is exactly what they want.

As the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 approaches, Schneier offers
sound advice as to where we should go from here. He writes, “It’s time
we calm down and fight terror with antiterror . . . The surest defense
against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to
recognize that terrorism is just one of the risks we face, and not a
particularly common one at that.”

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler August 29th, 2006

Check out the first sentence of President Tom’s letter to the Chancellor of Germany:

If it had not been for Germany being a great contributor to progress in science, philosophy, literature, arts and politics;

If it had not been for a more important and positive influence of Germany in international relations and promotion of peace;

Moreover, if it had not been for the persistence of a strong will by
certain global powers and special groups to constantly portray Germany
as defeated and indebted country of World War II in order to continue
their extortions;

And if it had not been for the presence of Your Excellency at the
top of the executive branch of your country as an experienced
stateswoman with bitter and sweet experiences in two dissimilar
societies with different political systems and traditions,

And at the same time, if it had not been for the advantages that are
limited to women, such as stronger human sentiments and certain
manifestations of the divine compassion and kindness, specially in the
position of a mother and being at the service of the people, and the
common responsibility of all people with faith in God to defend human
dignity and worth and to prevent violations of their rights and their
humiliation, and proceeding from this conviction that we are all
created by the Almighty and He has bestowed upon us all dignity and no
one has any special privileges over the other, and under no
circumstances could a society be deprived of its rights, barred from
pursuit of progress and perfection or be controlled or humiliated;

Finally, if it had not been for the oppression, however different,
of our nations, our shared responsibility to promote justice as the
most basic foundation for promotion of peace and human equality, I
would not have found the motive to write this letter.

Now that is a helluva sentence!

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler August 25th, 2006

I am in the middle of watching The Protocols of Zion,
a documentary about people that think the Jews were behind 911. So far
it is kinda patchy, with most of the people he interviews saying that
they do not think the Jews were behind 911. Anyway, to the funny part.
The scene is with Marc Levin talking with a member of the National
Alliance inside a warehouse where they sold anti-Semitic materials.
They get to talking and humor ensues.

Levin: What about the rumor that Hitler himself had Jewish blood? [at this point the National Alliance Member's eyes pop wide open] I mean that was an explanation of why he hated Jews, that he himself was part Jewish.

National Alliance Member: [head shaking in bewilderment]
eh eh, See I think that is a Jewish mindset that can even grasp that
concept… because to me, if you are part Jewish why would you want to
kill off the Jewish people?

Levin: Because you want to kill it in yourself?

National Alliance Member: Well, I don’t see Hitler being suicidal in the slightest. I thought he….

Levin: He committed suicide.

• Politics
• Comments(0)